All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[dust1n]

More importantly....how the heck do I make it so I don't get an e-mail every time someone responds to a post?? I'm new here and I shut off all my alerts, but my e-mail is blowing up!

Top right-hand corner, where your name is with the little picture of guy. Click that, and then go down to "Preferences" and click that. A window should open with a bunch of options to check mark. Uncheck all the ones that say anything about e-mail notifications.

 

[icehorse]

No, this is putting burden of proof on positions that one doesn't hold, arbitrarily, that's all. The reason why your position seems //objective/,correct to you, is because it seems like the best option/ argument. But it isn't, necessarily.

In general, in discussions and debates, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. In many cases, people arguing for the presence of God feel they deserve special exemption from this general rule. As an atheist, I don't understand why the religious ought to be granted this special privilege?

 

[Desert Snake]

In general, in discussions and debates, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. In many cases, people arguing for the presence of God feel they deserve special exemption from this general rule. As an atheist, I don't understand why the religious ought to be granted this special privilege?

The burden of proof only makes sense if both sides /in a debate/, have a standard, by which to determine facts, or the truth. This is usually not the case in these debates, so the issue of burden of proof is largely not an argument.
A theist can simply ask for the proof that no deity exists /or in this case, specific to the subject/, and this directly is also the problem with the 'god of the gaps', idea.

 

[icehorse]

The burden of proof only makes sense if both sides /in a debate/, have a standard, by which to determine facts, or the truth. This is usually not the case in these debates, so the issue of burden of proof is largely not an argument.
A theist can simply ask for the proof that no deity exists /or in this case, specific to the subject/, and this directly is also the problem with the 'god of the gaps', idea.

That request by the theist is simply not valid. In debates, one can never be asked to prove non-existence.

 

[Desert Snake]

That request by the theist is simply not valid. In debates, one can never be asked to prove non-existence.

Therefore? A request to be convinced of a position is not valid; that is not an argument;


you are agreeing with me, and not realizing it.

 

[icehorse]

q konn,

I can't parse your last post - can you say it a different way?

 

[Yorutenchi]

Therefore? A request to be convinced of a position is not valid; that is not an argument;


you are agreeing with me, and not realizing it.

He is not.

You cannot put the burden of proof on someone to say a claim is not true if the claim is not already supported.

You must prove that unicorns do not exist. Or should I have to prove that unicorns do exist?