Sheldon
Veteran Member
One can withhold belief in a claim without holding a contrary belief, and the initial claim always carries the burden of proof.
No that's not true, one can disbelieve a claim prima facie, as one should in the absence of evidence, but still seek debate, in order to examine both positions, and all evidence and arguments.
There is nothing illogical about disbelieving a claim prima facie, nor is it incompatible with debate, indeed informed debate would have had to occur first for any other other position. Else one would believe all claims prima facie, and that would be illogical as it would inevitably involve holding contrary beliefs.
To avoid violating the law of non contradiction. I would withhold belief in the absence of any knowledge or objective evidence.
It is a bias towards believing only what is true, and thus involves setting an unbiased standard which one applies to all claims. Since theists are setting a subjective standard for belief in only one deity, or in just a few deities from thousands, I'd say that was indicative of bias, since they can never offer any objective difference, though they often insist they can of course, but this never turns out to be the case.
They are not mutually exclusive, and I don't believe one can rationally argue something into existence, and this has been demonstrated to be true of all theistic arguments and apologetics I have encountered, since i have yet to see anyone present an argument that was rational for any deity.
Perhaps an arugmentum ad populum fallacy is not the best way to argue you are being rational.A no true Scotsman fallacy as well, dear oh dear, it's not about who you convince, it is about what you can demonstrate to support a claim or belief. If all you have are logical fallacies like the bare appeal to numbers you have used here, or subjective anecdotes, then I must remain dubious. As I have been most of my adult life.
Last edited:
