Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[1137]

. You have not presented any evidence at all and a claim that is made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.

Aaaannnndddd there you have it folks, the ever consistent special pleading of materialism. This is exactly what I'm saying about materialism, but you only apply the logic to your own position. I don't have to do a damn thing because you're not even being reasonable. The rest, then, doesn't matter.

When you admit your error and quit trying to shift the burden of proof I will supply evidence. Until then the statement that you made but cannot support is refuted by your inability to support it. I am offering to supply evidence, you made a claim that requires evidence and yet you won't support it.

Obviously a lie, one rooted in your aforementioned fallacy. No thanks.

Please, don't play games. You are back to your unsupported claim. Saying 'there is no evidence' is a positive assertion. You lose the argument every time you use this tactic after having been called out. But then it appears that you know you are spouting unsupportable nonsense.

Sorry buddy :/

Special Pleading

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aaaannnndddd there you have it folks, the ever consistent special pleading of materialism. This is exactly what I'm saying about materialism, but you only apply the logic to your own position. I don't have to do a damn thing because you're not even being reasonable. The rest, then, doesn't matter.

Sorry, I made not special pleading error. I even offered to give evidence for materialism, but since you made your claim first you put the burden of proof upon you. Everyone can see that you are running away from supporting your claim If I had made the first claim you could demand evidence from me.

You are not using logic properly.

Obviously a lie, one rooted in your aforementioned fallacy. No thanks.

I don't need to lie. I am merely demanding that you support your claims. I have made my offer conditional since it is a response to your unsupported claim.

Sorry buddy :/

Special Pleading

That is not special pleading. In fact I am applying the same rules to myself that I applied to you. Once again, you made an unsupported claim. Evidence was demanded for that claim. You refuse to support it. Or to admit your error. There is no point in me supplying evidence to someone that cannot follow or understand the rules of logic and debate.

 

[1137]

Sorry, I made not special pleading error. I even offered to give evidence for materialism, but since you made your claim first you put the burden of proof upon you. Everyone can see that you are running away from supporting your claim If I had made the first claim you could demand evidence from me.

Dude, do I really have to break this down for you?

1. I stated that materialism is unfounded because there's no evidence.

2. You stated that thing without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

3. Yet you expect me to provide evidence for that which I'm saying has none.

4. Special Pleading is "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

5. Therefore: you are special pleading.

Obviously not a worthy debate for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, do I really have to break this down for you?

1. I stated that materialism is unfounded because there's no evidence.

And that is a positive assertion. Once you claim that there is no evidence you put the burden of proof upon yourself.

2. You stated that thing without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Yes, but since you made the claim that there is no evidence you need to show that there is no evidence. Your inability to support your claims is obvious throughout this thread. When people ask for evidence you need to be able to support that claim. If you demanded that I support my claim I only need to refer to this thread.

No special pleading, I can support my claim, you cannot support yours.

3. Yet you expect me to provide evidence for that which I'm saying has none.

No, that is not what I demanded. You are not thinking logically. You made this claim "There is no evidence for materialism". To be a true claim someone would have had to demonstrate that there is no evidence. Please note, when I have to qualify my statements I do so. I even pointed that out. You did not qualify your statement. That is why you have to support it as it is or admit your error.

4. Special Pleading is "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Correct.

5. Therefore: you are special pleading.

Incorrect. I applied the same conditions to myself. I am ready to support any of my claims. You are not ready to support yours. If anyone is guilty of a special pleading fallacy it is you. I have explained your error to you multiple times. Rather than own up to it you are now grasping at logical arguments that you cannot properly apply.

Obviously not a worthy debate for me.

Since you lost a long time ago by refusing to support a claim that appears to be a false conclusion. When you cannot support your claims the other person is not the unworthy one.

 

[1137]

And that is a positive assertion. Once you claim that there is no evidence you put the burden of proof upon yourself.



Yes, but since you made the claim that there is no evidence you need to show that there is no evidence. Your inability to support your claims is obvious throughout this thread. When people ask for evidence you need to be able to support that claim. If you demanded that I support my claim I only need to refer to this thread.

No special pleading, I can support my claim, you cannot support yours.



No, that is not what I demanded. You are not thinking logically. You made this claim "There is no evidence for materialism". To be a true claim someone would have had to demonstrate that there is no evidence. Please note, when I have to qualify my statements I do so. I even pointed that out. You did not qualify your statement. That is why you have to support it as it is or admit your error.



Correct.



Incorrect. I applied the same conditions to myself. I am ready to support any of my claims. You are not ready to support yours. If anyone is guilty of a special pleading fallacy it is you. I have explained your error to you multiple times. Rather than own up to it you are now grasping at logical arguments that you cannot properly apply.



Since you lost a long time ago by refusing to support a claim that appears to be a false conclusion. When you cannot support your claims the other person is not the unworthy one.

Ok fine. Here's all the evidence for materialism:

...


...



...




....


See, none. Keep pretending you have evidence to the contrary

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok fine. Here's all the evidence for materialism:

...


...



...




....


See, none. Keep pretending you have evidence to the contrary

You failed again. I explained your error to you.

It also appears from one of your prior posts that you do not even understand the nature of evidence. You are attempting to make a mathematical proof in a case where that is the incorrect approach.

In the world of debate when one makes a positive assertion, and that is one that begins "There is .... " It does not matter if the next word is "no" or not, you have made a positive assertion and the burden of proof is upon you. That was an error on your part. When I claim that you do not support your claim that was within the context of this thread and therefore the thread is evidence that supports my claim. I can support my claim, you can't support yours. Now I could not say that you never support your claims because I do not have evidence of that, but when I point out in this one argument that you don't that claim is justifiable.

When you claim that "there is no evidence for materialism" that is a claim that it has been shown that there is no such evidence. And you have not demonstrated that.

ETA: And my offer still stands. Either demonstrate that there is no evidence, demonstrating that you can't find evidence is not demonstrating that there is no evidence, or admit your error and then I will provide evidence for materialism.

 

[1137]

Actually lets try one more time. Here is my position.

P1. Positions without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

P2. Materialism does not have evidence.

C. .'. Materialism can be rejected without evidence.

You have three options at this point in the talk.

1. Simply say you don't know.

2. Concede.

3. Disprove P2.

Your move.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually lets try one more time. Here is my position.

P1. Positions without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Correct so far.

P2. Materialism does not have evidence.

Sorry, this is is an unjustified premise on your part. And it is a positive assertion. If you want to claim that evidence does not exist the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim. Not being able to find evidence does not prove that there is no evidence. Here let me try to help you:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[13] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim."

You made a positive assertion (sorry for my incorrect terminology) you put the burden of proof upon yourself when you claimed that no evidence existed. Since you can't support that claim you made the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

And since you failed so early the rest of your argument is moot. I don't have to disprove P2, it is your premise. You must justify it.

ETA: Abusing smileys is against the rules here. I would suggest that you remove your inappropriate smiley.

 

[1137]

Making me work for it huh? I actually respect that.

P1 the same

P2. I've never been presented any evidence suggesting materialism.

C. .'. I would be unjustified in accepting materialism.

 

[1137]

Correct so far.


Sorry, this is is an unjustified premise on your part. And it is a positive assertion. If you want to claim that evidence does not exist the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim. Not being able to find evidence does not prove that there is no evidence. Here let me try to help you:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[13] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim."

You made a positive assertion (sorry for my incorrect terminology) you put the burden of proof upon yourself when you claimed that no evidence existed. Since you can't support that claim you made the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

And since you failed so early the rest of your argument is moot. I don't have to disprove P2, it is your premise. You must justify it.

ETA: Abusing smileys is against the rules here. I would suggest that you remove your inappropriate smiley.

On a separate note, the main argument against the existence of gods is that "there is no evidence." That quote you used about what's claimed without evidence is actually by a famous atheist/materialist precisely to argue against gods. Yet... I can't use it? I refer you back to special pleading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Making me work for it huh? I actually respect that.

P1 the same

P2. I've never been presented any evidence suggesting materialism.

C. .'. I would be unjustified in accepting materialism.

Now that is better. Do you finally understand your error? You have been making a black swan fallacy all along:

Black swan - RationalWiki

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a separate note, the main argument against the existence of gods is that "there is no evidence." That quote you used about what's claimed without evidence is actually by a famous atheist/materialist precisely to argue against gods. Yet... I can't use it? I refer you back to special pleading.

Sorry, but you misunderstand atheism by taking this stance. And you do not understand the argument as a result. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative assertion that there are no gods. Not believing in something is not the same as believing something does not exist.

Once again you misapply a logical fallacy as a result. Your error was special pleading. Don't assume that others are making the same mistake.

 

[1137]

Now that is better. Do you finally understand your error? You have been making a black swan fallacy all along:

Black swan - RationalWiki

Haha the double standards are insane.

Sorry, but you misunderstand atheism by taking this stance. And you do not understand the argument as a result. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative assertion that there are no gods. Not believing in something is not the same as believing something does not exist.

Once again you misapply a logical fallacy as a result. Your error was special pleading. Don't assume that others are making the same mistake.

My goodness, I even specified materialists.

Look, I'm here for serious debates with serious debators. This charade of pretending you have evidence for something you do not, while hiding behind special pleading, is unbecoming. I have precious soare time these days, but I will not put you on ignore incase you do come up with some evidence. I've been asking for years, and if you find some, I'd love to discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha the double standards are insane.

No double standard. Where do you get that rather inane claim from?

My goodness, I even specified materialists.

So what? I see that you still do not see your error, or you do and don't want to admit it. Since you changed your argument it appears to be the latter.

Look, I'm here for serious debates with serious debators. This charade of pretending you have evidence for something you do not, while hiding behind special pleading, is unbecoming. I have precious soare time these days, but I will not put you on ignore incase you do come up with some evidence. I've been asking for years, and if you find some, I'd love to discuss it.

Please, you lost this one. If you can't handle such a simple debate how will you handle a "serious debater"? Please note I have not presented any evidence yet so how could it be a "charade"? You have not met the demands yet for me to supply evidence. I told you either you prove your earlier premise, which you have now dropped, or you admit your error. I will not accept a tacit admission. Even though you did as much as make one when you finally corrected your argument.

 

[1137]

No double standard. Where do you get that rather inane claim from?


So what? I see that you still do not see your error, or you do and don't want to admit it. Since you changed your argument it appears to be the latter.



Please, you lost this one. If you can't handle such a simple debate how will you handle a "serious debater"? Please note I have not presented any evidence yet so how could it be a "charade"? You have not met the demands yet for me to supply evidence. I told you either you prove your earlier premise, which you have now dropped, or you admit your error. I will not accept a tacit admission. Even though you did as much as make one when you finally corrected your argument.

You confuse walking away with concession? Really??? This isn't complicated in any way shape or form. If your are able to say that something without evidence can be rejected without evidence, and I can't reject something without evidence, that's fallacious, end of story. Now reported, next ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You confuse walking away with concession? Really??? This isn't complicated in any way shape or form. If your are able to say that something without evidence can be rejected without evidence, and I can't reject something without evidence, that's fallacious, end of story. Now reported, next ignore.

You lost, you changed your argument because you finally realized your error. You have not been able to support one of your claims. Frankly you are overrate yourself if you think that you are here for "serious debate". By the way what do you think that I did was worthy of being "reported". I made an honest offer a long time ago. You tacitly admitted that you were wrong, but I told you that you have to own up to your error and then I will provide the evidence that you claim does not exist.

A person that truly understands a subject will have no problem supporting it. You need to remember, you are not an authority here, I am not an authority here. When you provide no support at all even RationalWiki refutes you. I supported my claims more than once. You merely repeated errors.

 

[1137]

How'd you like to do a 1:1 debate on the mind-body problem?

One-on-One Debates

 

[ArtieE]

.... My point is YHERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MATERIALISM. Am I speaking English?

There is no evidence for materialism? How do you know for certain? There might be evidence for materialism hiding somewhere in basements or attics all over the planet... have you checked everywhere?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How'd you like to do a 1:1 debate on the mind-body problem?

One-on-One Debates

I can't debate someone that does not follow the rules of debate.

 

[1137]

I can't debate someone that does not follow the rules of debate.

Welp I gave the option. Why you people follow a path you can't support and wont defend is beyond me.