Who has the burden of proof?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said that my definition of disbelief is in the dictionary and so is theirs!!!!!!!!! That our debate is silly semantics, like arguing about the definition of cleave.
A typical strawman, I never said that they pulled their definition from their butt.

Frankly, your posts aren't exactly clear, so trying to infer your point involves a fair bit of guesswork. If I guessed wrong, I apologize.

 

[raw_thought]

Disbelieve just means to not believe something, doesn't it?

…………….
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It has more than one definition

 

[raw_thought]

Frankly, your posts aren't exactly clear, so trying to infer your point involves a fair bit of guesswork. If I guessed wrong, I apologize.

What in posts 704 and 708 confused you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I already knew what their definitions were!!! I was defending the definition in the dictionary that they called ignorant etc.

I have given you four dictionary definitions which clearly states that the broad definition of disbelief is a lack of belief - not the belief that a claim is untrue. You have repeatedly asserted that atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and I have given you mulitiple dictionary definitions which clearly state that the broad definition of atheism is a lack of belief in a God - not a belief that there is no God.

This is why I call you ignorant. Because you are ignorant of the broader, and more accurate, definitions of these terms, you are ignorant of the meaning of atheism, you are ignorant of my arguments, and you are ignorant of basic terminology.

Hence, you are ignorant. I'm sorry if you find that insulting - if it helps, I am tremendously ignorant about a great many things too. The only problem is when you refuse to acknowledge your own lack of knowledge on a subject and instead assert that your position is correct - even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. That is what has happened here, and what is continuing to happen.

 

[raw_thought]

UMMM, here I will try to make it simple.
The definition that I gave from the dictionary is valid. See post 722
Your definition from the dictionary is valid.
Its like we were arguing about whether cleave means to join or to separate.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

If you were actually intersted in anything other than "silly semantics", you could have just asked people what they meant by the terms they're using instead of going off on this tangent.

Or we could have used all applicable definitions (oh wait, we tried explaining that)

We could have even gone through the trouble of actually making a poll, to ask the atheists on this site, what they think! (Oh wait.. that was done, as well. And a lovely poll it was, too!)

Oddly, the side arguing it's only silly semantics, is the one refusing to use anything but the dictionary definition that he found, and not other, as applicable dictionary definitions..

..strange.

 

[raw_thought]

Ummm when my definition was attacked as not being in the dictionary and ignorant, the idea of an idiot, and I show that it was in the dictionary somehow that is wrong. Anyway, I love all the ad hominums, they show the character of my opponent. *
And yes they are ad hominums, a logical fallacy to call someone ignorant etc.
1. Manson is ignorant.
2. Manson said that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not =2
is the ad hominum fallacy.
One of the first things you learn in logic is attack the argument not the person.
Of course, it was most likely not part of an argument but just a childish rant.
* He is still doing it, post 724 well ok to be fair he did say that he is also ignorant. I just read that, I had overlooked it. I will accept that as a truce.
Peace bro. This silly war bores me.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

UMMM, here I will try to make it simple.
The definition that I gave from the dictionary is valid. See post 722
Your definition from the dictionary is valid.
Its like we were arguing about whether cleave means to join or to separate.

Of course... you certainly aren't changing your stance on the sly here... no, of course not.
Certainly you've accepted the 'lack of belief" definition as "as valid as yours", look how much it shows!

So, when you were told in post 324 that an atheist isn't making a knowledge claim (i.e. it can be just a lack of belief...)

Yes, we are arguing semantics ( the definitions of words). However, your system of definitions makes it impossible to differentiate between an atheist and a theist. They are both agnostics!

after which, it was explained that an atheist can be agnostic.. and they are not mutually exclusive.

You are an agnostic, not an atheist
"

Still thinking they are mutually exclusive...

I'lll skip the next few relevant posts, to speed it up.

So , atheism is not the belief that their is no God? That if you have doubts about the existence of God you are an atheist? Sounds more like agnosticism too me!

How is it that you feel both sides are valid, when you keep arguing exactly against our definition, again?

So an atheist can be an agnostic? A theist can be an agnostic?

note the lovely facepalm.. I love this one, because at some point, you realized you were wrong, and instead of simply admitting it... You started adopting "agnostic atheist" then saying it was allllways your stance, and how smart we were to fiiinally start agreeing with you.

lol

or, when I explained what an agnostic atheist is... how one can be agnostic, and still have no belief in god.. let's see your response..

Yes, you are an agnostic that favors atheism. You are not an atheist.

until suddenly, that light bulb flickered... and NOW suddenly, raw is all about..

And I (as a fellow agnostic atheist ) will use agnostic as short hand. It is really not such an important difference to debate for 50 posts or more.

Funny.. if you didn't change your stance, after you realized what people were actually saying, and tried to claim it as your own... I bet this thread would have been done ages ago.

It's ok so use the words "oops, ok, now I see what your saying. My bad" instead of actually changing your entire stance, then blaming others for arguing with you, once you agree with them..

..I don't even think childish begins to cover that...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

UMMM, here I will try to make it simple.
The definition that I gave from the dictionary is valid. See post 722
Your definition from the dictionary is valid.
Its like we were arguing about whether cleave means to join or to separate.

Or, to put it simply..
Yes, your definition is valid... yes our definition is valid..
..which means they BOTH WORK.

You cannot say ours is valid, and then consistently say it's wrong. Which is what you have been doing.

If our definition of atheism is valid, as you just said... why do you constantly say it's wrong, whenever it is used?
Is this some new meaning of "valid?"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Ummm when my definition was attacked as not being in the dictionary and ignorant, the idea of an idiot, and I show that it was in the dictionary somehow that is wrong. Anyway, I love all the ad hominums, they show the character of my opponent. *
And yes they are ad hominums, a logical fallacy to call someone ignorant etc.
1. Manson is ignorant.
2. Manson said that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not =2
is the ad hominum fallacy.
One of the first things you learn in logic is attack the argument not the person.
Of course, it was most likely not part of an argument but just a childish rant.
* He is still doing it, post 724

FYI.. post 724 isn't an ad hominem...
He's defending his stance.
An ad hominem is saying you're wrong, solely because you're an idiot..
..he's saying "this is my reason, AND you're an idiot"
..therefore, not an ad hominem.
If you took away his argument in that post, and his explanation.. THEN it would be an ad hominem.

 

[raw_thought]

FYI.. post 724 isn't an ad hominem...
He's defending his stance.
An ad hominem is saying you're wrong, solely because you're an idiot..
..he's saying "this is my reason, AND you're an idiot"
..therefore, not an ad hominem.
If you took away his argument in that post, and his explanation.. THEN it would be an ad hominem.

Yes, it was not an ad hominum but a childish rant. Reread my post

 

[raw_thought]

Or, to put it simply..
Yes, your definition is valid... yes our definition is valid..
..which means they BOTH WORK.

You cannot say ours is valid, and then consistently say it's wrong. Which is what you have been doing.

If our definition of atheism is valid, as you just said... why do you constantly say it's wrong, whenever it is used?
Is this some new meaning of "valid?"

Read in context, I was referring to "disbelief" not atheism.
Basically, I was showing what your views look like from my legitimate perspective. (My definition of disbelief) since you guys did the same to me. I (wrongly) believed that presenting my perspective would open your minds to the possibility that multiple perspectives are logically possible.

 

[raw_thought]

Yes, you are an agnostic that favors atheism. You are not an atheist."
ME
Until suddenly, that light buld flickered." *
Awkward Fingers.
All above from post 728
I have never disagreeed with the first quote from ME. You have attacked that position.
* That implies that somehow I realized the truth of a position that I always held throughout the entire debate. The next sentence of mine shows that I was trying to be diplomatic and find a way out of this silly semantic war.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Read in context, I was referring to "disbelief" not atheism.
Basically, I was showing what your views look like from my legitimate perspective. (My definition of disbelief) since you guys did the same to me. I (wrongly) believed that presenting my perspective would open your minds to the possibility that multiple perspectives are logically possible.

But that's just it, once again.
Your definition isn't wrong... it's you taking only that definition, and refusing all others that would be incorrect.
Someone who believes there is no god IS an atheist.. find me a single post that says that's not true.
Please, quote me one person that states that.
But it's not the ONLY form of atheism. And that's what you're refusing.


as to you accepting both sides are correct.. lets take a look..
of course, you also distorted and strawmanned "our perspective...

My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!


My definitions ( and the dictionary's) are more concise and precise.
1. Atheist= believes there are no Gods.
2. Theist= believes that there are at least one God.
3. Agnostic= is uncertain.

like that.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Yes, you are an agnostic that favors atheism. You are not an atheist."
ME
Until suddenly, that light buld flickered." *
Awkward Fingers.
All above from post 728
I have never disagreeed with the first quote from ME. You have attacked that position.
* That implies that somehow I realized the truth of a position that I always held throughout the entire debate. The next sentence of mine shows that I was trying to be diplomatic and find a way out of this silly semantic war.

please use the quote feature if possible..
And no, that first line you still don't disagree with..
..But we do!!!
And I would continue attacking that positing...
You are telling me there, that I am not an atheist.

That is simply wrong.

I would explain why, but I've done it around 7 times.

And, also, like I've said before.. this is why I prefer ag. atheist, gnost. atheist, gnost. theis and agnost. theist labels compared to theist---agnostic--atheist.
it's more specific, and you don't hit THIS EXACT PROBLEM..

You caling yourself an agnostic is perfectly fine.. I said that 200 posts ago..
you telling me I'm not an atheist, because you have only a single specific dictionary definition, where there are others, is the problem.

Despite the fact that you've changed your stance, and of course now state "both definitions are valid" but don't see how that completely invalidates the above quote...

You can use whatever labeling system you want to use, that you can explain.. but you can't NOT let others do the same, unless it is simply incorrect somehow..

 

[raw_thought]

But that's just it, once again.
Your definition isn't wrong... it's you taking only that definition, and refusing all others that would be incorrect.
Someone who believes there is no god IS an atheist.. find me a single post that says that's not true.
Please, quote me one person that states that.

No, I specifically said (over and over) that my definition of disbelief and immortal flames are both in the dictionary.
Someone that believes there is no God is not the definition of atheist? Immortal flame.
Immortal flames defintion is one that lacks a belief in God, not a belief that God does not exist.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

No, I specifically said (over and over) that my definition of disbelief and immortal flames are both in the dictionary.

And yet, you also repeatedly failed to acknowledge both definitions.
And (over and over) stated that an atheist is only someone who believes there is no god.

Someone that believes there is no God is not the definition of atheist? Immortal flame.
Immortal flames defintion is one that lacks a belief in God, not a belief that God does not exist.

I bet if you ask him "If someone believes there is no god, are they an atheist?" He will say yes, they are (agreeing with your definition) and add, that that's not the only definition, someone who lacks belief is also an atheist (because both definitions are valid,)...
..THAT would be accepting both definitions.
Something you have repeatedly not done, despite the fact that you're now saying you do.

 

[raw_thought]

But that's just it, once again.
Your definition isn't wrong... it's you taking only that definition, and refusing all others that would be incorrect.
.

Note that I was defending my position, not that another perspective (another definition of disbelief) is wrong.

 

[raw_thought]

Im done for now. Perhaps tomorrow I will amuse myself with silly semantic debates.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Note that I was defending my position, not that another perspective (another definition of disbelief) is wrong.

uh-huh...

post 562

If one says that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief, then one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!
Since the conclusion is absurd and the argument is valid, that means that the original proposition ( that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief ) is absurd!

Looks like you TOTALLY accept both definitions as valid..
yup...
valid and absurd... Am I missing another definition here?
when does "no no, you are completely wrong" become "Oh, yes.. that's what I've been saying all this time, you just weren't reading my posts... >.> "