Who has the burden of proof?

[Awkward Fingers]

Perhaps you are typing to fast. Immortal flame would say that, one that believes that God does not exist is NOT THE DEFINITION of atheist.

No.. he would say that is not the ONLY definition of an atheist....(I assume)

..The same position you're trying to shoehorn yourself into, by saying that suddenly, NOW you accept both definitions as valid...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

ImmortalFlame..
If someone does not believe god exists, are they an atheist?

 

[raw_thought]

Troll on!
bye

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Correct. But that doesn't mean that people who believe God doesn't exist aren't atheists since, by definition, anyone who believes there is no God must also lack a belief that there IS a God. In the broader sense of the word, anyone who lacks a belief in a God is an atheist - and people who believe there is no God comes under that umbrella.

 

[raw_thought]

Yep, and my dictionary definition of disbelief is different than your dictionary definition of disbelief.
As I said previously this silly semantic debate is like a debate about, does cleave mean seperate or divide.
Anyway, I guess technically I lied. I keep responding when I said bye.
Perhaps, I will amuse myself tomorrow with this silly semantic debate.
However, I give my word of honor, tomorrow I might resume this silly semantic debate, but not tonight.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yep, and my dictionary definition of disbelief is different than your dictionary definition of disbelief.
As I said previously this silly semantic debate is like a debate about, does cleave mean seperate or divide.
Anyway, I guess technically I lied. I keep responding when I said bye.
Perhaps, I will amuse myself tomorrow with this silly semantic debate.
However, I give my word of honor, tomorrow I might resume this silly semantic debate, but not tonight.

I just looked up "disbelief" and it said "lack of belief."

 

[raw_thought]

I just looked up "disbelief" and it said "lack of belief."

And also see my defintion. There are 2 definitions. See post 722

 

[raw_thought]

Correct. But that doesn't mean that people who believe God doesn't exist aren't atheists since, by definition, anyone who believes there is no God must also lack a belief that there IS a God. In the broader sense of the word, anyone who lacks a belief in a God is an atheist - and people who believe there is no God comes under that umbrella.

The precise definition is just as valid as the more broad definition.
Like cleave..... yawn bye

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yep, and my dictionary definition of disbelief is different than your dictionary definition of disbelief.

Actually, no it isn't. You've just taken one particular part of the definition, rather than the whole definition, and made it your definition. The definition above that one is exactly the same as my definition. The page you link to accepts my definition.

However, I give my word of honor, tomorrow I might resume this silly semantic debate, but not tonight.

As other posters have pointed out: When you think your definitions are correct, it's important and everyone else's definitions are inaccurate and silly. When we show you that your definitions are wrong and ours are more accurate, you dismiss it because it's a "silly semantic debate".

No. It's you being wrong and not admitting it.

The precise definition is just as valid as the more broad definition.

It's not the "more precise" definition of atheism, it's a narrower definition which defines only a specific subset of atheists. It's only valid in the sense that it is applicable (people who believe that there is no God do come under the heading of atheists), but it is not valid in that it is an inaccurate representation of the entirety of atheists - which is why the broader definition is the more precise definition, since it explicitly covers all areas of absence of belief, rather than a specific subset referring to a counter-belief.

And no, it's nothing like "cleave". Cleave is a word that has two very distinctly different and contrary definitions that can be applied in different contexts. Atheism, on the other hand, is a broad term that encompasses any individuals who lack a belief in a God. What you are saying is akin to saying "Another valid definition of owl is tawdry owl".

 

[McBell]

Here comes Spirit........oops!

Ah, so spirit caused god...

Gotcha.

What caused spirit?

 

[Skeptisch]

“In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!” ​

― ​

Stephen Hawking

, ​

A Brief History of Time

 

[idav]

What caused spirit?

Physics?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: Who has the burden of proof?
----------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw and heard Jesus on his travels for 3 long years, that's a lot of eyewitnesses, so it's up to the doubters to prove they were hallucinating or something..

"And Jesus went about all the cities and villages" (Matt 9:35)

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. However the proposition that no God exists...also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification...too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

...Agnostics don't have any burden of proof...

“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue” (merriam-webster online).

If one continues with the absurd definition of atheist as one that does not believe in God, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist, one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!

I just looked up "disbelief" and it said "lack of belief."

I'm not sure I'm following. I'm trying to imagine one who "...does not believe that God doesn't exist..." who also "does not believe in God and does not not believe in God," although I'm given to understand atheism and agnosticism are distinct. The word disbelief unsurprisingly has several meaning senses.

Meanwhile, the distinction might be that agnosticism makes a weaker claim than atheism does. I may be wrong here because there seem to be "active" and "passive" forms of both philosophies, with active agnosticism saying the question is unanswerable in principle, the passive agnostics merely saying we don't know yet. Burden of proof is a normative, with a general scientific consensus declaring it reasonable to call on the party making the strongest claims to present an argument first. Revealed religions make much stronger claims and so must have proof burdens in spades. That is, if they want their claims to be considered scientific. But here we've laid science and religion in opposition to each other. So, why is religion likely to style itself as scientific, thus folding itself into the opposite debate team? As far as I know, they decline to do that - except the misguided heads at the Institute for Creation Research.

:sorry1: If I'm going to hold a god dear in my heart, I'm not going to try to prove anything, either.

 

[McBell]

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw and heard Jesus on his travels for 3 long years, that's a lot of eyewitnesses, so it's up to the doubters to prove they were hallucinating or something..

Using that logic we can also make the bold empty claim that since Hogwarts has had thousands of students, it is up to those who doubt Hogwarts exist to prove the thousands of students were "hallucinating or something"...

Or is yours an appeal to numbers?

 

[outhouse]

Physics?

provide evidence

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

What was wrong was your repeated assertions that your definition was the more accurate one, and that our definitions were "silly" despite repeatedly showing you that our definitions were closer to the actual dictionary definitions.

You are dishonesty trying to divert attention from the facts of this whole debacle.

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.

You are correct, that is an ad hominem.

AND NOBODY HERE HAS DONE THAT.

Please quote a single example of somebody committing the above fallacy in this thread. If you cannot, you are a liar.

One of the first things you learn in logic is attack the argument not the person.

Which is what we have been doing this whole time. I, for one, have never once attacked your personally.

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.

No, it's not a truce - that was me pointing out that I have not committed an ad hominem against you. You are factually inaccurate in continuing to accuse me of committing an ad hominem fallacy. Will you apologize?

 

[idav]

provide evidence

Cause and effect seems evident enough. Things are here because of physics.

 

[outhouse]

Cause and effect seems evident enough. Things are here because of physics.

that does not change the fact spirit started in mythology. not physics

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Using that logic we can also make the bold empty claim that since Hogwarts has had thousands of students, it is up to those who doubt Hogwarts exist to prove the thousands of students were "hallucinating or something"...
Or is yours an appeal to numbers?

But everybody knows Hogwarts is just a cardboard-and-plywood film studio set..