(August 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm)Atom Wrote: Demanding negative proof fallacy: Attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim.
Wow.
OK, I know Christian apologists are often known to make accusations of logical fallacies inappropriately but I've never seen one that twists the definition inside out.
Fine, I'll go slow:
"X event happened" = positive claim
"Prove it" = call for evidence for said positive claim
You see, you made a dozen positive claims. That places the burden of proof in your backyard. This shouldn't be a problem since you claimed these beliefs were all based on data. So, produce the data, then.
When I respond with "prove it", that's not a call for negative proof but for proof for your positive claims.
Did I go too fast for you?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist