(September 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Not personal opinion... but belief I think DP.

Neither of us have 'proof' or one of us wouldn't be able to sustain that belief. Hope that makes sense

Whether you call it a belief or personal opinion is not the issue. Either way, you can't use it to "prove" something else.

i.e. "I believe in God. Because God exists, we know that..."

Every atheist would be right to stop me right there.

I 'understand' that God exists Shell. You don't.

How did we get to these places? I work on evidence and you work on different evidence. We are convinced of our conclusions. We could not hold those conclusions if there wasn't sufficient evidence.

I already said that neither of us had "proof" <--- because if we did, the other one of us would have to retract, our evidence would be at fault. But neither of us can have proof, so both views are sustained.

I don't say "I believe in God. Because God exists, we know that...", I say "I believe in God using evidence". The same as you would say "I don't believe in God using evidence"

<edit>
If we're wanting to understand each other, you have to consider my perspective, and me yours.

You would say "Because God doesn't exist, therefore <this>"
I have to say "Because God exists, therefore <this>"

A different starting point given our reasoned positions. Nothing fallacious, but an honest representation of our position.

I say "your belief in god is based on insufficient evidence, which is to say, not based on evidence at all, but faith, and it irritates me greatly that you continue to assert evidence for your god without being able to provide any".

What happened to "there can be no evidence" Frodo?

For the record, we don't start with the conclusion god doesn't exist. So it's not an accurate description of our position. You phrase it this way in a dishonest attempt to equivocate between our very different positions. A much more accurate (and honest) way of phrasing this would be:

Because these stories have been shown to be false, and in the light of an absolute lack of any other evidence whatsoever, this god does not exist.

You, btw, do not HAVE to say "God exists and therefore". You choose to say this, because you do not wish to subject this notion to criticism, even in your own mind. You assume it to be true because you wish for it to be true, and then refuse to allow any criticism of the idea, alternatively claiming "there can be no evidence" or "everything is evidence of" or "as a christians I MUST presuppose". It's fuzzy thinking.

In your mind Rhythm, there is only one kind of evidence. You shouldn't presume all of your fellow atheists are so mono literal.

You as a proponent of scientism would say that, sure. A position on metaphysics no less, but I'm sure you'd fail to see the irony in that. A sweet contradiction.

I did say "if we're wanting to understand each other". I know you're not trying to understand. But that's hardly anything to do with the conversation, so why you bothered to say anything is puzzling.

I don't assume it to be true, I am stating my honest belief from the evidence presented. Unlike the evidence you deny existence of. There's no fuzzy thinking at all... I'm confronting the possibilities. Your audacity is truly astounding.

Now, maybe we can get back to the subject. If Rhythm has finished trolling.

"There can be no evidence", or "the evidence presented". Just pick which one you want to run with or I'm going to call bullshit every time you waffle. If you want to go with evidence today, I'm down for that. Let's see it.

I've expanded on what constitutes evidence, by your standards and by mine. I know your position, and you know mine. No point littering every thread with it.

(September 27, 2011 at 3:36 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's an assertion different to your own position, that is incorrect according to your knowledge. You are asked to consider the alternate position if you wish to confront the logic of that position. Sure, no one is saying that that is your position. It may be totally rational and irrefutable, but still it is not where your knowledge leads to the starting point.

I am awestruck by your ability to spew incoherent bullshit so readily...

An assertion is, by it's very nature, a premise that is unsupported by argument and/or evidence IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE and explicitly IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE AGREES THAT IT IS TRUE.

What's your postal address? I'm going to send you my copy of "A Concise Introduction to Logic", you desperately need it.

(October 4, 2011 at 8:37 am)theVOID Wrote:

(September 27, 2011 at 3:36 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's an assertion different to your own position, that is incorrect according to your knowledge. You are asked to consider the alternate position if you wish to confront the logic of that position. Sure, no one is saying that that is your position. It may be totally rational and irrefutable, but still it is not where your knowledge leads to the starting point.

I am awestruck by your ability to spew incoherent bullshit so readily...

An assertion is, by it's very nature, a premise that is unsupported by argument and/or evidence irrespective of whether or not it is true and explicitly irrespective of whether or not someone agrees that it is true.

What's your postal address? I'm going to send you my copy of "A Concise Introduction to Logic", you desperately need it.

Personal attacks aside, lets address the point: you're saying nothing that challenges what I said.

To me as someone who doesn't hold the same rational [given] conclusions as you do, your assertions are without rational support: ie irrational. I don't assume that you are irrational, I consider your position to be rationally formed and endeavour to find the reasoning.

Therefore: a POV contrary to your own would indeed be merely an assertion for you to assess.

Sorry I don't see where your dispute lies.

(October 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To me as someone who doesn't hold the same rational [given] conclusions as you do, your assertions are without rational support: ie irrational. I don't assume that you are irrational, I consider your position to be rationally formed and endeavour to find the reasoning.

This has sweet-fuck-all to do with the point at hand, in DP's example there was a premise that was asserted as true without any substantiation, it is a 'Bare Assertion' by it's very nature. Just as if someone 2000 years ago was to make the argument "(1) Subatomic particles exist, therefore; (2) Atoms are not the fundamental building-block of matter" they would be guilty of committing the exact same fallacy, irrespective of whether or not it would later be shown that subatomic particles do in-fact exist.

If you have something to say about the premise in question (You want to show support for the claim that "Moral goodness is grounded in the very nature of Yahweh") that is entirely another discussion and has nothing to do with the DP's question, that being "What is the classification of this fallacy?".

Quote:Therefore: a POV contrary to your own would indeed be merely an assertion for you to assess.

Whether or not I agree with said proposition is simply irrelevant, an agreement with an asserted premise does not change the fact the premise is an assertion. That is exactly what was presented in the example. As far as I am aware this holds true for not just the example in question but to all instances where it has been claimed that "Moral goodness is grounded in the very nature of Yahweh", if you would like to enlighten me on that issue feel free.

A bare assertion to you, an assertion strongly backed up with reason to me. Your endeavour in exploring a subject is to scrutinize it for evidence. Those of us who understand and acknowledge that evidence oblige by explaining it to you.... so it is never a case of their being no evidence, but of there being evidence that isn't understood or accepted by yourself.

As I said: reasoning that you do not have.

If you fail to understand the premise then that is hardly reason to classify it as fallacy. It is what it is: a lack of understanding of the subject.