(October 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

then how do you show the proposition God doesn't exist is more rational than the proposition God does exist? let me guess... lack of evidence? do I have to say it?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Quote:Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.

Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.

There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.

It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.

To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.

any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.

(October 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Point being you are shifting the burden of proof.

That's what I've been saying, too. Thank you for also seeing this and responding.

I'll say it again: The atheist position is that he/she doesn't believe in any gods, and claiming that this stance is irrational and carries a burden of proof is just shifting the burden of proof from the theists.

It's intellectually dishonest and illogical. And, I suspect, is done because the theists never have any actual evidence to support their claims. From all of AKD's claims here I've never once seen him offer anything, not even an argument as evidence that his god exists. He just keeps trying to tear down the atheist position, when there's not really any position to tear down other than, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

(October 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: And that's what I've been saying my beliefs are the whole fucking time, with you coming back telling me how irrational and fallacious I am for not believing in your god.

I've never said once not believing in God is fallacious. I've said this entire time believing God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence is fallacious. and also that it is rational to conclude both sides are equally plausible with equal evidence. and you can't say one is more rational if both are equally plausible.

Irrational AKD, you're really getting tiring with your whole "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" stance. Maybe you should try a different tack.

---

(October 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: I've never said once not believing in God is fallacious. I've said this entire time believing God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence is fallacious.

It's not just lack of evidence, but evidence to the contrary.

And again, why are you not committing a fallacy by not believing in Zeus?

(October 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.

why don't you argue with what I say rather than making it up committing straw man fallacy. I never said once believe in God because there's no evidence to the contrary. I said if you believe there is no God, you must have evidence to substantiate it. saying "there's no evidence for God, so there is no God" is not adequate.

Quote: God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence is fallacious.

So you are saying there is evidence that can be falsified and peer reviewed that proves that an invisible brain with no brain and no location, no neurons, and magical super powers exists?

*Taps foot* Waiting.(not really, I grew up and gave up on Santa for adults)

---

Quote: I said if you believe there is no God, you must have evidence to substantiate it.

Yep, we know what biological organisms allow for the structure for thought, also known as BRAINS. And we also have an abundance of humans who have always concocted all sorts of dead gods you don't believe in yourself.

So unless you have physical evidence for an "invisible non material brain", I'd say you are screwed.

Why do I think that Irrational AKD recently read a website on fallacious arguments and then came here to show us how all our arguments are fallacious? He seems to be stuck on that.

(October 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.

Well then, show me a claim and its negation where both have equal plausibility.

And no, it's not your god claim since there is no way to determine the plausibility of the claim. And since you are the one that is claiming equal plausibility, the burden of proof is still yours to demonstrate that.

(October 2, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.

why don't you argue with what I say rather than making it up committing straw man fallacy. I never said once believe in God because there's no evidence to the contrary. I said if you believe there is no God, you must have evidence to substantiate it. saying "there's no evidence for God, so there is no God" is not adequate.

Which god? Or, rather, which version of which god? A multi-self refuting one, or one neither you nor I have conceived of yet?

I think the problem that Irrational AKD is having is equating "I don't believe in X because there's no evidence for it" with "X is impossible because there's no evidence for it." The former is logical and rational, and the latter fits his irrational fallacious argument idea. But when we say we don't believe, we're not totally closing our mind to other evidence and concluding beyond any doubt that there not only is no god, but it's impossible for one to exist.

If he refuses to realize this then it's not my problem. He can continue to make claims of "You're being irrational and fallacious!" all he wants, but he'll be wrong. Saying "If there's no evidence, I don't believe" is not argument from ignorance.