(September 4, 2011 at 10:17 pm)R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: Regarding 'is mind brain' topics, I have realized something startling. We have grown lax, and allowed ourselves to hold the lower ground during debates.
Phew. Good thing. I was beginning to think I was the only one who had noticed. Better late than never, I say.
Quote:Fred actually believes that materialists hold the burden of proof because we allegedly make an assertive claim that consciousness does NOT exist outside of the brain.
Allegedly? Oh, dear. Who let the lawyers in here? Fred actually believes you hold the burden of proof because your pals are insisting that it's the case as an a priori conclusion, and the only evidence you are interested in is evidence that you can dismiss according to the dictates of that conclusion. Interesting that for all the insistence that the matter is a lock, beyond the say-so, the support is non-existent. Maybe that support is not made of matter, could that be it?
Quote:No!
Yes. Sorry.
Quote:Fred still holds the Burden of Proof, because he is claiming that an ethereal mind DOES exist.
Fred is saying it's not in the least a closed matter, because, well, it isn't.
And you know the best part. One. White. Crow. That's all it takes and down goes the whole materialistic house of cards, which goes a long way in explaining why the favored postion of materialists is a defensive crouch.
Quote:Seriously, did nobody see that? I think we've gotten lazy cutting down such easy fundy arguments.
Heh. I just said this in another thread, though for different reasons. Yeah, it's true.
Quote:Remember, as materialists (which I assume most atheists are?)
, we hold the higher ground by default unless we let ourselves be tricked into a fallacy or strawman argument.
By default, eh? By whose royal decree might you have earned this ground? As for the fallacies or strawmen, it doesn't seem that my help is needed with those.
Nice of you to rally the troops, though.
