Burden of Proof

[The Grand Nudger]

That's all well and good, but I'm just going to reassert my claim and refuse to accept the burden of proof, further, I'm shifting it onto you, prove me wrong.

[Cyberman]

Anyone is entitled to refuse the accept the burden of proof; all they need to do is to renounce whatever claim they're making. I can live with that.

[Mark 13:13]

Why do you keep insisting that I've refused to discuss something that's already been discussed? By all means though, continue. I'd feel cheated if you dropped it.

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

this is the full definition I gave and as you can see the definition requires both sentences to be complete. It states and axiom is a premise and then clarifies what that premise is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

So yes you continue to refuse to deal with the without controversy. your first post actually cut this piece out when you quoted wiki.

[The Grand Nudger]

See what I mean, you'll keep asserting that I'm avoiding something without demonstrating that this is so (but to be fair, that would be fruitless, since I've already addressed the very thing you can't help but claim I've avoided). My first post also included a link...you know -in case you wanted to read it-

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I find this debate tiring.

Shifting the burden of proof to anyone other than the claimant can be countered with a myriad of hypotheticals that render the change in premise entirely moot (more often than not they go un-answered).

"If a man came up to you and said you were going to die of an incurable strain of bacteria unless you gave him $100 for a cure he knows will work and only he has got access to, would you accept him prima facie or demand evidence in order to take the claim seriously?"

This entire thread is a debate hiding behind pseudo-semantics that doesn't really add or take away from the base premise of the burden of proof.

[Cinjin]

... this thread the word God or gods or anything else that even alludes to these concepts is BANNED from this thread.

Hmmm, it seems obvious to me that this "non-religious" thread is merely a christian grasping at straws in the hopes of establishing some kind of theoretical benchmark from which to quote from in the event of future religious debates regarding proof of god. I think you know good and well that if you somehow established this theory of yours without god being interjected, it would only serve to bolster any future reference you might make to this thread.

It's ridiculous. Call it an axiom, don't call it an axiom, call it whatever you want. The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim and that fact is non-negotiable, regardless of the pseudo philosophical drivel you attach to it. If you make the claim, than you are required to defend that claim if you want anyone to accept it as truth.

Furthermore, who gives a shit how you label it? That label will not excuse you from providing evidence for your arguments in future threads.

[Mark 13:13]

... this thread the word God or gods or anything else that even alludes to these concepts is BANNED from this thread.

Hmmm, it seems obvious to me that this "non-religious" thread is merely a christian grasping at straws in the hopes of establishing some kind of theoretical benchmark from which to quote from in the event of future religious debates regarding proof of god. I think you know good and well that if you somehow established this theory of yours without god being interjected, it would only serve to bolster any future reference you might make to this thread.

It's ridiculous. Call it an axiom, don't call it an axiom, call it whatever you want. The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim and that fact is non-negotiable, regardless of the pseudo philosophical drivel you attach to it. If you make the claim, than you are required to defend that claim if you want anyone to accept it as truth.

Who gives a shit how you label it? That label will not excuse you from providing evidence for your arguments in future threads.

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see, so you're okay with appealing to ignorance, that seems kosher? All that nonsense about fallacy this and fallacy that is for pansies, real logic doesn't need that kind of stuff, right? None of the gradually more elaborate explanations (in all of the different ways they've been offered - so as to help you understand) worked for you?

Without accepting "the burden of proof" you will likely be arguing by assertion.
If you attempt to shift "the burden of proof" you will likely appeal to ignorance.

How can this possibly be made any more clear? What would proving anything to you entail, you haven't signed on board with the system? LOL, seriously, there's an easy way to avoid all the problems you might run into with the burden of proof, just avoid making claims.

[Mark 13:13]

I see, so you're okay with appealing to ignorance, that seems kosher? All that nonsense about fallacy this and fallacy that is for pansies, real logic doesn't need that kind of stuff, right? None of the gradually more elaborate explanations (in all of the different ways they've been offered - so as to help you understand) worked for you?

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

[Cyberman]

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

Why are you demanding proof for the claim that the burden of proof is on the claimant, when you have consistently refused to accept that burden? Are you the only one who doesn't see the hypocrisy there?