Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[RoadRunner79]

I've always personally believed the burden of proof was the responsibility of the one making the positive claim.

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true. If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

[Silver]

I've always personally believed the burden of proof was the responsibility of the one making the positive claim.

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true. If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

I didn't say stating "god does not exist" wasn't a positive claim.

[Ravenshire]

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true.  If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

I didn't say stating "god does not exist" wasn't a positive claim.  

No, but he straw manned it to try to bolster his point.

[bennyboy]

I've always personally believed the burden of proof was the responsibility of the one making the positive claim.

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true.  If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

You've got this all wrong, because you are biased.

"God is real" is an assertion about existence and the nature of the Universe-- you are claiming some truly important knowledge.  "You haven't proven that to my satisfaction, so I'm not going to bother believing it" isn't really a claim that needs any support.  The person is not trying to convince you of anything except their own disinterest in an idea they consider a childish fairy-tale.

See, here's the thing.  Nobody here really cares if you choose to be Christian.  They care if you knock on their door on Saturday morning, or refuse to vaccinate your kids because of some obscure Bible passage, or shout "God hates fags" at a military funeral.  That's why there's no symmetry-- you care what atheists think, but they don't really care what you think. That's because there are about a million fairy tales, mythologies, and superstitions out there, and yours is just one of them. Nobody has the time to deal with a world of superstitious cavemen.

[GrandizerII]

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

[RoadRunner79]

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true.  If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

You've got this all wrong, because you are biased.

"God is real" is an assertion about existence and the nature of the Universe-- you are claiming some truly important knowledge.  "You haven't proven that to my satisfaction, so I'm not going to bother believing it" isn't really a claim that needs any support.  The person is not trying to convince you of anything except their own disinterest in an idea they consider a childish fairy-tale.

See, here's the thing.  Nobody here really cares if you choose to be Christian.  They care if you knock on their door on Saturday morning, or refuse to vaccinate your kids because of some obscure Bible passage, or shout "God hates fags" at a military funeral.  That's why there's no symmetry-- you care what atheists think, but they don't really care what you think. That's because there are about a million fairy tales, mythologies, and superstitions out there, and yours is just one of them. Nobody has the time to deal with a world of superstitious cavemen.

I’ve said a number of times previously that only one making a claim has the burden of proof. That if you are not making a statement about the thing, or are only making a claim about your personal mental state, then there is no burden of proof.

I’m not sure what you think, that I don’t understand, or where you think I am biased in this?

[Succubus]

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

This cannot be emphasised enough. So many people make complete arse's of themselves by not understanding what Occam's razor actually states.

[RoadRunner79]

Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

This cannot be emphasised enough. So many people make complete arse's of themselves by not understanding what Occam's razor actually states.

Do not multiply beyond necessity! Or don’t add unnecessary things (keep it simple)

[Succubus]

You can look it up.... but both sides can have a burden of proof if they are both making competing claims. I’m not surprised though that you think the burden of proof doesn’t apply to you.  It explains a lot actually.

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

Didn't we have a brief exchange yesterday on this subject where you agreed that your understanding of the BoP was flawed? And here we are again.

---

This cannot be emphasised enough. So many people make complete arse's of themselves by not understanding what Occam's razor actually states.

Do not multiply beyond necessity! Or don’t add unnecessary things (keep it simple)

You're equivocating! As the man just said, and I quote:

"Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

The words parsimony, and simple, are not synonymous.

[RoadRunner79]

[quote='RoadRunner79' pid='1714730' dateline='1520722230']
You can look it up.... but both sides can have a burden of proof if they are both making competing claims. I’m not surprised though that you think the burden of proof doesn’t apply to you.  It explains a lot actually.

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

Didn't we have a brief exchange yesterday on this subject where you agreed that your understanding of the BoP was flawed? And here we are again.

[/quote

No I don't believe so.... where do you think it is flawed?

Do not multiply beyond necessity! Or don’t add unnecessary things (keep it simple)

You're equivocating! As the man just said, and I quote:

"Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

The words parsimony, and simple, are not synonymous.

Ockam's Razor is often stated as "all other things being equal the simplest explanation is most like the best". Now I might agree, that sometimes people misunderstand simplest in this context, however it makes me wonder again; what it is you are taking issue with?