Burden of proof (philosophy)

It's far from a full understanding, and it doesn't claim to be (that's why I added "among other things").

 

Iggy list.

 

A lack of a position, as you are aware, you proved your own BS wrong.

 

To theists; name one other thing you believe in that has zero proof for it.

 

Can the TS prove he didn't try to seduce a goat yesterday ?

 

agnostic is a long accepted valid position in philosophy, sorry.

 

lol, easy peezy, ts I presume is trans-sexual? Was in bible school learning about praising the Lord at the same time the the goat claimed to be molested.

 

It certainly is, however so has the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods. However your attempt to use the appeal to authority by quoting philosophy is irrelevant to the argument. Please remember philosophy is not a science it does not deal in absolutes, it is just peoples opinions.

Now the burden of proof is clearly shown in philosophy to lie with the person making the claim, you have argued all around that, but do not address this point directly.

 

it has nothing to do with appealing to authority and everything to do with wading through loony arguments and separating BS from whats reasonable. You cant use a metaphorical phrase as an argument, and your appeal to the dictionary as some sort of valid argument is laughable, since the dictionary only records popular usage of a word by mostly dumb asses and is not a word authority, the word 'gay' comes to mind. So y9ou are barking up the wrong tree.

Your metaphor is a euphemistic description not an element of atheism.

Rocks lack belief too, and that 'is' science.

 

Actually you constantly make appeals to authority, universities, philosophy to name but two.

Now you would have us ignore dictionary and common usage to facilitate your peculiar and opportunistic definition of Atheism. It is opportunistic since you wish to call atheism a religion and without your definitions that is another of your arguments that do not work.
Now back to the point,

I never claimed God exists, or does not exist, I never took a position.
I neither affirmed nor denied the existence or nonexistence of deities.

I lack belief in the existence of gods, exactly as outlined above. I am an atheist, as such you know nothing more about my beliefs. If you or anyone else wishes to show gods exist prove it enough for me to take a position.

 

Sure, its an attempt to help 'internet' atheist come to the realities of logic and reason in an academic sense, such that internet atheists are better equipped to argue the matter on an academic level. Think of it as a community service.

How about that you just defined an agnostic! LOL

and you just contradicted yourself!

as I just got done saying in another thread:

now from your oxford:

Atheists are going completely against the definition.

Atheists are trying to establish this ground work for their religion but I dont see why anyone would take atheists seriously?

Seems athiests have lots of problems in dodge and in denial about it.

 

Again an appeal to authority, now you wish to appeal to an academic level, explain what an academic level is?

You continue to ignore what you quote, concentrating only on what agrees with you. Quote mining and avoiding the parts of the articles you wish to ignore.

Again you avoid your own conclusion on Zeus.

Your constant appeals to authority border on special pleading, only you and a few enlightened people could possibly understand! It is very interesting how you employ this tactic, I saw it in another poster who believed only those who understood apocryphal writing could truly understand!

 

Burden of proof falls to a theist. They make the claim "god (of whatever flavor) exists."

Thus they have to offer proof for it.

That proof can be as little and worthless as "Because I believe it to be so." That does not mean their argument is proven, simply that it is asserted, however baseless, on anecdote.

I am an antitheist who follows some Buddhist teachings, because I find the spiritual aspect of Buddhism, which does not require a god, to be beneficial to my life and worldview.

I find any absolutism in religion to be odious and noisome.

I also find anyone claiming that I, as an atheist, have to offer a valid argument why their god doesn't exist, odious and offensive. Until you have offered a valid claim to promote the notion that god exists, I owe you nothing.

 

This isnt about theists trying to push theism on atheists as you would spin it. Its about 2 positions. All that is needed s 2 positions in any argument.

false, the only person who is without the burden of proof is the agnostic who abstains from taking a position, both theists and atheists have taken a position opposite each other, if you think the burden of proof lies only with the theist you have taken a wooden nickel.

 

You have stated anything about knowledge, you simply denied a position. Which is of course perfectly logical when someone makes an extraordinary claim.

 

You are using that wrong as well, its an appeal to academic level review, which is completely devoid with 'internet' atheists arguments, nothing to do with authority as you would spin it.

someone who is literate, understands basics of reason and logic.

My conclusion is agnostic, you are wrong again.

Hardly, just because I am one of the few out here willing to waste my time on this does not mean only a few exist. Its why the people on youtube and these forums are considered to be internet atheists to separate them from university studied atheists.

well as I have shown internet atheists cant make one statement that they do not contradict themselves in another.

 

No the agnostic makes an additional claim regarding knowledge.

 

oh? what is an extraordinary claim?
I abstained from a vote with regard to theists and atheists, so you can stop trying to spin it. Do you understand what abstention means?

 

there is no additional wth is that?

I abstained from a vote with regard to theists and atheists, so you can stop trying to spin it. Do you understand what abstention means?

 

Again you do not explain what you mean by this Academic Level, I rather like the definition "only theoretical of no practical purpose", which I think covers your position rather well.

University studied atheist, you just cannot help that appeal to authority, as if somehow an atheist who studied at university would be different to an atheist who studied elsewhere. Still for your information you can appeal to my authority since I studied at Imperial College London.

Who considers such people to be internet atheists, try answering without your usual appeal to authority!

 

You took no position, I understand what that means.

 

What drivel is this, you were asked about Zeus. No vote, no abstention, these are figments of your imagination!

 

Nonsense. You make the claim god exists. The counterclaim is that god doesn't exist. You can only prove a positive. Your position is logically illogical.

 

Yep theists affirm God does exist and atheists deny that God exists. and no I dont make such claims.

 

no you do not know or understand what it means. if you did you would not claim I lack belief and classify agnostics as atheists.