Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2010, 07:44 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2010 08:05 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Hey UB

You are saying that my beliefs are irrational because they are subjective, which is nonsense. They are merely not objective.
Nothing "should" leave this impossible evidence, because of it's impossibility.
The bible is evidence, just not objective evidence.
There should not be objective evidence of Jesus being God or he couldn't be God (he'd have a conflicting nature).
You're repeating what I said like you're telling me something I don't know. Yes - there cannot be proof! No God doesn't "exist" naturally. Get over it!
If there were objective evidence of God that would be evidence that it wasn't God.

There's a pattern here you see --> it's not objective.

It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality <=> it doesn't rely upon proof. What rationalising do I have to do to justify the chair that holds me up? None: because it requires none. It's objectively verifiable and therefore requires no justification. I can know and therefore can assume justification without thought.

So it's purely rational.

"a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts" - ie subjective bias. My belief is a purely intellectual process of justification without subjective bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2010, 09:02 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(25-11-2010 07:44 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You are saying that my beliefs are irrational because they are subjective

No, I am not. Stop strawmanning. Don't just skim my posts, read them. Your beliefs being subjective isn't what makes them irrational. Your beliefs having no basis in fact is what makes them irrational.

Quote:The bible is evidence, just not objective evidence.

No, it isn't evidence. It's circular. I've explained this before. You simply danced around having to answer. Ignoring my posts doesn't make them go away.

Quote:There should not be objective evidence of Jesus being God or he couldn't be God (he'd have a conflicting nature).

Then, by definition, belief in him cannot be rational.

Quote:You're repeating what I said like you're telling me something I don't know. Yes - there cannot be proof! No God doesn't "exist" naturally. Get over it!

Get over what? You're the one who believes this. I have no problem with you believing it. Just don't try to pretend that it's rational.

Quote:It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality

That contradicts this:

Quote:it doesn't rely upon proof.

You cannot have both premises as part of your argument. They are mutually exclusive.

Quote:What rationalising do I have to do to justify the chair that holds me up? None: because it requires none. It's objectively verifiable and therefore requires no justification.

The fact that it is objectively verifiable is the justification.

Quote:So it's purely rational.

No, it's not. It is, by definition, irrational. It not only does not but cannot have any supporting evidence.

Quote:"a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts" - ie subjective bias. My belief is a purely intellectual process of justification without subjective bias.

You have failed to present any justification whatsoever.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2010, 10:40 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:"a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts" - ie subjective bias. My belief is a purely intellectual process of justification without subjective bias.

Following up on UBs comments, what is you "purely intellectual process of justification without subjective bias". You concede there is no objective evidence to support your belief at all. And then you go on to say that you have no subjective bias, which means you are not using subjective evidence because anything subjective by its very definition has a subjective bias. That's what the subjective view is - a personal bias. So, what is left? By what intellectual process do you reach you conclusions? Please elaborate.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 05:05 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2010 05:27 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
No BnW - subjective bias is irrational influence on subjective conclusion: such as emotion, feeling, instinct. Subjective evidence is rational when not subjected to bias.

Unbeliever contradicts himself by stating that:
a. my beliefs are not irrational because they are subjective
and then:
b. belief in Jesus is irrational if not based on objective evidence
Hey Unbeliever

Lets deal with this logical car crash of yours

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-11-2010 07:44 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You are saying that my beliefs are irrational because they are subjective
No, I am not. Stop strawmanning. Don't just skim my posts, read them. Your beliefs being subjective isn't what makes them irrational. Your beliefs having no basis in fact is what makes them irrational.
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:There should not be objective evidence of Jesus being God or he couldn't be God (he'd have a conflicting nature).
Then, by definition, belief in him cannot be rational.
Objective > based on fact

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The bible is evidence, just not objective evidence.
No, it isn't evidence. It's circular. I've explained this before. You simply danced around having to answer. Ignoring my posts doesn't make them go away.
You make the baseless assertion that the bible, as a collection of books about God, cannot be evidence of God as it's circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning: God is God because he says so
Non circular reasoning: God is God from external evidence presented about God(The Bible)

Just because you say "no it is" makes no logical point. Until you can provide logic that would support your logic it is not logic. To me as a rational skeptic your baseless claims must be discarded.

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:You're repeating what I said like you're telling me something I don't know. Yes - there cannot be proof! No God doesn't "exist" naturally. Get over it!
Get over what? You're the one who believes this. I have no problem with you believing it. Just don't try to pretend that it's rational.
You're saying absolutely nothing on what I said here apart from repeating the baseless assertion phrase "just don't try to pretend it's rational"

It's purely rational as I explained.

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality
That contradicts this:
Quote:it doesn't rely upon proof.
You cannot have both premises as part of your argument. They are mutually exclusive.
Subjective evidence isn't evidence again. Yet in your first sentence you stated that "Your beliefs being subjective isn't what makes them irrational." Make up your mind!

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:What rationalising do I have to do to justify the chair that holds me up? None: because it requires none. It's objectively verifiable and therefore requires no justification.
The fact that it is objectively verifiable is the justification.
the justification is a given. It requires no rationalisation.

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:So it's purely rational.
No, it's not. It is, by definition, irrational. It not only does not but cannot have any supporting evidence.
Objectively. Subjectively it has supporting evidence and so is rational.

(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:"a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts" - ie subjective bias. My belief is a purely intellectual process of justification without subjective bias.
You have failed to present any justification whatsoever.
On the contrary. You have demonstrated your complete confusion over what constitutes rational evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 06:31 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:On the contrary. You have demonstrated your complete confusion over what constitutes rational evidence.

I'm pretty sure he hasn't.

Ok, I'm done with this. It's not so much that you're obtuse but you talk in circles that are just nonsense. You've completely ignored - or maybe just misunderstood - every point that has been made to you. Probably both. Either way, this is going to go on forever with no obvious ending in sight and I think I've hit the exhaustion point.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2010 08:59 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
"subjective bias" is a philosophical term as I defined. Your attempt to demean subjectivism by calling it all 'biased' is literally nonsense.

UB made a clear contradiction, and for you to defend that shows intellectual dishonesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 01:54 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(28-11-2010 05:05 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Unbeliever contradicts himself by stating that:
a. my beliefs are not irrational because they are subjective
and then:
b. belief in Jesus is irrational if not based on objective evidence

Those statements are not contradictory.

Your beliefs are not irrational because they are subjective. They are irrational and subjective.

All beliefs are subjective. It just so happens that yours are subjective (because you believe them) and irrational (because they have no supporting evidence).

Quote:Objective > based on fact

This means...?

Quote:You make the baseless assertion that the bible, as a collection of books about God, cannot be evidence of God as it's circular reasoning.

It's not baseless.

Quote:Circular reasoning: God is God because he says so
Non circular reasoning: God is God from external evidence presented about God(The Bible)

Which would be perfectly valid if the Bible did not make claims about God.

I have explained this before. The Bible says that God exists. You cannot simply say that the Bible is true, therefore God exists, because the Bible is not true unless God exists.

This is textbook circular logic. You cannot use it as evidence.

Quote:Just because you say "no it is" makes no logical point.

Nice straw man. I provided the reasoning behind it. Either refute my argument or drop your incredibly stupid claims.

Quote:Until you can provide logic

I have.

Quote:To me as a rational skeptic

You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. You are neither a skeptic (one who believes that which the evidence supports) or rational (one who believes rational things).

Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:You're repeating what I said like you're telling me something I don't know. Yes - there cannot be proof! No God doesn't "exist" naturally. Get over it!
Get over what? You're the one who believes this. I have no problem with you believing it. Just don't try to pretend that it's rational.
You're saying absolutely nothing on what I said here

Bullshit. You said that I couldn't "get over" the fact that there cannot be proof of God. I explained why this is erroneous.

Quote:apart from repeating the baseless assertion phrase "just don't try to pretend it's rational"

It's purely rational as I explained.

No, it isn't, as I explained.

Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality
That contradicts this:
Quote:it doesn't rely upon proof.
You cannot have both premises as part of your argument. They are mutually exclusive.
Subjective evidence isn't evidence again.

Stop strawmanning.

Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:What rationalising do I have to do to justify the chair that holds me up? None: because it requires none. It's objectively verifiable and therefore requires no justification.
The fact that it is objectively verifiable is the justification.
the justification is a given. It requires no rationalisation.

Your two sentences contradict each other. The rationalization is its justification.

Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:So it's purely rational.
No, it's not. It is, by definition, irrational. It not only does not but cannot have any supporting evidence.
Objectively.

Then there can be evidence, and you accept the burden of proof. So present your evidence.

Quote:On the contrary. You have demonstrated your complete confusion over what constitutes rational evidence.

I'm afraid that it is you who fails to grasp the discussion.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 04:15 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-11-2010 05:05 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Unbeliever contradicts himself by stating that:
a. my beliefs are not irrational because they are subjective
and then:
b. belief in Jesus is irrational if not based on objective evidence
Those statements are not contradictory.

Your beliefs are not irrational because they are subjective. They are irrational and subjective.

All beliefs are subjective. It just so happens that yours are subjective (because you believe them) and irrational (because they have no supporting evidence).
So a belief in God is rational if supported by subjective evidence.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Objective > based on fact
This means...?
Not subjective

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:You make the baseless assertion that the bible, as a collection of books about God, cannot be evidence of God as it's circular reasoning.
It's not baseless.

Quote:Circular reasoning: God is God because he says so
Non circular reasoning: God is God from external evidence presented about God(The Bible)

Which would be perfectly valid if the Bible did not make claims about God.

I have explained this before. The Bible says that God exists. You cannot simply say that the Bible is true, therefore God exists, because the Bible is not true unless God exists.

This is textbook circular logic. You cannot use it as evidence.
1. The bible doesn't say that God exists, it says we can't know.
2. I don't say that God exists. I say I can't know.
3. I find the bible to be true, and that is subjective.

So it is valid subjective evidence for God.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Just because you say "no it is" makes no logical point.
Nice straw man. I provided the reasoning behind it. Either refute my argument or drop your incredibly stupid claims.
I'm constantly refuting your argument. It seems you're premature in your judgement.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Until you can provide logic
I have.
Because you say so, not in actual fact.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:To me as a rational skeptic
You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. You are neither a skeptic (one who believes that which the evidence supports) or rational (one who believes rational things).
No it doesn't make it true. It is however my aim. I am thorough in demanding evidence for everything. You have yet failed to prove my irrationality.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:You're repeating what I said like you're telling me something I don't know. Yes - there cannot be proof! No God doesn't "exist" naturally. Get over it!
Get over what? You're the one who believes this. I have no problem with you believing it. Just don't try to pretend that it's rational.
You're saying absolutely nothing on what I said here
Bullshit. You said that I couldn't "get over" the fact that there cannot be proof of God. I explained why this is erroneous.
I said to get over the fact that God isn't provable. Nothing more. You quoting back at me things I've already said to you.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:apart from repeating the baseless assertion phrase "just don't try to pretend it's rational"
It's purely rational as I explained.
No, it isn't, as I explained.
You have thoroughly failed to prove anything. Without honesty we'll get nowhere. Please man up and face facts.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality
That contradicts this:
Quote:it doesn't rely upon proof.
You cannot have both premises as part of your argument. They are mutually exclusive.
Subjective evidence isn't evidence again.
Stop strawmanning.
I'm quoting you.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:What rationalising do I have to do to justify the chair that holds me up? None: because it requires none. It's objectively verifiable and therefore requires no justification.
The fact that it is objectively verifiable is the justification.
the justification is a given. It requires no rationalisation.
Your two sentences contradict each other. The rationalization is its justification.
Only if you really want them to. You know very well what I'm saying. the point needs no further labouring only to obfuscate.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:So it's purely rational.
No, it's not. It is, by definition, irrational. It not only does not but cannot have any supporting evidence.
Objectively.
Then there can be evidence, and you accept the burden of proof. So present your evidence.
Certainly. What type of proof would you like? As soon as you can suggest valid proof then I will gladly provide it for you.

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:On the contrary. You have demonstrated your complete confusion over what constitutes rational evidence.
I'm afraid that it is you who fails to grasp the discussion.
The discussion is between you and me fella. If you're failing to communicate, you should try harder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 05:43 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(28-11-2010 04:15 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So a belief in God is rational if supported by subjective evidence.

If the evidence is valid.

Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Objective > based on fact
This means...?
Not subjective

That wasn't exactly what I was asking. What does the ">" stand for?

Quote:1. The bible doesn't say that God exists

Bullshit.

Genesis 1:1, KJV Wrote:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Try again.

Quote:it says we can't know.

Then your belief in God is, by definition, irrational.

Quote:3. I find the bible to be true

No. You believe that the Bible is true. This is not a rational belief.

Quote:So it is valid subjective evidence for God.

No, it isn't.

Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Just because you say "no it is" makes no logical point.
Nice straw man. I provided the reasoning behind it. Either refute my argument or drop your incredibly stupid claims.
I'm constantly refuting your argument.

One example. One single example of a point of mine that you have refuted. Present this or stop lying.

Quote:<snip repetition>

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bullshit. You said that I couldn't "get over" the fact that there cannot be proof of God. I explained why this is erroneous.
I said to get over the fact that God isn't provable. Nothing more.

And I explained why there is nothing for me to get over. What about this do you not understand?

Quote:<snip repetition>

(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(27-11-2010 09:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's not "irrational": it's pure rationality
That contradicts this:
Quote:it doesn't rely upon proof.
You cannot have both premises as part of your argument. They are mutually exclusive.
Subjective evidence isn't evidence again.
Stop strawmanning.
I'm quoting you.

No, you're not. This is such an incredibly blatant lie that I can't understand what would make you say it when the quote is right there for everyone to see.

Quote:
Quote:Your two sentences contradict each other. The rationalization is its justification.
Only if you really want them to. You know very well what I'm saying. the point needs no further labouring only to obfuscate.

They contradict each other whether or not you want them to. Simply saying "nuh-uh" is a pathetic argument.

Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then there can be evidence, and you accept the burden of proof. So present your evidence.
Certainly. What type of proof would you like? As soon as you can suggest valid proof then I will gladly provide it for you.

If I knew of a valid proof, I wouldn't be an atheist. Make your own argument.

Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm afraid that it is you who fails to grasp the discussion.
The discussion is between you and me fella. If you're failing to communicate, you should try harder.

I really cannot state your errors any more plainly. At this point, I'm pretty much certain that you're simply willfully ignoring everything that contradicts you.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2010, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2010 06:34 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Objective > based on fact
This means...?
Not subjective
That wasn't exactly what I was asking. What does the ">" stand for
A progression. ie Objective means to be based on fact.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:1. The bible doesn't say that God exists
Bullshit.

Genesis 1:1, KJV Wrote:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Try again.
The bible assumes God. No where does it state that he exists. It is always a choice, that is necessitated. I expect you to lie to your back teeth to defend this ignorance.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:it says we can't know.
Then your belief in God is, by definition, irrational.
You've just agreed that subjective knowledge is acceptable as rational. Now you're saying only objective knowledge is acceptable again. Please try to be consistent.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:3. I find the bible to be true
No. You believe that the Bible is true. This is not a rational belief.
I don't have to believe that the bible is true, I can test it's logic which is consistent. I trust in that logic to believe in God. I don't believe in the bible, I believe in God. The bible is information about God. It's not God.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Just because you say "no it is" makes no logical point.
Nice straw man. I provided the reasoning behind it. Either refute my argument or drop your incredibly stupid claims.
I'm constantly refuting your argument.
One example. One single example of a point of mine that you have refuted. Present this or stop lying.
Circular argument. Refuted and not defended.

We're discussing your ignorance of the Christian faith.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bullshit. You said that I couldn't "get over" the fact that there cannot be proof of God. I explained why this is erroneous.
I said to get over the fact that God isn't provable. Nothing more.
And I explained why there is nothing for me to get over. What about this do you not understand?[/quote]
When you stop using the arguments I'm using against you I'll stop pointing that out to you.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Simply saying "nuh-uh" is a pathetic argument.
You seem to say "nuh-uh" an awful lot. This statement is biographical.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then there can be evidence, and you accept the burden of proof. So present your evidence.
Certainly. What type of proof would you like? As soon as you can suggest valid proof then I will gladly provide it for you.
If I knew of a valid proof, I wouldn't be an atheist. Make your own argument.
Well I know of know valid proof that fulfils the criteria, as I've explained: all would be illogical. If you can't think of any either then we seem to agree on the illogicality of the question.

(28-11-2010 05:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(28-11-2010 01:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm afraid that it is you who fails to grasp the discussion.
The discussion is between you and me fella. If you're failing to communicate, you should try harder.
I really cannot state your errors any more plainly. At this point, I'm pretty much certain that you're simply willfully ignoring everything that contradicts you.
I'm trying Unbeliever but I see nothing at all in what you've said that contradicts anything I've said. I've asked you to present your logic but all I'm getting is weak argumentation that's showing your objections to be false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: