The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And you still haven't admitted you were wrong/lying or delivered the evidence.

You're arguments are pretty bad, usually bordering on the worst anyone here ever offers. But some how in your mind, you imagine that I'm lying when I say this. As if there was some reliable polygraph it would point out that I was lying when I say this.

In your mind, you think I see them as good ones, and that deep down I know they are true. But that's not the case at all, no matter how much you want imagine that it is.

As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you. And it's not like your eager to play my game either.

"As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you."

This is the closest you've come to admitting you're full of shit, so I'll take this and elaborate a little.

Person A makes claim about a person existing.

Person B calls bullshit because of a paucity of evidence

Person A claims that there would be evidence the person they claim exists is fictional if that is true

Person B calls this as bullshit too, because it shifts the burden of proof from showing evidence of existence/non-fictionality to providing evidence of nonexistence/fictionality.

Person A gets all huffy and claims that there exists "abundant and compelling evidence" that other fictional characters are fictional.

Person B asks to see the evidence

Person A gets even more pissy, delivers nothing but red herrings, bad analogies, and various other logical fallacies while avoiding all burden of proof he has assigned himself (proving his original character is real with evidence and proving with evidence that other characters are fictional)

Person B continues to wait for evidence of Person A's admission that he can't deliver any of what he claims and that he was bullshitting (lying). Meaning that his posited character is indistinguishable from fiction, but he doesn't want to admit it Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-10-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:23 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Again here you seem to not understand what falsifiable means(in reality terms). What is convincing to you, makes you hold a belief, or seems sensible to you does not make a claim falsifiable in any way - nor if you change your stance based on any of those things that make you feel a claim is true.

Why can't theists look past their own personal "feels" and see the big picture when it comes to the criteria for claiming something as true or testable?

I can't really look past my own mind now can I? My mind is the only thing I can account for, that can assist me in discerning what's true and what's not true. If my mind doesn't find a particular claim all that convincing, there's not much I can do about that now can I?

At the same time, I can recognize the outlines of your own epistemology, what constitutes as true and false for you. In fact it wouldn't be hard to say that I subscribed to your epistemology, than I'll likely draw similar conclusions as you do. I might find your parameters too restricting, and I like my mind wildly and organically taking in the world as it does without such limitations or rules, that's served me quite well.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:23 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Again here you seem to not understand what falsifiable means(in reality terms). What is convincing to you, makes you hold a belief, or seems sensible to you does not make a claim falsifiable in any way - nor if you change your stance based on any of those things that make you feel a claim is true.

Why can't theists look past their own personal "feels" and see the big picture when it comes to the criteria for claiming something as true or testable?

I can't really look past my own mind now can I? My mind is the only thing I can account for, that can assist me in discerning what's true and what's not true. If my mind doesn't find a particular claim all that convincing, there's not much I can do about that now can I?

At the same time, I can recognize the outlines of your own epistemology, what constitutes as true and false for you. In fact it wouldn't be hard to say that I subscribed to your epistemology, than I'll likely draw similar conclusions as you do. I might find your parameters too restricting, and I like my mind wildly and organically taking in the world as it does without such limitations or rules, that's served me quite well.

Special pleading

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:45 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can't really look past my own mind now can I? My mind is the only thing I can account for, that can assist me in discerning what's true and what's not true. If my mind doesn't find a particular claim all that convincing, there's not much I can do about that now can I?

At the same time, I can recognize the outlines of your own epistemology, what constitutes as true and false for you. In fact it wouldn't be hard to say that I subscribed to your epistemology, than I'll likely draw similar conclusions as you do. I might find your parameters too restricting, and I like my mind wildly and organically taking in the world as it does without such limitations or rules, that's served me quite well.

Special pleading

More like repetitive pleading. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
21-10-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're arguments are pretty bad, usually bordering on the worst anyone here ever offers. But some how in your mind, you imagine that I'm lying when I say this. As if there was some reliable polygraph it would point out that I was lying when I say this.

In your mind, you think I see them as good ones, and that deep down I know they are true. But that's not the case at all, no matter how much you want imagine that it is.

As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you. And it's not like your eager to play my game either.

"As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you."

This is the closest you've come to admitting you're full of shit, so I'll take this and elaborate a little.

Person A makes claim about a person existing.

Person B calls bullshit because of a paucity of evidence

Person A claims that there would be evidence the person they claim exists is fictional if that is true

Person B calls this as bullshit too, because it shifts the burden of proof from showing evidence of existence/non-fictionality to providing evidence of nonexistence/fictionality.

Person A gets all huffy and claims that there exists "abundant and compelling evidence" that other fictional characters are fictional.

Person B asks to see the evidence

Person A gets even more pissy, delivers nothing but red herrings, bad analogies, and various other logical fallacies while avoiding all burden of proof he has assigned himself (proving his original character is real with evidence and proving with evidence that other characters are fictional)

Person B continues to wait for evidence of Person A's admission that he can't deliver any of what he claims and that he was bullshitting (lying). Meaning that his posited character is indistinguishable from fiction, but he doesn't want to admit it Drinking Beverage

You forgot that Person A states that the copyright claim, similarities in composition between a work, and the genre of fiction at the time, is evidence in support of a character being fictional.

Person B states that's "not evidence".

When person B is offered evidence, his main defense is arguing that it's "not evidence", perhaps conflating evidence with proof, but that's not all that clear.

Person B doesn't also clarify whether inferring that a work is fictional based on these things, is reasonable or not. Or whether reasonable inference can be drawn from his category of "not evidence".

Person B does a good job of equivocating, and avoids attempts to correct his equivocations at every turn. He suffers from unwillingness to expand and clarify his own views.

Person B will likely not offer an actual response to this post, besides claiming it a red herring, or posting a cute meme.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:55 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you."

This is the closest you've come to admitting you're full of shit, so I'll take this and elaborate a little.

Person A makes claim about a person existing.

Person B calls bullshit because of a paucity of evidence

Person A claims that there would be evidence the person they claim exists is fictional if that is true

Person B calls this as bullshit too, because it shifts the burden of proof from showing evidence of existence/non-fictionality to providing evidence of nonexistence/fictionality.

Person A gets all huffy and claims that there exists "abundant and compelling evidence" that other fictional characters are fictional.

Person B asks to see the evidence

Person A gets even more pissy, delivers nothing but red herrings, bad analogies, and various other logical fallacies while avoiding all burden of proof he has assigned himself (proving his original character is real with evidence and proving with evidence that other characters are fictional)

Person B continues to wait for evidence of Person A's admission that he can't deliver any of what he claims and that he was bullshitting (lying). Meaning that his posited character is indistinguishable from fiction, but he doesn't want to admit it Drinking Beverage

You forgot that Person A states that the copyright claim, similarities in composition between a work, and the genre of fiction at the time, is evidence in support of a character being fictional.

Person B states that's "not evidence".

When person B is offered evidence, his main defense is arguing that it's "not evidence", perhaps conflating evidence with proof, but that's not all that clear.

Person B doesn't also clarify whether inferring that a work is fictional based on these things, is reasonable or not. Or whether reasonable inference can be drawn from the his category of "not evidence".

Person B does a good job of equivocating, and avoids attempts to correct his equivocations at every turn. He suffers from unwillingness to expand and clarify his own views.

Person B will likely respond to this post claiming it's red herring, or posting a cute meme.

"Person B states that's "not evidence"."

Written/verbal claim of existence. Written/verbal claim of nonexistence. Ergo, NOT EVIDENCE

"When person B is offered evidence, his main defense is arguing that it's "not evidence", perhaps conflating evidence with proof, but that's not all that clear. "

"Abundant and compelling evidence" is all Person B is asking Person A to deliver, which he promised. Instead, he offers up bullshit counterclaims and presents opinion as evidence.

"Person B doesn't also clarify whether inferring that a work is fictional based on these things, is reasonable or not. Or whether reasonable inference can be drawn from the his category of "not evidence"."

Person A wouldn't infer their bible is fiction based on these things, so Person B rejects the circumstantial evidence Person A wants so badly to bullshit (opinion).

"Person B does a good job of equivocating, and avoids attempts to correct his equivocations at every turn. He suffers from unwillingness to expand and clarify his own views."

You don't know what equivocating means.

I've explained my position very clearly, multiple times. You claim there can be evidence of fictionality/nonexistence for characters like Harry Potter (under the assumption that your Jesus character would have this same evidence for its fictionality/nonexistence too), but you don't deliver.

"Person B will likely respond to this post claiming it's red herring, or posting a cute meme."

Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-10-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
I just want to point out that my labeling of "Person A" and "Person B" isn't an attempt at passive-aggression, it is to make it as clear as possible the idiocy in your position, your claims, and your attempted dodging while you try to relieve yourself of the burden of proof.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And sure if someone "proved" to me that the idea of God cannot be true, and I actually bought the argument they peddled I'd probably stop believe in God all together.

Your bias is showing! "Peddled" - really?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
21-10-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:23 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Why can't theists look past their own personal "feels" and see the big picture when it comes to the criteria for claiming something as true or testable?

I can't really look past my own mind now can I? My mind is the only thing I can account for, that can assist me in discerning what's true and what's not true. If my mind doesn't find a particular claim all that convincing, there's not much I can do about that now can I?

At the same time, I can recognize the outlines of your own epistemology, what constitutes as true and false for you. In fact it wouldn't be hard to say that I subscribed to your epistemology, than I'll likely draw similar conclusions as you do. I might find your parameters too restricting, and I like my mind wildly and organically taking in the world as it does without such limitations or rules, that's served me quite well.

What? So you have all the smarts to discern what is true or not in this world/universe? There is much you can do about it - like trust the scientific method, and the experts in all fields of learning. If I told you that to me it cannot make sense that my body is made up of trillions and trillions of atoms, would that be true to me? I mean, I can't hold and see an atom in front of me so it must be hogwash. What if I said that the closest galaxy is only 1000 miles from us as I cannot grasp that the universe is as big as folks say? Don't make sense to me that light takes millions of years to travel between galaxies - I can't see that happening so am I correct in my conclusions?

There are limitations and rules in discerning truth and fact. Without these guidelines, dolts like you can claim anything to be true, teach it to our children, and eventually wind up on websites like this desperately trying to defend why this is an acceptable method for understanding the world. I fully understand theism makes sense to you - got it, but you need to know when to give up defending a totally ineffective method for calling this claim as "truth" and having falsifiable "evidence".

You could have quit in your third post here and made off with a bit more respect than you have garnered since then - just sayin'.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
21-10-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 09:34 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can't really look past my own mind now can I? My mind is the only thing I can account for, that can assist me in discerning what's true and what's not true. If my mind doesn't find a particular claim all that convincing, there's not much I can do about that now can I?

At the same time, I can recognize the outlines of your own epistemology, what constitutes as true and false for you. In fact it wouldn't be hard to say that I subscribed to your epistemology, than I'll likely draw similar conclusions as you do. I might find your parameters too restricting, and I like my mind wildly and organically taking in the world as it does without such limitations or rules, that's served me quite well.

What? So you have all the smarts to discern what is true or not in this world/universe? There is much you can do about it - like trust the scientific method, and the experts in all fields of learning. If I told you that to me it cannot make sense that my body is made up of trillions and trillions of atoms, would that be true to me? I mean, I can't hold and see an atom in front of me so it must be hogwash. What if I said that the closest galaxy is only 1000 miles from us as I cannot grasp that the universe is as big as folks say? Don't make sense to me that light takes millions of years to travel between galaxies - I can't see that happening so am I correct in my conclusions?

There are limitations and rules in discerning truth and fact. Without these guidelines, dolts like you can claim anything to be true, teach it to our children, and eventually wind up on websites like this desperately trying to defend why this is an acceptable method for understanding the world. I fully understand theism makes sense to you - got it, but you need to know when to give up defending a totally ineffective method for calling this claim as "truth" and having falsifiable "evidence".

You could have quit in your third post here and made off with a bit more respect than you have garnered since then - just sayin'.

My favorite part of his 3rd post is this: "Well, for one the work would be consistent with works at the time that fall under the genre of fiction, a better written version, of what I might compose if I wanted to write a fictional story about a young wizard."

A work being consistent with fiction/myth is enough to convince him that Harry Potter and the magical world of wizards are fiction, but the bible being consistent with myth/fictions of the time isn't.

You have to "love" the consistency of theistic arguments. Laughat

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: