[jason700]

Khar Khar:

1:35 is one of the most overused fallacies I see in the religion debate, from both sides. Burden shifting is definitely a problem, but in this field it's kind of odd in the result achieved. It's not as if the point of view that there is no god becomes intrinsically right if the other side can't back up their view. To be honest, it's nitpicking over irrelevancies to some degree.

The problem is that some atheists approach the discussion from the point of view that, as atheists, they have never made a positive claim (or have some intrinsic scientific understanding of the universe). However, coming into a thread like this and stating that "god doesn't exist" is the positive statement (of disbelief) and hence the onus is on atheists. A lot of times this is followed up by "you can't prove a negative," which fails to hold up in reality on two fronts.

The first is that you never prove anything in reality -- proof is for alcohol. The second is that positive disbelief does exist, which does require evidence to back it up. It seems that this derived the "you can't prove a negative" thing which popped up over the internet and grew as a defense for everything... except when it turned to bite the biggest users of it in the butt, then it became unacceptable to use.

In short, some supporters of both extremes of this argument are kind of silly in the use of fallacies and pseudo-skepticism. It is most definitely not a theist or atheist problem defined by a belief, but the individual humans behind those points of view.

I agree.. but it's still not difficult to move a ball onto the theists' side of the court.

[Lemmy]

sandorski sandorski:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And yet, you just proved my point by proving my example.

Not really. No one is saying that "Negatives" do not exist. A Negative Argument/Proving a Negative is a form of Logical Fallacy. The Title of that Fallacy is more involved than just the words in the title.

Yeah, I got a "B" in first-year philosophy too. You surely noticed the .

[jason700]

sandorski sandorski:

jason700 jason700:

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests?

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Did you seriously just try to answer my question with a question?

*sigh*

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests..

Anyone?

[sandorski]

Lemmy Lemmy:

sandorski sandorski:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And yet, you just proved my point by proving my example.

Not really. No one is saying that "Negatives" do not exist. A Negative Argument/Proving a Negative is a form of Logical Fallacy. The Title of that Fallacy is more involved than just the words in the title.

Yeah, I got a "B" in first-year philosophy too. You surely noticed the .

Perhaps Khar is beating around the bush on this because what we're really discussing here is called Argument from Ignorance?

[sandorski]

jason700 jason700:

sandorski sandorski:

jason700 jason700:

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests?

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Did you seriously just try to answer my question with a question?

*sigh*

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests..

Anyone?

No, just pointing out the absurdity of your question to begin with.

[Khar]

jason, I definitely agree with what you said, as I said at the bottom of that post. However, I wanted to point out the specific problems which effect atheism since that was the general direction this topic has headed, sorry for any confusion! It's more of a problem with the people using the terminology than the beliefs they adhere to.

Sandorski, I am using the actual terminology of where you henpecked the line "You can't prove a negative" from. To be short, trying to use that line without understanding what I just said basically means you have not read up on that line's background or what it means to verify it before using it.

Thanks for not doing the simple google search which would have demonstrated perfectly that the logical fallacy is "You can't prove a negative," even though I stated it would be a good idea.

Those pages either take you to (mostly atheist) sites which discuss or link to sites which discuss why what I said is true. Since I made a "negative" (by your lexicon) statement of "You can't prove a negative" is untrue, it is down to me to prove it... perhaps with those links above?

[sandorski]

Khar Khar:

jason, I definitely agree with what you said, as I said at the bottom of that post. However, I wanted to point out the specific problems which effect atheism since that was the general direction this topic has headed, sorry for any confusion! It's more of a problem with the people using the terminology than the beliefs they adhere to.

Sandorski, I am using the actual terminology of where you henpecked the line "You can't prove a negative" from. To be short, trying to use that line without understanding what I just said basically means you have not read up on that line's background or what it means to verify it before using it.

Thanks for not doing the simple google search which would have demonstrated perfectly that the logical fallacy is "You can't prove a negative," even though I stated it would be a good idea.

Those pages either take you to (mostly atheist) sites which discuss or link to sites which discuss why what I said is true. Since I made a "negative" (by your lexicon) statement of "You can't prove a negative" is untrue, it is down to me to prove it... perhaps with those links above?

When we are discussing, as we are, a subject that has no Positive Proof, it is impossible to Prove a Negative. If we are discussing something that has Positive Proof, such as Cancer as one example uses, then a Negative can be Proved.

[EyeBrock]

Sand, you are so full of utter bollocks.

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Holy fuck... really?

Why do we need football stadiums costing Millions?

[jason700]

sandorski sandorski:

No, just pointing out the absurdity of your question to begin with.

I don't think it's an absurd question at all, so allow me to point out the absurdity of your argument... Red Herring.

You're saying that because churches spend so much money on their buildings, ads, etc... that the right course of action for athiests is to do the same as much as possible. I'd hate to strawman you, so let me know if I'm wrong here.

Didn't your parents and/or teachers and/or anyone who was older than you at the time teach you that two wrongs do not make a right?

My "absurd" question still stands..

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests..

[Khar]

@ Sand: Positive "evidence."

Repeating yourself does not mean that Google search disappears or magically reorders to pages which agree with you. Nor does it mean that those links I just provided do not exist. I have brought up similar topics before for you. With links.

It's pointless repeating yourself if you aren't at least willing to take the time to read sources from atheist and alternative websites which point out that such an assumption is perhaps wrong. I went out of my way to find sources on that Google search which I felt you would find more acceptable.

In addition, the lexicon I am using, with "positive" and "negative," are part of the lexicon used previously by yourself in another thread (and in this one) by posting that someone who issues the positive claim must back up that statement with evidence. This is merely an extension of that. If you wish to use such terminology, I will bring this up if I feel it's being used incorrectly (and it's always possible I am wrong, which is why I usually come bearing links).

[sandorski]

jason700 jason700:

sandorski sandorski:

No, just pointing out the absurdity of your question to begin with.

I don't think it's an absurd question at all, so allow me to point out the absurdity of your argument... Red Herring.

You're saying that because churches spend so much money on their buildings, ads, etc... that the right course of action for athiests is to do the same as much as possible. I'd hate to strawman you, so let me know if I'm wrong here.

Didn't your parents and/or teachers and/or anyone who was older than you at the time teach you that two wrongs do not make a right?

My "absurd" question still stands..

Would it not have been just as effective to donate $20000 to a food bank or an important charity instead of making a billboard?

... as far as representing a positive image of athiests..

Thanks for making my point. Your question was absurd.

[sandorski]

Khar Khar:

@ Sand: Positive "evidence."

Repeating yourself does not mean that Google search disappears or magically reorders to pages which agree with you. Nor does it mean that those links I just provided do not exist. I have brought up similar topics before for you. With links.

It's pointless repeating yourself if you aren't at least willing to take the time to read sources from atheist and alternative websites which point out that such an assumption is perhaps wrong. I went out of my way to find sources on that Google search which I felt you would find more acceptable.

In addition, the lexicon I am using, with "positive" and "negative," are part of the lexicon used previously by yourself in another thread (and in this one) by posting that someone who issues the positive claim must back up that statement with evidence. This is merely an extension of that. If you wish to use such terminology, I will bring this up if I feel it's being used incorrectly (and it's always possible I am wrong, which is why I usually come bearing links).

Let's drag this back on topic. Can one Prove God does not exist?

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Holy fuck... really?

Why do we need football stadiums costing Millions?

Basically, we don't, but that's besides the point.

[Public_Domain]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Holy fuck... really?

Why do we need football stadiums costing Millions?

Well Gunnair, that's a good question, isn't it...