Watching Ravi's videos (and Michael Ramsden, John Lennox) it is becoming easier to spot logical fallacies - my fav is the self-defeating statement. 'Everything is relative', 'There are some things we cannot know.', 'There is no God and He is an evil bastard.' I love it. BassP86, your education is what? Your arguments are awesome. If only the weight of a good debate could actually change people (not the audience). It would be a kick to see one of the New Atheists convert 75% of way through.
altho no atheist can argue against God at all, in any way, since atheism denies & rejects logic, reason, truth, lies, freewill, value, purpose, personhood & morality since, in atheism, due to naturalism & materialism. we're simply machines of matter constructed by a dna molecule in space & time made by & obeying physics. atheism is the epitome of ALL evil...for it doesnt even sustain or contain ANY good, evil, value, purpose, freewill & personhood. THAT! is the epitome of all evil.
Well whereas I agree with you and atheism is not, in and of itself, designed to give any propositional content, that in NO way implies atheism is the epitome of evil. As Christians, it is no different for us to to call atheism evil then Muslims to say that all non-believers are infidels. It doesn't solve anything, nor does it accomplish anything apart from breeding hatred, and THAT is the TRUE epitome of evil.
@BassP86 well...it proposes that God doesnt exist...thats a lie & a very very big evil 1 due to the results of just that 1 proposition. so..yes. it is evil all by itself. atheism is an idea. & it came from, is & of evil. it goes back to satan in the garden of eden. satan period. & yes it does. telling the truth always helps. lik saying ppl ar goin to hell. ppl need to know whats evil & what isnt. it isnt breeding hatred...hatred for atheism yes. but not the atheist. that wasnt ever the point.
every atheists arguments against God ARE dead. they never were alive. if there is no absolute standard of morals, personhood & logic, then their subjective. & if their subjective, there might as well not be none. why? THEIR ALL! JUST AS VALID, RIGHTEOUS, HOLY, TRUE & PERFECT AS ANY OTHER! THEREFORE, WHAT REAL ARGUMENT CAN ANY1 HAV FOR OR AGAINST ANY1? WHEN GOD, IF ATHEISM BE TRUE, IS JUST AS VALID, RIGHTEOUS, HOLY, TRUE & PERFECT AS YOU! I LOVE IT! A+++ TO JESUS! AMEN! ITS WIN BY DEFAULT!!
Atheism is not inherently evil, it is only a product of evil. Therefore be VERY, VERY careful in your words when discussing atheism, because if you continue to base your critical thinking based on this ideology you're presenting, it will distort your overall view of people who are atheists, and therefore effect how you treat them as individuals.
@BassP86 that lik saying rape isnt evil unto itself, just a product of it. u have the source & act. & BOTH are evil unto themselves. thats true. its very important not to hate any1. BUT!, we should hate their belief(s), action(s), & anything,(wickedness) that isnt in line with the 1 true God. we should tell people, lik atheists, that their belief is an epitome of evil, NOT HATEFUL & CONDESCENDING on a pedastel, but with humble, respectful OBJECTIVE TRUTH & LOVE. truth, lik lies, kills (goodly)
@howtogetsaved rape isn't evil in itself. people that get into BDSM can put theirselves in a mindset where they truly believe they're the victim, but they enjoy it.
nothing is evil in itself. if you have malicious intention, but something good is produced by accident, you have sinned. if you don't have malicious intention, but something evil is produced by accident, you have not sinned.
it's not what you do or say, it's what you mean by it that matters.
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying that atheism offers no rational basis to make sense of things, but it's completely different to say that a lack of rationality is what makes atheism evil and therefore atheists can't be good. Think about it. How would atheists perceive that? To them it means you believe they are evil too, which I'm sure you & I agree is not true. Atheists CAN be good people, but they can't justify why that is the case. Big difference.
@BassP86 not just that lack, but the lack of EVERY good. which i think files it under epitome of evil. it offers NO GOOD OR EVIL at all. not meaning to say that as hateful spite, but in OBJECTIVE TRUTH & LOVE. truth has to be known. if its hurts, it hurts. its supposed to oppose any who are contrary to it. such is its own nature. as is the latter. well...yes. they are evil. Bible says so. every1 to a degree. they should know that instead of ignorance is bliss. i get the point tho. ur right there
@BassP86 yes. they CAN be good. because their belief is wrong. i get what ur saying, which is why u gotta be careful how u hand that to them. cuz they could interpret it very wrongly. lik God & us hate them, & that they REALLY ARE just its (& god & us view them that way) & should be treated as such. not the point of God at all of course. but its The Bible how...they are evil. BUT! again, we are commanded not to hate them, JUST THEIR WICKEDNESS. we shud come REAL truth & love.
@howtogetsaved I really don't think you do understand him.
Shouting at people that they are doing evil is only going to draw them away from christianity more than anything.
Hate the evil all you want, but there's no need to ever tell anyone that you hate evilness itself, otherwise you are strongly implying that an object or person is evil.
im not & wasnt shouting. just emphaticly stating. i said THEIR BELIEF is evil. not them. (which we all r to sum degree) "Hate the evil all you want, but there's no need to ever tell anyone that you hate evilness itself, (God said it 1st) otherwise you are strongly implying that an object or person is evil." again, God said it 1st. there is nothing wrong with saying their evil. its HOW u say it that matters. that's part of The Gospel. recognizing sin & that u need a saviour. but i get u.
@chrismrulz we are COMMANDED to SAY IT WITH & IN LOVE. not shouting saying "u r gonna burn in hell, haha". so i get what u mean. but, we are to identify & tell people (quote scripture) what God says. including, whats right & wrong there is nothing wrong with identifying wickedness & therefore the wicked. but we are to do it in truth & LOVE, not spite, hate, superiority, etc... not to alienate them, but to say "hey, this is a real problem for you, so please let God help/save u, HE loves you."
@howtogetsaved You didn't prove anything. Nowhere did that verse command you to quote bible verses in anyone's face, and I didn't say anyone is not righteous.
I said, "A does not equal B. Prove that A = B."
You said, "That's not true. Because X = Z and F = G. I can prove you're wrong. T=T."
You are not my enemy, I was formally debating you as a fellow Christian.
But now that you mention it, you are retarding humanity itself. People like you are why more people are becoming atheists daily.
"But now that you mention it, you are retarding humanity itself." - Please refrain from using comments in video boards that show disrespect to other people, even if you think they are wrong in what they are doing.
ok just making sure. & it had all the relevance in the world, had u have actually read it, all. u & ur link assumes the existence of personhood, meaning, purpose, good & evil, moral law, the mind, reason, truth & freewill. which, atheism does & can not provide. which is what my link was about. to point out that u, ur arguments, & ur link, are debunked totally. & y cant i? if The Bible is right... & well, arent u close to apes? doesnt matter what u evolved from. the point was u believe u evolved.
@howtogetsaved You've assumed I'm an atheist because I'm intelligent, which is ironic.
I'm just a christian that happens to not be close-minded.
My thesis is debating AGAINST evolution the entire way, but you've just put me in a position where I need to defend it because your argument was ignorant.
Atheists don't BELIEVE in evolution, they have almost flawless scientific evidence.
But they have a presupposition that their knowledge is justified, even though it comes from a subjective reality.
i didnt assume ur inteligent. i assumed u r against God. which alot if not all of you contradicts The Bible like that website u posted. ur Christian? i couldnt tell. my argument isn't ignorant. i simply applied it falsely. im sory. its perfectly valid against an atheist. but if u are a believer, then it does some good & it doesnt matter. atheism must. evolution is the only way life got here in atheism. & evolution is not flawless it is a pure flaw. i have a pdf + mor to prove it
Ok I want to apologize. I'm a practicing Buddhist and even though I think you're wrong, that still doesn't give me a right to be arrogant; which is dishonorable on my part.
Also I hate to say this but I think you're really misinformed about much of what you're advocating and objecting to. I'm sorry but I really don't see this conversation to be tangible at all. Thank you for the discussion && take care.
@BassP86 3) I mean are you KIDDING ME!! Go look up "Legal Burden of Proof". If I charge you with a crime then it is up to me "the Prosecution" to provide substantial reason and evidence that you did said offense.
Another excerpt, Latin maxim: "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
!BassP86 1) Sir you are gravely misinformed about what the burden of proof fallacy is. In Logic you are never required to disprove a negative. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the positive assertion. If so then I could make a positive assertion about anything and the burden of proof would be on you to disprove it. If I said "Rainbow Pandas exist! What you say they don't! Well then prove it!!" ha That's ridiculous.
@BasP86 2) Here's an excerpt, "Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made." Now I've demonstrated to you the pragmatic usage of the fallacy and have given you a comprehensive definition. GO LOOK IT UP!!
@BassP86 Yes Atheism says something does not exist, "X does not exist." Ergo Atheism is a Metaphysical distinction NOT an Ethical one. Once again Is/Ought. You cannot derive an Ethical distinction from Atheism anymore than from the statement "This is an Apple."
Ravi Zacharias wouldn't know this because he has no degree in Philosophy.
Actually, Zacharias and I would agree in atheism as a belief in God's nonexistence.
Zacharias argues that the reasons WHY atheists choose to remain is purely moral, rather than intellectual, especially because atheism at its core is self-contradictory. In order to know something does not exist, one must have absolute knowledge of all things within that designated category. Saying God does not exist assumes the claimer has infinite that there is no being with infinite knowledge.
@BassP86 Right.. Atheism ha is the lack of belief in a God. The affirmation there is no God, goes into whats called Strong & Weak Atheism.
But ha that doesn't matter because at this point you've just "frame-shifted" the discussion. Why the hell are we talking about Pandas now? You stated a position and I gave you my objections. Now you've subsequently abandoned that and are now just arguing for.. what you think is a stronger position.
Typo: Saying God does not exist assumes the claimer has inifnite KNOWLEDGE that there exists no being with infinite knowledge. Claiming an absolute negative, whether one likes it or not, is more often than not self-defeating, because absolute negatives require absolute knowledge to the FULLEST extent. Claiming something DOES exist requires absolute knowledge to the LEAST extent. Ex: in order to claim there exist giant pandas in Africa, I must see AT LEAST one panda in Africa.
@BassP86 1) Tell you what ha I shouldn't do this but I'll entertain this idea for a second. Now you're making an "appeal to ignorance". A negative claim doesn't require knowledge of everything; it requires knowledge of something/the thing in question. A negative claim is simply a response in rejection to a positive claim. In Logic "The burden of proof" always relies on the one making the positive assertion. A negative position requires almost little proof of the positive claim.
When you say "I don't need proof of ALL pandas; only of Giant Pandas" when a making positive claim that there are Giant Pandas in Africa, it concedes my point. Making a positive claim that GPs exist in Africa only requires one to have knowledge of a MINIMUM number of GP's in Africa, if any at all. The same applies to God. If God does not exist, then atheist is claiming that all Gods are false, therefore must have absolute knowledge of all Gods in order to be justified.
The way that becomes directly linked to the moral side of atheism is this: Most self-proclaimed atheists know that an absolute negative (i.e. "there is no God") is self-defeating and impossible to defend. Therefore most of them resort to calling themselves people who "lack belief in God", coming in from the back door so to speak. Yes, the claim itself that "there is no God" is a metaphysical one, absolutely, but that's not the point I'm making at all.
My point is that whereas the claim is metaphysical, the REASONS for making the claim are NOT based on fact at all, especially because an absolute negative is more often than not, impossible to defend. The REASONS for making the claim are entirely based on MORAL progenitors.
ha I'm sorry I don't mean to laugh its just.. I mean come'on! Usually you use an RAA or lead them into a contradiction' but no you just totally fucking ignored what I said and just changed the subject on me. LOL just a complete non sequitur haha
I apologize for not being clear. Claiming an absolute negative is directly linked to the moral side of atheism. The atheist who argues that the burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive claim, is actually not arguing on an intellectual level, but on a moral one. They are actually saying that unless God is proven, then He cannot even be considered logically possible. You're misinformed on the burden of proof. It is on whoever makes the claim, period.
Knowing that giant pandas exist in Africa require a MINIMUM amount of evidence, and are NOT required the MAXIMUM burden of proof, though I may still wish to look for more giant pandas if I wish.
However, claiming giant pandas do NOT exist in Africa (whether in captivity/in the wild/etc.) requires that I know EVERYTHING about Africa in order to know that giant pandas do not exist anywhere on the continent, and that's a HUGE difference.
Watching Ravi's videos (and Michael Ramsden, John Lennox) it is becoming easier to spot logical fallacies - my fav is the self-defeating statement. 'Everything is relative', 'There are some things we cannot know.', 'There is no God and He is an evil bastard.' I love it. BassP86, your education is what? Your arguments are awesome. If only the weight of a good debate could actually change people (not the audience). It would be a kick to see one of the New Atheists convert 75% of way through.
quakerman7 2 months ago
altho no atheist can argue against God at all, in any way, since atheism denies & rejects logic, reason, truth, lies, freewill, value, purpose, personhood & morality since, in atheism, due to naturalism & materialism. we're simply machines of matter constructed by a dna molecule in space & time made by & obeying physics. atheism is the epitome of ALL evil...for it doesnt even sustain or contain ANY good, evil, value, purpose, freewill & personhood. THAT! is the epitome of all evil.
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
@howtogetsaved
Well whereas I agree with you and atheism is not, in and of itself, designed to give any propositional content, that in NO way implies atheism is the epitome of evil. As Christians, it is no different for us to to call atheism evil then Muslims to say that all non-believers are infidels. It doesn't solve anything, nor does it accomplish anything apart from breeding hatred, and THAT is the TRUE epitome of evil.
(cont.)
BassP86 9 months ago
@BassP86 well...it proposes that God doesnt exist...thats a lie & a very very big evil 1 due to the results of just that 1 proposition. so..yes. it is evil all by itself. atheism is an idea. & it came from, is & of evil. it goes back to satan in the garden of eden. satan period. & yes it does. telling the truth always helps. lik saying ppl ar goin to hell. ppl need to know whats evil & what isnt. it isnt breeding hatred...hatred for atheism yes. but not the atheist. that wasnt ever the point.
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
every atheists arguments against God ARE dead. they never were alive. if there is no absolute standard of morals, personhood & logic, then their subjective. & if their subjective, there might as well not be none. why? THEIR ALL! JUST AS VALID, RIGHTEOUS, HOLY, TRUE & PERFECT AS ANY OTHER! THEREFORE, WHAT REAL ARGUMENT CAN ANY1 HAV FOR OR AGAINST ANY1? WHEN GOD, IF ATHEISM BE TRUE, IS JUST AS VALID, RIGHTEOUS, HOLY, TRUE & PERFECT AS YOU! I LOVE IT! A+++ TO JESUS! AMEN! ITS WIN BY DEFAULT!!
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
@howtogetsaved
(cont.)
Atheism is not inherently evil, it is only a product of evil. Therefore be VERY, VERY careful in your words when discussing atheism, because if you continue to base your critical thinking based on this ideology you're presenting, it will distort your overall view of people who are atheists, and therefore effect how you treat them as individuals.
(cont.)
BassP86 9 months ago
@BassP86 that lik saying rape isnt evil unto itself, just a product of it. u have the source & act. & BOTH are evil unto themselves. thats true. its very important not to hate any1. BUT!, we should hate their belief(s), action(s), & anything,(wickedness) that isnt in line with the 1 true God. we should tell people, lik atheists, that their belief is an epitome of evil, NOT HATEFUL & CONDESCENDING on a pedastel, but with humble, respectful OBJECTIVE TRUTH & LOVE. truth, lik lies, kills (goodly)
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
@howtogetsaved rape isn't evil in itself. people that get into BDSM can put theirselves in a mindset where they truly believe they're the victim, but they enjoy it.
nothing is evil in itself. if you have malicious intention, but something good is produced by accident, you have sinned. if you don't have malicious intention, but something evil is produced by accident, you have not sinned.
it's not what you do or say, it's what you mean by it that matters.
you are representing christianity poorly.
chrismrulz 7 months ago
@howtogetsaved
(cont.)
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying that atheism offers no rational basis to make sense of things, but it's completely different to say that a lack of rationality is what makes atheism evil and therefore atheists can't be good. Think about it. How would atheists perceive that? To them it means you believe they are evil too, which I'm sure you & I agree is not true. Atheists CAN be good people, but they can't justify why that is the case. Big difference.
BassP86 9 months ago
@BassP86 not just that lack, but the lack of EVERY good. which i think files it under epitome of evil. it offers NO GOOD OR EVIL at all. not meaning to say that as hateful spite, but in OBJECTIVE TRUTH & LOVE. truth has to be known. if its hurts, it hurts. its supposed to oppose any who are contrary to it. such is its own nature. as is the latter. well...yes. they are evil. Bible says so. every1 to a degree. they should know that instead of ignorance is bliss. i get the point tho. ur right there
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
@BassP86 yes. they CAN be good. because their belief is wrong. i get what ur saying, which is why u gotta be careful how u hand that to them. cuz they could interpret it very wrongly. lik God & us hate them, & that they REALLY ARE just its (& god & us view them that way) & should be treated as such. not the point of God at all of course. but its The Bible how...they are evil. BUT! again, we are commanded not to hate them, JUST THEIR WICKEDNESS. we shud come REAL truth & love.
howtogetsaved 9 months ago
@howtogetsaved I really don't think you do understand him.
Shouting at people that they are doing evil is only going to draw them away from christianity more than anything.
Hate the evil all you want, but there's no need to ever tell anyone that you hate evilness itself, otherwise you are strongly implying that an object or person is evil.
chrismrulz 7 months ago
im not & wasnt shouting. just emphaticly stating. i said THEIR BELIEF is evil. not them. (which we all r to sum degree) "Hate the evil all you want, but there's no need to ever tell anyone that you hate evilness itself, (God said it 1st) otherwise you are strongly implying that an object or person is evil." again, God said it 1st. there is nothing wrong with saying their evil. its HOW u say it that matters. that's part of The Gospel. recognizing sin & that u need a saviour. but i get u.
howtogetsaved 7 months ago
@chrismrulz we are COMMANDED to SAY IT WITH & IN LOVE. not shouting saying "u r gonna burn in hell, haha". so i get what u mean. but, we are to identify & tell people (quote scripture) what God says. including, whats right & wrong there is nothing wrong with identifying wickedness & therefore the wicked. but we are to do it in truth & LOVE, not spite, hate, superiority, etc... not to alienate them, but to say "hey, this is a real problem for you, so please let God help/save u, HE loves you."
howtogetsaved 7 months ago
@howtogetsaved No we aren't. Nowhere does the bible say that. Ever.
This is the problem with christianity. People adding their own ritualistic bullshit.
"We are commanded to quote shit from the bible at you and tell you you're wrong because you are wrong."
It would be like someone telling you that unicorns with dildos on their heads command you to repent.
If they gave you a reason for magic dildo unicorns existing, you might listen though. I try to do that.
Read this: tinyurl .com /gthesis
chrismrulz 7 months ago
Psalms 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: - Romans 3:10
well...u r wrong. i can prove it. & u dont need to be rude. i am NOT your enemy & neither, especially, is God. †♥
+ ur link is wrong. & i can prove that 2 using your own belief. i cant send the link to u via comment, so i'll send it to u via PM.
howtogetsaved 7 months ago
@howtogetsaved You didn't prove anything. Nowhere did that verse command you to quote bible verses in anyone's face, and I didn't say anyone is not righteous.
I said, "A does not equal B. Prove that A = B."
You said, "That's not true. Because X = Z and F = G. I can prove you're wrong. T=T."
You are not my enemy, I was formally debating you as a fellow Christian.
But now that you mention it, you are retarding humanity itself. People like you are why more people are becoming atheists daily.
chrismrulz 7 months ago
@chrismrulz
"But now that you mention it, you are retarding humanity itself." - Please refrain from using comments in video boards that show disrespect to other people, even if you think they are wrong in what they are doing.
BassP86 7 months ago
Comment removed
chrismrulz 7 months ago
WTF. I especially didn't say God is my enemy.
The links you sent me had no contextual relevance to anything I've talked with you about, or the link to my thesis.
You can't just say things because they involve the use of a biblical reference all the time.
How you have managed to survive all this time when challenged with objectives such as not scalding yourself with hot water eludes me.
You're giving atheists closer references to apes being our common ancestor just by being alive. Stop that.
chrismrulz 7 months ago
ok just making sure. & it had all the relevance in the world, had u have actually read it, all. u & ur link assumes the existence of personhood, meaning, purpose, good & evil, moral law, the mind, reason, truth & freewill. which, atheism does & can not provide. which is what my link was about. to point out that u, ur arguments, & ur link, are debunked totally. & y cant i? if The Bible is right... & well, arent u close to apes? doesnt matter what u evolved from. the point was u believe u evolved.
howtogetsaved 7 months ago
@howtogetsaved You've assumed I'm an atheist because I'm intelligent, which is ironic.
I'm just a christian that happens to not be close-minded.
My thesis is debating AGAINST evolution the entire way, but you've just put me in a position where I need to defend it because your argument was ignorant.
Atheists don't BELIEVE in evolution, they have almost flawless scientific evidence.
But they have a presupposition that their knowledge is justified, even though it comes from a subjective reality.
chrismrulz 7 months ago
i didnt assume ur inteligent. i assumed u r against God. which alot if not all of you contradicts The Bible like that website u posted. ur Christian? i couldnt tell. my argument isn't ignorant. i simply applied it falsely. im sory. its perfectly valid against an atheist. but if u are a believer, then it does some good & it doesnt matter. atheism must. evolution is the only way life got here in atheism. & evolution is not flawless it is a pure flaw. i have a pdf + mor to prove it
howtogetsaved 7 months ago
Ok I want to apologize. I'm a practicing Buddhist and even though I think you're wrong, that still doesn't give me a right to be arrogant; which is dishonorable on my part.
Also I hate to say this but I think you're really misinformed about much of what you're advocating and objecting to. I'm sorry but I really don't see this conversation to be tangible at all. Thank you for the discussion && take care.
- juls
bananabread119 11 months ago
@BassP86 3) I mean are you KIDDING ME!! Go look up "Legal Burden of Proof". If I charge you with a crime then it is up to me "the Prosecution" to provide substantial reason and evidence that you did said offense.
Another excerpt, Latin maxim: "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
bananabread119 11 months ago
!BassP86 1) Sir you are gravely misinformed about what the burden of proof fallacy is. In Logic you are never required to disprove a negative. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the positive assertion. If so then I could make a positive assertion about anything and the burden of proof would be on you to disprove it. If I said "Rainbow Pandas exist! What you say they don't! Well then prove it!!" ha That's ridiculous.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@BasP86 2) Here's an excerpt, "Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made." Now I've demonstrated to you the pragmatic usage of the fallacy and have given you a comprehensive definition. GO LOOK IT UP!!
bananabread119 11 months ago
1st off Ravi is an Idiot!!
Atheism is a Metaphysical claim not an ethical claim. Atheism is an example of what is the case NOT what ought be the case. is/Ought anyone??
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
So are you saying atheism is a belief that God does not exist?
BassP86 11 months ago
@BassP86 Yes Atheism says something does not exist, "X does not exist." Ergo Atheism is a Metaphysical distinction NOT an Ethical one. Once again Is/Ought. You cannot derive an Ethical distinction from Atheism anymore than from the statement "This is an Apple."
Ravi Zacharias wouldn't know this because he has no degree in Philosophy.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
Actually, Zacharias and I would agree in atheism as a belief in God's nonexistence.
Zacharias argues that the reasons WHY atheists choose to remain is purely moral, rather than intellectual, especially because atheism at its core is self-contradictory. In order to know something does not exist, one must have absolute knowledge of all things within that designated category. Saying God does not exist assumes the claimer has infinite that there is no being with infinite knowledge.
BassP86 11 months ago
@BassP86 Right.. Atheism ha is the lack of belief in a God. The affirmation there is no God, goes into whats called Strong & Weak Atheism.
But ha that doesn't matter because at this point you've just "frame-shifted" the discussion. Why the hell are we talking about Pandas now? You stated a position and I gave you my objections. Now you've subsequently abandoned that and are now just arguing for.. what you think is a stronger position.
ha Lets keep the discussion focused.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
Typo: Saying God does not exist assumes the claimer has inifnite KNOWLEDGE that there exists no being with infinite knowledge. Claiming an absolute negative, whether one likes it or not, is more often than not self-defeating, because absolute negatives require absolute knowledge to the FULLEST extent. Claiming something DOES exist requires absolute knowledge to the LEAST extent. Ex: in order to claim there exist giant pandas in Africa, I must see AT LEAST one panda in Africa.
BassP86 11 months ago
@BassP86 1) Tell you what ha I shouldn't do this but I'll entertain this idea for a second. Now you're making an "appeal to ignorance". A negative claim doesn't require knowledge of everything; it requires knowledge of something/the thing in question. A negative claim is simply a response in rejection to a positive claim. In Logic "The burden of proof" always relies on the one making the positive assertion. A negative position requires almost little proof of the positive claim.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@BassP86 @BassP86 2) for example to believe your positive claim of such Pandas, I don't need knowledge/proof of ALL Pandas; only of Giant Pandas.
That's like saying in order to refute my God you must 1st have knowledge of all Gods. haha no.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
(cont.)
When you say "I don't need proof of ALL pandas; only of Giant Pandas" when a making positive claim that there are Giant Pandas in Africa, it concedes my point. Making a positive claim that GPs exist in Africa only requires one to have knowledge of a MINIMUM number of GP's in Africa, if any at all. The same applies to God. If God does not exist, then atheist is claiming that all Gods are false, therefore must have absolute knowledge of all Gods in order to be justified.
BassP86 11 months ago
@bananabread119
(cont.)
The way that becomes directly linked to the moral side of atheism is this: Most self-proclaimed atheists know that an absolute negative (i.e. "there is no God") is self-defeating and impossible to defend. Therefore most of them resort to calling themselves people who "lack belief in God", coming in from the back door so to speak. Yes, the claim itself that "there is no God" is a metaphysical one, absolutely, but that's not the point I'm making at all.
BassP86 11 months ago
@bananabread119
(cont.)
My point is that whereas the claim is metaphysical, the REASONS for making the claim are NOT based on fact at all, especially because an absolute negative is more often than not, impossible to defend. The REASONS for making the claim are entirely based on MORAL progenitors.
Remember:
Intent is PRIOR to content.
BassP86 11 months ago
ha I'm sorry I don't mean to laugh its just.. I mean come'on! Usually you use an RAA or lead them into a contradiction' but no you just totally fucking ignored what I said and just changed the subject on me. LOL just a complete non sequitur haha
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
I apologize for not being clear. Claiming an absolute negative is directly linked to the moral side of atheism. The atheist who argues that the burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive claim, is actually not arguing on an intellectual level, but on a moral one. They are actually saying that unless God is proven, then He cannot even be considered logically possible. You're misinformed on the burden of proof. It is on whoever makes the claim, period.
BassP86 11 months ago
Hey hey Bottle Rockets!! hhahahah ok I'm done.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
(cont.)
Knowing that giant pandas exist in Africa require a MINIMUM amount of evidence, and are NOT required the MAXIMUM burden of proof, though I may still wish to look for more giant pandas if I wish.
However, claiming giant pandas do NOT exist in Africa (whether in captivity/in the wild/etc.) requires that I know EVERYTHING about Africa in order to know that giant pandas do not exist anywhere on the continent, and that's a HUGE difference.
BassP86 11 months ago