Atheism (2)

[Dave Ellis]

Just because one person doesn't employ evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist. after all I am only one.

I don't disagree, however, when nobody at all has presented evidence towards a view held by a majority of the population, something is wrong.

Either way, it's irrelevant. If you are making a claim, and you don't show evidence for your claim, we have no reason to accept your claim. Once that evidence becomes available, then we can examine it... Until then you are making an unjustified argument which we can rightfully dismiss as unsound.

 

[Dave Ellis]

no, I am not saying either way. You seem to say you can see far enough into space to know factually that there are not leprechauns/santa and God all having tea in the corner of the universe. Where are these photos? (hint we can't see that far).

We never made the claim that any of those things definately can not exist. We just believe they are highly unlikely.

 

[Non sequitur]

God could be having tea with a leprechaun in some unexplored galaxy. Along with santa claus. We don't know, either way. Evidence states.

I'd just like to use your logic here, for a second.

And we don't have evidence for or against Allāh... yet you strangely don't accept him as your god.

Why is this?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

wikipedia


now, employ some evidence that leprechauns, santa, and God do not exist.

We don't need to, as we never made that assertion.

Now stop dodging your own burden of proof for the claim you did make. What is your evidence that confirms Gods existence?

 

[createdtoworship]

We don't need to, as we never made that assertion.

Now stop dodging your own burden of proof for the claim you did make. What is your evidence that confirms Gods existence?

you just said a few post ago there is no evidence for leprechauns, so prove that there is no evidence on the far side of the universe!

 

[Skavau]

you just said a few post ago there is no evidence for leprechauns, so prove that there is no evidence on the far side of the universe!

So does that mean you believe leprechauns exist?

 

[createdtoworship]

So does that mean you believe leprechauns exist?

I can't say otherwise!

 

[Skavau]

I can't say otherwise!

So you believe in leprechauns.

good to know

 

[createdtoworship]

So you believe in leprechauns.

good to know

never said that,

that is a fallacy known as poisoning the well.....let me address it for you....


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength.

wikipedia

 

[Crusader05]

never said that,

that is a fallacy known as poisoning the well.....let me address it for you....


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength.

wikipedia

Funny you want to cite logical fallacies but you continue to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Non sequitur]

never said that,

that is a fallacy known as poisoning the well.....let me address it for you....


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength.

wikipedia

Can you please tell us, why you are poisoning the well and why you believe in leprechauns and what evidence you have for them?

 

[createdtoworship]

Funny you want to cite logical fallacies but you continue to shift the burden of proof.

never did that, I asked for the definition of atheism, then asked for proof. Thats all it's been for like 25 pages now.

 

[createdtoworship]

Can you please tell us, why you are poisoning the well and why you believe in leprechauns and what evidence you have for them?

you are the ones poisoning the well stating I believe in leprechauns. I never said that. I said "how do you know there isn't any leprachauns". I also stated that "I can't say otherwise" meaning I can't say one way or another in leprachauns exist. Same way for God.

 

[Crusader05]

never did that, I asked for the definition of atheism, then asked for proof. Thats all it's been for like 25 pages now.

Yes, I just read through 10 pages of this. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, theists claim there is a god therefore it's up to them to provide evidence.

It's just like the people who believe in bigfoot, it's up to them to show evidence there is a giant ape-man, not for skeptics to prove there is no bigfoot anywhere in the universe.

 

[Non sequitur]

you are the ones poisoning the well stating I believe in leprechauns. I never said that. I said "how do you know there isn't any leprachauns". I also stated that "I can't say otherwise" meaning I can't say one way or another in leprachauns exist. Same way for God.

So both God and leprechauns may not exist?

 

[Skavau]

never said that,

that is a fallacy known as poisoning the well.....let me address it for you....


Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength.

wikipedia

I'm not poisoning the well at all. You said you can't disprove leprechauns. So seeing as that is so does that mean you believe in them?

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not poisoning the well at all. You said you can't disprove leprechauns. So seeing as that is so does that mean you believe in them?

I said I can't say otherwise, thats not the same thing as believing in them btw.

 

[createdtoworship]

So both God and leprechauns may not exist?

either way, we can't tell. So athiests really have no basis for their views in the same way thiests don't. You see?

 

[Non sequitur]

either way, we can't tell. So athiests really have no basis for their views in the same way thiests don't. You see?

I don't see a god or leprechaun, so that's one step closer to non-existence, rather than existence.

Do you have any evidence to offset this?

 

[Dave Ellis]

you just said a few post ago there is no evidence for leprechauns, so prove that there is no evidence on the far side of the universe!

That's not the way investigation or evidence works. Seeing as you don't even use your own standard when it comes to evidence, it's kinda silly you expect us to.

We form hypotheses and models based on the available evidence. If we uncover new evidence, then we alter and correct the models as needed. That's how over time we can form conclusions, and ultimately learn what is true and what is not. That's how mysteries and unknowns are solved most effectively.

We don't need to prove certain evidence is not out there.... however we can't assume any evidence exists that we don't know about, and we can't use that presumption to prove anything.

If the evidence is out there, eventually we will find and use it. Until we find it though, we'll have to assume it doesn't exist.