Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Dave Ellis]

Look up the word "dispute" and try to find a definition--in any dictionary--that says "To not accept."

Dispute means a disagreement, argument or debate.

Can you give an example of a disagreement, argument or debate that occurs between two people, where both people completely accept the others claims?

 

[zippy2006]

Dispute means a disagreement, argument or debate.

Can you give an example of a disagreement, argument or debate that occurs between two people, where both people completely accept the others claims?

Disagreement implies non-acceptance, but this does not mean that non-acceptance implies disagreement. Now you're committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[zippy2006]

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself dude.

You should call The Atheist Experience sometime with this version of 'logic' you have. It would be entertaining.

The problem is that you apparently have no command of philosophy.

The forum-going atheist does not dispute the claim that God exists, they dispute the theist's arguments for the existence of God. To dispute the claim that God exists is to disagree with it, and to disagree with the claim that God exists is to agree with the claim that God does not exist. Again, most atheists won't take such a route.

Such an atheist would not respond "I disagree (or dispute it)" when the theist claims that God exists. Instead they would respond, "I dispute your arguments in favor of such a claim." The reason they do not directly dispute the claim that God exists is because they know that to dispute something is to imply the contradictory opposite.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The problem is that you apparently have no command of philosophy.

The forum-going atheist does not dispute the claim that God exists, they dispute the theist's arguments for the existence of God. To dispute the claim that God exists is to disagree with it, and to disagree with the claim that God exists is to agree with the claim that God does not exist. Again, most atheists won't take such a route.

Such an atheist would not respond "I disagree (or dispute it)" when the theist claims that God exists. Instead they would respond, "I dispute your arguments in favor of such a claim." The reason they do not directly dispute the claim that God exists is because they know that to dispute something is to imply the contradictory opposite.

Just watch the video. You sound a lot like the caller. So much so that I'm beginning to think this might actually be you in the video.

 

[zippy2006]

Just watch the video. You sound a lot like the caller. So much so that I'm beginning to think this might actually be you in the video.

Feel free to give me a 2:00 window to watch--I'm not wasting 15 minutes.

I am quite aware of your position and have addressed it in detail. You think that one can say, "I dispute the claim that there are an even number of gumballs," and mean, "I dispute the claim that he has knowledge that there are an even number of gumballs." But the equivocation is clear. Disputing someone's knowledge of the number of gumballs is not the same as disputing the number of gumballs. Yet both imply contradictory opposites, one about his knowledge and the other about the gumballs. This is elementary logic.

"I dispute X" and "I need more evidence for X" are two different things.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Feel free to give me a 2:00 window to watch--I'm not wasting 15 minutes.

I am quite aware of your position and have addressed it in detail. You think that one can say, "I dispute the claim that there are an even number of gumballs," and mean, "I dispute the claim that he has knowledge that there are an even number of gumballs." But the equivocation is clear. Disputing someone's knowledge of the number of gumballs is not the same as disputing the number of gumballs. Yet both imply contradictory opposites, one about his knowledge and the other about the gumballs. This is elementary logic.

"I dispute X" and "I need more evidence for X" are two different things.

I suggest watching the whole thing. But now I'm convinced that you're not the caller in the video, because this guy seemed to get it by the end of the call.

 

[zippy2006]

I suggest watching the whole thing. But now I'm convinced that you're not the caller in the video, because this guy seemed to get it by the end of the call.

You should give them a call and claim that you have a tub of gumballs, your friend thinks there's an even number, you vehemently dispute his claim that there is an even number, and you are completely opposed to there being an odd number.

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Todd: Nonsense! That's ludicrous! I deny the idea that there is an even number!
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Todd: Of course not! I'm an atheist! For atheists there is no odd-even dichotomy!
Joe: Uh, okay bro, whatever you say.
​

 

[Dave Ellis]

Disagreement implies non-acceptance, but this does not mean that non-acceptance implies disagreement. Now you're committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If I don't accept what you are telling me to be true, then I am disputing the claim you are making.

You really disagree with that statement?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You should give them a call and claim that you have a tub of gumballs, your friend thinks there's an even number, you vehemently dispute his claim that there is an even number, and you are completely opposed to there being an odd number.

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Todd: Nonsense! That's ludicrous! I deny the idea that there is an even number!
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Todd: Of course not! I'm an atheist! For atheists there is no odd-even dichotomy!
Joe: Uh, okay bro, whatever you say.
​

Except disputing the claim there is an even number says nothing about your opinion on there being an odd number.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You should give them a call and claim that you have a tub of gumballs, your friend thinks there's an even number, you vehemently dispute his claim that there is an even number, and you are completely opposed to there being an odd number.

Why would I do that, since that doesn't correspond to a position I would take?

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Is English your first language? Because it seems as though you're having a hard time communicating with Dave Ellis and myself. We're essentially both pointing out your logical errors in the same way, but it seems as though things are getting lost in translation or something.

 

[zippy2006]

Except disputing the claim there is an even number says nothing about your opinion on there being an odd number.

Right, let me amend it:

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Dave: Nonsense! That's ludicrous! I deny the idea that there is an even number!
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Dave: Of course not! I'm an atheist! For atheists disputing the claim there is an even number says nothing about your opinion on there being an odd number!
Joe: Uh, okay bro, whatever you say.​

 

[zippy2006]

Why would I do that, since that doesn't correspond to a position I would take?

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Is English your first language? Because it seems as though you're having a hard time communicating with Dave Ellis and myself. We're essentially both pointing out your logical errors in the same way, but it seems as though things are getting lost in translation or something.

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Do you actually believe that someone can legitimately dispute that a number is odd and not at the same time think it is even? Or are you just trolling?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Right, let me amend it:

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Dave: Nonsense! That's ludicrous! I deny the idea that there is an even number!
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Dave: Of course not! I'm an atheist! For atheists disputing the claim there is an even number says nothing about your opinion on there being an odd number!
Joe: Uh, okay bro, whatever you say.​

Lol. Talk about your strawmen...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Do you actually believe that someone can legitimately dispute that a number is odd and not at the same time think it is even? Or are you just trolling?

See, this is a perfect example of the disconnect. I'm more convinced that English isn't your first language. It's nothing to be ashamed of you know.

If I dispute a claim that a number is odd, it doesn't mean I'm disputing that the number could be odd.

These are concepts you learn in beginning logic classes, or at least they were when I was getting my degree. If you're really interested in the subject, and it seems like you are, taking a few courses is a great way to get that base knowledge. Best of luck to you!

 

[zippy2006]

If I don't accept what you are telling me to be true, then I am disputing the claim you are making.

You really disagree with that statement?

Yes.

"I don't accept claim X." This shows no sign of dispute, argument, debate, or even disagreement. It simply means that they don't see sufficient reason to accept claim X as being true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes.

"I don't accept claim X." This shows no sign of dispute, argument, debate, or even disagreement. It simply means that they don't see sufficient reason to accept claim X as being true.

You seem to be alone in your use of the English language. That can really be a problem when you want to try and communicate clearly. Perhaps if you make a list of pertinent terms and what you think they mean might help to bridge the gap.

 

[zippy2006]

If I dispute a claim that a number is odd, it doesn't mean I'm disputing that the number could be odd.

Addressed here and here.

See, this is a perfect example of the disconnect. I'm more convinced that English isn't your first language. It's nothing to be ashamed of you know.

If I dispute a claim that a number is odd, it doesn't mean I'm disputing that the number could be odd.

These are concepts you learn in beginning logic classes, or at least they were when I was getting my degree. If you're really interested in the subject, and it seems like you are, taking a few courses is a great way to get that base knowledge. Best of luck to you!

One of my degrees is in philosophy, and I am positive that you do not have a degree in philosophy given our conversation. I would recommend studying Aristotle's four senses of "opposite," particularly that of contradiction. You seem to have a very hard time with it. If you want the primary text you can go to Categories, section 3, part 10.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

One of my degrees is in philosophy, and I am positive that you do not have a degree in philosophy given our conversation. I would recommend studying Aristotle's four senses of "opposite," particularly that of contradiction. You seem to have a very hard time with it. If you want the primary text you can go to Categories, section 3, part 10.

And given our conversation, if you have an actual degree in Philosophy, I'd like to have a word with the head of the department. Because what Dave and I are trying to get through to you isn't difficult to understand.

I'm still thinking that this is a language problem, since in another thread you mentioned that shadows weren't existent.

 

[zippy2006]

And given our conversation, if you have an actual degree in Philosophy, I'd like to have a word with the head of the department. Because what Dave and I are trying to get through to you isn't difficult to understand.

I've explained your position and why it is incorrect in the two posts linked in my last post. The problem is that you don't seem to be willing to read them carefully.

I'm still thinking that this is a language problem, since in another thread you mentioned that shadows weren't existent.

A shadow is a privation of light. Like "nothing" it is the absence of something, not the presence of something. A shadow is not a positive entity, it is just a consequence of the way that light fails to illumine everything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've explained your position and why it is incorrect in the two posts linked in my last post. The problem is that you don't seem to be willing to read them carefully.

And Dave and I have carefully explained in several different ways why you're incorrect. I posted a video that also explains why you're incorrect. I have a feeling that 100 people could explain why you're incorrect and you'd still deny it. Since we're getting nowhere, we should probably just leave things alone.

A shadow is a privation of light. Like "nothing" it is the absence of something, not the presence of something. A shadow is not a positive entity, it is just a consequence of the way that light fails to illumine everything.

Semantic gymnastics seems to be your sport. You said shadows aren't existent. They clearly are. You're clearly wrong. It's as simple as that.