Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you are right then it will be easy to fulfill my challenge. So let's see it.
Then feel free to substitute them for each other in my statement, as I noted.
I'm not sure what you're asking me to do? Did you not already substitute them in your three examples? What else would I be substituting?
Says the fellow who claims to be unable to comprehend the word "nothing."
You're not getting my point.... my point is saying:
Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
Is akin to saying:
Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red.
If a dispute is a disagreement, you're talking about the same thing. Your rebuttal is nonsensical.
Nevermind, it seems the challenge is over your head. Let's just return to the original point:
Zippy: To not accept something is not the same as to dispute it.
Dave: If you don't agree with someone, then you disagree with them.
The question is whether "not accepting something as true" is the same as "not agreeing with someone." To not agree with someone is to disagree with them, which is to have a differing opinion than they do on the matter. But one can "not accept something as true" without having a differing opinion.
For example, if someone disagrees with a creationist then they have a differing opinion, perhaps evolution. Yet if someone does "not accept" creationism, they may be waiting for more evidence rather than actually holding a differing opinion. They may simply be uncertain.
But you've helped prove my point. To dispute is to disagree, and to disagree is (by definition) to hold a differing opinion, namely an opinion which contradicts the opinion of the person you are disagreeing with. Therefore to dispute is to hold a contradictory opinion.
That's false. I give 13 claims here that are not useless or meaningless and can easily be differentiated from false claims,
even if we suppose that they do not have the burden of proof
No one who utters such phrases is thought to have a duty to give arguments for their veracity.
The question is whether every claim needs support, not how to support a claim.
False, see above.
You've failed to satisfy the burden of proof for your claim, "Every positive claim has a burden of proof."
I'm asking for consistency.
To assert that "Every positive claim has a burden of proof" without at the same time satisfying the burden of proof for this claim is to commit a performative self-contradiction.
the definition of the burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge."
The burden of proof naturally attaches to claims, but it doesn't follow that every claim has the burden of proof.
You said you disputed the originals. Do you know what "dispute" means?
by questioning its truth you imply its falsity.
If something is not true, it's false,
and contradictory opposites have no middle
It is impossible to disagree with X and not at the same time agree with ~X.
It does mean that. There is no other option. It is the law of the excluded middle.
What else do you think you mean? "Not even" is the same as "odd."
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.
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?
In the case of Christianity, the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN EVEN NUMBER OF GUMBALLS.How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?
Some folks have to create that strawman, to protect their belief.I'm reading this dialogue with great interest the idea of "negation/rejection = belief" is a commonly held thought among theists and seems to be difficult to break free from this type of thinking. It's a fundamental logical flaw and I don't understand it. I'm kinda hoping there is a way to assist in understanding. I thought the coin toss example would be clear but alas..
There's a relatively easy explanation. It is much harder to argue with people who say they don't know if god exists. At least with [straw]people who claim to know gods don't exist you can play games and pretend that the god is just really good at hiding and you can't know for sure. If you let people get away with telling you that they don't know then you end up in the uncomfortable position of having to present evidence for something which is by definition taken on faith.Yeah... you're just not getting it. You seem to be living in a world where the phrase "I don't know" doesn't exist.
I'll leave other people to try and get this through to you, since you're clearly not understanding my explanation...
Yes, I can't help but notice the number of times posts contain claims that other people are not intelligent enough to understand the discussion. That's not a sign of a strong argument.The defense mechanisms are working overtime and scramble mode has ensued.
In the case of Christianity, the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN EVEN NUMBER OF GUMBALLS.
Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools.
Then read the label yourself. LOLAnd then someone else comes along and says:
"In the case of [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE], the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN ODD NUMBER OF GUMBALLS."
"Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools."
And we're back where we started...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?