God the middleman

[Moral Orel]

Atheism isn't a belief.

Pick a lane, buddy!

I never said it was a belief.

 

[Paulomycin]

If you really believe that you can prove a negative, then you can prove my hair isn't grey.

I can. But not "magically." Not without evidence of such. You can't demand proof while omitting the evidence.

It isn't a, it is b, and so what?

If it's based on your own questionably-informed opinion, then it's both subjective and subject to change. It's never an objective and final conclusion of truth.

I'm a moral subjectivist.

When did you start adding qualifications to your subjectivism?

When was it ever not both?

When Amazing Randi started going on TV all the time claiming it wasn't both. Blame him.

I never said it was a belief.

Then it's a negative claim, and you don't carry burden of proof. Simple. Don't be dodgy.

 

[Lion IRC]

OK
Let's use a different word.
'schmatheism' - the belief that no God(s) exist(s).
'schmatheism' - a wishful thinking idea invented by folks who hope there's no God.
'schmatheism' - the religion which created the god it wishes were true - weak, impotent, invisible, unintrusive, ambivalent...

Okay, I'll leave you to your daydreaming.

Its cool. I know the routine.
You're a non-stamp collector. A non-theist. You don't assert that there's no God(s), just that you (personally) haven't been persuaded by the available evidence. And in the meantime you remain an open-minded, scientifically agnostic, neutral skeptic.

That's fine.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheism, theism, and agnosticism.
Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability; (Wikipedia)

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

 

[Moral Orel]

I can. But not "magically." Not without evidence of such. You can't demand proof while omitting the evidence.

Okay, then that's my answer to your challenge too.

If it's based on your own questionably-informed opinion

What I claim to know isn't.

It's never a... final conclusion of truth.

So what?

When did you start adding qualifications to your subjectivism?

When you thought you learned something about me from a conversation I was having with someone else that you clearly needed clarification on.

When Amazing Randi started going on TV all the time claiming it wasn't both. Blame him.

I doubt Randi ever claimed that there is nothing supernatural. But I'll concede that someone has somewhere. I've seen it. So what does that have to do with our conversation? Why are you accusing me of flip-flopping because I hold a different position than another person?

Then it's a negative claim, and you don't carry burden of proof. Simple. Don't be dodgy.

What?? Atheism isn't a belief therefore it's a claim?? That's nonsense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Its cool. I know the routine.
You're a non-stamp collector. A non-theist. You don't assert that there's no God(s), just that you (personally) haven't been persuaded by the available evidence. And in the meantime you remain an open-minded, scientifically agnostic, neutral skeptic.

That's fine.

Lol, you knew the typical atheist platform the whole time and were just playing dumb?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What?? Atheism isn't a belief therefore it's a claim?? That's nonsense.

New category - atheism is a negative belief.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, the chances of a galaxy having life might be close to 1/infinity.

And the total number of galaxies might be infinity.

So the total number of inhabited planets would be (1/ infinity * infinity), which is undefined, but could well be many of thousands.

Actually cosmologists have estimated how many galaxies are probably in the universe. I am referring to intelligent life not just any form of life.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑
Read Aristotle: Selections edited by W.D. Ross.

effect
[əˈfekt]
NOUN

1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay, then that's my answer to your challenge too.

Which one?

What I claim to know isn't.

Being wholly subjective, it's not objective.

So what?

So stop behaving as if your appeal to ignorance is the final and conclusive answer. Learn to be more intellectually curious for a change.

When you thought you learned something about me from a conversation I was having with someone else that you clearly needed clarification on.

^ Vague. It's like you hate clear communication.

I doubt Randi ever claimed that there is nothing supernatural.

He didn't. He claimed that the one making the positive claim holds burden of proof and that "you can't prove a negative." Said it numerous times on Carson. I'm just asking your to be as consistent as he was; regardless of your position. I value someone's intellectual consistency more than I do anything else.

What?? Atheism isn't a belief therefore it's a claim?? That's nonsense.

I stated "negative claim." Pay attention.

Positive claims (tradionally) carry burden of proof.
Negative claims (traditionally) don't carry burden of proof. Any claim with an "A-, not, non-," or like negative modifiers is a negative claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

Which one?

Pay attention.

Being wholly subjective, it's not objective.

It's not wholly subjective.

So stop behaving as if your appeal to ignorance is the final and conclusive answer.

Saying "I don't know." isn't an appeal to ignorance. Only if I said "I don't know therefore..." could it be an appeal to ignorance. I'm not treating it as a final and conclusive answer. I'm not saying "therefore", so I'm not making a conclusion.

^ Vague. It's like you hate clear communication.

Sorry you can't comprehend that very simple sentence.

He didn't. He claimed that the one making the positive claim holds burden of proof and that "you can't prove a negative." Said it numerous times on Carson. I'm just asking your to be as consistent as he was; regardless of your position. I value someone's intellectual consistency more than I do anything else.

So in what way am I being inconsistent without referring to other people?

I stated "negative claim." Pay attention.

Doesn't matter. You've made a category error. No belief is any kind of claim, and no lack of belief is any kind of claim.

Positive claims (tradionally) carry burden of proof.
Negative claims (traditionally) don't carry burden of proof. Any claim with an "A-, not, non-," or like negative modifiers is a negative claim.

I thought the whole point of your other thread was to do away with this whole "I don't have to prove a negative claim because it's a negative claim" nonsense.

Every claim carries a burden of proof. Positive or negative.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll just leave this here...

I value someone's intellectual consistency more than I do anything else.

The title of the thread clearly reads, "I accept the Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to."

And I continue to choose to, until any atheist outright admits that you can prove a negative.

Except you don't accept it, you refused it.

I'm flexible.

 

[Paulomycin]

It's not wholly subjective.

Give me a percentage then.

Saying "I don't know." isn't an appeal to ignorance. Only if I said "I don't know therefore..." could it be an appeal to ignorance. I'm not treating it as a final and conclusive answer. I'm not saying "therefore", so I'm not making a conclusion.

Most atheists say, "I don't know, and neither do you." Which counts as a "therefore."

Sorry you can't comprehend that very simple sentence.

Very simple and very vague.

So in what way am I being inconsistent without referring to other people?

Since you can't be trusted at all, I'm just gonna direct quote everything you say from now on.

Doesn't matter. You've made a category error. No belief is any kind of claim, and no lack of belief is any kind of claim.

"Belief" = positive claim.

"Lack of belief" = Negative claim or not enough.

I thought the whole point of your other thread was to do away with this whole "I don't have to prove a negative claim because it's a negative claim" nonsense.

^ Motive fallacy. The point is there really is no rule either way. Most people believe you can't prove a negative, and so instead of arguing I defer to them. But IRL, I suppose you can, but it doesn't matter to me as long as they're intellectually consistent.

Every claim carries a burden of proof. Positive or negative.

According to your subjective opinion.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll just leave this here...

^ Note, zero direct quotes where I didn't accept Burden of Proof.

 

[Moral Orel]

Give me a percentage then.

What a weird question. I don't add up the things I know, sheesh.

Most atheists say, "I don't know, and neither do you." Which counts as a "therefore."

No, it doesn't.

Since you can't be trusted at all, I'm just gonna direct quote everything you say from now on.

So you can't show me any way that I've been inconsistent. Got it.

But what's this about I can't be trusted at all? That's rich, buddy.

"Belief" = positive claim.

"Lack of belief" = Negative claim or not enough.

No, that's a category error.

^ Motive fallacy. The point is there really is no rule either way. Most people believe you can't prove a negative, and so instead of arguing I defer to them. But IRL, I suppose you can, but it doesn't matter to me as long as they're intellectually consistent.

Sure, there's no law about how to debate. But the burden of proof falling on the person who made the claim is standard, like saying "Thank you" in polite society. I don't mind if you don't want to follow the rule, I just won't bother following the rule with you. We can play Calvinball if you'd prefer.

 

[Moral Orel]

^ Note, zero direct quotes where I didn't accept Burden of Proof.

You mean these that I already pointed out:

How precious. Merle's demanding that I prove a negative.

It's a negative claim. Please stop with the atheist double-standards!

Those were your responses to Merle asking you to prove your claim. To which you referred to your intellectual inconsistency as being "flexible".

Please stop with the apologist double-standards!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually cosmologists have estimated how many galaxies are probably in the universe. I am referring to intelligent life not just any form of life.

Uh, that would be in the observable universe. The universe that began with the big bang could go far beyond the observable universe and could be infinite.

 

[Paulomycin]

You mean these that I already pointed out:

No timestamps; no context. Show your work.

Those were your responses to Merle asking you to prove your claim. To which you referred to your intellectual inconsistency as being "flexible".

You really don't get it, and you're not even paying attention to my OP in the other thread.

What a weird question. I don't add up the things I know, sheesh.

Your percentage of "subjective" vs. objective.

No, it doesn't.

You didn't say "why," and the thread history shows you didn't explain it either, so don't fib.

No, that's a category error.

Again, you fail to explain why, and don't claim you did, because the thread history shows it.

Sure, there's no law about how to debate. But the burden of proof falling on the person who made the claim is standard, like saying "Thank you" in polite society. I don't mind if you don't want to follow the rule, I just won't bother following the rule with you. We can play Calvinball if you'd prefer.

This is my full statement with the part you skipped underlined, which clearly stated that I do follow the rule.

^ Motive fallacy. The point is there really is no rule either way. Most people believe you can't prove a negative, and so instead of arguing I defer to them. But IRL, I suppose you can, but it doesn't matter to me as long as they're intellectually consistent.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Negative claims (traditionally) don't carry burden of proof. Any claim with an "A-, not, non-," or like negative modifiers is a negative claim.

Wait, what?

If someone claims that smoking doesn't cause cancer, he does need to prove it?

If someone claims Trump has no brain cells, he does not need to prove it?

If someone claims nobody in country X is intelligent, he does need to prove it?

As long as a claim has the word "no" in it (or the like), then we all need to accept that claim as true with no evidence necessary?

Fine. Here is my claim: I claim that your posts have no validity.

 

[Paulomycin]

If someone claims that smoking doesn't cause cancer, he does need to prove it?

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "doesn't."

If someone claims Trump has no brain cells, he does not need to prove it?

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "has no."

If someone claims nobody in country X is intelligent, he does need to prove it?

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "nobody."

As long as a claim has the word "no" in it (or the like), then we all need to accept that claim as true with no evidence necessary?

No, it's a negative claim. Stop paying attention to Moral Orel's posts.

Fine. Here is my claim: I claim that your posts have no validity.

Which is a negative claim. No worries.