Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
- Oct 10, 2004
- 51,745
- 421
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
That can't be right. Ad verecundiam is the fancy name for appeal to authority.
Upvote
0
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.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.
Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.
It's fun when we ask what objective is and it's just a plural version of subjective.
No, the OP was referring to actual, completely relevant questions. The Gish Gallop is more of a red herring fallacy - have so many questions (talking points, actually) that you disguise and shift the purpose of the debate entirely.
Also, argumentum ad verecundiam is argument from authority.
Most skeptics (sceptics is the proper spelling) are fairly reasonable people; it kind of goes with the territory. As the person making the claim, it is upon the claim-maker to provide positive evidence for the claim.
In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?
Again, different format. We are not voting for anyone here.It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?
Again - why should atheists be required to defend claims they haven't made?This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions.
Too bad. If an atheist doesn't make a positive claim then they don't have to defend anything. They are not required to hold a position they do not hold.Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.
If they believe something to be true and make a positive claim about it then yes. A strong atheist who claims that no gods exist would.There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?
Why, when in debate with a Christian, would you waste time trying to show that a god they don't believe exists, exists?I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down. Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.
Perhaps they are simply strongly convinced that there is no evidence - and that like celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, and the remaining 99.999% of things in the category of "things alleged to exist that aren't Yahweh" that atheists and Christians agree there is no positive evidence for, they live their lives as if Yahweh doesn't exist?I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.
Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.
The way I see it, there are always two (or more) sides to any issue, if there weren't more than one side, there wouldn't be an issue, right?
In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?
It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?
This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.
There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?
I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down. Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.
I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?
**Note: all my examples using Mitt and Obama are just that: hypothetical examples. I don't want this to turn into a political debate.
To use your example, let's say Obama claimed his healthcare law would lower the costs of healthcare for everyone (positive claim). Mitt doesn't have to present a positive claim himself. If Obama cannot provide evidence of his claim, then Mitt is absolutely right in questioning the truth of that claim. If Obama can provide evidence of his claim, then the debate should become an examination of that evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, testable, and conclusive...then Obama has effectively proven his claim.
If you say soI still think you can Gish Gallop by asking too many relevant questions far too quickly. The aim as much as anything else is to make your opponent look incompetent by giving them more claims to address than they can reasonably deal with.
It can work with either relevant or irrelevant material.
Well, yes and no. Reality kind of ensures that there are multiple considerations to take into account whenever something is considered. But these considerations are not always equal in terms of relevance and merit.The way I see it, there are always two (or more) sides to any issue, if there weren't more than one side, there wouldn't be an issue, right?
Yes. Given that the role of the claimant is to provide evidence for why the claim should disrupt the status quo, the other side really just has to shoot down all the points.In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?
No, it would be like Obama saying "The sky is blue" and Romney saying "No it's not".It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?
But...it is.This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.
From my point of view? Not really. Theists are the ones making the positive claims.There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?
Someone once said (I'm paraphrasing here) that if religion was the reliance on axiomatic statements that cannot be proven to be true, then mathematics is a religion and further, it is the only one which can prove it is one.I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down.
Yes. And each and every one makes positive claims. It's like having a beer bottle in a box. I don't know what colour it is or what's inside it, but then having several people come up to me and say "there's an elephant inside" or "it's bright pink with orange and purple sparkles" or "it's made out of bits of $5 notes". I don't currently know what it looks like or what's inside it, but in the future I'll know a bit more, and in the meantime I see no reason to operate under the assumption that it's made of human hair.Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.
See the analogy I gave above. I believe what I believe. I always operate under the assumption that it may be untrue and could be proven untrue any day, but I still operate under the assumption.I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?
One person's demonstration that it is true is another person's lack of demonstration that it is true.
That's been my observation anyway, on these forums specifically.
I still think you can Gish Gallop by asking too many relevant questions far too quickly.
This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.
There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?
I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics.
I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that.
I keep coming up against this mentality among Christians - like "any answer is better than none".
Sometimes we don't know the answers to things. That's a fact of life. Pointing out that that's the case IS actually providing you with helpful information - it informs you of the correct state of affairs.
The most expedient way then to resolve the matter is for the person who IS convinced a god exists to stop faffing about and just STATE THE DARN EVIDENCE.
Why, when in debate with a Christian, would you waste time trying to show that a god they don't believe exists, exists?
So not only do you want atheists to defend a position they do not hold, you also want them to attack a position that their opponent does not hold.
Perhaps they are simply strongly convinced that there is no evidence - and that like celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, and the remaining 99.999% of things in the category of "things alleged to exist that aren't Yahweh" that atheists and Christians agree there is no positive evidence for, they live their lives as if Yahweh doesn't exist?
And conversely, saying "well Romney hasn't presented an idea" doesn't mean that his criticisms of the idea that HAS been presented are wrong or irrelevant.
And this mentality of "any answer is better than none" would mean that in the above scenario you would end up following a demonstrably bad idea merely because no other solution had been presented, so as standards go it is rather foolish.
I've been on these fourms for a long time and I don't think I've ever seen that happen. There is a big difference between faith and proof; proof is an established truth.One person's proof is another person's lack of proof.
That's been my experience anyway, on these forums specifically.
No, it would be like Obama saying "The sky is blue" and Romney saying "No it's not".
I am an atheist because I feel this is the logical and intellectually honest position to take, purely because there is not enough evidence to subscribe to an alternative hypothesis.
I note that from personal experience, not many atheists tend to argue with deists. That may be because deists have thought more about their positions and can justify them better, but it could also be that some atheists (myself included) don't really have a problem with the deists' god. Personally, it is only when you start making claims that influence how you and other people interact with the world (such as "the world must be the center of the universe cause Genesis implies so") that I start having problems with theism. Because the observations we make clearly contradict this position.
It sounds like you are suggesting that a wrong answer is better than no answer at all. Is that what you are saying? That might get you elected in politics but in the real world that is a horrible idea.It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism.
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?