The Atheist's Burden of Proof (Exposing Intellectual dishonesty)

[Dhabaal]

You reversing the question of evidence on me is a logical fallacy as the example shows because you're positioning yourself on the pretext of "I can't prove but you can't disprove it either." That's the entire point of the reverse of the question of evidence. My example works perfectly.

Reversing is neither a proof positive or proof negative. You don't make any reference to it being false or true due to absence of evidence. You are just shifting the burden of proof by asking.

When you ask the Question '' Do you have evidence?''' you shift the burden of proof onto someone else.

 

[NoName]

You just are just re-iterating a non-point. You are not saying anything new everyone knows that scientific claims are falsefiable and some metaphysical questions are not. I even stated this on a different thread http://www.somalispot.com/threads/i-have-come-back-to-the-fold-of-islam.15407/page-9#post-341840 you are not coming here with anything,.

Then if you know this, why make the false equivalence of likening it to the issue you perceive with atheist's position on the burden of proof regarding metaphysical claims? You either didn't know this distinction or you knowing committed a false equivalence.

This doesn't prove or disprove of the existence of God.

Redundant statement since no one made claims either way.

It is an intellectually dishonest position to make claims about God and then fall back on stating that you are Agnostic Atheist who lack disbelief and make no assertive claim against God. Which is essentially is a cop out, since your beliefs do not matter. Only the claims that you make.

If you make a claim then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. What part of it don't you understand?

My counter argument is that even if it's, this shouldn't have any bearing on your ability to refute the position. The fact that you can't and are now complaining about the intentions of the atheist indicate that you can't. Furthermore, as I said, calling established philosophical positions cop outs and defence mechanisms only shows your ignorance.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Let me clarify the definition for you so that you understand: The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

Do you make a career out of throwing in texts you copied from somewhere in your posts without any quotations as if no one would notice that it's out of sync with yours? Also, it's hilarious because it's exactly what you have done! It went like: here's a testimonial evidence. If this testimonial is true, then this is my conclusion. Then you tried to get your way out of it saying you used the conditional 'if'.

The fact that you are attaching all sorts of misconstrues to my very simplistic straight forward arguments is infact strawmanning it.

It's hard to make sense what your arguments are because (a) they hardly make any meaningful sense, and (b) in the instances that one can decipher the meaning you fail to acknowledge any issues that people point out.

See how intellectually dishonest you guys are.

Again, if you think the position is philosophically untenable, you should be able to refute it without the intentions of your opponents.

You make no arguments to my argument and do not refute a single thing. Just empty rhetoric that emphasizes that you somehow without support have a correct standing, which you have made no effort in proving.

I haven't stated any standings that I happen to have. Merely I've only pointed out the shortcomings of your own arguments.

I am right you are wrong is all you are saying thinking this makes me somehow wrong.

In fact, this is what you're doing. I've very clearly explained why your arguments don't make sense. You replied with incoherences and incomplete sentences.

Haye, tell me who's position did i replace and what part of is testimonial or anecdotal evidence?. Then tell what the actual argument was?

You are just tossing out terms you either don't know the meaning of or you are intentionally using them incorrectly.

This exactly what you said: "Everyone on this forum can testify to how most Atheists endorse that "it is true that God does not exist". And they continue to state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". If this is the case, why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make." So you first stated what atheists endorse and what statements they make by means of testimony (thereby creating a strawman) and then attacked that (the said strawman). By all means try to explain this away!

You didn't argue that belief in God is irrational, except just stating it is. I reversed it rhetorically to show how reasoning is flaw.

I'm pretty sure I said the statement "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence" is perfectly valid from a rationalist's view point because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered rational. This is pretty much self-contained, so unless you want me to hold your hands through the argument, I don't know what you don't understand. All you tried is to flip this, but you confused belief with lack of belief. Rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered rational. It's all very basic.

Why are you focusing on the emoticons? they are their just there to add expressions to the posts not substance to my arguments.

Some more rhetorical garbage. Now what you think reapeting ''emoticons'' several times is an indirect refutation?

Just keep ignoring and misrepresenting my points

What was there to refute? The bit where you wrote, and I'm not making this up: "Rationalist, Rationalist, Rationalist bla bla bla"?

I reiterate
''It is an intellectually dishonest position to make claims about God and then fall back on stating that you are Agnostic Atheist who lack disbelief and make no assertive claim against God. Which is essentially is a cop out, since your beliefs do not matter. Only the claims that you make.

If you make a claim then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. What part of it don't you understand?''

I bet you will just end up repeating yourself, but I've argued above why this is non-point. It should make no difference to you whether the person is being intellectually dishonest or not if their position in philosophically untennable. This is because you can show that their position is not, say, justified, and whether or not they're being intellectually dishonest wouldn't matter. But in this because the position is such that it's not really possible to attack from the position you're trying to attack from, you're claiming intellectual dishonesty out of frustration. I've explained the reason why this is hard to attack in the last paragraph of my first post in this thread, but you didn't pay attention.

Ok simply stating my arguments are incoherent ,doesn't make them such. No more than stating your matter is fat ugly cow is a true claim just because i said it.

You have to demonstrate your claims through reasoning and argumentation.

They are incoherent. Did you even read the parts I was quoting in your last post? You had whole paragraphs that didn't make sense in any context (entire phrases missing?). You had sentences that were started and uncompleted. It was a mess.

It does matter. When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

especially when intellectual dishonesty comes in the form defense mechanism to avoid the burden of proof. .

Geez, man, what's with you and plagiarising off things from the internet? And no, it shouldn't, as I've explained many times before in this very post.

Like i stated , repeatedly stating i am incoherent doesn't make me incoherent. Learn to use reasoning and argumentation. Not lame ad-hominems

Do you want me to quote you again on how many times you have failed to make any sense in a single post?

Now you are just misrepresenting what i said. What i said was i have yet to encounter an atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God.

Yes, but you also said: "Almost all people in the new Atheists camp of this century have taken intellectual dishonest positions when it comes to the questions of existence." But your idea of intellectual dishonesty in this context is professing absence of belief aka making no claims or not holding any positive or negative beliefs about God. So which of these statements of yours is true?

Atheists simply use these defense mechanism to avoid their burden of proof, likely because they do not have any evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence. They lack tangible evidence that supports holding the nonexistence of God. If you make claim you have to provide proof for it.

Yeah, keep labelling well-established philosophical position as defense mechanisms as if that makes sense. The more you say it, the better you convince yourself.

 

[NoName]

Dhabaal : ''If you make a claim about the existence of God then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. All truth bear a burden of proof ''

NoName: ''You are incoherent and lack rationality, because i said so.''

Lack of rationality? As for incoherence, do you want me to quote all those half sentences and zero sense gibberish paragraphs again?

So it's not just the case of me saying so, but it's demonstrably true. Come up with better and perhaps more subtle complaints next time.