murshid wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:What a bizzare fallacy to claim that in order to support one position you are restrained from making a case against the other. Or that one side has a 100% burden of proof.

This page might be of some help.

That's only the atheistic philosophic burden of proof. Apparently the theistic philosophic burden of proof is quite different.

Shook says:

What does the atheist believe in, if not religion? The atheist is unable to accept supernaturalism, and therefore the atheist is a naturalist. Naturalism, as Dr Craig mentioned, can be briefly defined as the belief that the only reality is the physical universe of energy and matter as gradually discovered by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason and science working together.

I don't think we need to squabble too much over the burden of proof (Shook was finding this squabble pretty tiresome by the end of the debate), but he does appear to be advancing a thesis here. Indeed, we learn here that atheists are apparently naturalists (news to me) and believe that the only reality is the physical universe of energy and matter. That sounds like a belief a person could be expected to defend, so it's not entirely stupid for Craig to assume Shook carries some of the burden of proof.

By the way, Shook also pulls this out of his arse:

An atheist is simply a person who demands good reasons for all beliefs, and doesn't find the reasons given for any religion to be convincing. An atheist is therefore someone who lives without belief in a god. Atheists are happy to take responsibility for their lives. They wish they lived in a world where more people took that same responsibility. Atheists imagine a world to come in which people respectfully debate the reasons for and against belief in all these gods that are available.

No Shook. I don't imagine that world to come, nor care if it does. I don't demand good reasons for all beliefs, and I don't register any significance in your mouthings about responsibility.

Craig might think he can whittle a God out of definitions, but here's Shook trying to whittle atheistic solidarity.

We already had a discussion about the burden of proof issue in this thread: More William Lane Craig's stupidity re the burden of proof. Isn't it a better idea to continue the discussion there?

Lion IRC wrote:
Some claim religion was invented. Well I actually think atheism is the invented concept.

I know this is partly off topic, but this is by far one of the finest things I've read in a very long time. If only you were a woman IRC, I'd be salivating.

More Craig fuckwittery.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcjcVF_8s8Y[/youtube]

Here's a list of things Craig is not, playlist.

Animavore wrote:More Craig fuckwittery.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcjcVF_8s8Y[/youtube]

Here's a list of things Craig is not, playlist.

As the video concludes: "He's just making stuff up as he goes along."

Ain't that the truth !

hotshoe wrote:

Animavore wrote:More Craig fuckwittery.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcjcVF_8s8Y[/youtube]

Here's a list of things Craig is not, playlist.

As the video concludes: "He's just making stuff up as he goes along."

Ain't that the truth !

D'oh. I never added in the list of things he's not.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... C0D8606D74

That video was very enjoyable, thanks for linking.

Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

the context here is important. This sort of debate is not a court trial. There is no person presumed innocent; there are no such presumptions given here. It's a question. There is the affirming side and the negative side. The negation of 'god exists' is not 'there is no reason to believe god exists'. instead, it is 'god does not exist' or 'it is not the case that god exists'.

Maybe the sticking point has to do with Shook's pragmatism. Or, maybe that's premature of me. What the heck was the debate question?

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

the context here is important. This sort of debate is not a court trial. There is no person presumed innocent; there are no such presumptions given here. It's a question. There is the affirming side and the negative side. The negation of 'god exists' is not 'there is no reason to believe god exists'. instead, it is 'god does not exist' or 'it is not the case that god exists'.

Maybe the sticking point has to do with Shook's pragmatism.

Does the invisible pink unicorn exist?

MrGray wrote:

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

the context here is important. This sort of debate is not a court trial. There is no person presumed innocent; there are no such presumptions given here. It's a question. There is the affirming side and the negative side. The negation of 'god exists' is not 'there is no reason to believe god exists'. instead, it is 'god does not exist' or 'it is not the case that god exists'.

Maybe the sticking point has to do with Shook's pragmatism.

Does the invisible pink unicorn exist?

no.

Mick wrote:

MrGray wrote:

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

the context here is important. This sort of debate is not a court trial. There is no person presumed innocent; there are no such presumptions given here. It's a question. There is the affirming side and the negative side. The negation of 'god exists' is not 'there is no reason to believe god exists'. instead, it is 'god does not exist' or 'it is not the case that god exists'.

Maybe the sticking point has to do with Shook's pragmatism.

Does the invisible pink unicorn exist?

no.

Why not?

Lion IRC wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Hi ispoketoanangel,
I was born a theist.
I have never seen any explanation for the origin of theism which I found reasonable when set against the dubious claim that we are "all born atheists". How do a bunch of people who are born atheists decide to become theists.
Some claim religion was invented. Well I actually think atheism is the invented concept.
As such I expect the proponents of atheism to present their case using reason and logic.
Lion (IRC)

It is impossible to be born a theist. Just as it is impossible to be born a liberal, a feminist, or a UFO believer. Everyone is born atheist, just as everyone is born a-fairyist.

Hi Crocodile Gandhi,
Why is it impossible?
Why cant two people with EQUAL probability look up at the night sky and one think there is and another think there is NOT "life" in outer space.
One says to the other..."why don't you think there is life out there somewhere in that celestial infinity?
The other says..."why do you think there is?"
Neither side has the burden of proof. Atheists dont have to prove there is no God and theists won't blame themselves if atheists remain unconvinced by the reason/logic/testimony/revelation which others DO find convincing.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Atheism is NOT the default position in logic.
Indeed, it is a logical fallacy to assume something does not exist just because you havent had first hand experience and you dont trust those who claim they have.
Lion (IRC)

Well, you can't prove that it is not impossible.
1. If everyone was born an atheist, then some would still be atheists as adults.
2. Atheists exist as adults.
3. Therefore everyone is born atheist.

Or

1 If children have an innate belief in god(s)/cause/philosophy worshiped , it is probably the right one (Northern hemisphere-ians don't see birds flying north for winter, do you?)
2 Children globally do believe in a form of god
3 The god(s)/cause/philosophy worshiped by children will be the correct one.
4 (I don't know how to validate this.)

Actually my second attempt isn't that logical. ah well.

Besides, what religion is basically adhered to by children globally without prompting. (Note I'm not asking for global religions, as far as I know they are universally practiced originally by adults, excluding indoctrination.

Lion IRC wrote:Why is it impossible?

Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for the claim "pink and invisible" are mutally contradictory.

Of course, this is simply to misunderstand the transcendental nature of Her Pinkness - that it is a transcendental experience of pinkness that IPU possesses and not a mere optical reflection of light of the pink wavelength. She is pink in experience and invisible in reality.

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

the context here is important. This sort of debate is not a court trial. There is no person presumed innocent; there are no such presumptions given here. It's a question. There is the affirming side and the negative side. The negation of 'god exists' is not 'there is no reason to believe god exists'. instead, it is 'god does not exist' or 'it is not the case that god exists'.

Maybe the sticking point has to do with Shook's pragmatism. Or, maybe that's premature of me. What the heck was the debate question?

Reckon he drove himself into a corner?

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

Let's change the question to "do three-headed goblins exist?"

Do you really think the negative has to provide evidence that such goblins do not exist? And if so, what form would such an argument take?

The opposing side would have to offer evidence if they took the position that such three-headed goblins do not exist. Typically, fellas, I'd agree with you on this. but the context of the debate and question demands the opposing side support a negative existential claim. There's no presumption in their favour.

I'm not too sure what the point of the PIU is, since i'm not in a debate and i'm not trying to show anything to be the case. heck, i could disbelief it for some entirely fallacious reason. who cares? it's besides the point.

xrayzed wrote:

Mick wrote:Whether Shook has a positive burden depends on the question asked and the context. If the question was 'does God exists', then the question asks whether or not God exists. Typically, an answer to this question is either 'yes' or 'no'. This type of question cannot be answered by merely refuting or undermining reasons to think that God does exist since this would just kick the feet from underneath the theist. It wouldn't mean that God does not exist, and so the question would remain unanswered by the opposing side. This is why it would make sense to ask Shook whether or not God exists even if he showed that all of Craig's arguments were unsound/weak.

Let's change the question to "do three-headed goblins exist?"

Do you really think the negative has to provide evidence that such goblins do not exist? And if so, what form would such an argument take?

I'm not too sure what you mean by 'form' but you could argue that (1) There's no evidence for them (2) if such goblins did exist, then there'd be evidence for them (3) hence, such goblins don't exist.

It's hard to argue against it since i don't know what is involved here. Yet, that's not the case for atheism. you all know very well that there are great positive arguments for atheism (in the sense of a negative existential claim). Heck, the PoE has been making atheists for thousands of years. Or you can appeal to naturalism as the best explanation for evolution, poor design, etc.