very nice....Mobile Handsets
Seems to me that if you go against common knowledge, then the burden of proof is in your hands. Common knowledge dictates that Gos does exist (though it does not dictate who He/She/It is). So if you want to claim ohterwise, then you have to prove it.The same thing went for the earth's shape. In the old days, common knowledge dictated that the earth was flat. Those claiming the earth was round were responsible for providing the evidence, and because they did so, they proved the earth was round.
"Well, that was the end of it and a good example of the approach that asserts the “logic” that if you presuppose positive atheism then positive atheism must be true."Also note the "logic" that if you presuppose theism then theism must be true.
Great logic!!! .... now I understand why the burden of proof is on theists in the teapot issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). since the teapot is not considered "common knowledge" ........ did I got my logic right?... let me take another parse at it. If the celestial teapot is common knowledge, then the burden of proof is on Russel, but since it is not, burden of proof is now unfortunately on theist side again. Hmm.... that sounds correct.
Burden of proof is an almost meaningless issue in its entirety. People only ever talk about the "burden of proof" in an attempt to justify not providing a valid reason to accept what they think. This applies to Christians and atheists alike.As far as I am concerned if you open you mouth or communicate in any way shape or form the burden of proof is on you. Discussions on the burden of proof are almost always just red herrings. If your too lazy to actually comprehend your opponents arguments and generalize or hand wave with simple assertions than dont expect your claim to be taken seriously.Debate consists of convincing others to follow your line of reasoning not monologues that make you feel better about yourself or reinforce what you already believe.Exactly why these ads are empty on reason and logic despite sounding as if they promote them. You would think those who proclaim reason and logic as primary wouldn't commit such massive logical fallacies like appeals to ignorance or ad populum (un)reasoning.
Seems to me that if you go against common knowledge, then the burden of proof is in your hands. Common knowledge dictates that Gos does exist (though it does not dictate who He/She/It is). So if you want to claim ohterwise, then you have to prove it.Common knowledge is an entirely subjective standard. "Common Knowledge" in Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway and Japan is that God does not exist.The term "atheist" has developed to encompass those who assert (as the FFRF does), that God does not exist, and those who assert merely that there is no evidence in favor of the hypothesis.My understanding is that those who assert the former claim that their assersion is warrented due to the fact that a personal God, such as the one described by the abrahamic religons, would have a noticable and measurable effect on reality. When phenomena that should demonstrate such effect (such as the efficiacy of prayer), are studied, they consistently fail to demonstrate it. This, an assersion of non-existance is considered warrented.They often fail to take into account, however, that this does not disprove a more generalised theistic God: it merely disproves the properties given to the hypothesised deity by it's adherents.This means that, for example, the God of the Young Earth Creationists can be positively said to not exist: there are demonstratable effects that this deity should have on the universe that are not observed. However, the God of the theists can not be disproven in this manner, as it's effects on the universe are far more negligable and thus cannot be predicted: warrenting the 'weaker' form of atheism: i.e. One has no reason to believe in it, but one cannot disprove it's existence.
Wow, Mariano; you sure showed that random anonymous commenter!
'One has no reason to believe in it, but one cannot disprove it's existence'yes theres basically two assertions being promulgated by some both faith based
Does a person who sees no reason to believe in the existence of a given entity need to prove that said entity doesn't exist? I don't quite follow how this would be logically possible. For example, if I should say, "Space aliens never visited earth," I will simply be expressing my ignorance of any verifiable evidence that they visited earth. If you should have such evidence, it would naturally behoove me to change my mind. But if you should say, "They came 2,000 years ago, and some of the guys who saw them wrote about all the neat tricks they could do," I would consider that as just about as persuasive as no evidence whatever, yet I couldn't prove that they weren't here or that they couldn't do neat tricks. But then, there's the matter of the Easter Bunny--I can't prove he doesn't exist either, but that's certainly scant reason to believe he does.
This debate is pointless. The facts are simplethere is no scientific evidence for a God or the supernatural. This has nothing to do with atheism. The existence of God is not common knowledge it is merely the cries of the supernatural. If anyone has evidence for a God come out and prove it, the James Randi will pay 1,000,000. I issued this challenged to your hero Mariano and he was too much of a cowaed to accept it!I issued this challenge on my website WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM