Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
🚀 Google AI PRO – 18 Months | Rs. 850 Only
lkkolla
Updated:
Yesterday at 4:56 PM
🔒 NordVPN Premium – 3 Months
hrdilshan
Updated:
Thursday at 8:29 PM
🚀 Microsoft Office 365 Pro Plus – Lifetime Access! 🚀
hrdilshan
Updated:
Thursday at 8:28 PM
Linkedin Premium Business / Careere /Sales Navigator - 1/2/3/6/9/12 Months - Reddem Link
hrdilshan
Updated:
Thursday at 8:27 PM
Colombo
YEYE 3 in 1 Instant Coffee Mix 50 Sachet
Romeshka
Updated:
Wednesday at 12:16 AM
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
ElaKiri Talk!
Aethist corner of Elakiri
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DJvodka" data-source="post: 17001039" data-attributes="member: 186185"><p>I'm more stuck to the point than you are here. You are the one came up with the philosophical burden proof and other straw man's arguments when my whole point is about belief. If Atheism is completely opposite of some concept that can not be proven, then both the parties should bring about facts to support their theories. You can not simply shake it off by saying burden of proof. And at some points, not even you are changing subjects but also your own statements contradict with each other. For eg: in the beginning you've mentioned that Atheism is simply rejecting any deity or any supreme power, and now you are saying that it is hard to find people with such emphatic views (much like secular vs sacred in religions). But in the end you are saying that you are agnostics about the concept altogether. But being agnostic about god is again contradicting because clearly Atheism and Agnosticism is very different. In agnosticism you can not make such statements and also agnostic people would not argue about things that can not be proven in the first place. May be it's best that you read your own posts before further going on about burden proof. Because after all that's not my initial argument was about. </p><p></p><p>So here is the bottom line.</p><p></p><p>1. If a concept is not provable then both parties with opposing ideas should provide reasonable evidence to back up their position.</p><p>2. If a concept is provable then only the claiming party needs provision of reasonable evidence to back up their claim.</p><p></p><p>Eg:</p><p></p><p>Let's say there is a box of marbles in different colors. If some one says the color of the marble that is being picked up next is such and such color, then that prediction must be supported with facts because it could have been a lucky guess. But when it comes to something that can not be evaluated, all propositions of all parties must be supported with valid facts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DJvodka, post: 17001039, member: 186185"] I'm more stuck to the point than you are here. You are the one came up with the philosophical burden proof and other straw man's arguments when my whole point is about belief. If Atheism is completely opposite of some concept that can not be proven, then both the parties should bring about facts to support their theories. You can not simply shake it off by saying burden of proof. And at some points, not even you are changing subjects but also your own statements contradict with each other. For eg: in the beginning you've mentioned that Atheism is simply rejecting any deity or any supreme power, and now you are saying that it is hard to find people with such emphatic views (much like secular vs sacred in religions). But in the end you are saying that you are agnostics about the concept altogether. But being agnostic about god is again contradicting because clearly Atheism and Agnosticism is very different. In agnosticism you can not make such statements and also agnostic people would not argue about things that can not be proven in the first place. May be it's best that you read your own posts before further going on about burden proof. Because after all that's not my initial argument was about. So here is the bottom line. 1. If a concept is not provable then both parties with opposing ideas should provide reasonable evidence to back up their position. 2. If a concept is provable then only the claiming party needs provision of reasonable evidence to back up their claim. Eg: Let's say there is a box of marbles in different colors. If some one says the color of the marble that is being picked up next is such and such color, then that prediction must be supported with facts because it could have been a lucky guess. But when it comes to something that can not be evaluated, all propositions of all parties must be supported with valid facts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)
Post reply
Top
Bottom