Often the non-theist will claim that s/he makes no claims that need to be defended, and instead will devote unceasing effort to tear down theistic proposals while never offering alternate proposals of their own, and never making any similar effort to evaluate and critique non-theistic claims.
The fallacy here is, we know that either theism is true, or else non-theism is true. If logic is valid, one position must be true; the other must be false. And yet since we have no direct empirical evidence for either position, we must necessarily engage in indirect reasoning. And since there is no a priori way to determine probabilities either way, there is no burden of proof that applies to one side more than the other.
See this post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 675#366675
The Fallacy of Unattempted Debate (burden of proof)
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
So how can these people argue without taking a position?
I am currently engaged in H2H in response to the invitation to support and defend the ID and was shock only to learn that I am there not to debate but to stand on trial like a person accused of "attempted murder" for trying to kill his own life .
I mean can we consider this particular thread a debate when only one side presents a position? I don't think so.
I am currently engaged in H2H in response to the invitation to support and defend the ID and was shock only to learn that I am there not to debate but to stand on trial like a person accused of "attempted murder" for trying to kill his own life .
I mean can we consider this particular thread a debate when only one side presents a position? I don't think so.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES
Post #3
The only benefit that I can see to such a thread is to help you become more familiar with the standard sort of objections that are commonly found on "atheists 'r us" types of websites. You will not be able to persuade a selective skeptic to change their views (or defend or even articulate their views) unless you can first get them to recognize that the pursuit of truth requires them to account for and take ownership of their unacknowledged positions. As far as I can tell, such a task is much more difficult than any debate--for the simple reason that it involves the will and the emotions of your putative "debate partner," rather than merely their reasoning capacities.ST_JB wrote:So how can these people argue without taking a position?
I am currently engaged in H2H in response to the invitation to support and defend the ID and was shock only to learn that I am there not to debate but to stand on trial like a person accused of "attempted murder" for trying to kill his own life .
I mean can we consider this particular thread a debate when only one side presents a position? I don't think so.
