XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: always@ask.questions   
      
   On 27/12/2012 8:49 AM, sbalneav wrote:   
   >> this assumes there is something to be shifted.  my approach, as an   
   >> independent inquirer, is different.   
   >   
   > And incorrect.   
      
   just because people say so?   
      
      
   >   
   >> Both parties have the burden of   
   >> proof.   
   >   
   > You're more than welcome to think that way, but over 2500 years of philosophy   
      
   does this help humans to discover truth?   
      
   does this help humans to be less bigoted?   
      
   does this help humans achieve synthesis (incorporating seemingly   
   opposing views)?   
      
      
   > existence, proving that something DOESN'T exist is pretty nigh on impossible.   
      
   and even worse if different people have different defintions and   
   different presumptions, isn't it?   
      
      
      
   > First, while you may consider yourself a "customer", it doesn't necessarily   
   > mean the atheist feels that they are a "vendor".  I have arrived at my   
   > conclusions on my own.   
      
   i am interested in investigating presumptions and definitions,   
   especially hidden / unconscious ones.  conclusions follow logically once   
   those become clear, don't they?   
      
      
   > great.  If you think the theists have a better argument,   
      
   If i think the theists have a better argument, why am i asking both parties?   
      
      
   it doesn't change the fact that the atheist does not have a   
   > burden of proof.   
      
   but there are unsettled questions:-   
      
   * what is the defintion of god / Gods that an "atheist" does not have?   
      
   * is there a real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?   
      
      
      The atheists position is that the theist has not fulfilled   
   > his or her burden of proof that a deity of some kind exists.  The atheist   
   > simply has to point out to YOU that fact, as the justification of their   
   > position.   
      
   have you heard of ignosticism?   
      
   [ i don't necessary call myself an ignosticist.  i'll sort this out   
   later.  but for now, i'll just call myself a "questionist", for want   
   of a better term. ]   
      
      
   --   
   I ask, becos I'm curious.   
      
   Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   presume.  My personal matters/beliefs are none of your   
   business.  I ask, you answer.  If you think I am stupid,   
   you have already proven that you are stupid, not me.  If   
   you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to other   
   people to answer?  thanks.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)