The Most Pervasive Fallacy in Modern Thought

NigelTufnel said:
"It is impossible to prove a negative" is a strawman of the highest order. It is certainly possible to prove a negative, but oftentimes it is exceedingly difficult to do.

Like, I'm sure as shit that there ain't in this world a single rainbow-colored unicorn that shits gold bullion but I doubt I could prove it.
Click to expand...

amazing...even nigel gets it...

lmao...3d = :BKick:
 
Yet its not faith or belief which led to his conclusion, genious, but reason, logic, and cold-hard facts. Since no one has proved the positive, it is disingenuous and fallacious to demand that someone else prove the negative, on the grounds that your positions may henceforth hold equal merit.
 
Threedee said:
Yet its not faith or belief which led to his conclusion, genious, but reason, logic, and cold-hard facts. Since no one has proved the positive, it is disingenuous and fallacious to demand that someone else prove the negative, on the grounds that your positions may henceforth hold equal merit.
Click to expand...


Quite so. Yurt apparently thought I was supporting his argument. I wasn't. I mean, it would be ridiculous to suggest that I merely "believe" in the non-existence of gold brick shitting rainbow-colored unicorns notwithstanding that I cannot prove that one does not exist.
 
Yurt said:
yeah....and try to prove the defendant did not commit the murder, eg., to try and prove a negative...often using the SODDI defense...that is trying to prove a negative
Click to expand...
That's not required. Again its up to the prosecution to prove their accusation. If they have a doubtful case the defense doesn't even have to say a word.
 
Threedee said:
Yet its not faith or belief which led to his conclusion, genious, but reason, logic, and cold-hard facts. Since no one has proved the positive, it is disingenuous and fallacious to demand that someone else prove the negative, on the grounds that your positions may henceforth hold equal merit.
Click to expand...

:palm:

you're confusing merit with FACT

you can believe whatever you want, it has nothing to do with merit, has nothing to do with whether atheism falls under the definition of religion. it does and you admitted it. there is not proof there is no diety, hence, you must believe it to be true.

seriously, this isn't complicated
 
Threedee said:
Yet its not faith or belief which led to his conclusion, genious, but reason, logic, and cold-hard facts. Since no one has proved the positive, it is disingenuous and fallacious to demand that someone else prove the negative, on the grounds that your positions may henceforth hold equal merit.
Click to expand...

:palm:

you're confusing merit with FACT

you can believe whatever you want, it has nothing to do with merit, has nothing to do with whether atheism falls under the definition of religion. it does and you admitted it. there is not proof there is no diety, hence, you must believe it to be true.

seriously, this isn't complicated
 
NigelTufnel said:
Quite so. Yurt apparently thought I was supporting his argument. I wasn't. I mean, it would be ridiculous to suggest that I merely "believe" in the non-existence of gold brick shitting rainbow-colored unicorns notwithstanding that I cannot prove that one does not exist.
Click to expand...

you did support my argument, its a pity you can't see it...

it is further a pity that neither you nor threedee can actually dispute anything from the OP....

fact is, unless you can prove it, it is a belief, theory etc.....i am not surprised you don't know what a fact is though
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's not required. Again its up to the prosecution to prove their accusation. If they have a doubtful case the defense doesn't even have to say a word.
Click to expand...

really....its not required...yeah...tell that to a defendant....tell him his attorney is not required to try and prove the prosecution's case is a negative....tell the defendant looking at 25 years to life or death that....hey....the prosecutions case is "weak"....dude...we don't even have to say a word....we'll just sit back and let the prosecution make their case and because its "doubtful" we don't have to rebut anything....

for fucks sake SM....this is the dumbest thing you've ever said....read up on BOP and how trials work in the real world
 
Threedee said:
Bottom line, only an idiot believes that non-belief is belief.
Click to expand...

you do realize that to not believe, is in and of itself a belief to NOT believe in that thing

dumbass

this wasn't an agnostic argument, it was an atheist argument

you admitted there is no proof for atheist principles or cause....and atheists hold to them with ardor and faith

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Click to expand...

keep scrambling threedee and keep trying to dis the logic, but you can't dismiss facts and accepted definitions.
 
Negatives can totally be proven. That is a modern fallacy.

You could also say proving a positive is fallacious because it's 'merely' the opposite of proving the negative.
 
Yurt said:
really....its not required...yeah...tell that to a defendant....tell him his attorney is not required to try and prove the prosecution's case is a negative....tell the defendant looking at 25 years to life or death that....hey....the prosecutions case is "weak"....dude...we don't even have to say a word....we'll just sit back and let the prosecution make their case and because its "doubtful" we don't have to rebut anything....

for fucks sake SM....this is the dumbest thing you've ever said....read up on BOP and how trials work in the real world
Click to expand...
Don't get all hissy because you know I'm right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top