Atheist church has first schism

[mijopaalmc]

BS. You're still asking someone else to do the work of supporting your claim. It's not their burden. They may accept it or not, but they have no duty to do the work to support your claim.

I suppose you could say that some evidence is trivial to find by 5 minutes of googling, but then it should also be even more trivial for the one making the claim to do it, since he knows exactly what to look for. And frankly, doubly so for the many people who DO have the time to do page after page after page of handwaving and suppositions about what statistics would prove them right, but then apparently at the same time DON'T have the time to do that supposed quick googling and end the discussion right there. Not to mention the delicious BS contradiction when it comes to essentially this claim: it's unreasonable to ask the one person making the claim to do that googling, but it's reasonable to ask dozens of people on a board to each do that work of supporting the claim for him.

But at any rate, nobody owes anyone else to accept a reversal of the burden of proof. To quote Hitchens' razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you can't be bothered to show evidence, then someone might or might not take it upon them to do the work for you, but you also shouldn't be bothered if they just dismiss the claim as long as you don't start bothering to support it.

This is just a defence of intellectual laziness. If you doubt a claim, perhaps you should try to justify your own at least to yourself. Your doubt is not eivdence of the dubitbility of the claim.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My doubt? No, that's not a reason to dismiss something. Steadfastly avoiding to provide evidence for it? Actually, yes, that is a very good reason to dismiss a claim. I'm pretty sure that the rules for how the burden of proof works say it is.

But yes, whop-de-do, I totally hadn't heard before the BS baiting that unless you accept a reversal of the burden of proof, you're intellectually lazy

But again, it's one of those pieces of BS sophistry that make no sense because there's an internal contradiction there: it's apparently unreasonable for ONE person pushing the claim to do that work, but it's somehow lazy if some dozens of people on a forum don't each do the work to verify it. Something doesn't add up there. It's how is refusing to do that work times one, less lazy than refusing to do it times a couple of dozen times? If it's lazy on our part not to take that work that isn't our burden, how is it not lazy for the one making the claim?

Plus, even on a one-on-one level, so you're telling me that

A) for you the work of googling the evidence is quick and trivial. (While for me it would be harder since I don't know exactly which studies or statistics or whatever you actually meant), and

B) you're the one pushing the claim, not I

... how is it less lazy for you than it is for me?

So, you know, even as sophistries in defense of pulling stuff out of the butt without evidence go, one that just tells me 'I'll call you lazy for not doing the work would be mine, but I'm too lazy to do' (a.k.a., 'I'm seriously entitled.') ain't gonna impress me much.

 

[tsig]

This is just a defence of intellectual laziness. If you doubt a claim, perhaps you should try to justify your own at least to yourself. Your doubt is not eivdence of the dubitbility of the claim.

I'm god, if you doubt it you should try to justify your doubt.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I would also like to add on the topic of atheism and TCM in China that:

A) we're talking a very oppressive country on the topic of unsanctioned religions. ESPECIALLY if it's popular enough to be seen as a threat. Ask the Falun Gong, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of those declaring themselves atheists there were just picking the option that doesn't say "send me to prison."

This probably happens in other countries too, even if for different reasons. E.g., on one hand not many will declare themselves atheists in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and on the other enough Germans don't declare themselves as belonging to a religion because they don't believe enough to pay the tithe. You actually have to declare in writing both to the state and to the Catholic church that you are formally leaving the church, to stop paying the church tax. Doesn't mean all instantly stop believing in Jesus too.

B) since Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, a lot of people have no problem being both Atheists and Buddhists, or Shinto, or even certain flavours of Taoism or Hindu. Apparently believing it's great spirits instead of gods, or believing that the universe as a whole is doing the same function, is for a lot of people still good enough to consider themselves atheists.

Basically for a lot of people the term "atheist" doesn't actually mean "irreligious", ESPECIALLY when it comes to Eastern religions.

So I would wonder what the point is in lumping those who still believe in major religious woowoo in the same pot as the actual irreligious atheists, when it come to making such claims as what the majority of atheists believe in.

The phenomenon exists in the west too, btw. A lot of people who didn't claim a religious identity in a 2012 poll in Canada, said they believe in God. In fact, almost a quarter of them.

C) I would question whether for a majority of Chinese they actually believe in TCM, or it's again just what the state imposes on them. People are actually sent to TCM practitioners as part of state policy. And remember that criticizing the state is a crime there.

So would most Chinese actually choose to go get some acupuncture if they could get an antibiotic instead? That's one thing we'll never know, I guess.

I would note however that the Chinese that came to the West, tend to go to normal doctors.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Except when you have capability of going out and looking things up for yourself and, instead of verfying a claim that you find dubious[...]

Actually, if you read back over the thread, you'll see that the only person who has looked up the facts on this particular issue is me. I've provided one source of facts. blutoski has yet to either - provide what s/he feels is a better source, provide additional facts, or demonstrate how the facts which have been provided for him/her support the position s/he is claiming to hold.

So, aside from the fact that you've got burden of proof entirely wrong - what its purpose is, and why it works the way it works - you're also wrong about the sequence of events in this thread. Which is kind of ironic, when you think about it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

My doubt? No, that's not a reason to dismiss something. Steadfastly avoiding to provide evidence for it? Actually, yes, that is a very good reason to dismiss a claim. I'm pretty sure that the rules for how the burden of proof works say it is.

But yes, whop-de-do, I totally hadn't heard before the BS baiting that unless you accept a reversal of the burden of proof, you're intellectually lazy

But again, it's one of those pieces of BS sophistry that make no sense because there's an internal contradiction there: it's apparently unreasonable for ONE person pushing the claim to do that work, but it's somehow lazy if some dozens of people on a forum don't each do the work to verify it. Something doesn't add up there. It's how is refusing to do that work times one, less lazy than refusing to do it times a couple of dozen times? If it's lazy on our part not to take that work that isn't our burden, how is it not lazy for the one making the claim?

Plus, even on a one-on-one level, so you're telling me that

A) for you the work of googling the evidence is quick and trivial. (While for me it would be harder since I don't know exactly which studies or statistics or whatever you actually meant), and

B) you're the one pushing the claim, not I

... how is it less lazy for you than it is for me?

So, you know, even as sophistries in defense of pulling stuff out of the butt without evidence go, one that just tells me 'I'll call you lazy for not doing the work would be mine, but I'm too lazy to do' (a.k.a., 'I'm seriously entitled.') ain't gonna impress me much.

Actually, the fact that you can't be bothered to type a couple words into a search engine and click "Search" is more indicative of entitlement than critcizing someone for not doing so.

 

[tsig]

I'm god, if you doubt it you should try to justify your doubt.

Actually, the fact that you can't be bothered to type a couple words into a search engine and click "Search" is more indicative of entitlement than critcizing someone for not doing so.

Glad to see you acknowledge my divinity by not trying to disprove it.

The fact that you can't be bothered to type a couple words into a search engine and click "Search" shows you know it's futile.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, the fact that you can't be bothered to type a couple words into a search engine and click "Search" is more indicative of entitlement than critcizing someone for not doing so.

The key there however is that it's not my burden in the first place. It's not my chore, as per the rules of logic. If YOU make a claim, YOU get to support it. And if blutoski makes a claim, HE gets to support it. It's that simple.

No amount of flailing like a spoiled brat about how entitled and lazy are those who refuse to do YOUR chores will change that.

Sorry, it's about 2500 years too late to debate if logic applies.

Not to mention it's not even something new. I've been hearing the same refrain about how lazy, evil, and above all, not REAL skepticism, if someone actually asks for evidence. There are a million deluded apologists doing that on the theist, alternate medicine, astrology, etc, boards. It's pretty much the standard anthem of those who don't have actual evidence. So, you know, we've all heard it before and had more than enough time to figure it out. Being yet another guy doing the same flailing, sadly, won't be what convinces anyone that, damn, REAL skepticism means bending over and accepting the reversal of the burden of proof because this time the right guy said it.

 

[Humes fork]

blutoski: I'm still waiting for you to present the "five or so" (present as many or as few as you like) "major rifts" within scientific skepticism that supposedly robs it of its meaning as a concept. It would also help if you'd list which people that take different sides in these rifts.