marvin martian
Diamond Member
Interesting.
I've recently stumbled across some guy named Matt Dillahunty. Quite the odd fellow. Not sure if I like him. But there is no denying he is an interesting guy.
At the 2014 American Atheists convention in Salt Lake City, he gave a workshop that outlined some key ideas in effective debating: "Take the opponent seriously: 'The audience has to sense that I can perfectly understand their views, and have rejected them.' Use logic: 'I tell them that I can write a better book than the Bible. Simple: I copy it word for word, except the parts about slavery.' And don't forget emotion: 'It is theater. That is my advantage with a Baptist background over someone like Richard Dawkins, although he knows more about science.'"[32] He has also stated that he is willing to say "I don't know" in a debate, a "scary concept" to some of his audience. -
as if Dawkins and others never say "I don't know?" I smell a blowhard the equivalent of a Trump. Doesn't go to what he suggests that is based on fact and sound reason, but he is an irritating, self-promoter
Gumball analogy
Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is often illustrated through the 'gumball' analogy, conceived by then co-host Tracie Harris: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does not automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, unbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does not automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that there is a neutral position. The common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" therefore is a strawman fallacy when applied to those who have the neutral position (as well as potentially being a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof)
The Gumball Analogy » Answers In Reason
In this article I take a look at the gumball analogy. Looking at what it intends to show, and where many atheists overreach with the argument.www.answers-in-reason.com
Burden of proof (philosophy)
You're not an atheist, you're just a Christophobe.
