That you may feel something is obvious to you is not the same as objectively demonstrating from reason that something is the case. We are interested in what can be objectively demonstrated...not one's "feelings" or opinions on an issue.
Originally Posted by libre
Yes...I used the quantifier "all." That is because that is precisely what his claim was. It is important than when someone makes a claim...that one actually responds accordingly...else we have a strawman. If he did not mean "all" then he would have used an appropriate quantifier. Your objection then, is with his argument for being what is referred to as a "universal" claim (vs "particular").
You emphasized the word "all" over and over. That made it clear to me that no matter what was said you were planning to hold him responsible for proving "all" theists believe out of fear vs "most" or "majority", etc.
The obvious is that he made a universal claim...and as such, an objection to that claim was made with the context, qualifiers, and quantifiers of his claim. To remove or add to that claim would be intellectually dishonest as well as fallacious.
I'm not saying you can't technically demand such a proof based on what he technically said. I'm just pointing out the obvious...
If there is one such example that contradicts the claim, then the claim is false. It is why making such absolutist claims as he did are almost always grounded in bad reasoning and lack sufficient support. And it is why he is being taken to task for doing so in this thread.
that such a proof would be impossible since even if he could prove every theist on the planet prayed out of fear... you could still sit there and claim you don't.
Had he made the claim that "Most prayer is grounded in fear" then likewise, he would have been challenged to support that.
You seem to be wanting to accept whatever he says merely because he's a non-theist. Obviously, that's highly fallacious. There is absolutely no validity in his thinking. ANYONE who has ever had any first year logic or critical thinking course would recognize that immediately.
This again, is just bad reasoning. There is no "beating someone up" here at all. He was not attacked, his argument was. Your statement clearly misunderstands what debate is about. Just because someone makes a claim does not mean it is sound. That's rather foolish. And just because someone makes a claim (that you may like or may share other similar views and values with) does not make it sound. His claim was objected to for what are obvious reasons to anyone familiar with elementary principles of reasoning. This was summarized in my 5 pt objection (post #10).
So, other than maybe jumping at the opportunity to beat someone up just for the fun of it I just don't see what the point was in requesting what is obviously an impossible proof.
If I was incorrect in my objection, then those points could be easily responded to by yourself and him. Instead, there is a display of "nuh-uh" which is never compelling (nor appropriate in any debate).
When addressing claims (which ought to be arguments) we don't assume nor do we operate from "common sense" as that is purely subjective and one of the worst forms of evidence. Instead, we take at face value what someone says. If he meant something other than what he said, then he should have said it. If he realized that his wording was poor, then he should have acknowledged it to be insufficient and amended the argument. It's what is done in debate, it is what is expected here in this community. For those new to debate or even critical thinking, that's fine. Mistakes get made. We learn from mistakes, it is how we grow. And it is exactly how all the more experienced debaters, professors, teachers, professionals, and educated members of this community learn and grow.
I think anyone with any common sense knew what he was saying was just an exaggerated opinion... not something that is actually provable... at least not to an impossible degree you are expecting.
And if he was mature enough (in the sense of being knowledgeable and experienced enough in the principles of reasoning, critical thinking, logic, and/or debate), he would have made the change of quantifier and we would have proceeded from there. Instead, he defended his original position, and using "common sense" you should have known that "all" was exactly what he meant.
In fact, he even clarified his position in post #17:
Serand: I'm saying fear is the motivation for all prayers,
And if he had amended the argument to "most" or "some" he would have still needed to support that. You seem to be operating from the position that he doesn't need to support anything and it is inappropriate to object to his claim as well as challenge his position on the basis that he hasn't supported it. That...would be a mistake.
Yes...that is the part I thought you were referring to. And as such, my answer (was given):
No, I'm referring to what I quoted...
Apok: As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).
The giveaway should have been the reference to "blind faith." So again, I'm not sure why there is any confusion here.
If I were serious in that claim, you would be right to do so. But this has already been addressed:
First off, I guess I could do what you did and ask you to prove that ALL atheists do that... but like I pointed out above, that would be pointless.
Apok: As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).and:
1) I'm referring only to atheists (as classically and philosophically understood).
2) It was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).
3) It is not the case that all atheists (philosophical) or even non-theists "have more faith than theists" (as per #2).
No, my only question is why you are saying it at all? The context of the discussion makes it sound like you are using the term "atheist" for all non theists. Yet later when someone else does something similar to that you make a big point about all the diff categories of non theists.
Where did I make this claim. Be specific. Copy/paste it.
So, my confusion was two fold:
1) When you said that were you referring to all non theists.
Again, see above.
2) Were you just referring to a specific subset of non theists. If so, why? I don't follow why you would just talk about that one subset of non theists and not all non theists. It's just confusing is all.
You are focusing on a rhetorical response, for some reason not understanding the explanation made about it.
If it helps, just pretend it was never made, as it isn't an actual argument.