Media Bias
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: “To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false…. All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.”
Second, the “presumption of atheism” demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (“God does not exist”) as theism (“God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
What he said.
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism/
Second, the “presumption of atheism” demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (“God does not exist”) as theism (“God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
What he said.
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism/
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Go through that paragraph and replace god with "unicorns", theist with "unicornist", and atheist with "aunicornist". It will be exactly the same argument and make just as much sense, the only difference is that you will be able to see immediately how ridiculous it is.
Nimnim
The Nim
Except while it is a fair assumption that unicorns do not exist we are always discovering new species. We also cannot say unicorns never existed as we're also still finding creatures that are extinct that we previously did not know about.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
The point is that you don't start believing in unicorns just because you can't definitively prove that they don't exist. If you're going to claim the existence of a supernatural being, the burden proof is on you to provide some evidence for it, not on others to provide evidence to the contrary.
Nimnim
The Nim
Perhaps it's wishful thinking that someone starts believing in something, I dunno. Perhaps in a new thread or in pms we can debate this as any further discussion we'll drastically deviate from "media bias."
I'll stick with my quote about evidence though which can have relevance to media bias still. If the media doesn't report something then it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
[h=1]Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi[/h]
"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."
wkmac
Well-Known Member
What I have wondered is why when the American public and its political leaders embraced the Patriot Act so overwhelmingly, would this be a surprise? Kind of like Cheney talking about sometimes having to work with shady characters and governments (ie rendition). Who else talks to shady characters? Yep.
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile back on topic... 
The Whitehouse-of-cards is TUMBLING! Barely into this joke of an administrations second term....the real "changes" are emerging and not even the slobbering BO worshipers can hide it now....You BO apologists are becoming the joke of the WORLD.
The Whitehouse-of-cards is TUMBLING! Barely into this joke of an administrations second term....the real "changes" are emerging and not even the slobbering BO worshipers can hide it now....You BO apologists are becoming the joke of the WORLD.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile back on topic...
The Whitehouse-of-cards is TUMBLING! Barely into this joke of an administrations second term....the real "changes" are emerging and not even the slobbering BO worshipers can hide it now....You BO apologists are becoming the joke of the WORLD.
The topic is media bias but nice try anyway!
