Well, what immediately leaps to mind is that I can't imagine someone coming up to you in the street and saying "you can't prove a negative, you know." It's usually offered, I would say, as a response to an attempt to discredit someone else's belief, in which case one might argue that you started it.
It is not offered out of the blue, but in response to "There is no God." Which is not an attempt to denigrate a theist's belief any more than "God exists," is an attempt to denigrate an atheist's belief.
Right? Same rules for everybody?
If simply stating something that contradicts someone else's belief is denigration, it's just not possible to have any kind of discussion without denigration. In that case I would like to suggest you either give *both* sides a free pass or make *both* sides shut up. In the latter case, the territory will always belong to whoever speaks first, because no one can contradict the speaker.
So supposing that merely disagreeing with someone is not denigration, no matter whether that person is a theist or not, the response "sometimes it does not matter that you can't prove a negative," ALSO doesn't come out of the blue, and is merely disagreeing with someone, so it shouldn't be denigrating either.
it has frequently been pointed out to me that I am wrong and that atheism is not a matter of belief but of logic. In which case, we have apples over here and oranges over there, and as far as I know there is no reason not to attempt, by means of logic (however flawed), to test a logical proposition.
Okay, the logical proposition has been tested by flawed logic, the flaw has been revealed, and the proposition stands. Presumably you will remember not to use that flawed logic again.
In the meantime, let me put it this way--I would like you to apply the same standards, and the same rules of civility, to both theists and atheists. If "there is no god" is uncivil then "god exists" is equally uncivil. I think that is fair.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 10:24 pm (UTC)It is not offered out of the blue, but in response to "There is no God." Which is not an attempt to denigrate a theist's belief any more than "God exists," is an attempt to denigrate an atheist's belief.
Right? Same rules for everybody?
If simply stating something that contradicts someone else's belief is denigration, it's just not possible to have any kind of discussion without denigration. In that case I would like to suggest you either give *both* sides a free pass or make *both* sides shut up. In the latter case, the territory will always belong to whoever speaks first, because no one can contradict the speaker.
So supposing that merely disagreeing with someone is not denigration, no matter whether that person is a theist or not, the response "sometimes it does not matter that you can't prove a negative," ALSO doesn't come out of the blue, and is merely disagreeing with someone, so it shouldn't be denigrating either.
it has frequently been pointed out to me that I am wrong and that atheism is not a matter of belief but of logic. In which case, we have apples over here and oranges over there, and as far as I know there is no reason not to attempt, by means of logic (however flawed), to test a logical proposition.
Okay, the logical proposition has been tested by flawed logic, the flaw has been revealed, and the proposition stands. Presumably you will remember not to use that flawed logic again.
In the meantime, let me put it this way--I would like you to apply the same standards, and the same rules of civility, to both theists and atheists. If "there is no god" is uncivil then "god exists" is equally uncivil. I think that is fair.