Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

In reply to the discussion: The burden of proof [View all]
 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
7. Ok, I did. It still says the same thing.
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 01:21 PM
Mar 2013

Your ENTIRE FIRST SENTENCE started in the title. So it says this:

"A ten minute analysis of all the arguments for an existence of god, and how they all miserably fail to provide anything close to a burden of proof".

That is not what the video is. It is not analyzing ANY of the specific arguments for the existence of god, let alone all of them. It is not diving in to, say, the ontological argument (or any other argument) and explaining how it fails to meet the burden of proof.


It is explaining what constitutes a failure to meet the burden of proof in general. It includes commentary that this specifically applies to arguments about the supernatural but it is not an analysis of those specific arguments.


The guy asked for a description of the video, he deserves an accurate one. Go ahead and get all huffy and call it nitpicking if you want, your description was misleading.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»The burden of proof»Reply #7