Dear Yuyutsu,

<<So many cross-referenced Wikipedia pages, so many references, so much volume, so many assumptions, to describe just one rule?>>

Yes, being thorough prevents confusion and guards against dishonest attempts to skew what's being said. Notice how quickly yours fell through.

<<What claim? I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know...>>

Yes, and in doing so, you were implicitly claiming THAT you knew. So, like I was saying...

From the article I linked you to that you thought, for a moment there, had brought you all your Christmases at once:
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)

Funny that you didn't refer to the article to support this claim.

<<But I wouldn't be telling the whole truth either.>>

Not telling the whole truth is only a problem when it is done to deliberately deceive. Claiming that you know something, that you couldn’t possibly know, *is* actually being dishonest, however. Even if just with yourself.

<<If the 'someone' I'm talking with has already decided that I'm a camel no matter what I'll say ... yet I still care to convince them, then that would be neurotic!>>

Your ‘camel’ analogy is inaccurate and offensive because your use of it assumes that I’ve made up my mind, and implies that I’m unwilling to change my mind when you haven’t even provided anything to remotely suggest the truth of your claims.

<<Yes, on you it's all lost anyway, but you are not the only one who reads this.>>

So you’re hoping that some of the people out there reading this are gullible then? Because most people seem to understand simple concepts such as the burden of proof and the fact that disbelief is the default position until support for a claim has been provided. Your playing dumb, in this regard, is not very convincing, I must say.

<<Are you accusing me of intentionally and systematically confusing others?>>

Continued…

...Continued

Not in that instance. You do do it with your semantic games, though (i.e. “But God does not exist”, “but God is not a thing”, “You are not you, you are YOU”). It’s like George Carlin once said: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.”

<<I then suggest that you take it with Graham Young - perhaps you could convince him to make a rule against unsupported claims on OLO…>>

That has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. You’re being melodramatic.

<<You know how to harass, as taught in the manual-pages of atheism.about.com.>>

You don’t have to be here. Why should I be the first to leave? So you can feel like you've won? I suggest you work on that if you want to rid yourself of your ego.

<<As the forum's self-appointed epistemic police.>>

Snippy. I’m entitled to defend what I like.

<<I see no conundrum in rejecting arbitrary beheadings and rapes as wrong, then fighting the perpetrators.>>

That’s not what I was talking about and you know it. Try again.

<<Why? what's wrong with sharing intellectual property rights with others who do not agree with you about everything else?>>

Because, like I said, if those who have the rights to the word ‘religion’ do bad things in its name, then others are entitled to speak of religion disparagingly.

<<This is so important because when someone claims: "Those Muslims kill/rape because of their religion", it implies that myself and my religious friends are also potential murderers/rapists.>>

I don't think it does. Like every other religious person, however, you do share a part of the blame (however small) by passively supporting them. It’s their billions of fellow travellers that help provide them with a sense of legitimacy. Religion allows sane people, in the millions, to believe what only a crazy person could believe on their own.

<<[Certain] Muslims kill/rape due to their Arab culture and creed, not due to their religion!>>

There’s certainly an element of culture, but how do you know it’s not due to their religion?

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Yes, and in doing so, you were implicitly claiming THAT you knew.>>

So you assume that if you claim this enough times then it will become true...

<<Funny that you didn't refer to the article to support this claim.>>

What claim?

Now If I don't play your game, then I don't play your game - I don't just play it when convenient. I don't make epistemic claims either, I consider it all stupid.

<<Claiming that you know something, that you couldn’t possibly know, *is* actually being dishonest>>

Here again you claim that I claimed to know - I stopped counting how many times you did it, but it seems that you still attempt argumentum ad nauseam.

But since you touched on the point of the ability to know, it is my position that nothing but the direct experience can give you knowledge, that whatever one perceives through one's senses and mind, is untrue.

<<your use of it assumes that I’ve made up my mind>>

And your previous post confirms that you have done so ("so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense").

<<So you’re hoping that some of the people out there reading this are gullible then?>>

Open to listen to other perspectives, that is, rather than being brainwashed by the theory of epistemology.

<<Because most people seem to understand simple concepts such as the burden of proof>>

Understanding the rules of a game is different from wanting to take part in it.

<<and the fact that disbelief is the default position until support for a claim has been provided>>

Belief or disbelief are personal choices. Even if one supports their claim, it doesn't oblige anyone else to believe in it (unless they play epistemology) and even if a claim is unsupported, it doesn't oblige anyone not to believe in it.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<You don’t have to be here.>>

Strawman: I didn't claim that you're forcing me to stay.

<<Why should I be the first to leave?>>

Another strawman: I didn't ask you to leave.

<<That’s not what I was talking about and you know it.>>

No, I have no clue what conundrum you refer to.

<<Because, like I said, if those who have the rights to the word ‘religion’ do bad things in its name, then others are entitled to speak of religion disparagingly.>>

Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you.

As I understand your epistemic game, those who play it require evidence first (that the perpetrator is indeed religious), which of course they wouldn't find. Those who don't, I can at least try to convince.

<<Like every other religious person, however, you do share a part of the blame>>

Suppose one knocks on your door and says "Police, open!", then when you open the door they pull a gun and rob you": are all policemen to blame?

Anyway, in this case, either you insist on your definition of 'religion' (which violates our intellectual property) or you are contradicting yourself, since if you claim that there is no such process as coming closer to God, then you must also conclude that no-one is religious.

<<but how do you know it’s not due to their religion?>>

Didn't I write that "I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious'"?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<So you assume that if you claim this enough times then it will become true...>>

No. That’s why I provide reasoning every time I make a claim. Your decision to ignore that every time you respond does not change that.

<<What claim?>>

Your suggestion that the burden of proof only applies if you explicitly claim to know something and not just mention it in passing.

<<Now If I don't play your game, then I don't play your game...>>

For the fourth time now, it's not a game.

If you don't think you should have to provide support for your claims, then fine. But by insisting that you don’t have to provide support, you suggest that you do in fact think that you should. It’s a self-defeating claim. This in turn suggests that you simply drop this standard (that everyone else adheres to as well) when it’s convenient, once again demonstrating that it’s a cop-out, and not the noble defence of your rights that you portray it to be.

<<Here again you claim that I claimed to know...>>

Indeed, and I demonstrated that you did too. So it’s not an argumentum ad nauseum. Ironically, though, your insistence on repeating this, without addressing my reasoning, renders your claim an argumentum ad nauseum.

Ooops...

<<Open to listen to other perspectives, that is…>>

So am I. But there’s a difference between being open to other perspectives and just gullibly accepting them without anything to support the claim. So my point, regarding you hope for gullibility, still stands.

<<Understanding the rules of a game is different from wanting to take part in it.>>

For the fifth time now, it’s not a game. And if you understand the burden of proof, then why provide incorrect assumptions about it in order to wriggle out of your obligation?

<<Belief or disbelief are personal choices. Even if one supports their claim, it doesn't oblige anyone else to believe in it (unless they play epistemology) and even if a claim is unsupported, it doesn't oblige anyone not to believe in it.>>

Continued…

...Continued

Absolutely. And not even if they play this "game of epistemology" that you’ve invented.

This has nothing to do with my point about the default position being disbelief, though. You have addressed nothing.

<<Strawman: I didn't claim that you're forcing me to stay.>>

I never said that you claimed that; it was a rhetorical question. So the only strawman here is yours.

<<Another strawman: I didn't ask you to leave.>>

As above. Best you look up what a strawman is, eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

<<No, I have no clue what conundrum you refer to.>>

The conundrum for you is that fact that your claims, regarding the definition of religion, are based on unsupported assumptions, so the default position (regarding them) is disbelief.

<<Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you.>>

So now there's rights to words, and the right to apply it to oneself - and they're separate. You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

Can we add goal-post-shifting to your extensive list of fallacies?

<<As I understand your epistemic game…>>

It’s not a game and it’s not mine. You have no shame.

<<Suppose one knocks on your door and says "Police, open!", then when you open the door they pull a gun and rob you": are all policemen to blame?>>

No. The reasoning behind police work can be justified without the masses; religious belief can't be. Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy.

Religion allows, in the millions...

<<either you insist on your definition of 'religion' (which violates our intellectual property)...>>

You see? I didn't even need to go there. You haven't demonstrated that there are any such rights though; let alone that they've been violated. No-one owns words.

<<Didn't I write that "I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious'"?>>

Your belief is not a reason to believe that they're not; nor is it evidence of it.