Shifting the burden of proof, is a fallacy so common that pointing it out is exhausting. The accepted decorum in debates and arguments is that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. So, if I claim that there is a hobbit living in my television, I have to prove that claim, I cannot demand that it be treated as true until proven false.
This is also a very common argument that Atheists run into when debating believers, where they will run into a variant on
“You are making the claim that God does not exist, therefore you have to prove that he does not”
The reason why this is burden of proof shifting is that without a claim to there being a god, the Atheist position would not exist. The cause and effect cannot be:
There is no God! – > There is a God.
Where the negative claim comes before the positive claim. The positive claim always comes first and thus has the burden of proof. This is one of the funnier things to see in popular news programs or debate shows, where the people claiming that “X does not exist” are the ones that have to provide evidence.
Begging the question is a straight-forward fallacy, that I was about a second away from making in my post on Kant. It happens when your conclusion is in essence provided in one of your premises.
Major premise: Women are discriminated against in the workplace.
Minor premise: Women earn less than men.
Conclusion: Women earn less because they are discriminated against.
In this case, the conclusion is contained fully in the major premise and is thus a case of begging the question. It is one of those fallacies that is very hard to catch in a debate simply because by the time you have had enough time to process it, the speaker will have moved on.
I’m naturally oriented towards systems-thinking and an ideology is a construct of ideas that in totality makes a system. An easy example would be religions that tend to consist of metaphysical ideas, ethics, aesthetic ideas and epistemology.
For instance in the Christian religion
“God exists” is a metaphysical statement.
The ten commandments and the Golden Rule are ethical ideas, based on deontological ethics and objective ethics.
The design of the temple, the stone tables are aesthetic ideas.
Knowledge comes from divine revelation is epistemology.
There is a lot to be learned from deconstructing an ideology in this manner. For instance, you get to the bottom of what axioms are required in order for the ideology to be “true” and whether it is logical. You learn whether it is built like a house of cards or as a pyramid.
Some have taken to calling atheism an ideology, if Atheism is broken down into fundamental ideas there is really only 1 core statement in Atheism, which is the answer to the metaphysical question “Is there a god?”.
Atheism has no statement of ethics or of aesthetics. It does tend to view epistemology in the traditional western logical systems and scientific method. However, this is not a prerequisite. So, in this sense, Atheism isn’t an ideology, it is a conclusion.