Religions > Atheism > ** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! **
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"¥ UltraMan ¥" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2007 12:24:20 AM |
| Object: |
** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! ** |
Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith'
By Richard Edwards in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 16/06/2007
The parents of Madeleine McCann said yesterday that their Roman
Catholic faith would be "severely tested" if their daughter was not returned
safe and well.
Gerry and Kate McCann have relied heavily on prayer to help them
survive the ordeal of Madeleine's disappearance which has now moved into a
sixth week.
They have visited Portugal's holy shrine at Fatima and met the Pope in
Rome. But Mr McCann said yesterday the prospect of the four-year-old not
coming home would stretch their belief.
In an interview with The Tablet, a Catholic newspaper, Mr McCann said:
"If we don't get Madeleine back alive and well, I am sure our faith will be
severely tested. At the end of it, we will still have our faith and we will
also have comfort that Madeleine will be looked after."
Mrs McCann added: "I have felt guilty asking, 'Will this make or break
my faith?' You could argue that what happened in the first place could make
or break your faith and it hasn't. It's done the opposite. It has given us
hope and strength."
advertisement
Mr McCann also told of an "extraordinary experience" inside the church
in Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's disappearance which inspired him
to launch the global campaign to find his daughter.
He said: "I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of
the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant
spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in
many different directions.
"I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is
but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man
possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."
Yesterday police ruled out claims that Madeleine was buried in
scrubland nine miles from where she was abducted.
A letter and two maps had been sent to the Dutch newspaper De
Telegraaf claiming to pinpoint the area where the child was buried "under
branches and rocks".
Yesterday around 30 beat officers and four sniffer dogs moved into the
hamlet of Canafechal, near Odiaxere, in southern Portugal. They were
accompanied by 20 detectives from the Judicial Police.
The search was called off shortly after 9.30am.
.
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
10 Jul 2007 03:31:10 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mdSdnZlPy7dArQ7bnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:trSdneq9g8kBHg_bnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Lack of disproof does not lead to a conclusion that there might be a
God®.
If you disagree, please show the steps in getting from the former to the
latter.
Look up Argumentum ad ignorantium .. it explains it well ...
*
The principle you refer to is that trying to argue as you do
No .. its not.
*
Yes it is moron.
The principle you refer to is that trying to argue as you do from lack
of disproof to a conclusion that there might be a God® is logical
fallacy for which you theists are famous.
See #109 at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
So that's no help to you, it's just the same old lame old logical
fallacy for which you theists are famous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 12:27:04 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXZ87NgScQ7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mdSdnZlPy7dArQ7bnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:trSdneq9g8kBHg_bnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Lack of disproof does not lead to a conclusion that there might be a
God®.
If you disagree, please show the steps in getting from the former to
the latter.
Look up Argumentum ad ignorantium .. it explains it well ...
*
The principle you refer to is that trying to argue as you do
No .. its not.
*
Yes it is moron.
The principle you refer to is that trying to argue as you do from lack of
disproof to a conclusion that there might be a God® is logical fallacy for
which you theists are famous.
No .. YOUR argument for 'no god' is the fallacy.
One CANNOT logically conclude 'No God' from lack of proof. To do so is the
prime exmaple of agumentum ad ignorantium
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
See #109 at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Liar .. That is NOT the argument I'm making, fuckwit
So that's no help to you, it's just the same old lame old logical fallacy
for which you theists are famous.
Theists like you have no idea what you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
11 Jul 2007 12:11:06 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS WRONG
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
But this isn't about knowledge, it is about the rightful denial and
repudiation of your RELIGIOUS BELIEF (belief without logically
satisfactory evidence) that there might be a deity, as Thomas Huxley
explains:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
See that term, 'believe'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 07:44:07 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:I_adnfE4Fuy2kgjbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS WRONG
I am absolutely correct about agnosticism
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
More lies
[snip same old copy and paste .. no original thought from sipp]
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 07:50:44 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:I_adnfE4Fuy2kgjbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS
WRONG
I am absolutely correct about agnosticism
# 5 Argument from Assertion.
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
More lies
#0 No Argument at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 03:12:41 AM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5flc7fF3cj73vU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:I_adnfE4Fuy2kgjbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS
WRONG
I am absolutely correct about agnosticism
# 5 Argument from Assertion.
That has been shown previously. Read the thread(s) history(ies)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
More lies
#0 No Argument at all.
Just more lies from Sipp .. he lies continually .. referring to url's that
do NOT say what he claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
16 Jul 2007 07:59:50 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5flc7fF3cj73vU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:I_adnfE4Fuy2kgjbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The only thin one can say is that we do not know.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS
WRONG
I am absolutely correct about agnosticism
# 5 Argument from Assertion.
That has been shown previously. Read the thread(s) history(ies)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
More lies
#0 No Argument at all.
Just more lies from Sipp .. he lies continually .. referring to url's
that do NOT say what he claims.
So define the "god" you claim "might" exist, jackass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
12 Jul 2007 12:16:17 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there
is no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement
that we do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing more and
more your true colors.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS WRONG
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a deity.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
But this isn't about knowledge, theist moron, it is about the rightful
denial and repudiation of your RELIGIOUS BELIEF (belief without
logically satisfactory evidence) that there might be a deity, as Thomas
Huxley explains:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
See that term, 'believe'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 03:13:31 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:nuidncbYBtN-_AvbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there is
no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement
that we do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing more and
more your true colors.
As a theist yourself, you would understand
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS WRONG
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a deity.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
And the same lie repeated again . .You're good at repeating lies and lame
quotes.
Shame you're no good at thinking and understanding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
15 Jul 2007 05:30:02 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:nuidncbYBtN-_AvbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there is
no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement
that we do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing more and
more your true colors.
As a theist yourself
*
Wrong. I am one who is atheist and agnostic like Thomas Huxley.
Anybody who believes as you do that there might be a deity anyway, even
though they cannot produce any logically satisfactory evidence of a
deity, is theist. All the rest of us are atheist, including those of us
who are atheist and agnostic like the freethinker (atheist) Thomas Huxley.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
We who are atheist and also agnostic go a little beyond a mere absence
of belief that there might be a god to unabashedly deny and repudiate,
on principle, any such religious belief (belief without evidence):
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
This seems to be a universal principle:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 10:41:32 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:zqydnXH8rcx3AgfbnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:nuidncbYBtN-_AvbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there
is no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement
that we do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing more and
more your true colors.
As a theist yourself
*
Wrong. I am one who is atheist and agnostic like Thomas Huxley.
You are nothing like Thomas Huxley .. he was a decent honest and logical
human being. He did not rule out the possiblity of gods .. he was an
Agnostic.
Anybody who believes as you do that there might be a deity anyway, even
though they cannot produce any logically satisfactory evidence of a deity,
is theist.
Poor deluded sipp .. you have no idea of the meanings of the words you copy
and paste so much
[snip same old crap from sip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
16 Jul 2007 11:25:22 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:nuidncbYBtN-_AvbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do
not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because
there is no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical
statement
that we do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing
more and more your true colors.
As a theist yourself
*
Wrong. I am one who is atheist and agnostic like Thomas Huxley.
Anybody who believes as you do that there might be a deity anyway,
even though they cannot produce any logically satisfactory evidence
of a deity, is theist.
AKA - MORON!
All the rest of us are atheist, including
those of us who are atheist and agnostic like the freethinker
(atheist) Thomas Huxley.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
We who are atheist and also agnostic go a little beyond a mere absence
of belief that there might be a god to unabashedly deny and repudiate,
on principle, any such religious belief (belief without evidence):
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
This seems to be a universal principle:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
08 Jul 2007 10:16:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:01:33 -0700, in alt.atheism
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in
<IsednSV4Ko-NOAzbnZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6rbdb$kom$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6qgnk$m80$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are nonsense. The
atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong. Arguing about the
truth of the 'proposition' that 'there exists a transcendent, [ie
not just another name for some tangible phenomena like the Sun],
god', is equivalent to arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously
or not'. It is not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it
is true or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we don't
know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question' "Do
green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is it "we
cannot know", because both of these responses imply there could be a
valid answer. The correct answer is "the proposition is nonsensical,
it is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
Nonsense it is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Yes .. it is .. and if its meaningless.. then we do not and cannot know
if it is correct.
No no no. It does not even qualify as a proposition so you are in error to
even consider applying a truth value to it.
I'm not applying a true value to it. Sipp is when he claims gods are
impossible
Jack is an inveterate liar. I have never made any such claim. I have
explained repeatedly that I am atheist (and atheism is characterized
simply by an absence of theism, an absence of the theists' religious
beliefs). I don't even believe Jack can produce a meaningful operational
definition of his proposition. All I am doing is taking exception to
Jack's argument from lack of disproof:
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Virgil and others make the same old lame old theist argument from ignorance.
You make lame assertions, Sippi-Cup, and, despite your claim not to be
theist, you keep showing us that you are. Why is that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
08 Jul 2007 10:36:05 AM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are nonsense.
The atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong. Arguing about
the truth of the 'proposition' that 'there exists a transcendent,
[ie not just another name for some tangible phenomena like the
Sun], god', is equivalent to arguing whether 'green ideas sleep
furiously or not'. It is not even a valid proposition, so to argue
whether it is true or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we don't
know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question' "Do
green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is it "we
cannot know", because both of these responses imply there could be a
valid answer. The correct answer is "the proposition is nonsensical,
it is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
Nonsense it is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
*
Right. God® is a failed hypothesis.
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/yq7e8a>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2sc6ry>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xgwrk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
08 Jul 2007 10:46:04 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are nonsense. The
atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong. Arguing about the truth
of the 'proposition' that 'there exists a transcendent, [ie not just
another name for some tangible phenomena like the Sun], god', is
equivalent to arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously or not'. It
is not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it is true or not
is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we don't know
.. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question' "Do green
ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is it "we cannot
know", because both of these responses imply there could be a valid
answer. The correct answer is "the proposition is nonsensical, it is not
a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
*
That's the same old lame old theist argument from ignorance
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
*
Right. God® is a failed hypothesis.
No .. there are some arguments that fail (in both cases)
Therefore there might be a God® you argue? Got a meaningful operational
definition of your proposition?
operational definition: a description of something in terms of how it is
actually observed and measured.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/248ept
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
08 Jul 2007 08:08:19 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JvadnXy62eAgmwzbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are nonsense. The
atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong. Arguing about the
truth of the 'proposition' that 'there exists a transcendent, [ie not
just another name for some tangible phenomena like the Sun], god', is
equivalent to arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously or not'.
It is not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it is true or
not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we don't
know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question' "Do
green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is it "we
cannot know", because both of these responses imply there could be a
valid answer. The correct answer is "the proposition is nonsensical, it
is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
*
That's the same old lame old theist argument from ignorance
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
We don't know if there are gods or not .. do you know there are no gods ..
if so, you must know what is meant be a god.. Please supply your working
definitino that enables you to stat that.
*
Right. God® is a failed hypothesis.
No .. there are some arguments that fail (in both cases)
Therefore there might be a God® you argue?
I argue that we do not know. And we cannot prove it to be impossible
Got a meaningful operational definition of your proposition?
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god. If you think gods
do not exist, please provide a defintiion of what you mean by gods when you
say that.
operational definition: a description of something in terms of how it is
actually observed and measured.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/248ept
yeup .. that's what I want from you so you can validate your position that
there are no gods .. and further that gods are impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
08 Jul 2007 09:53:39 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
09 Jul 2007 02:49:37 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Gr6dnYo7gPyoPgzbnZ2dnUVZ_oOknZ2d@comcast.com...
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
So .. you got proof the existence of gods is impossible?
Or are you going to keep on with your argumentum ad ignorantium?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
09 Jul 2007 01:54:01 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
So .. you got proof the existence of gods is impossible?
There Jack goes again with his same old lame old theist argument from
lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there is no proof
the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
His friend Virgil and others also make the same old lame old theist
argument from ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
09 Jul 2007 05:04:50 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Gr6dnYo7gPyoPgzbnZ2dnUVZ_oOknZ2d@comcast.com...
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
So .. you got proof the existence of gods is impossible?
Or are you going to keep on with your argumentum ad ignorantium?
There are more than three positions you could take here. It is not a choice
between theism, atheism and agnostic. Strictly speaking I take a forth
position, that the proposition is a meaningless utterance incapable *in
principle* of being true or false - which rules out an agnostic position. The
noun 'god' (when used in the conventional theistic sense) is not a genuine name
and cannot refer to any real or possible entity, in the same way that
'colourless green ideas' can't refer to anything. Any proposition involving
'god' is thus meaningless gibberish.
For practical everyday purposes I am prepared to classify myself as atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
09 Jul 2007 07:28:19 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6t18v$je1$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Gr6dnYo7gPyoPgzbnZ2dnUVZ_oOknZ2d@comcast.com...
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
So .. you got proof the existence of gods is impossible?
Or are you going to keep on with your argumentum ad ignorantium?
There are more than three positions you could take here. It is not a
choice between theism, atheism and agnostic. Strictly speaking I take a
forth position, that the proposition is a meaningless utterance incapable
*in principle* of being true or false - which rules out an agnostic
position.
That is sometimes called Ignosticism or Noncognitivism
Agnosticism is compatible with that.
Weak Atheism is compatible with that.
The noun 'god' (when used in the conventional theistic sense) is not a
genuine name and cannot refer to any real or possible entity, in the same
way that 'colourless green ideas' can't refer to anything. Any proposition
involving 'god' is thus meaningless gibberish.
For practical everyday purposes I am prepared to classify myself as
atheist.
That's fine. So would I.
If you also consider that you should only hold things as being true when
there is evidence or proof to support that .. then you are also an Agnostic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
09 Jul 2007 07:14:27 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
10 Jul 2007 03:35:09 PM |
|
|
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old
argument from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there
is no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Virgil and others make the same old lame old theist argument from
ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 12:50:48 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old argument
from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there is no proof
the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement that we
do not know .. which is all one can say given a lack of proof .. we
ceratinly CANNOT be justified in concluding "No God"
That you are too much of an ignorant fool to understand it, is not my
problem.
Try looking up argumentum ad ignorantium and you get example like this:
==
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or
that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in
reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist
because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then
this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist
because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues
fallaciously as well.
==
One cannot conclude that gods exist, or that god do not exist, if all we
have is lack of evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
11 Jul 2007 12:19:19 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HPidnXF87NjjcA7bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not the one making claims abut the existence of god.
*
Yes you are.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
Why do you religious nuts always get so upset by people who do not
believe the same as you?
*
I'm not the least bit upset, moron, I just don't buy the lame old argument
from lack of disproof that there might be a God® because there is no proof
the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false.
JACK'S FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF:
There might be a God® because there is no proof the hypothesis (the
conjecture) is false.
That is simply a way of expressing the correct and logical statement that we
do not know ...
*
Spoken like a good little theist. Keep it up, you are revealing more and
more your true colors.
# 101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACK BELIEVES IS AGNOSTICISM, BUT HE IS WRONG
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a deity.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
But this isn't about knowledge, theist moron, it is about the rightful
denial and repudiation of your RELIGIOUS BELIEF (belief without
logically satisfactory evidence) that there might be a deity, as Thomas
Huxley explains:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" http://preview.tinyurl.com/2n24hs
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
See that term, 'believe'?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
21 Jun 2007 03:28:50 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e0mm5F35klmiU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5dvbepF36df09U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:objj73d97s7ta8aj1ljjugje6fl695rnpf@4ax.com...
'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken
for granted by default) in any case.
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
The one who asked you to define that which you ask
me to declare impossible.
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any
god to exist, because you don't know what god is?
You've got to define what it is you're asserting before we can
discuss further details.
So if we don't know that its impossible,
What's not impossible?
it might well be possible
What might be possible?
(note: that is
not saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
You haven't defined what you mean by god.
I can certainly declare that what the Judeo-Christian cults have defined
as "god" is utterly impossible. Is that the god you are referring to?
No .. I was referring to any god.
So you would agree, it seems, that one cannot correctly say that the
existence of any god is impossible.
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists, exactly
due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I could define
"god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it exists, it is possible.
So it is possible that it is possible that some god exists .. ie it is
possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what "exists" means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 07:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5g1f8$ncr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e0mm5F35klmiU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5dvbepF36df09U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:objj73d97s7ta8aj1ljjugje6fl695rnpf@4ax.com...
'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken
for granted by default) in any case.
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for any
god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
The one who asked you to define that which you ask
me to declare impossible.
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for any
god to exist, because you don't know what god is?
You've got to define what it is you're asserting before we can
discuss further details.
So if we don't know that its impossible,
What's not impossible?
it might well be possible
What might be possible?
(note: that is
not saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't know
its impossible)
You haven't defined what you mean by god.
I can certainly declare that what the Judeo-Christian cults have defined
as "god" is utterly impossible. Is that the god you are referring to?
No .. I was referring to any god.
So you would agree, it seems, that one cannot correctly say that the
existence of any god is impossible.
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists,
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I could
define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it exists, it is
possible. So it is possible that it is possible that some god exists ..
ie it is possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what "exists"
means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god would
indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be outside the domain
of things that exist. We're definitely in the realm of the ontological now
!
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does god exist
because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of god that exists, and
god itself doesn't? If one considers god existing as a though, then do you
need to be actively thinking a thought for the though to exist .. is it
enough for the thought to have been thought some time in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical discussion
:)
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it is
impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without defining
existence and god. The strong atheist position of denying the existence of
any god, then, seems a little premature. The agnostic position of saying
that we do not know is the more correct.
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well defined
god), and define existence, then it may be possible to make a logical (or at
least reasonable) argument about existence, and come up with a logical (or
at least reasonable) conclusion. The argument, and conclusion, may well be
different for different 'gods' and 'existence'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
22 Jun 2007 10:45:27 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5g1f8$ncr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e0mm5F35klmiU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5dvbepF36df09U1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:objj73d97s7ta8aj1ljjugje6fl695rnpf@4ax.com...
'No X' (whatever the proposition in question) is the only
reasonable default presumption (that which is reasonably taken
for granted by default) in any case.
So .. come on then .. don't be shy sipp .. Is it impossible for
any god to exist?
Define god.
Who are you?
The one who asked you to define that which you ask
me to declare impossible.
Anyway .. are You saying that you cannot say it is impossible for
any god to exist, because you don't know what god is?
You've got to define what it is you're asserting before we can
discuss further details.
So if we don't know that its impossible,
What's not impossible?
it might well be possible
What might be possible?
(note: that is
not saying definitely that a god DOES exists, only that we don't
know its impossible)
You haven't defined what you mean by god.
I can certainly declare that what the Judeo-Christian cults have
defined as "god" is utterly impossible. Is that the god you are
referring to?
No .. I was referring to any god.
So you would agree, it seems, that one cannot correctly say that the
existence of any god is impossible.
Indeed, it is the opposite .. it IS possible that some god exists,
exactly due to the fact that I have not defined what god means. I
could define "god" to mean "rocks", and then gods exist. If it
exists, it is possible. So it is possible that it is possible that
some god exists .. ie it is possible some god exists.
Your problem lies much deeper than that. You haven't defined what
"exists" means.
Indeed :)
With some not-unreasonable definitions of 'God' and 'Exists', god
would indeed be impossible, as to satisfy being god it would be
outside the domain of things that exist. We're definitely in the
realm of the ontological now !
Does a thought exist? if it does, and god is imaginary, then does god
exist because it is a thought? Or is it only the thought of god that
exists, and god itself doesn't? If one considers god existing as a
though, then do you need to be actively thinking a thought for the
though to exist .. is it enough for the thought to have been thought
some time in the past ?
We could get into some interesting metaphysical and philosophical
discussion :)
However, I think it is still valid to say that we cannot claim it is
impossible that for any god to exist. Certainly not without defining
existence and god. The strong atheist position of denying the
existence of any god, then, seems a little premature. The agnostic
position of saying that we do not know is the more correct.
Once we can define god (or even better refer to a particular well
defined god), and define existence, then it may be possible to make a
logical (or at least reasonable) argument about existence, and come
up with a logical (or at least reasonable) conclusion. The argument,
and conclusion, may well be different for different 'gods' and
'existence'.
Dude, put down the bong and clear you head for a few minutes ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
23 Jun 2007 06:57:42 AM |
|
|
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e294qF36mnojU1@mid.individual.net...
Dude, put down the bong and clear you head for a few minutes ...
Sorry .. does thinking hurt your brain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
24 Jun 2007 09:09:19 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5e294qF36mnojU1@mid.individual.net...
Dude, put down the bong and clear you head for a few minutes ...
Sorry .. does thinking hurt your brain?
Give it a try and let us know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
