| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 10:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
Antitheism |
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Antitheists may also accept the label Atheist,
or might not. The primary distinction between
atheism and antitheism is that the atheist may
think the question of the existence or non-existence
of God worthy of consideration, while the antitheist
does not. The primary interest of the antitheist
with respect to God is to make the idea go away,
and it is even possible for an antitheist to believe
that God exists -- but is irrelevant.
Antitheists are generally not well received by
monotheists, and for good reason. The antitheist
probably finds the behavor of monotheists
particularly unpleasant in their pushing of the
God idea as some sort of absolute truth.
As an antitheist, my brief against monotheism
is this: The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully
who cannot play well with others. It is basic to
the idea of One God that all other notions of divinity
must be destroyed -- frequently by killing the people
who hold those other notions of divinity. People
infected with the One God idea have to be viewed with
suspicion, as in the past -- and even the present --
they have been known to engage in violence based
upon this evil idea, sometimes collectively.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 04:22:51 PM |
|
|
said:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
Every negation-in-logic denial of a proposition is identically
equivalent to the assertion of the proposition which is its negation.
The negation of _any_ proposition is another proposition, Septic.
Logic 101.
Jeff
Absolutely, and rules regarding their proof are the same:
This gun is safe (does not have any bullets).
This universe is safe (does not have any gods that punish disbelief).
Why should one have a different rule than the other?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 11:11:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified,
knucklehead. It's no skin off my nose if you want to get a reputation
for not facing up to the facts of the matter.
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
But we do have that term, so there are two different categories of
statements, assertions and the denial (the negation) of those
assertions, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, as
you have been informed:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
The buck has to stop somewhere, else we would have an endless loop of
the burden of proof shifting back and forth for eternity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 03:50:55 PM |
|
|
In article <0cOdneThs56ktozbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified
Not to the visible satisfaction of anyone except Septic himself.
Therefore Septic's claim is not accepted by anyone except himself.
That is the normal state of affairs when Septic is pontificating.
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
It is Septic who is in denial of all the principles of logic.
It is his attempt to beg questions that he cannot deal with honestly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <0cOdneThs56ktozbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
It is Septic who is in denial of all the principles of logic.
*
Yeah, yeah, yeah, bla, bla, bla. Is this lame argument _ad hominem_ the
best you can do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 06:46:24 PM |
|
|
In article <fbKdnYnmiLeRF4zbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <0cOdneThs56ktozbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
It is Septic who is in denial of all the principles of logic.
*
Yeah, yeah, yeah, bla, bla, bla. Is this lame argument _ad hominem_ the
best you can do?
It is not an argumentum ad hominem to point out Septic's errors of logic.
Indeed, it wold be a flaw to let them go uncorrected.
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument
is convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert that the original
assertion is false, which action bears a BOP as great as the original
assertion.
That Septic continually attempts to conflate these two entirely
different actions is a measure of how weak his logic is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 11:29:23 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument
is convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof). The two are in different
categories. You are just trying to find some excuse for trying to shift
the burden of proof to the atheists. That won't work. Atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do.
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 05:45:25 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof). The two are in different
categories. You are just trying to find some excuse for trying to shift
the burden of proof to the atheists. That won't work. Atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do.
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Exactly .. and I have explained what this means. That first you need
someone in the argument to make an assertion .. the denial of that assertion
has no BoP. It depends on who is starting a particular argument. Did you
not see that it says the "person asserting something" (ie making the initial
claim) has the burden. Denial does not shift the burden.
There needs to be something asserted for there to be a denial. There needs
to already be a burden for it to be shifted.
Before the argument starts, there is no assertion, there is no burden. The
first person making a claim in an argument is the one who ahs the burden of
proof, and that burden cannot be shifted. That's how it works in courts of
Law .. the prosecution makes the assertion, and so they have the burden of
proof.
Its very simple .. and very clear cut.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 01:35:57 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof). The two are in different
categories. You are just trying to find some excuse for trying to shift
the burden of proof to the atheists. That won't work. Atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do.
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Exactly .. and I have explained what this means. That first you need
someone to make an assertion .. .
*
We had that eons ago, lunatic, when the first theist asserted that there
might be a magic invisible space pixie, or something similar.
Theists have been trying to find some way to shift the burden of proof
to the non-believers ever since.
What, did you think you get a tabula raze every time you open a new
thread in Usenet? Don't be daft. We atheists have been resisting you
theists for eons, and hope to continue, by Jove, until you lot all dry
up and blow away. What you can't seem to face up to, J, is the fact that
we atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only
theists do. Why do you find that so difficult to grasp??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 01:50:45 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:0dudnXbWrMHT2o7bnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
What, did you think you get a tabula raze every time you open a new thread
in Usenet? Don't be daft. We atheists have been resisting you theists for
eons, and hope to continue, by Jove, until you lot all dry up and blow
away.
I am offended at being lumped in with 'theists' as 'you lot'. I am atheist
and gnostic
What you can't seem to face up to, J, is the fact that we atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case,
Those who claim to not believe in god indeed have nothing to proof
only theists do. Why do you find that so difficult to grasp??
Can we really go back to a time before the concept of god was invented and
say from that (possibly prehistoric) moment, that there has been just one
argument going on since then?
If that's what you are referring to is a continuation of eons-old argument
.... then you would be correct ... as the claim of theism must have come
first (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
If what you're referring to is a specific argument, started by a claim by
someone (eg a forum post) then the burden of proof is on the one making the
claim. eg if you were to post a new thread (ie start a new discussion /
argument) and says "There is no god" .. then the burden would be on you to
provide prove / evidence of that claim. If someone else replied and said
"There is a god" and you replied "prove it", you would be shifting the
burden which was on you from the moment of your initial claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 02:18:03 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category_Error
The denial, 'No such thing' is not an assertion (a statement standing in
need of proof), it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial. This is one of the basic
principles of valid argument (logic):
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Therefore the denial, the null, 'No such thing' is not an assertion (a
statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial (the negation) of
one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial as theologs
are always trying to do. 'No such thing' is the only reasonable default
presumption (that which is reasonably taken for granted by default) in
any case.
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, or on ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No
safety', or 'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 02:19:48 PM |
|
|
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above. Which according to Septic means my denial
does not bear any burden of proof but his claim does.
So my denial stands until disproved and Septic's claim fails until
proved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 02:35:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above.
*
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron,
we are just working on improving you lot's understanding of what
'category error' (putting a statement in the wrong category) means.
It means something like you lot trying to force the denial, the null 'No
God' into the category of ASSERTIONS (statements standing in need of
proof). See your category error now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 09:29:21 PM |
|
|
In article <mcKdnX5Wtv2dY47bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above.
*
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron.
Then you do not claim that a denial is a statement not standing in need
of proof, and this whole thing is resolves that anything asserting the
truth or falsehood of anything requires proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 12:57:13 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <mcKdnX5Wtv2dY47bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above.
*
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron.
Then you do not claim
*
I have not made any claim. See the part you snipped.
<unsnip>
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron,
we are just working on improving you lot's understanding of what
'category error' (putting a statement in the wrong category) means.
It means something like you lot trying to force the denial, the null 'No
God' into the category of ASSERTIONS (statements standing in need of
proof). See your category error now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 02:59:51 PM |
|
|
In article <zIednXTM0LHkpYjbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <mcKdnX5Wtv2dY47bnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above.
*
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron.
Then you do not claim
*
I have not made any claim. See the part you snipped.
Claiming you have not made a claim is another claim. Any statement which
you make which you intend to have accepted as valid is a claim or an
assertion.
<unsnip>
I haven't made any claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
Septic's submoronic claim that his prior claim is not a claim is idiotic.
,
we are just working on improving you lot's understanding of what
'category error' (putting a statement in the wrong category) means.
It means something like you lot trying to force the denial, the null 'No
God' into the category of ASSERTIONS (statements standing in need of
proof). See your category error now?
Unless we are free to simply ignore your "No God" as nonsense, it stands
as an assertion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 10:09:39 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 3:35 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <r9GdnRvSNq-2zI7bnZ2dnUVZ_hynn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (one could not claim a god does not exist until after someone else
claimed that the god did).
You say, "One could not claim a god does not exist ..."
You still don't quite have it, J. You are making the same category error
others here are, that the denial (the negation) of the assertion in
question is a claim (an assertion).
I deny Septic's claim above.
I haven't made any claim
So you claim, Septic. Doh!
we are just working ...
So you claim, Septic. Doh! again.
It means something like ...
So you claim, Septic. Doh! times three
Self-refute much, Septic?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 02:03:07 AM |
|
|
In article <0dudnXbWrMHT2o7bnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof). The two are in different
categories. You are just trying to find some excuse for trying to shift
the burden of proof to the atheists. That won't work. Atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do.
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Exactly .. and I have explained what this means. That first you need
someone to make an assertion .. .
*
We had that eons ago, lunatic, when the first theist asserted that there
might be a magic invisible space pixie, or something similar.
And Septic asserted that all gods were impossible. But no one did it
eons ago as humans have not been around that long.
Theists have been trying to find some way to shift the burden of proof
to the non-believers ever since.
And mere non-believers like Huxley have been trying to divorce
themselves from the believers on both ends of that belief spectrum ever
since.
What, did you think you get a tabula raze every time you open a new
thread in Usenet?
Perhaps not a tabula raze, whatever that is, but very nearly a tabula
raza, in the sense that when one opens a new thread, one starts with a
blank slate.
Considering the mess on Septic's slates (does he have one for each alias
or just one big slate for all of them together?), his tabulae need
razaing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 03:03:29 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <0dudnXbWrMHT2o7bnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof). The two are in different
categories. You are just trying to find some excuse for trying to shift
the burden of proof to the atheists. That won't work. Atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only theists do.
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Exactly .. and I have explained what this means. That first you need
someone to make an assertion .. .
*
We had that eons ago, lunatic, when the first theist asserted that there
might be a magic invisible space pixie, or something similar.
And Septic asserted that all gods were impossible.
Virgil is a liar. I am atheist and atheism is not an assertion, "Atheism
is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"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://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 05:14:35 PM |
|
|
In article <lbOdnVaaddFNxo7bnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <0dudnXbWrMHT2o7bnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument
is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof).
I deny that, so that, whether Septic is right or wrong, my denial stands
without the need of proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Apr 2007 10:27:01 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <lbOdnVaaddFNxo7bnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <0dudnXbWrMHT2o7bnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument
is
convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof).
I deny that
*
It's no skin off my nose if you want to look like an idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 01:26:07 AM |
|
|
In article <146dnfCEs58b8YnbnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an
assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof).
I deny that
*
It's no skin off my nose if you want to look like an idiot.
According to Septic's own rules, a denial, such as mine above, is always
true without any need for evidence.
So my denial rules according to Septic's own arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 12:27:45 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <146dnfCEs58b8YnbnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an
assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof).
I deny that
*
It's no skin off my nose if you want to look like an idiot.
According to Septic's own rules, a denial, such as mine above, is always
true without any need for evidence.
Don't be stupid. The null, 'No ETs' for example, is just the only
reasonable presumption [that which is reasonably taken for granted].
Your feigned ignorance of this principle of valid argument (logic) is
just more of your silliness. It's no skin off my nose if you want to
look like an idiot. That doesn't alter the principles of valid argument
(logic), not one whit.
The governing principle is that when the question is on firearm safety,
or on guilt, or on God, or on ETs, the only reasonable default
presumption [that which is reasonably taken for granted, by default] is
the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the
case may be.
For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 02:34:46 PM |
|
|
In article <PcidnQvMqdMPrIjbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <146dnfCEs58b8YnbnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an
assertion
(a statement standing in need of proof).
I deny that
*
It's no skin off my nose if you want to look like an idiot.
According to Septic's own rules, a denial, such as mine above, is always
true without any need for evidence.
Don't be stupid.
Why not, when Septic so often is.
If negations of statements do not require proof, as Septic argues, then
my denial of that allegation requires no proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 03:28:10 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
If negations of statements do not require proof
*
There is no 'if' about it, there is a basic principle involved.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
or 'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: 'resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions.' Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 05:03:28 PM |
|
|
In article <K9-dnaoIC4JGxojbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If negations of statements do not require proof
*
There is no 'if' about it
Perhaps in Septic's dizzy world, there isn't, but in any world in which
logic rules there is.
In logic, the logical negation of any statement is as much a logical
statement as the original, and is subject to precisely the same rules of
logic.
To deny that is to demonstrate unequivocally one's ignorance of the
principles of logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Apr 2007 07:40:10 PM |
|
|
On Apr 5, 4:28 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If negations of statements do not require proof
There is no 'if' about it,
Septic does _not_ have any intelligence whatsoever.
Note the negation.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 03:29:38 PM |
|
|
In article <KaCdnTEuT6Z5HY_bnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
A denial of one assertion may either deny that its supporting argument
is convincing, which action bears no BOP, or assert ...
*
Category error.
Lie!
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is never an assertion
The denial (the negation in logic of an assertion) is ALWAYS an
assertion, a statement standing in need of proof.
Septic deliberately conflates such denials with expressions of doubt
about whether a statement has been adequately supported by evdidence.
Doing it Septic's way would require accepting statements which have no
supporting evidence at all. All one would need is to have someone claim
the opposite then one could deny it without any evidence at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 10:33:52 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 12:11 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified,
I deny that it has been falsified. The negation of any proposition is
itself a proposition.
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
Non sequitur. Having two terms for the same thing is not equivalent
to making two things. Look up "morning star", "evening star", and
"exact synonym", Septic. And stop acting ignorant.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 11:50:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:11 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified,
I deny that it has been falsified. The negation of any proposition is
itself a proposition.
*
There's that category error again.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
Non sequitur. Having two terms for the same thing
*
They are all statements, but these two different kinds of statements are
definitely not the same, they fall into two different categories: on the
one hand, assertions (statements standing in need of proof), and the
contrary, the denials (negations) of those assertions, and the burden of
proof can never be shifted to the denial, as you have been informed:
Here again is the governing principle:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 03:35:32 PM |
|
|
In article <f6KdnXigR6pCGI_bnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:11 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:03 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
It is an assertion.
You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.
I deny that there are any two such distinct categories.
The null, 'No two different categories' has already been falsified,
I deny that it has been falsified. The negation of any proposition is
itself a proposition.
*
There's that category error again.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm
If there were only one category, 'assertions', then we would not have
this other term, 'denial' (the negation).
Non sequitur. Having two terms for the same thing
*
They are all statements, but these two different kinds of statements are
definitely not the same, they fall into two different categories
Does Septic argue that the denial of a statement, in the form of the
logical negation of it, must be accepted as true without evidence?
Consider then the logical negation of "Gods might be impossible."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
