In article <mcKdnXlWtv31Yo7bnZ2dnUVZ_qzin...@comcast.com>,





Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <bIOdnV1_F8KGzo7bnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <QuOdnTKl9KFA2Y7bnZ2dnUVZ_q_in...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

I deny Septic's statement that there is any categorical error

*
Not categorical, knucklehead, CATEGORY ERROR (the fallacy of trying to put
the denial, 'No such thing' into the same category as the assertion in
question, 'There might be a magic invisible space pixie' for instance), so
that you can try to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
atheists. Trouble with that is that atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove in this case, only theists do. Understand?

Why are you pretending you don't understand what a category error is?

Why are you pretending that there is any such thing here?

I deny that too

Then you are totally nuts, and a waste of bandwidth. Bye bye, moron.

Argumentum ad hominem such as Septic indulges in above, is the mark of a
loser.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Argumentum ad hominem such as Septic indulges in ...

You are just trying to find a way to shift the burden of proof.

There you go wasting your time on denying idiotic/assinine/ *****.

A real phiosopher would not do that.

Even if you last statement were of any significnace you still be not
have a system of belief concerning sky pixies. You simply have an
absence of belief in sky pixies.
You are on a fool's errand.

As there is not the slightest practical or intellectual difference
between "I do not believe in sky pixies" and "I beleive there are no
sky pixies"

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

Is bald a hair color in your book?

Still waiting for an answer to the question asked: "Is bald a hair color
in your book?"

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

<...>

"Science is simply common sense at its best; that is, rigidly accurate
in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. The deepest sin
against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." --
Thomas Huxley

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/Book/Crayf.html

That applies to the theist hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) that
there might be a god anyway, even though there is no such thing in
evidence, no less than to any other hypothetical thing not in evidence,
wouldn't you agree?

In this quote, Huxley addresses beliefs, not hypotheses. It applies no
less, and no more to a theistic belief, than to any belief.

Except that atheism qua atheism is not itself a religious belief <...>

Atheism isn't belief, period. It is the absence of a certain belief.

But the belief that there is no sky pixie is a belief.

Is bald a hair color in your book?

I do not believe in invisible hair.

Still waiting for an answer to the question asked: "Is bald a hair color
in your book?"

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

Jim07D7 wrote:

Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

<...>

"Science is simply common sense at its best; that is, rigidly accurate
in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. The deepest sin
against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." --
Thomas Huxley

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/Book/Crayf.html

That applies to the theist hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) that
there might be a god anyway, even though there is no such thing in
evidence, no less than to any other hypothetical thing not in evidence,
wouldn't you agree?

In this quote, Huxley addresses beliefs, not hypotheses. It applies no
less, and no more to a theistic belief, than to any belief.

Except that atheism qua atheism is not itself a religious belief <...>

Atheism isn't belief, period. It is the absence of a certain belief.

But the belief that there is no sky pixie is a belief.

Is bald a hair color in your book?

I do not believe in invisible hair.

*
I do not believe you are staying on topic; I do not believe baldness is
about having invisible hair any more than I believe that bald is a hair
color or atheism is a religious belief (belief in the truth of
statements like the tenets of a religion without evidence).

Religious belief (belief without evidence) is antithetical to atheism,
as Thomas Huxley explains:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics

There is
no sin involved in entertaining unevidenced hypotheses. That's called
day-dreaming.

?Jim, let me ask you this: Why should we denigrate a formal procedure in
science by referring to it as 'day-dreaming'?? <...>

I think day-dreaming is a perfectly respectable activity.

?Jim, why did you snip the following question? Can't cope with it?

Because you should know what I think about that.

*
How should I know what goes on in your head without asking, through
osmosis or something??

<unsnip>

Isn't 'entertaining unevidenced hypotheses' (your words) an integral
part of the scientific method of investigation? Say for example
entertaining (showing hospitality to, or holding, from the Latin
_tenir_) the null hypothesis, 'No ETs', as long as there are no ETs in
evidence?

?A default presumption of the null (meaning zero) is a basic principle,
a vital part of the scientific method, designed to avoid the pitfall of
being accused of begging the question by holding by default the
affirmative hypothesis, the 'might be' conjecture, 'There might actually
be ETs' when that is the hypothesis, the 'might be' conjecture in
question in the first place, right?

See SETI 'Testing The Null Hypothesis'

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm