| 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: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 12:01:27 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:04CdnUo-ZN8Sa5rbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:rLGdnYU1PpR0jJrbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
You seem to deny that one can believe facts are true.
* ^^^^^^^^
Things are not always as they seem to Jim. 8^)
Contrary to Jim's straw man, what I deny is that belief is a factor in
demonstrating how it is that a statement is known to be true.
So you agree with the rest of us
No, Jim and the rest of you are trying to conflate religious belief
(belief without evidence) and knowledge, two completely different
categories of statements. I won't be a party to any such sophistry. Fair
enough?
No .. that is not what I am doing, and does not appear to be what the others
are doing.
You seem to be confused .. perhaps again it is definitions.
"belief" is something one holds to be true. It doesn't matter if it has
proof/evidence for or against, or none at all. It can be a objective or
subjective. It is just something that one holds to be true.
"faith" is belief even when there is no evidence .. "religious belief" is
generally a subset of that. Sometimes the word "faith" is used to mean a
particular set of religious beliefs (eg the Christian faith), that's not the
usage I am meaning here.
I think that "knowledge" is probably the closet word to describe those
beliefs that are based on proof/evidence (ie on facts). Something can be a
fact, and not be part of one's knowledge (because one doesn't know it). If
you have a better word for it, let me know.
You can also have what one might call a "delusion" which is a form of faith
where you believe even though there is evidence to the contrary (I'm not
sure if that may also be called blind faith). If you have a better word
for it, let me know.
In that sense, religious belief and knowledge are then both beliefs .. one
is based on proof and evidence, the other is not.
But belief is not require for something to be true (a fact) .. only for it
to held to be true by a person (or group of people).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 12:49:25 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
I think that "knowledge" is probably the closet word to describe those
beliefs that are based on proof/evidence (ie on facts).
Why call a statement known to be true because there is proof, why refer
to such a statement as a 'belief' unless you are trying to get away with
the sophistry of conflating belief and knowledge? Belief is synonymous
with faith (accepting a statement, as the tenets of a religion, without
evidence).
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Believed to be true, but not known, and known to be true are two
completely different categories of statements.
"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: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 06:31:20 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:PfOdneyqYcA4mpXbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
I think that "knowledge" is probably the closet word to describe those
beliefs that are based on proof/evidence (ie on facts).
Why call a statement known to be true because there is proof, why refer to
such a statement as a 'belief' unless you are trying to get away with the
sophistry of conflating belief and knowledge? Belief is synonymous with
faith (accepting a statement, as the tenets of a religion, without
evidence).
Why are you still arguing this pointlessly?
Lets look at some definitions:
Belief:
* conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or
phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence - www.m-w.com
* any cognitive content held as true - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Belief is assent to a proposition. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
* This means that an individual is convinced of the truth of a statement or
allegation.- www.attorneykennugent.com/library/b.html
Faith:
* firm belief in something for which there is no proof - www.m-w.com
* Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable
through experimentation or reason. - www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm
* Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence -
nsacphenomena.com/terms_a_to_l.htm
[snip the same old copy and paste]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 06:45:21 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:130gluercpq0p00@corp.supernews.com...
Sippuddin wrote:
[nothing of consequence]
Jeckyl wrote:
Why are you still arguing this pointlessly?
He is still arguing because you are still arguing.
Jeckyl wrote:
Lets look at some definitions:
Why?
Do you think they will convince Sippuddin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 06:49:19 PM |
|
|
"Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message news:lWYNh.5253$Qi2.2384@trndny07...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:130gluercpq0p00@corp.supernews.com...
Sippuddin wrote:
[nothing of consequence]
Jeckyl wrote:
Why are you still arguing this pointlessly?
He is still arguing because you are still arguing.
Jeckyl wrote:
Lets look at some definitions:
Why?
Do you think they will convince Sippuddin?
No .. but its fun to play with him
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 02:13:55 PM |
|
|
In article <PfOdneyqYcA4mpXbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
I think that "knowledge" is probably the closet word to describe those
beliefs that are based on proof/evidence (ie on facts).
Why call a statement known to be true because there is proof, why refer
to such a statement as a 'belief' unless you are trying to get away with
the sophistry of conflating belief and knowledge? Belief is synonymous
with faith (accepting a statement, as the tenets of a religion, without
evidence).
Since one's confidence in the truth of a statement can run the gamut
from 0% to 100%, and is often only remotely related to the aomount of
evidence supporting the statement, to talk so blithely of "truth" and
"knowledge" is a mark of ignorance and stupidity.
Believed to be true, but not known, and known to be true are two
completely different categories of statements.
And "known to be true" really only means that one has great confidennce
it its being true.
Septic implies that one can be absolutely certain of some "facts" in a
physical world. Since what we "see" is never the reality of what is
there, Septic is overstating the case, as usual.
Septic wold have it that one's certainty in the "truth" of any statement
must either be 100% for those things he knows or 0% for those things he
only believes.
Huxley implied that one's confidence in anything should be in proportion
to the amount of support given by evidence about that thing, which
argues against the bifurcation of belief and knowledge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 01:40:03 PM |
|
|
In article <04CdnUo-ZN8Sa5rbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
No, Jim and the rest of you are trying to conflate religious belief
(belief without evidence) and knowledge, two completely different
categories of statements. I won't be a party to any such sophistry. Fair
enough?
Totally unfair, as usual.
Assertions of belief versus assertions of knowledge are merely differing
points on an entire spectrum of confidence levels.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 12:10:12 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:rLGdnYU1PpR0jJrbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
You seem to deny that one can believe facts are true.
* ^^^^^^^^
Things are not always as they seem to Jim. 8^)
Contrary to Jim's straw man, what I deny is that belief is a factor in
demonstrating how it is that a statement is known to be true.
So you agree with the rest of us
No, Jim and the rest of you are trying to conflate religious belief
(belief without evidence) and knowledge, two completely different
categories of statements. I won't be a party to any such sophistry. Fair
enough?
The above makes no sense at all and is completely unrelated to
anything that has preceded it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 01:05:09 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:rLGdnYU1PpR0jJrbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
You seem to deny that one can believe facts are true.
* ^^^^^^^^
Things are not always as they seem to Jim. 8^)
Contrary to Jim's straw man, what I deny is that belief is a factor in
demonstrating how it is that a statement is known to be true.
So you agree with the rest of us
No, Jim and the rest of you are trying to conflate religious belief
(belief without evidence) and knowledge, two completely different
categories of statements. I won't be a party to any such sophistry. Fair
enough?
The above makes no sense at all and is completely unrelated to
anything that has preceded it.
That is a lie. It is written in response to your attempt to conflate
belief and knowledge by saying, "You seem to deny that one can believe
facts are true."
If a statement is a fact, then belief is not a factor, you are just
trying to conflate belief and knowledge, which is plain old sophistry.
Contrary to Jim's straw man, what I deny is that belief is a factor in
demonstrating how it is that a statement is known to be true.
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different categories
of statements
I refuse to be a party to Jim's sophistry of trying to conflate belief
and knowledge.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 06:36:45 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
That is a lie. It is written in response to your attempt to conflate
belief and knowledge by saying, "You seem to deny that one can believe
facts are true."
Obviosuly one can believe a given fact is true, or one can believe it is not
true.
Believing it does not alter whether or not it is a fact. Nor does being a
fact or not alter whether or not you believe it.
Belief and fact are non self-exclusive, they are orthogonal. Saying they
are self-exclusive it like saying a flower cannot both be red and smell
nice.
Of course, the sensible person does not believe things that are known not to
be fact (but not everyone is sensible)
And an agnostic should ONLY belief things that can be shown to be facts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 02:23:24 PM |
|
|
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different categories
of statements
Not at all. Huxley had great faith in statement supported by great
evidence, and little faith in statements supported by little evidence,
and most scientists find his approach admirable, at least in science.
I refuse to be a party to Jim's sophistry of trying to conflate belief
and knowledge.
They are merely different regions in a continuous spectrum of levels of
confidence.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
Which, itself, conflates belief with knowledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 06:41:33 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different categories
of statements
Not at all. Huxley had great faith in statement supported by great
evidence, and little faith in statements supported by little evidence,
and most scientists find his approach admirable, at least in science.
Please note for sip: that is using the meaning of "faith in" as "a high
level of certainty that"
They are merely different regions in a continuous spectrum of levels of
confidence.
I don't think it as a spectrum (in that it is a linear thing) .. it is more
like a chart with two axes: "level of evidence/proof" on one axis, and
"level of internal acceptance" on the other. For a devout theist a
religious faith/believe usually is low in the evidence proof axis, and high
in the acceptance axis. For an agnostic you only get a high acceptance
value when there is a high level of evidence/proof etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 07:02:08 PM |
|
|
In article <130gmhjjvu68n0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different categories
of statements
Not at all. Huxley had great faith in statement supported by great
evidence, and little faith in statements supported by little evidence,
and most scientists find his approach admirable, at least in science.
Please note for sip: that is using the meaning of "faith in" as "a high
level of certainty that"
They are merely different regions in a continuous spectrum of levels of
confidence.
I don't think it as a spectrum (in that it is a linear thing) .. it is more
like a chart with two axes: "level of evidence/proof" on one axis, and
"level of internal acceptance" on the other. For a devout theist a
religious faith/believe usually is low in the evidence proof axis, and high
in the acceptance axis. For an agnostic you only get a high acceptance
value when there is a high level of evidence/proof etc.
However one views them, they are not, as Septic Suippudin claims,
mutually exclusive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 07:09:28 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-93C00B.18020826032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <130gmhjjvu68n0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different
categories
of statements
Not at all. Huxley had great faith in statement supported by great
evidence, and little faith in statements supported by little evidence,
and most scientists find his approach admirable, at least in science.
Please note for sip: that is using the meaning of "faith in" as "a high
level of certainty that"
They are merely different regions in a continuous spectrum of levels of
confidence.
I don't think it as a spectrum (in that it is a linear thing) .. it is
more
like a chart with two axes: "level of evidence/proof" on one axis, and
"level of internal acceptance" on the other. For a devout theist a
religious faith/believe usually is low in the evidence proof axis, and
high
in the acceptance axis. For an agnostic you only get a high acceptance
value when there is a high level of evidence/proof etc.
However one views them, they are not, as Septic Suippudin claims,
mutually exclusive.
Yes. I'm just taking a different way of looking at it that gets the same
result.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
27 Mar 2007 05:05:38 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <130gmhjjvu68n0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Statements of belief (synonym faith) and statements known to be true,
because there is solid evidence, are two completely different categories
of statements
Not at all. Huxley had great faith in statement supported by great
evidence, and little faith in statements supported by little evidence,
and most scientists find his approach admirable, at least in science.
Please note for sip: that is using the meaning of "faith in" as "a high
level of certainty that"
They are merely different regions in a continuous spectrum of levels of
confidence.
I don't think it as a spectrum (in that it is a linear thing) .. it is more
like a chart with two axes: "level of evidence/proof" on one axis, and
"level of internal acceptance" on the other. For a devout theist a
religious faith/believe usually is low in the evidence proof axis, and high
in the acceptance axis. For an agnostic you only get a high acceptance
value when there is a high level of evidence/proof etc.
However one views them, they are not, as Septic Suippudin claims,
mutually exclusive.
*
You lot are still trying to conflate statements of belief (synonym
faith), statements without evidence, with statements known to be true
because there is evidence. That isn't allowed, it's sophistry, they are
two completely different categories of statements, religion on the one
hand and science on the other. Religion and science don't even have the
same methods. The former relies on some crap they call 'revealed truth'.
There is nothing like that in science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
27 Mar 2007 07:25:37 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:INudnVMLurGuCJTbnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
You lot are still trying to conflate statements of belief (synonym faith)
That your problem .. you think "faith' and "belief" are identical. Faith is
a subset of belief. Not all belief is faith.
Really .. you're just arguing on word meanings here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
27 Mar 2007 08:39:45 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:130jdrfcsbafe08@corp.supernews.com...
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:INudnVMLurGuCJTbnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
You lot are still trying to conflate statements of belief (synonym faith)
That your problem .. you think "faith' and "belief" are identical. Faith
is a subset of belief. Not all belief is faith.
Really .. you're just arguing on word meanings here.
It just happened again: Jeckyl left in "Virgil wrote:" but
snipped out everything that Virgil actually wrote.
("You lot are still trying to conflate ....") was written by
Sippuddin, not by Virgil.
Messing with attributions is a troll trick. Trolls do it
intentionally. (It *looks* like Jeckyl attributed the
quote to Virgil but I don't think he did it intentionally.)
Another troll trick is to exploit that one word may have
several meanings. For example, Sippuddin is
exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe". It's
a tactic he has been using for years and years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
27 Mar 2007 08:50:21 PM |
|
|
"Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message news:BHjOh.3681$J21.2681@trndny03...
It just happened again: Jeckyl left in "Virgil wrote:" but
snipped out everything that Virgil actually wrote.
("You lot are still trying to conflate ....") was written by
Sippuddin, not by Virgil.
Yeup .. damn it.
Messing with attributions is a troll trick. Trolls do it
intentionally. (It *looks* like Jeckyl attributed the
quote to Virgil but I don't think he did it intentionally.)
Yeup .. unintentional .. just snipped one too few lines in Outlook Express
Of course, looking at the >'s makes it obvious what happened
And that it was a quoted 'virgil wrote' .. not me typing in "virgil said
that ...."
Another troll trick is to exploit that one word may have
several meanings. For example, Sippuddin is
exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe". It's
a tactic he has been using for years and years.
Indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:17:33 AM |
|
|
Scot wrote:
Sippuddin is exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe".
It is another troll trick to accuse your adversary of doing something
when it is actually you doing it.
You lot are trying to conflate belief and knowledge even though belief
and knowledge are two completely different categories of statements.
A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous with
faith, the acceptance of something without evidence, and as Thomas
Huxley points out, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe
things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"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
A statement is considered knowledge of the actual state of affairs if
and only if it is clearly explained in detail how it is that is known so
that anyone can check one's observations.
See the difference now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 06:41:56 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:g8qdnbeayY-ACJfbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Scot wrote:
Sippuddin is exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe".
It is another troll trick to accuse your adversary of doing something when
it is actually you doing it.
You lot are trying to conflate belief and knowledge even though belief and
knowledge are two completely different categories of statements.
There you go again.
Maybe you shuold change your words to (say) faith and fact .. then we'd get
rid of the problems that this causes. Although even then faith does not
HAVE to mean unsupported .. eg you can have faith that the sun will rise
tomorrow, but you won't have knowledge of that (nor will it be a fact) until
it happens.
That's the problem here .. words have so many meanings.
I don't think anyone is arguing with you over the agnostics principle that
one should not claim as knowledge or have a belief in things that are
unsupported by evidence or proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:21:06 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
... you can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow ...
Therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God? I don't buy that kind of argument, it's lame old logical fallacy,
old as the hills.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:38:38 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ZqydnXyIQLs-rZbbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow ...
Therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God?
Straw man diversion.
You really should no better than to try those tactics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 11:23:41 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ZqydnXyIQLs-rZbbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow ...
Therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God?
Straw man diversion.
Aren't you part of the group trying to conflate belief (synonym faith)
and knowledge by arguing irrelevancies like 'you can have faith the sun
will rise tomorrow, therefore one can reasonably have faith in the
existence of God'?
I don't buy that kind of argument, it's lame old logical fallacy, old as
the hills.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 04:55:32 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:bv6dnez6J9qSdZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ZqydnXyIQLs-rZbbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow ...
Therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God?
Straw man diversion.
Aren't you part of the group trying to conflate belief (synonym faith) and
knowledge by arguing irrelevancies like 'you can have faith the sun will
rise tomorrow, therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God'?
Liar
I do not argue that .. that is your statement
I don't buy that kind of argument, it's lame old logical fallacy, old as
the hills.
Noone does .. because noone is making that argument, fool
[snip same old drivel]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:13:24 PM |
|
|
In article <bv6dnez6J9qSdZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Aren't you part of the group trying to conflate belief (synonym faith)
and knowledge
AS they are naturally just different aspects of one's level of
confidence, they conflate themselves naturally.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:14:45 AM |
|
|
In article <ZqydnXyIQLs-rZbbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... you can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow ...
Therefore one can reasonably have faith in the existence of
God? I don't buy that kind of argument
AS that is purely Septic's own argument, not Jeckyl's nor anyone else's,
one wonders why Septic makes it if Septic is so against it.
Must be another of Septic's straw men. Septic making up an argument no
one else made so as to have a target to attack.
Septic must be getting desperate to have to descend to such sneaky
tricks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 01:17:26 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:g8qdnbeayY-ACJfbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Scot wrote:
Sippuddin is exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe".
Sippuddin wrote:
It is another troll trick to accuse your adversary of doing something when
it is actually you doing it.
Scot responds:
Okay... so *I'm" the one exploiting the multiple meanings of "believe".
Well, at least we agree there are multiple meanings.
Sippuddin wrote:
A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous with faith,
the acceptance of something without evidence,
Scot responds:
Wait a sec... I thought above you were saying that I'm exploiting
the multiple meanings of "believe". And now you say that it has
only one meaning. Could you make up your mind?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 06:52:54 PM |
|
|
"Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message news:WiyOh.55998$un.49476@trnddc03...
Sippuddin wrote:
A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous with
faith, the acceptance of something without evidence,
No .. that is making a defintionthat is incorrect .. if you change that to
"A statement of belief CAN BE an expression of certainty which CAN BE
synonymous with faith,
which CAN BE the acceptance of something without evidence"
Then you would be right .. The meanings are just not clear-cut enough for
you to make an unequivocal statement of meaning (definition) like that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:44:24 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message news:WiyOh.55998$un.49476@trnddc03...
Sippuddin wrote:
A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous with
faith, the acceptance of something without evidence,
No .. that is making a defintionthat is incorrect .. if you change that to
"A statement of belief CAN BE an expression of certainty which CAN BE
synonymous with faith,
which CAN BE the acceptance of something without evidence"
How can it possibly be anything else? Would you call a statement of
belief a statement of fact?? No, I don't think so. You aren't making
sense here, J. Any given statement is either a statement known to be
true or it is not, it is just a statement of belief, an expression of
certainty synonymous with faith, the acceptance of something without
evidence.
As I said, A statement of belief is an expression of certainty
synonymous with faith, the acceptance of something without evidence, and
as Thomas Huxley points out, "The deepest sin against the human mind is
to believe things without evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"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
A statement is considered knowledge of the actual state of affairs if
and only if it is clearly explained in detail how it is that is known so
that anyone can check one's observations.
See the difference now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:gbWdnQx7TZiFq5bbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message
news:WiyOh.55998$un.49476@trnddc03...
Sippuddin wrote:
A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous with
faith, the acceptance of something without evidence,
No .. that is making a defintionthat is incorrect .. if you change that
to
"A statement of belief CAN BE an expression of certainty which CAN BE
synonymous with faith,
which CAN BE the acceptance of something without evidence"
How can it possibly be anything else?
Read the dictionary .. its all explained there.
Would you call a statement of belief a statement of fact?
Yes .. it can be .. it does not have to be.
"I believe that 1 plus 1 is 2"
Does that make "1 plus 1 is true" any less of a fact.. because I believe it?
Really .. your argument doesn't hold water.
Any given statement is either a statement known to be true or it is not
Yes
it is just a statement of belief,
If you claim that it is true, then it is a belief. Whether it is known t
obe true or not
an expression of certainty synonymous with faith,
I have great faith that 1 plus 1 is true.
the acceptance of something without evidence.
No.. I accept it BECAUSE of the evidence.
You really are just losing badly here.
As I said, A statement of belief is an expression of certainty synonymous
with faith,
And you were wrong.
[snip same old stuff all over that say nothing relevant]
A statement is considered knowledge of the actual state of affairs if and
only if it is clearly explained in detail how it is that is known so that
anyone can check one's observations.
Of course, knowledge is symnonymous with understanding .. you can have
knowledge (understanding) of (say) the nature of God, but still not believe
it, and regardless of whether it is true.
See the difference now?
No. Do you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
