| 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: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:17:50 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"I believe that 1 plus 1 is 2"
?Therefore it is reasonable to believe there might be a God??
There you go again, trying to get away with conflating belief (synonym
faith, personal subjective conviction) and knowledge, two different
categories of statements.
'1 + 1 = 2' is in the category of statements known to be true. Belief
(personal subjective conviction is not a factor.
Stating one's faith has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating how
it is known that a statement is true.
That peculiar ignoramus notion went down in flames long ago, shot down
by Gettier:
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
and Popper:
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." -- Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 05:11:16 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vbGdnSFRY58iaZbbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"I believe that 1 plus 1 is 2"
?Therefore it is reasonable to believe there might be a God??
I make no such argument
There you go again, trying to get away with conflating belief (synonym
faith, personal subjective conviction) and knowledge, two different
categories of statements.
There you go with your loser argument that belief means no evidence
see m-w.com on belief:
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being
or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Stating one's faith has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating how it
is known that a statement is true.
Never said it did .. noone in this discusion is saying so, other than you
[snip same old copy and paste . why do you even bother?]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:32:53 PM |
|
|
In article <vbGdnSFRY58iaZbbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"I believe that 1 plus 1 is 2"
?Therefore it is reasonable to believe there might be a God??
Septic's straw man arguments are irrelevant.
There you go again, trying to get away with conflating belief (synonym
faith, personal subjective conviction) and knowledge, two different
categories of statements.
Only in Septic's delusional world. In real worlds faith, belief and
knowledge are not categorically different. Knowledge is not always as
absolute as Setpic claims, nor does everyone have to "know" what some
people have seen enough evidence to prove.
Stating one's faith has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating how
it is known that a statement is true.
Sure it does. If one has no knowledge of such demonstration then one
cannot know that the statement is true so that demonstrating /how/ it is
known can be quite relevant to whether one knows it or only has faith in
it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:28:12 AM |
|
|
In article <gbWdnQx7TZiFq5bbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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?
Does Septic believe that the sun will rise tomorrow?
According to Septic's own definition of "believe" he must disclaim any
such belief.
The occurrence of an event cannot be called a fact, or a truth, until
after it has actually happened.
On the other hand, does Septic choose to deny that he believes that the
sun will rise tomorrow?
Septic's misrepresentation of belief and knowledge, confidence and
certainty, betrays him to be living in a world incompatible with reality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 02:04:57 PM |
|
|
Scot wrote:
"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".
Except that I have not agreed to stipulate that there actually ARE
multiple meanings of 'believe', all I am willing to stipulate is that
you lot seem to be trying to get away with being EQUIVOCAL with the
term, 'believe' by trying to conflate it with 'knowledge' when all the
while belief and knowledge are two completely different categories of
statements. Get it now?
Well, at least we agree there are multiple meanings.
Not a valid inference. I am definitely NOT sympathetic to your lame
attempts at being equivocal with the term, 'believe'.
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 06:57:49 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vZqdncRt7MnEIZfbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comcast.com...
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
So Huxley is saying one should only believe things when there is evidence
and it is proven true .. is that what you say as well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:51:36 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vZqdncRt7MnEIZfbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comcast.com...
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
So Huxley is saying ...
Huxley is saying, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe
things without evidence."
Huxley takes exception to Christianity, or any similar religious
doctrine. See his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
It's a big no no to believe things like the tenets of Christianity or
Islam for example.
Do you have sound reason to take exception to this principle?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:02:31 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:xs2dnYPVevZUqpbbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vZqdncRt7MnEIZfbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comcast.com...
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
So Huxley is saying ...
You've conveniently snipped the vital pies of my post .. that that support
the FACT that belief does NOT imply lack of evidence.
Huxley is saying, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe
things without evidence."
Yes .. yet you believe that "belief" implies lack of evidence, despite the
overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. Very sad.
[snip poor attempt at straw man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:46:24 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:xs2dnYPVevZUqpbbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vZqdncRt7MnEIZfbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comcast.com...
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
So Huxley is saying ...
You've conveniently snipped the vital pies of my post .. that that support
the FACT that belief does NOT imply lack of evidence.
You have it bass ackwards. It is the absence of evidence that puts the
statement into the category of belief, synonym faith, personal
subjective conviction, believing things without evidence.
If there is solid evidence of the thing, then the statement falls into
the category of statements known to be true because there is proof.
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See
www.m-w.com
What is so hard to understand about these two different categories of
statements, belief (personal subjective conviction without evidence) and
statements known to be true because there is proof?
Huxley is saying, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe
things without evidence."
Huxley takes exception to Christianity, or any similar religious
doctrine. See his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
It's a big no no to believe things like the tenets of Christianity or
Islam for example.
Do you have sound reason to take exception to this principle?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 04:48:41 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:rLednYJI89_OQpbbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:xs2dnYPVevZUqpbbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:vZqdncRt7MnEIZfbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comcast.com...
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
So Huxley is saying ...
You've conveniently snipped the vital pies of my post .. that that
support the FACT that belief does NOT imply lack of evidence.
You have it bass ackwards. It is the absence of evidence that puts the
statement into the category of belief, synonym faith, personal subjective
conviction, believing things without evidence.
Yes .. absense of evidence makes it "belief without evidence". Evidence
makes it :"belief with evidence"
Pretty obvious
If there is solid evidence of the thing, then the statement falls into the
category of statements known to be true because there is proof.
And that is also belief .. Gees, you'r slow on the uptake,
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See
www.m-w.com
I've shown you what www.m-w-com says about belief .. it shoots your argument
down in flames
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief
"conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or
phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
You lose. You cannot win. Get over it. Move on.
[snip same old same old and straw man attack]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 09:54:06 PM |
|
|
In article <rLednYJI89_OQpbbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. It is the absence of evidence that puts the
statement into the category of belief.
Then Septic, unlike everyone else, does not believe in the truth of
anything for which there is supporting evidence.
If there is solid evidence of the thing, then the statement falls into
the category of statements known to be true because there is proof.
What about those to whom that evidence has not been made available?
They cannot 'know' it without having that evidence, and they cannot
'believe' it because the evidence exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:23:03 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-DC5909.20540629032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <rLednYJI89_OQpbbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. It is the absence of evidence that puts the
statement into the category of belief.
Then Septic, unlike everyone else, does not believe in the truth of
anything for which there is supporting evidence.
Oops.. you just inadvertently did what I've done .. and forgot to snip the
'Jeckyl wrote' :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 02:21:26 PM |
|
|
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
.....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
.....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
.....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 07:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mLadnXlkZduq_pDbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z
is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going,
anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q'
to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this
going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are
true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
You got the title wrong .. it should have had "Sippuddin" in there . .the
one who keeps going off on straw man tangents.
Really I've no more time for you.
I'm made my points on the several topics YOU have introduced
I have proven my point on agnosticism is correct (completely supported by
Huxley)
I have proven my point on belief (completely supported by the definitions)
I have proven my point on fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam "proofs" that
god does not exist (as for those the "prove" that god does)
And sippudden has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a liar.
My work here is done.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 02:31:30 PM |
|
|
In article <mLadnXlkZduq_pDbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
Septic arguing for god again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 06:36:50 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <mLadnXlkZduq_pDbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
Septic arguing for god again!
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 moron.
It seems to be yours too, ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION!
You morons are all one big team of theist true-believers, aren't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 06:54:03 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
In article <mLadnXlkZduq_pDbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
Septic arguing for god again!
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 moron.
It seems to be yours too, ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION!
You morons are all one big team of theist true-believers, aren't you?
I make no such arguments. YOU ARE A LIAR.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Jeckyl's lame old argument for God #73 |
30 Mar 2007 07:36:23 PM |
|
|
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
The only ones who regularly present arguments for gods are theists, so
by presenting all sorts of arguments for gods Septic is supporting
theism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
07 Apr 2007 03:52:57 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
To show how hilarious y'all's lame old argument that there might be a
God is, moron.
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
......
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
......
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
......
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
07 Apr 2007 06:32:35 PM |
|
|
In article <C5SdnXPEFsA2mYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
To show how hilarious y'all's lame old argument that there might be a
God is, moron.
Does Septic choose to argue that "might be a God" is false?
If so, by equally valid logic, Septic must also consent to allowing
"might not be a god" to be false.
Not also:
If Septic chooses to reject
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
then he must be equally prepared to reject
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
as there is no ore logical justification for either one than for the
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
08 Apr 2007 08:09:40 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:32:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <C5SdnXPEFsA2mYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
To show how hilarious y'all's lame old argument that there might be a
God is, moron.
Does Septic choose to argue that "might be a God" is false?
If so, by equally valid logic, Septic must also consent to allowing
"might not be a god" to be false.
Not also:
If Septic chooses to reject
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
then he must be equally prepared to reject
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
as there is no ore logical justification for either one than for the
other.
There are an infinite number of things we could pull out of our "hat" for
which there is no evidence and therefore cannot directly prove them impossible.
However, if you want to quantify the degree of possibility that some
undetectable god(s) exist among the other infinite undetectable alternate
theories, it is a limit that approaches zero, in other words, an infinitely
small number, which for all intents and purposes is zero.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
09 Apr 2007 03:02:33 PM |
|
|
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:32:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <C5SdnXPEFsA2mYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
To show how hilarious y'all's lame old argument that there might be a
God is, moron.
Does Septic choose to argue that "might be a God" is false?
If so, by equally valid logic, Septic must also consent to allowing
"might not be a god" to be false.
Not also:
If Septic chooses to reject
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
then he must be equally prepared to reject
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
as there is no ore logical justification for either one than for the
other.
There are an infinite number of things we could pull out of our "hat" for
which there is no evidence and therefore cannot directly prove them impossible.
However, if you want to quantify the degree of possibility that some
undetectable god(s) exist among the other infinite undetectable alternate
theories, it is a limit that approaches zero,
Don't you mean to say that the LIMIT is zero as the probability gets
ever smaller? <See http://preview.tinyurl.com/2y5qzw>
In other words, the probability gets smaller and smaller, indefinitely,
but never ever reaches the limit, which is zero in this case?
in other words, an infinitely
small number,
But still SOME DEFINITE PROBABILITY, however small, because the
probability never ever reaches the limit, zero?
which for all intents and purposes is zero.
You mean no significant difference, but still not zero, instead there
has to be a definite probability, however small?
Ben
Ben, what is the algorithm for calculating this definite probability
there might be a god, however small? I would like to check your work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
09 Apr 2007 03:29:50 PM |
|
|
In article <PNSdnVCltrNHBofbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Ben, what is the algorithm for calculating this definite probability
there might be a god, however small? I would like to check your work.
And everyone else would like to check Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's claim
that there is a definite probability that no gods exist.
The actual state of affairs is that there is no unequivocal proof either
to show any god exists or that no god exists.
And until proof of one is found, the possibility of the other cannot be
rejected.
The agnostic actual position, regardless of how viciously Ho Hum
Sippuddin Sippuudin chooses to misrepresent it, is that
(1) in the absence of any proof there are no gods
agnostics do not claim that there are no gods, and
(2) in the absence of proof that there are any gods agnostics
do not claim there are gods.
Why Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin hypocritically claims to be agnostic
while rejecting the true agnostic position is not clear.
But he does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
10 Apr 2007 07:18:19 PM |
|
|
Virgil lies:
Sippuudin's claim
that there is a definite probability that no gods exist.
There has been no such claim, liar, you are just trying to shift the
burden of proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
10 Apr 2007 10:29:50 PM |
|
|
In article <iKudnftunO3QtIHbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil lies:
Sippuudin's claim
that there is a definite probability that no gods exist.
There has been no such claim, liar, you are just trying to shift the
burden of proof.
Since Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, and only Sippuddin, has been making
any unproved claims here, only Sippuudin bears any such burden.
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin claims that to say
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
But then to say, as all atheists do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
16 Apr 2007 01:57:54 PM |
|
|
Virgil lies:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil lies:
Sippuudin's claim
that there is a definite probability that no gods exist.
There has been no such claim, liar, you are just trying to shift the
burden of proof.
Since Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, and only Sippuddin, has been making
any unproved claims here
*
You are a liar. It is your side arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be a God because there is no proof your hypothesis (your 'might
be' theist conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for which theists are
FAMOUS:
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's lame old argument against God #666 |
16 Apr 2007 02:44:24 PM |
|
|
In article <Y7KdndxrVP-uWr7bnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Sippuudin's claim
that there is a definite probability that no gods exist.
There has been no such claim
Then Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin must be allowing that there is no
probability that no gods exist.
Since Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, and only Sippuddin, has been making
any unproved claims here
*
You are a liar.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM again!
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
If the above were false or fallacious then so would have to be:
#666 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove that God does exist
(2) Therefore, there might not get a God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
07 Apr 2007 07:17:07 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <C5SdnXPEFsA2mYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <GdednUEqT-iOApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Septic's argument for god deleted.
See the subject line? It's Jeckyl's lame old argument for God
But unless Septic is supporting that argument, why is he copying it?
To show how hilarious y'all's lame old argument that there might be a
God is, moron.
Does Septic choose to argue ...
Virgil lies, I do not choose to argue anything, I do not have to argue
anything, it is perfectly sufficient that I am just having loads of fun
laughing at Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God, lame
old argument for God #73
#73 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that
Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this
going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
.......
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and
Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is
this going?
.......
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J''
are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS
GOING?
.......
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all
obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, there might be a God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
08 Apr 2007 06:50:58 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:A--dnXrJ1YUeqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@comcast.com...
***** sipp .. I make no such claims or assertions. You're a liar. I'd
laugh at you, but you're not worth the effort.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil's and Jeff's and J's lame old argument for God #73 |
09 Apr 2007 02:43:07 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote
***** sipp ..
I didn't write that, liar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
