| 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 02:07:41 PM |
|
|
In article <g8qdnbeayY-ACJfbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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.
Which the troll Septic Sippudin is himself doing.
You lot are trying to conflate belief and knowledge even though belief
and knowledge are two completely different categories of statements.
That particular falsehood is no more true now after 1000 repetitions
that when Septic first claimed it.
"Belief" versus "knowledge" are merely value judgements about the
reliablility of statements.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:28:28 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
We have to have some way to distinguish between these two very different
categories of statements, on the one hand that which can be demonstrated
to be knowledge of the actual state of affairs in any particular case
because there is evidence, and on the other hand personal subjective
conviction (belief, synonym faith), 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 06:45:03 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Exactly .. they do not always have the same meaning .. they _can_ have
similar meanings. But belief is not faith in all sense of the words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:27:01 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Exactly .. they do not always have the same meaning ..
Are you nuts? I just told you that is a straw man. The term I used is
'synonymous'. Belief is definitely synonymous (having the same OR
SIMILAR meaning) with faith, according to the thesaurus. See:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
If you disagree, then take it up with the thesaurus.
Belief and faith being synonymous is not the issue. The issue is that
your side is trying to conflate belief and knowledge by insisting that
knowledge is belief.
The fact is that they are two completely different categories of statements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:49:11 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:QJqdnZY1AYGbr5bbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Exactly .. they do not always have the same meaning ..
Are you nuts? I just told you that is a straw man.
The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely synonymous (having
the same OR SIMILAR meaning) with faith, according to the thesaurus. See:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Yes .. it is simlar .. but not the same. you are arguing as though it WAS
the same
That is a false analogy / straw man fallacy
If you disagree, then take it up with the thesaurus.
Why would I disagree .. I said the same thing
Belief and faith being synonymous is not the issue.
Yes it is .. when you use that assumption in your proof that knowledge and
belief are unrelated because belief means the same as faith (ie that belief
means holding things to be true when they have no evidence or proof to
support them .. which is not what belief is).
The issue is that your side is trying to conflate belief and knowledge by
insisting that knowledge is belief.
This whole argument is just one big straw man anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 11:54:22 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
... (ie that belief
means holding things to be true when they have no evidence or proof to
support them .. which is not what belief is).
?Are you suggesting that Thomas Huxley is wrong when he refers to the
tenets of the Christian Belief as 'propositions which men ought to
believe, without logically satisfactory evidence' in the following?
"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
Belief (synonym faith) and knowledge are two different categories of
statements. Why don't you lot give up trying to conflate the two?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 04:57:18 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:soidneK7bOfdcpbbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... (ie that belief means holding things to be true when they have no
evidence or proof to support them .. which is not what belief is).
?Are you suggesting that Thomas Huxley is wrong when he refers to the
tenets of the Christian Belief as 'propositions which men ought to
believe, without logically satisfactory evidence' in the following?
Straw man.
[snip same old]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:15:36 PM |
|
|
In article <soidneK7bOfdcpbbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... (ie that belief
means holding things to be true when they have no evidence or proof to
support them .. which is not what belief is).
?Are you suggesting that Thomas Huxley is wrong when he refers to the
tenets of the Christian Belief as 'propositions which men ought to
believe, without logically satisfactory evidence'
Huxley never said that anything should be believed without logically
satisfactory evidence.
So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:17:34 AM |
|
|
In article <QJqdnZY1AYGbr5bbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Exactly .. they do not always have the same meaning ..
Are you nuts? I just told you that is a straw man.
So the number of things that Septic has told us that have turned out to
be false has just increased by one. It is such a large number that an
increase of only one is hardly noticeable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 02:10:05 PM |
|
|
In article <btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
If they were really identical they would be spelled the same.
They are sufficiently similar to often overlap, but they are not
identical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 03:16:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
If they were really identical ...
Straw man, I did not say they are identical, I said that belief is
definitely synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith,
according to the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Are you taking exception to the thesaurus? Take it up with m-w.com not me.
Because, as the thesaurus says, belief is synonymous with faith, then it
is a term that cannot rightly be used anywhere around the term,
'knowledge'.
Let me ask you this: Are the tenets of, for example, the Christian
Faith, are those in the category 'knowledge' or in the category
'religious faith'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 07:25:39 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FZqdnQxM3Ye4UJfbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
Because, as the thesaurus says, belief is synonymous with faith, then it
is a term that cannot rightly be used anywhere around the term,
'knowledge'.
That is an illogical conclusion. And you just did it yourself !! :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:26:21 PM |
|
|
In article <FZqdnQxM3Ye4UJfbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <btidnWoxu7UxCpfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
... you think "faith' and "belief" are identical.
Straw man. The term I used is 'synonymous'. Belief is definitely
synonymous (having the same or similar meaning) with faith, according to
the thesaurus. See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
If they were really identical ...
Straw man,
As any evidence justifying a "straw man" accusation has been snipped, it
is Septic who is guilty of creating a straw man argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
27 Mar 2007 05:35:06 PM |
|
|
In article <INudnVMLurGuCJTbnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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.
To argue for truth as an absolute is to argue for a god.
There is no such thing as "known to be true" in any absolute sense, at
least for anything other than the forms of logic itself, as there may
transpire in future new evidence requiring modification of any currently
accepted "truths".
That isn't allowed, it's sophistry
It is sophistry to argue, as Septic does, that one ever has absolute
certainty, at least in any scientific sense, so that all such is merely
"true as far as we know" rather than "true absolutely".
Which means that we have faith in its truth, but without a god, there
cannot be any absolute truth.
So that Septic reveals his true god in his arguments.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 11:05 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <130gmhjjvu68...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vir...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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
There are many axiomatic elements in science too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:14:05 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> said:
On Mar 27, 11:05 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <130gmhjjvu68...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vir...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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
There are many axiomatic elements in science too.
And scientism has its preachers of absolute truth -- as we see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 01:08:50 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> said:
On Mar 27, 11:05 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <130gmhjjvu68...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vir...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-BD5B9E.13232426032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <soednUgewc3IlpXbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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
There are many axiomatic elements in science too.
And scientism has its preachers of absolute truth -- as we see.
Science isn't 'scientism' (the 'ism' implying a religious faith, like
'theism'). That's just a lame old theist straw man. It is lame old
argument for God #159
ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC argument II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly,
the biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
And there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science; all knowledge
is considered tentative because new evidence may surface tomorrow.
Contrast this with the so-called 'revealed truth' of religion, like for
example lame old argument for God #460, # VANDERZYDEN'S ARGUMENT FROM
SECRET KNOWLEDGE
(1) There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
(2) No, I'm not going to tell you what it is.
(3) The only possible explanation for your lack of knowledge is that you
haven't studied enough.
(4) Or maybe your Atheistic presupposition is blinding you to the truth.
(5) But trust me — it's overwhelming.
(6) It's so overwhelming that no reasonable person can honestly reach
the conclusion that God does not exist.
(7) Therefore, God exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 06:47:20 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message news:-pSdnSjIPs-
Science isn't 'scientism' (the 'ism' implying a religious faith, like
'theism'). That's just a lame old theist straw man. It is lame old
argument for God #159
ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC argument II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly, the
biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
And there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science; all knowledge
is considered tentative because new evidence may surface tomorrow.
Contrast this with the so-called 'revealed truth' of religion, like for
example lame old argument for God #460, # VANDERZYDEN'S ARGUMENT FROM
SECRET KNOWLEDGE
(1) There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
(2) No, I'm not going to tell you what it is.
(3) The only possible explanation for your lack of knowledge is that you
haven't studied enough.
(4) Or maybe your Atheistic presupposition is blinding you to the truth.
(5) But trust me — it's overwhelming.
(6) It's so overwhelming that no reasonable person can honestly reach the
conclusion that God does not exist.
(7) Therefore, God exists.
You keep quoting these humorous arguments .. but noone here is using them.
Are you just trying to entertain us?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:32:53 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message news:-pSdnSjIPs-
Science isn't 'scientism' (the 'ism' implying a religious faith, like
'theism'). That's just a lame old theist straw man. It is lame old
argument for God #159
ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC argument II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly, the
biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
And there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science; all knowledge
is considered tentative because new evidence may surface tomorrow.
Contrast this with the so-called 'revealed truth' of religion, like for
example lame old argument for God #460, # VANDERZYDEN'S ARGUMENT FROM
SECRET KNOWLEDGE
(1) There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.
(2) No, I'm not going to tell you what it is.
(3) The only possible explanation for your lack of knowledge is that you
haven't studied enough.
(4) Or maybe your Atheistic presupposition is blinding you to the truth.
(5) But trust me — it's overwhelming.
(6) It's so overwhelming that no reasonable person can honestly reach the
conclusion that God does not exist.
(7) Therefore, God exists.
You keep quoting these humorous arguments .. but noone here is using them.
Are you kidding?? If you believe that, then you haven't been reading
Usenet very long.
Theists keep repeating the same old lame old arguments for God and Jesus
ad infinitum. That is what makes this list of hundreds of those lame old
arguments so hilarious!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:51:13 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:zLWdnbItU8_7rpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com...
Are you kidding?? If you believe that, then you haven't been reading
Usenet very long.
"Here" .. as in this current discussion thread .. not here .. in this
newsgruop, or here in senet, or here in the world
Theists keep repeating the same old lame old arguments for God and Jesus
ad infinitum. That is what makes this list of hundreds of those lame old
arguments so hilarious!
Yes .. they do. Strong atheists use similar arguments of course. With
equal hilarity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:07:56 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:zLWdnbItU8_7rpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com...
Are you kidding?? If you believe that, then you haven't been reading
Usenet very long.
"Here" .. as in this current discussion thread .. not here .. in this
newsgruop, or here in senet, or here in the world
No, 'here' is the world, which includes Usenet, which is part of the
world. New here? Theist desires notwithstanding, you do not get a tabula
raza with each new thread of discussion in Usenet.
Theists keep repeating the same old lame old arguments for God and Jesus
ad infinitum. That is what makes this list of hundreds of those lame old
arguments so hilarious!
Yes .. they do. Strong atheists use similar arguments of course. With
equal hilarity.
?What are you saying, that there are some ATHEISTS (non-believers)
making arguments similar to these same old lame old arguments for God??
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm ?How do you figure that
when, as you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not an argument,
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 04:59:33 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:z_idne0lW6Lwb5bbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:zLWdnbItU8_7rpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com...
Are you kidding?? If you believe that, then you haven't been reading
Usenet very long.
"Here" .. as in this current discussion thread .. not here .. in this
newsgruop, or here in senet, or here in the world
No, 'here' is the world, which includes Usenet, which is part of the
world. New here? Theist desires notwithstanding, you do not get a tabula
raza with each new thread of discussion in Usenet.
Theists keep repeating the same old lame old arguments for God and Jesus
ad infinitum. That is what makes this list of hundreds of those lame old
arguments so hilarious!
Yes .. they do. Strong atheists use similar arguments of course. With
equal hilarity.
?What are you saying, that there are some ATHEISTS (non-believers) making
arguments similar to these same old lame old arguments for God??
Yes.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm ?How do you figure that
when, as you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not an argument,
Straw man.
You are a perfect example of an atheist who makes hillarious arguments like
the above.
[snaip same old rubbish]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 10:19:24 PM |
|
|
In article <z_idne0lW6Lwb5bbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
Theists keep repeating the same old lame old arguments for God and Jesus
ad infinitum. That is what makes this list of hundreds of those lame old
arguments so hilarious!
Yes .. they do. Strong atheists use similar arguments of course. With
equal hilarity.
?What are you saying, that there are some ATHEISTS (non-believers)
making arguments similar to these same old lame old arguments for God??
Precisely!
Septic himself, under different aliases of course to protect the guilty,
has made such arguments.
And Septic's arguments are equally lame and hilarious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:19:25 AM |
|
|
In article <zLWdnbItU8_7rpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
You keep quoting these humorous arguments .. but noone here is using them.
Are you kidding?? If you believe that, then you haven't been reading
Usenet very long.
The only one using them here is Septic, and he only does it as a straw
man tactic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 02:22:10 PM |
|
|
In article <-pSdnSjIPs-sMpfbnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
And scientism has its preachers of absolute truth -- as we see.
Science isn't 'scientism' (the 'ism' implying a religious faith, like
'theism'). That's just a lame old theist straw man.
The only strawman I see is Septic's, but he is so free with them that
there is a shortage of straw for other purposes.
And there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science; all knowledge
is considered tentative because new evidence may surface tomorrow.
Which is precisely why speaking of "scientific knowledge" is merely
demonstrating one's faith in science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 04:21:43 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <-pSdnSjIPs-sMpfbnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
And scientism has its preachers of absolute truth -- as we see.
Science isn't 'scientism' (the 'ism' implying a religious faith, like
'theism'). That's just a lame old theist straw man.
The only strawman I see is Septic's, but he is so free with them that
there is a shortage of straw for other purposes.
And there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science; all knowledge
is considered tentative because new evidence may surface tomorrow.
Which is precisely why speaking of "scientific knowledge" is merely
demonstrating one's faith in science.
*****. "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
That rules out belief (synonym faith).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 07:33:23 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JpOdnT1EjPL6QZfbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com...
"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
That rules out belief (synonym faith).
No .. it rules out belief without evidence. Not all belief. Belief can be
with or without evidence .. when without evidence, it is called (blind)
faith. If believe always meant without evidence, then Huxley would have
just said "believe things" not "believe things without evidence".
Your argument that belief cannot mean to accept as true when there is
evidence is contrary to the definitions of believe (see m-w.com, as you like
to point to):
Belief:
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being
or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
You really need to read, understand word meanings, and use logic correctly
... you're falling into the same traps as those many arguments for god you
like to point to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:11:06 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JpOdnT1EjPL6QZfbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com...
"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
That rules out belief (synonym faith).
No .. it rules out belief without evidence.
That's what belief (synonym faith) is, personal subjective conviction
with no basis in fact. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Look at the tenets of the Christian Belief for example.
If there is a basis in fact for a given statement, then it goes into the
category of statements known to be true, not belief (synonym faith).
We have to have two different terms to distinguish between these two
different categories of statements, belief and knowledge. Please stop
trying to conflate belief and knowledge by arguing that knowledge is a
form of belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:43:19 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:59idnXuJKarGoZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JpOdnT1EjPL6QZfbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com...
"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
That rules out belief (synonym faith).
No .. it rules out belief without evidence.
That's what belief (synonym faith) is, personal subjective conviction with
no basis in fact. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
You are erroneously showing the definition of faith in order to say
something about belief.
Look at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some
person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a
group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being
or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Nothing there about belief being without evidence .. in fact it say EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE.
You've lost big time on your insistence that belief implies lack of
evidence. maybe its time you move on to an argument you might have a chance
of winning.
[snip irrelevancy]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:35:12 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:59idnXuJKarGoZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JpOdnT1EjPL6QZfbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com...
"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
That rules out belief (synonym faith).
No .. it rules out belief without evidence.
That's what belief (synonym faith) is, personal subjective conviction with
no basis in fact. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
You are erroneously showing the definition of faith in order to say
something about belief.
Faith and belief are SYNONYMS, knucklehead, terms with the same or
similar meaning. What's so difficult to understand about the meaning of
the term 'synonym'? Same Greek root as 'synchronous'.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/synchronous
That's what belief (synonym faith) is, personal subjective conviction
with no basis in fact. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
Look at the tenets of the Christian Belief for example.
If there is a basis in fact for a given statement, then it goes into the
category of statements known to be true, not belief (synonym faith).
We have to have two different terms to distinguish between these two
different categories of statements, belief and knowledge. Please stop
trying to conflate belief and knowledge by arguing that knowledge is a
form of belief.
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held
by > a group
Nothing there about belief being without evidence ...
?You have evidence that the beliefs (tenets) of Christianity, for
example, are known to be true? That would be big big news! Please proceed!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
