| 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: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:37:24 PM |
|
|
In article <wJCdnUxKGfXPcI_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <hradncut2PoTBY_bnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Scot wrote:
[quoting Russell]
I do
not think that there is a conclusive argument
by which one can prove that there is not a God.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, Scot.
They do if they wish to claim it is the truth.
You still don't get it.
It is Septic who doesn't get it. To argue, as Septic is doing, that one
may establish the truth of one statement and the falsehood of another
without evidence of any sort is the most extreme form of fallacy.
It's not a claim
Then we can call it false out of hand without worrying any more about it.
Only honest actual claims need be treated with any seriousness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 04:15:09 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnUxKGfXPcI_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <hradncut2PoTBY_bnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Scot wrote:
[quoting Russell]
I do
not think that there is a conclusive argument
by which one can prove that there is not a God.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, Scot.
They do if they wish to claim it is the truth.
You still don't get it.
It is Septic
Argument _ad hominem_ noted. You lose.
who doesn't get it.
*
You still don't get it. 'No God®' is not a claim, it is the denial (the
negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial, so 'No God®' is the only reasonable default presumption, like
the default presumption of 'No guilt' in court.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Nobody ever has to prove the negative. The burden of proof cannot be
shifted.
The fact of the matter is that the theist idea of God®, the hypothetical
Creator, the hypothetical First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a
special pleading for God®) so it is summarily rejected as logical
fallacy and a waste of time, as Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
Too bad for your side that no proof there is no God is ever required,
because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the
negation) of the proposition in question.
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, or on Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No
safety', 'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 06:15:09 PM |
|
|
In article <crydnRT_L9ZDlIXbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
You still don't get it. 'No God' is not a claim
If it were not, Septic would not be claiming it was not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 08:04:16 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <crydnRT_L9ZDlIXbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
You still don't get it. 'No God' is not a claim
If it were not, Septic would not be claiming it was not.
If it were, then Virgil would not have to resort to his lame old
argument _ad hoominem_ "Septic."
Tsk tsk. How lame.
You still don't get it. 'No God®' is not a claim, it is the denial (the
negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial, so 'No God®' is the only reasonable default presumption, like
the default presumption of 'No guilt' in court.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
In any such case nobody ever has to prove the negative. The burden of
proof cannot be shifted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 10:19:27 PM |
|
|
In article <sd2dnTxl-N8NooXbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <crydnRT_L9ZDlIXbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
You still don't get it. 'No God' is not a claim
If it were not, Septic would not be claiming it was not.
If it were, then Virgil would not have to resort to his lame old
As it is, that subjunctive is misused.
You still don't get it. 'No God®' is not a claim
Anything that is not a claim being made by somebody is irrelevant here.
And most of Setpic's actual claims are irrelevant anyway, as they have
no logical or evidential support.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 04:16:33 PM |
|
|
In article <Xbmdna8IWcuDoYzbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote:
merlin believes when you have to ask, the answer is no.
I have to ask, "Is there a God, as Merlin insists?"
I had to ask, so by Merlin's line of 'reasoning' the answer is no.
And we have to ask whether Septic is sane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 01:24:58 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Xbmdna8IWcuDoYzbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote:
merlin believes when you have to ask, the answer is no.
I have to ask, "Is there a God, as Merlin insists?"
I had to ask, so by Merlin's line of 'reasoning' the answer is no.
And we have to ask whether Septic is sane.
Argment _ad hominem_ won't help you establish that there might be a God,
Virgil, it's just lame old logical fallacy.
It's sort of like your lame old 'There might be a God' argument, it's
like lame old argument for God #526
#526 ARGUMENT FROM JUST MAYBE
(1) A big-name scientist, somewhere, once admitted that it just might be
possible, perhaps, that one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution
could, maybe, if P < 0.05, be false.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 02:31:50 PM |
|
|
In article <HcOdnTFVL9thBo_bnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Xbmdna8IWcuDoYzbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote:
merlin believes when you have to ask, the answer is no.
I have to ask, "Is there a God, as Merlin insists?"
I had to ask, so by Merlin's line of 'reasoning' the answer is no.
And we have to ask whether Septic is sane.
Argment _ad hominem_
Tha asking of irrelevant questions is not an argumentum ad hominem.
won't help you establish that there might be a God,
Virgil, it's just lame old logical fallacy.
Septic claims that to say
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
But then to say, as all atheists do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It's sort of like your lame old 'There might be a God' argument, it's
like lame old argument for God #526
#526 ARGUMENT FROM JUST MAYBE
(1) A big-name scientist, somewhere, once admitted that it just might be
possible, perhaps, that one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution
could, maybe, if P < 0.05, be false.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
#526 ARGUMENT FROM JUST MAYBE
(1) A big-name scientist, somewhere, once admitted that it just might be
possible, perhaps, that one of the many pieces of evidence for God
could, maybe, if P < 0.05, be false.
(2) Therefore, there might not be a God.
Same thing!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 05:54:23 AM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote:
merlin believes when you have to ask, the answer is no.
I have to ask, "Is there a God, as Merlin insists?"
I had to ask, so by Merlin's line of 'reasoning' the answer is no.
very good grasshopper.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 02:21:15 AM |
|
|
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Now watch the fun begin.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 09:17:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 09:58:32 PM |
|
|
In article <Ac6dndc8Gcle-o3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless.
The word means too many different things to too many different people to
allow any universal proof or disproof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 12:43:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong. The attempt to prove/disprove God is meaningless. That doesn't
mean God is meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 10:32:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
You say, "I have learned so much about God." Will you please describe in
detail exactly what it is you have learned about and the process of
learning things about God so that we can scientifically check your
findings? It's worth $1,000,000 to you if you can do it.
"At JREF, we offer an invitation-only one-million-dollar prize to
anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any
paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." --
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
It's time to put up or shut up, Brze.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 04:15:49 PM |
|
|
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra:
Septic claims that to say
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
But then to claim, as atheists do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 12:56:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra
*
You mean the null, 'No God'? That is the only reasonable default
presumption in any case, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in
court, because the full burden of proof in any case is always on the
ones making the assertion in question and the burden of proof can never
be shifted to the denial (the negation) of that assertion.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 02:20:21 PM |
|
|
In article <u7GdnfZKk7rJCI_bnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra
*
You mean the null, 'No God'?
Septic 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.
It is my position that neither of these is fallacious, but Septic would
say that one of them is ant the other is not.
Which puts him in argeement with theists who claim the same.
Though differing on which is which.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:15:28 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <u7GdnfZKk7rJCI_bnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra
*
You mean the null, 'No God'?
Septic claims ...
*
Virgil is a liar. I am not the one making the assertion in this case,
Virgil is, his assertion that there might be a God anyway, even though
he cannot produce one shred of evidence of any such thing.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:44:39 PM |
|
|
In article <wJCdnU9KGfW8c4_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <u7GdnfZKk7rJCI_bnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is
just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra
*
You mean the null, 'No God'?
Septic claims ...
[unsnip]
Septic 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.
*
Virgil is a liar.
Then does Septic no longer claim that to say
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Or does Septic no longer choose to argue that
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"?
I am not the one making the assertion in this case,
Virgil is, his assertion that there might be a God
My actual position, regardless of how Septic chooses to misrepresent it,
is that in the absence of any proof there are no gods I do not claim
that there are none, and in the absence of proof that there are any gods
I do not claim there are any.
Septic 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, including Septic, do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Septic can't have it both ways, either neither of these is an argumentum
ad ignorantiam or both are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 04:19:34 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnU9KGfW8c4_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <u7GdnfZKk7rJCI_bnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
... stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
You win, evidently the term, 'God' IS meaningless. Evidently it is
just
meaningless 'might be' conjecture, wishful thinking, with no basis in
fact, and not even any cogent meaning.
Wrong.
So you keep insisting.
Now the floor is yours.
If that "might be" conjecture is out, so is the atheism mantra
*
You mean the null, 'No God'?
Septic claims ...
*
Virgil is a liar.
Septic claims ...
*
Virgil is a liar. I am not the one making the assertion in this case,
Virgil is, his assertion that there might be a God anyway, even though
he cannot produce one shred of evidence of any such thing.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
For example see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 06:22:46 PM |
|
|
In article <crydnRf_L9Z6l4XbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Septic claims ...
*
Virgil is a liar. I am not the one making the assertion in this case,
Virgil is, his assertion that there might be a God anyway, even though
he cannot produce one shred of evidence of any such thing.
That is, in itself an assertion being made by one who claims not to be
making assertions.
My actual position, being in conformity to the principles of Thomas
Huxleys' agnostic principles, regardless of how Septic chooses to
misrepresent it, is that in the present absence of any proof there are
no gods I do not claim that there are none, and in the present absence
of proof that there are any gods I do not claim there are any.
Should Septic claim otherwise, then he the liar.
And it is those who, like Septic, claim to know whether any gods exist
who are in violation of those agnostic principles which Huxley and I
uphold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 08:00:56 PM |
|
|
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof, but as you have been informed,
that is a form of logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi
explains:
<quote>
FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantiam_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks
-- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his
critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 10:13:15 PM |
|
|
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof
As Setpic has snipped any such argument, his case fails.
The reason that he had to snip it was because it showed his claim to be
false.
My actual position, regardless of how Setpic chooses to misrepresent it,
is that in the absence of any proof there are no gods I do not claim
that there are none, and in the absence of proof that there are any gods
I do not claim there are any.
Since Septic seems bound and determined to disagree with my actual
position as stated above, either
(1) Setpic is claiming there are no gods despite the absence of any
proof that there are no gods or
(2) Setpic is claiming there re gods despite the absence of any proof
that there are any gods.
Which is it Setpic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
09 Apr 2007 01:35:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof
As Setpic has snipped any such argument, his case fails.
Actually it is YOUR case for God that fails due to the fallacy of trying
to shift the burden of proof by posting the lame old theist argument for
God based on lack of disproof.
That is actually well-known lame old argument for God #109
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
09 Apr 2007 01:48:00 PM |
|
|
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof
As Setpic has snipped any such argument, his case fails.
Actually it is YOUR case for God that fails due to the fallacy of trying
to shift the burden of proof by posting the lame old theist argument for
God based on lack of disproof.
As my "case for god" as claimed by Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin exists
only in the imaginaltion of Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, whether it fails
there or not is a matter of total indifference to everyone else.
That is actually well-known lame old argument for God #109
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin misquotes his own source.
Check it yourselves at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
What it actually says is:
<quote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
<end quote>
This deliberate misquote by Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin is just one more
evidence of Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's persistent pattern of lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
10 Apr 2007 07:45:57 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof
As Setpic has snipped any such argument, his case fails.
Actually it is YOUR case for God that fails due to the fallacy of trying
to shift the burden of proof by posting the lame old theist argument for
God based on lack of disproof.
As my "case for god" as claimed by Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin exists
only in the imaginaltion of Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, whether it fails
there or not is a matter of total indifference to everyone else.
That is actually well-known lame old argument for God #109
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin misquotes his own source.
Check it yourselves at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
What it actually says is:
<quote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
<end quote>
I ask you again, is God something known to exist, or is God merely
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture with no known basis in fact)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
10 Apr 2007 10:05:08 PM |
|
|
In article <9Yednbpb7JRbsoHbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil persists in arguing _ad ignorantiam_:
... in the present absence of any proof there are no gods ...
Nice try a shifting the burden of proof
As Setpic has snipped any such argument, his case fails.
Actually it is YOUR case for God that fails due to the fallacy of trying
to shift the burden of proof by posting the lame old theist argument for
God based on lack of disproof.
As my "case for god" as claimed by Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin exists
only in the imaginaltion of Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, whether it fails
there or not is a matter of total indifference to everyone else.
That is actually well-known lame old argument for God #109
#109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, there might be a God.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin misquotes his own source.
Check it yourselves at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
What it actually says is:
<quote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
<end quote>
I ask you again, is God something known to exist, or is God merely
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture with no known basis in fact)?
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 in general, and Ho Hum Sippuddin
Sippuudin does in particular
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
In fact Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin exceeds that and claims "No Gods"!
My actual agnostic position, regardless of how Ho Hum Sippuddin
Sippuudin chooses to misrepresent it, is that in the absence of any
proof there are no gods I do not claim that there are none, and in the
absence of proof that there are any gods I do not claim there are any.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
11 Apr 2007 12:08:42 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... Sippuddin claims "No Gods"!
Virgil is a devout liar. How many times do we have to cover this same
ground, Vergie? You are still making the same old category error. The
null, the only reasonable default presumption in this case, 'No gods' is
not an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the
denial (the negation) of the assertion in question in this case, and the
burden of proof can NEVER be shifted to the denial because that is
logical fallacy, as you have been informed, repeatedly:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Remember, the governing principle is that the only reasonable default
presumption in any case like the one that there might be gods or there
might be ETs is the null, 'No god' or the null, 'No ET' as the case may be.
For example, see: SETI
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
-- http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
11 Apr 2007 05:31:01 PM |
|
|
In article <pOKdnYLysuuHi4DbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Sippuddin claims "No Gods"!
Virgil is a devout liar. How many times do we have to cover this same
ground, Vergie?
Until Donald Alford (the original of Sippuddin) tells the truth.
You are still making the same old category error.
Which is not an error in the opinion of anyone but Donald Alford, as
everyone else recognized the difference between refusing to accept a
statement until adequately proved and claiming its negation is true.
The only reasonable assumption in a dispute in which neither side has
convincing evidence is to reject both claims, as I do.
My actual position, regardless of how Donald Alford chooses to
misrepresent it, is that in the absence of any proof there are no gods I
do not claim that there are none, and in the absence of proof that there
are any gods I do not claim there are any.
That is the only position that an honest agnostic can take in such a
dispute.
Which makes Donald Alford a dishonest anti-agnostic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
11 Apr 2007 03:18:12 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 1:08 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Sippuddin claims "No Gods"!
Virgil is a devout liar.
I deny that Virgil is a liar, Septic. That means "Virgil no liar" is
a required presumption in your book.
<snip; I deny that Septic has demonstrated any lie on Virgil's part;
boy this denial stuff comes in handy>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
