| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
13 Apr 2007 07:11:06 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 1:10 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:47 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9Yednbpb7JRbsoHbnZ2dnUVZ_vXin...@comcast.com>,
Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhn...@comcast.com>,
Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@comcast.com>,
Septic <s...@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 ...
I am just asking you a simple question,
And your question is an obvious Fallacy of Diversion from the fact
that you have lied by blatantly misquoting a source, Septic. You've
been caught red-handed yet again. Time to 'fess up.
Jeff
Let's say that I exercise my alleged free will and decide to join you
You join no one as soon as you modify "free will" by the adjective
"alleged". In fact you immediately divorce yourself from any
discussion whatsoever thereby, as inherent in the idea of discussion
is free will, unmodified. (That's a free clue, Septic, as to why you
are so unsuccessful in open forums like usenet, wikipedia (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix), and
undoubtedly many others.) Below I've left in some other terms in this
very post by which you've removed yourself from any reasonable
discussion. (Your responses reek with insincerity, just like Imus';
another free clue as to your given nick, Septic.)
... Sinusturd ... lame old ... Sinusturd ... merely hypothetical
<snip Septic _still_ trying to sneak in his Fallacy of Diversion
question rather than 'fess up>
Time to 'fess up, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
16 Apr 2007 01:34:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Time to 'fess up, Septic.
Jeff
Fess up to what, Jeffie, fess up to not buying your lame old argument
that there might be a God if there are atheists??
It's still a semi-free country, in spite of the alleged 'Patriot' act,
and I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
17 Apr 2007 01:29:57 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Aqmdndb-A6pUXL7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
It's still a semi-free country, in spite of the alleged 'Patriot' act, and
I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
You are free to be atheist. And you are
free to post the same things over and over
and over and over and over....
But don't you ever want to move on to something
new?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
18 Apr 2007 12:55:55 AM |
|
|
Scot wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Aqmdndb-A6pUXL7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
It's still a semi-free country, in spite of the alleged 'Patriot' act,
and I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
You are free to be atheist. And you are
free to post the same things over and over
and over and over and over....
But don't you ever want to move on to something
new?
Nah. Sippycup has only three real arguments and he never seems to be
able to stray from them.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
16 Apr 2007 07:19:38 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Aqmdndb-A6pUXL7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
jientho@aol.com wrote:
and I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
So, what do you say then
1) God exists
2) God does not exist
Which is it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
16 Apr 2007 03:08:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Aqmdndb-A6pUXL7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Time to 'fess up, Septic.
Jeff
Fess up to what, Jeffie, fess up to not buying your lame old argument
that there might be a God if there are atheists??
Fess up to your lies, Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, that atheism requires
belief that there cannot be any gods and that anything else is theism.
It's still a semi-free country, in spite of the alleged 'Patriot' act,
and I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
And those who reject Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's anti-agnostic
anti-theism are also free to be atheist, despite Ho Hum Sippuddin
Sippuudin's lies to the contrary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
17 Apr 2007 01:33:13 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-839D1B.14084216042007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <Aqmdndb-A6pUXL7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It's still a semi-free country, in spite of the alleged 'Patriot' act,
and I am still free to be atheist aren't I?
And those who reject Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's anti-agnostic
anti-theism are also free to be atheist, despite Ho Hum Sippuddin
Sippuudin's lies to the contrary.
Those who wish to respond to Septic's umpteenth repetition
of his arguments are free to do so.
But don't you want to move on to something new?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
16 Apr 2007 09:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Apr 16, 2:34 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
Time to 'fess up, Septic.
Jeff
Fess up to what,
To lying by misquoting your source, Septic. "God exists" is not
equivalent to "there might be a God".
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
10 Apr 2007 09:12:58 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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>
is God something known to exist,
No one's state of knowledge can make the proposition "God exists" have
the same meaning as the proposition "there might be a God", Septic.
You have once again been exposed as a liar misquoting your own
source. Too bad for you.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
11 Apr 2007 11:52:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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>
is God something known to exist,
No one's state of knowledge can make the proposition "God exists" have
the same meaning as the proposition "there might be a God"
I am not asking about the relative meanings of statements, I am asking
about your God proposition. You are just trying to evade this simple
issue I have raised by tossing in a red herring. 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 |
11 Apr 2007 05:21:28 PM |
|
|
In article <xr6dnRd0O4PJj4DbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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>
is God something known to exist,
No one's state of knowledge can make the proposition "God exists" have
the same meaning as the proposition "there might be a God"
I am not asking about the relative meanings of statements, I am asking
about your God proposition.
My only "god" proposition is this agnostic one:
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.
You are just trying to evade this simple
issue I have raised by tossing in a red herring. 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)?
See above.
It is only Donald Alford who continues to claim, in the absence of any
supporting evidence, "NO GOD".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
11 Apr 2007 03:02:39 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 12:52 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <erednZTsAuUZGofbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sd2dnT1l-N9Vo4XbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@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>
is God something known to exist,
No one's state of knowledge can make the proposition "God exists" have
the same meaning as the proposition "there might be a God"
I am not asking about the relative meanings of statements,
You are misquoting (lying) by substituting a statement ("there might
be a God") for a statement with a different meaning ("God exists"),
Septic. And your rhetorical question does not change that atall
atall. No one's state of knowledge or ignorance equilibrates those
two meanings. And your "question" thus constitutes a Fallacy of
Diversion (and an implied Fallacy of Equivocation). Just the usual
from Septic though, ho hum.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
17 Apr 2007 01:33:24 PM |
|
|
dear jien,
You are misquoting (lying)
wow that is not an answer at all.
by substituting a statement ("there might
be a God") for a statement with a different meaning ("God exists"),
there might be a god? yes. does god exist? yes. there is no god?
yes.
Septic. And your rhetorical question does not change that atall
atall.
he is cleaver.
No one's state of knowledge or ignorance equilibrates those
two meanings.
what does this mean?
And your "question" thus constitutes a Fallacy of
Diversion (and an implied Fallacy of Equivocation). Just the usual
from Septic though, ho hum.
what are youse chatting about?
is it not diverse to say there is god and there isn't a god?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 09:14:21 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 8:15 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <u7GdnfZKk7rJCI_bnZ2dnUVZ_rjin...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <L5GdnRORg5divIzbnZ2dnUVZ_vein...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
b...@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:17:37 -0700, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
b...@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 deny that Virgil is a liar. According to you that is the only
reasonable presumption, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 02:58:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, 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.
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
"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.
Dream on. I wasn't even started yet. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 12:43:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 02:11:40 PM |
|
|
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:04:48 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
I don't make such arguments, moron. When the question is on the alleged
existence of gods 'No gods' is the only reasonable default presumption,
(not argument, but default presumption, that which is reasonably taken
for granted, 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.
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 07:31:09 PM |
|
|
In article <wJCdnVJKGfU_do_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
I don't make such arguments, moron.
You have made many of them though under prior pseudonyms.
When the question is on the alleged
existence of gods 'No gods' is the only reasonable default presumption
The only reasonable position is "I don't know!", at least until someone
comes up with some evidence one way or the other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 04:08:32 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnVJKGfU_do_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
I don't make such arguments, moron.
You have made many of them though under prior pseudonyms.
When the question is on the alleged
existence of gods 'No gods' is the only reasonable default presumption
The only reasonable position is "I don't know!"
*
Knowledge has nothing to do with with the reasonable default presumption
[that which is reasonably taken for granted] in this case. The burden of
proof cannot be shifted to the denial, so the denial (negation), null,
'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 to the negative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 06:10:29 PM |
|
|
In article <crydnRr_L9bMlYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnVJKGfU_do_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
I don't make such arguments, moron.
You have made many of them though under prior pseudonyms.
When the question is on the alleged
existence of gods 'No gods' is the only reasonable default presumption
The only reasonable position is "I don't know!"
*
Knowledge has nothing to do with with the reasonable default presumption
If one knows something about the situation, e.g. that firearms are
dangerous, Septic has bee claiming that that requires the presumption
that firearms are dangerous so that Septic claims that the only null is
re safety.
But if one knows nothing, then the appropriate null is abouot danger.
So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN!! AS USUAL!!!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 08:11:44 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <crydnRr_L9bMlYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnVJKGfU_do_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <8NKdnY6_4uD9D4_bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:32:14 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
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.
Thank you. You can keep your money or donate it to the poor. The way
to know God is through Jesus Christ.
That's lame old argument for God #666
#666 ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
That is the equivalent of one of Septic's lame old arguments that there
are no gods.
I don't make such arguments, moron.
You have made many of them though under prior pseudonyms.
When the question is on the alleged
existence of gods 'No gods' is the only reasonable default presumption
The only reasonable position is "I don't know!"
*
Knowledge has nothing to do with with the reasonable default presumption
If one knows something about the situation
*
That's just it, when nobody knows for sure what the situation is (say
the firearm is not known to be safe) then knowledge has nothing to do
with the reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably taken
for granted] in this case. What sets the reasonable default presmption
is the principle that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial, so the denial (negation), null, 'No God®' is the only reasonable
default presumption, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in
court. See it now?
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 to the negative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 10:29:00 PM |
|
|
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If one knows something about the situation
*
That's just it, when nobody knows for sure what the situation is (say
the firearm is not known to be safe) then knowledge has nothing to do
with the reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably taken
for granted] in this case.
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
It is only by knowledge of a difference that one can reject "no
difference".
The presumption that firearms should be handled differently from pillows
requires the presumer to know something about both.
Setpic would have it that we are born with the knowledge of such
differences, which firearm accident statistics disprove.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
08 Apr 2007 12:11:25 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If one knows something about the situation
*
That's just it, when nobody knows for sure what the situation is (say
the firearm is not known to be safe) then knowledge has nothing to do
with the reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably taken
for granted] in this case.
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
You are mistaken, 'No safety' is the only reasonable default presumption
concerning any firearm, moron. See "The Fundamentals of Firearm Safety"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, or whatever, 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 to the negative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
08 Apr 2007 03:18:29 PM |
|
|
In article <YPednV1j6oujv4TbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
You are mistaken, 'No safety' is the only reasonable default presumption
concerning any firearm, moron. See "The Fundamentals of Firearm Safety"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj
Then in ignorance of any differences, 'No Safety' is equally the only
reasonable default presumption concerning pillows, or,cream puffs or
anything else.
No wonder Septic has such a severe nervous tic if he has to see 'No
Safety' everywhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
09 Apr 2007 01:25:06 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <YPednV1j6oujv4TbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
You are mistaken, 'No safety' is the only reasonable default presumption
concerning any firearm, moron. See "The Fundamentals of Firearm Safety"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj
Then in ignorance of any differences, 'No Safety' is equally the only
reasonable default presumption concerning pillows, or,cream puffs or
anything else.
Is there a really a pillow safety issue comparable to the firearm safety
issue that you know of? I don't believe so. If there actually were such
an issue wouldn't there be a website comparable to "The Fundamentals of
Firearm Safety" http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj only for pillows or
pastry?
Aren't you and Jethro and Jeckyl and friends just trying to create a
silly diversion away from the genuine issue here, your attempt to get
your proposition that there is definitely a possibility of God taken for
granted when 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 |
09 Apr 2007 01:38:16 PM |
|
|
In article <FfydnTvDGKWfGIfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <YPednV1j6oujv4TbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
You are mistaken, 'No safety' is the only reasonable default presumption
concerning any firearm, moron. See "The Fundamentals of Firearm Safety"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj
Then in ignorance of any differences, 'No Safety' is equally the only
reasonable default presumption concerning pillows, or,cream puffs or
anything else.
Is there a really a pillow safety issue comparable to the firearm safety
issue that you know of?
You are asking about what we know about pillows versus what we know
about firearms, but null hypotheses aren't allowed to assume such
knowledge.
Aren't you and Jethro and Jeckyl and friends just trying to create a
silly diversion away from the genuine issue here
No, it is Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin trying to do that.
your attempt to get
your proposition that there is definitely a possibility of God taken for
granted
My actual 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.
Why Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin continually tries to misrepresent my
positions and hide his own is something else he hides.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
08 Apr 2007 02:23:36 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 1:11 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FMednR8n-8rN3IXbnZ2dnUVZ_qSrn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If one knows something about the situation
That's just it, when nobody knows for sure what the situation is (say
the firearm is not known to be safe) then knowledge has nothing to do
with the reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably taken
for granted] in this case.
In ignorance of any difference between the danger of firearms and the
danger of, say, pillows, one must presume that there is no difference.
You are mistaken,
I deny that Virgil is mistaken.
<snip Septic failing to address the "pillow" part of the above>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
29 Mar 2007 06:12:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:44:35 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:GcidndLR9KGrmpHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com...
stumper wrote:
Virgil only argues for the possibility of God.
?'Only'?? Isn't that what all theists do?
Arguing as Virgil and friends do that there is a possibility that there
might be a God because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
theist conjecture) is false is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_,
logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains in his
logic textbook:
It is not proven there is no god, It is not proven there is. We do not
know. That is my position as an agnostic. Very simple.
The problem is that there is no symmetry - it's the theist's
presumption, part of their paradigm not ours.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
29 Mar 2007 01:53:32 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:GcidndLR9KGrmpHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com...
stumper wrote:
Virgil only argues for the possibility of God.
Sippuddin wrote:
?'Only'?? Isn't that what all theists do?
No. Theists argue that God exists.
Arguing for the *possibility* of God existing
is not that same as arguing that God exists.
Secondly, Virgil doesn't argue for the possibility
of God. Virgil upholds the agnostic principle
that a person should withhold belief (i.e.. say
"I don't know") when satisfactory evidence is
not available.
.
|
|
|
|
