| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 10:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
Antitheism |
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Antitheists may also accept the label Atheist,
or might not. The primary distinction between
atheism and antitheism is that the atheist may
think the question of the existence or non-existence
of God worthy of consideration, while the antitheist
does not. The primary interest of the antitheist
with respect to God is to make the idea go away,
and it is even possible for an antitheist to believe
that God exists -- but is irrelevant.
Antitheists are generally not well received by
monotheists, and for good reason. The antitheist
probably finds the behavor of monotheists
particularly unpleasant in their pushing of the
God idea as some sort of absolute truth.
As an antitheist, my brief against monotheism
is this: The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully
who cannot play well with others. It is basic to
the idea of One God that all other notions of divinity
must be destroyed -- frequently by killing the people
who hold those other notions of divinity. People
infected with the One God idea have to be viewed with
suspicion, as in the past -- and even the present --
they have been known to engage in violence based
upon this evil idea, sometimes collectively.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
29 Mar 2007 03:07:43 PM |
|
|
Scot wrote:
"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.
*
Is God actually known to be something real, or is God purely
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)? Pick one.
Arguing that there is a possibility that there might be X because there
is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false
is argument _ad ignorantiam_, 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 |
29 Mar 2007 04:54:42 PM |
|
|
In article <fIidneCWrtoMgZHbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Scot wrote:
"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.
*
Is God actually known to be something real, or is God purely
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)? Pick one.
As we are arguing not about what the actuality is but about what theists
say, Septic's dichotomy is, as usual, irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
29 Mar 2007 04:52:02 PM |
|
|
In article <GcidndLR9KGrmpHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
stumper wrote:
Virgil only argues for the possibility of God.
?'Only'?? Isn't that what all theists do?
None that I have ever met argue for anything less than the actuality of
some god(s).
Arguing as Virgil and friends do that there is a possibility that there
might be a God
All I am saying is that gods are not /known/ to be impossible.
In reasonable English, that translated to:
"As far as I know for certain, gods might be possible."
If Septic has some secret evidence which allows him to say that gods ARE
known to be impossible, let him speak now or forever hold his peace.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stumper" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
29 Mar 2007 02:44:27 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin wrote:
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:
<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.]
I agree with you that the burden of proof is on the theists.
But your way of arguing from logic is not productive.
Logic is not about the actual world.
At most, it's about the possible world.
So, logically you cannot even exclude
the possibility of the theistic God.
Your knowledge of logic and science is too old.
Even older than mine.
And mine is decades old.
Read a decent textbook on philosophy of science, please.
--
~Stumper
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 05:04:58 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mt6dnWRbZ6PqnJXbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:a5ednRbbSc3ZaZrbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:cpadnZZTJNaPiJrbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
That is lame old argument for God #65. "Atheists say there is no God,
but they don't fool me!"
That is not an augment for god.
Yes it is, dummy, it is one of the hundreds of lame old arguments for
God. See:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
But no-one that you are talking to IS arguing for God
Ha ha! Are you kidding? Arguing "Atheists say there is no God" is one of
the hundreds of lame old arguments for God (#65).
See: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
This is beginning to look recursive.
Saying "atheists say there is no god" is not an argument for god.
Yes it is, it is part and parcel of lame old argument for God #65. See:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
It may be a necessary part of that (satirical) argument, but I am not
making that argument.
?Then you are ready to stipulate to all of the following? "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
I have never disagreed with that statement. Notwithstanding that, if
someone proselytizes, he has the BOP, IMO.
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it."
[Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)]
Sign here, Jim: _______________________
8^)
See above.
Besides if you visit that site it is a atheist *humor* site from the
"Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page.". THe "arguments" are tongue
in cheek.
That just is not true, Jim, they are actual lame old arguments for God
that have appeared on Usenet and elsewhere repeatedly. You haven't been
around long enough to see that I guess? Still wet behind the ears?
Yes, I have never seen that argument made sincerely.
Just look at Virgil's drivel. In almost every post he makes that same
old lame old argument that there might be gods, "The sceptics claim
there are no gods, but they don't fool me!" (Or words to that effect.)
Lame old argument theist argument #65
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I have never seen him use the argument numbered 65. But now you say
"Or words to that effect". Backing away from your assertion, I see.
But moreover, look at #65:
"ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (II)
(1) Atheists say that God doesn't exist.
(2) But they only say that because they want to look cool and
intellectual in front of their peers.
(3) They don't fool me!
(4) Therefore, God exists.
I have not seen him use premise 2 or 3, or reach conclusion 4.
Speaking of things for which there is no evidence, maybe you can trot
it out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 09:53:47 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:mt6dnWRbZ6PqnJXbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:a5ednRbbSc3ZaZrbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:cpadnZZTJNaPiJrbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
That is lame old argument for God #65. "Atheists say there is no God,
but they don't fool me!"
That is not an augment for god.
Yes it is, dummy, it is one of the hundreds of lame old arguments for
God. See:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
But no-one that you are talking to IS arguing for God
Ha ha! Are you kidding? Arguing "Atheists say there is no God" is one of
the hundreds of lame old arguments for God (#65).
See: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
This is beginning to look recursive.
Saying "atheists say there is no god" is not an argument for god.
Yes it is, it is part and parcel of lame old argument for God #65. See:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
It may be a necessary part of that (satirical) argument, but I am not
making that argument.
?Then you are ready to stipulate to all of the following? "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
I have never disagreed with that statement. Notwithstanding that, if
someone proselytizes, he has the BOP, IMO.
Notwithstanding your opinion, stating the denial (the negation in logic)
of the assertion in question in any case is not proselytizing, else the
burden of proof could be shifted to the accused the minute he states
'Not guilty'!
Any non-believer can with equal impunity state the denial, 'No god.'
'No god' is the only reasonable default presumption.
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
See also:
"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]
"There is no God" is not an assertion (a statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial. See it now, Jim?
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it."
[Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)]
Sign here, Jim: _______________________
8^)
See above.
Besides if you visit that site it is a atheist *humor* site from the
"Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page.". THe "arguments" are tongue
in cheek.
That just is not true, Jim, they are actual lame old arguments for God
that have appeared on Usenet and elsewhere repeatedly. You haven't been
around long enough to see that I guess? Still wet behind the ears?
Yes, I have never seen that argument made sincerely.
Just look at Virgil's drivel. In almost every post he makes that same
old lame old argument that there might be gods, "The sceptics claim
there are no gods, but they don't fool me!" (Or words to that effect.)
Lame old argument theist argument #65
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I have never seen him use the argument numbered 65. But now you say
"Or words to that effect".
Of course. Words to that effect have essentially the same or similar
meaning, the same effect. English not your first language?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 10:33:41 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:VMOdnYDigu6mt5bbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com...
Notwithstanding your opinion, stating the denial (the negation in logic)
of the assertion in question in any case is not proselytizing,
Yes it is .. if you are attempting to convince someone else that that view
is correct.
else the burden of proof could be shifted to the accused the minute he
states 'Not guilty'!
It could be .. but for practical and moral reasons courst don't work that we
.. We're not talking about a court here.
Any non-believer can with equal impunity state the denial, 'No god.'
For a start .. that is not a valid english sentence .. let allone an
assertion .. so whether or not they can say it depeends on what you think it
means.
I am assuming (from context) that you mean "God does not exist"
Secondly, there is no punishment involved regardless (unless you thinkg
showing a proof is punishment) so the idea of impunity is meaningless there.
Thirdly, although some non-believers say "God does not exist", not all do.
Agnostics would not say "God does not exists" .. as they do not belief until
there is proof, and agnostics are atheists, because the also do not belief
god does exist.
However, a strong atheist cannot claim that "God does not exists" is proven
to be true. Its not.
They can, of course, quite happily state "I do not believe god exists" (like
weak atheist and agnostics do) and given a lack of evidence to proof it,
they are completely justified in doing so and do not need to prove anything.
The best one can do logically is make an assumption of truth for "God does
not exist" based on the lack of evidence .. but that is not proof .. just
assumption. One can also hold an opinion, or even a belief, that god does
not exist. But again, that does not proof it true or make it so.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Exactly "There is no god" is an assertion about the existence of god.
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
Yes .. so if you assert "there is no god", then someone denies or questions
that, asking them to proove god exists is a shifting of the burden of proof.
It is a fallace to assume "No God" is true unless proven otherwise
Thanks for proving the point.
Note also that that same page has as a specific example of Argumentum Ad
ignorantiam that fallicious argument:
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."
Note that in EXACTLY the same way the argument :
"Of god does not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that it is real."
is fallicious. Its an agumentum ad ignorantiam.
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Yes .. we know you're good at denial :)
"There is no God" is not an assertion
yes .. it is an assertion that there is no god
assertion: The logical assertion is a statement that asserts that a certain
premise is true, and is useful for statements in proof. It is equivalent to
a sequent with an empty antedecent.
"there is no God" is an statement that the premis that god does not esxist
is true.
(a statement standing in need of proof)
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial. See it now, Jim?
I see you're trying to place the burden away from what you cannot proof.
[snip same old stuff]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
28 Mar 2007 11:52:26 PM |
|
|
In article <VMOdnYDigu6mt5bbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
I have never disagreed with that statement. Notwithstanding that, if
someone proselytizes, he has the BOP, IMO.
Notwithstanding your opinion, stating the denial (the negation in logic)
of the assertion in question in any case is not proselytizing
It is claiming something to be true by stating that something else is
false, and as such bears the BOP.
If one merely claims that something has not been adequately proved true,
expressing doubt as to its truth but not claiming outright that it is
false, THEN one does not usually bear a BOP.
But claiming any statement false is claiming another to be true, and any
such claim of truth bears a BOP.
This symmetry is a fact that Septic has long tried to suppress in order
to beg the question in favor of his anti-theist faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 01:12:04 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <VMOdnYDigu6mt5bbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
I have never disagreed with that statement. Notwithstanding that, if
someone proselytizes, he has the BOP, IMO.
Notwithstanding your opinion, stating the denial (the negation in logic)
of the assertion in question in any case is not proselytizing
It is claiming something ...
No it isn't, idiot, it is the DENIAL (the negation in logic) of the
assertion in question, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 05:34:57 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:1_adnU1lA8DrnJHbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
In article <VMOdnYDigu6mt5bbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
I have never disagreed with that statement. Notwithstanding that, if
someone proselytizes, he has the BOP, IMO.
Notwithstanding your opinion, stating the denial (the negation in logic)
of the assertion in question in any case is not proselytizing
It is claiming something ...
No it isn't, idiot, it is the DENIAL (the negation in logic) of the
assertion in question, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Note:
"God exist" is an objective logical assertion (the theist position)
"God does not exist" is an objective logical assertion (the "strong atheist"
position)
Both are not proven true until evidence and logic that proves it true is
supplied
One can make an assumption of non-existence (until proven otherwise), but
that is not a proof that God does not exist.
However
"I do not believe God exists" is subjective and requires no proof (the
agnostic / "weak atheist" position).
Its very simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 11:40:45 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot, it is the DENIAL (the negation in logic) of the
assertion in question in this case, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial. See:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
"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]
"There is no God" 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 cannot be shifted to the denial as
you theologs are always trying to do.
You lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 02:57:24 PM |
|
|
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
When anyone, such as Septic, states "God does not exist", he is claiming
that something is known to be true.
Such claims of truth are assertions.
If one were to say, " I am not convinced that any god does exist", that
would not be an assertion, at least about anything but one's own state
of mind.
But any outright statement that something does, or does not, exist
asserts that something is known to be true, and as such, should not be
made without supporting evidence, at least according to the principles
of Huxley's agnosticism..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 06:12:59 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof),
or is it simply the denial of one?
?In your book would it be reasonable to try to shift the burden of proof
to the accused based on his plea of 'Not guilty'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 06:58:51 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:IomdnUISbfvmBJDbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion is
not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof), or
is it simply the denial of one?
?In your book would it be reasonable to try to shift the burden of proof
to the accused based on his plea of 'Not guilty'?
Ok .. let say the charge is "not stopping after an accident"
Are you saying because that is a negative the burden is on the defense team
to proof that the defendant DID stop .. and if they can't then the statement
must be assumed try, and the prosecution has nothing to proof?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 07:53:54 PM |
|
|
In article <IomdnUISbfvmBJDbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof),
or is it simply the denial of one?
It is a legal plea in a criminal trial in the courts of the British
Commonwealth and those whose legal systems derive from that Commonwealth.
As a plea, it is never a sworn statement in those courts, so it is not
an assertion of innocence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 07:25:49 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof),
or is it simply the denial of one?
It is a legal plea, or a legal finding.
?In your book would it be reasonable to try to shift the burden of proof
to the accused based on his plea of 'Not guilty'?
In you book would it be reasonable to assume a gun is not loaded, as a
statement not "standing in need of proof"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
31 Mar 2007 05:50:02 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof),
or is it simply the denial of one?
It is a legal plea, or a legal finding.
?Isn't 'No guilt' the only reasonable default presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
?Would it be reasonable in your book for the judge instruct the jury to
hold a presumption of 'Guilty' unless and until the accused proves 'No
guilt'?
Would it be reasonable in your book to hold a default presumption of
'safe' [not loaded] concerning firearms?
?In your book would it be reasonable to try to shift the burden of proof
to the accused based on his plea of 'Not guilty'?
In you book would it be reasonable to assume a gun is not loaded, as a
statement not "standing in need of proof"?
?By 'not loaded' I assume you mean the affirmative, 'safe' like
everybody else does?
No, not reasonable. It is never reasonable to have a default presumption
of the affirmative in any case.
When the question is, 'is this firearm safe?' it is unreasonable to have
a default presumption of the affirmative.
It is never reasonable to have a default presumption of the affirmative
['guilty'] in court.
It is never reasonable to have a default presumption of the affirmative
in any case.
Nice try at the sophistry of appealing to an irrelevant conclusion though.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
By the way, didn't they teach firearm safety where you grew up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
31 Mar 2007 08:14:49 PM |
|
|
In article <X62dnStlANoGeJPbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Virgil wrote:
In article <95-dnWrCTOwQoJDbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"God does not exist" is an assertion
*
No it isn't, idiot
It is only an idiot like Septic who would assert that a cear assertion
is not an assertion.
?Is 'Not guilty' an assertion (a statement standing in need of proof),
or is it simply the denial of one?
It is a legal plea, or a legal finding.
?Isn't 'No guilt' the only reasonable default presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
In the first place, SETI would not exist if everyone involved presumed
no ETs.
In the second place, the null never has to be assumed without evidential
support. In statistics, one rejects or fails to reject a null
hypothesis, but in neither case does one presume anything is true or
false.
No, not reasonable. It is never reasonable to have a default presumption
of the affirmative in any case.
The only legitimate default presumption when one does not know is that
is that one does not know. Anything else begs the question.
But Septic is such a compulsive beggar that he will beg any question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Apr 2007 07:01:03 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets" regarding the proposition "there are
bullets in that gun"? Doh! It seems Septic has shot himself, and his
argument, in the foot yet again. (You did say "whatever is the
proposition", Septic. Depends on whatever is the definition of
"whatever", eh?? Heh!)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Apr 2007 07:48:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety," moron.
Don't they teach firearm safety where you are from, moron?
You are free to presume the affirmative (safety) -- if you don't mind
getting shot. You would be doing us all a favor, your miserable
dishonest self included. 8^)
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Apr 2007 10:07:53 PM |
|
|
In article <vtGdnR6hloFDz43bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety," moron.
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything, rather than that there is something, so the
null would have to be 'no bullets'.
Don't they teach firearm safety where you are from, moron?
You are free to presume the affirmative (safety) -- if you don't mind
getting shot. You would be doing us all a favor, your miserable
dishonest self included. 8^)
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be.
No bullets and no danger would have to be the only possible null
hypothesis according to Septic's philosophy, as hypothesizing the
existence of something, bullets or danger, cannot be what Septic calls a
null hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 10:55:08 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <vtGdnR6hloFDz43bnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety," moron.
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything
The null, 'No safety' when the question is on firearm safety, knucklehead.
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be.
Don't they teach firearm safety where you are from, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 03:34:21 PM |
|
|
In article <lNGdnVB7G7jAuozbnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything
The null, 'No safety' when the question is on firearm safety, knucklehead.
The null must be "no greater danger" than from randomly selected
objects, unless one has already presumed danger.
Septic seems to think that there is not enough evidence to reject a null
hypothesis of no danger, so insists on beginning the question, as he so
often does.
As I said
What Septic says, and what actually transpires are , at best, neutrally
correlated. My own view is that there is a strong negative correlation
between them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 05:46:04 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <lNGdnVB7G7jAuozbnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything
The null, 'No safety' when the question is on firearm safety, knucklehead.
The null must be "no greater danger" than from randomly selected
objects
*
Obviously you don't know anything about firearm safety, knucklehead.
Given a choice, which would you prefer to have aimed at you, a firearm
or a garden hose?
I suppose they don't they teach firearm safety where Virgil and Jim and
Jethro are from.
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be.
Nice try at the sophistry of appealing to an irrelevant conclusion though.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 06:36:03 PM |
|
|
In article <squdnQ24sPgwGozbnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <lNGdnVB7G7jAuozbnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything
The null, 'No safety' when the question is on firearm safety, knucklehead.
The null must be "no greater danger" than from randomly selected
objects
*
Obviously you don't know anything about firearm safety, knucklehead.
As I was at one time a member of the 6th army rifle team of the US Army,
I do know a bit about firearm safety, but whether guns are safe or
dangerous is not the issue.
The issue is whether the "null" hyothesis means making no assumptions
about firearms or means assuming something about firearms.
I prefer to have "null" hypotheses which make no assumptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 11:19:43 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <squdnQ24sPgwGozbnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <lNGdnVB7G7jAuozbnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
But The null presumption, according to Septic's gospel should always be
that there is not anything
The null, 'No safety' when the question is on firearm safety, knucklehead.
The null must be "no greater danger" than from randomly selected
objects
*
Obviously you don't know anything about firearm safety, knucklehead.
As I was at one time a member of the 6th army rifle team of the US Army
*
Have you forgotten that when the question is on on firearm safety, or on
guilt, or on God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null,
'No safety', 'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be?
Nice try at the sophistry of appealing to an irrelevant conclusion though.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
03 Apr 2007 03:19:54 PM |
|
|
In article <-NKdnQQ0I6MC44_bnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <squdnQ24sPgwGozbnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Obviously you don't know anything about firearm safety, knucklehead.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM!
As I was at one time a member of the 6th army rifle team of the US Army
*
Have you forgotten that when the question is on on firearm safety, or on
guilt, or on God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null,
'No safety', 'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be?
As Septic has claimed that I do not know anything about firearm safety,
I shoed him wrong. A position that he almost always occupies.
That he is uncomfortable in that position is not my problem.
And it seems that Sep[tic has forgot all the logic he ever knew.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Apr 2007 10:51:12 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 8:48 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety,"
You said "whatever is the proposition" which would include the
proposition "gun has bullets" for which the null is "no bullets".
What about that? You've given no explanation. Simply stomping your
foot "no" is no explanation. (Hint: the explanation is that you've
been completely self-refuted yet once again, Septic.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 11:15:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:48 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety,"
You said "whatever is the proposition"
The proposition in question, knucklehead. When the question is on
firearm safety, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No
safety' (unless you don't mind getting shot).
Don't they teach firearm safety where you are from, moron?
You are free to presume the affirmative (safety) -- if you don't mind
getting shot. You would be doing us all a favor, your miserable
dishonest self included. 8^)
As I said, when the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on
God, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', as the case may be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Apr 2007 03:56:33 PM |
|
|
In article <0cOdnefhs56MsYzbnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:48 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:50 pm, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
?Isn't 'No guilt'the only reasonabledefault presumption (that which is
taken for granted by default), just like the null, 'No ETs' at SETI or
'Not safe' concerning firearms, or the null, no whatever is the
proposition in question?
And the presumption "no bullets"
No, as I said, "No safety,"
You said "whatever is the proposition"
The proposition in question, knucklehead. When the question is on
firearm safety, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No
safety' (unless you don't mind getting shot).
Until evidence of a difference between the danger inherent in firearms
and that of other objects, one has the standard null hypothesis of "no
difference". That this is null hypothesis can be rejected in view of the
evidence does not exempt it from being a null hypothesis.
Septic again demonstrates is abysmal ignorance of what null versus
alternate hypotheses are all about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
