| 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: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
09 Apr 2007 03:17:14 PM |
|
|
In article <8Midnb0OD_JaAYfbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I have never argued for any god here
*
Virgil tends to lie a lot.
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sipupuudun is the liar here.
The fact is that Virgil relies almost
exclusively on 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 Sipupuudun caught in a provable lie!
What Ho Hum claimed was that
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
says ( see above for verification that Ho Hum said it)
<deliberate misquote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore,there might be a God
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<end deliberate misquote>
Whereas what http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
actually says is:
<actual quote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
^^^^^^
<end actual quote>
So that while Ho Hum can only falsely claim I have lied, I have produced
unequivocal proof that Ho Hum has actually lied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
10 Apr 2007 07:00:54 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
<snip attempted evasion of the issue>
Isn't it your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist
conjecture) is false, which 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, just like your hypothetical
invisible 'God' thingie.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
10 Apr 2007 08:08:23 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:le6dnW1OWZCluIHbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might be' imagining with no basis in fact, just like your hypothetical
invisible 'God' thingie.]
You don't appear to know what hypothesis or hypothetical mean
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
10 Apr 2007 10:27:22 PM |
|
|
In article <le6dnW1OWZCluIHbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip attempted evasion of the issue>
Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin only snips what he cannot answer, so it must
have been really good if he had to snip all of it.
Maybe it was Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin's lie:
What Ho Hum claimed was that
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
says
<misquote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God might exist.
^^^^^^^^^^^
<end misquote>
Whereas what http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
actually says is:
<actual quote>
109 ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
^^^^^^
<end actual quote>
Or maybe it was:
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 including Ho Hum Sippuddin does do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
In fact Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin says
"Gods MUST be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
So Septic, even when calling himself Sippudin, is
WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
10 Apr 2007 06:34:20 PM |
|
|
You are all a bunch of idiots!
WHy not just walk away from the "discussion"?
You are insisting on minor definitive differences between a few words,
but you have nothing else to talk about.
You all need to get a life, or at least join some real philosophy
discussions.
This thread has been dead for two weeks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
10 Apr 2007 06:34:31 PM |
|
|
You are all a bunch of idiots!
WHy not just walk away from the "discussion"?
You are insisting on minor definitive differences between a few words,
but you have nothing else to talk about.
You all need to get a life, or at least join some real philosophy
discussions.
This thread has been dead for two weeks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
07 Apr 2007 07:07:12 PM |
|
|
In article <ldSdnZtJrfrCnoXbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It is your argument that there might be a God because the atheists can't
prove that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) false.
That is definitely the lame old argument from lack of disproof of your
conjecture.
Setpic 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.
So that either ALL atheists are arguing fallaciously or neither of the
above is a fallacy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Lame Old Argumen For God #109 |
30 Mar 2007 07:40:22 PM |
|
|
In article <haidnSVQy9LqBpDbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
The fact is that there is no unequivocal proof that there are no gods,
just as there is no unequivocal proof that there are any gods.
That is 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.
(3) and equally might not be a god.
If one notes the symmetry of my statement and the asymmetry of
Septics's, one must conclude that Septic is arguing for gods (2) while I
am arguing for neutrality (2) and (3).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 12:54:34 AM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<...>
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.
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
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
I don't agree: IMO it is on whoever proselytizes. If to assert is to
proselytize, then it is one whoever asserts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 01:08:26 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<...>
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.
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
*
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
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
I don't agree: IMO it is on whoever proselytizes.
*
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
If to assert is to proselytize,
*
Atheism is not characterized by assertion, "Atheism is characterized by
an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
then it is one whoever asserts.
*
Too bad for your side that you are not king of the world and able to
change the principles of valid argument (logic) by decree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 05:19:48 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:CNGdncLVQ4MGnZHbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Noone said it was.
You really are poor at comprehension skills.
[snip more ramblings by sip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 11:33:44 PM |
|
|
In article <CNGdncLVQ4MGnZHbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<...>
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.
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
*
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing,
But Septic is characterized by proselytizing, though whether for his
gospel of antitheism or against it is difficult to say.
He nominally argues for anti-theism, but his arguments are so ugly that
he is more likely to persuade people to oppose him than join him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 02:28:35 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<...>
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.
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
*
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
<Stick to the point. Comment on "If you can refrain from
proselytizing, then you have no BOP, IMO." and use your own words.
Stop with the arguments to your authority figures -- or are they your
gods?
<...>
If to assert is to proselytize,
*
Atheism is not characterized by assertion, "Atheism is characterized by
an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
I didn't say otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 12:12:49 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<...>
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.
If you can refrain from proseltyzing, then you have no BOP, IMO.
*
As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by
proselytizing, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
<Stick to the point.
*
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.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."
Will you now try to argue that the accused would have no burden of proof
if he were to refrain from proselytizing for faith in his innocence, and
the scientists at SETI would have no burden of proof if they were to
refrain from proselytizing for 'No ETs'??
Don't be so silly, Jim. You'll only sucker in the most gullible.
But maybe those are the ones you are trolling for, the most gullible?
Comment on "If you can refrain from
proselytizing, then you have no BOP, IMO." and use your own words.
Stop with the arguments to your authority figures -- or are they your
gods?
<...>
If to assert is to proselytize,
*
Atheism is not characterized by assertion, "Atheism is characterized by
an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
I didn't say otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 03:08:49 PM |
|
|
In article <DIudna-1SO-P2JDbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
<Stick to the point.
*
The point you are missing
The point that Septic is perpetually missing is that his claims that
"there are no gods" are just as unreasonable and unproven as theist
claims, so have no more support from honest agnostics that those theist
claims do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 01:59:52 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
It is MY point that Proselytizers have the BOP. Your points are all
diversionary if they do not address my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 05:47:40 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
It is MY point that Proselytizers have the BOP.
*
You mean the side making the assertion in question in this case, the
theist side?
"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 is it (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 as theologs are always trying
to do?
?The null, "No ETs" is not an assertion is it, it is just the only
reasonable default presumption in any case, like for example the default
presumption of 'No guilt' in court?
?The null, "No ETs" is not an assertion is it, it is just the only
reasonable default presumption in any case, like for example the default
presumption of 'No ETs' in the SETI Argus study?
"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." --
Dr. H. Paul Shuch, N6TX
Executive Director, The SETI League, Inc.
PO Box 555, Little Ferry NJ 07643
email n6tx @ setileague.org
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 07:03:41 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Xc-dnQJKypcQDpDbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
It is MY point that Proselytizers have the BOP.
*
You mean the side making the assertion in question in this case, the
theist side?
No .. "this case" is the case of those atheists who claim "therre is no god"
"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
Look at the example on that site of the fallacy you are trying to use
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something
must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
look at the second example
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."
Substitute "God" for "telepath and other psychic phenomena" and my case is
proven, using the same site that you like to quote so much
Similarly you calim about belief implying lack of evidence is disproven by
you favority m-w.com site defintion of belief.
You loose. Again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 07:46:40 PM |
|
|
In article <Xc-dnQJKypcQDpDbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
It is MY point that Proselytizers have the BOP.
*
You mean the side making the assertion in question in this case
As Septic is proselytizing for "there are no gods", YES!
"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.
There are two forms of "negation", which Septic is vainly trying to
conflate.
To claim that an assertion is not sufficiently justified to be
convincing is a legitimate form of "negation" which does not generally
require its own justification.
To claim that an assertion is false is to assert its logical negation is
true, and is as much a claim of thruth as the original and is as much in
need of justification as the original.
Septic continually tries to pass off his claims of the second kind,
which do bear a BOP, as if they were of the first kind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
30 Mar 2007 07:18:20 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
The point you are missing is that this has absolutely nothing to do with
proselytizing, you are just trying to create a diversion away from the
issue genuinely under discussion. The issue genuinely under discussion
is what is the only reasonable default presumption in an case such as
this, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, and
'No ETs' at SETI?
It is MY point that Proselytizers have the BOP.
*
You mean the side making the assertion in question in this case, the
theist side?
I mean proselytizers. Look it up. Be thorough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 01:51:43 PM |
|
|
In article <mt6dnWRbZ6PqnJXbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
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
As Septic seems to be the only one making that argument, it must be
Septic that is arguing FOR God.
In fact, "atheist" originally meant someone who was as anti-theist as
Septic , but has softened over time to allow includion of those who only
deny belief in a god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 12:57:04 PM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
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
You are leaving out the second premise.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Antitheism & Sippuddin/Septic |
29 Mar 2007 03:16:20 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" (aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs,
aka -hundreds- of other handles, squirted:
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 (at least that I am
aware). Who is it you think is arguing for God? And where do you see them
using that fallacious argument that you claim they are?
You point out these lame arguments from that page with no reason for doing
so .. maybe its because you have nothing better to say?
That is Septic's MO. That, and trolling
under hundreds of different handles, in
order to avoid the inevitable killfile.
:Joe Parente: You are either the most dishonest person
:I have ever met, or an idiot. Possibly both. I have
:*NEVER* claimed that these things exist. You know what,
:I'm sick of you snipping pertinent parts of my posts
:and replying to only what you can twist to your desires.
:You demonstrate your dishonestly daily, Skeptic.
:Andrew L: No. You're just congenitally incapable of
:understanding that no one is saying any such thing.
:Skeptic, you're a living example of the concept of
:invincible ignorance.
:---
:The very fact that you believe that I'm arguing FOR the
:possibility of gods says everything that needs to be said
:about your amazing ability to read anything you want into
:anything that anyone else says.
:Evina: What are you talking about Skeptic? I responded
:to a poster about the etymology of the word atheism,
:because he used it to support his argument. Please
:stop trying to read hidden meanings in my posts.
:You are invariably wrong, and it's becoming annoying.
:Ted King: I've seen Skeptic make fun of the
:educational accomplishments of a person who disagreed
:with him who had earned a PhD in philosophy from UCLA
:and who teaches philosophy. He regularly clips
:carefully constructed responses to his points down to
:single phrases or sentences and often interprets these
:statements incorrectly because of lack of context.
:Hugh Betcha: No, that's not what I mean, and it
:especially pisses me off when you keep acting like
:a ***** and saying that it is. If that's what I meant,
:I'd say it that way. Your wording implies that I
:believe that a god exists, and that I'm insisting
:that one does unless someone proves the negative.
:I've said no such thing. You must be brain damaged.
:I don't believe in any gods. I don't think it's
:likely that any gods exist. Can I possibly be any
:clearer, or do you need brain surgery before you'll
:ever understand what I wrote? Well Skeptic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 09:54:29 AM |
|
|
Snipper wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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 (at least that I
am aware). Who is it you think is arguing for God? And where do you
see them using that fallacious argument that you claim they are?
You point out these lame arguments from that page with no reason for
doing so .. maybe its because you have nothing better to say?
That is Septic's MO. That, and trolling
under hundreds of different handles, in
order to avoid the inevitable killfile.
:Joe Parente: You are either the most dishonest person
:I have ever met, or an idiot. Possibly both. I have
:*NEVER* claimed that these things exist. You know what,
:I'm sick of you snipping pertinent parts of my posts
:and replying to only what you can twist to your desires.
:You demonstrate your dishonestly daily, Skeptic.
:Andrew L: No. You're just congenitally incapable of
:understanding that no one is saying any such thing.
:Skeptic, you're a living example of the concept of
:invincible ignorance.
:---
:The very fact that you believe that I'm arguing FOR the
:possibility of gods says everything that needs to be said
:about your amazing ability to read anything you want into
:anything that anyone else says.
:Evina: What are you talking about Skeptic? I responded
:to a poster about the etymology of the word atheism,
:because he used it to support his argument. Please
:stop trying to read hidden meanings in my posts.
:You are invariably wrong, and it's becoming annoying.
:Ted King: I've seen Skeptic make fun of the
:educational accomplishments of a person who disagreed
:with him who had earned a PhD in philosophy from UCLA
:and who teaches philosophy. He regularly clips
:carefully constructed responses to his points down to
:single phrases or sentences and often interprets these
:statements incorrectly because of lack of context.
:Hugh Betcha: No, that's not what I mean, and it
:especially pisses me off when you keep acting like
:a ***** and saying that it is. If that's what I meant,
:I'd say it that way. Your wording implies that I
:believe that a god exists, and that I'm insisting
:that one does unless someone proves the negative.
:I've said no such thing. You must be brain damaged.
:I don't believe in any gods. I don't think it's
:likely that any gods exist. Can I possibly be any
:clearer, or do you need brain surgery before you'll
:ever understand what I wrote? Well Skeptic?
Snipper and friends have nothing but their lame old argument _ad
hominem_. It's a pity. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Snipper's lame old argument for god:
(1) (insert name of anyone who disagrees with Snipper) is a troll.
(2) The troll cannot prove there is no God.
(3) There are lots of things that exist that we don't know about, like
the planet Pluto.
(4) Therefore there might be a God.
From five years ago:
http://tinylink.com/?PyJTVNPVkP
From: Snipper (Snipper@gotcha.com)
Subject: Re: A Place For Discussion/Debate - Agnostic
View: Complete Thread (52 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet.atheism,
alt.christnet.calvinist, alt.christnet.theology, alt.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
Date: 2000-11-20 16:45:05 PST
<snip for brevity>
For instance,
your claim that "It is a fact that the alleged God®
is imaginary, and nothing more", remains unsupported.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 04:40:05 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Qa2dnbkhJfO6TpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com...
For instance,
your claim that "It is a fact that the alleged God®
is imaginary, and nothing more", remains unsupported.
Fool
That is NOT a claim that god exists .. only that your claims that god does
not exists are unsupported. Please show the evidence that proves there is
no God is that is not the case.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
29 Mar 2007 05:01:22 PM |
|
|
In article <Qa2dnbkhJfO6TpbbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Snipper wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Sippuddin wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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 (at least that I
am aware). Who is it you think is arguing for God? And where do you
see them using that fallacious argument that you claim they are?
You point out these lame arguments from that page with no reason for
doing so .. maybe its because you have nothing better to say?
That is Septic's MO. That, and trolling
under hundreds of different handles, in
order to avoid the inevitable killfile.
:Joe Parente: You are either the most dishonest person
:I have ever met, or an idiot. Possibly both. I have
:*NEVER* claimed that these things exist. You know what,
:I'm sick of you snipping pertinent parts of my posts
:and replying to only what you can twist to your desires.
:You demonstrate your dishonestly daily, Skeptic.
:Andrew L: No. You're just congenitally incapable of
:understanding that no one is saying any such thing.
:Skeptic, you're a living example of the concept of
:invincible ignorance.
:---
:The very fact that you believe that I'm arguing FOR the
:possibility of gods says everything that needs to be said
:about your amazing ability to read anything you want into
:anything that anyone else says.
:Evina: What are you talking about Skeptic? I responded
:to a poster about the etymology of the word atheism,
:because he used it to support his argument. Please
:stop trying to read hidden meanings in my posts.
:You are invariably wrong, and it's becoming annoying.
:Ted King: I've seen Skeptic make fun of the
:educational accomplishments of a person who disagreed
:with him who had earned a PhD in philosophy from UCLA
:and who teaches philosophy. He regularly clips
:carefully constructed responses to his points down to
:single phrases or sentences and often interprets these
:statements incorrectly because of lack of context.
:Hugh Betcha: No, that's not what I mean, and it
:especially pisses me off when you keep acting like
:a ***** and saying that it is. If that's what I meant,
:I'd say it that way. Your wording implies that I
:believe that a god exists, and that I'm insisting
:that one does unless someone proves the negative.
:I've said no such thing. You must be brain damaged.
:I don't believe in any gods. I don't think it's
:likely that any gods exist. Can I possibly be any
:clearer, or do you need brain surgery before you'll
:ever understand what I wrote? Well Skeptic?
Snipper and friends have nothing but their lame old argument _ad
hominem_. It's a pity. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
A shame, then that Septics is so wasted.
Snipper's lame old argument for god:
(1) Septic is a troll.
(2) Septic cannot prove there is no God.
(3) There are lots of things that exist that we don't know about until
they are discovered, like the planet Pluto before its discovery.
(4) Therefore we cannot conclude that there is no god without more proof
than Septic, the troll, has thus far provided.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
26 Mar 2007 01:28:17 PM |
|
|
In article <a5ednRbbSc3ZaZrbnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
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.
Only in the paranoid minds of such anti-theist anti-agnostic monomaniacs
as Septic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
25 Mar 2007 08:54:30 PM |
|
|
In article <cpadnZZTJNaPiJrbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <poadnQRva6SYrpvbnZ2dnUVZ_oavnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
I'm just applying YOUR logic about having a BOP if you have a belief.
I think that is a straw man, Jim. I don't believe I have ever said any
such thing. It's not a reasonable thing for an atheist agnostic to
say,
because some of my [alleged] atheist brothers insist on joining the
theists in
saying atheists have a belief there is no god. Go figure.
Some people have a belief there is no god. Are those people atheists?
Now you are arguing just like those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, and Dr.
Sinister.
You know the answer is "yes" but you can't admit it quite yet.
The answer is not yes, the answer is that now you are arguing just like
those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, Virgil, Jeckyl, and Dr. Sinister that
atheists say there is no God.
SOME atheists say there are no gods.
*
Thanks for rushing over here to prove my point, dummy.
I have disproved it, since no one here is saying that atheists, meaning
all of them, say anything.
That is lame old argument. "Atheists say there is no God,
but they don't fool me!"
Septic fools himself quite adequately without any outside help.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
25 Mar 2007 10:42:44 AM |
|
|
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
I'm just applying YOUR logic about having a BOP if you have a belief.
I think that is a straw man, Jim. I don't believe I have ever said any
such thing. It's not a reasonable thing for an atheist agnostic to say,
because some of my [alleged] atheist brothers insist on joining the theists in
saying atheists have a belief there is no god. Go figure.
Some people have a belief there is no god. Are those people atheists?
Now you are arguing just like those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, and Dr.
Sinister.
You know the answer is "yes" but you can't admit it quite yet.
The answer is not yes, the answer is that now you are arguing just like
those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, Virgil, Jeckyl, and Dr. Sinister that
atheists say there is no God.
People who say, 'Atheists say there is no God' as you lot do are not
atheist. That is one of the lame old theist arguments for God (#65).
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Show me where I've said that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
25 Mar 2007 06:52:16 PM |
|
|
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:
Jim07D7 wrote:
I'm just applying YOUR logic about having a BOP if you have a belief.
I think that is a straw man, Jim. I don't believe I have ever said any
such thing. It's not a reasonable thing for an atheist agnostic to say,
because some of my [alleged] atheist brothers insist on joining the theists in
saying atheists have a belief there is no god. Go figure.
Some people have a belief there is no god. Are those people atheists?
Now you are arguing just like those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, and Dr.
Sinister.
You know the answer is "yes" but you can't admit it quite yet.
The answer is not yes, the answer is that now you are arguing just like
those nuts, Jeff Young, Sniper, Virgil, Jeckyl, and Dr. Sinister that
atheists say there is no God.
People who say, 'Atheists say there is no God' as you lot do are not
atheist. That is one of the lame old theist arguments for God (#65).
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Show me where I've said that.
*
Look above here in this thread.
Have you claimed to be atheist?
Yes, repeatedly, even though I have pointed out repeatedly that atheists
do not make theists arguments for them, like your argument #65.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Do you insist on phrasing an absence of belief in the existence of gods
as a religious belief, as though bald were a hair color?
Yes indeed you do, dummy.
Here is the fact of the matter:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
