| 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: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:02:57 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
I suggest you look up "ad ignorantiam" means. It means EXACTLY what you are
asserting yourself .. that because there is no proof God exists, then god
must not exist.
That is straw man fallacy. Keep it up and you will find yourself branded
as one who has to resort to logical fallacy, and you then you will be
soundly ignored.
I have not made any assertion concerning your God thingy, and I have not
posted any argument concerning your God thingy, all I have done is point
out that YOUR ARGUMENT for it is logical fallacy.
You cannot get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it is possible
there might be a God because there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:
[Have you studied this yet? It's just like your argument.]
<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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:25:42 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JLidnVbIns1_-GrYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
I suggest you look up "ad ignorantiam" means. It means EXACTLY what you
are asserting yourself .. that because there is no proof God exists, then
god must not exist.
That is straw man fallacy. Keep it up and you will find yourself branded
as one who has to resort to logical fallacy, and you then you will be
soundly ignored.
I have not made any assertion concerning your God thingy
You have implied it when you said:
If there is no X in evidence, then the only reasonable default
presumption, like the reasonable default presumption of 'No guilt' in
criminal court, is the null, 'No X'. That stands forever, or until
knocked down by some solid evidence of X, whichever occurs first.
So are you saying that you would not apply that logic when X = God? Would
your answer be:
a) as there is no evidence that God exists or does not, then we must
conclude that god does not exist? ie the probability p, that god exists, is
p = 0
b) as there is no evidence that God exists or does not, then we must
conclude that god exist? ie the probability p, that god exists, is p = 1
c) If neither a) nor b) is correct, the only alternative left is that we
must conclude that god might exist. ie ie the probability p, that god
exists, is 0 < p < 1.
If you conclude a) or b) then that is a text-book exmaple of ad
ignonorantiam.
and I have not posted any argument concerning your God thingy, all I have
done is point out that YOUR ARGUMENT for it is logical fallacy.
There is no fallacy in my argument at all. And no amount of insistent that
there is will prove otherwise.
Do some reading. my logic is correct: Given no evidence against the
hypothesis that God does not exist, and not evidence against the assertion
the God does exist, then we cannot logically prove either statement.
You cannot get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it is possible
there might be a God because there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That is exactly what one must conclude to AVOID ad ignorantiam.
That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:
As Copi explains:
The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued
that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true
And that is EXACTLY what I am pointing out is incorrect about both theist
and atheist arguments (and the 'logic' you are presenting) that attempt to
show god exists or god does not exist.
The only valid conclusion is that we cannot say whether or not God exists.
<snip ad nauseam>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:41:58 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JLidnVbIns1_-GrYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...
You cannot get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it is possible
there might be a God because there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That is exactly what one must conclude to AVOID ad ignorantiam.
You are mistaken, You cannot get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
it is possible there might be a God because there is no proof the
conjecture is false. That is 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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:9M2dnaY4iOKa8mrYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:JLidnVbIns1_-GrYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com...
You cannot get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that it is possible
there might be a God because there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That is exactly what one must conclude to AVOID ad ignorantiam.
You are mistaken,
No .. I'm not. I am avoiding an ad ignoraantiam colcusion that god does not
exist .. and the ad ignorantiam colculsion that he does.
<skip ad nauseam non-argument>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:18:55 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 11:38 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Sippuuden" <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FKKdnaIJd88BbmvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Similarly, just because we must presume God does not exist because we
cannot prove he does, does not mean that it is impossible for god to
exist, and that those who believe it are necessarily wrong.
Therefore you argue there might be a god because there is no proof your
conjecture is false? That is the logical fallacy of argument from
ignorance (argument _ad ignorantiam_) for which theists are famous.
You are referring to "ad ignorantiam" which says that the lack of evidence
against proves it is true. That is NOT what I am claiming.
Basically, it is the atheists that argue that since there is no evidence for
God, that means there can be no God .. it is THAT argument that is an ad
ignorantiam fallacy
That would be IF that is what they argue.
The argument you actually hear is more likely:
"I dont see any evidence or reason to believe in God or other
supernatural beings - so I dont believe."
That isn't an argument from ignorance.
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
* "Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or
cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular
proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the
case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more"
* "The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is
argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true"
What I am claiming is not a logical fallacy at all.
If there is no proof for or against, then the possiblity of it being true is
not ruled out .. it is indeterminate.
Sure.
There are an infinite number of possible beings - but generally (with
the exception of religious beliefs) we believe in the ones we have
some evidence for.
In addition we have a great deal of knowledge about the human habit of
creating religions with their various mythical beings.
There is no logical or evidential reason to treat God differntly from
Isis or Thor or even Leprachauns for that matter.
God is a much more popular belief these days than Isis but truth is
not determined by popularity.
That seems to be where people (like you) are confused by this 'logical
fallacy' argument. You simply don't understand logic.
Yes he is known as "Skeptic" and he and logic are not very good
freinds.
I suggest you read
up on your arguments of logic befoer you use them .
In Skeptic's ( AKA Sippuuden) case it will not help.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:45:49 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:38 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Sippuuden" <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FKKdnaIJd88BbmvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Similarly, just because we must presume God does not exist because we
cannot prove he does, does not mean that it is impossible for god to
exist, and that those who believe it are necessarily wrong.
Therefore you argue there might be a god because there is no proof your
conjecture is false? That is the logical fallacy of argument from
ignorance (argument _ad ignorantiam_) for which theists are famous.
You are referring to "ad ignorantiam" which says that the lack of evidence
against proves it is true. That is NOT what I am claiming.
Basically, it is the atheists that argue that since there is no evidence for
God, that means there can be no God .. it is THAT argument that is an ad
ignorantiam fallacy
That would be IF that is what they argue.
The argument you actually hear is more likely:
"I dont see any evidence or reason to believe in God or other
supernatural beings - so I dont believe."
That isn't an argument from ignorance.
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
* "Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or
cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular
proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the
case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more"
* "The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is
argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true"
What I am claiming is not a logical fallacy at all.
If there is no proof for or against, then the possiblity of it being true is
not ruled out .. it is indeterminate.
Sure.
There are an infinite number of possible beings ...
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist: that there might be a God anyway,
even though he cannot produce any evidence of any such thing, because
there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That 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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:06:43 PM |
|
|
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument from
ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist. I am someone with an honours degree in mathematics who
understands and works with logic everyday.
That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
famous, as Copi explains:
Incorrect.. the argument that there is no god because there is no evidence
is ad ignorantiam. Look up the definition of what that means. Then come
back an apologise for you errors.
< snaip argumentum ad nauseam>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:33:54 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument from
ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist.
You are the ones, you and Richardson, not me, who are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is no proof the
conjecture is false. That is 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 ignorantium_, 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)
Take the rest of the day off, go splash some cold water on your face,
maybe have a cold drink and try to calm down. It's no big deal if you
will just admit that you have made the mistake of committing logical
fallacy for which theists are famous. We will forgive you tomorrow, as
soon as you do. Have a good night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:41:42 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:k9WdnYmRe5y-8GrYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist.
You are the ones, you and Richardson, not me, who are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
And I have illustrated that it is NOT ad ignorantiam.
That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:
And I have quoted Copi that shows my argument is correct. Do you really
need me to follow you example and repost the same quotes over and over to
'proof' my point?
You're flogging a dead horse here .. hence you ad nauseam posts and your ad
ignorantiam logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:57:50 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:k9WdnYmRe5y-8GrYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist.
You are the ones, you and Richardson, not me, who are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
And I have illustrated that it is NOT ad ignorantiam.
Where 'it' is your argument that yours is an hypothesis that I cannot
prove false? That is identical to the theist argument in the example of
argument _ad ignorantiam_ in Copi:
<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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 11:17:15 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Y8KdncN1Jo8j72rYnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:k9WdnYmRe5y-8GrYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist.
You are the ones, you and Richardson, not me, who are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
And I have illustrated that it is NOT ad ignorantiam.
Where 'it' is your argument that yours is an hypothesis that I cannot
prove false? That is identical to the theist argument in the example of
argument _ad ignorantiam_ in Copi:
Your pointless ad nauseam posts proof nothing. I have copi and logic on my
side.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 11:24:29 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Y8KdncN1Jo8j72rYnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:k9WdnYmRe5y-8GrYnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
I am not a theist.
Note another straw man there. Just thought I'd point that out.
You are the ones, you and Richardson, not me, who are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
And I have illustrated that it is NOT ad ignorantiam.
Where 'it' is your argument that yours is an hypothesis that I cannot
prove false?
No .. I have illustrated it by showing the defintion for ad ignorantiam, and
that my argument clearly does fit that definition.
Further, I illustrated that theist and atheists who use lack of evidence to
conclusively 'proof' their respective assertions ARE using ad ignorantium,
and so their conclusions are from logical fallacies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 05:57:44 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
in message news:12veu8e278o4124@corp.supernews.com...
a response to "Sippuuden".
Please note that Sippuuden is the latest incarnation
of "Septic". This person is famous for frequent
name changes and endlessly submitting the same
quotes. You can google for "Septic" or "Donny Allfried".
There used to be a FAQ about him but I can't seem
to find it. And there used to be a person named
Virgil who dueled with Septic for several years.
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 12:02:43 PM |
|
|
Roy wrote:
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
Why don't you just hypothesize that the bogey man you lot are trying to
build might have had Virgil for lunch, then argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
conjecture no atheist can prove false, 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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 12:18:21 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Kc-dnUNC9Ioot2XYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
Why don't you just hypothesize that the bogey man you lot are trying to
build might have had Virgil for lunch, then argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
conjecture no atheist can prove false, logical fallacy for which theists
are famous, as Copi explains?
Ah... He got bored of you. Thanks for the update.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 02:34:30 PM |
|
|
Roy wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Kc-dnUNC9Ioot2XYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
Why don't you just hypothesize that the bogey man you lot are trying
to build might have had Virgil for lunch, then argue _ad ignorantiam_
that conjecture no atheist can prove false, logical fallacy for which
theists are famous, as Copi explains?
Ah... He got bored of you. Thanks for the update.
Does that even remotely resemble anything that I said? No, it does not,
liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 03:20:30 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:-MedncQH7s_b02XYnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Kc-dnUNC9Ioot2XYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
Why don't you just hypothesize that the bogey man you lot are trying to
build might have had Virgil for lunch, then argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
conjecture no atheist can prove false, logical fallacy for which theists
are famous, as Copi explains?
Ah... He got bored of you. Thanks for the update.
Does that even remotely resemble anything that I said? No, it does not,
liar.
I'm disappointed. You didn't manage to work in one of your
quotes from Copi or Huxley, or the one about Galileo and the
invisible stuff that gives the moon a perfect smooth surface.
You also have a quote about the relativist fallacy, and a
small one about the definition of domain. I think that makes
five. Do you have any others?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 03:23:23 PM |
|
|
"Roy" <bite2@me.net> wrote in message news:iOYJh.18205$d8.11783@trndny07...
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:-MedncQH7s_b02XYnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Kc-dnUNC9Ioot2XYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com...
Roy wrote:
Sippuuden, what happened to Virgil????
Why don't you just hypothesize that the bogey man you lot are trying to
build might have had Virgil for lunch, then argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
conjecture no atheist can prove false, logical fallacy for which
theists are famous, as Copi explains?
Ah... He got bored of you. Thanks for the update.
Does that even remotely resemble anything that I said? No, it does not,
liar.
I'm disappointed. You didn't manage to work in one of your
quotes from Copi or Huxley, or the one about Galileo and the
invisible stuff that gives the moon a perfect smooth surface.
You also have a quote about the relativist fallacy, and a
small one about the definition of domain. I think that makes
five. Do you have any others?
Ooops... my mistake: the quote from Copi *is* the one
about Galileo. That mean's you are down to four.
Any others?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 10:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 1:45 pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richardson (aka Sniper)
Ha!
Very funny Skeptic.
Isn't it time to change your identity again?
You have been Sippuuden since 18-Feb-2007 so its getting near time to
hide once again.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
19 Mar 2007 06:51:27 PM |
|
|
Richo [aka 'Snipper'] wrote:
Sippuuden wrote:
Richo [aka 'Snipper] wrote:
Richardson (aka Sniper)
<snip>
<unsnip what Snipper can't seem to face up to honestly, so he just
resorts to his standard argument _ad hominem_, as usual>
Richo wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:38 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Sippuuden" <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FKKdnaIJd88BbmvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Similarly, just because we must presume God does not exist because we
cannot prove he does, does not mean that it is impossible for god to
exist, and that those who believe it are necessarily wrong.
Therefore you argue there might be a god because there is no proof your
conjecture is false? That is the logical fallacy of argument from
ignorance (argument _ad ignorantiam_) for which theists are famous.
You are referring to "ad ignorantiam" which says that the lack of
evidence
against proves it is true. That is NOT what I am claiming.
Basically, it is the atheists that argue that since there is no
evidence for
God, that means there can be no God .. it is THAT argument that is an ad
ignorantiam fallacy
That would be IF that is what they argue.
The argument you actually hear is more likely:
"I dont see any evidence or reason to believe in God or other
supernatural beings - so I dont believe."
That isn't an argument from ignorance.
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
* "Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is
not or
cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular
proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the
case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more"
* "The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is
argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has
not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true"
What I am claiming is not a logical fallacy at all.
If there is no proof for or against, then the possiblity of it being
true is
not ruled out .. it is indeterminate.
Sure.
There are an infinite number of possible beings ...
*
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist: that there might be a God anyway,
even though he cannot produce any evidence of any such thing, because
there is no proof the conjecture is false.
That 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 ignorantium_, 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)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
19 Mar 2007 08:05:56 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HJednci_krCcv2LYnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Richo [aka 'Snipper'] wrote:
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument from
ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
Incorrect assumption .. I am not a theist.
that there might be a God anyway,
That is not my argument at all. Straw man.
even though he cannot produce any evidence of any such thing, because
there is no proof the conjecture is false.
Exactly .. and as such you cannot say that there is proof god exists, nor
proof god does not. It is not something we can prove.
That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
famous, as Copi explains:
Yes .. saying that you can proove god exists (or not) due to lack of
evidence to the contrary is a textbook case of the definition of an
argumentum ad ignoarntiam. My position is totally supported by Copi and
other sources (I am not using that as a proof by authoirty, but simply
pointing out that my arguments are in complete agreement with the defintions
and explanations of the concept, which you seem to quote as evidence to the
contrary)
<quote>
[snip ad nauseam that simply illustrates I am correct]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
19 Mar 2007 09:28:53 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HJednci_krCcv2LYnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Richo [aka 'Snipper'] wrote:
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument from
ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
Incorrect assumption .. I am not a theist.
Make an argument for which theists are famous, that tends to indicate
that you are theist.
that there might be a God anyway,
That is not my argument at all.
*
Yes it is, liar. You aren't fooling any but the most gullible.
You argue, "[The lack of proof that there might be a god] does not mean
that it is impossible for god to exist." See? You are arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a god anyway, even though there is no
such thing in evidence, because that is an hypothesis ('might be' theist
conjecture) that even a genius like Galileo could not prove false,
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: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
19 Mar 2007 10:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:rYOdnQXGepd622LYnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:HJednci_krCcv2LYnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Richo [aka 'Snipper'] wrote:
Richardson (aka Sniper) has just associated himself with the argument
from ignorance of Jeckyl the theist:
Incorrect assumption .. I am not a theist.
Make an argument for which theists are famous, that tends to indicate that
you are theist.
I made no such argument.
that there might be a God anyway,
That is not my argument at all.
Yes it is, liar. You aren't fooling any but the most gullible.
Unfounded personal attack noted, deined and ignored.
You argue, "[The lack of proof that there might be a god] does not mean
that it is impossible for god to exist."
That is correct. Lack of proof that god does not exists does not make it
impossible. The only way it would make it impossible is if lack of evidence
was a proof of non-existence (ie if the agumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy was
used). So simply lack of proof does not mean it is impossible (ie doesn't
mean god has been proven not to exists). It says nothing about the actual
possiblity / probabilty or otherwise of the existence of god, but only about
whether lack of evidence proves it impossible. That has been my position
consitently throughout, and is the same position as expounded by Copi et al.
Perhaps you misinterpretted, despite repeated explanations and denials of
what you erroneously claim me to be saying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
19 Mar 2007 10:50:03 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
You argue, "[The lack of proof that there might be a god] does not mean
that it is impossible for god to exist."
That is correct.
*
That is one of the standard lame arguments for god, dummy, number 403.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
That is precisely the lame old theist argument that it is possible that
there might be a god anyway, even though theists cannot produce
evidence of any such thing, because there is no proof the hypothesis
(the 'might be' conjecture) is false.
The way you theists try to get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the non-believers is by arguing that absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence, therefore it is possible there might be a god.
It is a style of arguing for god that is entirely bogus. You should give
up trying to shift the burden of proof to us non-believers. We have
nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those of you who believe
there might be a god do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 08:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:38:12 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12veh03888qdt83@corp.supernews.com>:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FKKdnaIJd88BbmvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Similarly, just because we must presume God does not exist because we
cannot prove he does, does not mean that it is impossible for god to
exist, and that those who believe it are necessarily wrong.
Therefore you argue there might be a god because there is no proof your
conjecture is false? That is the logical fallacy of argument from
ignorance (argument _ad ignorantiam_) for which theists are famous.
You are referring to "ad ignorantiam" which says that the lack of evidence
against proves it is true. That is NOT what I am claiming.
Basically, it is the atheists that argue that since there is no evidence for
God, that means there can be no God .. it is THAT argument that is an ad
ignorantiam fallacy
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
* "Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or
cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular
proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the
case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more"
* "The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is
argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true"
What I am claiming is not a logical fallacy at all.
If there is no proof for or against, then the possiblity of it being true is
not ruled out .. it is indeterminate.
Not completely true. When the question arises whether X exists, you
start with a null hypothesis that you try to disprove. The null
hypothesis is that X does not exist. The lack of evidence does not
'prove' that X does not exist, but it is the responsibility of those who
hypothesize that X does exist to show that they are correct or the null
hypothesis wins by default. In terms of logic and evidence, the null
hypothesis is that no given god exists. Most people accept that for all
gods except one.
That seems to be where people (like you) are confused by this 'logical
fallacy' argument. You simply don't understand logic. I suggest you read
up on your arguments of logic befoer you use them .. they simply backfire on
you when you use them incorrectly.
BTW: your links further support what I am saying, and contradict your claim
that god canot exist.
There is no evidence on whether god can exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 08:28:27 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:d9iev2po1hjlf6nu4lt4h1gl0r4f6ecao0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:38:12 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12veh03888qdt83@corp.supernews.com>:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FKKdnaIJd88BbmvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com...
If there is no proof for or against, then the possiblity of it being true
is
not ruled out .. it is indeterminate.
Not completely true.
It is completely true.
When the question arises whether X exists, you
start with a null hypothesis that you try to disprove.
Yes .. that's basic logic. You start by assuming the mull hypoethesis is
true, and then try to find a way of disproving it. But not being able to do
so does not mean the null hypothesis is proved correct. It simply means you
cannot logically reject it as false.
Your null hyposthesis could be 'god exists' or 'god does not exist'. And
unless you have some new proof, you cannot disprove either of those
hypotheses. So neither can be logically rejected, and neither can be proved
true.
The null
hypothesis is that X does not exist. The lack of evidence does not
'prove' that X does not exist, but it is the responsibility of those who
hypothesize that X does exist to show that they are correct or the null
hypothesis wins by default
There is no winning by default when it comes to proof. Either something is
proved true, or there is no conclusion.
In terms of logic and evidence, the null
hypothesis is that no given god exists. Most people accept that for all
gods except one.
Indeed :)
That seems to be where people (like you) are confused by this 'logical
fallacy' argument. You simply don't understand logic. I suggest you
read
up on your arguments of logic befoer you use them .. they simply backfire
on
you when you use them incorrectly.
BTW: your links further support what I am saying, and contradict your
claim
that god canot exist.
There is no evidence on whether god can exist.
Exactly .. so one cannot logically state that one can prove that god DOES or
DOES NOT exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:14:40 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
Your null hyposthesis could be 'god exists' or 'god does not exist'.
We scientists would take exception to 'God exists', for the simple
reason that the term, 'null' means zero, as in 'No ETs', 'No God', no
whatever.
Here is the way things are done: If there is no X in evidence, then the
only reasonable default presumption, like the reasonable default
presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, is the null, 'No X'. That
stands forever, or until knocked down by some solid evidence of X,
whichever occurs first.
For example, see SETI "Testing the null"
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:29:54 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:lbidnZAGU-gMx2rYnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Your null hyposthesis could be 'god exists' or 'god does not exist'.
We scientists
So you are a scientist? In which case you should understand scientific
proof and logic better than you appear to
would take exception to 'God exists', for the simple reason that the term,
'null' means zero, as in 'No ETs', 'No God', no whatever.
You also don't understand what null hypothesis means. It doesn't just mean
putting "No" in front of something.
Here is the way things are done: If there is no X in evidence, then the
only reasonable default presumption, like the reasonable default
presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, is the null, 'No X'.
Criminal justice is not the same as logical proof or science. In criminal
justice the result HAS to be either guilty or innocent. It does not allow
for something being unproven.
That stands forever, or until knocked down by some solid evidence of X,
whichever occurs first.
That is not logical arguemnt
For example, see SETI "Testing the null"
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
Those links just prove my point. Thanks again for posting them
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:52:57 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't just mean
putting "No" in front of something.
Yes it does. 'Null' means zero.
zero: of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
We scientists would take exception to 'God exists', for the simple
reason that the term, 'null' means zero, as in 'No ETs', 'No God', no
whatever.
Here is the way things are done: If there is no X in evidence, then the
only reasonable default presumption, like the reasonable default
presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court, is the null, 'No X'. That
stands forever, or until knocked down by some solid evidence of X,
whichever occurs first.
For example, see SETI "Testing the null"
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:03:54 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:A8Kdnbq9HMcU_mrYnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't just mean putting "No" in front of something.
Yes it does. 'Null' means zero.
zero: of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
We are talking null hypotheis. Not Null. Again your ignorance of the terms
is showing. Please .. try to understand logic and the terms invovled before
arguing it.
null hypothesis : a statistical hypothesis to be tested and accepted or
rejected in favor of an alternative
www.m-w.com
We scientists would take exception to 'God exists', for the simple reason
that the term, 'null' means zero, as in 'No ETs', 'No God', no whatever.
If you were a (good) scientist, then you would understand the nature of
proof and logic. So far you've not exhibited any evidence of that.
Null hypothesis: Sippuuden has no knowledge of logic
There is no evidence to the contrary, so it must be true.
<snipped Argumentum ad nauseam>
For example, see SETI "Testing the null"
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
And again, those nice links that validate everything I've said. . its so
nice of you to post links that illustrate what I am saying.
Add to that some more:
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/ignorantiam.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
