| 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 10:25:52 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"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.
Precisely. And 'null' means zero.
You argue, "It doesn't just mean putting 'No' in front of something."
You are mistaken.
null: of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
As in the null (meaning zero), 'No ETs', 'No guilt', 'No God', no
whatever is proposed but not in evidence.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption. You wouldn't want
to be dragged into court with a default presumption that you are guilty
would you, son?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:40:05 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:FvadncIk2Knc9mrYnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"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.
Precisely. And 'null' means zero.
You argue, "It doesn't just mean putting 'No' in front of something."
You are mistaken.
Not at all .. refer again to the definition you snipped in reply from
www.m-w.com
null hypothesis : a statistical hypothesis to be tested and accepted or
rejected in favor of an alternative
www.m-w.com
Really .. you are looking more foolish with every post you make here. Do
some studying of logic, mathematics, statistical test etc. Then come back.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 09:29:51 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"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>:
BTW: your links further support what I am saying, and contradict your
claim
that god canot exist.
Straw man. I have not made a claim that God cannot exist, I am just
pointing out the principle of logic that governs this situation, that
the full burden of proof is on the true-believers, that the only
reasonable default presumption, like the default presumption of 'No
guilt' in court, or 'No ETs' in the SETI Argus study, is the null, 'No
X', whatever X is imagined to be but is not in evidence.
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.
So you are going to keep on trying to get away with arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is no proof the
conjecture is false? As you have been told, 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 09:57:29 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Zsydnek-lqqCw2rYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"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>:
BTW: your links further support what I am saying, and contradict your
claim
that god canot exist.
Straw man. I have not made a claim that God cannot exist,
Then why do you take exception with me saying that we cannot prove
conclusively that god exists or does not.
I am just pointing out the principle of logic that governs this
situation
So am I
that the full burden of proof is on the true-believers
Why does it have to be on that particular side.
that the only reasonable default presumption,
like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in court, or 'No ETs' in the
SETI Argus study,
is the null, 'No X', whatever X is imagined to be
but is not in evidence.
That is not valid logic. And this is not a court. You've apparently not
understood what a null hypothesis is or how scientific and logical proof
works.
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.
So you are going to keep on trying to get away with arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
It is NOT ad ignoratiam. Look up what that actually means. It is the
OPPOSITE of ad ignoratium. And proof that god exists or does not exist,
without evidence, is ad ignorantiam.
that there might be a God because there is no proof the conjecture is
false? As you have been told, that is logical fallacy
And youy've been told it is not. And I have the definitinos of ad
ignorantiam to back me up.
for which theists are famous,
as are atheists who don't understand logic.
as Copi explains:
You have said it .. and you are totally wrong. Copi's example does not show
that my argument is wrong either.
<quote>
snipped repeated quote that is not relevant here
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:17:23 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Zsydnek-lqqCw2rYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I am just pointing out the principle of logic that governs this
situation,
that the full burden of proof is on the true-believers
Why does it have to be on that particular side.
Burden of proof on the affirmative is a basic principle of valid
argument. Surprised you do not know this. It is the basis for the legal
principle that the burden of proof is on the affirmaive in criminal court.
In this case where the conjecture is your God thingy, we non-believers
have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you true-believers do.
burden of proof : the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge
www.m-w.com
You lot are the ones with the assertion, that there might be a God. We
atheists dispute (do not accept) it. There is no reason to even consider
the conjecture, unless you can come up with an operational definition of
'God' so that everybody knows what we are to look for, and precisely how
you propose it is to be detected.
The null (zero) is the only reasonable presumption.
This 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 10:36:46 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:D-adnVKHtdzZ9GrYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Zsydnek-lqqCw2rYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I am just pointing out the principle of logic that governs this
situation, that the full burden of proof is on the true-believers
Why does it have to be on that particular side.
Burden of proof on the affirmative is a basic principle of valid argument.
Surprised you do not know this. It is the basis for the legal principle
that the burden of proof is on the affirmaive in criminal court.
This is not a court.
The burden of proof the assumption of truth is with the older, more
established view, or with the view that most people accept (see
http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/ignorantiam.asp )
So the burden is on you non-believers (you now admit you are one) appears to
be on you non-believers, as you are disputing that god exists, an old and
established view.
In this case where the conjecture is your God thingy, we non-believers
have nothing (no thing) to prove,
You are playing the 'shifting the burden of truth' card. Anoterh logical
fallacy.
You lot
I'm not sure what 'lot' you think I belong to
are the ones with the assertion, that there might be a God.
It is not an assertion as such, it is the only logical conclusion to draw
without falling into the ad ignorantium trap.
We atheists dispute (do not accept) it.
Fine .. you can dispute it, but you cannot prove it wrong, nor prove
yourself right. It is not valid to draw a conclusion from the lack of
evidence.
Also note that I've already (in a previous reply here) logically illustrated
that my assertion is not invalidated by ad ignorantiam.
<snip ad nauseam>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:47:18 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
... the assumption of truth is with the older, more
established view, or with the view that most people accept
That is plain old argument from the popularity of a religious belief,
logical fallacy for which theists are famous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 11:11:23 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:9M2dnaA4iOLb7WrYnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
... the assumption of truth is with the older, more established view, or
with the view that most people accept
That is plain old argument from the popularity of a religious belief,
logical fallacy for which theists are famous.
That is where the burden of proof lies .. with those challenging the older
more established view.
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how burden of proof works.
More particularly, if you want to convince a theists that there is no god,
the burden of proof is with you, as you are challenging their assertion. If
a theist wants to convince you that there is a god, the burden of proof is
with the theist, as they are challenging your assertion.
I am simply pointing out the error in either side drawing a definite
conclusion when there is no evidence, as that is, by its definitions, ad
ignorantiam.
If one cannot conclude something is true, and cannot conclude it is false,
the only choice is to say that you cannot conclude its truth. Note: that
you introduce the phrase 'might exist' (a little straw man on your part) ..
my initial statements were that it was indeterminate.
It's simple logic and it's valid logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:51:49 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
Also note that I've already (in a previous reply here) logically illustrated
that my assertion is not invalidated by ad ignorantiam.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there
is no proof the conjecture is false?
Note that in a previous reply here I have shown why you are mistaken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 11:15:15 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Y8KdncB1Jo_L7GrYnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Also note that I've already (in a previous reply here) logically
illustrated that my assertion is not invalidated by ad ignorantiam.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is
no proof the conjecture is false?
My argument is that it is indetermenate .. we cannot conclusively say that
there is or isnt. By defintion, if we DID make such a conclusion, then that
would be ad ignorantiam.
Note that in a previous reply here I have shown why you are mistaken.
Actually .. no you haven't at all. All you've done is repeatedly posted the
same links to a seti site and a quote from copi. neither of those dispute
my claim .. and Copi defines ad ignorantium exactly the same way as I do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
13 Mar 2007 10:44:58 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:D-adnVKHtdzZ9GrYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:Zsydnek-lqqCw2rYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
I am just pointing out the principle of logic that governs this
situation, that the full burden of proof is on the true-believers
Why does it have to be on that particular side.
Burden of proof on the affirmative is a basic principle of valid argument.
Surprised you do not know this. It is the basis for the legal principle
that the burden of proof is on the affirmaive in criminal court.
This is not a court.
I did not say this is a court. All I said is that it's the same
principle that governs.
Burden of proof on the affirmative is a basic principle of valid
argument. Surprised you do not know this. It is the basis for the legal
principle that the burden of proof is on the affirmative in criminal court.
In this case where the conjecture is your God thingy, we non-believers
have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you true-believers do.
burden of proof : the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge
www.m-w.com
You lot are the ones with the assertion, that there might be a God. We
atheists dispute (do not accept) it. There is no reason to even consider
the conjecture, unless you can come up with an operational definition of
'God' so that everybody knows what we are to look for, and precisely how
you propose it is to be detected.
The null (zero) is the only reasonable presumption.
This 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 10:59:13 PM |
|
|
"Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:9M2dnaE4iOIn8mrYnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Burden of proof on the affirmative is a basic principle of valid argument.
Surprised you do not know this. It is the basis for the legal principle
that the burden of proof is on the affirmative in criminal court.
It may well be .. but this is not a court, so the principle of a court do
not apply. The principles of logic DO apply, however. And without evidence
we cannot draw a conclusion We can only make an assumption.
<snip even more ad nauseam the proves nothing and only bores readers>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 06:47:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84dl1e@corp.supernews.com>:
"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'.
No it can't. You don't get to randomly pick what you want the null
hypothesis is.
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.
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
14 Mar 2007 07:13:08 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:6a2hv29ioj2m8n44cfjvqd3mq9u9pn6erf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84dl1e@corp.supernews.com>:
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.
The ad ignorantiam fallacy is basically the absence of evidence being used
as evidence of absence. Its not logic.
In some situations, for practical reasons rather than those of logic, one
can have a presumption or assumption based on lack of evidence.
For example, in a court of law, where there is a presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. But being
unable to prove guilt is not a logical proof of innocence. People can be
found innocent event though they did not commit the crime .. hence it is not
a conclusive proof.
In science there can also be the practical concept that that which cannot be
proved true should be assumed to be false .. but not always so .. there are
many theories about the nature of the universe which are not proven true
which are also not discounted as being false .. they are simply (unproven)
theories.
Similarly to the presumption of innocent in court ... one could IMAGINE
making declare that God does not exist, due to presumption of non-existence
and lack of evidence .. even though God does exist (just like a criminal
found innocent even though they committed the offense).
Basically ... if one is talking logic and proof (and not practicalities, and
law etc), then the ad ignorantiam means we cannot conclusively say God does
not exist simply because there is no evidence that he does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
15 Mar 2007 08:43:32 AM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 12:13 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:6a2hv29ioj2m8n44cfjvqd3mq9u9pn6erf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84d...@corp.supernews.com>:
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.
The ad ignorantiam fallacy is basically the absence of evidence being used
as evidence of absence. Its not logic.
You are seriously confused. You have just justed EXACTLY that method
which you criticise. The absence of evidence of a yellow devil above
you, you say, can be used to show evidence of absence. You have shot
yourself in the foot. devils are invisible BTW.
In some situations, for practical reasons rather than those of logic, one
can have a presumption or assumption based on lack of evidence.
For example, in a court of law, where there is a presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. But being
unable to prove guilt is not a logical proof of innocence. People can be
found innocent event though they did not commit the crime .. hence it is not
a conclusive proof.
In science there can also be the practical concept that that which cannot be
proved true should be assumed to be false .. but not always so .. there are
many theories about the nature of the universe which are not proven true
which are also not discounted as being false .. they are simply (unproven)
theories.
Similarly to the presumption of innocent in court ... one could IMAGINE
making declare that God does not exist, due to presumption of non-existence
and lack of evidence .. even though God does exist (just like a criminal
found innocent even though they committed the offense).
Basically ... if one is talking logic and proof (and not practicalities, and
law etc), then the ad ignorantiam means we cannot conclusively say God does
not exist simply because there is no evidence that he does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
15 Mar 2007 04:19:15 PM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173966212.747634.279930@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 12:13 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:6a2hv29ioj2m8n44cfjvqd3mq9u9pn6erf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84d...@corp.supernews.com>:
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.
The ad ignorantiam fallacy is basically the absence of evidence being
used
as evidence of absence. Its not logic.
You are seriously confused.
Not at all. Others here, however, seem to have no concept of logic and
proof.
You have just justed EXACTLY that method
which you criticise.
No. It appears you also do not fully understand adgumentum ad ignorantiam
either.
The absence of evidence of a yellow devil above
you, you say, can be used to show evidence of absence. You have shot
yourself in the foot. devils are invisible BTW.
No .. I have shown evidence of absense. As I have said previosuly, if you
are considering specific cases where there is a finite number of
possibilities, then ad ignorantium does not necessarily apply.
In this case the logic is simple .. it is based on the deduction: if there
was a yellow demon over my head, then I could see it. I cannot see one, so
it is valid logic to therefore conclude that it is not there. (note: this is
based on the premise that being yellow means it is visible).
There would only be lack of evidence if I was unable to make any
observations. In particular, if we said an invisible demon was over myhead,
then me not being able to see it is not evidence.
Also, it the hypothesis was "yellow demons exists", then me not seeing one
over my head is not evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 03:52:39 AM |
|
|
On 15 Mar, 21:19, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173966212.747634.279930@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 12:13 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:6a2hv29ioj2m8n44cfjvqd3mq9u9pn6erf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84d...@corp.supernews.com>:
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.
The ad ignorantiam fallacy is basically the absence of evidence being
used
as evidence of absence. Its not logic.
You are seriously confused.
Not at all. Others here, however, seem to have no concept of logic and
proof.
You have just justed EXACTLY that method
which you criticise.
No. It appears you also do not fully understand adgumentum ad ignorantiam
either.
Duh!!! I think you need to review that which you have written....
You said that absence of evidence was not proof of evidence of absence
and yet you dismiss the claim (and "proove") that their was a yellow
devil above you merely by looking up to find an absence of evidence.
QED - you are confused!
The absence of evidence of a yellow devil above
you, you say, can be used to show evidence of absence. You have shot
yourself in the foot. devils are invisible BTW.
No .. I have shown evidence of absense. As I have said previosuly, if you
are considering specific cases where there is a finite number of
possibilities, then ad ignorantium does not necessarily apply.
DUH!
Please read the following:
""> >> > By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow
devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.""
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 04:28:27 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174035159.132807.307920@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Mar, 21:19, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173966212.747634.279930@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 12:13 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:6a2hv29ioj2m8n44cfjvqd3mq9u9pn6erf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:28:27 +1100, in alt.atheism
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in
<12vejub7m84d...@corp.supernews.com>:
By your logic you cannot prove that you don't have a yellow devil
hovering over you.
Yes I can .. by looking above me and seeing if there was a yellow
devil
there or not. You can prove or disprove specifics.
The ad ignorantiam fallacy is basically the absence of evidence being
used as evidence of absence. Its not logic.
You are seriously confused.
Not at all. Others here, however, seem to have no concept of logic and
proof.
You have just justed EXACTLY that method
which you criticise.
No. It appears you also do not fully understand adgumentum ad
ignorantiam
either.
Duh!!! I think you need to review that which you have written....
Buh!!! I have reviewed it and I made no errors.
You said that absence of evidence was not proof of evidence of absence
and yet you dismiss the claim (and "proove") that their was a yellow
devil above you merely by looking up to find an absence of evidence.
QED - you are confused!
I have already expalined that. Please . .read up on ad ignorantiam before
you criticise that which you obviously do not understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 05:30:59 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12vkoqdksq03n0f@corp.supernews.com...
I have already expalined that. Please . .read up on ad ignorantiam before
you criticise that which you obviously do not understand.
Perhaps some simpler example might help
Lets say you've lost your TV remote, You ask your wife and she says "its in
the living room". You poke you head in the door and cannot see it and then
claim "it is not in there". That is pretty much agumentum ad ignorantiam.
Because the description was fairly general, and your observations not
thorough, your lack of evidence is not a proof.
If your wife instead your wife had said "it is in the remote holder", and
you look in the remote holder (the one place it must be if your wife is
correct) and you find no evidence of it there, then you can make a valid
claim "it is not in there". That would be 'negative' evidence or actual
evidence of absence and would NOT be agumentum ad ignorantiam.
A third example is if your wife said "it is in the living room", and you
look in the kitchen and find it there, then you can claim "it is not in the
living room". That is a positive proof that refutes the claim.
I hope those example help you understand it better.
This site defines it and has some examples where it can and cannot be used:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html .. note that the 'proof
that god does not exist' is a particular example there of argumentum ad
ignorantiam.
Copi describes it well (as you'd expect): "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." He adds, "A qualification should be
made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a
certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified
investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the
absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence
towards its non-occurrence." (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance for this quote and
various examples)
You might find this article informative .. it discusses various real-world
cases where agumentum ad ignorantiam applies and doesn't, and some cases
where it is not clear-cut.
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/99ignorantiam.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 12:08:23 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12vkoqdksq03n0f@corp.supernews.com...
I have already expalined that. Please . .read up on ad ignorantiam before
you criticise that which you obviously do not understand.
Perhaps some simpler example might help
Lets say you've lost your TV remote, You ask your wife and she says "its in
the living room". You poke you head in the door and cannot see it and then
claim "it is not in there". That is pretty much agumentum ad ignorantiam.
Because the description was fairly general, and your observations not
thorough, your lack of evidence is not a proof.
If your wife instead your wife had said "it is in the remote holder", and
you look in the remote holder (the one place it must be if your wife is
correct) and you find no evidence of it there, then you can make a valid
claim "it is not in there". That would be 'negative' evidence or actual
evidence of absence and would NOT be agumentum ad ignorantiam.
A third example is if your wife said "it is in the living room", and you
look in the kitchen and find it there, then you can claim "it is not in the
living room". That is a positive proof that refutes the claim.
I hope those example help you understand it better.
This site defines it and has some examples where it can and cannot be used:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html .. note that the 'proof
that god does not exist' is a particular example there of argumentum ad
ignorantiam.
Copi describes it well (as you'd expect): "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." He adds, "A qualification should be
made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a
certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified
investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the
absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence
towards its non-occurrence." (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance for this quote and
various examples)
You might find this article informative .. it discusses various real-world
cases where agumentum ad ignorantiam applies and doesn't, and some cases
where it is not clear-cut.
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/99ignorantiam.pdf
Ah, check out the page numbered "368" from that link. It supports this
conclusion:
"If we have not proved that P is impossible, we must agree that P is
possible" is an ad ig fallacy.
I concur. It is an ad ig fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 07:24:26 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bjlv21l61boahk4hi05vo5b8ppa2amgm2@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
Ah, check out the page numbered "368" from that link.
I'm glad you took the time to read it. That certainly counts highly toward
you. Thanks.
It supports this conclusion:
"If we have not proved that P is impossible, we must agree that P is
possible" is an ad ig fallacy.
I concur. It is an ad ig fallacy.
What ad ignorantum says that if we have not proved P is impossible, then
that is not a proof that P is true. It is also not a proof that P is false
(impossible). It says nothing about the truth of P, or whether P os
possible or not.
Basically .. saying "we have not proved that P is impossible" says nothing
at all, other than about our lack of proof.
Similar those who say "you have not proved that God cannot exist" say
nothing about the existence of God, and those who say "you have not proved
that God exists" say nothing about the existence of God.
I'm glad you appear to be in agreement with me now after further reading.
However . please note that I cannot see that anywhere in that page (or that
document) the conclusion that you quoted .. so I take it is is not an actual
quote from the page. Just wondering .. is it from here that you concluded
that:
"According to Adler, 1998a),
arguments from ignorance have the following form: No one has disproved
A, so it is possible that A is true, and therefore we should keep our minds
open with respect to A, and so we may conclude that it is reasonable to
believe that A is true. This type of argument is fallacious."
If so, then that is in complete agreement with what I am saying. Lack of
disprove does not make something true, and lack of proof does not make it
false. Note that it is only the conclusion that is fallacious. The
statement that we should keep an open mind is not a conclusion about A (it
is a statement about our attitude) .. keeping an open mind is good advice,
as it means we are then open to finding the proof or disproof we wanted.
Saying A is possible CAN be valid though, if one interprets that as meaning
that we cannot conclude for certainy that A is false or A is true, as
mathematically that is identical to saying there is a proabilty 0 < p < 1
that A is true .. that can be expressed in English as 'possible' or 'might'
or 'there's a chance'.. it really depends on how 'strong' you interpet those
words to be (ie do that imply that the probability is high, or low, or not
say anything about the probability at all). Generally it is best to just
say "We cannot determine if A is true or false" .. that is harder to
misinterpret than "possible".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 07:33:42 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bjlv21l61boahk4hi05vo5b8ppa2amgm2@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
Ah, check out the page numbered "368" from that link.
I'm glad you took the time to read it. That certainly counts highly toward
you. Thanks.
It supports this conclusion:
"If we have not proved that P is impossible, we must agree that P is
possible" is an ad ig fallacy.
I concur. It is an ad ig fallacy.
What ad ignorantum says that if we have not proved P is impossible, then
that is not a proof that P is true. It is also not a proof that P is false
(impossible). It says nothing about the truth of P, or whether P os
possible or not.
Basically .. saying "we have not proved that P is impossible" says nothing
at all, other than about our lack of proof.
Similar those who say "you have not proved that God cannot exist" say
nothing about the existence of God, and those who say "you have not proved
that God exists" say nothing about the existence of God.
I'm glad you appear to be in agreement with me now after further reading.
We are in agreement.
However . please note that I cannot see that anywhere in that page (or that
document) the conclusion that you quoted .. so I take it is is not an actual
quote from the page. Just wondering .. is it from here that you concluded
that:
What I said is not an actual quote (it is difficult to cut and paste
from PDF's.) But it is supported by the statement starting with "No
one has disproved..." on that page 368.
I see that you inadvertently snipped the reference. It is:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/99ignorantiam.pdf
"According to Adler, 1998a),
arguments from ignorance have the following form: No one has disproved
A, so it is possible that A is true, and therefore we should keep our minds
open with respect to A, and so we may conclude that it is reasonable to
believe that A is true. This type of argument is fallacious."
If so, then that is in complete agreement with what I am saying. Lack of
disprove does not make something true, and lack of proof does not make it
false. Note that it is only the conclusion that is fallacious. The
statement that we should keep an open mind is not a conclusion about A (it
is a statement about our attitude) .. keeping an open mind is good advice,
True, but it is not *logically compelled* by lack of evidence to the
contrary of something claimed.
as it means we are then open to finding the proof or disproof we wanted.
Saying A is possible CAN be valid though, if one interprets that as meaning
that we cannot conclude for certainy that A is false or A is true, as
mathematically that is identical to saying there is a proabilty 0 < p < 1
that A is true .. that can be expressed in English as 'possible' or 'might'
or 'there's a chance'.. it really depends on how 'strong' you interpet those
words to be (ie do that imply that the probability is high, or low, or not
say anything about the probability at all). Generally it is best to just
say "We cannot determine if A is true or false" .. that is harder to
misinterpret than "possible".
Yes, substituting "it is possible that P" for "I don't know that
not-P" is substituting knowledge for ignorance, IMO.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 07:44:30 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4ddmv2l40gogi2loij5oiksabk2ulrp0bq@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
I'm glad you appear to be in agreement with me now after further reading.
We are in agreement.
That's nice :)
"According to Adler, 1998a),
arguments from ignorance have the following form: No one has disproved
A, so it is possible that A is true, and therefore we should keep our
minds
open with respect to A, and so we may conclude that it is reasonable to
believe that A is true. This type of argument is fallacious."
If so, then that is in complete agreement with what I am saying. Lack of
disprove does not make something true, and lack of proof does not make it
false. Note that it is only the conclusion that is fallacious. The
statement that we should keep an open mind is not a conclusion about A (it
is a statement about our attitude) .. keeping an open mind is good advice,
True, but it is not *logically compelled* by lack of evidence to the
contrary of something claimed.
I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying .. but if it is what I think
you mean, then yes.
as it means we are then open to finding the proof or disproof we wanted.
Saying A is possible CAN be valid though, if one interprets that as
meaning
that we cannot conclude for certainy that A is false or A is true, as
mathematically that is identical to saying there is a proabilty 0 < p < 1
that A is true .. that can be expressed in English as 'possible' or
'might'
or 'there's a chance'.. it really depends on how 'strong' you interpet
those
words to be (ie do that imply that the probability is high, or low, or not
say anything about the probability at all). Generally it is best to just
say "We cannot determine if A is true or false" .. that is harder to
misinterpret than "possible".
Yes, substituting "it is possible that P" for "I don't know that
not-P" is substituting knowledge for ignorance, IMO.
Indeed .. that's why I said that it really depend on what words like
'possible' connote to you .. is it taken to mean "not proven impossible" or
"proven not impossible". One has to be very careful with what words one
uses, as even when one thinks one is stating very clearly what one wants to
say, it can be misinterpreted. As one of my favorite sayings goes: "It is
not possible for a language to express every thought unambiguously, least of
all this one"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 07:59:38 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4ddmv2l40gogi2loij5oiksabk2ulrp0bq@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
I'm glad you appear to be in agreement with me now after further reading.
We are in agreement.
That's nice :)
"According to Adler, 1998a),
arguments from ignorance have the following form: No one has disproved
A, so it is possible that A is true, and therefore we should keep our
minds
open with respect to A, and so we may conclude that it is reasonable to
believe that A is true. This type of argument is fallacious."
If so, then that is in complete agreement with what I am saying. Lack of
disprove does not make something true, and lack of proof does not make it
false. Note that it is only the conclusion that is fallacious. The
statement that we should keep an open mind is not a conclusion about A (it
is a statement about our attitude) .. keeping an open mind is good advice,
True, but it is not *logically compelled* by lack of evidence to the
contrary of something claimed.
I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying .. but if it is what I think
you mean, then yes.
as it means we are then open to finding the proof or disproof we wanted.
Saying A is possible CAN be valid though, if one interprets that as
meaning
that we cannot conclude for certainy that A is false or A is true, as
mathematically that is identical to saying there is a proabilty 0 < p < 1
that A is true .. that can be expressed in English as 'possible' or
'might'
or 'there's a chance'.. it really depends on how 'strong' you interpet
those
words to be (ie do that imply that the probability is high, or low, or not
say anything about the probability at all). Generally it is best to just
say "We cannot determine if A is true or false" .. that is harder to
misinterpret than "possible".
Yes, substituting "it is possible that P" for "I don't know that
not-P" is substituting knowledge for ignorance, IMO.
Indeed .. that's why I said that it really depend on what words like
'possible' connote to you .. is it taken to mean "not proven impossible" or
"proven not impossible". One has to be very careful with what words one
uses, as even when one thinks one is stating very clearly what one wants to
say, it can be misinterpreted. As one of my favorite sayings goes: "It is
not possible for a language to express every thought unambiguously, least of
all this one"
If you are interested further, google on "epistemic possibility" for
the kind of possibility that only means "I don't know otherwise".
Cheers,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
16 Mar 2007 08:38:41 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4afmv2tn9b70rtqdhrukrf5g5h692q68o9@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:
If you are interested further, google on "epistemic possibility" for
the kind of possibility that only means "I don't know otherwise".
Thanks for that .. says very nicely what I was stumbling to say :) I knew
the difference between them but had forgotten the correct terminology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
17 Mar 2007 06:43:33 AM |
|
|
On 17 mrt, 01:24, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Jim07D7" <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0bjlv21l61boahk4hi05vo5b8ppa2amgm2@4ax.com...
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> said:
Ah, check out the page numbered "368" from that link.
I'm glad you took the time to read it. That certainly counts highly toward
you. Thanks.
It supports this conclusion:
"If we have not proved that P is impossible, we must agree that P is
possible" is an ad ig fallacy.
I concur. It is an ad ig fallacy.
What ad ignorantum says that if we have not proved P is impossible, then
that is not a proof that P is true. It is also not a proof that P is false
(impossible). It says nothing about the truth of P, or whether P os
possible or not.
Basically .. saying "we have not proved that P is impossible" says nothing
at all, other than about our lack of proof.
Similar those who say "you have not proved that God cannot exist" say
nothing about the existence of God, and those who say "you have not proved
that God exists" say nothing about the existence of God.
I'm glad you appear to be in agreement with me now after further reading.
However . please note that I cannot see that anywhere in that page (or that
document) the conclusion that you quoted .. so I take it is is not an actual
quote from the page. Just wondering .. is it from here that you concluded
that:
"According to Adler, 1998a),
arguments from ignorance have the following form: No one has disproved
A, so it is possible that A is true, and therefore we should keep our minds
open with respect to A, and so we may conclude that it is reasonable to
believe that A is true. This type of argument is fallacious."
If so, then that is in complete agreement with what I am saying. Lack of
disprove does not make something true, and lack of proof does not make it
false. Note that it is only the conclusion that is fallacious. The
statement that we should keep an open mind is not a conclusion about A (it
is a statement about our attitude) .. keeping an open mind is good advice,
as it means we are then open to finding the proof or disproof we wanted.
Saying A is possible CAN be valid though, if one interprets that as meaning
that we cannot conclude for certainy that A is false or A is true, as
mathematically that is identical to saying there is a proabilty 0 < p < 1
that A is true .. that can be expressed in English as 'possible' or 'might'
or 'there's a chance'.. it really depends on how 'strong' you interpet those
words to be (ie do that imply that the probability is high, or low, or not
say anything about the probability at all). Generally it is best to just
say "We cannot determine if A is true or false" .. that is harder to
misinterpret than "possible".
Reading your words is strikes me that one can do better.
Although we might not have succeeded in eiter proving A is false or A
is true.
We might have a idea about the probability of A.
Let's say the probability of A being one in a thousand (0,001)
or (alternatively) the probability of A being 999 in a thousand
(0,999).
I'd say I estimate the probability of God existing as
lower then 0,000000000000000001
or
lower than 1/10^18
In everyday talk that means I am about as strong an Atheist as you can
get.
Adding more zeroes has no practical value unless we can remove the 1
at the end,
I could do that, but then I would have to give "God" some more
attributes,
(like omnisccient, omnipotent and omnibenevolant)
The estimate I give you here is applied only to a God still living and
caring after having created everything we can observe.
For a more accurate description read "the God Delusion" by Richard
Dawkins,
I can't quote it right now as I gave the book to my - theist - sister)
I suspect he also includes "listening to prayers) wich sould add
another 9 zeroes.
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
18 Mar 2007 12:16:10 AM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1174131812.998641.80600@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Reading your words is strikes me that one can do better.
Although we might not have succeeded in eiter proving A is false or A
is true.
We might have a idea about the probability of A.
Yes .. you can look at it in terms of fuzzy logic or statistics or
probability.
I'd say I estimate the probability of God existing as
lower then 0,000000000000000001
or
lower than 1/10^18
Of course, then one would have to ask where that figure came from. Others
may have a different estimate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
17 Mar 2007 12:54:34 PM |
|
< | | | | | | | | | | |
