| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Marakith" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2003 04:16:27 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
..\\arakith
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:58:30 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state. Which we knew already. He believes in the figment of his
own imagination that he has learned to call "God".
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
04 Nov 2003 11:40:50 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
04 Nov 2003 12:48:08 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the
existence of non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just
trying to create a diversion away from your glaring inability
to demonstrate that your "God" proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy.
Since he can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to
claim *we don't exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing'
with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and
all gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to
be atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a
subjective mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists".
Not at all.
You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
If I claim to a theist that the car I'm trying to sell him is a "good
runner", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us atheists
do, or do they take it on faith? If I try and sell a theist a picture of
"Mona Liza", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us
atheists do?, or do they take it on faith? If I try to sell a book as
the word of god to a theist, do they use the same objective tests as the
rest of us atheists do?, or do they take it on faith?
Explain exactly what a theist does in dealing with normal issues like
this, and if they are different specifically for god, what is the
justification?
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
05 Nov 2003 10:45:10 AM |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<OvSpb.1166$mY5.831@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the
existence of non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just
trying to create a diversion away from your glaring inability
to demonstrate that your "God" proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy.
Since he can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to
claim *we don't exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing'
with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and
all gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to
be atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a
subjective mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists".
Not at all.
There has been no justification beyond testimony that anyone actually
lacks belief in any and all gods. And theists give testimony that God
exists. Q.E.D.
Your unsupported "not at all" is Fallacy of Argument by Assertion.
You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
If I claim to a theist that the car I'm trying to sell him is a "good
runner", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us atheists
do, or do they take it on faith?
This appears irrelevant to the fact that theists give testimony that
God exists and supposed atheists give nothing more than testimony that
they lack belief in any and all gods. (Or rather, your testimony that
a car is a "good runner" is just as analagous to people's testimony
that they lack belief in any and all gods as it is to people's
testimony that God exists. Except that no one can test whether you
actually lack beliefs in any and all gods.)
<snip more failure to distinguish the cases in question>
Please deal with the actual argument I'm giving.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
05 Nov 2003 10:50:01 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<OvSpb.1166$mY5.831@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the
existence of non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just
trying to create a diversion away from your glaring inability
to demonstrate that your "God" proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy.
Since he can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to
claim *we don't exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing'
with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and
all gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to
be atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a
subjective mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists".
Not at all.
There has been no justification beyond testimony that anyone actually
lacks belief in any and all gods. And theists give testimony that God
exists. Q.E.D.
Your unsupported "not at all" is Fallacy of Argument by Assertion.
Still equivocating between objective and subjective claims, jeffy? We
understand why, of course, your "God exists" as a purely subjective
mental state, and you can't produce a shred of evidence that it's
anything else.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
05 Nov 2003 12:22:35 PM |
|
|
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311050845.abdf17@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<OvSpb.1166$mY5.831@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the
existence of non-believers. Everybody knows that you are
just
trying to create a diversion away from your glaring
inability
to demonstrate that your "God" proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy.
Since he can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying
to
claim *we don't exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy
'discoursing'
with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a
demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something.
If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation
is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any
and
all gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming
to
be atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a
subjective mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that
"God
exists".
Not at all.
There has been no justification beyond testimony that anyone actually
lacks belief in any and all gods. And theists give testimony that God
exists. Q.E.D.
Your unsupported "not at all" is Fallacy of Argument by Assertion.
You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists.
Deal.
If I claim to a theist that the car I'm trying to sell him is a
"good
runner", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us
atheists
do, or do they take it on faith?
This appears irrelevant to the fact that theists give testimony that
God exists and supposed atheists give nothing more than testimony that
they lack belief in any and all gods.
I'm not interested in a testimony argument. Its inconclusive.
(Or rather, your testimony that
a car is a "good runner" is just as analagous to people's testimony
that they lack belief in any and all gods as it is to people's
testimony that God exists. Except that no one can test whether you
actually lack beliefs in any and all gods.)
<snip more failure to distinguish the cases in question>
Please deal with the actual argument I'm giving.
You mean that you cannot justify your belief when a more conclusive
argument is used. That is, you can only deal with weak arguments, not
strong ones.
I know what your argument is, and it is not a useful argument. I simple
state, that particular argument is not useful at all. It is an
inconclusive argument.
So, I *agree* with you, that the argument does *not* distinguish between
a belief in a god and a non belief in a god, so lets not mention it any
more. End of story.
This sort of thing happens often in science. If it is often found that a
particular argument/experiment is insufficient to make a deduction
either way, however, it does not imply that there is not indeed a very
strong case for one and not the other. It just means that that
particular argument/experiment was a poor choice.
So, now answer mine, as I have accepted your argument as a valid, but
poor one.
If I claim to a theist that the car I'm trying to sell him is a "good
runner", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us atheists
do, or do they take it on faith? If I try and sell a theist a picture of
"Mona Liza", do they use the same objective tests as the rest of us
atheists do?, or do they take it on faith? If I try to sell a book as
the word of god to a theist, do they use the same objective tests as the
rest of us atheists do?, or do they take it on faith?
Explain exactly what a theist does in dealing with normal issues like
this, and if they are different specifically for god, what is the
justification?
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
04 Nov 2003 12:23:50 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
05 Nov 2003 10:56:21 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqfrl9ceo9tr78@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
You've got a reading comprehension problem. There's nothing about
pure subjective mental states in my statements. Using your apparent
attempt at reasoning here, my testimony that there is a tower desktop
computer here and that the computer is sitting on a desk would
immediately entail that the computer and the desk exist as purely
subjective mental states. (You have no evidence of their existence
besides my testimony here.)
Your "reasoning" is thus reduced to absurdity. (Or else it's a
complete Strawman Fallacy.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
05 Nov 2003 12:05:18 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqfrl9ceo9tr78@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
You've got a reading comprehension problem. There's nothing about
pure subjective mental states in my statements.
Go ahead and deny it, jeffy. Either you're claiming that "god exists" is
a purely subjective claim just like "I don't beleive in X" or you're
equivocating the two.
Using your apparent
attempt at reasoning here, my testimony that there is a tower desktop
computer here and that the computer is sitting on a desk would
immediately entail that the computer and the desk exist as purely
subjective mental states. (You have no evidence of their existence
besides my testimony here.)
Nonsense. Whether I have evidence *now* is not relevant. Whether I could
possibly have evidence is the point.
Your "reasoning" is thus reduced to absurdity. (Or else it's a
complete Strawman Fallacy.)
And so jeffy continues to equivocate between objective and subjective
claims.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
06 Nov 2003 11:29:54 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqieutf8cjjg72@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqfrl9ceo9tr78@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
You've got a reading comprehension problem. There's nothing about
pure subjective mental states in my statements.
Go ahead and deny it, jeffy. Either you're claiming that "god exists" is
a purely subjective claim just like "I don't beleive in X" or you're
equivocating the two.
False Dichotomy. In fact I wasn't treating "I don't believe in X" as
being asserted as a purely subjective claim. If you are _admitting_
that "I don't believe in X" is _purely_ a subjective claim, then why
should anyone (other than the claimant) believe it?? (You make my
point that no one should believe anyone else's claim that they lack
belief in all gods.)
Using your apparent
attempt at reasoning here, my testimony that there is a tower desktop
computer here and that the computer is sitting on a desk would
immediately entail that the computer and the desk exist as purely
subjective mental states. (You have no evidence of their existence
besides my testimony here.)
Nonsense. Whether I have evidence *now* is not relevant. Whether I could
possibly have evidence is the point.
Could you possibly have evidence of God someday then? If so, you
cannot dismiss anyone's claim "God exists". Goose, gander.
Your "reasoning" is thus reduced to absurdity. (Or else it's a
complete Strawman Fallacy.)
And so jeffy continues to equivocate between objective and subjective
claims.
Should purely subjective claims (such as "I do not believe", according
to you) be believed by anyone other than the claimant? You make my
case.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
06 Nov 2003 11:35:14 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqieutf8cjjg72@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqfrl9ceo9tr78@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
You've got a reading comprehension problem. There's nothing about
pure subjective mental states in my statements.
Go ahead and deny it, jeffy. Either you're claiming that "god exists" is
a purely subjective claim just like "I don't beleive in X" or you're
equivocating the two.
False Dichotomy. In fact I wasn't treating "I don't believe in X" as
being asserted as a purely subjective claim. If you are _admitting_
that "I don't believe in X" is _purely_ a subjective claim, then why
should anyone (other than the claimant) believe it?? (You make my
point that no one should believe anyone else's claim that they lack
belief in all gods.)
So then nobody should believe your claim that you have a belief in any gods?
Using your apparent
attempt at reasoning here, my testimony that there is a tower desktop
computer here and that the computer is sitting on a desk would
immediately entail that the computer and the desk exist as purely
subjective mental states. (You have no evidence of their existence
besides my testimony here.)
Nonsense. Whether I have evidence *now* is not relevant. Whether I could
possibly have evidence is the point.
Could you possibly have evidence of God someday then?
No, I could not, by definition of "faith".
If so, you
cannot dismiss anyone's claim "God exists". Goose, gander.
It's your goose that's cooked, jeffy.
Your "reasoning" is thus reduced to absurdity. (Or else it's a
complete Strawman Fallacy.)
And so jeffy continues to equivocate between objective and subjective
claims.
Should purely subjective claims (such as "I do not believe", according
to you) be believed by anyone other than the claimant? You make my
case.
Thanks, jeffy. It's so nice of you to admit your defeat so gracefully.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
07 Nov 2003 08:58:17 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vql1i5gtnr9rab@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqieutf8cjjg72@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqfrl9ceo9tr78@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqd29m938aa98@news.supernews.com>...
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something. If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
Jeffy therefore asserts that *the object* of his belief is a subjective
mental state.
Strawman Fallacy.
Rather, a concise statement, which you are about to repeat:
Rather, theists assert with at least as much justification that "God
exists". You give no justification beyond testimony that you're
atheist, and theists give plenty of testimony that God exists. Deal.
And so Jeffy simply repeats his assertion that "God exists" as a purely
subjective mental state.
You've got a reading comprehension problem. There's nothing about
pure subjective mental states in my statements.
Go ahead and deny it, jeffy. Either you're claiming that "god exists" is
a purely subjective claim just like "I don't beleive in X" or you're
equivocating the two.
False Dichotomy. In fact I wasn't treating "I don't believe in X" as
being asserted as a purely subjective claim. If you are _admitting_
that "I don't believe in X" is _purely_ a subjective claim, then why
should anyone (other than the claimant) believe it?? (You make my
point that no one should believe anyone else's claim that they lack
belief in all gods.)
So then nobody should believe your claim that you have a belief in any gods?
You tell me. If "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe God
exists" are both _purely_ subjective claims according to you, what is
the proper stance for anyone other than the claimant to take wrt to
either claim, according to you? IOW, you haven't answered the first
question, and your answer to the first question will answer the second
-- again, why should anyone (other than the claimant) believe a
_purely_ subjective claim? (This is not a purely rhetorical question;
please give your answer.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:30:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:17:21 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org>...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
My argument applies to anyone who accepts the alt.atheism FAQ
definition of "atheist" and who also insists that a demonstration is
required before anyone is justified in believing in something.
Since atheism is lacking belief, this is irrelevant.
If
that's not you, then good. Otherwise, your strawman accusation is
false and you need to demonstrate that you lack belief in any and all
gods (which you can't) before you are justified in claiming to be
atheist.
That's insane. Not to mention dishonest.
How about first you prove that you're actually a human being and not a bot.
Or you can continue with your jettison of rationality in favor of your
Fallacy of Argument by Ridicule, as demonstrated here.
YAWN.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
02 Nov 2003 02:31:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:01:38 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.11.01.23.01.37.876315@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:16:38 -0800, stoney wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:14:55 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.10.31.20.14.55.111674@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:05 +0000, John McTavish wrote:
You may as well stop trying to change the subject to the existence of
non-believers. Everybody knows that you are just trying to create a
diversion away from your glaring inability to demonstrate that your "God"
proposition is true.
That's one of the more hysterically funny things about Jeffy. Since he
can't show there's a god to believe in, he's trying to claim *we don't
exist...
Which leads to ask the question; to whom is Jeffy 'discoursing' with?
Not use for certain.
In fact, with his strawmen, what does he need us for again?
He doesn't.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 09:56:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
But, then, you are Jeffy...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 03:23:43 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 12:59:29 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0310301323.1fc9fe0b@posting.google.com...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods?
Athism is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof). "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate. You have something
to demonstrate (the hypothetical "God" thingy you are championing).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 04:31:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 01:34:18 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 06:26:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 11:30:55 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist"
from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please
explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running
around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who
says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Or, "I don't believe there are any six-legged chickens, as you claim, Uncle
Jeff!"
I wonder if Uncle Jeff always says, "Prove it" in any case, to be logically
consistent, or is he being inconsistent by just picking on atheists alone?
Let test him.
Jeffy, what would you say if I said that you have convinced me, that I now
believe that your if - then argument, "If you are atheist, God exists" makes
perfect sense? Would you demand that I prove I do, or are you only demanding
proof from atheists?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 02:50:04 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists". It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs, strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 03:50:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0310311250.53e3aa49@posting.google.com...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist"
from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is
literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please
explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running
around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who
says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
But you said nothing about "social convention," you said your point was, and
I quote, "atheism and atheists are not things that exist."
Here is that post:
---
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0310290748.4afc8c06@posting.google.com...
... If you'd like to reply that atheism
and thus atheists are not things that
exist, you go right ahead. Make my point.
---
So you have an absence of belief in the existence of atheists?
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists". It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs,
What an absurd idea. One can both believe that there is a god and not
believe that there is a god, simultaneously? Balderdash.
strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
Yes it does. Those who believe that there are no gods certainly have no
belief in the existence of gods. The two go together like bread and butter,
love and marriage, horse and carriage, genius.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
01 Nov 2003 03:52:00 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0310311250.53e3aa49@posting.google.com...
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" ...
This person who is convinced (believes) there are no gods definitely has an
absence of belief in the existence of gods. Chalk up another atheist.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
...as well as "I believe God exists".
This one does not have an absence of belief in the existence of gods, so is
not atheist. Chalk up another sheep ready for fleecing.
If we observe no such behavior, we do not hear "I believe god exists," so
we chalk up another non-believer.
<Snip false dichotomy of atheists into strong and weak. Both groups of
people definitely have an absence of belief in the existence of gods, and
atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Period. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 02:56:11 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists".
Jeffy doesn't care if people lie, as long as they're lies that he likes
to hear.
It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs, strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
And since logical propositions can contradict each other, then all logic
is contradictory.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 03:24:51 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Jeffy doesn't care if people lie, as long as they're lies that he likes
to hear.
Yeah. Did you ever see his "It's okay to edit people's posts to make 'em
say other things, but only when I do it" argument? That was funny.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:51:15 AM |
|
|
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<jnk5qv8q36c0j982fnvmfnoaofltl1rg8l@4ax.com>...
Yeah. Did you ever see his "It's okay to edit people's posts to make 'em
say other things, but only when I do it" argument? That was funny.
Would you like to post a link, or should I? ("But only when I do it"
was not my rationale, but you knew that, yet decided to lie about it
here. Tsk.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
04 Nov 2003 11:34:44 AM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0311030851.7fbce6d6@posting.google.com>...
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<jnk5qv8q36c0j982fnvmfnoaofltl1rg8l@4ax.com>...
Yeah. Did you ever see his "It's okay to edit people's posts to make 'em
say other things, but only when I do it" argument? That was funny.
Would you like to post a link, or should I? ("But only when I do it"
was not my rationale, but you knew that, yet decided to lie about it
here. Tsk.)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6f553a4.0307230611.5e585010%40posting.google.com
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 04:07:20 PM |
|
|
John Hattan wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Jeffy doesn't care if people lie, as long as they're lies that he likes
to hear.
Yeah. Did you ever see his "It's okay to edit people's posts to make 'em
say other things, but only when I do it" argument? That was funny.
He's a barrel of laughs.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 05:23:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:50:04 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.31.12.26.18.156719@eac.org>...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:34:18 +0000, Bob White wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.22.31.18.421460@eac.org...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:23:43 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.10.30.15.56.13.241418@eac.org>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:39 -0800, Jeff Young wrote:
That in no way absolves anyone who _does_ state "I am atheist" from
proving it.
That is an absolutely nonsensical and utterly stupid idea.
How so? Are you here admitting that the label "atheist" is literally
nothing more than a social convention and that no one can actually
demonstrate that they lack belief in any and all gods? Please explain
yourself.
Explain *yourself. As in, how do you remember to breathe?
I live inside this head, I know there's no belief in gods running around
it. What do you want? A Vulcan mind meld?
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
I wonder if, to be logically consistent, Jeffy demands that anyone who says,
"Jeffy, I believe God exists" to demonstrate that they do?
I wonder if he demands it of people at dinner who say "oh, this is
delicious!"
Thank you for making my point about social convention. (I wonder if
you even realize it.)
Liking something is social convention? So there's no internal experience?
(Oh, and BTW, I accept behavior (including verbal behavior
(statements)) as evidence of the _presence_ of belief, including "I
believe no gods exist" as well as "I believe God exists".
It's the
so-called "weak" atheist definition (lack of all god-belief) that
doesn't have a leg to stand on, evidence-wise. (And since people can
and evidently do hold conflicting beliefs, strong atheism _does_not_
entail weak atheism.))
This makes no sense. If I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in gods.
What "evidence" are you babbling about?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
