| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 11:45:27 AM |
| Object: |
atheist agnostic |
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
The atheist agnostic goes beyond simply having an absence of the irrational
religious belief there might actually be a god to unabashedly deny and
repudiate, on principle, the irrational religious belief there might
actually be a god:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 05:18:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip nonsense>
The argument of your side, that there is no proof there is no God, is
argument from ignorance on your part, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 10:23:28 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
<snip nonsense>
The argument
I deny that there is any such argument.
<snip what has already been denied>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 05:45:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
<snip nonsense>
The argument
I deny that there is any such argument.
That's right, now there isn't any such argument, because you snipped it
and made it magically disappear! What wondrous powers God has given you
theologs! Halleluja!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:45:10 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
<snip nonsense>
The argument
I deny that there is any such argument.
That's right, now there isn't any such argument, because
I deny that Virgil's single (true) statement ever constituted any
argument. There exists no proof that a God does not exist. Isn't it
_your_ requirement, Septic, that non-existence be presumed, in all
cases, until further notice? Evidently you'd like a Special Pleading
exemption in cases of non-existence proofs. No deal.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 08:03:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument from ignorance, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you the
basics?
<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!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 07:58:51 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument
It's denial. The negation in logic, Septic. You know. The thing you
claim never bears any burden of proof. I also deny that a negative
existential statement (like "There exists no proof ...") constitutes an
argument.
Don't you have anything more than your unsupported (nee refuted)
assertions, Septic?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 12:24:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument from ignorance on your part, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
It's denial.
No it isn't, it's just more of your lame argument from ignorance, moron,
not too cleverly reworded. Any way you phrase it, it is still your lame
argument from ignorance that there might be an invisible God because
there is no proof that is false.
You like getting slapped around like this all the time, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 01:54:30 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument
It's denial.
No
Yes sir, two bags full. I _deny_ that there exists a proof that no God
exists. Septic, since you have never explained what you believe is
necessary in addition to the words "I deny that" for something to be a
denial, I deny that there is anything additional necessary for
something to be a denial. And since _you_, Septic, say that denials
never incur any burden of proof whatsoever, _you_, Septic, are
completely hoist on your own petard. Speak up, I can't hear you. <cue
the chirping crickets>
(Also, for you to say that "there exists no ..." is not a denial means
that "there exists no God" is not a denial either, on pain of Special
Pleading. Self-refute much?)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 06:33:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I _deny_ that there exists a proof that no God
exists.
That's textbook theolog argument from ignorance.
<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!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 07:37:38 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I _deny_ that there exists a proof that no God
exists.
That's textbook theolog argument from ignorance.
False.
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic; again>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 02:00:50 AM |
|
|
In article <goGdnWKf58PS74PfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I _deny_ that there exists a proof that no God
exists.
That's textbook theolog argument from ignorance.
This is an instance of Simple Septic committing of a fallacy, not
anyone else.
Jientho's statement merely questions 'there exists a proof that no God
exists.
And according to Simple Septic's own principles, that absolves jientho
from all burden of proof, so his statement cannot be a fallacious
argument as no argument is needed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:41:05 PM |
|
|
In article <MbSdnfC9IYvRV4HfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument from ignorance on your part, moron. Didn't your daddy teach
you the basics?
It's denial.
No it isn't
It is a denial of Simple Septic's claim that no gods exist, and
according to Simple Septic himself, such denials are statements which
bear no burden of proof. And as a simple statement, it is not an
argument at all, it is a denial bearing, according to Simple Septic's
own principles, no burden of proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 12:13:31 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <MbSdnfC9IYvRV4HfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument from ignorance on your part, moron. Didn't your daddy teach
you the basics?
It's denial.
No it isn't
It is a denial of Simple Septic's claim that no gods exist ...
You are a liar, I have never made any such claim, and you know it, moron.
"There is no God" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof ),
moron, it is the denial (the negation) of your assertion that there
might be an invisible God anyway, even though there is no such thing in
evidence, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial; the
full burden of proof in the matter is always on those of you (all you
theists) who are party to the assertion in question, that there might be
an invisible God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 10:22:29 PM |
|
|
In article <caednYTkVOfneYbfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
There exists no proof that a God does not exist.
That's argument from ignorance, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you the
basics?
Simple Septic's daddy must not have taught him anything worth knowing if
Simple Septic can so confuse simple fact with invalid arguemnt as
thoroughly as he does above.
From "the Skeptic's Dictionary, http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
The argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one
claims that something is true only because it hasn't
been proved false, or that something is false only
because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or
falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence
to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or
contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be
true but both can be false, unlike contradictory
claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the
robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the
robbery" are CONTRARY claims--assuming there is no
equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in
Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not
in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are
CONTRADICTORY. A claim is proved true if its
contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is
not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove
that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved
that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator
prove that it isn't.
It is a fact that no one anywhere in this NG has presented any evidence
to show that no gods exist, although a number of mental defects have
claimed that it is true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:23:53 PM |
|
|
In article <8oKdnSVMrryfWYbfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
<snip nonsense>
The argument
I deny that there is any such argument.
That's right
Generous of Simple Septic to admit his error.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 06:30:48 PM |
|
|
In article <B-GdnTpRCeWx8YffRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
<snip nonsense>
[snip lies]
Fair is fair.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Aug 2005 12:32:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Here it is again:
Isn't it the fallacious argument
(the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of you theologs that no one has
ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
Yes:
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Aug 2005 01:39:45 PM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Yes
No, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Aug 2005 02:25:14 PM |
|
|
In article <ZP-dnZunVrfeM3LfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Here it is again:
Isn't it the fallacious argument
(the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of you theologs that no one has
ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
Yes:
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and
glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
Deep Throat (Simple Septic) is presuming that the Christian version of
God must necessarily be the only one that needs to be considered.
There are other alleged gods which have allegedly been seen by humans
and are not, therefore, aleged to be always invisible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Aug 2005 10:08:33 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <ZP-dnZunVrfeM3LfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Here it is again:
Isn't it the fallacious argument
(the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of you theologs that no one has
ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
Yes:
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and
glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
<The gentleman> is presuming that the Christian version of
God must necessarily be the only one that needs to be considered.
There are other alleged gods which have allegedly been seen by humans
and are not, therefore, aleged to be always invisible.
We weren't talking about any hypothetical deity but that one with a capital G,
Jeff's ad hoc hypothetically invisible God/Creator/First Cause, that it's
alleged Holly Babble says it is invisible, knucklehead.
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
for ever and ever. Amen." -- 1 Timothy 1:17
Please try to keep up, or else run along outside and play.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Aug 2005 11:15:14 PM |
|
|
In article <mfqdnZ2dnZ1ASzSQnZ2dna-obd-dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ZP-dnZunVrfeM3LfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Here it is again:
Isn't it the fallacious argument
(the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of you theologs that no one has
ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
Yes:
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and
glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
<The gentleman> is presuming that the Christian version of
God must necessarily be the only one that needs to be considered.
There are other alleged gods which have allegedly been seen by humans
and are not, therefore, aleged to be always invisible.
We weren't talking about any hypothetical deity but that one with a capital
G,
Everyone's god is with a capial G to them, but not necessarily to others.
And the "We" here does not include everyone, since as far as I am
concerned, nobody's "god" is any has any more, or less, credibility
than anyone else's.
As far as I can tell the first person plusal as used by Simple Septic,
now misleadingly calling himself Deep Thought (more like Deep Troat), is
only justifiable by his perrenial schizophrenic behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Aug 2005 12:58:27 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A350FF.22151402082005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <mfqdnZ2dnZ1ASzSQnZ2dna-obd-dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ZP-dnZunVrfeM3LfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <9vCdnXaxMrFk5oTfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108953378.443251.34290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion)
It's a question, not a conclusion, isn't it knucklehead, or is it
that you
can't tell the difference?
Questions can include conclusions
Did mine, moron?
Yes.
It was just a question, wasn't it?.
No.
Here it is again:
Isn't it the fallacious argument
(the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of you theologs that no one has
ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
Yes:
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor
and
glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
<The gentleman> is presuming that the Christian version of
God must necessarily be the only one that needs to be considered.
There are other alleged gods which have allegedly been seen by humans
and are not, therefore, aleged to be always invisible.
We weren't talking about any hypothetical deity but that one with a
capital
G,
Everyone's god is with a capial G ...
Allah is spelled with a G? Don't be stupid, old boy. If Allah were spelled
with g it would be pronounced Gllah, or Golly Gee, or some *****.
How many times do I have to tell you, we are not discussing everybody's
deities, moron, we are discussing the one with a capital G,
Jeff's ad hoc hypothetically invisible God/Creator/First Cause, that it's
alleged Holly Babble says it is invisible, knucklehead.
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and
glory
for ever and ever. Amen." -- 1 Timothy 1:17
Please try to keep up, or else run along outside and play.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Aug 2005 02:35:26 AM |
|
|
In article <49OdnZ2dnZ2f5RuKnZ2dnYj_bd-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com>,
"Jones" <j@nospam.net> wrote:
Everyone's god is with a capital G ...
Allah is spelled with a G?
With a captal, which is the point at issue.
Don't be stupid, old boy. If Allah were spelled
with g it would be pronounced Gllah, or Golly Gee, or some *****.
If Allah were spelled with lower case leading letter, it would be
pronounced exactly the same.
But it is Simple Septic, AKA Deep Throat, and now AKA "Jones" who is the
some ***** in this equation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 05:31:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Isn't it the fallacious argument (the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis) of
you theologs that no one has ever seen God because no one can see
God?
Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
No.
If there were a God visible, then wouldn't somebody have seen it?
Why would it say,"No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18 if there were a
God visible? That wouldn't make sense, would it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:39:13 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Isn't it the fallacious argument (the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of
you theologs that no one has ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
If there were a God visible, then wouldn't somebody have seen it?
No.
Why would it say,"No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18 if there
were a
God visible?
Because no one had ever seen it, even though it was visible.
That wouldn't make sense, would it?
Makes perfect sense. Virgil has even given examples of such things.
You, Septic do not seem to have any cogent response, since all you
offer is your usual Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum here.
You lose.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 10:22:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Isn't it the fallacious argument (the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis)
of
you theologs that no one has ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
If there were a God visible, then wouldn't somebody have seen it?
No.
If God were known to be visible, then would you not be able to explain
precisely how it is that is known to be a true statement (in accord with
the facts), so that anybody could check your observations?
Why would it say,"No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18 if there
were a God visible?
Because no one had ever seen it, even though it was visible.
Where does it say God is visible? If that were the case wouldn't it say
"God is visible; look [wherever God is to be seen] and you will see God"
instead of "No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18?
What you are proposing is an entity that was visible, even though your
Holy Babble says, "No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18? Will you
please explain how that would be known to be true (in accord with the
facts checkable by anybody)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 11:52:48 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Isn't it the fallacious argument (the fallacy of ad hoc
hypothesis)
of
you theologs that no one has ever seen God because no one can see
God?
No.
If there were a God visible, then wouldn't somebody have seen it?
No.
If God were known to be visible, then would you not be able to
explain
precisely how it is that is known to be a true statement (in accord
with
the facts),
No.
so that anybody could check your observations?
What observations? Is there any part of the ocean bottom which is
invisible? What observations give us the knowledge that the answer is
"no"? (Note: there are many many parts of the ocean bottom that have
never been observed.)
Why would it say,"No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18 if there
were a God visible?
Because no one had ever seen it, even though it was visible.
Where does it say God is visible?
In your question, Septic: "if there were a god visible". (Just how
stupid is this Septic fellow?) Is it any easier for you, Septic, if I
use the subjunctive mood: "Because no one had ever seen it, even though
it were visible" ? Presuming for the sake of argument, as _your_
question does, that something is visible, does _not_ entail any
presumption that anyone had ever seen that thing. Was the planet Pluto
invisible in the year 1000 A.D.? Had anyone seen Pluto in or before
the year 1000 A.D.? Sheesh.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 12:17:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known to exist, moron. So are the bottoms of oceans. Stop
trying to change the subject.
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
That is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 01:36:15 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known
It's known that "no one has ever seen X" does not mean the same as "X
is invisible", for any X.
<snip Septic's Fallacy of Special Pleading for God>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 01:57:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known
[unsnip what Jeff can't deal with, so he just snips it, praying to his
God that will make it disappear]
Planets are known to exist, moron. So are the bottoms of oceans. Stop
trying to change the subject.
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
That is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Agnostic atheist
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
What's the difference between agnostic and atheist?
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: Agnostic atheist
| How can an agnostic /not/ be an atheist?
serious question: am i an atheist or an agnostic?
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: You know your an atheist when...EARLE
Proof of God's Existence for the Atheist Fundies out there
Atheist Fools website
Re: Are you a resident atheist Troll in Christian NGs
|
|
|
