| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
26 Feb 2005 02:36:57 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known
It is known that "no one has ever seen" and "is invisible" do not mean
the same thing. Which totally refutes Septic's implication about his
Bible quote.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 10:53:04 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known
It is known that "no one has ever seen" and "is invisible" do not mean
the same thing.
Then your Bible is wrong, God boy?
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his
eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 12:58:24 PM |
|
|
In article <pL6dnXZtReJvZ7zfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known
It is known that "no one has ever seen" and "is invisible" do not mean
the same thing.
Then your Bible is wrong, God boy?
Actually, it is Simple Septic's understanding that is all wrong.
Simple Septic as demonstrated his inability to use dictionaries
correctly time an again, so it is hardly to be wondered at that he
cannot read the Bible with any understanding.
Besides which, I believe that Simple Septic has occasionally expressed
doubts about the Bibles veracity, but here he seems to be taking it as
Gospel.
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis
eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
Anyone can have invisible qualities. Certainly all of Simple Septic's
virtues are quite invisible. Does that make Simple Septic himself
invisible?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 02:41:32 PM |
|
|
In article <sLGdnVRmDMWCHoLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known...
Snip for snip!
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
It is Simple Septic's ad hoc hypothesis that Gods, thingy or not, must
be invisible. So that this hypopothesis is entirely the propoerty of
Simple Septic, and any obligations to provide evidence for it are also
entirely the property of Simple Septic.
That is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
26 Feb 2005 11:01:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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
It's known that "no one has ever seen X" does not mean the same as "X
is invisible", for any X.
There you go again, trying to change the subject. 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
26 Feb 2005 12:54:36 PM |
|
|
In article <nJudnTXjafXANr3fRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
Planets are known...
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
We are discussing Simple Septic's ad hoc hypothetically invisible God
thingy nobody has ever seen, because it is supposed to be invisible.
Note that invisibility is entirely the hypothesis of Simple Septic, as
nobody else cares a rat's ***** about it.
The issue of invisibility is just another of Simple Septic's STRAW MEN,
introduced to direct atention away from the glaring holes in all of
Simple Septic's arguments.
It's known that "no one has ever seen X" does not mean the same as "X
is invisible", for any X.
There you go again, trying to change the subject. We are discussing your
ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody has ever seen.
Actually, Jientho is right on that subject: whether Simple Septic's
hypothesis that gods must be invisible has any merit. The consensus is
that Simple Septic is way off base once more, and that gods, if they
should exist, need not be invisible unless they choose to be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: invisibility is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis |
27 Feb 2005 12:43:59 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility ...
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his
eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one’s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: invisibility is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis |
27 Feb 2005 11:57:27 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility ...
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his
eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one?s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Genesis 22:9
Then went up Moses and Aaron and Abihu, and seventy of
the elder of Israel.
And there they saw the god of Israel, and there was
under his feet as it were, a paved work of sapphire
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
So John was not at all familiar with the OT, where
god is repeatedly seen by men.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: invisibility is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis |
27 Feb 2005 01:56:39 PM |
|
|
In article <uIidnbSRRb5vib_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility ...
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis
eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one¹s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Then why does Simple Septic keep making this ad hoc hypothesis about the
invisibility of gods?
That the Bible says that no one has ever seen the Christian God scarcely
makes that God invisible, much less any others.
That the Bible says that the Christian God has invisible qualities,
even though it also says that these qualities HAVE been seen, scarcely
makes that God invisible, much less any others. I can think of all
sorts of qualities that people have that are invisible, but that does
not create invisible people.
I do not understand why invisibility of gods is so important to Simple
Septic when nobody else cares about it at all. Maybe it has to do with
the way he was weaned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 01:04:49 PM |
|
|
In article <UYCdnSe1YfhZ9oLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
... the bottoms of oceans....
Snip for snip!
Fair is fair!
Actually, I gave Simple Septic one extra word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 01:58:42 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <UYCdnSe1YfhZ9oLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
... the bottoms of oceans....
Snip
unsnip
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 02:53:50 PM |
|
|
In article <sLGdnVdmDMXvHoLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <UYCdnSe1YfhZ9oLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the planet Pluto ...
... the bottoms of oceans....
Snip
unsnip
Planets are known...
Snip for snip!
Fair is fair!
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
Since Simple Septic, and only Simple Septic, hypothesizes
invisibility, it is hardly surprising that what Simple Septic
hypothesizes as invisible has not been seen.
The issue is whether any god, invisible or not, might, as far as we
know, exist or whether our knowledge affirms that all gods are
impossible.
As a practicing agnostic, I cannot not affirm that all gods are
impossible, since I am not aware of any logically convincing evidence of
such impossibility.
Therefore I also cannot reject outright its negation, the possibility
that some god mught exist.
How Simple Septic can justify claiming knowledge without supporting
evidence I do not know, but it can only be by violating the prime
directive of agnosticism:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
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 in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 03:08:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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.
Highly unlikely.
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.
Sure you would. Otherwise you can't reasonably claim it is a statement
objectively known to be true.
so that anybody could check your observations?
What observations?
Precisely. You theologs have no observations you can point out so that
anyone can check your observations, all you can do is make up ad hoc
hypotheses as to why there are no observations of your God, like god is
not visible, "No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 08:04:48 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
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.
Highly unlikely.
Unless it is impossible, your implication is defeated, Septic.
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.
Sure you would.
How is it known that the entire sea bottom is visible?
so that anybody could check your observations?
What observations?
Precisely.
So you admit your complete Red Herring Fallacy, Septic. Very good.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 11:07:11 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109556288.415053.135080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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?
What observations?
Precisely. You theologs have no observations you can point out so that
anyone can check your observations, all you can do is make up ad hoc
hypotheses as to why there are no observations of your God, like god is
not visible, "No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18.
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
So you admit your complete Red Herring
Say whut?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 01:40:59 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109556288.415053.135080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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?
What observations?
Precisely.
So you admit your complete Red Herring Fallacy, Septic. Very good.
Say whut?
Your throwing in "observations" as if observation were a requirement of
visibility is _at_least_ begging that question, in addition to being a
Red Herring Fallacy wrt the question of whether "no one has ever seen"
means the same as "is invisible", Septic. You lose.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Mar 2005 09:13:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1109556288.415053.135080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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?
What observations?
Precisely.
So you admit your complete Red Herring Fallacy, Septic. Very good.
Say whut?
Your throwing in "observations" as if observation were a requirement of
visibility is _at_least_ begging that question, in addition to being a
Red Herring Fallacy wrt the question of whether "no one has ever seen"
means the same as "is invisible", Septic. You lose.
Jef
Exodus 24 claims Moses, his sons Araon and Abihu and 70
elders saw god himself in all his glory. So the question is,
did John screw up or was he just stupid? And in John blew that
one how muc else of his blather is also dead wrong?
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
27 Feb 2005 11:58:41 PM |
|
|
In article <uMadnXkch45jO7_fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109556288.415053.135080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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?
What observations?
Precisely. You theologs have no observations you can point out so that
anyone can check your observations, all you can do is make up ad hoc
hypotheses as to why there are no observations of your God, like god is
not visible, "No one has ever seen God" in John 1:18.
There goes on Simple Septic his invisibility kick again. And what is
all this crap Simple Septic is trying to spread around about people who
do not claim that any gods actually exist being the ones who have to
come up with observations? That should be reserved for the ones who
actually claim that there are gods, not those agnostics and who simply
won't accept Simple Septic's claims without evidence.
So you admit your complete Red Herring?
Say whut?
No words in that sentence of more than two syllables but sSimple Septic
till can't understand it!
So Simple Septic says it was his straw man all the time.
Only one word of more than one syllable. Simple Septic ought to get
that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 05:56:55 PM |
|
|
In article <LbCdnVBwg51_DoLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
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.
Highly unlikely.
Lets see Simple Septic reproduce here the calculations by which Simple
Septic arrived at this conclusion, so that everyone can check those
calculations for themselves!
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.
Sure you would. Otherwise you can't reasonably claim it is a statement
objectively known to be true.
Nobody except Simple Septic is saying that it is true.
What they are saying is that invisibility is not known to be a
necessary attribute of all gods, whereas Simple Septic is trying to
argue that it is.
Enough of Simple Septic's 'ad hoc'ery. Simple Septic keeps making up,
ad hoc, and as STRAW MEN, false meanings for everone's statements
because he has no proper responses to what they actually have said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
26 Feb 2005 10:25:27 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <LbCdnVBwg51_DoLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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.
Sure you would. Otherwise you can't reasonably claim it is a statement
objectively known to be true.
Nobody except Simple Septic is saying that it is true.
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
26 Feb 2005 12:37:58 PM |
|
|
In article <coudnWbhGKlqP73fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <LbCdnVBwg51_DoLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
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.
Sure you would. Otherwise you can't reasonably claim it is a statement
objectively known to be true.
Nobody except Simple Septic is saying that it is true.
We are discussing your ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy nobody
has ever seen.
As invisibility is not a part of any hypotheses of mine, Simple Septic
lies!
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
That is fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
If Simple Septic objects to "No one has ever seen God." , then Simple
Septic must be claiming that someone HAS seen God.
Tell us all about it, Simple Septic, old Sod.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 12:47:59 PM |
|
|
In article <YIudnVyIJrcuzYLfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> 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), so that anybody could check your observations?
Since Simple Septic is the one claiming that gods must be invisible
(and most everyone else is saying either that they don't know or that
they don't care), Simple Septic must explain how that invisibility is
known to be a true statement (in accord with the facts) so that anybody
can check HIS observations.
By the way, Simple Septic, old Sod, you can only know that a god is
invisible if you know that there is a god. Are you finally renouncing
your paranoid anti-theism?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 08:26:32 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.
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.
What say you, Septic?
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.
Still waiting for any cogent response from Septic. <cue the chirping
crickets>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:10:19 PM |
|
|
In article <ta6dnScNtMx0XYbfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
No.
Why...?
I left more of Simple Septic than Simple Septic left of jientho.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 02:55:52 PM |
|
|
In article <hYidnZMOKtyNkIffRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> 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? It was just a question, wasn't it?.
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?
There are several conlusions contrary to fact in that question.
(1) That the argument being criticized is known to be fallacious.
(2) that "we" are all "theologs".
(3) that anyone here has ever made that argument (what has been done
elsewhere is irrelevant).
Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one¹s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
And those ad hoc hypotheses in Simple Septic's question make the
question garbage.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a God in evidence
The fact is that neither evidence for some god existing or evidence
against any god existing is in evidence, so the only reasonable default
position is that WE DO NOT KNOW whether any gods exist.
Anyone who claims to know must also be claiming to get that knowledge
from supernatural source, since there is no natural source for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 05:15:24 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
<snip constant argument from ignorance>
Your argument that there is no proof there is no God is argument from
ignorance on your part, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 06:29:59 PM |
|
|
In article <B-GdnTtRCeUR9offRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip constant argument from ignorance>
Your argument that there is no proof there is no God is argument from
ignorance on your part, moron.
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts as I see
them.
Unless someone comes forward with some proof that there is no God, I
will continue to see things the same way.
Does Simple Septic volunteer to provide that missing proof?
If he cannot, then he is the one behaving moronically.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake" |
|
| Title: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
21 Feb 2005 08:03:48 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <B-GdnTtRCeUR9offRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip constant argument from ignorance>
Your argument that there is no proof there is no God is argument from
ignorance on your part, moron.
<nominated part>
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts as I see
them.
Unless someone comes forward with some proof that there is no God, I
will continue to see things the same way.
</nominated part>
Seconds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
22 Feb 2005 04:46:40 AM |
|
|
In article <UOadnWDLuoWYDoffRVn-tg@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <B-GdnTtRCeUR9offRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip constant argument from ignorance>
Your argument that there is no proof there is no God is argument from
ignorance on your part, moron.
<nominated part>
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts as I see
them.
Unless someone comes forward with some proof that there is no God, I
will continue to see things the same way.
</nominated part>
Seconds?
I done asked you once to lay off this *****. Don't push me. I will
move any seconded TQOTM nominations for "Virgil" to AQOTM. Understood?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
22 Feb 2005 12:47:51 PM |
|
|
*nemo* wrote:
In article <UOadnWDLuoWYDoffRVn-tg@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <B-GdnTtRCeUR9offRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip constant argument from ignorance>
Your argument that there is no proof there is no God is argument from
ignorance on your part, moron.
<nominated part>
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts as I see
them.
Unless someone comes forward with some proof that there is no God, I
will continue to see things the same way.
</nominated part>
Seconds?
I done asked you once to lay off this *****. Don't push me. I will
move any seconded TQOTM nominations for "Virgil" to AQOTM. Understood?
Virgil is a not too cleverly disguised theist, just like Jeff Young,
etc., etc. Ask around. He argues from ignorance that there might be an
invisible God because there is no proof that is false. See above. That
isn't an atheist argument, is it sir?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
