| 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
22 Feb 2005 02:14:43 PM |
|
|
In article <WqednYELwMbE44bfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
*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?
Yes it is an atheist argument, if agnostics are to be counted among the
atheists, since:
(1) it is Simple Septic's false claim that anyone other than Simple
Septic requires invisibility;
(2) Simple Septic commits the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
himself what he says that "there might be a god" is false, because no
one can point to a god and say "There, that is what I am talking about"
(3) "might be" requires "might not be". and no theist would even consent
to sy that there might not be a god, and only someone as totally
confused as Simple Septic could continue make such a horrible mistake.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
23 Feb 2005 04:46:27 AM |
|
|
In article <WqednYELwMbE44bfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
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?
It is an argument that theists sometimes make, yes. However, Virgil is
an agnostic, and since I have no agnostic category, I will not place his
quotes where they don't belong.
--
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] |
23 Feb 2005 11:36:32 AM |
|
|
*nemo* wrote:
In article <WqednYELwMbE44bfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
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?
It is an argument that theists sometimes make, yes.
And only theists, never atheists, right? Anyoone who presents with that
argument cannot be categorized as atheist, since that is standard theist
argument from ignorance.
However, Virgil is
an agnostic, and since I have no agnostic category, I will not place his
quotes where they don't belong.
Place Virgil where he belongs, with the rest of the theists, sir.
Virgil is theist, not agnostic. Anybody who believes as Virgil does that
there might be an invisible God anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence any theist can point to and say, 'There, that's what
I'm talking about', is theist.
All the rest of us are atheist, including those of us who are agnostic,
like Thomas Huxley, who go one step beyond simply having an absence of
belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate the
religious belief there might be a god or gods:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
23 Feb 2005 02:07:28 PM |
|
|
In article <G-KdnYhO1Z2_IoHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
*nemo* wrote:
In article <WqednYELwMbE44bfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
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?
It is an argument that theists sometimes make, yes.
And only theists, never atheists, right?
Wrong! Again!
Actually anyone who is content with "might exist" and does not insist on
"must exist" is supporting "might not exist", which bars them absilutely
from the ranks of theists.
Anyoone who presents with that
argument cannot be categorized as atheist, since that is standard theist
argument from ignorance.
Simple Septic has obviously never met any actual theists
However, Virgil is
an agnostic, and since I have no agnostic category, I will not place his
quotes where they don't belong.
Place Virgil where he belongs, with the rest of the theists, sir.
Then place Simple Septic with the theists too, since he is as definitely
a theist as Virgil.
Virgil is theist, not agnostic.
Simple Septic is equally theist, and even less agnostic, since he claims
to know and believe things for which he can present no logically
convincing evidence and he asserts that there are things one should
believe without logically convincing evidence, both no-nos to agnostics.
Anybody who believes as Virgil does that
there might be an invisible God anyway
Simple Septic lies! I believe that most likely there are no gods, but
that there is no way to prove there are no gods. For lack of this proof,
I will not insist that there are no gods, so I cannot insist that "there
might be, for all we know, a god" is false.
Simple Septic, on the other hand, is quite willing, nay eager, to
proclaim that "there migh be, for all we know, a god" is false, though
how he comes by knowledge of that falsity he is remarkably coy about
explaining.
It is Simple Septic who is in logical difficulties, since he is trying
to decalre that those who have no beleif in the actual existence of any
god must be theists unless they declare that no gods can exist.
I.e., Simple Septic is declaring that only strong atheists
(anti-theists) who actively believe there are no gods are "true"
atheists. While at the same time denying what he claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
24 Feb 2005 12:02:48 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
...
Actually anyone who is content with "might exist" ...
.... is theist.
Anybody who believes as Virgil does that there might be an invisible God
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence any theist can
point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', is theist.
All the rest of us are atheist, including those of us who are agnostic,
like Thomas Huxley, who go one step beyond simply having an absence of
belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate the
religious belief there might be a god or gods:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
24 Feb 2005 12:56:19 PM |
|
|
In article <JaSdnfZtpeRUi4PfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
Actually anyone who is content with "might exist" ...
[unsnip]
Wrong! Again!
Actually anyone who is content with "might exist" and does not insist
on "must exist" is supporting "might not exist", which bars them
absolutely from the ranks of theists.
... is theist.
So that iSimple Septic s arguing that most atheists are theists again.
Anybody who believes as Virgil does
is agnostic as Virgil is.
Anyone who believes as Simple Septic does is anti-agnostic anti-theist
anti-logical, anti-sensical, with anti's in his pantys.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination - Virgil [was: atheist agnostic] |
21 Feb 2005 08:47:52 PM |
|
|
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?
Perhaps it should be pointed out that "there is no proof there is a god"
is also a statement of the facts as I see them, and that both will
remain the way I see things until there is proof one way or the other.
Both of these statements are good agnostic skepticism in action.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 05:40:19 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.
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts
Not at all, it's just more of your constant argument from ignorance, moron.
How could there actually be such a thing as God The Creator/The First
Cause when the very idea of such a thing has a logically fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in it?
The theist idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God®)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:55:10 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic 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.
"There is no proof there is no God" is a statement of the facts
Not at all,
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God. Stop trying
to shift your burden to that denial, Septic. It makes you a complete
hypocrite.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScotMc" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 07:06:12 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 07:56:55 PM |
|
|
In article <kPQSd.19083$2M1.4656@fe08.lga>,
"ScotMc" <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
Who gets to define "evil"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 10:54:46 PM |
|
|
ScotMc Feb 22, 5:06 pm wrote:
<jien...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
I would say the "problem of evil" is a very damning argument against
the existence of God as trditionally defined by classical western
philosophy.
Whether you would (or should) call it "proof" is rather difficult.
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
(There are a virtually limitless number of "Gods" and you would need a
limitless variety of "proofs" to kill them all!)
There is a more general problem with "proof" - there are differnt kinds
of proof - if you have some training in mathematics then you will be
familiar with proof in the formal sense - then there is the idea of
"proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof on the balance of
probabilities" and other such formula used in law - and in "real life"
in general.
The bottom line is:
People don't believe or disbelieve because of proof.
So it really is a red herring in discussions about religious faith and
its lack.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 08:42:04 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
ScotMc Feb 22, 5:06 pm wrote:
<jien...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
I would say the "problem of evil" is a very damning argument against
the existence of God as trditionally defined by classical western
philosophy.
Whether you would (or should) call it "proof" is rather difficult.
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
(There are a virtually limitless number of "Gods" and you would need
a
limitless variety of "proofs" to kill them all!)
There is a more general problem with "proof" - there are differnt
kinds
of proof - if you have some training in mathematics then you will be
familiar with proof in the formal sense - then there is the idea of
"proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof on the balance of
probabilities" and other such formula used in law - and in "real
life"
in general.
The bottom line is:
People don't believe or disbelieve because of proof.
So it really is a red herring in discussions about religious faith
and
its lack.
Hi Mark!
I don't agree with all you say above, but I completely agree with your
bottom line. Thanks for jumping in!
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 11:42:16 AM |
|
|
<piggyback>
Richo wrote:
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
Which is the logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:21:39 PM |
|
|
In article <YamdncbNM5jkXYHfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<piggyback>
Richo wrote:
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
Which is the logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
Not necessarily. There are all sorts of notions of "god" already out
there. Someone who says "all gods are impossible" must prove each of
them impossible, not just some particular ones.
When one argues that the "problem of evil" disproves the existence of
all gods, and someone points out a version of god not disproved by that
argument, one has failed to prove all gods impossible.
Didn't you learn ANYTHING at your daddy's knee, Simple Septic, old Capon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 12:48:45 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <YamdncbNM5jkXYHfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<piggyback>
Richo wrote:
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
Which is the logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
Not necessarily. There are all sorts of notions of "god" ...
.... and evidently each one of those notions is an ad hoc hypothesis,
which is logical fallacy, moron:
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
24 Feb 2005 01:32:30 PM |
|
|
In article <H6adncPyVv8TvIPfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <YamdncbNM5jkXYHfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<piggyback>
Richo wrote:
There are many "outs" that have been used - The Deist God for example
is not vulnerable to the problem of evil - So the minute you lay a
glove on "God" he can transform into a different "God" that is not
susceptable to whatever argument you use against it.
Which is the logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
Not necessarily. There are all sorts of notions of "god" ...
... and evidently each one of those notions is an ad hoc hypothesis,
And what is Simple Septic's evidence for this "evidently" claim?
As the origins of most of these notions of god are lost in the past,
there can only be ad hoc hypotheses on how they came about.
So it is Simple Septic who is the one guilty of ad hoc-ery.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 08:36:51 AM |
|
|
ScotMc wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
In brief, I think it fails to constitute proof of non-existence. You
can look up my previous defenses in the google archive. In summary,
for anything you might consider evil there are possible goods that are
intractably logically dependent on it (examples are easy), a God cannot
coherently be expected to violate logic (else S/He could exist despite
even rock-solid logical disproofs of existence), and no human, all of
us being non-omniscient, is in a position to say whether the original
evil outweighs all possible follow-on goods logically dependent on it.
IOW, the most we can logically expect from a God is the maximization of
good over evil (not destruction of all evil since that _could_ destroy
even more good), and no one is capable of determining whether such
maximization is actually occurring (God or not).
The counter-arguments to my defense all seem to boil down to argument
from outrage/incredulity (invoking the supposedly most evil examples
from the past) and/or implicit claims of omniscience ("everyone knows",
fallacy of hyperbole on "there is widespread agreement that").
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 11:46:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
ScotMc wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
In brief, I think it fails to constitute proof of non-existence. ...
Nobody has to prove there is no God, moron, you theologs have the full
burden of proof in the matter. That's why the only reasonable default
presumption, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal
court, is 'No God'.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:05:51 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
ScotMc wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
In brief, I think it fails to constitute proof of non-existence.
....
Nobody has to prove there is no God,
Is this your way of agreeing that there exists no proof of
non-existence, Septic?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:24:44 PM |
|
|
In article <-fqdncKscLUQXIHfRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
ScotMc wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109120110.549106.88840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
What do you think about the "problem of evil"?
In brief, I think it fails to constitute proof of non-existence. ...
Nobody has to prove there is no God
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Simple Septic has yet to prove his assertion that nobody has to prove
that ther is no god.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
And Simple Septic keeps trying to shift the burden of proving
"Nobody has to prove there is no God"
onto someone else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 08:00:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance like that is logical fallacy, moron. Didn't your
daddy teach you the basics?
And, you are too late with your protest. Bertrand Russell showed long
ago why the idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, is summarily rejected.
The theist idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for God®)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 07:51:47 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument
Denial. And an existential denial at that. If existential denials are
arguments, Septic, then you've got a huge self-refutation problem. And
stop trying to shift your full burden onto my denial, since denials
incur _no_ burden of proof according to _you_, hypocrite.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 12:18:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No it isn't, it is just more of your lame argument from ignorance, not
too cleverly reworded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:16:58 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No
Yes sir, three bags full. I deny that there exists any such proof.
That is a denial by inspection, Septic. Flail against it all you like,
ya moron.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 10:37:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No
Yes sir, three bags full. I deny that there exists any such proof.
That is a denial by inspection
No it isn't, it is just more of your lame argument from ignorance, not
too cleverly reworded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 11:27:30 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No
Yes sir, three bags full. I deny that there exists any such proof.
That is a denial by inspection
No
Yes, sir, four bags full. I deny that there exists any such proof.
That is a denial by inspection.
<snip Septic failing to demonstrate any additional requirements for a
statement to be a denial other than starting with "I deny ...">
Flail all you like against the extremely obvious, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 12:59:05 PM |
|
|
In article <LZ6dnZPd37zNyYLfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No
Yes sir, three bags full. I deny that there exists any such proof.
That is a denial by inspection...
No it isn't
That is denial by snipping. I can do it, too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
23 Feb 2005 02:37:30 PM |
|
|
In article <3qCdnYhqd8lrVYHfRVn-1A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance.
Denial.
No it isn't, it is just more of your lame argument from ignorance, not
too cleverly reworded.
Then Simple Septic is reversing himself again. Perhaps all these sudden
reversals are what keeps him so dizzy.
Simple Septic has claimed times out of mind that the denial of any
statement cannot be questioned and is not subject to proof, but now,
when someone denies one of his statements, he reneges.
Simple Septic must want to change his rule to say
"My denials are not subject to any burden of proof,
but denials of my claims are all fallacies."
he might as well try, since the new form is no more valid than the old.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 10:14:21 PM |
|
|
In article <ZsSdnbOVcO4_fobfRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
I deny that there exists any proof that there is no God.
Argument from ignorance like that is logical fallacy, moron. Didn't your
daddy teach you the basics?
But Simple Septic is now denying his own assertion that denials need no
proof. How Simple Septic claim something to be a principle of valid
argument(logic) and at the same time claim that it is the fallacy of
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam?
Oh, that's right, Simple Septic's daddy didn't teach him the basics.
And, you are too late with your protest. Bertrand Russell showed long
ago why the idea of God®, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, is summarily rejected.
The closest that Russell ever came to that is when he says "...you can
see that the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that
cannot have any validity...". Emphasis added.
And only Simple Septic can misread that as anything like a summary
rejection of the very idea.
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
