| 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: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 06:22:53 PM |
|
|
In article <aOudnTT4-NJ7X4bfRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@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.
"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.
Then Simple Septic must be claiming to have evidence that it is not
true. Why don't you just show us that evidence, Simple Septic? Either
that or admit that there is no such evidence, and that there is, indeed,
no evidence in evidence to contradict "There is no proof there is no
God".
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?
Assumes a condition contrary to fact.
The only person who claims that the POSSIBILITY of a god involves any
logical fallacy is Simple Septic himself. No one else says so.
Bertrand Russell merely points out, in Simple Septic's own citation:
"... you can see that the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity..."
-- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Which say nothing about the POSSIBILITY, only about the NECESSITY, of a
Forst Cause and a God.
In fact Russell elsewhere says that he knows of no way to prove the
non-existence of any gods, not even the greek ones. So he is hardly one
to cite as saying otherwise.
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 02:08:28 PM |
|
|
In article <9-udnSM3YsU9FYrfRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <gOqdnWX5oJOugovfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Here is the situation in this case:
You have an assertion on the table, an assertion that there might be an
invisible something...
Wrong!
Invisibility is an ad hoc hypothesis entirely of Simple Septic 's
creation and has not been hypothesized by anyone else.
You are mistaken. Look at the ad hoc hypothesis in John 1:18.
"No one has ever seen God." -- John 1:18
Up until recently, no one had seen the back side of the moon, but it has
never been invisible.
Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute onešs theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Right, but it is Simple Septic doing the ad hoc'ing.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a God in evidence, else you
would be explaining how it is that is known to be true so that anybody
could check your observations
Actually, neither I nor any other agnostic has ever said that there was
a god (or God) in evidence. That Simple Septic regularly capializes the
word indicates that he has more faith in it than we do.
What we agnostics have repeatedly said is that the impossibility of gods
is not any more in evidence than their actuality, so that the question
of whether there are any gods remains open. And as far as science, and
therefore agnosticism, is concerned, that question is likely to remain
open.
What Simple Septic has against our neutral agnosticism he has never
bothered to explain, he just keeps trying to shove us in with the
theists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 04:21:14 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... the impossibility of gods
is not any more in evidence than their actuality ...
That is textbook 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 05:48:57 PM |
|
|
In article <AO2dneBBv8-akojfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cOadneARYunyvInfRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITS SNOT...
... every proposition is the denial of another proposition ...
Here is the situation in this case:
I deny that what you posted is the situation in this case.
The more you keep on denying the facts the more you keep on showing the
world what an ignoramus you are, moron.
Here is the situation in this case:
You have an assertion on the table, an assertion that there might be an
invisible something anyway, even though you cannot point out any such
thing so that anybody can check your observations.
And such an assertion naturally includes that there might NOT be that
something (invisibility irrelevant) anyway. Simple Septic always seems
to ignore this part of "might", that it allows for "might not".
The denial (the negation) of your assertion denies that your assertion
is true.
To deny that an assertion is true proclaims it false, and requires its
own proof. Unless one denies the law of the excluded middle as well.
To question an assertion expresses doubt whether the assertion is true,
usually in the form of doubting whether the proofs offered are
sufficiently conclusive.
The denial (the negation) of an assertion is not an assertion, it is the
denial of one.
To deny that an assertion is true proclaims it false, and requires its
own proof. Unless one denies the law of the excluded middle as well.
"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." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Simple Septic equivocates on the meaning of "denies" in the above.
To deny that an assertion has been sufficiently proved is to question
it, and this bears no burden of proof of its own. this is the meaning of
the quote above.
To deny that as assertion is true is to proclaim it false, and this
bears as much of a burden of proof as the assertion itself. This is NOT
what is meant in the quite above by "denies or questions".
Simple Septic, thy name is Equivocate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 08:22:32 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility irrelevant ...
Is there a visible deity in evidence you can point out so that others
can check your observations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 09:38:48 PM |
|
|
In article <Eu-dnW2J6sf0zIjfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility irrelevant ...
Is there a visible deity in evidence you can point out so that others
can check your observations?
How is the distinction between visible versus invisible in descriptions
of something as amorphously defined as a god add anything to any
discussion?
If such a distinction were of even trivial importance, surely even
someone as stupid as Simple Septic could think of a reason why the
distinction should be made. Simple Septic has not done so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 10:58:06 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Eu-dnW2J6sf0zIjfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility irrelevant ...
Is there a visible deity in evidence you can point out so that others
can check your observations?
How is the distinction between visible versus invisible in descriptions
of something as amorphously defined ...
You mean ad hoc hypothetically defined as invisible.
Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute ones theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 05:05:10 PM |
|
|
In article <gOqdnWr5oJMDg4vfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Eu-dnW2J6sf0zIjfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... invisibility irrelevant ...
Is there a visible deity in evidence you can point out so that others
can check your observations?
How is the distinction between visible versus invisible in descriptions
of something as amorphously defined ...
You mean ad hoc hypothetically defined as invisible.
It is Simple Septic's ad hoc definition, not anyone else's.
Logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis:
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute onešs theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Like Simple Septic ad hoc hypothesizes invisibility?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 12:43:46 PM |
|
|
In article <iMadnWaQ0di8MYnfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cOadneARYunyvInfRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:ITS SNOT...
... every proposition is the denial of another proposition ...
Not every statement is an assertion (statement standing in need of proof),
moron, some are not assertions, they are the denial (the negation) of an
assertion, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial because
shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy. What is there about this
simple principle of valid argument that you and Jeff are having such a
difficult time grasping?
We cannot grasp why Simple Septic claims that there exists such a
principle when nobody else does, including Copi and all the other
experts.
Negation, at least in logic, is not the same as merely denying that
something has been proven true. Negation of any statement is the claim
that that statement if false. And any such claim of falsehood bears as
much burden of proof as a claim of truth. Copi and all other logicians
agree that claims of truth and claims of falsehood are equivalent in
their need for proofs.
What is there about this simple principle of valid argument that Simple
Septic is having such a difficult time grasping?
It is a basic principle of valid argument <informal logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic> that the burden of proof
of a claim of falsehood is the same as for a claim of truth.
Trying to shift the burden of proof from the denial (the negation) is logical
fallacy, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
"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." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
The denial mentioned here is mere questioning, not negating, the truth
of the original. Simple Septic is equivocating on the word 'denial'
Simple Septic uses "denial(negation)" in one place and "denies or
questions" in another, implying that to question an assertion is
equivalent to asserting its negation. Which is false.
You cannot shift the burden of proof to the atheists, moron.
If someone who claims to be atheist also claims something that requires
proof, the supposed mantle of atheism does not absolve him of a need for
proof.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove
They may have nothing to prove about whether they are atheists, but they
have as much to prove as anyone else about anything else, and claims of
impossibility of gods in not pretected by their atheism, as it is not
essential to atheism.
How many times will Simple Septic try to avoid his obligationsto prove
his claims by hiding under the claim that atheism absolves him of all
such obligations.
Those statements that assert nothing, say nothing.
Here is the situation in this case:
You have an assertion on the table, an assertion that there might be an
invisible something anyway
Not quite. What I have asserted is that we do not have any proof to the
contrary assertion that gods are impossible, so that we cannot claim
that the possibility of a god is known to be false.
Get it right for once, Simple Septic, old Troll. It is a STRAW MAN
fallacy to attack an argument that no one makes.
The denial (the negation) of your assertion denies that your assertion
is true.
Negation of any assertion asserts that it is false, as that is what
negation means in logic.
negation
(logic) a proposition that is true if and only if
another proposition is false
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
The denial (the negation) of an assertion is not an assertion,
The questioning of an asertion is need not be an assertion but the
negating of an assertion is always an assertion.
Simple Septic equivocates on the word "denial" to switch between these
two meanings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 03:05:53 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance last time I checked, moron.
<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 |
17 Feb 2005 03:13:23 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance
I deny that a single assertion is an argument from ignorance.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 06:51:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance
I deny that a single assertion is an argument from ignorance.
It's just more of your theolog style textbook argument from ignorance to
the effect that there might actually be an ad hoc hypothetically
invisible something, and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo or
Atheistagnostic could not prove false. It's a fallacious argument as old
as the hills.
<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 |
17 Feb 2005 07:51:33 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance
I deny that a single assertion is an argument from ignorance.
It's just more
I deny it.
<snip what has already been denied>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 09:32:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1IadnYAgw96_oYjfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance
I deny that a single assertion is an argument from ignorance.
It's just more of your theolog
"Theolog" is as applicable to any of Simple Septic's statements a anyone
else's here, so as a pejorative, it fails.
The rest of Simple Septic's stuff is just repeats of his old lies in his
old language, nothing new and nothing worth reading, so I snipped it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 05:06:24 PM |
|
|
In article <zJ-dnXe16ZSumojfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...
What I have asserted is that we do not have
any proof that gods are impossible ...
That was still argument from ignorance last time I checked, moron.
Check again, submoron.
Assertions unacompanied by arguments are not arguments of any sort, much
less, Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.
If Simple Septic were to learn the difference between an assertion and
an argument, he might save himself from such embarrassments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 06:28:37 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Assertions unacompanied by arguments are not arguments of any sort, much
less, Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.
You have never heard of the fallacy of attempting to argue by assertion?
You should have heard of it, since your side tries to get away with it
all the time.
But what is in question here is your argument that there might be a
magic invisible something because there is no proof that hypothesis is
false.
That argument is definitely textbook argument from ignorance, moron:
<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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 09:09:22 PM |
|
|
In article <CsCdnTAyFcErq4jfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Assertions unacompanied by arguments are not arguments of any sort, much
less, Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.
You have never heard of the fallacy of attempting to argue by assertion?
No! It does not appear in any encyclopedia of logical terms.
Perhaps when Simple Septic has written and pubished his own
encyclopedia of logic, it will contain this and his other logical
inventions, carefully overlooked by all the standard logical reference
works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 09:46:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <CsCdnTAyFcErq4jfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Assertions unacompanied by arguments are not arguments of any sort, much
less, Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.
You have never heard of the fallacy of attempting to argue by assertion?
No!
Then you are an ignoramus.
Fallacy of proof by assertion:
If some vague waffle about why P is true does not satisfy the class, the
lecturer simply says, "This point should be intuitively obvious. I've
explained it as clearly as I can. If you still cannot see it, you will
just have to think very carefully about it yourselves, and then you will
see how trivial and obvious it is."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 11:29:38 PM |
|
|
In article <r9mdnf_rMPe1-IjfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <CsCdnTAyFcErq4jfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Assertions unacompanied by arguments are not arguments of any sort, much
less, Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.
You have never heard of the fallacy of attempting to argue by assertion?
No!
Then you are an ignoramus.
Then Google is equally ignorant, since it returned zero hits for the
phrase "Fallacy of proof by assertion".
If it exists somewhere outside of the through_the_looking_glass world of
Simple Septic, he should be able to give a Google reference or some URL
to justify that existence.
Fallacy of proof by assertion:
If some vague waffle about why P is true does not satisfy the class, the
lecturer simply says, "This point should be intuitively obvious. I've
explained it as clearly as I can. If you still cannot see it, you will
just have to think very carefully about it yourselves, and then you will
see how trivial and obvious it is."
It sounds like the sort of thing Simple Septic would try, but I have
never had occasion to try it myself.
Does it work for you, Simple Septic, old Capon?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 03:21:15 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the tube.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 08:29:39 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the
tube.
False. Counterexample: five-year-old with hand in cookie jar and
crumbs on mouth and shirt says "I didn't eat any". Septic, you are
that five-year-old. The accused does not get to claim "not guilty" and
demand a new trial simply on that basis after being convicted. _That_
would be a mockery of any justice system, and it's what Septic suggests
when he suggests _everyone_ who makes a "not guilty" statement must be
presumed not guilty.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 10:11:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the
tube.
... five-year-old with hand in cookie jar ...
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 01:51:01 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down
the
tube.
... five-year-old with hand in cookie jar ...
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion
Incorrect, obviously, Septic. You did not specify any particular "not
guilty" statement, so you are refuted by my counterexample. But since
you cannot face that fact, you resort to Fallacies of Diversion.
You also snipped my application of the example to _your_ exact context
-- court of law -- clearly relevant. Evidently yet another example of
Septical Dishonesty. Wassamatter Septic, can't handle the truth? Heh!
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 12:14:13 AM |
|
|
In article <CamdnVI5Dr-U9ojfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
Irrelevant response deleted. Answer the question, moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 05:12:58 PM |
|
|
In article <_9ydnWOsiutQl4jfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the tube.
Simple Septic's response does not answer the question.
I repeat: Whyever not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 06:10:28 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <_9ydnWOsiutQl4jfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the tube.
... does not answer the question.
Yes it does, moron. You not being bright enough to understand that it
answers the question does not change anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 08:55:59 PM |
|
|
In article <GridnQX1EdTor4jfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <_9ydnWOsiutQl4jfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the tube.
... does not answer the question.
Yes it does, moron.
The presence in it of an argumentum ad hominem invalidates that claim.
How does the existence of negations eliminate the need for a word for
negations? It does not do so in mathematics, in fact the existence of
negation in mathematics REQUIRES the existence of a word for it. Why
would logic be so different?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 09:55:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <GridnQX1EdTor4jfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <_9ydnWOsiutQl4jfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the tube.
... does not answer the question.
Yes it does, moron.
The presence in it of an argumentum ad hominem invalidates that claim.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Plus, you always call anything you please a "claim," even if it is not a
claim, it is the denial (the negation) of one, while you are trying to
get away with shifting the burden of proof, moron. That's your tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
17 Feb 2005 11:58:02 PM |
|
|
In article <N6-dnXKYEbqy-ojfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <GridnQX1EdTor4jfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <_9ydnWOsiutQl4jfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ofednSUMjeQPIY7fRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@nospam.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108583831.019644.27280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... every proposition is the negation
of another proposition ...
If so, then we would not have the term, 'denial' (negation)
Whyever not?
If you can shift the burden of proof to everyone who makes a "Not
guilty" statement, then logic (and justice along with it) is down the
tube.
... does not answer the question.
Yes it does, moron.
The presence in it of an argumentum ad hominem invalidates that claim.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Plus, you always call anything you please a "claim," even if it is not a
claim, it is the denial (the negation) of one, while you are trying to
get away with shifting the burden of proof, moron. That's your tell.
Anything that implies that something is either true or that something is
false is a proposition in logic or a claim in less formal argument.
In logic the negation of any proposition is just another proposition
with truth and falsehood swapped. And in less formal argument, negation
of a claim of truth is just a claim of falsehood and vice versa.
To try and get any proposition or claim accepted as true without proof,
or false without proof is the deadliest sin in logic, formal or informal.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, 1893.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 11:14:25 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In logic the negation of any proposition is just another proposition
No sir, the assertion in question in any particular case (say, "Guilty"
for examle) is one thing, and the denial (the negation) of that
assertion ("No guilt") is something different, it is the denial (the
negation of an assertion, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial (the negation) under any pretext. Understand?
If what you say were true, then the moment the accused denied the
prosecution's charge by saying, 'Not guilty," the prosecutor would be
perfectly justified in saying, "Now you have the full burden of proof in
this matter," thereby shifting the burden of proof to the accused!
But that ain't how the principles of valid argument (informal, plain
language logic) are arranged, moron. The denial (the negation) of an
assertion is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation) under any
pretext, as your side are trying to get away with.
"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]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
