| 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 |
27 Feb 2005 10:32:08 PM |
|
|
In article <B8udnYPEVa3mDr_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109556602.187253.151030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Virgil wrote:
In article <CuydnRUD3p3Gn7_fRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... in the wrong
In your *****.
That is the argument of someone who has all the logic against him.
Absolutely.
If that were true, then you nitwits wouldn't be constantantly trying to
argument _ad hominem_ me to death, would you, *****?
When someone has to resort to "*****" arguments, one can be fairly
certain he has nothing better to offer.
And though Simple Septic has often claimed that others have committed
an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, he has never been able to make his claims
fit the definitin of an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and he carefully
omits any reference to the many occasions that he has been shown to have
committed Argumentum ad Ignorantiam's with thorough analyses to prove
the cahrge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
25 Feb 2005 05:50:59 PM |
|
|
In article <rLydnXmWnrWZD4LfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence, as you point out in your
if/then
argument there might be a God, the irrational religious belief
that
there might be a God anyway,
... "Might be a God anyway" does not mean the same as
"God _does_ exist".
Isn't it true that your God is not in evidence, so all you can do is argue
that there might be a God anyway, even though there is no such thing in
evidence you can point out and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking
about', all you can do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to the
atheists?
That doesn't make "might be a God anyway" mean the same as "God
_does_
exist", Septic, even if true. So why do you introduce such an
obvious
Red Herring Fallacy, Septic, to try to mask your prior Equivocation
Fallacy? Isn't it because you remain the completely fallacious,
mendacious, and stupid old idiot fool loser of alt.atheism as always?
Is your non-response to be taken as a "yes", Septic?
Jeff
You know better than that, moron.
But I will take your clear inability to respond to my question as clear
indication that you cannot deal with it, so you just snip it, praying to
your evidently imaginary God that will make it disappear.
As Simple Septic's question implies conditions contrary to fact, it
cannot be answered except by disputing those conditions.
For example, Simple Septic implies (1) that the god in question is the
personal possession of jientho, and (2) that jientho's only arguments
are those concerning that god, and (3) jientho is trying to shift
something onto athesists, among other things, ansd all of these are
contrary to fact. Thus any question implying these things has no valid
answer other than denial that they are true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
28 Feb 2005 07:15:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence, as you point out in your
if/then
argument there might be a God, the irrational religious belief
that
there might be a God anyway,
... "Might be a God anyway" does not mean the same as
"God _does_ exist".
Your God is not in evidence
<snip Jeff's evasion>
I will take your evasion of the issue as your indication that it is
true, your God is not in evidence, all you can do is argue from
ignorance that there might be a god anyway, an this hypothesis even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false (standard textbook theolog
argument from ignorance):
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 01:52:46 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence, as you point out in your
if/then
argument there might be a God, the irrational religious belief
that
there might be a God anyway,
... "Might be a God anyway" does not mean the same as
"God _does_ exist".
Your God is not in evidence
That does not disprove "there might be a god". (Septic's implication
otherwise is an obvious Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.) Nor
does it demonstrate that the above two phrases mean the same. In fact,
Septic's reply is a Red Herring Fallacy wrt the topic that is genuinely
under discussion. (And BTW Septic, there exist things which are not in
evidence. As evidenced by the history of past discovery (inductive
argument).)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 04:44:33 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109706766.831910.64740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
... there might be a god ...
Because there is no proof your hypothesis is false? That is just more of
your textbook theolog argument from ignorance, moron. Didn't your daddy
teach you the basics?
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 08:29:41 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109706766.831910.64740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
... there might be a god ...
Because ...
Nothing Septic has said disproves "there might be a god", despite
Septic's impotent protestations. It is thus Septic's Fallacy of
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to intimate that "there might be a god" is
false.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Mar 2005 03:01:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Nothing Septic has said disproves "there might be a god" ...
That's the same type of argument _ad ignorantiam_ these other thologs,
of Galileo's time, are resorting to, 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 |
02 Mar 2005 07:41:08 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Nothing Septic has said disproves "there might be a god" ...
That's the same type of argument
False. I deny it is the same type of argument. Because the phrases
"the moon was a perfect sphere" and "the moon is in fact a perfect
sphere" below do not admit of "might", as in "there might be a god", as
has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, Septic. Not that my denial
requires any support whatsoever, according to you, Septic. OTOH,
_your_ type of argument is Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum every time
you repeat it, Septic, because it has already been soundly refuted.
<snip Septic's Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum; again>
Jeff
<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)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Mar 2005 08:36:48 PM |
|
|
In article <YcGdnSqd2-gQtLvfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Nothing Septic has said disproves "there might be a god" ...
That's the same type of argument _ad ignorantiam_
For it to be an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the argument would have to
say MUST, not merely might.
What is not known to be true, might be, as far as anyone knows, false.
What is not known to be false, might be, as far as anyone knows, true.
To deny either of these is an act of ignorance.
Absence of proof that "there cannot be any god" is true sufficient to
establish that it might be false, equivalently, there might be, for all
that anyone knows, at least one god.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 05:09:06 PM |
|
|
In article <IoidnXbw8-PNbbnfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109706766.831910.64740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
... there might be a god ...
Because there is ...
Whatever!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
28 Feb 2005 09:30:07 PM |
|
|
In article <erydnZIkovzZX77fRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence, as you point out in your
if/then
argument there might be a God, the irrational religious belief
that
there might be a God anyway,
... "Might be a God anyway" does not mean the same as
"God _does_ exist".
Your God is not in evidence
<snip Jeff's evasion>
<snip Simple Septic's evasion.
"Might be a god" does not require that there must be a god. So lack of
evidence for gods is not evidence for a lack of gods.
Now evidence of a lack of gods would be relevant evidence, but no such
relevant evidence has ever been produced here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 02:03:23 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... lack of
evidence for gods is not evidence for a lack of gods.
Lame (invalid) argument.
We weren't discussing the idea of gods in general, moron, we were
discussing your idea there might be an invisible God The first
Cause/Creator. No evidence for a lack of God is required, moron. You
can't shift the burden of proof to the atheists. Atheists have nothing
(no thing) to prove, only your side does, your God thingy.
"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]
Burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to
defend a position against a prima facie other position. Prima facie is a
Latin expression meaning "at first sight." That which is evident at
first sight in this case is that there is no God in evidence.
That puts the full burden of proof in the matter on your side, moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
01 Mar 2005 03:04:43 PM |
|
|
In article <gI-dnc74SLsTV7nfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... lack of
evidence for gods is not evidence for a lack of gods.
Lame (invalid) argument.
We weren't discussing the idea of gods in general, moron, we were
discussing your idea there might be an invisible God The first
Cause/Creator.
Simple Septic may have been concentrating on his "invisible God the
First Cause/Creator", but we agnostics are more generalist.
"Lack of evidence for gods is not evidence for a lack of gods" remains
true by the general logical principle that absence of evidence for the
existence of something does not constitutes conclusive evidence of the
non-existence of that thing.
I know that Simple Septic has a lot of trouble with the general
principles of logic. This is just one more of the many examples of his
inability to accept anything as logical that does not conform to his
violent prejudices.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 12:55:26 PM |
|
|
In article <NJqdnRcKlfq1F5LfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence,
As is Simple Septic's counter argument that gods are impossible.
<snip argument _ad hominem>
... "Might be a God anyway" does not mean the same as
"God _does_ exist".
Your God is not in evidence...
Simple Septic's impossibility of God is also not in evidence, but Simple
Septic's bad faith is clearly in evidence in each and every one of his
postings.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 05:22:58 PM |
|
|
In article <nKudndDJ4-O8GpPfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
[unsnip]
Septic, theists', or anyone's, attempts to convince you to accept that
a God might exist, in no way demonstrates that such acceptance would
make you a theist. As you've been told by every responder, theism
requires belief that at least one God _does_ exist.
Yes, belief without any evidence, as you point out in your if/then
argument there might be a God, the irrational religious belief that
there might be a God anyway, even though there is nothing any of you
theists can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about' so
that anybody can check your observations.
As anyone can plainly see, Simple Septic snips so that he will not have
to deal with the actual issue, but only with some phony issue, a straw
man, that he makes up out of whole cloth, because he cannot deal with
the real issues.
I've been to church lots of times, spoken with lots of Christers,
Jews, and Islamists over the years, read most of your posts in alt dot
atheism over the last few years, and heard Dubya Bush speak several
times, and I can report that in each case the true-believers were trying
to get me to share in their irrational religious belief there might be
What Christers, or members of any other formal theistic religion, has
Simple Septic met who would accept that there might not be a god? An
inevitable consequence of accepting that there only might be a god ( but
need not be one) is that one is forced to also accept that there might
not be one.
I find the existence of such might-be-ists a good deal less convincing
than the existence of Simple Septic's Magical Invisible Space Pixies.
"Might-be-ists" are not theists, at least outside the warped brain of
Simple Septic. Theists are all "must-be-ists".
Find me any 'might-be-ist' creed, Simple Septic, before you post this
lie again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 07:39:19 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... the real issue.
The real issue here is this proposition you and Jeff Young and others
are championing, that there might actually be a God The Creator/First
Cause anyway, even though that idea is summarily rejected due to the
logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it.
Let me know if you ever come up with a work-around for the issue of the
special pleading. (You would be the first.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 08:26:52 PM |
|
|
In article <J7SdnTlq6s1VMpPfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... the real issue.
The real issue here is this proposition
that is Simple Septic championing that gods are impossible.
Let me know if you ever come up with a work-around for the issue of the
special pleading. (You would be the first.)
If Simple Septic is arguing that any sort of special pleading
invalidates the conclusion pled for, then he has managed to falsify his
mantra of the impossibility of gods by his special pleading that it
does not need proof.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 01:08:42 PM |
|
|
In article <DoqdnUFqh6qnIpDfRVn-qQ@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:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes, all you theists hold an irrational religious belief with no
basis in fact that there might be
Fallacy of Equivocation
In what way is that equivocation
"Belief that there might be" does not mean the same as "belief that
at
least one ... exists".
How does that alter the fact that all ... theist[s] ... share an
... belief ... that there might be a
... (God)
That belief is insufficient to characterize theism ...
*****. I've been to church lots of times, spoken with lots of
Christers, Jews, and Islamists over the years, read most of your posts
in alt dot atheism over the last few years, and heard Dubya Bush speak
several times, and I can report that in each case the true-believers
were trying to get me to share in their irrational religious belief
there might be some kind of magic invisible space pixie (Allah, or God
The Creator/First Cause, or whatever you want to call it)
Then you weren't listening very carefully, as not one of them accepts
the thesis that their god only might exist. Every single one of them
insisted that their god did more than "might exist".
Didn't your daddy teach you how to listen, moron?
To say no more than that a god might exist requires one also to accept
that that god might not exist.
This perpetual lie of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's that theists
believe that their gods might not exist is getting tiresome.
Anyone so removed from reality would be better not to display his
deviance as publicly as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
11 Feb 2005 01:08:25 PM |
|
|
In article <b-ydnRfPXcGdSJHfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes, all you theists hold an irrational religious belief with no
basis in fact that there might be
Fallacy of Equivocation
In what way is that equivocation
"Belief that there might be" does not mean the same as "belief that at
least one ... exists".
How does that alter the fact that all you anti-theist morons share an
irrational religious belief with no basis in fact that there cannot be
any magic invisible space pixies or Gods anyway, even though there may
be such a thing you can point to and say 'There, that's what I'm talking
about', all you can do is try to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the agnosticss who have nothing (no thing) to prove, you
morons do?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 05:19:42 PM |
|
|
In article <hdKdnWc4CvUB3pTfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes
I snipped Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, while he was still telling
the truth. Unfortunately, he immediately reversed himself, so enjoy it
while it lasts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 02:19:19 PM |
|
|
In article <TbqdnSs1Gsrz0JvfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes, all you theists hold an irrational religious belief with no basis
in fact that there might be some sort of magic invisible space pixie
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again argues falsely that when
'jientho' says "at least one god exists", what it really means is
"there might be some sort of magic invisible space pixie".
Is there anyone out there, excluding Septic itself, who believes that
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has given a fair interpretation?
Is there anyone out there, excluding Septic itself, who believes that
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, ever has given a fair interpretation of
what anyone else has said?
et it be noted that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has even been
known to misrepresent his own words on numerous occasions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 04:59:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <TbqdnSs1Gsrz0JvfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes, all you theists hold an irrational religious belief with no basis in fact that there might be some sort of magic invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no such thing any theist can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can do is try to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the atheists.
"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
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again argues falsely that when
'jientho' says "at least one god exists", what it really means is
"there might be some sort of magic invisible space pixie".
Well? What is a god if not a hypothetical ('might be' imagining) magic
invisible space pixie?
You see, it doesn't look the same to those of us outside your religion
as it does to those of you inside your religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 05:21:05 PM |
|
|
In article <5tOdnZzUraj42ZTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <TbqdnSs1Gsrz0JvfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Theism is
characterized by belief that at least one god exists.
Yes
Stop while you're ahead, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 02:12:35 PM |
|
|
In article <0dOdnXH5Jox2SJjfRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8AF667.20293805022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
... extreme views (i.e., who does not reject
outright any possibility that any gods might exist in any sense) he
repeatedly declares to be theist.
You declared yourself theist by arguing there might be a God The First Cause
anyway
WRONG!
(1)I argue at least as strongly that there might not be any gods at all,
which is not theism at all, but good agnosticism. For agnostics, the
issue is the quality of evidence. Agnostics will not reject any
possibility without strong evidence of impossibility, this includes the
possibilities both for and agains the existence of gods.
(2) Theists of my acquaintance all have a particilar god, or at least a
particular set of gods, whom they believe actually exists whereas I have
none in mind when I speculate on whether any exist.
(3) To be theist one must accept some sort of Creed and I have yet to
see any such Creed like, say,
"I believe there MIGHT be a God the Father..."
Perhaps Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, can enlighten us on this last
matter. Which religions have creeds which say only
"I only believe there might be a god, not that there actually is one"?
On the whole it is cleer that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has
made a fool of himself yet again.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 09:17:49 PM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107644683.401322.306630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Would you like to try getting real with us, sir? All we are asking
is,
what is it that you really know about the nature of the universe,
and
what are the verifiable facts that convince you that you really
know
it?
Frankly, on further reflection, I've got some serious misgivings
about
the possibilities of having a productive discussion with someone
who
seriously contends that the phrase "existing only in the
imagination"
is some kind of direct assertion of existence in the real world.
Buh-bye now.
m
Gee, have I missed a pissing contest between an atheist and a
theist??
Yep, but don't worry, you didn't miss much. ;)
I'm not a typical theist, so there weren't any damnations or spirits or
prophecies or any such.
m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 11:04:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm not a typical theist ...
It seems to be typical of all you theists that you hold an irrational
religious belief with no basis in fact that there might be some sort of
magic invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no such thing
any theist can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about',
all you can do is try to get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the atheists, or some other lame sophistry.
"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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 11:32:21 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
manutter51@alethian.org wrote:
I'm not a typical theist ...
It seems to be typical of all you theists that you hold an irrational
religious belief with no basis in fact
If you say so.
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 02:28:42 PM |
|
|
In article <TbqdnSo1Gsqy05vfRVn-jA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
manutter51@alethian.org wrote:
I'm not a typical theist ...
It seems to be typical of all you theists that you hold an irrational
religious belief with no basis in fact that there might be some sort of
magic invisible space pixie anyway...
As there is no proof that all gods are impossible, a belief that one
might exist is hardly classifiable as irrational.
Not all theists are religious.
No theist of my acquaintance has had any belief relating to magical
invisible space pixies, so I would need proof of the existence of such
theists before accepting that any exist.
No theist of my acquaintance has had any belief less than certain of the
actual existence of at least one god.
I challenge Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, to find an admitted
theist who admits to less.
Thus it appears that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is himself as
much of a theist, going by his own definition of the word, as anyone
else.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
07 Feb 2005 03:50:48 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
As there is no proof that all gods are impossible, a belief that one
might exist is hardly classifiable as irrational.
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 |
07 Feb 2005 04:44:03 PM |
|
|
In article <E6SdnUkUE_0kf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
As there is no proof that all gods are impossible, a belief that one
might exist is hardly classifiable as irrational.
Argument from ignorance.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again proves that he has no idea what
an ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM is all about.
From "the Skeptic's Dictionary, http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
The argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one
claims that something is true only because it hasn't
been proved false, or that something is false only
because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or
falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence
to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or
contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be
true but both can be false, unlike contradictory
claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the
robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the
robbery" are CONTRARY claims--assuming there is no
equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in
Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not
in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are
CONTRADICTORY. A claim is proved true if its
contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is
not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove
that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved
that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator
prove that it isn't.
Now, with a clear exposition of what an ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM really
is, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, bears the burden of shoing what
the contrary claims are that I have used as are are required for the
existence of an ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM?
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, cannot do this because the
citation he attacks is a perfectly valid statement and not any kind of
fallacy.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
