| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 11:45:27 AM |
| Object: |
atheist agnostic |
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
The atheist agnostic goes beyond simply having an absence of the irrational
religious belief there might actually be a god to unabashedly deny and
repudiate, on principle, the irrational religious belief there might
actually be a god:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 10:51:49 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
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 ...
Which is precisely your argument _ad ignorantiam when you argue from
ignorance that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 01:24:30 PM |
|
|
In article <8ZGdneW4U4G7c5XfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
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.
[unsnip]
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.
Which is precisely your argument _ad ignorantiam when you argue from
ignorance that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
Wrong again! What I argued is that failure to prove a statement shows
that its negation MIGHT possibly be true, which as anyone but Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, can see does not fit the Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam pattern.
Specifically, failure to prove gods impossible means that we cannot rule
out that the impossibility of gods may be false.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps arguing that we can, without
evidence, rule it out, and THAT is the ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM, a
claim that 'Gods are impossible' must be true because we cannot provve
it false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 04:54:07 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
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 ...
Which is precisely your argument _ad ignorantiam when you argue from
ignorance that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 05:17:05 PM |
|
|
In article <hdKdnWQ4CvWN3pTfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
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 ...
[unsnip]
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.
Which is precisely your argument _ad ignorantiam when you argue from
ignorance that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
But all that I am arguenting is not that a god might be possible but
merely that we should not, without proof, declare that all gods are
impossible.
As anyone, except Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, can easily see from
the unsnipped citation, it is not an ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM to argue
from lack of proof the no god exists that we need not reject the
possibility that a god MIGHT exist.
But it is even worse that an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to argue, as
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, argues, that from lack of proof that
gods are impossible we should conclude that gods are impossible.
..
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again trips and falls flat on his face
again through his inability or unwillingness to distinguish between
"MIGHT and MUST.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
09 Feb 2005 10:02:00 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... a god MIGHT exist.
Got evidence? Your argument from ignorance, that there is no proof your
hypothesis is false, does not support your conclusion, it is logical
fallacy, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
10 Feb 2005 01:24:37 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... a god MIGHT exist.
Got evidence?
Premise: Some people believe the proposition "there are no gods".
Premise: Any proposition a person believes might be false.
Conclusion: The proposition "there are no gods" might be false.
Equivalently: There might be gods.
Any questions?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
11 Feb 2005 08:35:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition (statement standing in need of proof), moron,
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and as you know, the burden of
proof cannot be shifted to the atheists under any pretext, since the
atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, only your side does.
"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
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
11 Feb 2005 02:40:35 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
It most certainly is. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics of
propositional logic, Septic?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
11 Feb 2005 09:31:18 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the 20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 02:17:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the 20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't know, I have never met the man, but
we definitely know that _you_ are, moron, judging by your non-stop Tom
Foolery of trying to get away with the logical fallacy of shifting the
burden of proof to the atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove in
this case, only your side does, moron, since you are the ones making the
assertion in this case, that there might be a God anyway, even though
there is nothing you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm
talking about' so that anybody can check your observations, all you can
do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists.
[unsnip the principle Jeffie can't deal with honestly]
"No gods" (like the only reasonable default presumption in crriminal
court, "No guilt") is not a proposition (statement standing in need of
proof), moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and as you know,
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused in court, nor to
the atheists in this case, under any pretext, since the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, only your side does, since it is your side
making the assertion. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief
in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
"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
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
By the way, the color of the Taj has logically nothing to do with your
existential proposition that there might be a magic invisible space
pixie, so you might just as well give up appealing to these kinds of
irrelevant conclusions, moron, it is just more logical fallacy on your part:
"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
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 09:40:59 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Maybe he is,
Septic entertains the possibility that one of the foremost logicians of
the 20th Century is a moron? Heh! 'Nuff said. The rest of us
"morons" are in very good company then.
Septic, you wouldn't like to explain the above in any other possible
way?
<snip Septic failing to explain the above statements from Quine in
favor of Septical Diversionary tactics>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 07:43:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Maybe he is,
Septic entertains the possibility that one of the foremost logicians of
the 20th Century is a moron?
Only if he agrees with you, moron, and you have not established that he
does, you are just begging the question.
I don't know, I have never met the man, but we definitely know that
_you_ are, moron, judging by your non-stop Tom Foolery of trying to get
away with the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the
atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only your
side does, moron, since you are the ones making the assertion in this
case, that there might be a God anyway, even though there is nothing you
can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about' so that
anybody can check your observations, all you can do is keep trying to
shift the burden of proof to the atheists.
[unsnip the principle Jeffie can't deal with honestly]
"No gods" (like the only reasonable default presumption in criminal
court, "No guilt") is not a proposition (statement standing in need of
proof), moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and as you know,
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused in court, nor to
the atheists in this case, under any pretext, since the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, only your side does, since it is your side
making the assertion. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief
in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
"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
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
By the way, the color of the Taj has logically nothing to do with your
existential proposition that there might be a magic invisible space
pixie, so you might just as well give up appealing to these kinds of
irrelevant conclusions, moron, it is just more logical fallacy on your part:
"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
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 08:06:18 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood
admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Maybe he is,
Septic entertains the possibility that one of the foremost
logicians of
the 20th Century is a moron?
Only if he agrees with you,
Red Herring Fallacy from Septic. The question was how Septic explains
Quine's statements above, in particular, "To deny a statement is to
affirm another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the first," which statement directly contradicts Septic's statements
about denials. Even if Quine disagrees with me, Septic's problem
_remains_ that Quine disagrees with _Septic_.
Again, Septic, how do you explain that one of the foremost logicians of
the 20th Century disagrees with _you_ on the topic of logic? (Quit
trying to fallaciously divert from _that_ question.)
(And oh, BTW, _I_ agree with _Quine_ here. That means _he_ agrees with
_me_ on this point. Which means that Septic says that one of the
foremost logicians of the 20th Century is a moron by his own admission:
"Only if he [Quine] agrees with you [Jeff]", says Septic. Well, he
does. No question-begging about it.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 10:45:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
...
The question was how <snip argument _ad hominem_> explains
Quine's statements ...
Not true, Jeff is just trying to create another diversion; the question
here is, "Is it true there might be a God as Jeff asserts?"
Remember, Jeff's if/then argument for his hypothetical (speculative,
'might be') God thingy is that if there are atheists, then there might
be a God.
Jeff is just trying to change the subject by trying to shift the burden
of proof to the atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove in this
case, only he does.
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 11:05:48 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
The question was how Septic explains Quine's statements ...
Not true,
Since I asked the question, the question exists.
Let's recap:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
See Septic, there it is, the question.
Maybe he is,
Septic entertains the possibility that one of the foremost logicians
of
the 20th Century is a moron?
To which Septic replies:
"Only if he agrees with you, "
I agree with Quine here, hence Quine agrees with me on this point,
hence Septic admits he considers one of the foremost logicians of the
20th Century to be a moron.
Is this your only explanation of Quine's statements, Septic?
Septic remains the completely refuted and discredited old idiot of
alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 11:59:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
The question was how Septic explains Quine's statements ...
Not true,
Since I asked the question ...
You asked your question as a diversion away from the question genuinely
under discussion here, "Is it true there might be a God as Jeff asserts?"
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue genuinely under discussion between theists and atheists is
this irrational religious belief theists have that there might be a
magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence
of any such thing theists can point out so that others can check their
observations.
Remember, Jeff's if/then argument for his hypothetical (speculative,
'might be') God thingy is that if there are atheists, then there might
be a God.
Jeff is just trying to change the subject by trying to shift the burden
of proof to the atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove in this
case, only he does.
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
14 Feb 2005 11:26:05 AM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
The question was how Septic explains Quine's statements ...
Not true,
Since I asked the question ...
You asked your question as a diversion
False. That is, I deny that I asked my question as a diversion, since
as the recap (unsnipped again below) shows, I asked my question in
response to Septic's unsupported reply "That's not a proposition" to my
phrase "the proposition 'there are no gods'". If anything, it's
Septic's unsupported reply which is the diversion. Again, Septic, how
do you explain Quine's clear contradiction to you on this point?
recap:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic; again>
Septic remains the completely fallacious loser of alt.atheism as
always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 01:12:06 PM |
|
|
In article <tNKdnUdWH-YeCJLfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
The question was how Septic explains Quine's statements ...
Not true,
Simple Septic is being simply craven because he knows he has no way to
explain away Quine's statements. Distraction is his only escape.
Since I asked the question ...
You asked your question
But Simple Septic is too craven to attempt to answer it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 12:43:55 PM |
|
|
In article <dsednbDiBbyyGZLfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
...
The question was how <snip argument _ad hominem_> explains
Quine's statements ...
Not true
Red Herring, designed to distract attention from the issue of the
logical equivalence of ppositively phrased and negatively phrased
propositions.
According to Willard Van Ormand Quine, and Bertrand Russell, and any
other logician of standing, the negation of a proposition is just
another proposition. The affirmative proposition and its negative cannot
both be true, and, in many instances, cannot both be false, but there is
no a priori reason to presume that either is true or that either is
false.
If it were otherwise, Simple Septic would long since have cited Saint
Copi on the issue.
The continuing absence of any evidence cited by Simple Septic to support
his false arguments on this issue is becoming evidence of the absence of
any truth to his arguments.
Actually, Simple Septic's argument disproves itself.
Simple Septic proposes that there exists a rule of valid argument(logic)
that says re existence statements, in the absence of evidence one must
presume non-existence.
But if Simple Septic's proposal were true, one must then presume, in the
present absence of evidence supporting its existence, the non-existence
of such a rule.
Unless Simple Septic can find some authority which supports the
existence of such a rule.
But Simple Septic has, though frequently challenged to do so,
singularly failed to do so.
The reasonable person can only conclude that such a rule exists only in
Simple Septic's imagination.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 08:35:08 PM |
|
|
In article <J7SdnThq6s1FLZPfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits
of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may
hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to
affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of
the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj
Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the
20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
Maybe he is,
Septic entertains the possibility that one of the foremost logicians of
the 20th Century is a moron?
Only if he agrees with you, moron, and you have not established that he
does, you are just begging the question.
Then the calim that Simple Septic is making is that he is always right,
regardless of the facts in the case.
I don't know
There is a lot that Simple Septic does not know, for one he at least
pretends not to know the depth of his errors.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
That is what Willard Van Ormand says, regardless of the positive or
negative nature of that assertion.
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
One can question or deny a negative claim as easily as a positive one,
so this does not support Simple Septic's one sidedness.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
A good deal better than your daddy taught you, Simple Septic, at least
by the evidence of your illogic in so many of your posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
12 Feb 2005 01:00:24 PM |
|
|
In article <UJidnaBuOvAsJpDfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition
From W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, third edition
From the Introduction
"Truths are as plentiful as falsehoods, since each falsehood admits of
a negation which is true."
From Chapter 1, Negation, Conjunction, and Alternation
"The peculiarity of _statements_ which sets them apart from other
linguistic forms is that they admit of truth and falsity, and may hence
be significantly affirmed and denied. To deny a statement is to affirm
another statement, known as the _negation_ or _contradictory_ of the
first. To deny 'The Taj Mahal is white' is to affirm 'The Taj Mahal is
not white'."
How do you explain this from one of the foremost logicians of the 20th
Century, Septic? Maybe he's a moron?
...I don't know...
About logic, statements and such, that is eminently true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
11 Feb 2005 12:55:46 PM |
|
|
In article <DP2dnV3QCfY6X5HfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... the proposition "there are no gods".
That's not a proposition (statement standing in need of proof), moron,
it is the denial (the negation) of one, and as you know, the burden of
proof cannot be shifted to the atheists under any pretext, since the
atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, only your side does.
This is an elegantly camouflaged Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, since
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is really claiming that one must
accept his claims essentially because they are negations of a
propositions that have not been proved.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
And claiming falsehood, the negation of claiming truth, is exactly such
as assertion.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
Better logic than your daddy taught you, at all events! He taught me
that there are no statements of any sort, not even negations, that are
exempt from the need for proof, except that when someone says that he
believes a thing, while the thing itself needs proof, the believing does
not.
So that when Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says that he believes his
claims need no proof, I accept that he might believe it, but I do not
need to accept that it is true.
At least until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which it has
not been.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
09 Feb 2005 01:23:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Kp-dnZ6rUo9krpffRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... a god MIGHT exist.
... it is logical...
See what snipping can do to meaning, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
13 Feb 2005 12:11:05 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Kp-dnZ6rUo9krpffRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... a god MIGHT exist.
Got evidence? Your argument from ignorance, that there is no proof your hypothesis is false, does not support your conclusion, it is logical fallacy, moron.
See what snipping can do to meaning ...
What are you saying, that you do not mean to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
there might be an invisible something, and this hypothesis even a genius
like Galileo could not prove false?
<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 |
13 Feb 2005 01:48:00 PM |
|
|
In article <T4mdndkONJqkBZLfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Kp-dnZ6rUo9krpffRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... a god MIGHT exist.
... it is logical...
See what snipping can do to meaning ...
By judicious snipping, one can even make it appear that Simple Septic is
telling the truth.
At least sometimes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 07:51:26 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"manutter51@alethian.org" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107644683.401322.306630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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??
By the way, in case you missed it, the immediate context for the above
is that AA has pronounced it "equivocation" to define "imaginary" as
"existing only in the imagination," on the grounds that the verb "to
exist" can have only one possible interpretation: to exist in reality.
When I pointed out that equivocation normally involves words with two
or more possible interpretations, AA replied by citing an online
definition for "equivocal" and then repeating his claim that my
suggested definition for "imaginary" involves an equivocal usage of
"existing" because "existing" can only mean "existing in the real
world."
The online dictionary he cited defined "equivocal" as "Open to two or
more interpretations and often intended to mislead; ambiguous." So
apparently, according to AA's logic, if you say "existing only in the
imagination," your usage of "existing" is equivocal--open to two or
more interpretations, ambiguous--because existing is only open to one
possible interpretation, and you are using it in a way that
unambiguously requires a different interpretation.
It was at this point that I expressed misgivings about the possibility
of having a productive conversation.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God who does
not contradict Herself, and about Alethian faith and practice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 06:19:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
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.
That's not right sir. I haven't "contended" anything. All I said was the
following (which you seem to be ignoring in favor of building your straw
man who "contends" something silly):
You said:
I would have
thought the definition for "imaginary" was "that which exists only in
the imagination," ...
I pointed out:
"Exists in the imagination" is a contradiction in terms, old boy.
Nothing EXISTS in the imagination. That's equivocation on the term,
'exists' (where 'exists' means 'is real').
The imaginary is that which is not real. Can we say we agree on that?
But I am not asking about the definition of 'imaginary', the question I
am asking is the following:
Isn't 'imaginary' (that which is not real), or 'hypothetical' if you
prefer, the only term that fits your hypothetical thingy perfectly, old
boy, unless you can point out anything like that ('omnipotent', meaning
'all powerful') known to be real so that anybody can check your
observations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 09:24:18 PM |
|
|
In article <nLGdnbH2iucN_5jfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
manutter51@alethian.org wrote:
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.
That's not right sir. I haven't "contended" anything.
Why is it that Septic of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies is at his
most contentious when denying that he is contending anything?
All I said
If what was said counters what another has said, the saying of it is
contentious. Thus Septic AntiTheist AntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven
Capon, IS contending after all.
was the
following
You said:
I would have
thought the definition for "imaginary" was "that which exists only in
the imagination," ...
I pointed out:
"Exists in the imagination" is a contradiction in terms, old boy.
Nothing EXISTS in the imagination.
This amounts to a claim that imaginations do not exist. But I know I
have one,
Nothing may exist in the imagination of Septic AntiTheist AntiAgnostic
Troll, the Craven Capon, for he does not seem to have one. Those who
actually have imaginations have all sorts of interseting things existing
in them ( How can one have anything in one's if it does not exist there?
And if one's imagination contains nothing at all, does it exist?).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 05:22:59 PM |
|
|
In article <Rd6dnaUnzo2A3JjfRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
manutter51@alethian.org wrote:
I'm intrigued by your implicit proposition that hypothetical
characteristics and/or entities cannot be defined.
We can certainly come to an agreement on definitions of real things,
like things that are 'animal', 'vegetable', or 'mineral', for example.
Where do viruses and prions fall in the 'animal', 'vegetable', or
'mineral' spectrum? "Animal", "vegetable" and "mineral" are
categorisations that are no more real that numbers are real.
What we perceive as trees or dogs or even people, are so perceived as
individual objects because of our judgements as to where an object ends
and another begins. Those boundaries between things are just as
imaginary as the numbers by which we count the things those boundaries
are alleged to separate. In Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the
Craven Capon's world of only physical reality, there can be no words at
all, as a word has no physical existence of itself.
But all you have going for you at the moment is purely hypothetical
characteristics of a purely hypothetical entity, not anything that could
be said is known to be real at all.
That's all there is is those hypothetical entities which we artificially
separate into objects. They aren't real at all, but are just our
imaginings of reality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 04:22:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
...I would have
thought the definition for "imaginary" was "that which exists only
in
the imagination," ...
"Exists in the imagination" is a contradiction in terms, old boy.
Nothing EXISTS in the imagination. That's equivocation on the term,
'exists' (where 'exists' means 'is real').
Equivocation can only occur when a word has more than one meaning.
You are mistaken; in this case you are being equivocal (misleading
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivocal ) by using the term,
'exists' where it does not apply (imaginings), you are being equivocal
with the term, 'exists' when you say things like, "Exists in the
imagination." Nothing really EXISTS (is real) in the imagination, those
are only imaginings.
Are we straight on this point sir?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Agnostic atheist
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
What's the difference between agnostic and atheist?
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: Agnostic atheist
| How can an agnostic /not/ be an atheist?
serious question: am i an atheist or an agnostic?
Re: words "theist", "nontheist", "atheist", and "agnostic"
Re: You know your an atheist when...EARLE
Proof of God's Existence for the Atheist Fundies out there
Atheist Fools website
Re: Are you a resident atheist Troll in Christian NGs
|
|
|
