| 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 |
02 Feb 2005 02:29:17 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:45:27 -0800, Atheistagnostic
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
True.
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:
Nonsense! Gnosticism/agnosticism is about what you believe it is
possible to know.
Not according to the freethinker (one who doubts or denies religious
dogma), Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic'. The way Huxleey
explains it, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of any religious
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the tenets of the Christian BELIEF for example, that people ought to
BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence. Nothing about knowledge
in here at all, right? Makes sense to me, so you won't mind, will you, if I
take what Huxley says, rather than your popular misconception of what
characterizes the atheist agnostic?
"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
Correct. ...
Then you had better abandon the mistaken idea atheist agnosticism is about
knowledge. It isn't, it's about denial and repudiation of unsupported
religious BELIEF without logically satisfactory evidence. Okay? Are we on
the same page now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Feb 2005 07:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:29:17 -0800, Atheistagnostic
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The way Huxleey
explains it, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of any religious
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the tenets of the Christian BELIEF for example, that people ought to
BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence.
That's not huxley, that's your interpretation of Huxley, and it's
totally incorrect.
Nothing about knowledge in here at all, right?
Agnosticism is, in Huxley's own words, "do not pretend conclusions are
certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Nothing about
denial or repudiation.
Makes sense to me, so you won't mind, will you, if I
take what Huxley says, rather than your popular misconception of what
characterizes the atheist agnostic?
Seems as if you wrote my next sentence for me.
Then you had better abandon the mistaken idea atheist agnosticism is about
knowledge.
You'd better abandon the mistaken idea that it isn't.
It isn't
It is.
it's about denial and repudiation of unsupported
religious BELIEF without logically satisfactory evidence.
Not, as you can plainly se, according to Huxley.
--
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
--George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 05:04:08 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:r3v201prkjfmdpp6j26rqjg374cuu6lq5b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:29:17 -0800, Atheistagnostic
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The way Huxley
explains it, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of any religious
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the tenets of the Christian BELIEF for example, that people ought to
BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence.
That's not huxley ...
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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 |
03 Feb 2005 06:57:30 PM |
|
|
In article <TOWdnbkOz7x1MJ_fRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:r3v201prkjfmdpp6j26rqjg374cuu6lq5b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:29:17 -0800, Atheistagnostic
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The way Huxley
explains it, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of any religious
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the tenets of the Christian BELIEF for example, that people ought to
BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence.
That's not huxley ...
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
Is that why Huxley say the following?
From Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS
THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
<end quote>
"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything."
Letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886, in Leonard Huxley Life and
Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1900) vol. 2, ch. 8
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 10:13:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:04:08 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:r3v201prkjfmdpp6j26rqjg374cuu6lq5b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:29:17 -0800, Atheistagnostic
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The way Huxley
explains it, agnosticism is about denial and repudiation of any religious
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the tenets of the Christian BELIEF for example, that people ought to
BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence.
That's not huxley ...
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the
principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
Not that complicated, is it? Nothing about belief, just about claims
of - what? - knowledge.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 12:26:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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 |
04 Feb 2005 01:03:10 PM |
|
|
In article <0cednZmp78vvI57fRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
In the following quote from Huxley, he speaks of both belief and
knowledge, and his last sentence refutes uSeptic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, utterly.
The following is from "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)", interestingly
never quoted by Capon (I have capitalized certain parts that I feel are
especially relevant, but, unlike the Capon, quote in full):
<start quote>
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic"
to denote people who, LIKE MYSELF, confess themselves to be HOPELESSLY
IGNORANT concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and
theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatize with the utmost
confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch
the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I
think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now
Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and
Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox.
Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic"
(it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state
authentically WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT by Agnosticism. What other
people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General
Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be
condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to
answer these questions.
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.
IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR BELIEVES THAT WHICH
HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of
popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the
whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of
orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and
science, and orthodoxy does not.
3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to
the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of
existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of
science is "NOT PROVEN". But true Agnosticism will not forget that
existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more
stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that
THERE MAY BE THINGS, not only in the heavens and earth, but BEYOND THE
INTELLIGIBLE UNIVERSE, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy. "The
theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a
conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a
"dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. AGNOSTICISM
SIMPLY SAYS THAT WE KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT MAY BE BEYOND PHENOMENA."
<end quote>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 03:42:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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
Nothing about rejecting belief.
How can you continue to post a quote that shows that you're wrong and,
yet, continue to insist that it proves you right? Stupidity,
arrogance or stubbornness?
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 06:43:50 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:00r701t07e55acgfc2o4q34hneg5tv3k09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
Addressed to you, sir, since you persist in saying, "Nothing about belief"
when this is all about unsupported religious belief.
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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
Nothing about rejecting belief.
Are you kidding? How could one accept the Christian Belief, or any other
religious belief, for that matter, in light of this? It's part of Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity," and by
extrapolation all othere religious beliefs (believing things without
evidence). It says clearly that agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate any
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the
tenets of Christianity for example, that people ought to BELIEVE without
logically satisfactory evidence.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
How could it be any more plainly stated?
It's all about religious belief, not knowledge at all. It's the believing of
propositions without logically satisfactory evidence that is the objectional
behavior here.
Any doctrine that there are propositions which people ought to believe
without logically satisfactory evidence is therefore rightfully denied and
repudiated.
Is there something about 'denied and repudiated', or the term, 'belief' that
Huxley uses that you do not understand, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 08:19:09 PM |
|
|
In article <p5ydnaY85Y1Yi5nfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:00r701t07e55acgfc2o4q34hneg5tv3k09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
Addressed to you, sir, since you persist in saying, "Nothing about belief"
when this is all about unsupported religious belief.
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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
Nothing about rejecting belief.
Are you kidding?
Actually that is our question. Thomas H. Huxley, a well known English
religious skeptic, invented the term Agnostic in the 1840's. He
combined "a" which implies negative, with "gnostic" which is a Greek
word meaning knowledge.
He wrote:
"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in
him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom
of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters
of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without
regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the
intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith,
which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look
the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for
him."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 07:57:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:43:50 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:00r701t07e55acgfc2o4q34hneg5tv3k09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
Addressed to you, sir, since you persist in saying, "Nothing about belief"
when this is all about unsupported religious belief.
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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
Nothing about rejecting belief.
Are you kidding?
No. Please point out the words "religious belief".
How could it be any more plainly stated?
By his having used the word "religion" in some form, maybe?
Is there something about 'denied and repudiated', or the term, 'belief' that
Huxley uses that you do not understand, sir?
"that there are propositions which men ought to believe" isn't
necessarily about religious belief - it's about ANY belief for which
there is no "logically satisfactory evidence", and that's the way
Huxley made plain he meant the word..
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 09:18:38 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:43:50 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:00r701t07e55acgfc2o4q34hneg5tv3k09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
Addressed to you, sir, since you persist in saying, "Nothing about belief"
when this is all about unsupported religious belief.
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
"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
Nothing about rejecting belief.
Are you kidding?
[unsnip]
Are you kidding? How could one accept the Christian Belief, or any other
religious belief, for that matter, in light of this? It's part of Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity," and by
extrapolation all othere religious beliefs (believing things without
evidence). It says clearly that agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate any
doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are propositions like
the
tenets of Christianity for example, that people ought to BELIEVE without
logically satisfactory evidence.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
How could it be any more plainly stated?
It's all about religious belief, not knowledge at all. It's the
believing of
propositions without logically satisfactory evidence that is the
objectional
behavior here.
Any doctrine that there are propositions which people ought to believe
without logically satisfactory evidence is therefore rightfully denied and
repudiated.
Is there something about 'denied and repudiated', or the term, 'belief'
that
Huxley uses that you do not understand, sir?
No. Please point out the words "religious belief".
Trying to "move the goal posts" now sir? Just a minute ago you were
insisting there was "nothing about belief" in the quote.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you do not
understand that this is about the essence of agnosticism, the outright,
unabashed denial and repudiation of any religious doctrine like
Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example, that people ought to BELIEVE without logically
satisfactory evidence?
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 01:22:28 PM |
|
|
In article <MMadnQuOHLlSfpnfRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:43:50 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:00r701t07e55acgfc2o4q34hneg5tv3k09@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:26:59 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
... Nothing about belief ...
Why are you ignoring the quote that shows you are mistaken?
Talking to yourself again?
Addressed to you, sir, since you persist in saying, "Nothing about belief"
when this is all about unsupported religious belief.
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows
that which he has no scientific grounds for professing
to know.
Nothing about rejecting belief.
Are you kidding?
[unsnip]
Are you kidding?
IsSeptic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, kidding?
Huxley never excoriates religion as such, merely the tendency of some
religious, and virtually all anti-religious, people to proclaim their
creeds as necessary truths. Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the
Craven Capon, proclaims his creed of the impossibility of gods that way,
simultaneously proclaiming that it is beyond any need for proof, in
exactly the way that he gripes about religious fanatics doing it.
How could one accept the
anti-theist creed that gods are known to be impossible
or any other
anti-religious belief, for that matter, in light of this?
It's all about religious belief, not knowledge at all.
Not according to Huxley. The following is from Thomas Huxley's
"Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)", interestingly never quoted by Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple:
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS
THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW.
This following is a quote from Thomas Huxley found in his letter to
Charles Kingsley (May 6, 1863).
"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against
orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible
antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school."
It's the believing of propositions without logically satisfactory
evidence that is the objectional behavior here.
It is the lying about what Huxley's actual position is that is the
objectional behavior here, and Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the
Craven Capon, is the one doing all of it.
Any doctrine that there are propositions which people ought to believe
without logically satisfactory evidence is therefore rightfully denied and
repudiated.
Including Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon's
doctrine that one must accept imppossibility of any gods without any
logically satisfactory evidence.
Is there something about 'denied and repudiated', or the term,
'belief' that Huxley uses that you do not understand, sir?
Apparently Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, is
blind to the fact that Huxley's non-partisan position on religion is at
least as anti-Septic as it is anti-Christian.
This following is a quote from Thomas Huxley found in his letter to
Charles Kingsley (May 6, 1863).
"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against
orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible
antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school."
No. Please point out the words "religious belief".
Trying to "move the goal posts" now sir?
Just trying to esatblish their position.
Huxley seems to disagree with Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the
Craven Capon, strongly about where they are located.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 12:22:29 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows
that which he has no scientific grounds for professing
to know." -- Huxley
Nor shall a person BELIEVE (be convinced) propostions like the tenets of
Christianity for example are true unless he can produce logically
satisfactory evidence, moron:
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
See the term, 'believe' in there? That's what this is all about, you
theists' irrational religious belief there might be some kind of magic
invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is nothing any of 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
athests, or other assorted 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 02:55:43 PM |
|
|
In article <soqdnVLc9bn6_ZvfRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows
that which he has no scientific grounds for professing
to know." -- Huxley
Nor shall a person BELIEVE (be convinced) propostions like the tenets of
Christianity for example are true unless he can produce logically
satisfactory evidence, moron:
In that case, nor shall a person believe in propostions [sic] like the
tenets of anti-Christianity, that gods are impossible, are true unless
he can produce logically satisfactory evidence! Do you see, Septic
Capon, you Simple Pimple?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 10:38:47 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-47C833.13554306022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
tenets of anti-Christianity, that gods are impossible
There's that straw man of yours again, moron. How many times do you have to
be told, the idea in question is not that gods are impossible, the idea in
question is yours, that there might actually be a magic invisible space
pixie of some sort anyway, even though there is no such thing you can point
to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can do is
constantly try to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
atheists, and other assorted sophistry. But that won't work, because atheism
is not the idea in question, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence
of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 11:10:12 PM |
|
|
In article <RMqdnYHKHd5KbZvfRVn-1A@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-47C833.13554306022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
tenets of anti-Christianity, that gods are impossible
There's that straw man of yours again,[ad hominem deleted].
What sort of a straw man is it to complain about Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, claiming things he cannot prove.
Particularly when he complains about things that need no proof. The only
way for there to be no possibility aof a god is for gods to be
impossible, but that cannot be established without proof.
"Gods are impossible" and "Gods are possible" are, in the sense
described below contradictory rather than contrary statemnents, so that
if either true the other is false, but if either is not known to be true
then the other might be. So until Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, or
someone, PROVES that gods are impossible, it MIGHT be the case that gods
are possible. Simple and irrefutable logic, which Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, will lie to try and refute.
From "the Skeptic's Dictionary, http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
<quote>
The argument to ignorance 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.
<\quote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
07 Feb 2005 10:21:34 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... claiming things he cannot prove. ...
There's that straw man of yours again, moron.
How many times do you have to be told,
the idea in question is not that gods are impossible,
the idea in question is yours, that there might
actually be a magic invisible space pixie
of some sort anyway, even though there is
no such thing you can point to and say,
'There, that's what I'm talking about',
all you can do is constantly try to get
away with shifting the burden of proof
to the atheists, and other assorted sophistry.
But that won't work, because atheism
is not the idea in question, moron,
"Atheism is characterized by an absence
of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
07 Feb 2005 02:06:41 PM |
|
|
In article <jqqdneDPFYQSCJrfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... claiming things he cannot prove. ...
There's that straw man of yours again
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims that gods are impossible and
then claims that there is some sort of rule of logic or valid argument
which says that we are compelled to accept that statement without proof.
It is hardly a straw man to point out that no one is compelled to accept
anything that has not been proved, Nor to point out that Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, has never provided any evidence of the existence of
his alleged rule of logic, nor to point out that impossibility of gods
has not been proved.
The fact is that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is continually making
claims, which he then claims are not claims, with nothing but fallacious
arguments to back them up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
07 Feb 2005 03:48:14 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <jqqdneDPFYQSCJrfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... claiming things he cannot prove. ...
There's that straw man of yours again
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims that gods are impossible ...
That is a lie, you theists are the ones making the assertion that it is
possible that there might actually be a god. You are just trying to get
away with shifting the burden of proof to the atheists, moron. That
won't work. That's logical fallacy.
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
07 Feb 2005 04:37:59 PM |
|
|
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <jqqdneDPFYQSCJrfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... claiming things he cannot prove. ...
There's that straw man of yours again
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims that gods are impossible ...
That is a lie
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
Remember, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple, your past is Google-able,
despite all your name changing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 11:03:46 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <jqqdneDPFYQSCJrfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... claiming things he cannot prove. ...
There's that straw man of yours again
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims that gods are impossible ...
That is a lie
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof), moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial as you theologs are
always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See 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]
So, the null, "There are no gods" is the only reasonable default
presumption, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court.
How many times do we have to go over this same principle before you
learn it?
If you persist in trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists,
who have nothing (no thing) to prove, prepare to be ignored. This is
your final warning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 01:29:04 PM |
|
|
In article <UvWdncBbQv5pbZXfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof)
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, asserts that "There is no god as
you propose" is true, then he needs to prove it, as no claim of truth
stands without proof.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does not assert that it is true,
why does he bother to state it at all?
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is not very bright about logic and
common sense, is he?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 05:17:24 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <UvWdncBbQv5pbZXfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof)
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, asserts that "There is no god as
you propose"
It's not an assertion (statement standing in need of proof), moron, it
is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial as you theologs are always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See 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]
So, the null, "There are no gods" is the only reasonable default
presumption, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court.
How many times do we have to go over this same principle before you
learn it?
If you persist in trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists,
who have nothing (no thing) to prove, prepare to be ignored. This is
your final warning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
08 Feb 2005 05:48:39 PM |
|
|
In article <5tOdnZvUragZ1ZTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <UvWdncBbQv5pbZXfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof)
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, asserts that "There is no god as
you propose"
It's not an assertion...
Then why bother to assert it?
When a person says something as definite as "There is no god as you
propose", he at least appears to want it accepted as true. And making a
statement with the intention of having it accepted as true is asserting
it.
If not, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple, pray explain the difference
between an assertion and a statement that one wants accepted as true. If
you can.
assertion
n 1: a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting
evidence were necessary) [syn: averment, asseveration] 2: the act of
affirming or asserting or stating something [syn: affirmation, statement]
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 10:53:15 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <5tOdnZvUragZ1ZTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <UvWdncBbQv5pbZXfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof)
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, asserts that "There is no god as
you propose"
It's not an assertion...
Then why bother to assert it?
Now you are assuming your conclusion (begging the question) that it is
an assertion. It's not an assertion (statement standing in need of
proof), moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of
proof cannot be shifted to the denial as you theologs are always trying
to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See 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]
So, the null, "There are no gods" is the only reasonable default
presumption, like the default presumption of 'No guilt' in criminal court.
How many times do we have to go over this same principle before you
learn it?
If you persist in trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists,
who have nothing (no thing) to prove, prepare to be ignored. This is
your final warning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
18 Feb 2005 04:57:37 PM |
|
|
In article <582dneVMjLLngIvfRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <5tOdnZvUragZ1ZTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <UvWdncBbQv5pbZXfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <E6SdnU4UE_2Cf5rfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
Does Atheistagnostic deny that, in response to
suggestions that we cannot reject the possibility that there might be a
god, "False, there are no such things!"
"There is no god as you propose" is not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof)
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, asserts that "There is no god as
you propose"
It's not an assertion...
Then why bother to assert it?
Now you are assuming your conclusion (begging the question) that it is
an assertion.
How do you negate an assertion without asserting the negation?
To negate an assertion is to say that the assertion is false, but any
statement asserting the truth or falsehood of any statement is an
assertion of truth or falsehood.
It's not an assertion (statement standing in need of proof), [fallacy
deleted], it is the [equivocation deleted] negation of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the [equivocation deleted]
questioning of the proof of one...
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of
argument _ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who questions [equivocation deleted] the
assertion in question. The source of the fallacy is the assumption
that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
With the equivocations deleted, the fallacy of Simple Septic's argument
stands revealed:
Declaring a statement false (negation) is not the same as
questioning whether that statement is has been adequately proved
true (questioning).
One says a statement is false, the other merely that a statement may be
less than adequately proved true.
But Simple Septic's equivocations ad nauseam try to pretend that they
are the identical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cehfy" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 05:19:27 PM |
|
|
[snip]
| With the equivocations deleted, the fallacy of Simple Septic's argument
| stands revealed:
| Declaring a statement false (negation) is not the same as
| questioning whether that statement is has been adequately proved
| true (questioning).
|
| One says a statement is false, the other merely that a statement may be
| less than adequately proved true.
|
| But Simple Septic's equivocations ad nauseam try to pretend that they
| are the identical.
Hi Virgil,
I cannot follow your argument in this thread.
Here's an example to illustrate why I think you may be wrong.
If a mathematician asserts:
1 + 1 = 2
and I happen to not believe the mathematician, I may say, "prove it."
At this point the mathematician has two valid logical approaches:
1. Direct Proof: the mathematician demonstrates directly from the axioms
of arithmetic (objective evidence) that 1 + 1 = 2
2. Contrapositive Proof: the mathematician assumes the opposite is true (1
+ 1 /= 2), and then produces a contradiction.
Note that in either case above, the mathematician has the burden of proof,
i.e., it is NOT valid for the mathematician to argue that *I* must prove
the Contrapositive to be TRUE. Such an approach shifts the burden of proof
from the mathematician to me.
Does this example illustrate why your may be incorrect?
--teafie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
19 Feb 2005 08:11:17 PM |
|
|
In article <cv8hcf$8co$1@news.tdl.com>, "cehfy" <cehfy@nowhere.usa>
wrote:
[snip]
| With the equivocations deleted, the fallacy of Simple Septic's argument
| stands revealed:
| Declaring a statement false (negation) is not the same as
| questioning whether that statement is has been adequately proved
| true (questioning).
|
| One says a statement is false, the other merely that a statement may be
| less than adequately proved true.
|
| But Simple Septic's equivocations ad nauseam try to pretend that they
| are the identical.
Hi Virgil,
I cannot follow your argument in this thread.
Here's an example to illustrate why I think you may be wrong.
If a mathematician asserts:
1 + 1 = 2
and I happen to not believe the mathematician, I may say, "prove it."
At this point the mathematician has two valid logical approaches:
1. Direct Proof: the mathematician demonstrates directly from the axioms
of arithmetic (objective evidence) that 1 + 1 = 2
2. Contrapositive Proof: the mathematician assumes the opposite is true (1
+ 1 /= 2), and then produces a contradiction.
Note that in either case above, the mathematician has the burden of proof,
i.e., it is NOT valid for the mathematician to argue that *I* must prove
the Contrapositive to be TRUE. Such an approach shifts the burden of proof
from the mathematician to me.
Does this example illustrate why your may be incorrect?
--teafie
You obviously have not been reading my argument in this thread as
carefully as you ought.
I quite accept, as I have stated clearly, that someone who says "prove
it" bears no burden of proof. But "prove it" does not deny that the
thing may be true, it only questions whether it has b een or can be
proved.
But I insist that the person who says "that is false" is not merely
questioning the truth value, and thereby asumes the full burden of
proving his own claim.
"Prove it" denies the existence of a proof in evidence.
"It's false" also denies any future potentiality of a proof, and may be
taken to imply the existence of a proof of falsehood.
So that I take "Prove it" and "It is false" to be quite different, the
former, as you and I both say, exempt from any burden of proof, but the
latter, as everyone competent in logic will say, requiring no less a
level of proof as the statement it declares to be false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
20 Feb 2005 09:55:06 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <cv8hcf$8co$1@news.tdl.com>, "cehfy" <cehfy@nowhere.usa>
wrote:
[snip]
| With the equivocations deleted, the fallacy of Simple Septic's argument
| stands revealed:
| Declaring a statement false (negation) is not the same as
| questioning whether that statement is has been adequately proved
| true (questioning).
|
| One says a statement is false, the other merely that a statement may be
| less than adequately proved true.
|
| But Simple Septic's equivocations ad nauseam try to pretend that they
| are the identical.
Hi Virgil,
I cannot follow your argument in this thread.
Here's an example to illustrate why I think you may be wrong.
If a mathematician asserts:
1 + 1 = 2
and I happen to not believe the mathematician, I may say, "prove it."
At this point the mathematician has two valid logical approaches:
1. Direct Proof: the mathematician demonstrates directly from the axioms
of arithmetic (objective evidence) that 1 + 1 = 2
2. Contrapositive Proof: the mathematician assumes the opposite is true (1
+ 1 /= 2), and then produces a contradiction.
Note that in either case above, the mathematician has the burden of proof,
i.e., it is NOT valid for the mathematician to argue that *I* must prove
the Contrapositive to be TRUE. Such an approach shifts the burden of proof
from the mathematician to me.
Does this example illustrate why your may be incorrect?
--teafie
You obviously have not been reading my argument in this thread as
carefully as you ought.
I quite accept, as I have stated clearly, that someone who says "prove
it" bears no burden of proof. But "prove it" does not deny that the
thing may be true, it only questions whether it has b een or can be
proved.
The principle is that the burden of proof cannot be shifted, period. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to anyone who either questions OR
denies (either one) the assertion in question. The one's who are party
to the assertion in question always have the full burden of proof in any
case:
"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]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
