| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 05:45:27 PM |
| 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: "John Manning" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Feb 2005 09:20:27 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"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
The whole debate is a snoozer. It's just entertainment for wankers on
both sides.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
21 Feb 2005 05:01:31 PM |
|
|
John Manning wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"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
The whole debate is a snoozer.
It is not a debate. There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a
one-sided assertion with no basis in fact that any theist can point out,
that there might be an invisible deity anyway, even though there is no
such thing in evidence any theist can pont to and say, 'There, that's
what I'm talking about', all they can do is keep trying to shift the
burden of proof to the atheists. Enough said?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
22 Feb 2005 12:16:03 AM |
|
|
In article <If6dnXwEt_FxjoffRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
John Manning wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"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
The whole debate is a snoozer.
It is not a debate. There is nothing to debate. All we have here is a
one-sided assertion with no basis in fact
And that assetion is repeatedly being made by Simple Septic that there
are things (negations) one ought to believe without evidence.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
And Simple Septic revels in committing it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
02 Feb 2005 06:37:12 PM |
|
|
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. Theism/atheism is about what you choose to believe.
"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. But if you deny God you are in fact pontificating about that
which you cannot possible know. You are being an gnostic-atheist.
Also termed a 'hard' atheist.
The agnostic-atheist lacks a belief in any god, but does not claim he
knows there is none.
The gnostic-theist claims he knows there is a God.
The agnostic-theist believes in a God, but acknowledges mere belief,
not knowledge.
For details see:
"Atheism: the Case Against God"
by George H. Smith
[Prometheus 1979]
ISBN 0-87975-124-X
## I was born agnostic, and I'll diagnostic...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 12:43:25 AM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:7u62015bpq9sd0k1c09m9tk7aa8l90hau2@4ax.com...
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.
Correct. But if you deny God you are in fact pontificating about that
which you cannot possible know. You are being an gnostic-atheist.
Also termed a 'hard' atheist.
How can you decide what I know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 01:00:19 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:NseMd.4972$cl1.645@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:7u62015bpq9sd0k1c09m9tk7aa8l90hau2@4ax.com...
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.
Correct. But if you deny God you are in fact pontificating about that
which you cannot possible know. You are being an gnostic-atheist.
Also termed a 'hard' atheist.
How can you decide what I know?
Well, first, you CAN'T *KNOW* there is no god any more than you can *know*
there is. Second, when one actually says they 'know' or 'believe' something,
it's a fairly safe stand to take 'em at their word, don't you think?
Besides, I don't see anybody claiming to decide what YOU know on this
thread.
However, let's say that YOU (just for the sake of argument) claim to know
that there is no god. OK, that's a very positive statement; You KNOW this,
how, exactly? Where are your proofs? Prove to us here, absolutely, that
there is not now, never has been, and never will be anything that can be
defined as a 'god' anywhere, of any description, in any guise.
G'head.
Me, I'm a theist and I don't apologise for that. I believe that there is a
deity...and I respect those who don't believe in my description of Him, or
in fact in any description of Him. I have no quarrel whatsoever with those
who say 'I haven't come across any description of deity that makes sense, or
in which I can believe, and therefore I do not believe that there is a god".
That's fair. It's accurate.
However, when you say 'I know that there is no god', you are making a
statement of fact that you can't prove is fact. It's illogical, and it's
stupid....and when a theist hears someone say that, they are, quite
understandably, rather contemptous of the hypocrisy involved. Here you are,
saying 'I know that there is no god', a statement that cannot be proven,
even as you mock those who say, with equal fervor "I know there is a God".
That's the problem with basing your ethical/moral system on logic and
science; you are expected to behave as if you are logical if you wish to
retain credibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 02:38:41 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:DIeMd.1331$uc.798@trnddc08...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:NseMd.4972$cl1.645@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:7u62015bpq9sd0k1c09m9tk7aa8l90hau2@4ax.com...
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.
Correct. But if you deny God you are in fact pontificating about that
which you cannot possible know. You are being an gnostic-atheist.
Also termed a 'hard' atheist.
How can you decide what I know?
Well, first, you CAN'T *KNOW* there is no god any more than you can *know*
there is.
You too would be assuming what another person can or can't know based on
what you know.
Second, when one actually says they 'know' or 'believe' something,
it's a fairly safe stand to take 'em at their word, don't you think?
For Believe, yes. For Know, take them at their word, unless your definition
of someone else's knowing requires certain verifiable knowledge communicable
to you as such. So the latter depends on a definition of Know.
Besides, I don't see anybody claiming to decide what YOU know on this
thread.
In context, it would seem that the poster is claiming that I, in his terms a
hard atheist, can't know there is no God and am therefore wrong in my
assertion.
However, let's say that YOU (just for the sake of argument) claim to know
that there is no god. OK, that's a very positive statement; You KNOW this,
how, exactly? Where are your proofs?
For me to know, it is only necessary for me to prove it to myself, unless
your definition of Know is the second one described above.
Prove to us here, absolutely, that
there is not now, never has been, and never will be anything that can be
defined as a 'god' anywhere, of any description, in any guise.
You are adding a lot of conditions with semantic definitions. If I know ther
is no God, I don't have to prove it. but you are adding modifiers which then
have to be defined or the discussion could deteriorate into a semantic
confusion. Not that it had to.
G'head.
God can't exist as an objective entity since God is only a mental construct.
Etc. I could expound on Etc., but won't at the moment.
Me, I'm a theist and I don't apologise for that.
No one is interested in an apology, that I know of.
I believe that there is a
deity...and I respect those who don't believe in my description of Him, or
in fact in any description of Him.
Thank you for the unnecessary respect, which no one cares about..
I have no quarrel whatsoever with those
who say 'I haven't come across any description of deity that makes sense,
or
in which I can believe, and therefore I do not believe that there is a
god".
That's fair. It's accurate.
But if someone has negative evidence, that person can't be correct?
However, when you say 'I know that there is no god', you are making a
statement of fact that you can't prove is fact.
I can't prove it to you because you have already chosen an irrational
position.
It's illogical, and it's
stupid....and when a theist hears someone say that, they are, quite
understandably, rather contemptous of the hypocrisy involved. Here you
are,
saying 'I know that there is no god', a statement that cannot be proven,
even as you mock those who say, with equal fervor "I know there is a God".
An indication of your irrationality is your accusation of my mocking you.
That's the problem with basing your ethical/moral system on logic and
science; you are expected to behave as if you are logical if you wish to
retain credibility.
It's unclear whom your are talking about here or exactly why, which is
another indication of irrationality, or what say you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
03 Feb 2005 11:06:38 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:DIeMd.1331$uc.798@trnddc08...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:NseMd.4972$cl1.645@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:7u62015bpq9sd0k1c09m9tk7aa8l90hau2@4ax.com...
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.
Correct. But if you deny God you are in fact pontificating about that
which you cannot possible know. You are being an gnostic-atheist.
Also termed a 'hard' atheist.
How can you decide what I know?
Well, first, you CAN'T *KNOW* there is no god ...
The issue is the irrational theist 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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 07:02:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. Learn to understand
him before you quote him contradicting what you claim he said.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 06:28:07 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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 07:13:48 PM |
|
|
In article <8vidnVKaGLUoI57fRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
You are mistaken. For Huxley it is all about denial and repudiation of
unsupported religious BELIEF, not about knowledge at all:
I have taken the liberty of enclosing the entire paragraph of Huxley's
statement from "Agnosticism and Christianity", to show that Septic XL
Troll, the Craven Capon, lies about what Huxley says about Agnosticism.
If one bothers to read it hinestly, which Septic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, did not, one sees that agnosticism is at most incidentally about
religion and is about both knowledge and belief, in particulat does not
exclude knowledge as Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, falsely claims.
EMPHASIS ADDED.
<QUOTE>
The people who call themselves "Agnostics" have been charged with doing
so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "Infidels."
It has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to
escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination.
To this wholly erroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the
term "Agnostic" did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which
negatives it; and my statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted.
Moreover, speaking for myself, and without impugning the right of any
other person to use the term in another sense, I further say that
Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed
as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith
in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as
intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that IT IS WRONG FOR A MAN TO SAY THAT HE IS CERTAIN OF
THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH OF ANY PROPOSITION UNLESS HE CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE
WHICH LOGICALLY JUSTIFIES THAT CERTAINTY. THIS IS WHAT AGNOSTICISM
ASSERTS; AND, IN MY OPINION, IT IS ALL THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO AGNOSTICISM.
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; and that reprobation ought to
attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported
propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the
success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of
natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as
these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.
<END QUOTE>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
04 Feb 2005 09:43:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 12:23:27 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Isn't that "reference to religion" enough for you?
"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 02:10:24 AM |
|
|
In article <XuWdnbpdEetgjJnfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Isn't that "reference to religion" enough for you?
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
Just where in that "excoriation" does Huxley ever excoriate religion?
Give us a specific quote.
I have read it in its entirety and found no such excoriation. It is not
religion so much as fanatacism, whether religious or otherwise, that
Huxley excoriates, which makes Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, a
prime target for Huxley's excoriation:The following is 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>
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, anti-theist, has no scientific
grounds for what he professes to know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 01:58:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis. I guess his
distinction is too subtle for you.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
10 Feb 2005 03:38:15 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis.
It is an excoriation of religious BELIEF. "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." (emphasis added)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
10 Feb 2005 04:11:42 AM |
|
|
In article <hfidnfwod5W1SpffRVn-jQ@comcast.com>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might
actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis.
It is an excoriation of religious BELIEF.
Except that it notably avoids any excoriation of any religious belief.
And Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, cannot find any such excoriation
in Huxley's words or it would be inserted into every one of Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's postings.
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."
"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
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
-- Thomas Huxley in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 02:45:26 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis.
In which he is excoriating any religious doctrine like Christianity,
Judaism, or Islamism for example, that there are propositions like the
tenets of Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism for example that people
ought to BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence. See the quote
above? The term used is BELIEVE, not KNOW, sir. Do you have a little
reading comprehension problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
05 Feb 2005 07:01:21 PM |
|
|
In article <hsudnfG4JbaVQZnfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might
actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis.
In which he is excoriating any religious doctrine like Christianity,
Judaism, or Islamism for example, that there are propositions like the
tenets of Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism for example that people
ought to BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence. See the quote
above? The term used is BELIEVE, not KNOW, sir. Do you have a little
reading comprehension problem?
It is Septic "AntiTheistAntiAgnostic" Troll, the Craven Capon, who is
the one having trouble reading. Consider the more complete qutation
involving two sentences below by which Huxley expalins his understanding
of agnosticism:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
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 in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
Religion is not mentioned at all in either sentence, so that the
imputation that Huxley is excoriating religions is shown to be false.
And what Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, tries to
pass off as Huxley's entire definition, now appears only as a codicil.
And Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, manages to
ignore some of Huxley's other statements:
"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
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
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.
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself
whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist
or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the
more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until
at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part
with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in
which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in
which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had
attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully
solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not,
and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself
presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. - Thomas Huxley
All of which directly contradict the calims about agnosticism made by
Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: atheist agnostic |
06 Feb 2005 12:06:01 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <hsudnfG4JbaVQZnfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:23:27 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2r701pclrg6jr5s423cam2eq3jm092dif@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:28:07 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f7601dciui4hkf2ngpepvtv3e0dl6qbtc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:06:38 -0800, "Atheistagnostic"
<atheistagnostic@nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
The issue is the irrational theist religious BELIEF there might
actually
be
a God.
Which has nothing to do with what Huxley said. ...
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
You left out all reference to religion. Your error or his?
It's a quote from Huxley's excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism
and Christianity"??
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
In which he's expounding against religious gnosis.
In which he is excoriating any religious doctrine like Christianity,
Judaism, or Islamism for example, that there are propositions like the
tenets of Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism for example that people
ought to BELIEVE without logically satisfactory evidence. See the quote
above? The term used is BELIEVE, not KNOW, sir. Do you have a little
reading comprehension problem?
It is Septic "AntiTheistAntiAgnostic" Troll, the Craven Capon, who is
the one having trouble reading. Consider the more complete qutation
involving two sentences below by which Huxley expalins his understanding
of agnosticism:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
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 in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
Religion is not mentioned at all in either sentence ...
It is mentioned in the title of the piece, "Agnosticism and
Christianity," moron. And that is what "belief without logically
satisfactory evidence" refers to, religious belief like Christianity for
example.
To whom did you think these remarks were addressed, atheists? If so,
wouldn't the title of the piece be, "Agnosticism versus Christianity and
Atheism"?? Hmmm?
Anyway, atheism is not a belief, "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 03:14:36 AM |
|
|
In article <XI-dneyr4vT0wpjfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is Septic "AntiTheistAntiAgnostic" Troll, the Craven Capon, who is
the one having trouble reading. Consider the more complete qutation
involving two sentences below by which Huxley expalins his understanding
of agnosticism:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
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 in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
Religion is not mentioned at all in either sentence ...
It is mentioned in the title of the piece, "Agnosticism and
Christianity," moron.
But not pejoritaively. And religion is not mentioned pejoriatively
anywhere in "Agnosticism and Christianity" or wSeptic
AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, old have cited it times
without number. Here absence of evidence of any pejorative maening is
sufficient evidence of absence to cause any reasonble person to reject
Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon's claims on the
matter.
To whom did you think these remarks were addressed, atheists? If so,
wouldn't the title of the piece be, "Agnosticism versus Christianity and
Atheism"?? Hmmm?
I prsume that they were adressed to womewever was interested in reading
Huxley's views, a group of which apparently Septic AntiTheist
AntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, is not a member, since he pays no
atention to Huxley's actual views.
Anyway, atheism is not a belief
It appears to be a bleif to Septic AntiTheist AntiAgnostic Troll, the
Craven Capon.
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the impossibility 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 "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
Which means that Huxley declares the credo of Septic AntiTheist
AntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon, anathema, and rejects any belief
that gods are impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
06 Feb 2005 08:16:42 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-CA61F0.20143605022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I prsume that they were adressed to womewever was interested
Trying to type your silly arguments for God while under the influence again,
old boy. Tsk tsk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
06 Feb 2005 02:18:46 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-CA61F0.20143605022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I prsume that they were adressed to womewever was interested
Trying to type your silly arguments for God while under the influence
again,
old boy. Tsk tsk.
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again in lieu of addressing Virgil's
demolition of your previous statements, Septic? Heh. Do you know how
amusing it is, for others, to watch your diversionary behavior when you
are so cornered?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was:atheist agnostic] |
06 Feb 2005 06:51:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
You just blew up my irony meter again, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
07 Feb 2005 02:44:47 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
moron.
That's a "yes".
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was:atheist agnostic] |
07 Feb 2005 04:25:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
You just blew up my irony meter again, moron.
That's a "yes".
Can't you read? That's a "You just blew up my irony meter again, moron."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
07 Feb 2005 08:21:20 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
moron.
That's a "yes".
Can't you read?
That's another "yes".
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
07 Feb 2005 08:28:40 PM |
|
|
In article <jqqdnePPFYT_C5rfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
You just blew up my irony meter again, moron.
That's a "yes".
Can't you read? That's a "You just blew up my irony meter again, moron."
That meter needed recalibration anyway, as it was missing all of Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's unconscious ironies and reacting to all sort
of things it should have ignored.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was: atheist agnostic] |
06 Feb 2005 07:22:09 PM |
|
|
In article <Mpmdnd898ve7-pvfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
You just blew up my irony meter again, moron.
To call someone a moron IS an instance of the fallacy of argumentum ad
hominem, so that irony meter must have blown up from the effects of
Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon's own statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: The results of trying to type while under the influence [was:atheist agnostic] |
07 Feb 2005 04:44:59 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Mpmdnd898ve7-pvfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Trying Fallacy of ad hominem again, Septic?
You just blew up my irony meter again, moron.
To call someone a moron IS an instance of the fallacy of argumentum ad
hominem, so that irony meter must have blown up from the effects of
Septic AntiTheistAntiAgnostic Troll, the Craven Capon's own statement.
Oh, the irony you morons post!! The irony!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
