| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deafpanda" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 02:40:20 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics
and logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of
the matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it
appeared to be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
An old put-down used by atheists is that theists turned to god because
there were things that couldnt be explained, and now science rules the
roost there is no need for religion. This is clearly bollocks. The
things that can't be explained are the quite important and valid
questions of "where the ***** did all this stuff come from?" and "what
the ***** will happen when all this stuff is gone?". God, in my eyes,
is a hypothetical entity that serves as an explanation and a cause of
reality, a sort of tidier up of loose ends.
My reasoning is that something *probably* can't come of nothing. The
idea of any sort of matter, let alone life, is so fucking weird when
you really think about it. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is
another weird one. Also, why does the universe seem geared toward
conscious life?
Personally I think it would be less weird if, in this universe of
logic, all these questions and more were explained in the end, than
left unexplained. However, this is where the problems start. People
start to offer up ideas for the nature of this explanation, and all
reason goes down the pan.
Theists bring ideas of god into disrepute. Your average theist is a
fucking idiot. He doesn't question the ***** he has probably been
fed from an early age, hates theists of other religions and tries to
make claims to knowledge with arguments like "i just know...", "its a
matter of faith...".
My point is that any "higher power" theories of metaphysics are wild
speculation. If there is a higher power, then it is, by nature of
being non-physical, completely beyond our comprehension.
And the problem with atheism is that it doesn't realise how similar
its position is to the theist one - they are making an equally strong
claim, just in the other direction, that there is DEFINATELY no god.
The truth is that science can attempt to answer any question about
anything we can see and measure, but it can't tell us that all there
is is what we can measure, which some atheists seem to be implying.
Sure, there is no *measurable* phenomenon that supports god, but there
are (IMHO) reasons to believe in one, as I have shown earlier.
You can't argue against the claim "there may or may not be a god". It
is the only sensible position.
Theists and atheists are making opposite, but equally silly, claims.
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 12:34:56 AM |
|
|
"Deafpanda" <deafpanda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com...
<snippage>
Just be careful about lighting matches around all that straw.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
01 Apr 2004 10:14:06 PM |
|
|
"Deafpanda" <deafpanda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com...
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics
and logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of
the matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it
appeared to be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
You already claimed that god was 1) non-physical and 2) godlike. If you
don't see how this is a claim about the nature of god then you really need
to go back to school. The rest of your argument makes no sense because of
your conflicting claims above. Spend some time to get your story straight
before making a fool of yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
04 Apr 2004 10:27:37 AM |
|
|
(Deafpanda) wrote in message news:<aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com>...
<snip
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
<snip>
Just call yourself clueless.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kosta Atheos" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
01 Apr 2004 07:21:49 PM |
|
|
An old put-down used by atheists is that theists turned to god because
there were things that couldnt be explained, and now science rules the
roost there is no need for religion.
I don't think you understand atheism. Either that or this is a strawman.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 03:01:08 AM |
|
|
In article <aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com>,
deafpanda@hotmail.com says...
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics
and logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of
the matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it
appeared to be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
*ALERT*
Super-lame cop-out detected.
Discarding rest of message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 05:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:01:08 +0000 in episode
<MPG.1ad749b9307a11179897a1@news.chello.nl> we saw our hero Richard Smol
<jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl>:
In article <aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com>,
deafpanda@hotmail.com says...
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics and
logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of the
matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it appeared to
be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
*ALERT*
Super-lame cop-out detected.
Discarding rest of message.
He was trying to cause a buffer overrun...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 04:06:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:01:08 GMT, Richard Smol
<jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote:
In article <aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com>,
deafpanda@hotmail.com says...
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics
and logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of
the matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it
appeared to be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
*ALERT*
Super-lame cop-out detected.
Discarding rest of message.
Christians are people who attack those who don't believe in Santa
Claus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 06:40:15 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:01:08 GMT, Richard Smol
<jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote:
In article <aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com>,
deafpanda@hotmail.com says...
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics
and logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of
the matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it
appeared to be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
*ALERT*
Super-lame cop-out detected.
Discarding rest of message.
Christians are people who attack those who don't believe in Santa
Claus.
Some of them would love to torture infidels:
"Do I have to stick a hot poker up your ***** to get your imbecilic brain
working?" -- Snipper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
03 Apr 2004 02:52:49 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
[snip]
Some of them would love to torture infidels:
"Do I have to stick a hot poker up your ***** to
get your imbecilic brain working?" -- Snipper
Not infidels, fuckchop, just you.
--
"We know that 'dog' is a very meaningful
proposition." - Skepticus Stupidus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 07:26:28 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2004 12:40:20 -0800 the ET form known as
Deafpanda<deafpanda@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
In what way is your god different from a fairy given the above?
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
04 Apr 2004 07:18:10 PM |
|
|
Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ad8a8b43d3ac44d989d5f@news.optusnet.com.au>...
On 1 Apr 2004 12:40:20 -0800 the ET form known as
Deafpanda<deafpanda@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
In what way is your god different from a fairy given the above?
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Or rather..... could be that deafpanda doesn't understand what he's
actually talking about?
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
01 Apr 2004 03:48:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:40:20 -0800 in episode
<aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
deafpanda@hotmail.com (Deafpanda):
And the problem with atheism is that it doesn't realise how similar its
position is to the theist one - they are making an equally strong claim,
just in the other direction, that there is DEFINATELY no god.
You may have been reading the ng some but you obviously haven't paid
attention at *all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Pace" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
01 Apr 2004 09:54:32 PM |
|
|
But first one has to define, What is a "God"? whence comes
consciousness,should be asked? Can all this revelation come from
nothingness.Untill then,I'll keep the options open.You see folks;I don't
want to end up in eternal HELL.HoHum!yawn etc,etc.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.01.21.48.23.900884@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:40:20 -0800 in episode
<aecbb0b.0404011240.3b5e3efa@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
deafpanda@hotmail.com (Deafpanda):
And the problem with atheism is that it doesn't realise how similar its
position is to the theist one - they are making an equally strong claim,
just in the other direction, that there is DEFINATELY no god.
You may have been reading the ng some but you obviously haven't paid
attention at *all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
01 Apr 2004 10:16:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:40:20 -0800, Deafpanda wrote:
I'm going to attempt to respond to this, but you would be better served by
reading some FAQs concerning atheism, agnosticism, deist and such. Fire
up Google and help yourself.
It is quite apparent that you are a deist leaning towards agnostic. I was
a deist for many years before I learned the term, so I understand where
you are coming from. I later moved to agnostic and then to atheist
(agnostic atheist).
Having read all these ridiculously convoluted arguments in semantics and
logic ("The burden of proof") I felt like offering my opinion of the
matter, in the hope of removing the debate from the rut it appeared to
be in. Here goes...
Note: the word "god" in this post refers to anything non-physical and
godlike (god, plato's forms, the infinite consciosness, the grand
shimmering pink unicorn etc).
Firstly, I believe that there probably is a "god" (see above), but do
not make any claim as to the nature of this god. I am not a theist,
because i don't claim to know this.
The concept of god is something that i think atheists dont understand.
if there was a god, there is no reason to believe that it would be
observable in this universe.
Stop right there. There are at least two types of atheists. Strong
atheists and weak atheists. Strong atheists don't believe that gods can
exist. I personally believe this is foolish as it is awfully hard if not
impossible to prove. I am therefore a weak atheist. I would describe
myself as an agnostic atheist, but that might confuse some people. The
two terms deal with two different realms. Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
Atheist: no belief in god. I have no knowledge of any god; therefore, I
don't believe in any god.
An old put-down used by atheists is that theists turned to god because
there were things that couldnt be explained, and now science rules the
roost there is no need for religion. This is clearly bollocks. The
things that can't be explained are the quite important and valid
questions of "where the ***** did all this stuff come from?" and "what
the ***** will happen when all this stuff is gone?". God, in my eyes, is
a hypothetical entity that serves as an explanation and a cause of
reality, a sort of tidier up of loose ends.
You are a deist by the way you describe yourself. Look it up. Look for
the term "devine watchmaker". The belief is that basically god made the
universe, wound it up, and sits back and just observes. I assume you
don't believe in miracles either. God takes no part in his creation.
My reasoning is that something *probably* can't come of nothing. The
idea of any sort of matter, let alone life, is so fucking weird when you
really think about it. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is another
weird one. Also, why does the universe seem geared toward conscious
life?
Now, here's the fallacy in being a deist. Just because things seem to
have order does not mean that a god made it so. There can be numerous
explanations for such, probably all wrong as we know so little about the
universe. The point is that "order" in the universe can not be used to
prove that a god did it. That is a circular argument and is logically
flawed. I've been there and done that. When I understood that, I started
calling myself an atheist.
Personally I think it would be less weird if, in this universe of logic,
all these questions and more were explained in the end, than left
unexplained. However, this is where the problems start. People start
to offer up ideas for the nature of this explanation, and all reason
goes down the pan.
Your logical mind is deceiving you. You're selectively looking at things
you chose to in order to "see" order. How about all of the children born
with birth defects or stillborn? There are some scary pictures
available on the 'net. Explain hermaphrodites. The universe is filled
with order AND disorder. Some areas may be more "ordered" than others by
chance and by normal interactions of matter/energy. I myself believe that
the universe is geared towards order by its very nature.
Theists bring ideas of god into disrepute. Your average theist is a
fucking idiot. He doesn't question the ***** he has probably been
fed from an early age, hates theists of other religions and tries to
make claims to knowledge with arguments like "i just know...", "its a
matter of faith...".
Somewhat true. Yes, they're lost. They believe in fairy tales, but heh,
it makes them feel better, so why should you really care so long as they
leave you alone? Remember, you can not expect tolerance from others if
you don't tolerate them.
My point is that any "higher power" theories of metaphysics are wild
speculation. If there is a higher power, then it is, by nature of being
non-physical, completely beyond our comprehension.
Maybe, maybe not, but your starting to sound like an agnostic. Look that
one up too. Some guy named Thomas Huxley coined that term. Pay attention
to what it is defined as. You'll note that it is used differently by most
people.
And the problem with atheism is that it doesn't realise how similar its
position is to the theist one - they are making an equally strong claim,
just in the other direction, that there is DEFINATELY no god.
Been through that one already: strong vs weak atheists.
The truth is that science can attempt to answer any question about
anything we can see and measure, but it can't tell us that all there is
is what we can measure, which some atheists seem to be implying. Sure,
there is no *measurable* phenomenon that supports god, but there are
(IMHO) reasons to believe in one, as I have shown earlier.
You can't argue against the claim "there may or may not be a god". It
is the only sensible position.
Theists and atheists are making opposite, but equally silly, claims.
Again, strong atheists vs weak atheists... I'll bet most are of the weak
type. The bottom line is that there is no evidence of god and you can not
use "order" to prove that a god exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 06:33:28 PM |
|
|
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist. Everybody else is
atheist, including those who are agnostic.
Agnostics are those atheists who go one step beyond simple disbelief to
the outright denial and repudiation of religious belief that a magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no spoor anybody
can point out.
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists. |
02 Apr 2004 09:27:14 PM |
|
|
In article <sDnbc.63317$JO3.38372@attbi_s04>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
And that anti-religious beleif of those anti-thiests like Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, who says, without any smidgen of evidence in support,
that he knows that gods are impossible.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
Wrong. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has just claimed that a heresy
is a theist belief.
The theist belief is that gods actually exist. Anything less that actual
existence is considered heretical.
Agnostics know that neither the existence nor the impossibility of gods
have been proved, and cannot therefore be said to be known.
Atheists are the mild ones who merely lack any beleif in the existence
of a god or the fanatic ones like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who
insist, without proof, that they know that gods cannot exist.
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
<start quote>
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>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
03 Apr 2004 02:51:17 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
You are an idiot. Theists don't believe there _might_
be a god, theists believe that there is a god, dummy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
04 Apr 2004 11:14:55 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
<snip argument _ad hominem> Theists don't believe there _might_
be a god, theists believe that there is a god, <snip argument _ad hominem_>.
There is no reason for anyone to believe there is a god since there is
no such thing in evidence. All you theists can do is argue from
ignorance as you do that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
even though there is no spoor you theists can point out, and this
hypothesis, you argue _ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could
not prove false!
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantium_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Snipper's argument from ignorance is that, in any case, X might exist
(whatever X is imagined to be), unless demonstrated othewise. That is
textbook logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
04 Apr 2004 05:11:26 PM |
|
|
In article <3wWbc.73526$JO3.40231@attbi_s04>,
Skepticus AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
<skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
<snip argument _ad hominem> Theists don't believe there _might_
be a god, theists believe that there is a god, <snip argument _ad hominem_>.
There is no reason for anyone to believe there is a god since there is
no such thing in evidence.
Non-responsive. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who regularly
misrepresents both agnostics and theists and conflates agnosticism with
theism, avoiding another issue which he cannot handle.
And there are billions of people who disagree, or there would not be all
those theists for Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, to take exception to.
All you theists can do is argue from
ignorance as you do that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
It is AGNOSTICS who argue, from the facts, that there MIGHT be a not
necessarily magic, not necessarily invisible, god.
It is THEISTS who argue, though not necessarily ad ignorantiam, that
there MUST be a not necessarily magic, not necessarily invisible, god.
It is SEPTIC CAPON, the Simple Pimple, who cannot stand the truth about
this issue.
Snipper's argument from ignorance is that, in any case, X might exist
(whatever X is imagined to be), unless demonstrated othewise. That is
textbook logical fallacy.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, sees fallacies where honest logicians
see truth, and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, sees truth where honest
logicians see fallacies. There seems to be something cross-wired in
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
04 Apr 2004 01:42:36 PM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
You are an idiot. Theists don't believe there _might_
be a god, theists believe that there is a god, dummy.
There is no reason for anyone to believe there is a god
since there is no such thing in evidence.
You are an idiot. I didn't give you reason to believe or
not believe in god(s), I told you what theist's believe.
All you theists can do is argue from ignorance as you do
that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
All you imbeciles do is accuse people who don't say it's
impossible that a god might exist of being theists. They
are not theists, you dumbfuck, they're called agnostics:
:What is an Agnostic? by: Bertrand Russell
:
:An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters
:such as God and the future life with which Christianity and
:other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least
:impossible at the present time.
:
:Are agnostics atheists?
:
:No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether
:or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there
:is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic
:suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds
:either for affirmation or for denial.
[snip tired, cut & paste, argumentum ad nauseam, quotes]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
04 Apr 2004 02:02:54 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it (theists),
the absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step
further, the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as
a matter of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further than other atheists to 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
<snip argument _ad hominem_> Theists don't believe there _might_
be a god, theists believe that there is a god, dummy.
There is no reason for anyone to believe there is a god
since there is no such thing in evidence.
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I didn't give you reason to believe or
not believe in god(s), I told you what theist's believe.
There is no reason for anyone to believe there is a god since there is
no such thing in evidence. All you theists can do is argue from
ignorance as you do that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
even though there is no spoor you theists can point out, and this
hypothesis, you argue _ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could
not prove false!
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantium_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Snipper's argument from ignorance is that, in any case, X might exist
(whatever X is imagined to be), unless demonstrated othewise. That is
textbook logical fallacy.
All you theists can do is argue from ignorance as you do
that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
All you <snip argument _ad hominem_> do is accuse people who don't say it's
impossible that a god might exist of being theists.
No, only you theists who argue fom ignorance that there might be a magic
invisible god, because there is no proof your hypothesis is false.
Snipper's argument from ignorance is that, in any case, X might exist
(whatever X is imagined to be), unless demonstrated othewise. That is
textbook logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
04 Apr 2004 05:33:00 PM |
|
|
In article <yZYbc.68791$gA5.833740@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
Anybody who beieves Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, on the issue of who
is a theist is a fool.
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, foolishly repeats again his foolish lie
that theists believe what agnostics believe and theists delcare anathema.
Anyone can make a foolish statement once, but anyone who repeats such a
statement, ad nauseam, particularly after its foolishness has been
pointed out repeatedly, proves himself a fool and a knave, and anyone
who believes such a knavish fool is also a fool. So Simple Septic, the
Purple Pimple, is such a knave and a fool, and anyone who beleives his
lies is a fool.
All you theists can do is argue as you do
that there MIGHT be a magic invisible god anyway,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, foolishly repeats again his foolish lie
that theists believe what agnostics believe and theists delcare anathema.
Anyone can make a foolish statement once, but anyone who repeats such a
statement, ad nauseam, particularly after its foolishness has been
pointed out repeatedly, proves himself a fool and a knave, and anyone
who believes such a knavish fool is also a fool. So Simple Septic, the
Purple Pimple, is such a knave and a fool, and anyone who beleives his
lies is a fool.
A
All you <snip argument _ad hominem_> do is accuse people who don't say it's
impossible that a god might exist of being theists.
No, only you theists who argue [Another of Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple's Lies Deleted] that there might be a magic invisible god,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, foolishly repeats again his foolish lie
that theists believe what agnostics believe and theists delcare anathema.
Anyone can make a foolish statement once, but anyone who repeats such a
statement, ad nauseam, particularly after its foolishness has been
pointed out repeatedly, proves himself a fool and a knave, and anyone
who believes such a knavish fool is also a fool. So Simple Septic, the
Purple Pimple, is such a knave and a fool, and anyone who beleives his
lies is a fool.
Snipper's argument [Another of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's Lies
Deleted] is that, in any case, X might exist (whatever X is imagined
to be), unless demonstrated othewise. [Another of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's Lies Deleted]
In other words, X is not known to be impossible until X is known to be
impossible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 03:39:00 AM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
This is all about ...
What a monumentally stupid human being you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 01:09:18 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
This is all about ...
What a monumentally stupid human being you are.
Your argument _ad hominem_ might be true, sir, but nevertheless, even a
monumentally stupid human being can see that this is all about what you
snipped, Snipper:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist. Everybody else is
atheist, including those who are agnostic.
Agnostics are those atheists who go one step beyond simple disbelief to
the outright denial and repudiation of religious belief that a magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no spoor anybody
can point out.
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 05:19:21 PM |
|
|
In article <ihhcc.78384$w54.443110@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Brainfried wrote:
Agnostic: no knowledge of god.
No knowledge of God includes everybody.
This is all about religious belief.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist.
This is all about ...
What a monumentally stupid human being you are.
Your argument _ad hominem_ might be true, sir, but nevertheless, even a
monumentally stupid human being can see that this is all about what you
snipped, Snipper:
Considering that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, snips the heart out of
anything he disagrees with, he is hardly in a position to carp about
anyone else's snipping.
Anybody who believes there might be a god is theist. Everybody else is
atheist, including those who are agnostic.
Any body who believes "Anybody who believes there might be a god is
theist." is an *****.
When did any theist believe anything less that "there IS a God"?
Never.
Why do agnostics believe that there might be a god, even though they may
have no be.lief that there is one?
Because those like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who keep claiming
(and it is a claim regardless of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
claiming the contrary) that any gods are impossible cannot provide any
evidence in support of that claim, and the agnostic principle requires
agnostics to reject unproven statements.
"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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris S." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 05:23:22 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Agnostics are those atheists who go one step beyond simple disbelief to
the outright denial and repudiation of religious belief that a magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no spoor anybody
can point out.
Personally, I don't know why you're so zealous on issue, but have you
ever considered reading a dictionary?
From m-w.com:
athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
How can "one who believes that there is no deity" also be "not committed
to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence" of God or gods?
Is every number that's not positive automatically negative? Of course
not. Zero is neither positive nor negative. It's uncommitted in its
belief concerning polarity.
A few posters, unfortunately, seem to agree with your definition, that
an atheist is just someone who's not a theist, lumping agnostics into
the atheist camp. Believe that if you must, but just remember that the
rest of the world uses the real definition, the one written in
dictionaries. Atheists, agnostics, and theists are mutually exclusive
categories. Try as you might, you're can't redefine the English language.
And for the record, I'm an atheist and proud of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 05:27:41 PM |
|
|
"Chris S." wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Agnostics are those atheists who go one step beyond simple disbelief to
the outright denial and repudiation of religious belief that a magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no spoor anybody
can point out.
Personally, I don't know why you're so zealous on issue, but have you
ever considered reading a dictionary?
From m-w.com:
athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
[snip]
Dictionaries mean little to the invincibly ignorant. I've
had this conversation with Septic before, here's what the
ignorant twit had to say:
"Neither you, the dictionary, or the Atheism Web are the
final authority on anything, son."
Well then, there ya go. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris S." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists, agnostics and theists and imbeciles |
05 Apr 2004 06:03:12 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Dictionaries mean little to the invincibly ignorant. I've
had this conversation with Septic before, here's what the
ignorant twit had to say:
"Neither you, the dictionary, or the Atheism Web are the
final authority on anything, son."
Well then, there ya go. :)
I suppose that is an admission, albeit subtle, of errancy.
The real irony is that he often uses these resources in defense of his
own arguments. I guess they're only the final authority when he
references them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
