Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Jun 2005 01:55:11 AM |
|
|
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out ...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all argue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Jun 2005 02:17:29 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D34BD0.00551125062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out ...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all argue.
I will now point out again that you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
That is classic textbook theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, as Copi explains:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Jun 2005 04:09:15 PM |
|
|
In article <-uKdnQE7SI-fmCDfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D34BD0.00551125062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out ...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all argue.
I will now point out again that you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
But that argument is Simple Septic's.
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof anymore than we can claim the
actuality of any sort of god without proof. But Simple Septic is so
totally unable to read what anyone else actually says that he never gets
it right, and continues to reiterate his delusions about me.
And since Simple Septic rejects my actual argument, he musty be claiming
knowledge either that some god provably exists or that all gods are
provably impossible, as that is what denying my position implies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 02:04:20 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-337496.15091525062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-uKdnQE7SI-fmCDfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D34BD0.00551125062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out
...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never
argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all
argue.
I will now point out again that you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
But that argument is Simple Septic's.
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 02:38:39 AM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-337496.15091525062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-uKdnQE7SI-fmCDfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D34BD0.00551125062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out
...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never
argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all
argue.
I will now point out again that you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
But that argument is Simple Septic's.
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
And you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there is not an invisible God
because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis true. So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 11:02:57 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3Ysve.3507$mw1.2992@trnddc09...
Deep Thought wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-337496.15091525062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-uKdnQE7SI-fmCDfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D34BD0.00551125062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <TqudnXYqn8YZZyHfRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
DanialSan
. You're arguing against them.
No sir, I am not producing an argument here, I am just pointing out
...
As Simple Septic repeatedly just points out, Simple Septic never
argues,
he "just points out", while nobody else "just points out" they all
argue.
I will now point out again that you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
But that argument is Simple Septic's.
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
And you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there is not an invisible God because
atheists cannot prove that hypothesis true.
Straw man. Do you know how many theist morons per year troll through alt dot
atheism telling us atheists that atheists argue this and atheists argue
that? Must be in the hundreds! But it is a straw man, atheism is not an
argument (a set of premises leading to a conclusion), pal, "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, because believing things without evidence is behavior
contrary to one of mankinds most basic principles:
"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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
27 Jun 2005 12:31:09 AM |
|
|
In article <oN-dne35Ar1YSCPfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3Ysve.3507$mw1.2992@trnddc09...
And you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there is not an invisible God because
atheists cannot prove that hypothesis true.
Straw man.
No strawier than Simple Septic's similar but opposite argument. The two
are mirror images of each other and morally equivalent.
Do you know how many theist morons per year troll through alt dot
atheism telling us atheists that atheists argue this and atheists argue
that? Must be in the hundreds! But it is a straw man, atheism is not an
argument
Not that the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
And atheists do argue, as self-confessed atheist Simple Septic has just
been doing.
Atheist agnostics
Since Simple Septic isn't one, he cannot speak for them, so I have
snipped his falsehoods on the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
27 Jun 2005 03:30:50 AM |
|
|
Virgil:
Not that the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
What not what what not what???
You are the one making the lame argument _ad ignorantiam_ in this case; you
argue that there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that
conjecture false.
It is classic textbook theist argument _ad ignorantiam_:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantiam_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of
crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove
false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
28 Jun 2005 02:52:41 AM |
|
|
In article <f5KdncHr05WtJCLfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgil:
... the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
What not what what not what???
Its English, kucklehead, learn to read!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
02 Jul 2005 12:50:14 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A10E4D.01524128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <f5KdncHr05WtJCLfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgil:
... the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
What not what what not what???
Its English, kucklehead, learn to read!
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
How is an absence of belief an argument?
Isn't an argument a set of premises leading to a conclusion?
You insist, "Atheists argue." Is there a set of premises leading to a
conclusion that all atheists present to you? Please explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
02 Jul 2005 01:50:36 PM |
|
|
In article <eMadnU4FtvlSTlvfRVn-jw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A10E4D.01524128062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <f5KdncHr05WtJCLfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgil:
... the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Only atheists argue that atheism is not an argument.
How is an absence of belief an argument?
How are those who argue, like Simple Septic, that they are not arguing
because they are atheists, not arguing?
You insist, "Atheists argue."
(1) Simple Septic argues.
(2) Simple Septic claims to be atheist.
Conclusion: If Simple Septic is atheist, then at least one atheist
argues.
Auxiliary conclusion: Simple Septic's argument that atheists do not
argue is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
03 Jul 2005 01:50:57 AM |
|
|
"Virgil"
Only atheists argue that atheism is not an argument.
Only theists like you argue that atheism is an argument.
"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. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Septic argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
03 Jul 2005 10:50:06 PM |
|
|
In article <FOidnd9ld5FUF1rfRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil"
Only atheists argue that atheism is not an argument.
Only theists like you argue that atheism is an argument.
No, what I said was that some atheists argue, which the evidence of
Simple Septic arguing prfoves.
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to deny and repudiate the idiocies of such as Simple Septic.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
doctrines of anti-agnostic Simple Septic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheistscan't prove that conjecture false |
03 Jul 2005 04:30:17 AM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Virgil"
Only atheists argue that atheism is not an argument.
Only theists like you argue that atheism is an argument.
Is Virgil a theist? I thought he was an agnostic. You know, like your
pal Huxley?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Septic argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
28 Jun 2005 02:54:48 AM |
|
|
In article <f5KdncHr05WtJCLfRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgil:
...the statement that Simple Septic is opposing is NOT that
atheism is an argument but that atheists argue.
What ...???
Header corrected!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
27 Jun 2005 12:15:45 AM |
|
|
In article <CbmdnTklX7j2ziPfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
Simple Septic again proves that he cannot read, or at least that he
cannot give an honest report of what he has read.
Refusal to say something is false is NOT the same as claiming it is
true, as Simple Septic has just implied I did.
So it is Simple Septic whose argument is from ignorance, his own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
27 Jun 2005 02:22:36 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F7B095.23154526062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <CbmdnTklX7j2ziPfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
Simple Septic again proves that he cannot read ...
Most ten year olds can read well enough to know that what you said and what
I said mean exactly the same thing, moron. You will fool only the most
gullible. But those are the ones you are really aiming for, aren't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
27 Jun 2005 02:47:35 AM |
|
|
In article <Zsidne-lbJuvNCLfRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F7B095.23154526062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <CbmdnTklX7j2ziPfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
MY actual argument is that we cannot absolutely reject the possibility
of some sort of god without proof
That's what I said, you argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
Simple Septic again proves that he cannot read ...
Most ten year olds can read well enough to know that what you said and what
I said mean exactly the same thing, moron. You will fool only the most
gullible. But those are the ones you are really aiming for, aren't you?
Ten year olds don't read as well now as they did whenI was 10, though
they are better at computer games. Most of them still read better than
Simple Septic though.
My statement and his may mean the same to someone of Simple Septic's
miniscule reading talents and twisted biases, but not to anyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
27 Jun 2005 03:24:04 AM |
|
|
Virgil:
My statement and his may mean the same
Absolutely. Yours is just phrased in weasel words. You argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might
be an invisible God because atheists cannot prove that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) false.
It is classic textbook theist argument _ad ignorantiam_:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantiam_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of
crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove
false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
28 Jun 2005 02:51:10 AM |
|
|
In article <zv-dnUaDpMYHKiLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Virgil:
My statement
has been snipped to death by weasel words, aka Simple Septic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Septic argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
28 Jun 2005 02:53:34 AM |
|
|
In article <zv-dnUaDpMYHKiLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
Header corrected!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Jun 2005 01:27:16 AM |
|
|
In article <r56dnToh9fA-BCHfRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:u3%ue.826$Uc2.32@trnddc03...
Deep Thought wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E77F77.13394424062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <qO-dnR2lv6sTtybfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
Theists seem to prefer to try to create a diversion instead of sticking
to
the real issue.
Simple Septic interpretation: theist = anyone who does not agree with
Simple Septic entirely on everything.
Nope.
theist: one who argues _ad ignorantiam_ like Virgil, Johnny, and friends,
that there might be an invisible God because the atheists can't prove
that hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) false.
Depends. How do you define "god," Deep Thought?
It's not my hypothetical thing. I don't have any obligation to define
somebody else's hypothetical thing, they do. But it doesn't matter what the
true-believers imagine a hypothetical thing to be, D. There is a principle
involved here. The principle is that for any X, whatever X is imagined to
be, but is not in evidence, it is the logical fallacy of argment _ad
ignorantiam_ to argue as Johnny, Virgil and friends do, that there might be
an invisible X because there is no proof the hypothesis ('might be'
conjecture) is false.
It would certainly be improper to argue that there must be anything for
which there is no supporting evidence, which is just what Simple Septic
is doing.
By declaring that it is a fallacy to suggest that, as far as anyone
knows for sure, there might be a god is a fallacy, Simple Septic is
declaring that he knows there MUST NOT be any gods. Which Copi DOES
categorize as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
See Copi:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Nor can Galileo prove that Simple Septic's claim is false either!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
02 Jul 2005 11:56:17 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" :
... there might be a god ...
Got proof?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
02 Jul 2005 12:50:56 PM |
|
|
In article <AoidnYFHlvC2WlvfRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
... there might be a god ...
There is certainly no reason to suppose it false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheistscan't prove that conjecture false |
03 Jul 2005 03:09:38 AM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" :
... there might be a god ...
Got proof?
Got snippage? What? You scared of actually answering a FULL post?
Chicken! *points at JHC*
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Virgil argues there might be an invisible God because atheists can't prove that conjecture false |
03 Jul 2005 09:40:46 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:63Nxe.19447$Fn4.15832@trnddc06...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" :
... there might be a god ...
Got proof?
Got snippage?
Nothing wrong with trimming posts down to the crux of the matter; it's
netiquette, knucklehead. http://www.albion.com/netiquette/
Trimming the junk saves bandwidth.Virgil's never-ending argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be an invisible God because the non-believers
cannot prove that conjecture false is all I was asking about when I asked,
"Got proof?"
Get it now?
.
|
|
| | | | |
