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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 04:50:52 AM |
|
|
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law). You can believe what you want for whatever reason and be totally
happy with it... but you cannot say that it satisfies rational
requirements when it does not.
So do you agree that it is the theist who made the first positive
assertion? After all "atheist" is defined as not being a theist.
I've applied Reductio ad Absurdum in several places, including to your
first positive assertion that it's valid to have to prove a negative.
That principle can also be used to show that logically - on the basis
of evidence and definitions available - the Christian deity cannot
exist.
But that still leaves us with little proof or counter-proof for the
physical domain. Just because something as silly as
coloured-egg-distributing bunnies do not logically exist, doesn't mean
bunnies don't exist at all.
More on it can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 11:22:41 AM |
|
|
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118915452.109135.320960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law). You can believe what you want for whatever reason and be totally
happy with it... but you cannot say that it satisfies rational
requirements when it does not.
So do you agree that it is the theist who made the first positive
assertion? After all "atheist" is defined as not being a theist.
I've applied Reductio ad Absurdum in several places, including to your
first positive assertion that it's valid to have to prove a negative.
That principle can also be used to show that logically - on the basis
of evidence and definitions available - the Christian deity cannot
exist.
Watch your back; now you'll have Virgil and friends all over you like a hive
of bees for pointing this out.
But that still leaves us with little proof or counter-proof for the
physical domain. Just because something as silly as
coloured-egg-distributing bunnies do not logically exist, doesn't mean
bunnies don't exist at all.
More on it can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Regards,
Talence
You say, "Just because something as silly as coloured-egg-distributing
bunnies do not logically exist, doesn't mean bunnies don't exist at all."
What are you saying here, that there might actually be some kind of a diety
anyway, even though there is nothing in evidence any theist can point to and
say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all they can do is argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that it is an hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) that even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false?
Isn't that, in essence, basically what theists want us to believe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 08:45:11 PM |
|
|
In article <TKGdnWGu_LPUOizfRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118915452.109135.320960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law). You can believe what you want for whatever reason and be totally
happy with it... but you cannot say that it satisfies rational
requirements when it does not.
So do you agree that it is the theist who made the first positive
assertion? After all "atheist" is defined as not being a theist.
I've applied Reductio ad Absurdum in several places, including to your
first positive assertion that it's valid to have to prove a negative.
That principle can also be used to show that logically - on the basis
of evidence and definitions available - the Christian deity cannot
exist.
Watch your back; now you'll have Virgil and friends all over you like a hive
of bees for pointing this out.
That depends on exactly which version of the "Christian Deity" he is
referring to. There are such versions that are self-contradictory, and
those, one may reasonably conclude, cannot exist.
But no one has successfully shown that all definitions of gods are
self-contradictory, so a proof that one version of god is impossible
does not prove all versions impossible.
Sorry to disappoint you, Simple Septic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 08:15:45 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2005 02:50:52 -0700, wrote:
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law).
This "burden of proof" thing is not a part of formal logic.
At best it is a kind of agreement for gentlemanly behaviour in
debates. A convention.
In logic the truth or falsity of statements is not dependent on "Whose
turn is it?". Logic is timeless - things dont become true when someone
invents a proof - they dont become false when someone invents a
disproof.
What is true is true - even if it is NEVER proved - what is false is
false even if it is NEVER disproved.
The number of true things is infinite (*)- the number of proofs always
finite.
Any assertion is an assertion.
Any negative assertion can be framed as a positive and visa versa - so
the positiveness or negativeness of a statement is an arbitary thing
anyway.
It's a red herring in any case.
People dont believe or disbelieve because of "proofs".
I don't believe in God - I don't care that I cant prove its non
existence.
Mark Richardson not being able to prove the non existence of God (or
Zeus) is a *****-poor reason for believing in God (or Zeus).
That's about all you have to say really.
Mark.
* I think this is true - but I havent got a proof. 8-)
I am certain the number of truths >> number of proofs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:57:16 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:41i5b11rov862jjpf1ur1rlhsilv21ct6l@4ax.com...
On 16 Jun 2005 02:50:52 -0700, wrote:
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law).
This "burden of proof" thing is not a part of formal logic.
You are right for once, Richo; it is a principle of INFORMAL (natural
language) logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic> that the full
burden of proof in the matter of any existential proposition ('There might
actually be a god', 'There might actually be guilt', whatever) is always on
the proponents.
At best it is a kind of agreement for gentlemanly behaviour in
debates.
But with theists there is nothing to debate, all we have is a one-sided
assertion from theists that there might actually be a god anyway, even
though there is no such thing they can point to and say, 'There, that's what
I'm talking about', all they can do is try to suck atheists into a "debate"
when all the while atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, only the
theists do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 10:32:04 PM |
|
|
In article <0qadnV0DaLxReS_fRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:41i5b11rov862jjpf1ur1rlhsilv21ct6l@4ax.com...
On 16 Jun 2005 02:50:52 -0700, wrote:
I imagine this burden of proof upon only postive assertions has been a
standing rule in some circles.
Exactly. In logic and by extension science and even society (rule of
law).
This "burden of proof" thing is not a part of formal logic.
You are right for once, Richo; it is a principle of INFORMAL (natural
language) logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic> that the full
burden of proof in the matter of any existential proposition ('There might
actually be a god', 'There might actually be guilt', whatever) is always on
the proponents.
At best it is a kind of agreement for gentlemanly behaviour in
debates.
But with theists there is nothing to debate
Since anti-theists like Simple Septic claim thatgods are known to be
impossible, and refuse to take any responsibility for validating their
claim, there is no point in arguning with them.
The only thing one can do is to warn others of their intransigence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 08:19:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:15:45 +1000, Mark Richardson
<spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2005 02:50:52 -0700, wrote:
[...]
I don't believe in God - I don't care that I cant prove its non
existence.
Mark Richardson not being able to prove the non existence of God (or
Zeus) is a *****-poor reason for believing in God (or Zeus).
Then, again -- it's your opinion there isn't a god. ;-) And that
doesn't require proof. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 09:01:17 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven,
There is nothing erroneous about it. The fact that nonexistence cannot
be proven is basic to logical debate.
the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven
Sorry, but nonexistence cannot be proven. Your delusions do not change
the facts of the matter.
and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
What benefits? Your lies and delusions benefit nobody. Not even you.
When are you going to prove that the nonexistence of an imaginary being
can be proven? Trying to say that limited and irrelevant mathematical,
scientific, and computer science proof support your contention that the
nonexistence of a deity can be proven does not help you. Those proof
are only good for the limited situation for which they are defined, not
the general case that you are proposing.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
You are the one that is in denial. You refuse to consider anything
real that opposes your opinions, hatred, bigotry, and delusions.
You need to leave your delusions behind and step into the real world.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
No kidding, "old dog". You refuse to learn anything.
They are content with their old tricks.
And you exemplify that contentment with what does not work and the same
old tired "song and dance" very well.
They will go out of style.
People like you have long been out of style. However, you still tend
to have a big mouth to shout your hatred and intolerance to the
annoyance of others.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
You mean like your invalid position? You have been rotting away since
I saw your first post.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
And we are currently trying to get these people that you like out of
office, and prevent others like them from getting elected. We need to
get compassionate, intelligent egalitarians into office. Politicians
that will work to support, promote, and uphold the rights, equality,
and freedom of everyone.
However, you would not like such an enlightened government. You seem
to prefer tyranny, inequality, destruction of freedom, and promotion of
bigotry.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 04:07:37 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2005 19:01:17 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Johnny wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven,
There is nothing erroneous about it. The fact that nonexistence cannot
be proven is basic to logical debate.
the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven
Sorry, but nonexistence cannot be proven. Your delusions do not change
the facts of the matter.
So you think that it is impossible to prove that there are no
four-sided triangles, or no prime numbers between 1 and 2, or that
there are no gods, or that there is no 3 ton elephant in my computer
room? Why do fundies think that their god is safe because it is not
possible to make an infinite search?
and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
What benefits? Your lies and delusions benefit nobody. Not even you.
When are you going to prove that the nonexistence of an imaginary being
can be proven? Trying to say that limited and irrelevant mathematical,
scientific, and computer science proof support your contention that the
nonexistence of a deity can be proven does not help you. Those proof
are only good for the limited situation for which they are defined, not
the general case that you are proposing.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
You are the one that is in denial. You refuse to consider anything
real that opposes your opinions, hatred, bigotry, and delusions.
You need to leave your delusions behind and step into the real world.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
No kidding, "old dog". You refuse to learn anything.
They are content with their old tricks.
And you exemplify that contentment with what does not work and the same
old tired "song and dance" very well.
They will go out of style.
People like you have long been out of style. However, you still tend
to have a big mouth to shout your hatred and intolerance to the
annoyance of others.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
You mean like your invalid position? You have been rotting away since
I saw your first post.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
And we are currently trying to get these people that you like out of
office, and prevent others like them from getting elected. We need to
get compassionate, intelligent egalitarians into office. Politicians
that will work to support, promote, and uphold the rights, equality,
and freedom of everyone.
However, you would not like such an enlightened government. You seem
to prefer tyranny, inequality, destruction of freedom, and promotion of
bigotry.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 12:45:54 AM |
|
|
"Clothaire" <clothaire@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:sip3b1hr1r49egu2bbt6p9b32u767hk31c@4ax.com...
On 15 Jun 2005 19:01:17 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Johnny wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny
that
it can be proven.
That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea
that
non-existence can not be proven,
There is nothing erroneous about it. The fact that nonexistence cannot
be proven is basic to logical debate.
the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven
Sorry, but nonexistence cannot be proven. Your delusions do not change
the facts of the matter.
So you think that it is impossible to prove that there are no
four-sided triangles ...
Yeah, that's one of the theist arguments, "If it can be proved there are no
four sided triangles, then you atheists should be able to prove there is no
God."
But triangles are three-sided plane figures by definition, so there is no
need to ever prove there are no four-sided triangles, the very idea of a
four-sided triangle is meaningless, just like God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 10:16:40 PM |
|
|
In article <5sidnXX4OvkJ_i_fRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Clothaire" <clothaire@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:sip3b1hr1r49egu2bbt6p9b32u767hk31c@4ax.com...
On 15 Jun 2005 19:01:17 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Johnny wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny
that
it can be proven.
That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea
that
non-existence can not be proven,
There is nothing erroneous about it. The fact that nonexistence cannot
be proven is basic to logical debate.
the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven
Sorry, but nonexistence cannot be proven. Your delusions do not change
the facts of the matter.
So you think that it is impossible to prove that there are no
four-sided triangles ...
Yeah, that's one of the theist arguments, "If it can be proved there are no
four sided triangles, then you atheists should be able to prove there is no
God."
Not so. The argument is that proofs of impossibility are not themselves
impossible because some of them actually exist. Anything beyond that is
merely Simple Septic's editorializing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 05:30:50 PM |
|
|
Clothaire wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 19:01:17 -0700, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
Johnny wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven,
There is nothing erroneous about it. The fact that nonexistence cannot
be proven is basic to logical debate.
the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven
Sorry, but nonexistence cannot be proven. Your delusions do not change
the facts of the matter.
So you think that it is impossible to prove that there are no
four-sided triangles, or no prime numbers between 1 and 2, or that
there are no gods, or that there is no 3 ton elephant in my computer
room?
I wish to refer you to what I wrote a few lines above this:
"That does not change that the non-existence of something cannot be
proved EXCEPT in limited cases, such as when an exhaustive search of
the defined set can be done."
Each of your examples fall under the category of "limited cases" that I
mentioned. They are conducive to exhaustive searches or rigid
mathematical proofs, which can prove the non-existance of something
sometimes.
Why do fundies think that their god is safe because it is not
possible to make an infinite search?
I have no idea. I am certainly not one of them.
Mark Sebree
and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
What benefits? Your lies and delusions benefit nobody. Not even you.
When are you going to prove that the nonexistence of an imaginary being
can be proven? Trying to say that limited and irrelevant mathematical,
scientific, and computer science proof support your contention that the
nonexistence of a deity can be proven does not help you. Those proof
are only good for the limited situation for which they are defined, not
the general case that you are proposing.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
You are the one that is in denial. You refuse to consider anything
real that opposes your opinions, hatred, bigotry, and delusions.
You need to leave your delusions behind and step into the real world.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
No kidding, "old dog". You refuse to learn anything.
They are content with their old tricks.
And you exemplify that contentment with what does not work and the same
old tired "song and dance" very well.
They will go out of style.
People like you have long been out of style. However, you still tend
to have a big mouth to shout your hatred and intolerance to the
annoyance of others.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
You mean like your invalid position? You have been rotting away since
I saw your first post.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
And we are currently trying to get these people that you like out of
office, and prevent others like them from getting elected. We need to
get compassionate, intelligent egalitarians into office. Politicians
that will work to support, promote, and uphold the rights, equality,
and freedom of everyone.
However, you would not like such an enlightened government. You seem
to prefer tyranny, inequality, destruction of freedom, and promotion of
bigotry.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 12:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:20:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
Why do so many theists lie about atheists, to atheists?
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who think that lying to
an adience, about that audience, is a valid argument.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
They are content with their old tricks.
They will go out of style.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
No more theist leaders. Bring the US into the same 21st century as the
rest of the developed world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 02:58:43 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ckq0b19eqlhid10fugqndmmhjrct7brkj1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:20:55 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
Why do so many theists lie about atheists, to atheists?
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who think that lying to
an adience, about that audience, is a valid argument.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
They are content with their old tricks.
They will go out of style.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
No more theist leaders. Bring the US into the same 21st century as the
rest of the developed world.
Theism is not outmoded.
Your lie is evident.
Atheism and liars such as atheists who make up their own erroneous
statements as supposed justification for their viewpoints are shown to
commit the fallacy that they attribute to theists of circular reasoning and
unproven imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 05:23:52 PM |
|
|
Atheism and liars such as atheists who make up their own erroneous
statements as supposed justification for their viewpoints are shown to
commit the fallacy that they attribute to theists of circular reasoning and
unproven imagination.
Looks like you have a personal problem with atheists.
It's unfortunate for you that you cannot back up your views with
universally accepted logic. Atheists did not invent logic and only the
textbooks are the arbiters, not any of us. Why don't you just point to
a textbook as was requested? You being right means having to rewrite
the textbooks... which gives you a very weak case indeed.
Logic is without mercy: if your logic is sound, no one can logically
refute it.
Btw, you have still not disproven alien involvement in human
development.
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 10:06:09 PM |
|
|
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118874232.294529.316610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atheism and liars such as atheists who make up their own erroneous
statements as supposed justification for their viewpoints are shown to
commit the fallacy that they attribute to theists of circular reasoning
and
unproven imagination.
Looks like you have a personal problem with atheists.
Not at this point.
I typed that because the reference that was cited to deny that the proof of
non-existence is impossible came from a site in the atheisim section.
Notice I typed "athiests who make up their own erroneous statements" to
sustain their own position.
Why can't you see that they are possibly the ones who are deriving a benefit
from followers of them?
It's unfortunate for you that you cannot back up your views with
universally accepted logic. Atheists did not invent logic and only the
textbooks are the arbiters, not any of us.
Some texts become outmoded.
Why don't you just point to
a textbook as was requested?
"Introduction to Logic" Fifth Edition
Irving M. Copi
You being right means having to rewrite
the textbooks... which gives you a very weak case indeed.
Well, I wasn't trying to expose any fallacies in the textbooks.
I did not know there were any in there.
Logic is without mercy: if your logic is sound, no one can logically
refute it.
You got that right.
"Fascinating." Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock.
Btw, you have still not disproven alien involvement in human
development.
Can I wait 'til next week to try that?
I had no idea I was going to get into all this.
Regards,
Talence
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 10:17:12 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2005 06:57:48 -0700, in alt.abortion with
message-id <1118843868.631514.88850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
So, if you claim non-existence the burden of proof lies with the person
making the claim.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the existentially positive claim.
The difference is more subtle in fact: it's not only the existence of
the deity that is in question, but the existence of the proof for that
deity. As we know, circular reasoning is invalid but it is the most
common proof.
Now my question is: in which cases is and in which cases is circular
reason not valid according to Johnny? Surely, anyone will acknowledge
that quoting from the bible to show the bible is true is circular?
If we can't even agree on the axioms of logic, how are we going to have
a constructive dialogue?
Regards,
Talence
You never will with those people because they will never acknowledge
anything else. They will always try to use their bible to validate
itself because they have nothing else and will never accept anything
that disagrees with their position.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 07:45:58 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 07:14:02 -0700, wrote:
Johnny boy... why do you insist on not getting it? If you really took
classes on logic, then you should know that the burden of proof lies
with the one making the claims. Who is your teacher and what grade did
you get? Give a reference to a publically available textbook on logic
and we'll point out the page and paragraph that shows you're wrong.
Why not give evidence for deities instead of insisting there is no
counter-evidence? You know as well as anyone else does (or should) that
your reasoning in favour of deities means that we'll also have to
accept the existence of a number of things that are generally accepted
to be absurd, such as unicorns, UFOs and so on.
There is pseudo-science "evidence" to support reincarnation: people
have "regressed" into past lives. If we lowered the bar for
scientifically sound evidence, then reincarnation-based deity-less
religions would be "true". In fact, Buddhism inherently seems more
tolerant in the sense that they have no hell.
There is eye-witness evidence from pilots, many of whom high-level
military officers who have witnessed UFO activity. That supports the
notion that aliens have been involved in human development. Any miracle
appearences of any deities in any religion can be easily explained by
involvement of technologically far more advanced alien cultures.
Any single thing written in the bible can be explained in terms of
alien involvement. Have fun countering UFO sightings and giving
counter-proof to alien involvement.
And so on and so on...
The rejection of monotheistic dogma does not stem from blindness or
unwillingness, but rather from being able to see more options resulting
from the evidence available. It is perceived as narrowminded to use
only part of the available indicators to support a specific deity
according to a specific outdated religion. I mean.. come on... it's
been more than 2000 years. How much longer is it going to take people
to realize that their saviour just isn't coming back?
How much more does it have to be spelled out for people... taking all
scientific and pseudo-scientific evidence... monotheistic dogma is
really one of many possible solutions. That's the core of the issue.
Regards,
Talence
P.S. I removed rec.photo.digital from the posting list... no need to
further annoy them
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 10:47:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:15:27 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
I studied logic in college.
Prove the validity of logic.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 11:36:56 AM |
|
|
"Terrell D Lewis" <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2vuta1lmsvbq2g49n0dkud1hkrorduueo4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:15:27 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
I studied logic in college.
Prove the validity of logic.
Is this a test?
Are you my teacher?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Your vain demands are quite ineffective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 04:45:53 AM |
|
|
Johnny,
It's cool that you took a class on logic in college or whatever, but to
someone who holds a Ph.D and has studied works of ancient Greek
philosophers in their original language, that is hardly a
qualification. You are not my intellectual equal, although your teacher
might be. You show a lack of understanding of the very basics if you
keep claiming that proving a positive equals proving a negative. It's
like teaching a would-be mathematician that just because 1 * 0 = 2 * 0,
doesn't mean that 1 = 2.
Perhaps you rightfully do not agree that rules of logic are valid when
it comes to the supernatural, but we can prove that within the rules of
logic (and by extension, science itself), there is no room for
religious reasoning.
If you still do not believe me, please let the textbooks on logic be
our arbiter. Let us find a textbook on logic and then we can find the
parts you need to read again. As an exercise, you can study circular
reasoning which happens to be at the basis of Christian proof.
The chain of claims really start with the one going "X exists", because
that's the one defining X. If I'm the one making the first positive
assertion, then *I* would have to define X. In other words, I'd have to
invent a god figure just to say there isn't one.
It has been demonstrated that if you consider your own reasoning and
method of evidence gathering to be valid, then the Truth is found in a
mix of reincarnation and alien involvement. Any religion can be
expressed in a primitive inability to distinguish between advanced
aliens and supernatural gods. These phenomena can be easily
demonstrated in verifiable experiments with present-day primitive
tribes. In fact, through the right interpretations, the major world
religions can be used to support alien involvement. The guys at
http://www.rael.org certainly seem to believe so.
Using your reasoning, we can come to quite interesting conclusions,
don't you agree?
I really hope that you're beginning to understand this all a bit
better.
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
