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: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 08:35:21 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Ricky Ticket" <not@given.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BED374F2000267D62F0BE610@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
You show yourself to be ignorant.
He has shown himself to be better educated and more intelligent than
you are. Not that doing that is much of a chore, or very hard to do.
Mark Sebree
Who has shown themselves to be better educated and more intelligent?
Ricky Ticket has shown himself to be more intelligent and better
educated than Johnny.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:01:46 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
osprey wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Johnny wrote:
"Ricky Ticket" <not@given.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BED374F2000267D62F0BE610@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
You show yourself to be ignorant.
He has shown himself to be better educated and more intelligent than
you are. Not that doing that is much of a chore, or very hard to do.
Mark Sebree
Who has shown themselves to be better educated and more intelligent?
Ricky Ticket has shown himself to be more intelligent and better
educated than Johnny.
Really?
o.k., I some questions for you.
If a person goes around putting people's address and phone number on a
public forum, do you think that is intelligent?
If a person goes around lying about that person, making claims that
they have been disciplined at work, when it's not true..is that
intelligent?
If a person lies about another persons spouse in the newsgroup, is that
intelligent?
Do you find those types of actions signs of intelligence?
Oh, and most recentely, Ricky made an implied threat towards
myself...is that a sign of intelligence?
In the past few weeks, Ricky has claimed that I was disciplined at
work, which isn't true.
Ricky claims I work for min. wage...again, not true
Ricky claimed that I have no contact with inmates, I only have contact
with 240 of them on a daily basis and am the supervisor of a crew of
six officers.
Ricky has made claims that I had threatened my wife with a weapon and I
abuse my wife. Again, more charges that are not true and if they were I
can certainly assure you the state of Delaware would not allow me to do
the job I do. It would be an automatic dismissal.
Ricky has made the claim about my wife's name, which Ricky is wrong.
Ricky has asked people to call her a *****.
Ricky has also claimed to be putting out my address and phone number.
Now, if what Ricky was posting was correct, Ricky obviously has no
problem putting a family at risk for nutcases who may wish to do harm.
I have a wife and children, trust me..I would protect them with my
life. Ricky obviously doesn't care, even though Ricky has been asked to
stop. Then Ricky made the comment that I should be "worried" about
enemies seeing this. That is an implied threat. Ricky knows I am in a
law enforcement position and thus, Ricky has put himself or herself in
a position of threatening a correctional officer..which can be
reported. As to whether they can trace Ricky down or not...that will
be up to federal law enforcement officers if they wish to do that.
So tell us Mark, are all the above statements I have made about
Ricky..are those what you consider signs of intelligence?
From all the readings I have read, Ricky has been ridiculed for acting
like a child and Ricky takes great pleasure in thinking he or she is
pissing people off or what ever she or he thinks. Is that
intelligence????
If you consider that to be intelligent, I sure hate to think you
consider to be childish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:01:46 -0400, osprey wrote
(in message <1118714506.773743.224170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
Really?
o.k., I some questions for you.
You learn that scary diction in community college spud? :D
If a person goes around putting people's address and phone number on a
public forum, do you think that is intelligent?
I beat you at your own game spud! :o)
If a person posted YOUR public information that you asked them to post, would
it stop you from digging up dirt on people and posting it? How loud would a
weasel like you whine? :D
We have all those answers now don't we spud. It seems like your penchant for
harassing people with public information is cured.! :D
::does victory dance::
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:18:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:35:21 -0400, Mark Sebree wrote
(in message <1118712921.743138.31860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Ricky Ticket has shown himself to be more intelligent and better
educated than Johnny.
Mark Sebree
Herself, and thanks. That will send Heishman on an all night bender. ;o)
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 11:06:07 PM |
|
|
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:35:21 -0400, Mark Sebree wrote
(in message <1118712921.743138.31860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Ricky Ticket has shown himself to be more intelligent and better
educated than Johnny.
Mark Sebree
Herself, and thanks.
Apologies on the wrong gender. (Thought it was short for some
variation of "Richard".) And your welcome.
Feel free to read Johnny's feelings about abortion, and forcing women
to abort if they are raped, and continue the pregnancy if they are not.
He has no respect for anyone else, nor does he care about anyone else.
He just wants to force everyone to live according to his tyrannical
and hateful dictates.
Mark Sebree
That will send Heishman on an all night bender. ;o)
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:25:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:15:22 -0400, Mark Sebree wrote
(in message <1118711722.502213.307920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
You show yourself to be ignorant.
He has shown himself to be better educated and more intelligent than
you are. Not that doing that is much of a chore, or very hard to do.
Mark Sebree
She, and that was almost a compliment, thanks! :D
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 11:10:30 PM |
|
|
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:15:22 -0400, Mark Sebree wrote
(in message <1118711722.502213.307920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
You show yourself to be ignorant.
He has shown himself to be better educated and more intelligent than
you are. Not that doing that is much of a chore, or very hard to do.
Mark Sebree
She, and that was almost a compliment, thanks! :D
Sorry. That was more of a put down to Johnny. The guy makes a village
idiot look like a genius. And he also thinks he is smarter than
everyone else, even though he shows no evidence of it. He also thinks
that he can tell you what you should think and do. He is a small man
with a small heart and a small brain. A tiny minnow in a big pond that
thinks he is a pike.
Mark Sebree
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 06:16:28 PM |
|
|
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 07:31:23 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly
force." --Osprey
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 08:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
You have done no such thing, and you routinely assert that anyone who
disagrees with your your delusions is, by your own convenient definition,
ignorant.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:55:50 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkpsup4twc.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
You have done no such thing,
You're lying.
I already did it.
and you routinely assert that anyone who
disagrees with your your delusions is, by your own convenient definition,
ignorant.
If someone tells me that non-existence can not be proven then I know they
are ignorant.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 10:03:12 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkpsup4twc.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
You have done no such thing,
You're lying. I already did it.
No one seems to agree with you.
and you routinely assert that anyone who
disagrees with your your delusions is, by your own convenient definition,
ignorant.
If someone tells me that non-existence can not be proven then I know they
are ignorant.
You know a tiny fraction of what you *think* you know. You've made that
painfully obvious.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 08:13:38 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly
force." --Osprey
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
In a narrow range of specific circumstances which are inapplicable to
the current discussion. Mathematical principles, especially higher
mathematics, have almost no applicability to philosophy.
The only thing that needs to be stated supporting the non-existence of
anything is that there is no objective evidence that that thing exists.
And there is no objective evidence that any deity exists.
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
Not at all. That is why I can see through your evasion so easily.
Now, where is your OBJECTIVE evidence that your deity exists?
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 09:54:07 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118711618.700663.84060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118704588.528516.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ricky Ticket wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:12:06 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <1Klre.118924$J25.79202@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
Why are you running away from the truth that non-existence is
proveable?
This has toi be a troll or a child, no one is this stupid. :D
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly
force." --Osprey
Actually, the general opinion in alt.abortion is that Johnny really is
that stupid, crazy, and/or self-deluded. He refuses to accept any
facts or options as valid that conflict with his opinions and
mis-conceptions and prejudcices. He also does almost everything that
he can to shift the burden of proof to the person that questions him in
any way This includes taking narrowly defined concepts and trying to
apply them to things that are not covered. For example, taking a
mathematical proof or method and trying to apply it to a logical
argument that has nothing to do with mathematics and is not
intrinsically as precise as mathematics. When that does not work, he
resorts to hateful ad hominems, evasions, and running away.
I showed you that non-existence can be proven and has been done already.
In a narrow range of specific circumstances which are inapplicable to
the current discussion. Mathematical principles, especially higher
mathematics, have almost no applicability to philosophy.
You are still in denial.
Non-existence can be proven and it has been done many times already.
To say that non-existence can not be proven is a lie.
The only thing that needs to be stated supporting the non-existence of
anything is that there is no objective evidence that that thing exists.
And there is no objective evidence that any deity exists.
Why are you so hung up on the existence of deities?
Now, you are taking the side of the ignorant.
Not at all.
Not at all?
Why are you taking sides with those who say that non-existence can not be
proven when you seem to know that it can be proven?
That is why I can see through your evasion so easily.
I see no evasion on my part.
I see denial on the part of those who disagree with the fact that
non-existence can be proven and has ben proven already.
Now, where is your OBJECTIVE evidence that your deity exists?
Why are you evading the issue at hand?
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not, and I know
it can be proven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 02:10:31 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist is not
an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's hypothetical
('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent has the full burden of
proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 08:11:18 AM |
|
|
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:SL-dneDLAv5_HzPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist is
not an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent has the
full burden of proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Asserting in the negative is an assertion as much as asserting in the
affirmative is an assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 11:39:15 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4EAre.97684$8S5.35572@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:SL-dneDLAv5_HzPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist is
not an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent has
the full burden of proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Asserting in the negative is an assertion as much as asserting in the
affirmative is an assertion.
No. If it were then we would not have the term, 'deny', we would only have
the single term, 'assert'.
On the one hand we have the assertion in question from your side, "There
might be a God." The contrary, the negation, "There is no God" is not an
assertion (a statement standing in need of proof), it is the DENIAL (the
negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
See the difference?
The principle that governs this situation is the following:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 11:45:21 AM |
|
|
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:NdmdneWTJPizlTLfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4EAre.97684$8S5.35572@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:SL-dneDLAv5_HzPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist is
not an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent has
the full burden of proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Asserting in the negative is an assertion as much as asserting in the
affirmative is an assertion.
No.
What a whiny, infantile reaction.
If it were then we would not have the term, 'deny', we would only have the
single term, 'assert'.
A statement is s statement whether you think so or not.
On the one hand we have the assertion in question from your side, "There
might be a God."
I wrote that?
No, I didn't.
The contrary, the negation, "There is no God" is not an assertion (a
statement standing in need of proof), it is the DENIAL (the negation) of
one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
You are lying there.
I can ask you to prove the assertion, but can you do it?
No, you can't.
See the difference?
"There is no God" is not an assertion?
I guess atheism will lose members because of your stubborness, or is it your
stupidity?
Either way, atheism would lose because of your attitude.
The principle that governs this situation is the following:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Whether positive or negative.
Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions
the assertion."
Notice how this reference comes from the atheism section on the infidels.org
site.
Biased opinion does not necessarily determine the truth.
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 07:53:52 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" :
"There is no God" is not an assertion?
Right, not an assertion, it is the DENIAL (the negation) of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial as you and Virgil and
friends are trying to do. It's the principle of the thing:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 12:41:18 AM |
|
|
In article <dKKdnVEcB9mG4TLfRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Johnny" :
"There is no God" is not an assertion?
Right, not an assertion, it is the DENIAL (the negation) of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial as you and Virgil and
friends are trying to do. It's the principle of the thing:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Then the burden of proof is on Simple Septic to prove that denials
claiming the falsehood of an assertion are not, in their own way.
assertions, and it is a burden that Simple Septic has not met and cannot
meet.
So Simple Septic is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 08:03:37 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:NdmdneWTJPizlTLfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4EAre.97684$8S5.35572@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:SL-dneDLAv5_HzPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist is
not an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent has
the full burden of proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Asserting in the negative is an assertion as much as asserting in the
affirmative is an assertion.
No.
What a whiny, infantile reaction.
If it were then we would not have the term, 'deny', we would only have the
single term, 'assert'.
A statement is s statement whether you think so or not.
On the one hand we have the assertion in question from your side, "There
might be a God."
I wrote that?
No, I didn't.
The contrary, the negation, "There is no God" is not an assertion (a
statement standing in need of proof), it is the DENIAL (the negation) of
one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
You are lying there.
I can ask you to prove the assertion, but can you do it?
No, you can't.
See the difference?
"There is no God" is not an assertion?
I guess atheism will lose members because of your stubborness, or is it your
stupidity?
Either way, atheism would lose because of your attitude.
Please don't think that atheists "think" like Skeptic (AKA Deep thought
AKA Loadnlock etc)
He is recognised by most alt.atheists as a Kook and a lying lunatic.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 08:20:52 PM |
|
|
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1118883817.771200.275680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:NdmdneWTJPizlTLfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4EAre.97684$8S5.35572@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:SL-dneDLAv5_HzPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I am only addressing whether non-existence can be proven or not ...
Whether it can be proven that some hypothetical thing does not exist
is
not an issue because nobody ever has to prove that somebody else's
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) does not exist; the proponent
has
the full burden of proof in the matter of his conjecture.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person
who denies or questions the assertion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Asserting in the negative is an assertion as much as asserting in the
affirmative is an assertion.
No.
What a whiny, infantile reaction.
If it were then we would not have the term, 'deny', we would only have
the
single term, 'assert'.
A statement is s statement whether you think so or not.
On the one hand we have the assertion in question from your side,
"There
might be a God."
I wrote that?
No, I didn't.
The contrary, the negation, "There is no God" is not an assertion (a
statement standing in need of proof), it is the DENIAL (the negation)
of
one, and | | | | | | | | | | |
