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: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 01:34:02 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 08:43:36 -0700, in alt.abortion with
message-id <1119973416.475096.107790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
I will assert that anyone can ask any g(G)od(s) for anything. Whether
those or other g(G)od(s) will respond in some way is a different
question.
True. The Bible says that God is omniscient and can hear and see
everything that a person does, says, and even thinks.
Since you have yet to prove your bible is valid why should anyone pay
any attention to your comments? Why do you keep referring to an
unproven source?
For the same reason that atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being, I have trusted in my judgment as you have in yours. The
difference is that one doesn't need infinite knowledge of the cosmos to
be a Christian and believe the Bible. But to be an atheist...to assert
that one has 100% infallible knowledge of every aspect of the universe
to KNOW that there is no such thing as God ANYWHERE...that requires
infinite knowledge. Thus, the atheist inherently assumes that he/she
has god-like insight and cannot be wrong. Because of atheism's own
inherent illogic, it's easier to believe the Bible.
In any event, the Bible is a proven source of wisdom. It is accurate
about human nature, history, and how people should relate to each
other. It is more accurate in these regards than all of the self-help,
pop-psychology books put together. Why shouldn't I then trust the
Bible about the supernatural accounts?
Plenty of people, plenty of Christians even, have prayed and not
gotten results. (Of course there is always the out that God answer all
prayer, sometimes the answer is "no". But that is certainly
untestable.) In fact, plenty of praying believing Christians have
prayed and then killed and been killed by other praying believing
Christians. This is not a particularly successful test.
There are actually some guarantees in the Bible that can be tested like
anything else.
Such as what? Be specific, and explain how a given result can have no
other explanation.
OK.
"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty
things, which thou knowest not." - Jeremiah 33:3
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in
mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I
will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing,
that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it]." - Malachi
3:10
* Please note that there is some discussion as to whether or not this
Malachi verse is only for the Jewish people.
And the greatest promise of all time...
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." -
Romans 10:13
* If you read the Bible, you'll be able to see how God takes those who
trust in Him and heals their lives and has them fulfull their destiny.
Being "saved" is more than just going to Heaven when you die. God will
actively direct the earthly existence of everyone who accepts Jesus as
Lord.
If God doesn't exist, at least as described by the Bible, then these
will not come true no matter how long one waits for a response. Please
keep in mind that God knows what is in your heart. If you pray to Him
as you would jokingly cast a spell or pray to "whomever may be
listening", I doubt God will respond. Don't pray halfway.
We run into trouble when we simply ask God for things
that are outside of His will and do not study the Bible to see how God
responds.
You have yet to prove any god exists, you have yet to validate your
bible, and if your god is able to do anything how can anything be
''outside of his will'?
I tried to get you to read the Bible and see if obeying the Bible would
result in a better life for you. You refused to even crack open the
book much less try one or two of the tidbits of wisdom.
Do you ever say anything that makes any sense?
Yes. You just don't like my conclusions.
Have you seriously never talked to someone who has stopped being a
Christian? I am somewhat surprised. I know plenty of people who have
had various beliefs, including various forms of Christianity, and
stopped when their prayers were ignored. In fact, your claim is rather
unusual because usually I see the response that you just have to
believe harder.
I have never seriously spoken with anyone who has stopped being a
Christian. Actually, the term "Christian" means that one has trusted
in what Jesus did on the cross for that person's sins as opposed to
someone who simply says that the God of the Bible is real and shows up
in church sometimes.
I guess I don't fit your definition because I said 'this does not make
sense ' as soon as I was old enough to recognize what did not make
sense.
Well, you can be a Christian without understanding a great deal about
God. The thief on the cross next to Jesus accepted Him as Lord and was
saved...and the thief didn't understand much at all about Jesus.
I would not hazard a guess as to what didn't make sense to you without
your mentioning the reasons yourself.
I would never tell someone to simply believe "harder". I would tell
them that God loves them and has a plan for them...regardless of what
they have done, how they might have messed up their lives, and how much
they might want something in particular.
Yet you can't prove any god exists. You are obviously speculating far
beyond your knowledge.
True, to a point. I can't prove to you any supernatural events or
entities, at least, not over the internet. I am obviously speculating
in a way, but not beyond my knowledge. I am speculating beyond my
experience, which is a component of faith.
Yes, God wants people to have faith in Him. Yes, faith in God is
indeed tied to God's responce. However, I would NEVER tell someone
that the reason God didn't respond, or didn't respond the way that
person wanted, is because they didn't believe "harder". It's not very
helpful. And, unless that person told me or God gave me some divine
revelation, I wouldn't know the circumstances surrounding their
relationship with God. In that case, it's better to remain silent and
be there to console the person.
Yet you can't prove any god exists. You are obviously speculating far
beyond your knowledge.
Yes, you said that already.
Ah, so that is not a test. I suppose those who found God and then went
back to their addiction just did not believe hard enough.
No, sir. Even devout Christians are tempted to do evil things all the
time. It's not like a person accepts Jesus as Lord and then all of
life suddenly becomes easy and profitable. It is just that living the
life that God wants to you has now become possible whereas, prior to
accepting Jesus, life is a crap shoot where all you have is your own
willpower and five senses.
If a person becomes "saved", "born again", "accepts Jesus", etc...if
the person now has a relationship with God accordingly to His plan as
laid out in the Bible, then that person has the complete freedom to
choose good over evil in EVERY circumstance. He may not protected from
all evil possibilities, but has the strength and opportunity to always
choose the right thing to do.
Some Christians still choose to use their own abilities to do the right
thing, such as avoid drug addiction, instead of praying to God for
strength and choosing to live their lives wisely. In my opinion based
on the Bible, it is not God's plan for a recovering alcoholic to fill
his refrigerator with beer, have bottles of Jack Daniels whiskey out in
the open, and hang around bars. Why would that person blame God for
not responding when he has purposefully surrounded himself with
temptation. God will provide the open door; it is out responsibility
to choose to walk through it (and avoid the doors that we try to open
ourselves).
Sorry to be so long-winded. It's difficult to describe God's will as
specified in the Bible in a paragraph or two.
Yet you can't prove any god exists. You are obviously speculating far
beyond your knowledge.
Yes, you said that already.
I think you behavior is better than most I see in these forums, both
theists and non-theists.
Thank you for the compliment. At least, I am doing something right
here.
I would disagree. I have seen you do nothing right - just lie a lot.
Ouch. That's a little rude, don't you think? Can't we have a friendly
discussion without accusations? If you are correct in your assessment
of the universe, then why not help others, who do not share your view,
to see things the way that you do? Thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 02:19:32 PM |
|
|
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120156442.415923.232410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being ...
That's a straw man, atheism is not a religious belief like Christianity or
Islam for example, "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
"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)
"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: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 11:11:08 PM |
|
|
In article <F7mdnRmiDvtd2FnfRVn-hg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120156442.415923.232410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being ...
That's a straw man
Not necessarily. There are atheists who definitely claim that there is
no supreme being, and Simple Septic himself has been one of them. There
are also atheists who do not make that claim, at least by the
westpondian definition of atheism, though many eastpondians still hold
to the more stringent definition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 11:23:04 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <F7mdnRmiDvtd2FnfRVn-hg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120156442.415923.232410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being ...
That's a straw man
Not necessarily. There are atheists who definitely claim that there is
no supreme being, and Simple Septic himself has been one of them. There
are also atheists who do not make that claim, at least by the
westpondian definition of atheism, though many eastpondians still hold
to the more stringent definition.
Well, for me. I don't calim that there is no supreme being. I just
disclaim that supreme beings exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 03:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:19:32 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <F7mdnRmiDvtd2FnfRVn-hg@comcast.com> wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120156442.415923.232410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being ...
That's a straw man, atheism is not a religious belief like Christianity or
Islam for example, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
You have gone beyond that, you have asserted that there is no God.
Absence of belief is not belief of absence.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:32:40 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m8n8c1ht802c1dh1l6g1f51iek5lgj17m6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:19:32 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <F7mdnRmiDvtd2FnfRVn-hg@comcast.com> wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120156442.415923.232410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... atheists believe that there is definitely no
Supreme Being ...
That's a straw man, atheism is not a religious belief like Christianity or
Islam for example, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in
the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
You have gone beyond that, you have asserted that there is no God.
Where have I ever asserted that, liar? Got proof? Post a link or admit you
are lying.
Anyway, 'There is no God' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one.
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 01:54:24 PM |
|
|
In article <gb2dnb4l_spq0FHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
'There is no God' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one.
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
So that claiming something to be false is not an assertion?
Then I claim, but cannot be held to be asserting, that Simple Septic's
assertion that negations of assertions are not assertions is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 01:59:16 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C27C84.12542407072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <gb2dnb4l_spq0FHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
'There is no God' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one.
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
So that claiming something to be false is not an assertion?
Then I claim, but cannot be held to be asserting, that Simple Septic's
assertion that negations of assertions are not assertions is false.
What is happening here is a carefully orchestrated tactic that many atheist
use because they know they can't prove or disprove God's existence. What
they are doing is trying to put the entire burden of proof upon those who do
believe in God's existence while avoiding and responsibility in their
claims.
Yes, to say "there is no God" is indeed an assertion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion
as·ser·tion
n.
1.. The act of asserting.
2.. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or
attempt at proof.
They are making a "declartion" and trying to state it as "positively" being
true. It is an assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 04:10:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:59:16 -0400, "osprey" <co@mail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C27C84.12542407072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <gb2dnb4l_spq0FHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
'There is no God' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one.
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
So that claiming something to be false is not an assertion?
Then I claim, but cannot be held to be asserting, that Simple Septic's
assertion that negations of assertions are not assertions is false.
What is happening here is a carefully orchestrated tactic that many atheist
use because they know they can't prove or disprove God's existence. What
they are doing is trying to put the entire burden of proof upon those who do
believe in God's existence while avoiding and responsibility in their
claims.
If you want to claim there is a god then you are expected to support
it. If I say that there is no evidence to support the existence of any
god, that is a claim that can be disputed but no-one has provided
anything to the contrary.
Not that you have the courage to back up your claims, Mary Anne.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 05:37:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:10:02 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> in <0f6rc1pi9l8nq1simuprin3adn5q2rvoms@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:59:16 -0400, "osprey" <co@mail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C27C84.12542407072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <gb2dnb4l_spq0FHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
'There is no God' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one.
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
So that claiming something to be false is not an assertion?
Then I claim, but cannot be held to be asserting, that Simple Septic's
assertion that negations of assertions are not assertions is false.
What is happening here is a carefully orchestrated tactic that many atheist
use because they know they can't prove or disprove God's existence. What
they are doing is trying to put the entire burden of proof upon those who do
believe in God's existence while avoiding and responsibility in their
claims.
If you want to claim there is a god then you are expected to support
it. If I say that there is no evidence to support the existence of any
god, that is a claim that can be disputed but no-one has provided
anything to the contrary.
Now that is a defensible statement. Let me see if we can agree on one
more step. Would you agree that there is evidence that some people
claim supports the existence of g(G)od(s), but that you have looked at
the evidence (when it is examinable, much is private and not subject
to examination) and reject the claims?
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion and is unproven until supported?
Not that you have the courage to back up your claims, Mary Anne.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
08 Jul 2005 06:50:20 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
08 Jul 2005 08:30:21 PM |
|
|
In article <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
And the negation of any assertion (claiming that an assertion is false)
is equally an assertion, otherwise a double negation would be even less
of an assertion, and nobody would ever make any assertions at all.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Not to just anyone, only thoseparticular ones who, like Simple Septic,
who claim to know that there are no gods.
[In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
, AKA, Simple Septic, wrote: "We KNOW there is no God"]
This from someone who has been declaring repeatedly that he has never
said any such thing.
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy, Simple Septic?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 05:42:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:50:20 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
They don't care. Since their position of insisting something is real
and exists in spite of the fact that there is no evidence at all for
any such existence flies in the face of logic and reason so they
cannot defend their position. The only thing they can do is to try to
deflect the argument in some other direction in any way they can.
Since their origional position makes no sense and is in defiance of
both logic and reason any of their subsequent arguments can do the
same since as far as they are concerned anything they do in the name
of their religion is reasonable, proper, and required above and beyond
any logic or reason which is applied to any other subject.
"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: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 03:20:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:42:44 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <06avc1hfprnoidlq8ke02ej2g435bfvlic@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:50:20 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
They don't care. Since their position of insisting something is real
Please tell me what I have insisted is real. A quote from one of my
(many) posts would be good support.
and exists in spite of the fact that there is no evidence at all for
any such existence flies in the face of logic and reason so they
cannot defend their position. The only thing they can do is to try to
deflect the argument in some other direction in any way they can.
Since their origional position makes no sense and is in defiance of
both logic and reason any of their subsequent arguments can do the
same since as far as they are concerned anything they do in the name
of their religion is reasonable, proper, and required above and beyond
any logic or reason which is applied to any other subject.
What is my religion?
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 04:27:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:20:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <c9c0d1h3d43jp59pdcgu7nilamtu59bdgg@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:42:44 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <06avc1hfprnoidlq8ke02ej2g435bfvlic@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:50:20 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
They don't care. Since their position of insisting something is real
Please tell me what I have insisted is real. A quote from one of my
(many) posts would be good support.
and exists in spite of the fact that there is no evidence at all for
any such existence flies in the face of logic and reason so they
cannot defend their position. The only thing they can do is to try to
deflect the argument in some other direction in any way they can.
Since their origional position makes no sense and is in defiance of
both logic and reason any of their subsequent arguments can do the
same since as far as they are concerned anything they do in the name
of their religion is reasonable, proper, and required above and beyond
any logic or reason which is applied to any other subject.
What is my religion?
I have no idea if you even have one. I was speaking in general of
those try to move the burden of proof to proving no god exists.
Theists, in other words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 05:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:27:26 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <l6g0d1puj6ua85lqol7jsahkh2uihgdg9f@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:20:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <c9c0d1h3d43jp59pdcgu7nilamtu59bdgg@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:42:44 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <06avc1hfprnoidlq8ke02ej2g435bfvlic@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:50:20 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God' conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
They don't care. Since their position of insisting something is real
Please tell me what I have insisted is real. A quote from one of my
(many) posts would be good support.
and exists in spite of the fact that there is no evidence at all for
any such existence flies in the face of logic and reason so they
cannot defend their position. The only thing they can do is to try to
deflect the argument in some other direction in any way they can.
Since their origional position makes no sense and is in defiance of
both logic and reason any of their subsequent arguments can do the
same since as far as they are concerned anything they do in the name
of their religion is reasonable, proper, and required above and beyond
any logic or reason which is applied to any other subject.
What is my religion?
I have no idea if you even have one. I was speaking in general of
those try to move the burden of proof to proving no god exists.
Theists, in other words.
Then you should have written more carefully. You responded to a post
that responded to me. And you wrote "they" several times. The clear
logical implication was that I was part of the they. Otherwise you are
quite possibly wrong. That is, you say "they" don't care about the
logical fallacy, "their" position is insisting on something is real.
Either you think these claims are true about me, in which case you
should defend them, or you did not mean such universal claims, in
which case you should withdraw them.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 08:30:43 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:27:26 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <l6g0d1puj6ua85lqol7jsahkh2uihgdg9f@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:20:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <c9c0d1h3d43jp59pdcgu7nilamtu59bdgg@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:42:44 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <06avc1hfprnoidlq8ke02ej2g435bfvlic@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:50:20 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FO2dnXVV8o6ljFLfRVn-vA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Second, do you agree with my claims here that the statement "there is
no God" is an assertion
It's the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
Why are you theists always trying to get away with shifting the burden
of
proof to anyone who questions or denies your 'Might be a God'
conjecture?
Don't you understand that is logical fallacy?
They don't care. Since their position of insisting something is real
Please tell me what I have insisted is real. A quote from one of my
(many) posts would be good support.
and exists in spite of the fact that there is no evidence at all for
any such existence flies in the face of logic and reason so they
cannot defend their position. The only thing they can do is to try to
deflect the argument in some other direction in any way they can.
Since their origional position makes no sense and is in defiance of
both logic and reason any of their subsequent arguments can do the
same since as far as they are concerned anything they do in the name
of their religion is reasonable, proper, and required above and beyond
any logic or reason which is applied to any other subject.
What is my religion?
I have no idea if you even have one. I was speaking in general of
those try to move the burden of proof to proving no god exists.
Theists, in other words.
Then you should have written more carefully. You responded to a post
that responded to me. And you wrote "they" several times. The clear
logical implication was that I was part of the they.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, make the same arguments theists do,
don't be surprised if people think you are a theist duck. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 10:14:06 PM |
|
|
In article <VP-dnYSTy9ij503fRVn-rw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Then you should have written more carefully. You responded to a post
that responded to me. And you wrote "they" several times. The clear
logical implication was that I was part of the they.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, make the same arguments theists do,
don't be surprised if people think you are a theist duck. 8^)
Since Simple Septic
walks like an anti-theist anti-agnostic anti-logic duck,
quacks like an anti-theist anti-agnostic anti-logic duck,
argues like anti-theist anti-agnostic anti-logic duck,
why does Simple Septic always pretend to be surprized be surprised when
everybody recognizes him to be the epitome of anti-theist anti-agnostic
anti-logic ducks?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jul 2005 02:34:25 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F0E1F5.21140609072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <VP-dnYSTy9ij503fRVn-rw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Then you should have written more carefully. You responded to a post
that responded to me. And you wrote "they" several times. The clear
logical implication was that I was part of the they.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, make the same arguments theists do,
don't be surprised if people think you are a theist duck. 8^)
Since Simple Septic
walks like an anti-theist
What's wrong with joining Thomas Huxley in being opposed to THEISM (not
anti-theist)?
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine,
that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his
excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jul 2005 12:14:56 AM |
|
|
In article <IZydnalN48Yo8UjfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F0E1F5.21140609072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <VP-dnYSTy9ij503fRVn-rw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Then you should have written more carefully. You responded to a post
that responded to me. And you wrote "they" several times. The clear
logical implication was that I was part of the they.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, make the same arguments theists do,
don't be surprised if people think you are a theist duck. 8^)
Since Simple Septic
walks like an anti-theist
What's wrong with joining Thomas Huxley in being opposed to THEISM (not
anti-theist)?
If "theism" means no more than beleif in the existence of some god, then
Huxley is not against it. What Huxley objects to is Clericalism, not
mere belief, as anyone who reads him honestly will see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jul 2005 12:49:04 PM |
|
|
"Virgil& | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
