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: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 01:26:51 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in that which they have no
proof for.
No I don't, we atheist agnostics deny it and repudiate it as a big no no.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
"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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 01:40:03 AM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in that which they have no
proof for.
No I don't,
Then you're never going to get any discussion off the ground.
we atheist agnostics
You mean antitheist.
deny it and repudiate it as a big no no.
For everyone, or just for antitheists such as yourself?
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
Please do not talk about my father.
<snip _ad verecundiam_ posted _ad nauseam_>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 02:14:20 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:75sve.2663$xL1.2588@trnddc08...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in that which they have no
proof for.
No I don't,
Then you're never going to get any discussion off the ground.
we atheist agnostics
You mean antitheist.
Anti THEISM. I stand in opposition to theism, I am atheist agnostic. What's
wrong with being opposed to any doctrine like Christianity or Islam for
example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or
Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence? Believing things without evidence is
contrary to one of our most basic principles.
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it."
[Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)]
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Jun 2005 02:42:26 AM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:75sve.2663$xL1.2588@trnddc08...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in that which they have no
proof for.
No I don't,
Then you're never going to get any discussion off the ground.
we atheist agnostics
You mean antitheist.
Anti THEISM.
Antitheist: One who practices antitheism.
I stand in opposition to theism, I am atheist agnostic.
You're misdefining it. "Atheist agnostic" in this case, if you're
defining it as being in opposition to theism, is antitheistic, not
atheist agnostic.
<I've already answered that same exact post previously>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 11:14:48 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep, show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to one of
mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 05:28:19 PM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
show them that believing things without
evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to one of
mankind's most basic principles:
You mean one of Huxley's most basic principles.
<snip overly long sig>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 07:30:52 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:7_Fve.2913$Uc2.2579@trnddc03...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows, believing things without evidence is not
the right thing to do, because it is contrary to one of mankind's most
basic principles.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
show them that believing things without evidence is not the right thing
to do, because it is contrary to one of mankind's most basic principles:
You mean one of Huxley's most basic principles.
One of mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 12:29:48 AM |
|
|
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty..." - thomas huxley
Over time, one's experiences leads one to believe something. Now you
may not remember the experiences exactly, and so can't produce the
evidence. But it is okay to trust yourself, to remember how certain
you were, even if you don't remember the specific things that made you
so certain. You have it on the most reliable witness of all, yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:45:12 AM |
|
|
<nitin_paul_batra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119850188.774056.116610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to
this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty..." - thomas huxley
Over time, one's experiences leads one to believe something. Now you
may not remember the experiences exactly, and so can't produce the
evidence.
Without the ability to produce logically satisfactory evidence for peer
review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Reasons_for_peer_review
it is wrong for a man to say he has reason to be convinced [believe] a
statement is true.
This is one of the most basic principles we humans share.
You know it, don't you? Don't bear false witness and stuff like that?
Default presumption of 'No guilt' in court?
One of mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
See also Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." -- Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 02:59:46 AM |
|
|
In article <68OdnQigovTzPSLfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
it is wrong for a man to say he has reason to be convinced [believe] a
statement is true.
This is one of the most basic principles we humans share.
Wrong, since most humans do not share it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 03:22:15 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <68OdnQigovTzPSLfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
it is wrong for a man to say he has reason to be convinced [believe] a
statement is true.
This is one of the most basic principles we humans share.
Wrong, since most humans do not share it.
Carefuly, Virg, he'll pull out the _ad numerum_ or _ad populum_ card.
He's so predictable...
However, to pull these cards out is an irrelevant conclusion (or
_ignoratio elenchi_) because, saying that humans share that basic
principle means that all humans share it. Even if one does not share
it, it falsifies Deep Thought's claim of _ad numerum_ or _ad populum_.
If he uses it (which I know he will), he'll be using the _ignoratio
elenchi_ canard. Pity, too. Deep Thought can't out-fallacy his own
fallacies...
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
28 Jun 2005 03:32:59 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" :
... principle means that all humans share it.
No, there are some sociopaths who are totally UNprincipled, they have no
scruples atall atall.
But that is irrelevant, principles (axioms, self-evident truths) are
principles not because of popularity, but because the contrary would be an
absurd state of affairs. It doesn't matter if a few of recalcitrant
sociopaths don't honor basic human principles, they are still basic
principles, like this one, for example:
"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: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
29 Jun 2005 12:09:48 AM |
|
|
In article <Za6dncDcSaZmLlzfRVn-uA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
... principle means that all humans share it.
No, there are some sociopaths who are totally UNprincipled, they have no
scruples atall atall.
Simple Septic would know, as he is one of them. Probably their leader.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
26 Jun 2005 09:06:07 PM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:7_Fve.2913$Uc2.2579@trnddc03...
Deep Thought wrote:
"DanielSan" :
You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows, believing things without evidence is not
the right thing
....for atheists...
to do, because it is contrary to one of mankind's most
basic principles.
Not if we can deprogram the sheep,
show them that believing things without evidence is not the right thing
to do, because it is contrary to one of mankind's most basic principles:
You mean one of Huxley's most basic principles.
One of mankind's most basic principles:
Huxley's.
<snip _ad nauseam_>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:31:48 AM |
|
|
DenialSan :
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows (go ahead, ask around), believing things
without evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to
one of mankind's most basic principles.
...for atheists...
For anybody. There is a basic principle involved. Didn't your daddy teach
you the b - b - b - basics?
One of mankind's most basic principles:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889
"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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe
in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do
not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all,
then accept it and live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DanialSan |
27 Jun 2005 01:39:26 AM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
DenialSan :
Why would I want to "deprogram" them?
Because, as every atheist knows (go ahead, ask around), believing things
without evidence is not the right thing to do, because it is contrary to
one of mankind's most basic principles.
...for atheists...
For anybody.
No, for atheists.
There is a basic principle involved. Didn't your daddy teach
you the b - b - b - basics?
I told you, don't talk about my father.
One of mankind's most basic principles:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
*PLONK*
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 01:38:27 PM |
|
|
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
"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: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:31:03 PM |
|
|
In article <RrednaWJAvG-BFzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley
It is like the devil quoting scripture. A curiousity!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
28 Jun 2005 04:59:38 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
"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: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 12:49:57 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Why don't you just answer the question?
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:32:39 PM |
|
|
In article <WfudnR77-pvZQl_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Why don't you just answer the question?
Seems to me it is just that Simple Septic does not like the answer he
received.
Considering his treatment of others, he deserves worse than what he gets.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 04:08:45 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
Why don't you just answer the question?
I thought I did.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 04:33:35 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
30 Jun 2005 05:40:20 PM |
|
|
In article <2PudnVnyu9Ewjl7fRVn-rA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
Simple Septic does not know the answer, so avoids the question.
He does that a lot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 05:46:48 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about believing
things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
Answer the question. Does "love" exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 07:17:52 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:sxFwe.11524$gm6.10968@trnddc05...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about
believing things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
Answer the question. Does "love" exist?
Why can't you show the relevance first?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things withoutevidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 08:16:16 PM |
|
|
Jones wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:sxFwe.11524$gm6.10968@trnddc05...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eLjwe.8376$Xr6.3144@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
DenialSan wrote:
I knew it. He couldn't stay away from quoting Huxley.
What's wrong with quoting Thomas Huxley in a discussion about
believing things without evidence?
Fallacy of bifurcation.
How do you figure that?
Before I answer that, answer me this question so I know how to discuss
things with you:
Does "love" exist?
You think God is love?
Answer the question. Does "love" exist?
Why can't you show the relevance first?
Psychological aspects. Now, does "love" exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: 'You must accept that the religious believe in things without evidence' -- DenialSan |
29 Jun 2005 11:24:14 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:AJHwe.6533$Ku6.6229@trnddc04...
Jones wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:sxFwe.11524$gm6.10968@trnddc05...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:x5Ewe.7392$dz6.2688@trnddc02...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
