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: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jul 2005 01:05:53 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-42772B.23121513072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <qqadndHVb-Kb8UjfRVn-vQ@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B8014.13503812072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <XqudnU5A0OXWdE7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C074FC.12050911072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <5YednQ8xl-5FME_fRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Your inability to deal with any arguments ...
Enough with the argument _ad hominem_
Statements of fact ...
Stop trying to change the subject.
What subject?
Stop trying to change the subject.
I am just asking a simple
question:
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which
to
produce in this case, only theists do, right?
No one who makes no claims of knowledge has anything to prove.
That's a rather contorted and double-negatived way of answering, "Yes,
you are right, aheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do." Thanks for agreeing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 01:59:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:31:30 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-7B8014.13503812072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <XqudnU5A0OXWdE7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-C074FC.12050911072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <5YednQ8xl-5FME_fRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Your inability to deal with any arguments ...
Enough with the argument _ad hominem_
Statements of fact ...
Stop trying to change the subject.
What subject?
Stop trying to change the subject.
I am just asking a simple
question:
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do, right?
Stop repeating the "Oh, I'm just trying to be logical and to
the point here" passive-aggressive *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 01:53:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:35:28 -0700, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote:
Enough with the argument _ad hominem_ already, I am just asking a simple
question:
Go away for awhile and read a logic book to find out what
argumentum ad hominem really is. For starters, it does not mean, "You
disagree with me and clearly say so."
Lashing out with it in all directions does nothing to support
your position, especially when you don't use the term properly.
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do, right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jul 2005 01:01:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:35:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <5YednQ8xl-5FME_fRVn-1w@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pfp2d11aiflgtn190b9c8vo47t7095qq5u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:06:34 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <qfCdnSEbtfEOyEzfRVn-vw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bv92d1l8vk7lctpk5c89oe4h6lgdcvd92f@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:30:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <VP-dnYSTy9ij503fRVn-rw@comcast.com> wrote:
"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^)
I guess you lack evidence ...
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do.
Your inability to deal with any arguments ...
Enough with the argument _ad hominem_ already,
You make fun of my name and complain about this? I talk about your
inability because you snip out my arguments and don't even bother to
mark them. There is no point to my responding to substance because it
is just ignored.
I am just asking a simple
question:
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do, right?
Again I point out that "atheists" is too large a tent. (At which point
you will claim I have changed the subject because I am talking about
atheists. *You* change the subject here, I am trying to discuss
arguments, not groups of people.)
What I have said several times, my only real point here, is that if
someone, I don't care who, were to say "There are not gods" then that
statement requires support. It is not the logical default position.
--
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? |
11 Jul 2005 01:39:05 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mpc5d1prluspjl3b1e8a8su6cn76smn67d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:35:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <5YednQ8xl-5FME_fRVn-1w@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pfp2d11aiflgtn190b9c8vo47t7095qq5u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:06:34 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <qfCdnSEbtfEOyEzfRVn-vw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bv92d1l8vk7lctpk5c89oe4h6lgdcvd92f@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:30:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <VP-dnYSTy9ij503fRVn-rw@comcast.com> wrote:
"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^)
I guess you lack evidence ...
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do.
Your inability to deal with any arguments ...
Enough with the argument _ad hominem_ already,
You make fun of my name and complain about this? I talk about your
inability because you snip out my arguments and don't even bother to
mark them. There is no point to my responding to substance because it
is just ignored.
I am just asking a simple
question:
Evidence of what? Atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce in this case, only theists do, right?
Again I point out that "atheists" is too large a tent. (At which point
you will claim I have changed the subject because I am talking about
atheists. *You* change the subject here, I am trying to discuss
arguments, not groups of people.)
What I have said several times, my only real point here, is that if
someone, I don't care who, were to say "There are not gods" then that
statement requires support. It is not the logical default position.
That is the fallacious argument of theists, that there might be an invisible
deity anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence, because the
non-believers can't prove the theist conjecture false.
It is classic textbook theist argument _ad ignorantiam, as Copi explains:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Jul 2005 04:19:37 PM |
|
|
In article <OaudnZqoJPZdIU_fRVn-ug@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
What I have said several times, my only real point here, is that if
someone, I don't care who, were to say "There are not gods" then that
statement requires support. It is not the logical default position.
That is the fallacious argument of theists
To refuse to accept "there are no gods" because it is insufficiently
evidenced is good agnosticism, as the prime directive of agnosticism
says in Agnosticism and Christianity [1899] Collected essays V by Thomas
Huxley
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
This principle [the agnostic 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 the objective truth of any proposition unless he can
produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what
Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to
Agnosticism.
Since Simple Septic continually violates that, he cannot speak for
agnostics, nor for the vast majority of atheists.
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, Simple Septic, AKA
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
By which Simple Septic expels himself from the ranks of agnosticism into
the ranks of virulent anti-theism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 05:55:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 08:17:56 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
Your bigotry and outward discrimination towards those who believe in
God speaks loudly and is testimony of your own ignorance.
There used to be a study that said the higher the education a person
held, the less likely he or she would believe in God.
Now, another study has come out that contradicts that.
If a person believes in God, that is in no way shape or form and sign
that they don't care about "logical fallacy".
The truth of the matter is, many "theist" are highly intelligent people
that includes scietist, doctors, lawyers, military leaders,
politicians, and so forth.
Your own words indicate that you are the one lacking education. A
truly educated person wouldn't blatently discriminate and show utter
hatred towards another man simply because he or she believes in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 08:32:51 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1120958276.737463.98700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
Your bigotry and outward discrimination towards those who believe in
God ...
Who believe in what? Please define your term in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way so that others can check your observations, find out if there
might be such a thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 10:15:31 PM |
|
|
In article <_KadnbTFMsUg503fRVn-uA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1120958276.737463.98700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your bigotry and outward discrimination towards those who believe in
God ...
Who believe in what?
Which, not what!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Jul 2005 09:30:29 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jul 2005 18:17:56 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1120958276.737463.98700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
Your bigotry and outward discrimination towards those who believe in
God speaks loudly and is testimony of your own ignorance.
No, only my observation that they believe in something for no good
reason. They are speculating far beyond their knowledge. I would
question whose ignorance is demonstrated.
There used to be a study that said the higher the education a person
held, the less likely he or she would believe in God.
Now, another study has come out that contradicts that.
So what?
If a person believes in God, that is in no way shape or form and sign
that they don't care about "logical fallacy".
The truth of the matter is, many "theist" are highly intelligent people
that includes scietist, doctors, lawyers, military leaders,
politicians, and so forth.
Again, so what? It is still a fact that not one shred of proof of the
existence of any god has ever been presented.
Your own words indicate that you are the one lacking education. A
truly educated person wouldn't blatently discriminate and show utter
hatred towards another man simply because he or she believes in God.
Not hatred. Amusement, and contempt, but no hatred is involved unless
one of them tries to convince me he is right. Then I become
irritated.
Why do I suspect you are a theist?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
10 Jul 2005 08:51:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:55:21 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <eal0d15u8krrlvecluh2cf829vlgnrmevv@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
What you are doing then is piggybacking on JHC errors and ignorance. I
keep trying to discuss a logical point and he keeps trying to make
claims about groups of people. You seem to agree. Oh well, I guess I
can't expect logic from everyone.
--
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? |
10 Jul 2005 11:39:08 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:os92d1h249ct8i82ags2fqudfk4eb7o0a9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:55:21 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <eal0d15u8krrlvecluh2cf829vlgnrmevv@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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.
There was a phrase 'you theists' in the prior comment. I was
commenting on theists in general and the 'they' referred to them. If
you are a theist you are included. If you are not a theist you are
not included.
I withdraw nothing.
What you are doing then is piggybacking on JHC errors and ignorance.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case, Matt, it is logical
fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
10 Jul 2005 02:34:36 PM |
|
|
In article <-eCdnXiUBe650kzfRVn-og@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:os92d1h249ct8i82ags2fqudfk4eb7o0a9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:55:21 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <eal0d15u8krrlvecluh2cf829vlgnrmevv@4ax.com>
wrote:
I withdraw nothing.
What you are doing then is piggybacking on JHC errors and ignorance.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case, Matt, it is logical
fallacy.
Actually, commenting of a third party's idiocies ( Simple Septic's in
this case) is NOT an Argumentum ad Hominem. It would only have been so
if he were replying directly to Simple Septic about a posting by Simple
Septic (AKA JHC) himself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
10 Jul 2005 01:16:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:39:08 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <-eCdnXiUBe650kzfRVn-og@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:os92d1h249ct8i82ags2fqudfk4eb7o0a9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:55:21 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in <eal0d15u8krrlvecluh2cf829vlgnrmevv@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:15:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <j0j0d19nj71b69hj7fat7kko2o3ob0k6i2@4ax.com> wrote:
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 | | | | |
