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: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
15 Jul 2005 11:08:56 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Fbqze.16832$Fy4.1293@trnddc04...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4E19BE.22564406072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <joidnaHRifjGlFHfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
... I cannot reject that possibility without evidence of
its falsehood ...
That is standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_
Then it is equally an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to argue as Simple
Septic does that he CAN reject that possibility in the absence of
evidence of its truth.
In the absence of evidence of its truth there is no reason to even
give your conjecture that there might be an invisible god the time of
day, moron.
Then why are you?
I don't lend it any credence at all, in fact I join Thomas Huxley in
unabashedly denying and repudiating any religious doctrine like
Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the
tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to
believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
15 Jul 2005 01:24:14 PM |
|
|
In article <G-CdnaQVNsUXQkrfRVn-vA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Fbqze.16832$Fy4.1293@trnddc04...
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4E19BE.22564406072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <joidnaHRifjGlFHfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
... I cannot reject that possibility without evidence of
its falsehood ...
That is standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_
Then it is equally an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to argue as Simple
Septic does that he CAN reject that possibility in the absence of
evidence of its truth.
In the absence of evidence of its truth there is no reason to even
give your conjecture that there might be an invisible god the time of
day
No more is their any reason to given Simple Septic's claim to KNOW that
there are no gods, regardless of visibility, the time of day.
Then why are you?
I don't lend it any credence at all, in fact I join Thomas Huxley
Thomas Huxley abominates claims, such as Simple Septic makes, to KNOW
things for which one does not have logically convincing evidence.
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 excommunicates himself from Huxley's agnosticism
and enters into the ranks of virulent anti-theism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
16 Jul 2005 06:23:07 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem
(special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why I Am Not a
Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
Why aren't you God boys willing to listen to reason?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
16 Jul 2005 10:32:31 PM |
|
|
In article <JcqdnZHTVcRXC0TfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem (special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
That Simple Septic has said that times without number nobody denies.
It is the truth of that claim that is at issue here.
In 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand Russell
(1947), Russell says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Simple Septic's phony claims in tatters.
There is no "fatal problem with the very idea of God" that anyone can
point out. There are problems with claims that there MUST be a god, but
Russell himself denied being able to show any logical argument why any
god, even the old Greek ones, cannot exist.
Why aren't you God boys willing to listen to reason?
Those God boys are beyond my influence, but we agnostics have reason on
our side, and our reason says that neither the actual God boys nor the
extremist anti-God boys like Simple Septic have anything like convincing
evidence to back up their claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
17 Jul 2005 01:15:57 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E19B47.21323116072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <JcqdnZHTVcRXC0TfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem (special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
That Simple Septic has said that times without number nobody denies.
I say it because it is the truth. Special pleading for God/Creator/First
Cause is what Russell is talking about when he says, 'It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
"How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that.' -- Russell "Why
I Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
17 Jul 2005 06:09:23 PM |
|
|
In article <sY6dnduUbOMQakTfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E19B47.21323116072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <JcqdnZHTVcRXC0TfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem (special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
That Simple Septic has said that times without number nobody denies.
I say it because it is the truth.
That is another lie.
It no more true than that Russell points out that the very idea of no
God is summarily rejected as absurd due to the logically fatal problem
(special pleading against God) inherent in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
18 Jul 2005 03:13:42 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-50FB0F.17092317072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <sY6dnduUbOMQakTfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E19B47.21323116072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <JcqdnZHTVcRXC0TfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of
God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem (special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why
I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
That Simple Septic has said that times without number nobody
denies.
I say it because it is the truth.
That is another lie.
From your biased point of view it might look that way, but it is not,
I say it because it is the truth. Special pleading for God/Creator/First
Cause is what Russell is talking about when he says, 'It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
"How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that.' -- Russell "Why
I Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Now, do you want to acknowledge that Russell did say that?
Or why don't you try snipping it again? Maybe that will make it
disappear for good this time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
18 Jul 2005 05:16:13 PM |
|
|
In article <MqWdne9Wgdf_kEHfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-50FB0F.17092317072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <sY6dnduUbOMQakTfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E19B47.21323116072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <JcqdnZHTVcRXC0TfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
In article <C-CdnTkmj9TiLlDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> wrote: We KNOW there is no God
As I said, Russell points out that the very idea of
God/Creator/First
Cause is summarily rejected as absurd, due to the logically fatal
problem (special pleading for God) inherent in it. (Russell, "Why
I
Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
That Simple Septic has said that times without number nobody
denies.
I say it because it is the truth.
That is another lie.
From your biased point of view it might look that way, but it is not,
I say it because it is the truth.
What Russell actually says is:
"The argument that there MUST BE a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. [Thus Russell explicitely denies that there MUST be one]
If anything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God
[Thus Russell explicitely allows that there MIGHT be a first cause that
is God, while explicitely denying that there MUST be one]."
-- Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Thus Simple Septic is lying when he says that Russell implies that "the
very idea of god" has any logical problems.
In fact, Russell says quite the reverse:From "Essay: Am I an Atheist or
an Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russell (1947)
<BEGIN QUOTE>
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me.
Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place
they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say
"Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of
you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a
purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself
as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive
argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the
ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist,
because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought
to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods
of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a
logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them
did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such
proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely
philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking
popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that
we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think,
take exactly the same line.
There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the
existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the
Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric
gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an
alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious
consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that
they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although
it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and
sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
<END QUOTE>
Special pleading for God/Creator/First
Cause is what Russell is talking about when he says, 'It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
"How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that.' -- Russell "Why
I Am Not a Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Now, do you want to acknowledge that Russell did say that?
I do not deny that Russell said it, what I deny is that it posits
anything more than a refutation of the NECESSITY of a god, or a
tortoise.
When Russell says elsewhere that he cannot prove logically that any god
cannot exist, Simple Septic apparently misreads that as saying the exact
opposite. Or Simple Septic is lying. Or both.
Or why don't you try snipping it again? Maybe that will make it
disappear for good this time?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 02:30:53 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3E1978.21501705072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <9JSdnb9seqawdVffRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0A994.13383705072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <ic2dnS8evYQ_OVffRVn-3g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A35C0C.16491204072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <UJKdnYX_msEOzFTfRVn-1g@comcast.com>, "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
I merely warn non-believers
Why don't you BECOME a non-believer
I am a nonbeliever ...
I don't believe you,
you have said repeatedly
that you believe there might be an
invisible deity even though you know believing things
without evidence, like believing there might be
an invisible deity anyway, even though there is
no evidence of any such thing, is a big no no.
"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
... I cannot reject that possibility without evidence of
its falsehood ...
That is standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_
It is neither theist nor an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ...
Yes it is, as Copi explains.
And why should I listen to Copi?
Snipping this will ... make it disappear...
<snip things out of context, to make it look like someone is saying
something other than what he's saying, like JHC does often>
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 03:21:08 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid argument
(logic), do you, son?
At the very minimum you should read Copi's _Introduction to Logic_ ISBN:
0131898345
Best wishes for your continuing education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 11:58:51 PM |
|
|
In article <l-KdnYNX99SpoFHfRVn-qw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid argument
(logic), do you, son?
If Copi had ever said what Simple Septic falsely alleges, Copi would be
the very worst place to go to get any valid principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
08 Jul 2005 02:36:21 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E4C9D0.22585106072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <l-KdnYNX99SpoFHfRVn-qw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid
argument
(logic), do you, son?
If Copi had ever said ...
What do you mean, 'if'? This is a direct quote, moron:
<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: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
08 Jul 2005 05:49:41 PM |
|
|
In article <KK2dnVXlY6VvsVPfRVn-2g@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E4C9D0.22585106072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
If ...
What do you mean, 'if'?
Websters Concise Electronic Dictionary
3 sense(s) for if
1. if
(conjunction)
in the event that
whether
even though
Proximity/Franklin U.S. English Thesaurus
3 meaning(s) for if
1. (conj) given a certain condition
(synonym) if and when, provided, on condition that, when and if,
assuming, supposing, granted that, given that
(related) given
2. (conj) illative conjunctions
(synonym) then, hence, so, by inference, iff, thus, only if, whence,
ergo, propter hoc, consequently, accordingly
3. (conj) introducing a possibility
(synonym) whether
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 03:53:00 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid argument
(logic), do you, son?
I already know the basic prinicples of valid argument, JHC.
At the very minimum you should read Copi's _Introduction to Logic_ ISBN:
0131898345
No.
Best wishes for your continuing education.
Why should I have a need for a review?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 05:07:30 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:MwXye.18981$H64.18654@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid
argument (logic), do you, son?
I already know the basic prinicples of valid argument, JHC.
'Prinicples'? What are those?
At the very minimum you should read Copi's _Introduction to Logic_ ISBN:
0131898345
No.
Best wishes for your continuing education.
Why should I have a need for a review?
Why else would you ask, "Why should I listen to Copi?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
07 Jul 2005 12:01:56 AM |
|
|
In article <KeCdnYPZW-W_y1HfRVn-sg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:MwXye.18981$H64.18654@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid
argument (logic), do you, son?
I already know the basic prinicples of valid argument, JHC.
'Prinicples'? What are those?
At the very minimum you should read Copi's _Introduction to Logic_
Simple Septic's "reading" of that test reminds me of the definition of a
college lecture:
Ideas passing from the notes of the professor to the notes of
the students without passing through the minds of either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 05:32:46 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:MwXye.18981$H64.18654@trnddc07...
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan"
And why should I listen to Copi?
You don't want to remain ignorant of the basic principles of valid
argument (logic), do you, son?
I already know the basic prinicples of valid argument, JHC.
'Prinicples'? What are those?
Principles are the basics, JHC.
A valid argument has three parts.
You have the major syllogism.
You have the minor syllogism.
You have the conclusion.
In a valid argument, one must first accept that the syllogisms as true
before a valid argument can commence.
For example:
Major Syllogism: All dogs are mammals.
Minor Syllogism: John's pet is a dog.
Conclusion: Therefore, John's pet is a mammal.
In the course of a valid argument, you must accept the two syllogisms as
true before reasoning can commence. I would say that you accept that
both the major and minor syllogisms as being true. However, if you were
to refute the minor syllogism ("But John's pet is a snake, not a dog!")
then I would have to prove that John's pet is a dog and not a snake.
In your argument, you say the following:
Major Syllogism: Things without evidence should not be believed.
Minor Syllogism: God is without evidence.
Conclusion: God should not be believed.
First of all, I do not agree with the major syllogism. Therefore,
before a valid argument can commence, the major syllogism must be
proven. Why should things without evidence not be believed?
At the very minimum you should read Copi's _Introduction to Logic_ ISBN:
0131898345
No.
Best wishes for your continuing education.
Why should I have a need for a review?
Why else would you ask, "Why should I listen to Copi?"
Because Copi is not my god.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
06 Jul 2005 10:48:16 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
07 Jul 2005 01:02:56 AM |
|
|
In article <8sadnUqxUv5iOFHfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
Then it is one that Simple Septic presents, since he is under the
continual delusion that to be a theist one need not believe in the
existence of any gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
07 Jul 2005 06:28:54 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0C560B.00025607072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8sadnUqxUv5iOFHfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
Then it is one that Simple Septic presents, since he is under the
continual delusion that to be a theist one need not believe in the
existence of any gods.
Au contraire, mon frère. Theists definitely believe (as you say you do) that
there might be an invisible god or gods. Theism is characterized by the
irrational belief that there might be an invisible god or gods anyway, even
though there is no such thing ( delusional disorder -
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html ).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
07 Jul 2005 10:34:19 PM |
|
|
In article <D8CdnZL1D5suJ1DfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0C560B.00025607072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8sadnUqxUv5iOFHfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
Then it is one that Simple Septic presents, since he is under the
continual delusion that to be a theist one need not believe in the
existence of any gods.
Au contraire, mon frère. Theists definitely believe (as you say you do) that
there might be an invisible god or gods.
"Might be" doesn't cut it. Theists believe "MUST BE".
Only idiots like Simple Septic could believe that 'might be' and 'must
be' are equivalent.
Simple Septic's Anti-Theism is characterized by the irrational belief
that "might be" means "must be"( a delusional disorder -
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html ).
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
08 Jul 2005 02:33:45 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1BF56B.21341907072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <D8CdnZL1D5suJ1DfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0C560B.00025607072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8sadnUqxUv5iOFHfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
Then it is one that Simple Septic presents, since he is under the
continual delusion that to be a theist one need not believe in the
existence of any gods.
Au contraire, mon frère. Theists definitely believe (as you say you do)
that
there might be an invisible god or gods.
"Might be" doesn't cut it.
Au contraire, mon frère. 'Might be' is what 'conjecture' means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
08 Jul 2005 05:46:54 PM |
|
|
In article <J7mdnanQVvfLsVPfRVn-qg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-1BF56B.21341907072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <D8CdnZL1D5suJ1DfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0C560B.00025607072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <8sadnUqxUv5iOFHfRVn-3w@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
Then it is one that Simple Septic presents, since he is under the
continual delusion that to be a theist one need not believe in the
existence of any gods.
Au contraire, mon frère. Theists definitely believe (as you say you do)
that
there might be an invisible god or gods.
"Might be" doesn't cut it.
Au contraire, mon frère. 'Might be' is what 'conjecture' means.
But theists do more than conjecture, they insist, just as Simple Septic
does more than conjecture in the opposite direction, he too insists (
that gods are impossible in his case). Both do their insisting without
benefit of conclusive supporting evidence.
And Simple Septic is in no way my brother. My family has no such idiots
in it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I love Christianity' -- DenialSan |
08 Jul 2005 12:12:32 AM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"DanielSan" :
...
Why should things without evidence not be believed?
It's known as delusional disorder.
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
And? As long as they're not asking you to buy into their delusions, and
they're quite comfortable in their delusions, who are you to tell them
otherwise?
In short, who died and made you God? Or anyone else, for that matter?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they | | | | | | | |
