| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jake21" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2005 12:28:33 PM |
| Object: |
not anti God |
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
.
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:44:36 PM |
|
|
Where did I make such a claim?
You defend 'em, you get to own 'em. Don't like it? Don't care.
Welcome to Holysmoke.
Another note, your mention of the word practial
implied pragmatism, which is an incoherent method
of gaining truth.
I take it that the scientific method just makes you want
to crap your pants in outrage, then? :-)
Not at all, as practical knowledge is useful, but cannot
constitute a full epistemology.
I do not require a full epistemology to note that your undetectable
gods are precisely the same as non-existent for all practical purposes.
If you claims do not make it beyond the practical level, I'm afraid
there's nothing left for you 'round here. Pack 'em up.
Your gods and your leprechauns don't exist (slap me with
one if you feel otherwise :-).
I believe I have
Sorry, no gods or leprechauns have been bouncing off of me here.
for your claims about practicality are true
Then your claims about undetectable entities are, by your own
admission, indistinguishable from claims that non-existent entites
actually exist, and the entities referred to are indistinguishable from
non-existent entities. Practically speaking -- I'll let you be the
fellow who speaks impractically here -- your gods and your leprechauns
still don't exist.
Hec
http://hectorplasmic.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 05:35:48 PM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Where did I make such a claim?
You defend 'em, you get to own 'em. Don't like it? Don't care.
Welcome to Holysmoke.
Asking someone to defend their position and showing the logical
fallacies in someone's thinking makes me a theist?
<snip>
I do not require a full epistemology to note that your undetectable
gods are precisely the same as non-existent for all practical
purposes.
First of all, my gods, and second, why should I put stock in
practicality?
If you claims do not make it beyond the practical level, I'm afraid
there's nothing left for you 'round here. Pack 'em up.
Several claims don't go past the practical level even if they are known
on indepedent grounds to be true.
Your gods and your leprechauns don't exist (slap me with
one if you feel otherwise :-).
I believe I have
Sorry, no gods or leprechauns have been bouncing off of me here.
That reply was made to your bottom statement, a different one.
for your claims about practicality are true
Then your claims about undetectable entities are, by your own
admission, indistinguishable from claims that non-existent entites
actually exist, and the entities referred to are indistinguishable
from
non-existent entities. Practically speaking -- I'll let you be the
fellow who speaks impractically here -- your gods and your
leprechauns
still don't exist.
I'll be glad to speak impractically, as it is epistemologically sound.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 06:42:25 PM |
|
|
Several claims don't go past the practical level
even if they are known on indepedent grounds
to be true.
Nice claim, but so far practically identical to a false claim. You
know what to do, even if you hate to do it. Can you? :-)
for your claims about practicality are true
Then your claims about undetectable entities are,
by your own admission, indistinguishable from claims
that non-existent entites actually exist, and the entities
referred to are indistinguishable from non-existent
entities. Practically speaking -- I'll let you be the
fellow who speaks impractically here -- your gods
and your leprechauns still don't exist.
I'll be glad to speak impractically
We know, we know! :-)
as it is epistemologically sound.
Odd way you have of saying "ridiculous."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
14 Jan 2005 03:58:07 PM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Several claims don't go past the practical level
even if they are known on indepedent grounds
to be true.
Nice claim, but so far practically identical to a false claim. You
know what to do, even if you hate to do it. Can you? :-)
You've yet to give a basis for limiting knowledge to the practical.
for your claims about practicality are true
Then your claims about undetectable entities are,
by your own admission, indistinguishable from claims
that non-existent entites actually exist, and the entities
referred to are indistinguishable from non-existent
entities. Practically speaking -- I'll let you be the
fellow who speaks impractically here -- your gods
and your leprechauns still don't exist.
I'll be glad to speak impractically
We know, we know! :-)
as it is epistemologically sound.
Odd way you have of saying "ridiculous."
I ask that you give a basis for limiting knowledge to the practial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
15 Jan 2005 08:52:51 AM |
|
|
Several claims don't go past the practical level
even if they are known on indepedent grounds
to be true.
Nice claim, but so far practically identical to a false claim. You
know what to do, even if you hate to do it. Can you? :-)
You've yet to give a basis for limiting knowledge to the practical.
ROFL! You've yet to give a basis for expanding "knowledge" into what
you admit you cannot know. I'm not interested in what you admit you
cannot know. Don't be silly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
16 Jan 2005 10:18:46 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Nick Wesh <nick500@flashmail.com> wrote:
Hector Plasmic wrote:
Several claims don't go past the practical level
even if they are known on indepedent grounds
to be true.
Nice claim, but so far practically identical to a false claim. You
know what to do, even if you hate to do it. Can you? :-)
You've yet to give a basis for limiting knowledge to the practical.
for your claims about practicality are true
Then your claims about undetectable entities are,
by your own admission, indistinguishable from claims
that non-existent entites actually exist, and the entities
referred to are indistinguishable from non-existent
entities. Practically speaking -- I'll let you be the
fellow who speaks impractically here -- your gods
and your leprechauns still don't exist.
I'll be glad to speak impractically
We know, we know! :-)
as it is epistemologically sound.
Odd way you have of saying "ridiculous."
I ask that you give a basis for limiting knowledge to the practial.
I think I see the problem here. You're using the term "practical" in the
more restrictive form of "is it usefull to me in my life?" or "is it an
efficient usage?" and we've been using it in the more general form of "can
it be demonstrated in any way at all?" or "can it be put into practice in
any manner what-so-ever?"
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
16 Jan 2005 09:58:50 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Nick Wesh <nick500@flashmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
2. Tell us how to detect the entity -- IOW, make the claim
of existence falsifiable.
You failed to address this at all. You have therefore failed the
simple tests given you to establish some practical basis for the
claim
"gods exist," so I'm afraid you claim remains, practically speaking,
identical to a false claim.
Where did I make such a claim?
Until then, your gods and your leprechauns don't exist. Dismissed,
old
bean.
Where did I say that I have gods and leprechauns?
Another note, your mention of the word practial
implied pragmatism, which is an incoherent method
of gaining truth.
I take it that the scientific method just makes you want to crap your
pants in outrage, then? :-)
Not at all, as practical knowledge is useful, but cannot constitute a
full epistemology.
Epistemology studies what we know or can know. If something is undetectable,
then we can't know anything about it and thus it's meaningless to us. So
saying it doesn't exist in any practical sense is perfectly valid, since our
wourld of knowledge wouldn't change any otherwise.
Your example of a person named 'Mike' on the other side of the wordl wasn't
valid since, if we really wanted to, we could confirm that fact. I.e.
there's a way we could find out if it's true ot not. but an undetectable
god, for all practical purposes, is the same as a non-existent god, since we
could never know either to exist.
The reason being, it would force us to accept as truth
some things known independently to be false.
You are confused, and your cancer example was incoherent.
Please explain.
Your gods
and your leprechauns don't exist (slap me with one if you feel
otherwise :-).
I believe I have, for your claims about practicality are true, but if a
pragmatic epistemology is incoherent, then such a claim seems to have
lessened significance.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
11 Jan 2005 09:16:42 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105483037.552324.117180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Shifting of the burden of proof. Jake21 clearly stated that he wished
there was a god but asserted that there isn't, thus, he is a believer in
the assertion that there isn't a god. It is his responsibility to provide
sound reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Asserting that there
isn't a god is not the same thing as lacking a belief in the existence of
a god or gods. Strong atheism vs. weak atheism.
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never seen
any evidence for such a being."
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 09:07:58 PM |
|
|
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually support that assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 09:27:30 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105585678.222452.209850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having seen
evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to actually
support that assertion.
Human languages are not formal logic. If they were, we wouldn't need the
latter would we?
People quite often say "there's no X" to mean "I don't believe there is an
X." Happens all the time. Could have happened this time.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:35:11 AM |
|
|
I think it depends on the context.
If you are discussing some every day topic then one would expect
someone to make an absolute statement like "There is no Santa Clause"
without expecting them to back it up. However, when discussing
something philosophically, statements like this should be interpreted
in a very literal way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 07:11:04 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105608911.961436.301030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, FreeThink lept
out of the bushes shouting:
I think it depends on the context.
If you are discussing some every day topic then one would expect someone
to make an absolute statement like "There is no Santa Clause" without
expecting them to back it up. However, when discussing something
philosophically, statements like this should be interpreted in a very
literal way.
Come on, the guy posts all of one line on Usenet. That being:
"Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't."
We're not talking a philosophical treatise here...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 08:31:24 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 01:35:11 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I think it depends on the context.
If you are discussing some every day topic then one would expect
someone to make an absolute statement like "There is no Santa Clause"
without expecting them to back it up. However, when discussing
something philosophically, statements like this should be interpreted
in a very literal way.
Most atheists haven't any interest in "discussing religions
philosophically" - they're just fed up with the endless stream of
god-addicts pushing their addiction.
The theists doing that can't grasp that all "God" is, in the real
world outside their religion, is "somebody's religious belief". There
are hundreds of different religions past and present. None
substantively more real than any of the others - apart from in the
minds of their opwn believers.
The big problem is that too many believers can't think outside the
box. We are outside it and see it from outside, they are inside it and
can't see the world outside.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 05:57:46 PM |
|
|
they are inside it and can't see the world outside.
They seek answers about the world by being on their knees with their
eyes closed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 06:20:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
they are inside it and can't see the world outside.
They seek answers about the world by being on their knees with their
eyes closed.
Now where have I heard something like that before. :-D
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 08:20:43 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005 01:35:11 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I think it depends on the context.
If you are discussing some every day topic then one would expect
someone to make an absolute statement like "There is no Santa
Clause"
without expecting them to back it up. However, when discussing
something philosophically, statements like this should be
interpreted
in a very literal way.
Most atheists haven't any interest in "discussing religions
philosophically" - they're just fed up with the endless stream of
god-addicts pushing their addiction.
The theists doing that can't grasp that all "God" is, in the real
world outside their religion, is "somebody's religious belief". There
are hundreds of different religions past and present. None
substantively more real than any of the others - apart from in the
minds of their opwn believers.
The big problem is that too many believers can't think outside the
box. We are outside it and see it from outside, they are inside it
and
can't see the world outside.
I guess I'm the exception. Maybe by trying to create dialog with
theists they will start listening. An act of purist optimism I
admit.... :P
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
14 Jan 2005 08:36:40 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 18:20:43 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005 01:35:11 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I think it depends on the context.
If you are discussing some every day topic then one would expect
someone to make an absolute statement like "There is no Santa
Clause"
without expecting them to back it up. However, when discussing
something philosophically, statements like this should be
interpreted
in a very literal way.
Most atheists haven't any interest in "discussing religions
philosophically" - they're just fed up with the endless stream of
god-addicts pushing their addiction.
The theists doing that can't grasp that all "God" is, in the real
world outside their religion, is "somebody's religious belief". There
are hundreds of different religions past and present. None
substantively more real than any of the others - apart from in the
minds of their opwn believers.
The big problem is that too many believers can't think outside the
box. We are outside it and see it from outside, they are inside it
and
can't see the world outside.
I guess I'm the exception. Maybe by trying to create dialog with
theists they will start listening.
No, because reason has nothing to do with anything. They're driven by
emotion-namely fear. High levels of that shut reason down.
An act of purist optimism I admit.... :P
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 10:22:07 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<1105585678.222452.209850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh
lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've
never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting
most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen
evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually
support that assertion.
Human languages are not formal logic. If they were, we wouldn't need
the
latter would we?
People quite often say "there's no X" to mean "I don't believe there
is an
X." Happens all the time. Could have happened this time.
I don't think that this has anything to do with the validity of human
language, moreso, improper use of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 07:12:29 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105590127.950660.207740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<1105585678.222452.209850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh
lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've
never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting
most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen
evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually
support that assertion.
Human languages are not formal logic. If they were, we wouldn't need
the
latter would we?
People quite often say "there's no X" to mean "I don't believe there
is an
X." Happens all the time. Could have happened this time.
I don't think that this has anything to do with the validity of human
language, moreso, improper use of it.
"Improper use" eh?
You know, human languages operate by their own rules and not once in the
history of prescriptive linguistics has anybody ever changed that.
Hey, you want to split hairs all day, it's your dime. But, really, it was
a one liner on Usenet. This is getting silly.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 02:43:38 PM |
|
|
<snip>
"Improper use" eh?
You know, human languages operate by their own rules and not once in
the history of prescriptive linguistics has anybody ever changed
that.
That doesn't make use any more proper or clear.
Hey, you want to split hairs all day, it's your dime. But, really, it
was a one liner on Usenet. This is getting silly.
And I responded in kind with a simple one liner asking him to defend
that belief. That this discussion has continued isn't all my fault, it
takes atleast two to tango.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 07:52:59 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105649018.820626.65580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept out
of the bushes shouting:
<snip>
"Improper use" eh?
You know, human languages operate by their own rules and not once in the
history of prescriptive linguistics has anybody ever changed
that.
That doesn't make use any more proper or clear.
Sure it does. Human languages have their own logic and no amount of
squawking will change that.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 11:58:17 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2005 19:07:58 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Only if you're too stupid to realise that it is a justified and
falsifiable conclusion.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually support that assertion.
Duh.
Just like your deity - every claim that there are ghosts that fails to
demonstrate them is a data point against. So far there are zillions
against and none for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 02:52:45 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting
most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Only if you're too stupid to realise that it is a justified and
falsifiable conclusion.
How does that address my statement? I specifically said that one
commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam in asserting the non-existence of
God on the basis of not having seen evidence. Now you say that this
reasoning is only fallacious if I'm too stupid to realise that strong
atheism is a justified and falsifiable position? How, for reasoning
from ignorance is fallacious regardless of independent justification. I
wasn't attacking the position, but rather reasoning based on ignorance.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually support that assertion.
Duh.
Ok, I don't wish to sound arrogant, but I consider myself a critical
thinker, preferring to subject things to scrutiny.
Just like your deity -
Who is my deity, because I don't recall asserting one.
every claim that there are ghosts that fails to
demonstrate them is a data point against.
Again, such depends. Absense of expected posited claims would be a
point against. Simple lack of demonstration would be fallacious if used
as a point against its existence.
<snips>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:46:24 PM |
|
|
I consider myself a critical thinker
Just impractical. Head in the clouds looking for gods, feet in good
old clay, eh? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 05:31:10 PM |
|
|
Several things are impractical, the equation 45+42=87 and many others
currently serve no use to me, am I to reject their truth? Pragmatism
simply does not constitute a sound epistemology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 06:44:53 PM |
|
|
I consider myself a critical thinker
Just impractical. Head in the clouds looking for gods,
feet in good old clay, eh? :-)
Several things are impractical, the equation 45+42=87
and many others currently serve no use to me
Tsk, tsk -- better no analogy than a bad one. Surely we can
demonstrate practically that 45 + 42 = 87 has some truth value even you
could appreciate. Show us how to detect some truth value with regard
to your claims that gods and/or leprechauns exist.
Really, you're impractical *and* silly. Remember, when thinking
critically, don't forget to be critical of yourself when you deserve
it. It's such a practical thing to do, you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
14 Jan 2005 03:54:56 PM |
|
|
Hector Plasmic wrote:
I consider myself a critical thinker
Just impractical. Head in the clouds looking for gods,
feet in good old clay, eh? :-)
Several things are impractical, the equation 45+42=87
and many others currently serve no use to me
Tsk, tsk -- better no analogy than a bad one. Surely we can
demonstrate practically that 45 + 42 = 87 has some truth value even
you
could appreciate.
So you believe that all truth claims have practical value? Can such a
thing even be measured objectively? For example, at this moment there
is probably man across the world named Mike. Of what purpose would that
serve to me as of yet? Is such value to be judged temporally?
Show us how to detect some truth value with regard
to your claims that gods and/or leprechauns exist.
I've yet to assert the existence of gods or leprechauns.
Really, you're impractical *and* silly. Remember, when thinking
critically, don't forget to be critical of yourself when you deserve
it. It's such a practical thing to do, you know.
Sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
15 Jan 2005 08:56:31 AM |
|
|
So you believe that all truth claims have practical value?
I've never said any such thing. What I've said is that hypothetical
undetectable entities are equivalent to non-existent entities for all
practical purposes. You have admitted that to be true. If you'd like
to go off on a philisophically null tangent swashbuckling with some
strawman of your own invention, be my guest.
Show us how to detect some truth value with regard
to your claims that gods and/or leprechauns exist.
I've yet to assert the existence of gods or leprechauns.
I've yet to see any indication of any truth value to claims (yours or
others) in this regard. Apparently you have, as well, as you have
consistently run so bravely away. How are things in the coop with your
fellows? :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 05:34:54 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 15:31:10 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Several things are impractical, the equation 45+42=87 and many others
currently serve no use to me, am I to reject their truth? Pragmatism
simply does not constitute a sound epistemology.
Argument by bad analogy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:03:51 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 12:52:45 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Then it is quite a poor way, considering the problem of asserting
most
negative existentials(that things of a sort do not exist). Second,
asserting the non-existence of something on the basis of not having
seen evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Only if you're too stupid to realise that it is a justified and
falsifiable conclusion.
How does that address my statement? I specifically said that one
commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam in asserting the non-existence of
God on the basis of not having seen evidence. Now you say that this
reasoning is only fallacious if I'm too stupid to realise that strong
atheism is a justified and falsifiable position? How, for reasoning
from ignorance is fallacious regardless of independent justification. I
wasn't attacking the position, but rather reasoning based on ignorance.
What "reasoning based on ignorance"?
Hint: there wasn't any. And can the ignorant strawmen.
Address the actual atheist POV which you keep ignoring every time you
are corrected.
You insist that something you believe (only believe) from your
religion exists in the real world and is objectively real for
everybody.
There is no reason for anybody outside your religion to share that
belief.
And it doesn't even mean the same thing in the real world that it does
inside the religion.
It's "somebody's wacky belief that they rub in our faces and always
cop out of backing it up in the real world".
The falsifiable default is "no it doesn't" until you demonstrate that
it does.
Especially when its non-existence is indistinguishable from its
existence.
It's also the falsifiable conclusion based on the fact that you guys
never back it up, invariably copping out. Every time you do this is a
data point against, with none for.
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
It's obviously said uncritically, as it would seem difficult to
actually support that assertion.
Duh.
Ok, I don't wish to sound arrogant, but I consider myself a critical
thinker, preferring to subject things to scrutiny.
You don't show it.
Just like your deity -
Who is my deity, because I don't recall asserting one.
The one you presume when you pretend that atheists irrationally say it
doesn't exist.
Hint: it's the theists' presumption/premise/etc. That only applies to
theists.
every claim that there are ghosts that fails to
demonstrate them is a data point against.
Again, such depends. Absense of expected posited claims would be a
point against. Simple lack of demonstration would be fallacious if used
as a point against its existence.
Duh. I said every fallacy, every diversion, every copout.
<snips>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
