PING Jack H

Religions > Atheism > PING Jack H

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 24

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Max Mustermann"
Date:	13 Jun 2004 01:59:01 PM
Object:	PING Jack H

Excuse us jack but would you mind keeping your crap out of
alt.atheism !
we have our hands full enough with tiny tick bastards preaching
god this
and that, we don't need your over sized bug ears flapping around
in here.
.

User: "Amanita, Private Dancer"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 04:52:00 PM

Max Mustermann <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

excuse us Max, but would you mind keeping your ***** out of alt.drugs.pot?
We have our hands full enough with tiny tick fucktards preaching this and
that; we don't need your ower sized ***** and bug ears flapping around in
here
--
A.M.A.N.I.T.A.:
Artificial Mechanical Android Normally for Infiltration and Terran
Assassination
.

User: "Zaphod \stil prez"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 05:02:32 PM

"Amanita, Private Dancer" <pugdog420@hotmail.communismsux> wrote in message
news:1256560a61145211822da0ff4e3d16cd@news.teranews.com...

Max Mustermann <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

here

LOL. I think that was funny. There I said it.
Zaphod
.

User: "Amanita, Private Dancer"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 05:09:13 PM

"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zaphodB@safe-mail.net> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

LOL. I think that was funny. There I said it.

I think there is hope for you yet. There I said it, too.
Wanna pudding pop?
--
A.M.A.N.I.T.A.:
Artificial Mechanical Android Normally for Infiltration and Terran
Assassination
.

User: "Zaphod \stil prez"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 05:19:51 PM

"Amanita, Private Dancer" <pugdog420@hotmail.communismsux> wrote in message
news:d3b7cb070a6ac8ea5c12d70f64db92c8@news.teranews.com...

"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zaphodB@safe-mail.net> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

LOL. I think that was funny. There I said it.

I think there is hope for you yet. There I said it, too.
Wanna pudding pop?

One is too many and a thousand never enough.
I've gained 12 pounds in the last 10 days eating myself out of worrying. Now
I'm worried about all the weight I have gained. Go figure.
Zaphod
.

User: "Amanita, Private Dancer"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 08:03:27 PM

"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zaphodB@safe-mail.net> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

I've gained 12 pounds in the last 10 days eating myself out of
worrying. Now I'm worried about all the weight I have gained. Go
figure.

eat and be happy
if you die of weight problems, you will at least die happy
That is the conclusion I have come to
--
A.M.A.N.I.T.A.:
Artificial Mechanical Android Normally for Infiltration and Terran
Assassination
.

User: "starwars"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	14 Jun 2004 05:33:18 AM

One day in alt.atheism,"Amanita"wrote:
<snip >

Dude if you where a lady i'd slap your face off of your skull
for being so stupid, but because your just some stupid hick who
fears god and all of his la de da goo goo ***** i'll forgive you
this time. ***** man, even i can't ***** slap a retard, unless
it's
that mole faced punk Zaphod.
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 10:32:16 PM

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Zaphod "stil prez":

"Amanita, Private Dancer" <pugdog420@hotmail.communismsux> wrote in
message news:d3b7cb070a6ac8ea5c12d70f64db92c8@news.teranews.com...

"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zaphodB@safe-mail.net> quit loving on the
ButtMonkey of Paradise long enough to tell us:

LOL. I think that was funny. There I said it.

I think there is hope for you yet. There I said it, too.
Wanna pudding pop?

One is too many and a thousand never enough.

I've gained 12 pounds in the last 10 days eating myself out of
worrying. Now I'm worried about all the weight I have gained. Go
figure.

Have a few beers or twelve. At least you won't care.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
It's my funeral and I'll fry if I want to...
.

User: "Mike Z. Helm"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 02:22:17 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:59:01 +0200, Max Mustermann
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>

What proof do you have that there is no god?
I'm not talking about any specific god in particular, but just that none
of them exist?
I'm so glad you wish to tap into the opiniobns of those of us on adp,
but it's kind of rude to crosspost.
Fortunately, we're a mellow bunch and as long as you're not too much of
an asshat, we could have an interesting conversation.
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 03:17:42 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:22:17 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:59:01 +0200, Max Mustermann
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>

What proof do you have that there is no god?

What proof do you have that there are no leprechauns, dragons,
unicorns, elves, or snarklegrabs? Yet no one rational claims to
believe in them...
Theists are the ones making a claim here, that some kind of deity
exists, and it is entirely incumbent upon them to support it. The
burden of proof is entirely theirs, and in the absence of such, there
is no reason to accept such a claim as corresponding to reality.
.

User: "Mike Z. Helm"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 03:48:00 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:17:42 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:22:17 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:59:01 +0200, Max Mustermann
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>

What proof do you have that there is no god?

What proof do you have that there are no leprechauns, dragons,
unicorns, elves, or snarklegrabs? Yet no one rational claims to
believe in them...

Yet we can't say with certainty that many as yet undiscovered creatures
do not exist just because we haven't any proof that they do.
Otherwise rational people believe in all sorts of crap, including god,
ghosts, and aliens from outer space.

Theists are the ones making a claim here, that some kind of deity
exists, and it is entirely incumbent upon them to support it. The
burden of proof is entirely theirs, and in the absence of such, there
is no reason to accept such a claim as corresponding to reality.

Yet atheists are also making a claim and that is that no deity exists at
all.
I can't prove that any particular "god" exists, yet neither can I prove
it doesn't.
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 07:03:23 PM

In alt.atheism on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:48:00 -0700, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:17:42 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:22:17 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:59:01 +0200, Max Mustermann
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>

What proof do you have that there is no god?

What proof do you have that there are no leprechauns, dragons,
unicorns, elves, or snarklegrabs? Yet no one rational claims to
believe in them...

Yet we can't say with certainty that many as yet undiscovered creatures
do not exist just because we haven't any proof that they do.

But if you come up with a description of a specific critter not known
to exist by anyone involved in making up the description, chances are
that specific critter doesn't exist.
<snip>

Yet atheists are also making a claim and that is that no deity exists at
all.

No, atheists only claim, to those who say there are gods, "I don't
believe you". Belief or lack thereof need not be proven.

I can't prove that any particular "god" exists, yet neither can I prove
it doesn't.

Given what I think you probably mean by the above, I agree. But
technically, you can prove some gods - any god who interacts with the
physical universe, for instance. Such can be proven very easily. Or
if, as some do, you say the Sun is a god - well, the Sun certainly
exists, so few would doubt it. But if you said the Sun is a god that
can form people out of nothing instantly, you'd have a quality of the
Sun which we have never observed and thus, would have a god you could
no longer prove.
Ah, it's almost all semantics anyway.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Mike Z. Helm"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 04:12:09 PM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:03:23 GMT,

(Uncle
Dollar Bill)

Ah, it's almost all semantics anyway.

And semantically, I've always disagreed with those who claim that
agnostics are atheists as some people do.
I may not have conveyed it well in my earlier post, but I have no idea
what form any "god" would be, if it even exists, but it certainly could
exist. I doubt such a god would resemble any commonly worshipped as god
however.
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: PING Jack H	13 Jun 2004 07:28:58 PM

In alt.atheism on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:12:09 -0700, Mike Z. Helm
<mhelm@not.known> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:03:23 GMT,

(Uncle
Dollar Bill)

Ah, it's almost all semantics anyway.

And semantically, I've always disagreed with those who claim that
agnostics are atheists as some people do.

And I disagree with your disagreement. ;-) But that's okay, no law
says my opinion must be accepted by everybody. :-) However, I might
as well explain since the issue has come up.
With the way most atheists I know understand the term "agnostic", an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist. I.e., "I think there's
probably a god, but I'm not sure" and "I doubt there's a god, but I'm
not sure". Based on my own (admittedly subjective) observations, most
atheists would fall into the latter category of agnostic, and many of
them would have no problem admitting such. It's how I tend to view
myself.
Outside of these two types of agnostics are fundamentalists - i.e.,
theists who claim to _know_ there is a god and atheists who claim to
_know_ there isn't one. Then there are those who hold no opinions on
the matter and go by "apatheists" or something similar.
Either way, I think it's less important how one defines the terms than
it is that one understands how _others_ define the term when speaking
with them.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Diixit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	13 Jun 2004 08:18:11 PM

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused. You are just repeating theist propaganda published
here in Usenet all the time. The fact of the matter is that anyone like
you and your cohorts who believe there might be a magic invisible God
even though there is no such thing in evidence is theist, not atheist.
Atheism is characterized by an _absence_ of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any theist doctrine like
Christianity for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.
This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible
god might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing (theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 11:23:37 AM

"Diixit" <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

No. He is completely correct.
"Gnosticism" refers to what one believes is "knowable" - it a position about
the state of knowledge. "Theism" refers to what one believes about gods. The
two are independent. An agnostic atheist would believe that it is impossible
to know for certain whether gods exist (and given the way they're defined by
most theists, this would seem a reasonable position) but lacks belief in
any. An agnostic theist would believe it is impossible to know whether gods
exist but believes in them anyway for some reason. A gnostic atheist or
theist would believe that knowledge of

You are just repeating theist propaganda published
here in Usenet all the time. The fact of the matter is that anyone like
you and your cohorts who believe there might be a magic invisible God
even though there is no such thing in evidence is theist, not atheist.

Of course, this is simply not true. Someone who believes that there "might
be" gods simply acknowledges the fact things which are usually defined as
metaphysical, "outside of space/time", etc. may be outlandish (and, frankly,
ridiculous) but are not the kinds of things that it is possible to have
"certain" knowledge about, since they are resistant to conventional forms of
fact-finding. That hardly means that one actually believes in them, only
understands that one cannot know anything about them one way or another,
usually by definition.
Hope that clears up your confusion.

Atheism is characterized by an _absence_ of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Yes, obviously. That has nothing whatsoever to do with
agnosticism/gnosticism.

One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any theist doctrine like
Christianity for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.

This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible
god might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing (theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).

No, it's not. It's pretty clear that you need to look up what 'gnosticism'
refers to.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, who are also atheist,

What about the ones who are theist?

go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:

No they don't.

"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

Yes. This is a position about the certainty of knowledge. It does not refer
to belief in gods in any particular way, other than the obvious fact that
they would tend to fit in the category of things that would lack logically
satisfactory evidence.
.

User: "Diixiit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 12:08:43 PM

Mark Stahl wrote:

"Diixit" <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

No. He is completely correct.

"Gnosticism" refers to what one believes is "knowable" ...

"Believes is knowable"?? Huh? Knowledge is all about what can be
publicly demonstrated is known to be true, not what is "believed to be
knowable."
The problem here is that nobody has ever demonstrated how it is that he
knows it is true that a magic invisible god might exist anyway, even
though there is no evidence of any such thing, so we are all in the same
boat, knowledge wise.
So knowledge is not a suitable criterion for sorting people into groups.
This isn't about knowledge at all, it is about religious belief. It is
all about the irrational theist belief that a magic invisible god might
exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence. And
agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate such irrational religious
belief, as Thomas Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, points out.
Belief that there might be a magic invisible God even though there is no
such thing in evidence is what characterizes theism, not agnosticism.
Atheism is characterized by an _absence_ of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any theist doctrine like
Christianity for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.
This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible
god might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing (theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	15 Jun 2004 08:53:36 AM

"Diixiit" <diiix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vYkzc.41327$0y.7608@attbi_s03...

Mark Stahl wrote:

"Diixit" <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

No. He is completely correct.

"Gnosticism" refers to what one believes is "knowable" ...

"Believes is knowable"?? Huh?

Yes. There's nothing complicated about that.

Knowledge is all about what can be
publicly demonstrated is known to be true, not what is "believed to be
knowable."

It is also about what we believe is knowable. For example, I believe that
claims about the ultimate nature of the space-time continuum will eventually
be able to be investigated with scientific methods. Other people, citing the
idea that such an investigation could change the nature of what is being
investigated, that we're limited in our understanding, or something else, do
not believe such things can be known. Some people believe that metaphysical
claims can be demonstrated psoitively or negatively with certainty; others
do not. Hence, people disagree about what is knowable. Obviously this kind
of debate was more meaningful before the widespread acceptance of the
scientific method as a way of obtaining knowledge, but there is still
disagreement around certain edges. Understand?

The problem here is that nobody has ever demonstrated how it is that he
knows it is true that a magic invisible god might exist anyway, even
though there is no evidence of any such thing, so we are all in the same
boat, knowledge wise.

That's a non sequitor vis a vis gnosticism.

So knowledge is not a suitable criterion for sorting people into groups.

But opinions about what may be knowable is a perfectly fine criterion for
doing so.

This isn't about knowledge at all, it is about religious belief.

Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Theism deals with religious belief.

It is
all about the irrational theist belief that a magic invisible god might
exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence.

The term 'gnostic' has nothing to do with this, no.

And
agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate such irrational religious
belief, as Thomas Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, points out.

No, they don't. They do not believe that such knowledge can be obtained for
certain.

Belief that there might be a magic invisible God even though there is no
such thing in evidence is what characterizes theism, not agnosticism.

No. Theists believe that a god exists despite the lack of evidence.
Agnosticism doesn't enter the equation of god belief at all.

No, atheism is the absence of the theist belief that gods exist. Not
"might", but "do".

He may well have done, but not because he was agnostic.

This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible
god might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing (theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).

No. One who denies categorically that there is or can be a god claims
specific knowledge and would thus be a "gnostic atheist". You've really
confused your terms here.
In fact, by claiming that you *can* and *do* know that gods do not exist,
you are the precise opposite of an agnostic.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, who are also atheist,

....Except for the ones who aren't....

go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:

No they don't. Many theists are agnostic. They simply believe that
metaphysical claims like those usually made for the existence of gods are
outside the realm of what we usually consider to be "knowable" with
certainty. This agnosticism is a rational position. The fact that they
acknowledge this absence of evidence and believe anyway, making them
theists, is what is, well, not rational.

You'll notice that that quotation does not refer at all to god-belief, but
to believing things generally which cannot be proven without evidence. Thus
someone who understands that there is something for which evidence cannot be
shown will be agnostic about that thing. I hope this clears things up for
you.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 08:31:39 PM

In article <vYkzc.41327$0y.7608@attbi_s03>, Diixiit <diiix@nospam.com>
wrote:

Mark Stahl wrote:

"Diixit" <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

No. He is completely correct.

"Gnosticism" refers to what one believes is "knowable" ...

"Believes is knowable"?? Huh? Knowledge is all about what can be
publicly demonstrated is known to be true, not what is "believed to be
knowable."

That is not how Gnostics define knowledge, and apparently is also not
how Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, defines his *own* knowledge, as he
claims to know things which he has repeatedly failed to demonstrate
publicly.

The problem here is that nobody has ever demonstrated how it is that
he knows it is true that there is no god or that the existence of
gods is impossible.

So knowledge is not a suitable criterion for sorting people into groups.

Since Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is asserting that posses ion of
knowledge can be detected, provided the possessor is willing to be
tested, it seems like a very good criterion for separating people into
groups. Isn't that the premise of all testing in the halls of formal
education?

This isn't about knowledge at all, it is about religious belief. It is
all about the irrational anti-theist religious belief that people can
know that gods are impossible without evidence of any such thing.

Belief that there might be no magic invisible God even though there is
no such thing in evidence is what characterizes atheism.

One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any doctrine like
anti-theism for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
anti-theism for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.

This is all about that anti-theist religious belief that a magic
invisible
god might be imossible anyway, even though there is no evidence of any
such
thing (anti-theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(mils atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Anti-theism is characterized by a belief in the absence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
impossibility of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Anti-Theism,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 04:47:23 PM

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.
With no evidence against the invisible god thingy, you can only argue
that it is unlikely. You cannot argue that it definitely doesn't
exist. If you cannot argue that it definitely doesn't exist, then
it *might exist, however unlikely.
Even most theist seem to understand this.

From the web site:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods."
That is not what you said. Since you altered their words to apparently
strengthen support for your bizarre assertion, I can only conclude
that you are dishonest as well as befuddled.

Can you give us any reason to believe that a god is not possible?

I have no evidence that a millinaire lives in my neigborhood. Are you
saying that it is therefore impossible?

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Yes.

Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

It rather looks like Huxley is saying that agnostics do not insist on
beliefs which lack supporting evidence. More specifically, that people
should not browbeat others into believing that for which there is
insufficient evidence.
What makes you think he would deny the possiblity of gods? In fact,
it looks like you are doing what he chastises others for doing - you
insist that we should not believe in gods, even though there is no
evidence to support your assertion.
Tsk tsk. Huxley's ghost will getcha.
Kermit
.

User: "Diixiit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 08:08:10 PM

Kermit wrote:

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.

That's just not too cleverly disguised argument _ad ignorantiam_
(argument from ignorance).

With no evidence against the invisible god thingy ...

No "evidence against" is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the atheists. Atheists have nothing (no thing)
evidence of which to present, theists do, their hypothetical magic
invisible god thingy.
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	15 Jun 2004 12:47:48 AM

In article <_Zrzc.36270$eu.10355@attbi_s02>, Diixiit <diiix@nospam.com>
wrote:

Kermit wrote:

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.

That's just not too cleverly disguised argument _ad ignorantiam_
(argument from ignorance).

With no evidence against the invisible god thingy ...

No "evidence against" is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the atheists.

Those atheists who are agnostic (do not claim knowledge they cannot
demonstrate) have nothing to prove, but those gnostic atheists like
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who claim knowledge they cannot
demonstrate, bear their own burden of proof.
Atheists have nothing (no thing)

evidence of which to present, theists do, their hypothetical magic
invisible god thingy.

But "a god MIGHT exist" is agnostic, and claims no knowledge (in fact is
denying having that knowledge claimed by gnostic atheists like Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple), so has nothing to prove.

The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question.

In this case, it is born equally by those claiming knowledge, either
that a god exists (gnostic theism) or that no god exists (gnostic
anti-theism). The ones with no burden are those disclaiming either.
.

User: "El Rayo-X"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 05:08:52 PM

On 14 Jun 2004 14:47:23 -0700,

(Kermit)
wrote:

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.

With no evidence against the invisible god thingy, you can only argue
that it is unlikely. You cannot argue that it definitely doesn't
exist. If you cannot argue that it definitely doesn't exist, then
it *might exist, however unlikely.

Even most theist seem to understand this.

From the web site:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods."

That is not what you said. Since you altered their words to apparently
strengthen support for your bizarre assertion, I can only conclude
that you are dishonest as well as befuddled.

Can you give us any reason to believe that a god is not possible?

I have no evidence that a millinaire lives in my neigborhood. Are you
saying that it is therefore impossible?

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Yes.

I, on the other hand, think you should believe in gods, because belief
is reserved for things that don't exist. What's the point in believing
things that exist when they can simply be known? It seems to me that
believing things is an affirmation of their non-existance.

Tsk tsk. Huxley's ghost will getcha.

Kermit

User: "Diixiit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	17 Jun 2004 02:41:02 PM

El Rayo-X wrote:

On 14 Jun 2004 14:47:23 -0700,

(Kermit)
wrote:

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.

With no evidence against the invisible god thingy, you can only argue
that it is unlikely. You cannot argue that it definitely doesn't
exist. If you cannot argue that it definitely doesn't exist, then
it *might exist, however unlikely.

Even most theist seem to understand this.

From the web site:

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods."

That is not what you said. Since you altered their words to apparently
strengthen support for your bizarre assertion, I can only conclude
that you are dishonest as well as befuddled.

Can you give us any reason to believe that a god is not possible?

I have no evidence that a millinaire lives in my neigborhood. Are you
saying that it is therefore impossible?

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Yes.

Right on. Notice none of the true believers can think of a witty reply?
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	17 Jun 2004 04:28:39 PM

In article <htmAc.58821$eu.20582@attbi_s02>, Diixiit <diiix@nospam.com>
wrote:

El Rayo-X wrote:

Right on. Notice none of the true believers can think of a witty reply?

I believe in El Rayo-X, and the sanity of Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple.
.

User: "Clothaire"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 11:30:20 PM

On 14 Jun 2004 14:47:23 -0700,

(Kermit)
wrote:

Diixit <diix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<j17zc.36971$0y.18478@attbi_s03>...

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

Nope.
If X is conceivable, and there is neither evidence for or against X,
then the chance for X is > 05 and < 100%.

The conclusion you give is a bald assertion that has no basis in fact.
All you can show is that you have no evidence against X. The evidence
may exist; you just don't have it.
Saying that something 'might exist' simply says that you do not know
whether it exists or not--nothing more. At best it is delusional; at
worst it is an equivocation on the word might.
By the way, you can conceive of anything.
[Clip the rest]
Clothaire #1392
"If you don't control your mind, someone else will."
--- John Allston
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	13 Jun 2004 11:26:21 PM

In alt.atheism on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:18:11 GMT, Diixit
<diix@nospam.com> wrote:

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

And you're an *****. At least I don't smell like *****.
<re-plonk, fucking moron>
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Diixiit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	13 Jun 2004 09:52:54 PM

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

In alt.atheism on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:18:11 GMT, Diixit
<diix@nospam.com> wrote:

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

And you're an *****. At least I don't smell like *****.

<re-plonk, fucking moron>

At least I don't have to resort to argument _ad hominem_ like that when
backed into a corner like you in this case.
[unsnip what you don't seem to have the courage to face up to]
You are confused. You are just repeating theist propaganda published
here in Usenet all the time. The fact of the matter is that anyone like
you and your cohorts who believe there might be a magic invisible God
even though there is no such thing in evidence is theist, not atheist.
Atheism is characterized by an _absence_ of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any theist doctrine like
Christianity for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.
This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible
god might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing (theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief
(atheists), or, to go one step further, the outright denial and
repudiation of such irrational religious belief, as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Uncle Dollar Bill"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 12:26:55 PM

In alt.atheism on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:52:54 GMT, Diixiit
<diiix@nospam.com> wrote:

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

In alt.atheism on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:18:11 GMT, Diixit
<diix@nospam.com> wrote:

Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:

... an
agnostic can either be theist or atheist.

You are confused.

And you're an *****. At least I don't smell like *****.

<re-plonk, fucking moron>

At least I don't have to resort to argument _ad hominem_ like that when
backed into a corner like you in this case.

<snip>
It wasn't an ad hominem, I'd have to have paid attention to your
argument for that. You're not worth it, shitbreath.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.

User: "Dixit"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 07:00:44 PM

On 6/14/04 10:26 AM, in article 40d0dfb3.13347122@newsgroups.bellsouth.net,
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

... Your argument ...

What argument? I haven't posted any argument, I am just showing you what is
wrong with your argument.
[unsnip what you still seem to be ignoring]
You are confused. You are just repeating theist propaganda published here in
Usenet all the time. The fact of the matter is that anyone like you and your
cohorts who believe there might be a magic invisible God even though there
is no such thing in evidence is theist, not atheist.
Atheism is characterized by an _absence_ of the theist belief that a magic
invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in
evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
One who is agnostic is one like Thomas Huxley. He is a freethinker, not
theist, but one who denies and repudiates any theist doctrine like
Christianity for example that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.
This is all about that theist religious belief that a magic invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing
(theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief (atheists), or,
to go one step further, the outright denial and repudiation of such
irrational religious belief, as a matter of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
-- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: a theist by any other name is still a theist	14 Jun 2004 08:36:02 PM

In article <BCF38A39.1DDD%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

On 6/14/04 10:26 AM, in article 40d0dfb3.13347122@newsgroups.bellsouth.net,
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

... Your argument ...

What argument? I haven't posted any argument

Would that that were true!
That is the argument. To "point out" what is allegedly wrong is a form
of argument. It certainly isn't truth

[unsnip what you still seem to be ignoring]

[resnipped old falsehoods as deserving of being ignored]
.

Page 1 of 24

Post reply

Re: Ping: Bill (was Re: A Thank You Note)
Re: Ping Lamey Re: Was - Something you don't see every day
Re: Ping Lamey Re: Was - Something you don't see every day
Re: Ping Lamey Re: Was - Something you don't see every day
Ping: David Mills
OT: Ping Yang
Ping Stoney...
Ping: Everyone on the a.a. number list
<