| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 10:16:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bf9kq0$ptu@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bf94nf$lif@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> :news:d4bd1f7c.0307140221.77233a82@posting.google.com...
:> ;> For those who want to see what Huxley really said ...
;> :
:> ;... see Huxley's excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism
and
;> :Christianity," in which Huxley says that agnostics deny and repudiate
:> ;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', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:> ;http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;>
:> Yes. Claims such as "there is no god" ...
;
:"There is no god" is not a claim,
Yes it is. It is a claim to the effect that there is no god
Not a claim, but the denial of one.
"There is no god" is not a claim, it is the denial, the negation of one.
Nope.
Yep. Denial means denial, the negation in logic (www.m-w.com) of an
assertion. You cannot shift the burden of proof to the denial, knucklehead;
that's a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 03:12:09 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1A31EC.13534512082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <aSUZa.122738$o%2.53763@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me know when you get back to the actual discussion.
You said, "The government consists of people." That is not correct. We
are
governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This says that the people make the laws. At least to those who are
not too ignorant to understand it.
And we are governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, even a despotic majority of the voters, knucklehead. That is what
the Constitution is all about, which you would know if you were smart enough
to understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
13 Aug 2003 01:15:11 AM |
|
|
In article <tSb_a.129146$Ho3.16128@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You said, "The government consists of people." That is not correct. We
are
governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, knucklehead.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This says that the people make the laws. At least to those who are
not too ignorant to understand it.
And we are governed by the rule of law, not governed by rule at the whim of
despots, even a despotic majority of the voters, knucklehead. That is what
the Constitution is all about, which you would know if you were smart enough
to understand it.
But the law is determined by the people, so t4eh people tqake
precedence. Even the constitution is subject to their will over the
long run, and the constitution says this clearly enough so that
those who can read know it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:43:44 PM |
|
|
In article <hlRZa.121837$Ho3.15538@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
See the little $? That indicates that it is US dollars, knucklehead.
Actually, it doesn't. It indicates that it's Canadian dollars.
Then you crazy Canucks need to get a different symbol. $ is ours. Don't *****
with us or we will change your regime.
How can we be sure that, with this attitude, Septic is not Dubya?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:46:58 PM |
|
|
In article <hlRZa.121837$Ho3.15538@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is it the digits
on the computer screen? Is it the magnetic signature representing
those digits in the computers at my bank? Or is it the shared idea in
the minds of me and the people who work at my bank that they owe me
$1200?
That's not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
So answer the question.
I did. It is not an "idea," knucklehead. That $1200 IS yours.
That may answer who it belongs to, but does not say WHAT it is!
There are many forms tht money can take, coin, bills, credit in
various physical or electronic forms, but ultimately its existence
and value are matters of faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:41:17 PM |
|
|
In article <qZOZa.122137$YN5.85227@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you are. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says is a god
is a god. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
What is the surface temperture and stellar magnitude of JLo?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 04:07:25 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> slavered, and
posted this:
In article <qZOZa.122137$YN5.85227@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you are. You are trying to extablish that anything anybody says
is a god is a god. That's absurd. A star is a star. Period.
What is the surface temperture and stellar magnitude of JLo?
Approximately 310 degrees Kelvin, with a stellar magnitude of supremely
overrated.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:39:31 PM |
|
|
In article <qZOZa.122137$YN5.85227@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clearly, then, there is a
difference between the value of money and the curvature of the earth
Not true. Earth is Earth, and money is money (whatever is exstablished as
legal tender for all debts public and private).
And Septic will accept the curvature of the earth for all debts to
him, public or private.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
12 Aug 2003 02:26:50 PM |
|
|
In article <qZOZa.122137$YN5.85227@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
If I look at the balance of my savings account online, and I see that
it has about $1200, what form does that money take?
See the little $? That indicates that it is US dollars, knucklehead.
But is it in bills, coins, a record of ink on paper, a recoed of
electronic patterns?
Besides which, $US is needed indicates US dollars unambiguously, as
the "$" symbol is not exclusive to the US.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 10:36:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:19:18 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
And I repeat - that doesn't make it one.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
No, in any respect, what makes a god a god is being a god. A toaster,
by any other name, is still just a machine that burns bread.
Gods are
personal to the believer. Would you dispute that they considered the
sun a god? If not, then you have to concede that from their
perspective the sun was a god.
And, from the perspective of primitive man, the planet was flat. That
didn't make it any less spherical.
Fred is my friend. He isn't *your* friend, but he's still *my* friend.
Do you dispute that Fred is *a* friend?
I dispute that you understand the word "analogy".
God / friend; both personal concepts.
Sorry, no, No more than "vacuum" or "gold" are personal concepts.
OK, other than the few stars outside of our solar system that have
thus far been shown to have planets orbiting them... is it wrong to
say that there are probably other stars with planets orbiting them?
Not any longer. It used to be.
The *probability* is that there are other stars with orbiting planets,
even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
The *probability* is that there are other planets upon which life has
evolved, even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
We have a sample size of one - so there'[s no justification for
drawing any conclusion. ANY conclusion.
It is unwarranted to assume that in the
infinity that is our universe life has appeared only once
It's just as unwarranted to assume that there's life on any other
planet.
I disagree.
Logic doesn't. Drawing a conclusion on a sample size of one is ALWAYS
unjustified.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
05 Aug 2003 11:20:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:36:02 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:19:18 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:50:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
As I said, their belief doesn't make the sun a god, any more than the
beliefs of ancient man made the Earth flat.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
And I repeat - that doesn't make it one.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
In this respect, what it is or isn't is a subjective thing.
No, in any respect, what makes a god a god is being a god.
A god is a god? <irony>That's quite a radical standpoint.</irony>
(from www.dictionary.com):-
God
1a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
1b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
2) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
3) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4) A very handsome man.
5) A powerful ruler or despot.
To me, the sun is a star. It isn't my god (I have no gods)... but it
is a god to some people, in that it falls under one or more of the
above definitions of "god".
A toaster,
by any other name, is still just a machine that burns bread.
A toaster can also be a wedding present :)
Gods are
personal to the believer. Would you dispute that they considered the
sun a god? If not, then you have to concede that from their
perspective the sun was a god.
And, from the perspective of primitive man, the planet was flat. That
didn't make it any less spherical.
A complete diversion from the current discussion, but an interesting
point nonetheless; did primitive man truly think that the planet was
flat? Can you provide proof that this was what they believed? Other
than a reference to "the 4 corners of the world", what other evidence
exists? Even then, all you potentially have is evidence that our
ancestors used metaphors.
Fred is my friend. He isn't *your* friend, but he's still *my* friend.
Do you dispute that Fred is *a* friend?
I dispute that you understand the word "analogy".
So you don't dispute that Fred is *a* friend? Thank you for
acknowledging that.
God / friend; both personal concepts.
Sorry, no, No more than "vacuum" or "gold" are personal concepts.
Sorry, yes. Friend and god are both very much personal concepts. Both
reside nowhere other than in the human mind. If the human race were to
be wiped out tomorrow, friends and gods would cease to be; vacuums and
gold wouldn't.
OK, other than the few stars outside of our solar system that have
thus far been shown to have planets orbiting them... is it wrong to
say that there are probably other stars with planets orbiting them?
Not any longer. It used to be.
Erm... but we have no evidence that *any* of the other stars have
planets orbiting them. Zero, zip, nada. All we have is probablity,
which take us back to my original assertion:-
If the circumstances which allowed life to evolve exist on this planet
in our solar system... then given a sample size of an infinite
universe, it is *probable* that life-evolving circumstances are not
unique to our planet.
The *probability* is that there are other stars with orbiting planets,
even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
The *probability* is that there are other planets upon which life has
evolved, even though we have no evidence (yet) that there are.
We have a sample size of one - so there'[s no justification for
drawing any conclusion. ANY conclusion.
None whatsoever!? Wow... is that a hitherto unexplained law of
physics?
So, you're saying that there is a magical property of the number one,
whereby *one* example of something doesn't allow us to draw
conclusions, but *two* examples do? Sorry, but that's utter *****.
It is unwarranted to assume that in the
infinity that is our universe life has appeared only once
It's just as unwarranted to assume that there's life on any other
planet.
I disagree.
Logic doesn't.
Logic agrees, it is you and I who don't.
Drawing a conclusion on a sample size of one is ALWAYS
unjustified.
To a statitician, maybe... and if I was claiming that life *did* exist
on other planets based on a sample size of one you'd have grounds for
jumping on me from a great height.
Making either a negative or positive claim on the issue (based on a
sample size of one) isn't justified. However, all I'm saying is that
it is very *probable* that life exists on other planets.
Life evolved on Earth due to a series of factors. All of which were
governed by the *universal* laws of physics. To claim that those
conditions are unlikely to have happened elsewhere, you would need to
provide a substantial reason why our own planet is unique in the
universe. Down that path lies theistic belief structures... that we
are somehow a creator god's "chosen people".
Finally, a brief word from someone well-versed on the subject:-
"I think this is an occasion where that old principal of good science,
Occam's Razor, is helpful. Apply Occam's Razor to the question of the
origin of life on Earth. We look at the Earth, and with regards to
that origin, as best we know, no special or freak circumstances were
required. It took water, organics, a source of energy, and a long
time. Deep-sea vents are the current favorite and a reasonable place
for the origin.
But even if they weren't the culprits, the chemists have found a
multitude of other pathways that produce the chemistry of life.
The challenge seems to be not to find the pathway, but the one that
was the quickest and most productive. The prime point is that nothing
special was required. There will be a pathway that works, on Earth and
on similar planets. Then, by Occam's Razor, the origin of life on
Earth is nothing more than the result of normal processes on the
planet. Furthermore, life should appear very frequently on other
Earth-like planets." Frank Drake
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
05 Aug 2003 02:00:24 PM |
|
|
In article <LHRXa.50477$It4.28492@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
And I repeat - that doesn't make it one.
I repeat: to them, it is a god.
No it is not a "god" atall atall, it is a star, and your belief that it
really is a god is simply you buying a share in their delusional disorder
(impaired contact with reality), knucklehead.
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
Septic is saying that what he cannot see. no one can see, and what
he cannot understand, no one can understand.
This shows Septic to be both stupid and arrogant, a dangerous
combination. I thank whatever gods there be that he is not in a
position of power.
And, no, Septic, that is not an assertion that there are any gods.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
