| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Virgil" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2003 09:21:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
In article <srO3b.223566$cF.73868@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false.
Septic the Capon argues that "there are no gods" is true on no more
evidence than the lack of proof that it is false.
Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
Septic the Capon Septic the Capon would argue that "there are gods"
is false on no more evidence than the lack of proof that it is true.
(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is
false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific
principle.)" --
But such an assumption is merely a hypothesis, not a demostrated
fact, as Septic the Capon would have it
..
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
When Septic the Capon tries to make a proven fact of his unproven
hypothesis, he violates the principles of valid argument, logic,
morality and ethics.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:05:50 PM |
|
|
In article <3RI5b.168454$2x.46918@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040705.606ecf34@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Ggp5b.162143$2x.46219@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is?
I know it is not a proposition.
Oh? You know that? But you still insist that you know that the denial of
your proposition, "God exists," "There is no God" is a proposition standing
in need of proof?
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something, so Septic the Capon is
arguing that no statements ever need proof.
The principle which Septic the Capon is trying to mangle is that
whenever anyone proposes any new hypothesis, of any form, without
accompanying proof, one should also consider the negation of that
hypothesis as provisionally true until proof of the original is
forthcoming. But if someone else proposes that negation, neither it
nor the original can be assumed true until proven. Note that such a
negation or default hypothesis is only accepted provisionally and as
as long as no one else is proposing it.
Given a room full of men and women, someone hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a man and someone else hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a women. It is clear that neither can be
presumed true and the other false. Though this is exactly what
Septic the Capon wants to insist on!
It is the true principle, as explained above, which Septic the Capon
is fighting so hard against, since that means that his favorite
hypothesis, "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no
gods" is as much in need of proof as any theist's or gnostic's.
And Septic the Capon has no such proof!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:51:38 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F9F804.12055004092003@news.newsguy.com...
But every statement is a denial of something ...
Only to theist true-believers trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies their assertions.
To reasonable people an existential proposition, "God exists" is one thing,
and the denial, "False, there are no gods" is something entirely different,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 03:47:49 PM |
|
|
In article <_QL5b.264468$cF.82941@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F9F804.12055004092003@news.newsguy.com...
But every statement is a denial of something ...
Only to theist true-believers trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies their assertions.
And every text on logic ever written.
Principia Mathematica, for example.
To reasonable people an existential proposition, "God exists" is one thing,
and the denial, "False, there are no gods" is something entirely different,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
Or from the denial!
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
And Septic the Capon is always asserting "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods"
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.
And agnosticcs and theists alike question Septic the Capon's claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:49:51 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4D4E56.14474804092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <_QL5b.264468$cF.82941@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F9F804.12055004092003@news.newsguy.com...
But every statement is a denial of something ...
Only to theist true-believers trying to get away with shifting the
burden of
proof to anyone who questions or denies their assertions.
And every text on logic ever written. ...
Demonstrate any textbook that says shifting the burden of proof to the
denial of an existential proposition like "An invisible god may exist" as
you are trying to get away with. Shifting the burden of proof is logical
fallacy, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:06:30 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
:
;
:> > "There are no gods" is not a claim,
;>
:> On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
;> proposition also.
:
;
:
;You still don't know what a dog is? They are those pets you see everywhere,
:panting and barking and wagging their tails.
;
:What's that "God" proposition in your argument below? How about a
;meaningful, testable explanation of precisely what it is you imagine it to
:be?
There is no "God" proposition in his argument below. Please learn
some English.
:Jeffie's argument for God from atheism:
;
:
;http://tinylink.com/?UK4MWfdQEE
:
;Message 1 in thread
:From: Jeffrey A. Young (jyoung@ultra0.rdrc.rpi.edu)
;Subject: If you're atheist, God exists.
:Newsgroups: alt.atheism
;View this article only
:Date: 1999/10/28
;
:
;
:Premises:
;
:P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
;P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
: treated equally as regards their truth.
;P3. There is no empirical evidence that God exists.
:
;Lemma:
:
;L1. There can be no empirical evidence that anyone lacks any given
: belief. (Argued conclusively by Sinister et al.)
;
:Conclusion:
;
:C. The assertion "God exists" must be treated equally with
; "I am atheist" as regards their truth.
:
;Or, less formally, if you're atheist, then God exists.
:
;Q.E.D.
:---
;
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:47:25 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bj7nu6$4iv@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
:
;
:> > "There are no gods" is not a claim,
;>
:> On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
;> proposition also.
:
;
:
;You still don't know what a dog is? They are those pets you see
everywhere,
:panting and barking and wagging their tails.
;
:What's that "God" proposition in your argument below? How about a
;meaningful, testable explanation of precisely what it is you imagine it
to
:be?
There is no "God" proposition in his argument below. Please learn
some English.
Then what is the G-o-d letter string in his argument for God?
God is definitely his proposition, knucklehead.
What did you think he is proposing, chopped liver?
:Jeffie's argument for God from atheism:
;
:
;http://tinylink.com/?UK4MWfdQEE
:
;Message 1 in thread
:From: Jeffrey A. Young (jyoung@ultra0.rdrc.rpi.edu)
;Subject: If you're atheist, God exists.
:Newsgroups: alt.atheism
;View this article only
:Date: 1999/10/28
;
:
;
:Premises:
;
:P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
;P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
: treated equally as regards their truth.
;P3. There is no empirical evidence that God exists.
:
;Lemma:
:
;L1. There can be no empirical evidence that anyone lacks any given
: belief. (Argued conclusively by Sinister et al.)
;
:Conclusion:
;
:C. The assertion "God exists" must be treated equally with
; "I am atheist" as regards their truth.
:
;Or, less formally, if you're atheist, then God exists.
:
;Q.E.D.
:---
;
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:33:01 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bj7nu6$4iv@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
;> :> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> > "There are no gods" is not a claim,
:> ;>
;> :> On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
:> ;> proposition also.
;> :
:> ;
;> :
:> ;You still don't know what a dog is? They are those pets you see
;everywhere,
:> :panting and barking and wagging their tails.
;> ;
:> :What's that "God" proposition in your argument below? How about a
;> ;meaningful, testable explanation of precisely what it is you imagine it
:to
;> :be?
:
;
:
;
:> There is no "God" proposition in his argument below. Please learn
;> some English.
:
;
:Then what is the G-o-d letter string in his argument for God?
He can't have the G-o-d letter string in "his argument for God"
when he doesn't have an argument for God in the first place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 01:33:25 PM |
|
|
In article <Ggp5b.162143$2x.46219@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is? They are those pets you see everywhere,
panting and barking and wagging their tails.
Septic the Capon, you still do not know how to read what is said
rather than what you want to see. Where does it say that anyone does
not know what a dog is?
Besides which, I know of dogs that do not bark and dogs without
tails, so Septic the Capon seems to be the one who does not know
what a dog is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-25669D.12332403092003@news.newsguy.com...
... I know of dogs that do not bark and dogs without tails ...
So the dog proposition has no meaning?
I know of at least one Virgil without any common sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:46:32 PM |
|
|
In article <6cK5b.267314$Oz4.69904@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-25669D.12332403092003@news.newsguy.com...
... I know of dogs that do not bark and dogs without tails ...
So the dog proposition has no meaning?
I know of at least one Virgil without any common sense.
If what Septic the Capon has is what he calls "common sense" then I
am content to be without it.
What I regard as common sense I have enough more of than Septic the
Capon has to get by on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 08:13:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
As Septic the Capon claimed ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
The above is possibly Septic the Capon's favorite compounding of
lies.
(1) If it were not a claim, Septic the Capon wouldn't make it.
(2) No one here is claiming any more than the true statement "There
is no proof known that gods are impossible", whose denial "there is
such proof" is one of those existence claims which Septic the Capon
says must be denied, at least until that proof is suplied.
(3) Septic the Capon seems to think that his repeating his lie about
the denial of one statement (claim, assertion, propostion) not being
another statement (claim, assertion, propostion) is eventually going
to, a la Dr. G., transmogrify that lie into a truth.
[unsnip]
As Septic the Capon claimed "It is a fact (can be demostrated) that
there are no gods"
While Septic the Capon does claim "there are no gods", it is his
claim "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no gods"
which is the problem, since that demonstration is notable only for
its absence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 01:53:54 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie, knucklehead. "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
"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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:02:26 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie,
That's another lie, compounding with all the others.
Septic remains the completely discredited, fallacious, and mendacious
old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Since it is demonstrated, Septic
is in denial.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:51:43 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie,
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
"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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 09:10:42 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jcJ5b.168529$2x.47795@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie,
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
And yet another Septic lie, compounding and compounding.
Septic remains the completely mendacious, fallacious, and discredited
old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. As demonstrated.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:19:37 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
:> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> >
;> >
:> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
;> >
:> >
;> > It is not a lie,
:>
;> That's another lie ...
:
;You are lying.
:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope it is not. The denial of a claim is a disclaim, or the uttering
of a disclaimer:
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:06:49 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bj7omp$53r@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
:> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> >
;> >
:> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
;> >
:> >
;> > It is not a lie,
:>
;> That's another lie ...
:
;You are lying.
:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope it is not.
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
"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: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:39:24 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bj7omp$53r@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
;> :> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
;> :> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> :> >
:> ;> >
;> :> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
:> ;> >
;> :> >
:> ;> > It is not a lie,
;> :>
:> ;> That's another lie ...
;> :
:> ;You are lying.
;> :
:> ;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
;> :denial of one,
:>
;> Nope it is not.
:
;You are lying.
:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one, and the burden
;of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Nope, not lying. See:
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
"There are no gods" is a claim. The denial of a claim is a
disclaim, to utter the disclaimer. Which means for the
claim "there are no gods", the disclaim is "can't say there
are no gods".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 03:51:12 PM |
|
|
In article <ZaL5b.267384$Oz4.70275@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope it is not.
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one
If no one claims the denial, no one cares, so toss it out.
But consider Septic the Capon's claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
It claims existence of proof, so, by Septic the Capon's principles,
we must assume the denial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:53:17 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-7096A7.14511204092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <ZaL5b.267384$Oz4.70275@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope it is not.
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one
If no one claims the denial, no one cares, so toss it out.
The denial is not a claim, it is the denial of one, so it must be left in as
the only reasonable default presumption, knucklehead.
Can't have a default presumption that all assertions are true unless proven
false. That would be begging the question and shifting the burden of proof.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:46:20 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-7096A7.14511204092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <ZaL5b.267384$Oz4.70275@rwcrnsc54>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > ;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:> > > :denial of one,
;> > >
:> > > Nope it is not.
;> >
:> > You are lying.
;> >
:> > "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
;> > denial of one
:>
;> If no one claims the denial, no one cares, so toss it out.
:
;The denial is not a claim, it is the denial of one, so it must be left in as
:the only reasonable default presumption, knucklehead.
But of course you have never posed the denial "can't say there are gods".
All you have been doing is claiming there to be no gods.
;Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
Didn't yours?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:17:18 PM |
|
|
In article <ZaL5b.267384$Oz4.70275@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope it is not.
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something, so Septic the Capon is
arguing that no statements ever need proof.
The principle which Septic the Capon is trying to mangle is that
whenever anyone proposes any new hypothesis, of any form, without
accompanying proof, one should also consider the negation of that
hypothesis as provisionally true until proof of the original is
forthcoming. But if someone else proposes that negation, neither it
nor the original can be assumed true until proven. Note that such a
negation or default hypothesis is only accepted provisionally and as
as long as no one else is proposing it.
Given a room full of men and women, someone hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a man and someone else hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a women. It is clear that neither can be
presumed true and the other false. Though this is exactly what
Septic the Capon wants to insist on!
It is the true principle, as explained above, which Septic the Capon
is fighting so hard against, since that means that his favorite
hypothesis, "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no
gods" is as much in need of proof as any theist's or gnostic's.
And Septic the Capon has no such proof!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:39:28 PM |
|
|
In article <jcJ5b.168529$2x.47795@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
The denial of any hypothesis is merely an alternate hypothesis, and
as such is a claim made by any one supporting it.
If no one supports the hypothesis "there are no gods" then it is no
one's claim, but if any one does support it, that person is
claiming, asserting and proposing that hypothesis, and it
immediately becomes as subject to a ned for proof as any other
hypothesis.
And all of Septic the Capon's rage and fury will not make "there are
no gods" any less a hypothesis in need of proof while he continues
to support it.
Particularly since Septic the Capon's actual statement is "It is a
fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no gods"
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Such as Septic the Capon's "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that
there are no gods"
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.
As do all but Septic the Capon's coterie of fanatic alter egos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 02:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AA91D8.11392804092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <jcJ5b.168529$2x.47795@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
The denial of any hypothesis is merely an alternate hypothesis ...
Only to you theist true-believers trying to shift the burden of proof to
atheists.
To all the reasonable people the assertion is the assertion, the denial is
the denial, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial,
knucklehead:
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:37:17 PM |
|
|
In article <76M5b.168702$2x.47940@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AA91D8.11392804092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <jcJ5b.168529$2x.47795@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
The denial of any hypothesis is merely an alternate hypothesis ...
Only to you theist true-believers trying to shift the burden of proof to
atheists.
Only to us agnostics, but not to such true believers and secret
Catholics as Septic the Capon, saint and martyr.
To all the reasonable people the assertion is the assertion, the denial is
the denial, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial,
knucklehead:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:28:56 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie,
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
"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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 09:36:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2cJ5b.267268$Oz4.70106@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040702.46baf1d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie,
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
Nope. That's another Septic lie to compound with all the others.
Septic remains the completely compoundly mendacious, discredited, and
fallacious old fool idiot liar of alt.atheism. Demonstrated at least
once daily. (Incontrovertibly and invincibly ignorant as well
evidently.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:19:17 PM |
|
|
In article <2cJ5b.267268$Oz4.70106@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Note the presence of the fallacy flag, the word "knucklehead", which
never appears except in company with at least one camouflaged
fallacious argument by Septic the Capon.
In this case, the fallacy is Septic the Capon's claim that "there
are no gods" is any less of a hypothesis than its negation.
Every hypothesis is a claim put forward by its author, including
Septic the Capon's false claim "It is a fact (can be demonstrated)
that there are no gods."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 03:29:57 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-781E1F.11191704092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <2cJ5b.267268$Oz4.70106@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's another lie ...
You are lying.
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Note the presence of the fallacy flag, the word "knucklehead"
Note that the knucklehead, Virgil, still can't demonstrate any gods, though
he still insists they may (probably do) exist because there is no proof the
hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : Septic the Capon lies again |
04 Sep 2003 04:31:39 PM |
|
|
In article <9hN5b.267730$It4.125435@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Note the presence of the fallacy flag, the word "knucklehead"
Note that the knucklehead, Virgil, still can't demonstrate any gods, though
he still insists they may (probably do) exist because there is no proof the
hypothesis is false.
I say that god may exist only in the sense that we have no proof
that they cannot, but in no stronger sense. I certainly do not say
that they are probable. That Septic the Capon claims otherwise is a
deliberate and oft repeated lie on his part.
Therefore, I, with equal truth, declare that Septic the Capon has
been converted to Roman Catholicism and is preparing to take holy
orders and celebrate a mass online.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
