| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
18 Dec 2005 09:13:07 PM |
|
|
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all, that is what makes for theism.
To agnostics like me and atheists, god thingies are, at most,
hypothetical, which is what prevents us from being theists.
To Gnostic anti-theists like Septic, Gods are impossible, which makes
them as religious in their beliefs as any theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
19 Dec 2005 12:10:06 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture') until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy. Then it would move to the status of
known to be real. Got proof of the possibility of God? Will you please
show your work, will you please show the algorithm for computing the
probability there might be a God? Proof is the cogency of evidence that
compels acceptance of a statement, or the process of establishing the
validity of a statement by
derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of
reasoning. See www.m-w.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
19 Dec 2005 03:31:12 PM |
|
|
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture') until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Whether what they believe is true or false is irrelevant to whether they
believe it.
Septic has said often enough that that such BELIEF is what constitutes
theism, so he is stuck with it now.
How does Septic propose to falsify the fact of belief?
So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
20 Dec 2005 12:59:29 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be' conjecture)
is true, without logically satisfactory evidence. (DUH!)
"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
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
proof. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
20 Dec 2005 10:23:07 PM |
|
|
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be' conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Perhaps one of these years, Septic will learn enough to use English
correctly. But I do not believe in that hypotheosis either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 01:11:29 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea? Is there any doubt that humans can and
do believe all kinds of statements, including statements like the tenets
of Christianity, for example, which are pure conjecture (hypothesis)
with no known basis in fact?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 03:26:47 PM |
|
|
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.gigan
ews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON,
since being hypothetical to that person would require that that person
accept the possiblity of its falsehood.
Learn a little before sounding off, Imbecile!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
22 Dec 2005 03:58:04 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-294170.14264721122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in
message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.gigan
ews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is
immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am
atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is
not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON
That one person's subjective opinion does not determine whether a thing
is objectively known to be real or still merely hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture), the evidence does. Any god in evidence you can point to and
say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', so that others can check
your observations? No? Then it is still merely theist conjecture,
hypothesis ('might be' speculation).
Go get some proof if you want to change that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
22 Dec 2005 04:45:24 PM |
|
|
In article <5d6dnX1XC-f7vDbeRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-294170.14264721122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON
That one person's subjective opinion does not determine whether a thing
is objectively known to be real
Irrelevant.
The issue is what constitutes "hypothesizing". My position is that one
does not hypothesize about what one is certain about.
To the extent that theists are certain (even if mistakenly so) that
their god(s) exist, they do not hypothesizing by saying so.
Whether someone else considers the same statement to be hypothetical is
irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
22 Dec 2005 05:30:27 PM |
|
|
In article <5d6dnX1XC-f7vDbeRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-294170.14264721122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON
That one person's subjective opinion does not determine whether a thing
is objectively known to be real or still merely hypothetical
When one states what one believes, one is not hypothesizing.
The issue of whether the the person making such a statement is right or
wrong is quite different from the person's intent.
Septic is again trying to muddle things with his favorite conflation
tactics.
Whether one is hypothesizing is a matter of intent, not correctness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
22 Dec 2005 10:16:39 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <5d6dnX1XC-f7vDbeRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-294170.14264721122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON
That one person's subjective opinion does not determine whether a thing
is objectively known to be real or still merely hypothetical
When one states what one believes, one is not hypothesizing.
What if what one is talking about is just 'might be' conjecture, like
this hypothetical God/Creator/First Cause you have been championing,
not something known to be real like for instance the Invisible Pink
Unicorn http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm which undeniably
might be be real because you can't prove she isn't?
Isn't that what characterizes the hypothetical, it is conjectural, no
proof it is real?
Are we on the same page in the dictionary here?
Here is what I am looking at:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothetical
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
23 Dec 2005 12:13:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1135311399.479392.48370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <5d6dnX1XC-f7vDbeRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-294170.14264721122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com.
..
In article <c6udnfejVIBANTTeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.c
om..
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that odd idea?
What any one person believes true is not hypothetical TO THAT PERSON
That one person's subjective opinion does not determine whether a thing
is objectively known to be real or still merely hypothetical
When one states what one believes, one is not hypothesizing.
What if what one is talking about is just 'might be' conjecture
Whose 'might be' conjecture? If it is the 'might be' conjecture of the
person stating it, it is not the statement of a belief at all.
Poor Septic can't seem to sort out even these simple ideas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 02:05:00 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that
By definition, Septic, as he just told you. Can't you read for
understanding?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 03:51:13 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135195499.983969.311130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in
message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is
immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am
atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is
not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that
By definition
By definition you theists believe your conjecture is true. That is what
characterizes theism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 07:51:47 PM |
|
|
In article <scCdneSGjuHQUzTenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135195499.983969.311130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that
By definition
By definition you theists believe your conjecture is true. That is what
characterizes theism.
By definition, if it is a *conjecture* to us, we do NOT believe it to be
true. "Conjectural" is an antonym of certainty.
Proximity/Merriam-Webster U.S. English Thesaurus
(synonym) Supposed, Hypothetical, Putative, Reputed, Suppositional,
(antonym) Certain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
22 Dec 2005 05:03:46 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135195499.983969.311130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D060AD.21230720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <V5Cdnfp4NPYSyTXeRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in
message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the
universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of,
chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is
immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am
atheist,
a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is
not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical
('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah, you theists believe your hypothesis (your 'might be'
conjecture)
is true
If it is an hypothesis to me then I cannot believe it true, as one
does
not, by definition, believe hypotheses either true or false.
Where did you get that
By definition
By definition
By definition it is not an hypothesis, Septic. Just as Virgil has told
you.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
20 Dec 2005 04:57:41 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A19BA9.14311219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <n42dnbwShsLjajvenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes it is, it remains hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture')
until
and unless you theists can produce proof of your hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture') thingy.
WRONG! Theists state that they BELIEVE something.
Yeah,
Yeah.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
19 Dec 2005 12:22:27 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-39B005.20130718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <vvydnfSUy-qQkTveRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134930019.371549.112310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-0E41B2.21402015122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <f_-dnZ02yZPwmz_eRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134679634.240059.327100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The argument says nothing atall atall about the universe
Then what is God supposed to be the first cause of, chopped
liver
perhaps?
Septic's belief in the purpose of his God is immaterial.
You are mistaking me for someone else, moron; I am atheist, a
godless
heathen!
Virgil is
That is correct, Virgil exists, but your God thingy is just
hypothetical
That depends on whom one asks. To a theist a "god thingy" is not
hypothetical at all
Yes
No sir. One bag full, Septic. (And reminder: according to you,
Septic, the negative never incurs a burden.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
19 Dec 2005 03:10:17 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a God' is not
a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
19 Dec 2005 04:22:20 PM |
|
|
In article <wOidnQv0QY4kvDrenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a God' is not
a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
Idiots like Septic are inferior to the lowest of morons.
Any statement whose truth (or falsehood) is being asserted, requires
proof before it need be accepted. This includes claiming the falsehood
of "There might be a god".
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
20 Dec 2005 12:00:33 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-84D548.15222019122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <wOidnQv0QY4kvDrenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a God' is
not
a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
Idiots like Septic are inferior to the lowest of morons.
Any statement whose truth (or falsehood) is being asserted,
'There is no God' is not an assertion (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and the buurden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext. Got that
now?
requires
proof before it need be accepted. This includes claiming the falsehood
of "There might be a god".
'There is no God' is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof),
it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and the buurden of
proof cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext. Got that now?
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to us atheist
agnostics, which is logical fallacy:
"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." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
The buck stops on your side, moron.
We atheist agnostics like Thomas Huxley have nothing (no thing) to
prove, only you theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly 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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
proof. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
20 Dec 2005 02:35:45 PM |
|
|
In article <LIadnQmK0_Ba2zXenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-84D548.15222019122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <wOidnQv0QY4kvDrenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a God' is
not
a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
Idiots like Septic are inferior to the lowest of morons.
Any statement whose truth (or falsehood) is being asserted,
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then it must be chopped liver, as it is certainly nothing in between.
Septic's continual insistence that when one claims something is true one
is not claiming that anything is true, is annoying, as well as ]bbeing
obviously false.
requires
proof before it need be accepted. This includes claiming the falsehood
of "There might be a god".
'There is no God' is not a claim
Then it must be chopped liver, as it is certainly nothing in between.
Septic's continual insistence that when one claims something is true one
is not claiming that anything is true, is annoying, as well as ]bbeing
obviously false.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
"There is no god" asserts that there is no god.
Absent proof, agnostics must reject that assertion as being unproven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 03:26:53 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-560A30.13354520122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <LIadnQmK0_Ba2zXenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-84D548.15222019122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <wOidnQv0QY4kvDrenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a God'
is
not
a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
Idiots like Septic are inferior to the lowest of morons.
Any statement whose truth (or falsehood) is being asserted,
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then it must be chopped liver
No, it is not chopped liver, it is a statement, a statement that is the
only reasonable presumption (like the presumption of 'No guilt' in
court). Can't have a default presumption that the hypothesis is true.
That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
'There is no God' is not an assertion (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and the buurden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext. Got that
now?
requires
proof before it need be accepted. This includes claiming the falsehood
of "There might be a god".
'There is no God' is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof),
it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and the buurden of
proof cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext. Got that now?
You are just trying to shift the burden of proof to us atheist
agnostics, which is logical fallacy:
"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." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
The buck stops on your side, moron.
We atheist agnostics like Thomas Huxley have nothing (no thing) to
prove, only you theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly 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
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
proof. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, no chopped liver?" |
21 Dec 2005 07:43:01 PM |
|
|
In article <aOydnYqPGvEBVTTeRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-560A30.13354520122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <LIadnQmK0_Ba2zXenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-84D548.15222019122005@comcast.dca.gigane
ws.com.. .
In article <wOidnQv0QY4kvDrenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS
XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
... the negative never incurs a burden.
The statement you morons are championing, 'There might be a
God' is not a negative, it is an affirmative, moron.
Idiots like Septic are inferior to the lowest of morons.
Any statement whose truth (or falsehood) is being asserted,
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then it must be chopped liver
No, it is not chopped liver, it is a statement
if it is a statement, and Septic proposes that it be accepted as true,
then Septic owes us proofs.
a statement that is
the only reasonable presumption
The only reasonable presumption when we do not know is that we do not
know. Any other presumption begs the question.
And Septic is an habitual beggar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: God no ["God, n | | | | | | | | | | |
