"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KDHSa.97200$sY2.46307@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307201257.42e18a9b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<90ySa.92536$GL4.26203@rwcrnsc53>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<tmv1hvkpuv1k1d2f5fv559op7vrksc44ld@Pern.rk>...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:24:28 GMT, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
In article <Wp0Qa.43882$OZ2.5821@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sure you are, since that is what is under discussion in this
thread
You
came
into it of your own free will, and now you are trying to argue
that
it is OK
to shift the burden of proof to anyone who questions or denies
the
assertion
in question, that an invisible god may in reality exist.
Right on! When you assert that it is impossible that any sort of
god
exists, you are making a claim that requires proof.
There's a difference between "it is impossible that any sort of god
exists" and "I don't accept your assertion that your god exists".
Atheism is the latter, not the former.
Yes, but Mr. Wipe has asserted not only that he doesn't accept
Virgil's assertion that god exists (which would have been silly in any
case, as Virgil has asserted no such thing), but also that it is
impossible that any gods exist.
You are lying, and building a straw man. If you were telling the truth,
then
you would have provided a quotation, with a link to the relevant post.
He doesn't have to quote - you only have to respong with a post, such
as this one. You say it every time.
No, though I did scramble the thought a bit. You are actually
asserting that 'It is impossible that gods exist'
Here you accuse him of cclaiming there is a god, when he says no such
thing:
Liar. In actuality you are arguing that magic invisible sky pixies (or
something, you have not made it specific yet) may in reality exist because
there is no proof your hypothesis is false. I am just reasonably assuming
(not arguing) that is false unless proven true, as per the following basic
principle of science, since you have demonstrated no magic invisible sky
pixies:
He said that it is not proven that Gods cannot exists. If you are
"just reasonably assuming (not arguing) that is false unless proven
true," then would you offer the proof that gods cannot exist?
Actually, I don't think you are lying, exactly. I believe that you
suffer from some sort of obssessive-compulsive behavior, similar to
the mind-set shown by many of the fundamentalists here.
A god might exist, because it has not been proven that this is false.
Feel free to substitue any assertion for the phrase "god might exist".
Claiming otherwise shows a most peculiar confusion of the mind. If you
are dishonest and understand this, then I think it shows an even
deeper disturbance to believe that others would think otherwise, or
could be convinced of it. (Rather reminiscent of Ed Conrad, in that
respect.)
Here you seem to be implying that gods cannot exist, since "Gods may
exist" is false (according to you):
"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. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
Irrelevant, though. You seem to know of only two or three logical
fallicies, and you falsely accuse others of displaying them. I suppose
it is just as well that you haven't read the reast of the list...
--- Kermit
.
