| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Martin" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2003 05:13:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Septic lies again. |
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgtvhj$b2l@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-C8EF33.15452206082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <KCbYa.55200$Vt6.19741@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > > Is there something about the question you do not understand?
:> > > > I am not asking how many godz you "should have been able to
;> > > > count," I am simply asking how many godz are there by your
:> > > > count?
;> > >
:> > > It seems like a very simple, straightforward question to me.
;> > > My answer would be 'I don't know.'
:> >
;> > You don't know of any, so there are zero by your count. Thank
:> > you.
;>
Let me see if I can follow Septic's "logic". It seems that according to
Septic, if you don't know of any members of a certain class, you must
rationally believe that there are in fact no members of that class: "You
don't know of any, so there are zero by your count", is what he says.
Q. [Martin] "Septic - how many brothers have I (Martin) got???"
A. [Septic] "I don't know, therefore, you have zero brothers by my count"
Only Septic would think himself capable of conjuring the conclusion that I
have no brothers out of a complete ignorance of the facts.
Moreover, it is easy to reduce his position to complete absurdity, for
Septic would presumably conclude that only those people who he knows to have
brothers actually have brothers. Septic (to be consistent) would have to say
that there are no brothers in the world other than the brothers of those
that he himself knows to have brothers.
Let us suppose that Septic knows no one who lives in Zanzibar. Septic,
simply because he doesn't know of any, must conclude that there are zero
brothers in Zanzibar - no one is Zanzibar has a brother, according to
Septic!!
M
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
13 Aug 2003 03:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Martin" <ignore@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:bh7q8j$556$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgtvhj$b2l@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-C8EF33.15452206082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <KCbYa.55200$Vt6.19741@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > > Is there something about the question you do not understand?
:> > > > I am not asking how many godz you "should have been able to
;> > > > count," I am simply asking how many godz are there by your
:> > > > count?
;> > >
:> > > It seems like a very simple, straightforward question to me.
;> > > My answer would be 'I don't know.'
:> >
;> > You don't know of any, so there are zero by your count. Thank
:> > you.
;>
Let me see if I can follow Septic's "logic". It seems that according to
Septic
According to the principles of valid argument (logic), knucklehead.
if you don't know of any members of a certain class, you must
rationally believe that there are in fact no members of that class ...
Strawman. 'Belief' (subjective conviction) has nothing to do with this.
All I am pointing out is that, due to a principle of valid argument (logic),
that the burden of proof is always on those who are party to the assertion
in question, "A magic invisible god may in reality exist," the only
reasonable presumption (not belief, knucklehead -- get the wording correct)
is "False, there is no such thing as proposed."
That reasonable default presumption stands forever, or until knocked down by
logically satisfactory evidence, whichever occurs first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
13 Aug 2003 05:42:19 PM |
|
|
In article <3Xw_a.95334$It4.46721@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Martin" <ignore@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:bh7q8j$556$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgtvhj$b2l@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-C8EF33.15452206082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <KCbYa.55200$Vt6.19741@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > > Is there something about the question you do not understand?
:> > > > I am not asking how many godz you "should have been able to
;> > > > count," I am simply asking how many godz are there by your
:> > > > count?
;> > >
:> > > It seems like a very simple, straightforward question to me.
;> > > My answer would be 'I don't know.'
:> >
;> > You don't know of any, so there are zero by your count. Thank
:> > you.
;>
Let me see if I can follow Septic's "logic". It seems that according to
Septic
According to the principles of valid argument (logic), knucklehead.
if you don't know of any members of a certain class, you must
rationally believe that there are in fact no members of that class ...
Strawman. 'Belief' (subjective conviction) has nothing to do with this.
Then knowledge does, and Sweptic has said thta knowledge requires
demostration of its truth. We cannot know what has not been
demonstrated.
All I am pointing out is that, due to a principle of valid
argument (logic), that the burden of proof is always on those who
are party to the assertion in question the only
presumption (not belief, knucklehead -- get the wording correct)
is "False, there is no such thing as proposed."
What Septic hates is that Atheists are only claiming a moral rule,
not any facts, so that when Septic claims that it is a FACT that
there are no gods, Septic is obligated to prove that it is a fact
and not a mere hypothesis (delusional speculative imagining).
If Septic merely claims it as a hypothesis (delusional speculative
imagining), rather than a fact, then he is only obligated if he
wants that hypothesis accepted. He can proclaim it as an hypothesis
(delusional speculative imagining) all he wants to without proof.
That default presumption stands forever as an
hypothesis (delusional speculative imagining), or until knocked
down by logically satisfactory evidence, whichever occurs first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
13 Aug 2003 06:26:03 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BDD3E7.16421913082003@[63.218.45.211]...
Atheists are only claiming a moral rule ...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all, knucklehead.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
As an agnostic, I can join Huxley in denying and repudiating any religious
belief like Christianity, for example, which entails the immoral doctrine
that there are propositions like "An invisible god may exist" people should
believe are true, without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to 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', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 10:01:48 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<fOz_a.95026$cF.29424@rwcrnsc53>...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all,
If that claim is correct, then you are not an atheist. Because you've
just claimed something, namely that "Atheists aren't claiming
_anything_at_all_." [emphasis added].
Shoot yourself in the foot much, Septic?
Septic remains the completely self-refuting, fallacious, mendacious,
and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Years running.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 11:52:50 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308140701.284b2b7b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<fOz_a.95026$cF.29424@rwcrnsc53>...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all,
If that claim is correct, then you are not an atheist.
It's not a 'claim', knucklehead, it is the denial of one.
Virgil claimed, "Atheists are only claiming a moral rule ..."
The fact is that atheists aren't claiming anything at all, knucklehead.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
As an agnostic, I can righteously join Huxley in denying and repudiating any
religious belief like Christianity, for example, which entails the immoral
doctrine that there are propositions like "An invisible god may exist"
people should believe are true, without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 04:06:51 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<C7P_a.101727$cF.31016@rwcrnsc53>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308140701.284b2b7b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<fOz_a.95026$cF.29424@rwcrnsc53>...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all,
If that claim is correct, then you are not an atheist.
It's not a 'claim',
Yes it is. And your claim that it is not a claim is also itself a
claim. You just keep piling all those claims up, Septic. All the
rest of us have to do is just keep documenting them. Of course if you
were really claiming nothing, then you'd have nothing to say, but of
course you always seem to have something to say, so that gives the lie
to your claim that you're not claiming anything. You claim (without
successful demonstration) that Copi supports you. You claim (without
successful demonstration) that there exists a default presumption of
false adhering to any existential claim. You claim (without
successful demonstration) that Huxley supports you. You claim
(without successful demonstration) that others are arguing
fallaciously. In short, you're toast. Mmmmmmmm, crunchy.
Septic remains the completely rebutted, confused, fallacious,
mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 04:49:30 PM |
|
|
[unsnip the context that the knucklehead, Young snipped]
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BDD3E7.16421913082003@[63.218.45.211]...
Atheists are only claiming a moral rule ...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all, knucklehead.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
As an agnostic, I can join Huxley in denying and repudiating any religious
belief like Christianity, for example, which entails the immoral doctrine
that there are propositions like "An invisible god may exist" people should
believe are true, without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to 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', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 07:08:25 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
;existence of gods:
The following says no such thing. The quote says clearly what is being
denied and repudiated is this doctrine: there are propositions which
men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. It
says nothing about deny and repudiate religious belief.
;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
:doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
:'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
;Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
:
;
:
;
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 01:09:10 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
;existence of gods:
The following says no such thing. The quote says clearly what is being
denied and repudiated is this doctrine: there are propositions which
men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. It
says nothing about deny and repudiate religious belief.
;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
:doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
:'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
;Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
:
;
:
;
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 01:34:43 PM |
|
|
In article <C7P_a.101727$cF.31016@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308140701.284b2b7b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<fOz_a.95026$cF.29424@rwcrnsc53>...
Atheists aren't claiming anything at all,
If that claim is correct, then you are not an atheist.
It's not a 'claim', knucklehead, it is the denial of one.
Annother of Septic's standard straw-definitions, designed to
deceive, and contradicted by every actual dictionary and logic text.
Virgil claimed, "Atheists are only claiming a moral rule ..."
The fact is that atheists aren't claiming anything at all, knucklehead.
Then Septic must be denying atheism, since Septic is clearly
claiming things. Not every atheist clains that gods don't exist,
ther are some who are still sane.
As an agnostic,
As an agnostic, Septic is a complete failure, since he repreatedly
has claimed that "It is a fact thet there are no gods", solely on
the absence of disproof. Righteous agnostics consider that a no-no.
But hypocrites declaring themselves to be agnostics might say
anything.
"I can righteously join Huxley in denying and repudiating any
religious belief like Christianity, for example, which entails the immoral
doctrine that there are propositions like
people should believe are true, without logically satisfactory evidence.
No Christian has ever accepted, much less proclaimed that "An
invisible god may exist" is a point of Christian doctrine, and
anyone who says it is, after the many corrections he has received is
a liar, and I suspect, the Chrisians would say a damned liar.
Here is the actual situation:
Theists say gods are actual.
Agnostics say gods may be possible because we don't know that they
are impossible, but equally gods may be impossible, because we don't
know that they are possible.
Honorable atheists, who know anything about gods, say they do not
believe in the existence of gods.
Those who do not know about gods, like the newborn, are a sort of
natural agnostic, they have no opinion on the issue.
Anti-theist anti-agnostics, like Septic, say that there are no gods,
and that every one should believe like they do that there are no
gods, even though this violates the agnostic principle of not
claiming the truth of anything that is not proven.
The following is from "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Capon:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy
does not.
Between Christian orthodoxy and Anti-theist heterodoxy, Huxley finds
the anti-theist's doxy more offensive, as do I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 02:18:29 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-D39C44.12344314082003@[63.218.45.211]...
... Not every atheist clains that gods don't exist,
"There are no gods" is not a "clain" [sic], it is the denial of a "clain"
[sic], and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
You theistas always trying to shift the burden of proof to "False" is
logical fallacy:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 02:26:21 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-D39C44.12344314082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:
;
:> ... Not every atheist clains that gods don't exist,
;
:"There are no gods" is not a "clain" [sic],
It is a claim to the effect that there are no gods.
;it is the denial of a "clain"
;[sic], and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
The denial of a claim is a disclaim
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
For example, the disclaim of the claim "there is no god" is
"can't say there is no god".
;You theistas always trying to shift the burden of proof to "False" is
:logical fallacy:
So why are you trying to shift the burden of proof for the claim
"there is no god" to its denial, "False, can't say there is no god"?
:<quote>
;Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
:criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
;mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
:Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
;sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
:Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
;moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
:are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
;which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
:false!
;</quote>
:(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Right, and to show an argument to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam,
this is what you do:
<quote>
Legend has it that Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered
another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence
of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward
the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks --
but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics
could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
So why were you not able to do the same to any that you say is one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 03:45:29 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bhgnot$85f@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-D39C44.12344314082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:
;
:> ... Not every atheist clains that gods don't exist,
;
:"There are no gods" is not a "clain" [sic],
It is a claim to the effect that there are no gods.
No, "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the reasonable denial of the
claim that it must be true that there may be magic invisible sky pixies.
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: Shifting the burden of proof |
14 Aug 2003 07:07:56 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bhgnot$85f@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:vmhjr2-D39C44.12344314082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> ... Not every atheist clains that gods don't exist,
:> ;
;> :"There are no gods" is not a "clain" [sic],
:>
;> It is a claim to the effect that there are no gods.
:
;No, "There are no gods" is not a claim,
Yes it is a claim to the effect that there are no gods.
;it is the reasonable denial of the
:claim that it must be true that there may be magic invisible sky pixies.
Nope, the denial of a claim is a dis-claim
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
For example, the denial of "there is no god" is "can't say there
is no god".
:The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Of course, but you were not posing a dis-claim.
:"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
;the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
:fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
;
:denies
;
:or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
;something is true unless proven otherwise."
:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Right, so why not take the position of disclaim that we do,
and say "god may exist?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Shifting the burden of proof |
15 Aug 2003 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
In article <JxS_a.108864$It4.49317@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a claim to the effect that there are no gods.
No, "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the reasonable denial of the
claim that it must be true that there may be magic invisible sky pixies.
The proposition "There are no gods" and the
propostion-about-a-proposition that it is not a claim ( or
propostin or anything except a denial) are both arrant lies, AS
Septic well knows.
According to my Webster's Unabridged, the definition of a
proposition includes the following:
A declarative sentence; an expression in language, symbols
or signs of something capable of being believed, doubted or
denied; a verbal expression that is either true or false
-- also called a statement.
It is clear from this definition that the denial of one proposition
of the above type is another proposition of the same type,
regardless of how loudly or often Septic denies it. His denial, in
fact, forms a deniable proposition.
Similar definitions for claim and asssertion in standard
dictionaries complete the proof of Septic's lying.
When anyone except Septic uses, or sees, the word "proposition", or,
equivalently, "claim" or "assertion" in these discussions, the above
is what they have in mind.
What Septic has in his hypothetical mind when he uses the word has
never been made clear, except that it conflicts with both the common
usage above and the more technical but compatible usage in logic.
So far, Septic seems unable to find any authority to back him up in
his screams about the denial of a proposition not being a
proposition, so one suspects that he cannot find any authority who
agrees with him in this.
Since "it must be true that there may be magic invisible sky pixies"
does not mention gods, and no one, except possibly Septic in his
Dictionary of Delusional Definitions, has any idea what ' magic
invisible sky pixies' might be, "there ar no gods" cannot be a
denial of existence of magic invisible sky pixies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic lies again. |
14 Aug 2003 10:25:39 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
;existence of gods:
The following says no such thing. The quote says clearly what is being
denied and repudiated is this doctrine: there are propositions which
men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. It
says nothing about deny and repudiate religious belief.
;"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
:
;
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
