Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST

Religions > Atheism > Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 12 of 19

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Roger Roaster"
Date:	30 Jul 2003 05:32:07 PM
Object:	Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST

Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-840250.20042225072003@blade.randori.com>...

In article <b0ef066.0307251325.386c2043@posting.google.com>,
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster) wrote:

Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-586563.00434025072003@blade.randori.com>...

I know that the difference is way too subtle for Septic Sophy's
sensibilities, so he has missed the point of those remarks.

Your constant reliance on Argumentum ad Hominem (All you seem to know how to
write) is what is supremely predictable, son. You need to do some work on
your style. Ever thought of trying reasonable argument for a change?

I am merely emulating Septic, the master sophist of sci.skeptic.
When he posts something reasonalbe, I shall feel constrained to
follow.

All there is is a one-sided assertion with no basis in fact from you and
your nitwit pals. The actual state of affairs is that you and your pals are
trying to sell the idea that atheism and agnosticism are religions, just like
Christianity, or any other belief (faith in the truth of a proposition, as
the tenets of a religion, not supported by logical proof or material evidence).

Argumentum ad Hominem like that does not support in any way the alleged
truth of your proposition that a god really exists and legislated the laws
of the universe. It is simply logical fallacy. See :
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem

For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some god
really exists, but I have not done that.

Septic Sophy says that his magic invisible sky pixies do not exist
and thta no one else's conception of gods does either. In support of
this claim septic the Capon offers no evidence.

Your presumption is unreasonable, illogical, as I have explained before, in
that you ignore the prohibition (Pettitio Principii) against presuming the
very thing that is to be proven, the existence of your alleged god, while
the existence of it is in question.

Where in my statement have I presumed that any god existed?

You brought it up, not me. Right here:

For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some
god really exists, but I have not done that.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip irrelevant argument ad hominem]

No. I think Huxley was exceptionally clear headed, unlike the brain
damaged Septic.

As usual, Gerbil does not understand what is being discussed, so he just
tosses some _ad homenim_ arguement into the thread. Just empty allegations,
and slander, and you know it, Gerbil. The true-believers like you are forced
to present argument _ad hominem_, becuase they cannot present sound reason for
thier beleifs (their publicly stated faith in the truth of) their unsupported
propositions. And please stop calling me "septic", you *****-shovelling
whoremonger. That is just more of your argument _ad hominem_, and doesn't
support your argument in any way, as you know.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
Stop changing the subject and deal with the following questions, knucklehead:
Who brings the existence of invisible sky-pixies into question in the first
place, theists or atheists?
Who has the full burden of proof in the matter of their alleged invisible
sky-pixies, the true-believers, or the non-believers?
Are there any invisible sky-pixies in evidence?
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Septic the Christian	26 Aug 2003 02:34:40 PM

In article <PlL2b.103331$2x.30220@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bif18b$n66$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...

Bob White wrote:

"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bic9op$sga$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...

Bob White wrote:

"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote:

You are trying to fall back from Plato's position that all lying
is wrong to that of Kant, to whom a new classification of untruth
had a lesser impact that a lie proper.

I am doing no such thing, sir.

That is itself an untruth, and an additional confirmation that you
do not, in point of fact, consider all "bearing of false witness"
to be morally wrong, as you originally stated.

You are just tying to justify bearing false witness in the form of
expressions of religious belief,

Since I'm an atheist ...

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

You are just tying to justify bearing false witness in the form of
expressions of religious belief, that a god exists, for instance, when there
is no such thing in evidence. You just don't like the principle Thomas
Huxley is talking about, do you sir?

Septic the Capon, who violates Huxley's principles freely and
frequently, is hardly in a fit position to criticize other peoples
behavior in this respect.
If Septic the Capon can doubt, without evidence, than one who says
he is an atheist actually is one, that frees the rest of us to doubt
that Septic the Capon is actually an atheist.
Three cheers for Septic the Christian! Rah! Rah! Rah!
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Principles	31 Aug 2003 11:23:24 AM

"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1dS2b.205765$It4.96881@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-A564E8.13344026082003@news.newsguy.com...

... violates Huxley's principles freely ...

This is not Huxley's principle, nitwit, it is a basic principle of valid
argument (logic) Huxley refers to,

Huxley nowhere says that he was referring to 'a basic principle of
valid argument (logic'); so there's no internal evidence for that
alleged 'fact' of yours. You could try to find some external
evidence, by demonstrating that e someone other than (and prior to)
Huxley had already stated this alleged 'principle', and explicitly
referred to it as a 'principle of logic'. We'll all wait patiently
while you look for one.

and I do not violate it, I join Huxley in
denial and repudiation of any religious doctrine

except that Huxley did not deny and repudiate any religious doctrine.

like Christianity for
example that there are propositions like "An invisible God may exist even
though there is no such thing in evidence"

That's probably the stupidest definition of Christianity I've ever
read. Believing the proposition "An invisible God may exist even
though there is no such thing in evidence" is neither necessary nor
sufficient to make one a Christian - and Huxley certainly does not say
or imply that it is.

which people ought to believe
without evidence.

This little bit is the only part of Huxley's article that you restate
correctly. Agnostics do not claim to know or believe 'facts' for
which there is no evidence, whether they're asserted as facts by
dogmatic theists (Eg, "It is fact that there is a god") or by dogmatic
antitheists (Eg, "It is a fact that there are no gods").

"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various ways, but
they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism
asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
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. It was inevitable that a conflict should
arise between Agnosticism and Theology" -- 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: Principles	26 Aug 2003 07:32:27 PM

In article <1dS2b.205765$It4.96881@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-A564E8.13344026082003@news.newsguy.com...

... violates Huxley's principles freely ...

This is not Huxley's principle, nitwit,

The following is from Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
<start quote>
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word
"Agnostic" to denote people who, LIKE MYSELF, confess
themselves to be HOPELESSLY IGNORANT concerning a variety of
matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both
orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence;
and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the
gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism"
(I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both),
until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised
sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the
part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort
of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am
entitled to say that I can state authentically WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY MEANT by Agnosticism.
<unquote>
Then why does Huxley say (above) that he started it all?

it is a basic principle of valid
argument (logic) Huxley refers to,

It is a basic moral principle of agnosticm that Huxley refers to.
Huxley often called it "moral" principle but where does he ever say
it was a "logical" one, or a valid form of argument? Never!
He never calls it a l

and I do not violate it,

Septic the Capon is one of those heterodox anti-theists who claim
that it is a fact that there are no gods.
Huxley says of them:
<quote>.
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.
<end quote>

I join Huxley in denial and repudiation of any religious doctrine
like Christianity which people ought to believe without evidence.

Will Septic the Capon also join Huxley in denial and repudiation of
the doctrine "It is a fact that there is no god" which Septic the
Capon asserts that people ought to believe without evidence?
If Septic the Capon does not deny and repudiate that also,
then he directly violates Huxley's agnostic principle:
<quote>
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.
<end quote>

For those who want to see what Huxley really said, as opposed
to what Capon wants you to think he said, see:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/bib1.html
The following is from Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
<start quote>

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.

<end quote>
And is reinforced by the following disproof of Septic the Capon's
claims of agreement with Huxley, provided by Septic the Capon
himself:

"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various
ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to
say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion,
it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. 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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Septic the Capon keeps trying to ignore the clear intent of Huxley
to excoriate Septic the Capon's heterodoxy even more that Christian,
or other theist, orthodoxy.
Of the two doxies, Huxley finds Septic the Capon's the more hateful:
The following is from Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
<start quote>

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.

<end quote>
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Principles	24 Aug 2003 04:14:21 PM

In article <2392b.246101$o%2.111891@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

You are trying to fall back from Plato's position that all lying
is wrong to that of Kant, to whom a new classification of untruth
had a lesser impact that a lie proper.

I am doing no such thing, sir. You are trying to create a diversion by
bringing up a little white lie about the size of your wife's disgusting big
fat *****, and that is not what is genuinely under discussion here, is it sir?
That is simply fallacy of diversion on your part, isn't it sir?

No! The accusation of fallacy by Septic the Capon is, as always, the
fallacy itself.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Principles	24 Aug 2003 01:49:09 PM

In article <Zr52b.244626$Ho3.31055@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

As Huxley points out, it is morally wrong (bearing false witness) for a
person to say he believes (is convinced) that any proposition like the
tenets of Christianity, for example, are true, without evidence to support
that conviction:

It is not the stating of what one's beliefs are that Huxley
considers immoral, the immorality is in the claim that others should
accept those beliefs without evidence.
Such as Septic the Capon's claim that it is a fact that there are no
gods, which Septic the Capon asserts without evidence and Septic the
Capon also asserts should be accepted without evidence.
For those who want to see what Huxley really said, as opposed
to what Capon wants you to think he said, see:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/bib1.html
The following is from Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
<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.

<end quote>
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Principles	23 Aug 2003 02:52:59 PM

In article <%cJ1b.234856$Ho3.30141@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bi70mc$4mn$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...

Bob White wrote:

"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bi5ql7$t40$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...

...
You still have presented no
reason to believe that bearing false witness is morally wrong.
...

That's not true, but it is not a matter of belief, it is a principle of
valid argument (logic), as Huxley points out, knucklehead.

Well, knucklehead. Huxley was a man. All men are fallible. You do the
math. ...

Huxley did not invent it, knucklehead, it is a principle of valid argument
(logic) --- the opposite would lead to an absurd situation in which anybody
would be perfectly free to make any kind of allegation without ever having
to produce evidence it is true.

Apparently that is the situation anyway, since Septic the Capon
produces all kinds of allegations with never an iota of proof.
It transpires that most , if not all, of those allegations are
false, and known to their author to be false prior to his making
them.

Why would you ever believe that bearing
false witness in any case (except maybe a little white lie to your wife
about her disgusting big fat *****) is acceptable behavior? Are you nuts?

To say that something is not a principle of valid argument(logic) is
not to declare it acceptable behavior. Murder is not a principle of
valid argument (logic) and is also not acceptable behavior in most
places.

Is there anything in this principle of valid argument (logic) which Huxley
points out to which you can reasonably take exception?

I take exception to calling Huxley's agnostic principle a principle
of _valid argument(logic)_. Huxley does not call it that. Copi does
not call it that. Apparently only Septic the Capon calls it that,
and anything which Septic the Capon says which is not supported by
considerable independent authority should be taken ***** multo grano
salis if at all.

"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various
ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to
say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that
certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion,
it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics
deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that
there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence. -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the
term 'agnostic', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: Principles	23 Aug 2003 06:57:21 PM

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-11CC2B.13525923082003@news.newsguy.com...

Your line of "reasoning" is all fucked up there, knucklehead, unless you can
demonstrate that murder is an argument.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Principles	23 Aug 2003 09:10:05 PM

In article <BbT1b.238156$Ho3.30768@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-11CC2B.13525923082003@news.newsguy.com...

Your line of "reasoning" is all fucked up there, knucklehead, unless you can
demonstrate that murder is an argument.

My statement is that murder is not a "principle of valid
argument(logic)". If one wished, one could argue that it is, like
war, an ultimate form of argument.
It transpires, as usual, that it is Septic the Capons arguments that
are snafu.
.

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: Principles	23 Aug 2003 10:00:25 PM

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4EA0F4.20100423082003@news.newsguy.com...

In article <BbT1b.238156$Ho3.30768@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-11CC2B.13525923082003@news.newsguy.com...

Your line of "reasoning" is all fucked up there, knucklehead, unless you

can

demonstrate that murder is an argument.

My statement is that murder is not a "principle of valid
argument(logic)".

Neither is it an argument, knucklehead, it is simply undesirable behavior,
like bearing false witness, testifying that one believes (has sound reason
to be convinced) that a proposition like the tenets of a religion like
Christianity for example are true, without producing logically satisfactory
evidence it is true.
Undesirable behavior is not limited to murder, as your argument implies.
.

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: Principles	24 Aug 2003 01:01:43 PM

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-C6E803.21380923082003@news.newsguy.com...

In article <dTV1b.239454$Ho3.28706@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4EA0F4.20100423082003@news.newsguy.com...

In article <BbT1b.238156$Ho3.30768@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-11CC2B.13525923082003@news.newsguy.com...

To say that something is not a principle of valid argument(logic)

not to declare it acceptable behavior. Murder is not a principle

valid argument (logic) and is also not acceptable behavior, in

most

places.

Your line of "reasoning" is all fucked up there, knucklehead, unless

you

can

demonstrate that murder is an argument.

My statement is that murder is not a "principle of valid
argument(logic)".

Neither is it an argument, knucklehead

Only Septic the Capon has ever sugested that it ought to be.

You, sir, are the one who brought up murder in the middle of a discussion of
the principles of valid argument (logic). If you are now admitting that
murder has nothing logically to do with that which is genuinely under
discussion (valid argument), then you are admitting to fallacy of diversion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.

User: "Jeff Young"
Title: Re: Principles	24 Aug 2003 06:28:42 PM

"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b472b.245613$Ho3.31583@sccrnsc03>...