| 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 messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
30 Jul 2003 07:28:19 PM |
|
|
In article <b0ef066.0307301432.4b8696ce@posting.google.com>,
(Roger Roaster) wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-840250.20042225072003@blade.randori.com>...
In article <b0ef066.0307251325.386c2043@posting.google.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 reasonable, 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.
Emulating Septic, exxcept that in his case, he has no pals, merely
alter egos.
The actual state of affairs is that you and your pals are
trying to sell the idea that atheism and agnosticism are religions,
We agnostics are merely claiming that the belief that there is no
god has no more evidence favoring it than the belief that there is
a god. And, in accordance with Huxley's principles, we therefore
choose not to assert either.
That Septic the Sophist will not recognize the honesty of our
agnostic position seems to be due to some flaw in his mental
processes that also hinders him in numerous other ways.
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).
Since Septic maintains a position not supported by material
evidence, Septic's beliefs are no better than those of any theist
whose position is equally unsuported.
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 that no one else's conception of gods does either. In support of
this claim septic the Capon offers no evidence.
Your presumption is unreasonable,
I merely state the facts. I do not presume anything.
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ananias aslo ran.
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.
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?
The only one who has ever raised the question of the existence of
"invisible sky-pixies", pro or con, is Septic the caponned sophist,
so he is the only one connected to that issue in any way.
From the frequency of his mentioning them, they must be dear to his
heart.
Who has the full burden of proof in the matter of their alleged invisible
sky-pixies, the true-believers, or the non-believers?
As I do not know of anyone, except possibly Septic Sophy, who could
reasonably be described as familiar with the notion of "invisible
sky-pixies", the full burden of proof or disproof of their
existence should be left entirely in his incapable hands.
Are there any invisible sky-pixies in evidence?
As I don't know what Septic means by his "invisible sky-pixies", I
have no idea. he will have to describe them in more detail to all
those of us who are in such ignorance of his imaginings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
01 Aug 2003 11:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> said:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8EBD86.18281930072003@[63.218.45.211]...
... belief that there is no god ...
That is not a belief, it is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence
(unless you are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one
today?)
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
01 Aug 2003 12:32:34 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5b6livkb97e4cmqn425g21tr69uqkv209m@4ax.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> said:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8EBD86.18281930072003@[63.218.45.211]...
... belief that there is no god ...
That is not a belief, it is a fact that there is no such thing in
evidence
(unless you are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one
today?)
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Aug 2003 12:23:22 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5b6livkb97e4cmqn425g21tr69uqkv209m@4ax.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> said:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-8EBD86.18281930072003@[63.218.45.211]...
... belief that there is no god ...
That is not a belief, it is a fact that there is no such thing in
evidence
(unless you are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one
today?)
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at all,
knucklehead.
The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence (unless you
are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Aug 2003 08:38:23 PM |
|
|
In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at all,
knucklehead.
The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence (unless you
are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
Nor evidence against. So the only reasonable position is the "we
don't know" of the agnostics, which Septic unreasonably rejects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Aug 2003 07:31:00 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at all,
knucklehead.
The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence (unless
you
are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
Nor evidence against.
No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maria Underwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Aug 2003 03:01:17 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8aOWa.33652$Vt6.13242@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at all,
knucklehead.
The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence (unless
you
are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
Nor evidence against.
No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
God, n. name for my 70 pound black lab. I can demonstrate him anytime
you like. I have a copy of his registry papers with the name "god" on
it. I can also provide pictures, samples of feces, and if you care to
meet in a public place I will introduce you to him.
There - now raise the number of gods in evidence to ONE! Cha-Ching!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Aug 2003 04:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ed7dfd7.0308061201.50296257@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<8aOWa.33652$Vt6.13242@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at
all,
knucklehead.
The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence
(unless
you
are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
Nor evidence against.
No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
God, n. name for my 70 pound black lab. I can demonstrate him anytime
you like. I have a copy of his registry papers with the name "god" on
it. I can also provide pictures, samples of feces, and if you care to
meet in a public place I will introduce you to him.
There - now raise the number of gods in evidence to ONE! Cha-Ching!
Errr. You might oughta go get youself checked for dyslexia there, shug. What
you are describing is a d-o-g, not a g-o-d. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Aug 2003 05:47:28 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
;news:1ed7dfd7.0308061201.50296257@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<8aOWa.33652$Vt6.13242@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
:> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> > > In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> > >
;> > > > > "Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
:> > > >
;> > > >
:> > > > To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at
;all,
:> > > > knucklehead.
;> > > >
:> > > > The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence
;(unless
:> > you
;> > > > are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
:> > >
;> > > Nor evidence against.
:> >
;> >
:> > No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
;> > cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
:>
;> God, n. name for my 70 pound black lab. I can demonstrate him anytime
:> you like. I have a copy of his registry papers with the name "god" on
;> it. I can also provide pictures, samples of feces, and if you care to
:> meet in a public place I will introduce you to him.
;>
:> There - now raise the number of gods in evidence to ONE! Cha-Ching!
;
:
;Errr. You might oughta go get youself checked for dyslexia there, shug. What
:you are describing is a d-o-g, not a g-o-d. 8^)
Double Err.. Didn't you said you don't know what it is that they call
god? Then how would you know what it is not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maria Underwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
07 Aug 2003 09:06:29 AM |
|
|
(Wen-King Su) wrote in message news:<bgs0i0$obn@neptune.myri-local.com>...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
;news:1ed7dfd7.0308061201.50296257@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<8aOWa.33652$Vt6.13242@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
:> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> > > In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> > >
;> > > > > "Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
:> > > >
;> > > >
:> > > > To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said at
;all,
:> > > > knucklehead.
;> > > >
:> > > > The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence
;(unless
:> > you
;> > > > are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one today?)
:> > >
;> > > Nor evidence against.
:> >
;> >
:> > No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of proof
;> > cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
:>
;> God, n. name for my 70 pound black lab. I can demonstrate him anytime
:> you like. I have a copy of his registry papers with the name "god" on
;> it. I can also provide pictures, samples of feces, and if you care to
:> meet in a public place I will introduce you to him.
;>
:> There - now raise the number of gods in evidence to ONE! Cha-Ching!
;
:
;Errr. You might oughta go get youself checked for dyslexia there, shug. What
:you are describing is a d-o-g, not a g-o-d. 8^)
Double Err.. Didn't you said you don't know what it is that they call
god? Then how would you know what it is not?
Exactly! How can they say my dog isn't god - since they refuse to
define god and have no idea what/who he is - how can atheist disagree
and say my dog isn't god? They can't!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
07 Aug 2003 10:48:18 AM |
|
|
"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ed7dfd7.0308070606.3d8a4b3f@posting.google.com...
wen-king@myri.com (Wen-King Su) wrote in message
news:<bgs0i0$obn@neptune.myri-local.com>...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
;news:1ed7dfd7.0308061201.50296257@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<8aOWa.33652$Vt6.13242@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
:> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > news:vmhjr2-35CA57.19382301082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> > > In article <emxWa.29987$Vt6.12206@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> > >
;> > > > > "Esse est percipi meo." - Septicus Inconstans, fl. 2003
:> > > >
;> > > >
:> > > > To be is to be seen? Strawman. That is not what is being said
at
;all,
:> > > > knucklehead.
;> > > >
:> > > > The fact remains that that there is no such thing in evidence
;(unless
:> > you
;> > > > are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one
today?)
:> > >
;> > > Nor evidence against.
:> >
;> >
:> > No evidence against is ever required, knucklehead. The burden of
proof
;> > cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
:>
;> God, n. name for my 70 pound black lab. I can demonstrate him
anytime
:> you like. I have a copy of his registry papers with the name "god"
on
;> it. I can also provide pictures, samples of feces, and if you care
to
:> meet in a public place I will introduce you to him.
;>
:> There - now raise the number of gods in evidence to ONE! Cha-Ching!
;
:
;Errr. You might oughta go get youself checked for dyslexia there,
shug. What
:you are describing is a d-o-g, not a g-o-d. 8^)
Double Err.. Didn't you said you don't know what it is that they call
god? Then how would you know what it is not?
Exactly! How can they say my dog isn't god - since they refuse to
define god and have no idea what/who he is - how can atheist disagree
and say my dog isn't god? They can't!
We agnostics know what a d-o-g is, shug. You believing it is a g-o-d is
either dyslexia or delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality)
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
07 Aug 2003 11:27:06 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> > Double Err.. Didn't you said you don't know what it is that they call
;> > god? Then how would you know what it is not?
:>
;> Exactly! How can they say my dog isn't god - since they refuse to
:> define god and have no idea what/who he is - how can atheist disagree
;> and say my dog isn't god? They can't!
:
;We agnostics know what a d-o-g is, shug. You believing it is a g-o-d is
:either dyslexia or delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality)
;http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
So you do think you know what god is, and that makes you a believer, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
07 Aug 2003 03:21:10 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-16DB6D.13293307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <WVvYa.88887$uu5.12785@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;We agnostics know what a d-o-g is, shug. You believing it is a g-o-d
is
:either dyslexia or delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality)
;http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
So you do think you know what god is, and that makes you a believer,
right?
Are you dyslexic also, knucklehead? What I said was, "We agnostics know
what
a d-o-g is, shug."
But that assumes a condition contrary to fact. That Septic is
agnostic.
Who are you to call anyone septic, knucklehead?
Of course I am agnostic. If there were a god to worship I would be a member
of his church, but there isn't.
The issue is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
07 Aug 2003 04:18:47 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-16DB6D.13293307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <WVvYa.88887$uu5.12785@sccrnsc04>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > ;We agnostics know what a d-o-g is, shug. You believing it is a g-o-d
:is
;> > > :either dyslexia or delusional disorder (impaired contact with
:reality)
;> > > ;http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
:> > >
;> > > So you do think you know what god is, and that makes you a believer,
:> > right?
;> >
:> > Are you dyslexic also, knucklehead? What I said was, "We agnostics know
;what
:> > a d-o-g is, shug."
;>
:> But that assumes a condition contrary to fact. That Septic is
;> agnostic.
:
;Who are you to call anyone septic, knucklehead?
:
;Of course I am agnostic. If there were a god to worship I would be a member
:of his church, but there isn't.
;
:The issue is all about religious belief 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:
The quote, of course says no such thing. What is denied is this
doctrine: that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence -- propositions such as there is no god.
You are not agnostic.
:"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: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 12:49:30 AM |
|
|
In article <WwyYa.90053$uu5.12657@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But that assumes a condition contrary to fact. That Septic is
agnostic.
Who are you to call anyone septic, knucklehead?
I didn't start the Septic appelation, but since whoever it was being
called Septic is not willing to choose one name and stick to it, I
have chosen to stay with that name, as it is as descriptive as any.
If he whom I call Septic were to choose one name and stick with it
for long enough, perhaps I would eventually come to use it.
Of course I am agnostic. If there were a god to worship I would be a member
of his church, but there isn't.
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. Only anti-theist
hypocrites claim both that there is no god AND that they are
agnostic.
The issue is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
The anti-theist belief that there is no god is a religious belief.
it is a belief , rather than a "fact" because there is no proof, and
it is religious because it is about god.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of at least one
god. What Septic describes is polytheism, which is anathema to many
monotheists.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
One right out of two.
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
Close, but deliberately deceiving. Agnostics do not necessarily
repudiate religious *beliefs*. What they repudiate is passing off
that which is only belief as equal to proven knowledge, as shown by
the following:
"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
Note that this labels as immoral Septic's many attempts to foist
the unproven claim "there are no gods" as knowledge, and puts him
beyond the pale of agnosticism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 12:32:49 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63642A.23493007082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <WwyYa.90053$uu5.12657@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But that assumes a condition contrary to fact. That Septic is
agnostic.
Who are you to call anyone septic, knucklehead?
I didn't start the Septic appelation, but since whoever it was being
called Septic is not willing to choose one name and stick to it, I
have chosen to stay with that name, as it is as descriptive as any.
If he whom I call Septic were to choose one name and stick with it
for long enough, perhaps I would eventually come to use it.
Of course I am agnostic. If there were a god to worship I would be a
member
of his church, but there isn't.
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
"There is no god" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
knucklehead, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial under any pretext, as you are always trying to do. You
know why.
"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
The issue is all about religious belief 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: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 12:54:10 PM |
|
|
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:>
;> Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
;"There is no god" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
:knucklehead, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
;shifted to the denial under any pretext, as you are always trying to do. You
:know why.
Hi Virgil, it looks like our best friend here is never going to adopt
the conventional definitions, no matter how many times we have shown
him the correct definitions. Maybe we should just agree to disagree
with him on definitions, but we denote his as "s-claim" and "s-denial"
etc, to keep it straight.
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
:true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
;though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
But of course nobody s-claim there are no gods. We are talking
about you making a claim that there are no gods.
;"There is no god" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
:knucklehead, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
;shifted to the denial under any pretext, as you are always trying to do. You
:know why.
It is a not a s-claim, but it is a claim, a claim to the effect that
there are no gods. Please support your 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
Of course, but that applies to claims, not s-claims.
;The issue is all about religious belief 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:
Agnostics do no such thing. See the quote below:
;"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: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 06:09:55 PM |
|
|
In article <59RYa.98310$uu5.13749@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead,
Septic now claims a new identity called Nobody. This is probably as
close to his true nature as any manme he has ussed so far.
it is you theist
true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
Agnostics do no push the existence of a god, they merely refuse to
accept Septic's repeated statement that there is no god without some
sort of proof.
"There is no god" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
knucklehead, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial under any pretext, as you are always trying to do. You
know why.
To deny a claim is to insist that some other statement is true,
which is itself a claim. Anyone who has at least two brain cells to
rub together must see this and acknowledfe it.
If Septic cannot see it, ...
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
An assertion is the making of a statement and insisting it is true.
Septic states that ther is no god. Septic insists that statement is
true, therefore Septic is making a claim.
And the one making such a claim, Septic, is the one who has to prove
it, if it is to be accepted.
So we can all reject it until Septic comes up with some sort of
proof.
Such rejection does not mean anything else.
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
And this is precisely what Septic has done:
Septic makes this assumption that there is no god, and then says
that it MUST be accepted without proof because there is no proof to
the contrary, and that any burden of proof must fall on those who
would disprove it.
Sophist Septic says it again and again, though he must know by now
how false it is.
The issue is all about religious belief 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:
And the anti-theist, antiagnostic claim that there are no 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
And since there is no logically satisfactory evidence that there are
no gods, agnostics reject and repudiate that statement and execrate
those who make it
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 01:41:59 PM |
|
|
In article <59RYa.98310$uu5.13749@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
Septic snipped the part wher I said that agnostics also do not claim
that there are no gods, and explained why Septic's claim to be one
must be a hypoctitical lie.
Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
This contains a subtle lie. Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist
because there is no proof that it is impossible just as they accep
that there may be no gods because ther is no prof that any do exist.
But theists do not merely say that some gods MAY exist, they say
that at least one god DOES exist, the exact number varying with
which theist is speaking.
To conflate the agnostic position with theist positions is one of
Septic's ongoing and favorite lies, repeated ad nauseam and ad
infinitum.
"There is no god" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
knucklehead, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial under any pretext, as you are always trying to do. You
know why.
This is another lie, that the negation of any statement must be
accepted without proof.
The logical, and agnostic position is that no statement need be
accepted without proof. The agnostic position adds that those who
calim that some statements should be accepted without proof are
immoral. Like Septic.
In fact, Huxley excoriates the Septics of this world as being worse
than the most doctrinaire of Christians:
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.
<end quote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 02:03:06 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE5211.12415908082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <59RYa.98310$uu5.13749@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
This contains a subtle lie. Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist ...
That is what characterizes theism, knucklehead.
The issue is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 02:31:46 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-EE5211.12415908082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <59RYa.98310$uu5.13749@sccrnsc04>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
:
;> > Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
:> > true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
;> > though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
:>
;> This contains a subtle lie. Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist ...
:
;
:That is what characterizes theism, knucklehead.
;
:
;The issue is all about religious belief 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:
They do no such thing. See quote:
;"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: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 06:18:32 PM |
|
|
In article <KtSYa.99004$o%2.44266@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE5211.12415908082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <59RYa.98310$uu5.13749@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Agnostics do not claim that there is no god. ...
Nobody claims there are no gods, knucklehead, it is you theist
true-believers who claim that there may in reality be an invisible one,
though you cannot demonstrate any such of a thing.
This contains a subtle lie. Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist ...
That is what characterizes theism, knucklehead.
Septic gets more septic every day with his vicious lies.
Theists argue that a god, or gods, MUST exist.
Agnostics argue that we don't know whether any gods exist, in
particular we don't know that no gods exist.
The issue is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
And, in Septic's case, a counter-belief that he keeps pushing for
though without evidence.
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
Anti-theism, of Septic's immoral type is characterized by an
unproven belief that there are no gods and a conviction that
everyone should accept that unproven belief without proof.
Agnostics go one step further to deny knowledge that gods exist and
knowlegde that no gods exist, as being both statements without proof.
"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: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
08 Aug 2003 10:08:03 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B6FF9.17183108082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <KtSYa.99004$o%2.44266@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE5211.12415908082003@[63.218.45.211]...
Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist ...
That is what characterizes theism, knucklehead.
Septic gets more septic every day with his vicious lies.
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist
anyway, though there is no such thing evident, knucklehead.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny knowledge that gods exist and
knowlegde that no gods exist, as being both statements without proof.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic' "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
09 Aug 2003 12:05:09 AM |
|
|
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B6FF9.17183108082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <KtSYa.99004$o%2.44266@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-EE5211.12415908082003@[63.218.45.211]...
Agnostics accept that a god MAY exist ...
That is what characterizes theism, knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual. When Septic produces a theist who ONLY claims a god
may exist, the world will have already ended at least a day earlier.
Septic gets more septic every day with his vicious lies.
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist
anyway, though there is no such thing evident, knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again. When Septic produces a theist who ONLY
claims a god may exist, or accedes to the description "a magic
invisible sky pixie", the world will have already ended at least two
days earlier.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the absence of Septic.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in Septic." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny knowledge that Septic has any
morales or any balls, as being both statements without proof.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
behavior of Septic on all matters of logic, and faith."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
09 Aug 2003 07:14:26 PM |
|
|
In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again.
Here Septic snipped my expanation of why he was wrong. He always
does that when he is really wrong, so that he can try to divert
attention from his errors.
No, it is right, knucklehead.
No. This time it is wrong by Septic's own principles.
Septic has claimed the existence theists who do not claim that a
god MUST exist, but are content to claim only that a god MAY exist.
Since this is a claim of existence, there is no way that Septic can
avoid the burden of proving it, and until such proof has been
presented, Septic's principles require that one accept the DENIAL
of that claim of existence.
So until Septic comes up with an identity for that hypothetical
theist, anything he says about theists may be presumed to be false
with Septic's oft repeated blessing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
10 Aug 2003 01:20:24 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FAB0BD.18142609082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again.
Here Septic ...
No, here Bob White showed that you are mistaken, it is right.
It is a fact that gods are merely hypothetical (imaginary) invisible beings
with supernatural powers over events in the universe that theists believe
may in reality exist, even though there is no such thing in evidence. That's
just theists' delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality).
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
This is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
11 Aug 2003 02:55:40 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-FAB0BD.18142609082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> > > In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
:>
;> >
:> > > > Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
;> > > > reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
:> > > > knucklehead.
;> >
:> > > WRONG, as usual, again.
;>
:> Here Septic ...
;
:No, here Bob White showed that you are mistaken, it is right.
;
:
;It is a fact that gods are merely hypothetical (imaginary) invisible beings
:with supernatural powers over events in the universe that theists believe
;may in reality exist, even though there is no such thing in evidence. That's
:just theists' delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality).
;http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
:
;
:
;This is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
:
;Here is the situation:
:
;Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
:
;"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
:gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
;
:Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
;existence of gods:
You are lying again. It says no such thing in the quote below.
;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
:doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
:'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
;Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
:
;
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
11 Aug 2003 12:53:02 AM |
|
|
In article <I1wZa.114689$uu5.16320@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FAB0BD.18142609082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again.
Here Septic ...
No, here Bob White showed that you are mistaken, it is right.
Here Septic, the arch-anti-theist, declares himself able to speak
for the theists.
With "friends" like this, the theists don't need enemies.
I will only accept that Septic can speak honestly for the theists
when he is admitted simultaneously to all the faiths of the Bahai.
And then only with great reluctance.
It is a fact that gods are merely hypothetical (imaginary) invisible beings
with supernatural powers over events in the universe that theists believe
may in reality exist, even though there is no such thing in evidence. That's
just theists' delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality).
This is only a "fact" in Septic's delusional world, since only in
that delusional world do Septic's delusions about of what theists
beleive have any relevance. They certainly don't in any real world.
This is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the absence of Septic.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in Septic." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny knowledge that Septic has any
morales or any balls, as being both statements without proof.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
behavior of Septic on all matters of logic, and faith and honesty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "nucleus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fiction : there are no gods in evidence |
11 Aug 2003 07:27:14 AM |
|
|
In article <vmhjr2-3D2587.23530210082003@[63.218.45.211]>, Virgil
<vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <I1wZa.114689$uu5.16320@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FAB0BD.18142609082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again.
Here Septic ...
No, here Bob White showed that you are mistaken, it is right.
Here Septic, the arch-anti-theist, declares himself able to speak
for the theists.
With "friends" like this, the theists don't need enemies.
I will only accept that Septic can speak honestly for the theists
when he is admitted simultaneously to all the faiths of the Bahai.
And then only with great reluctance.
It is a fact that gods are merely hypothetical (imaginary) invisible beings
with supernatural powers over events in the universe
Yes, fact by the power of proclamation.
On your knees, mortals!
that theists believe
may in reality exist, even though there is no such thing in evidence. That's
just theists' delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality).
This is only a "fact" in Septic's delusional world, since only in
that delusional world do Septic's delusions about of what theists
beleive have any relevance. They certainly don't in any real world.
This is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the absence of Septic.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in Septic." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny knowledge that Septic has any
morales or any balls, as being both statements without proof.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
behavior of Septic on all matters of logic, and faith and honesty."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nucleus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fiction : there are no gods in evidence |
11 Aug 2003 07:27:08 AM |
|
|
In article <vmhjr2-73D31D.23412110082003@[63.218.45.211]>, Virgil
<vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <I1wZa.114689$uu5.16320@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FAB0BD.18142609082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <66aZa.104721$Ho3.13813@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4926A.23050608082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nAZYa.102048$o%2.45623@sccrnsc02>,
Theism is the belief that a magic invisible sky pixie may in
reality exist anyway, though there is no such thing evident,
knucklehead.
WRONG, as usual, again.
Here Septic ...
No, here Bob White
is mistaken again.
It is a fact that gods are merely hypothetical
in Septic's delusionary world which gives Septic a
delusional disorder (impaired contact with reality).
http://www.psychologynet.org/delusion.html
This is all about
Septic's
religious belief.
Septic believes He is God. And that, He thinks, gives Him the right
to play fast and loose with logic and truth, and claim anything He
wants and then claim He is not claiming it.
Well, he did supply the quotations from
Holey Logic Bible by Karl Popper,
the omni-scient one.
"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
Such as Septic's claim that there are no gods, a claim that Huxley
excoriates as worse than any Christian doctrine.
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.
Yes, with a little twist, a SCIENTIFIC.
That breaks agnosticism
and shows it is in turn a religion
implying the validity of science
as some omni-scient deity.
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.
Yes, to hide behind the back of science
is no different than hiding behind the back of God.
Principles that Septic honours more in the breach than in
th'observance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
