| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wen-King Su" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 12:19:31 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"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?)
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say there is
no such thing.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
01 Aug 2003 08:35:52 PM |
|
|
In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does not
mean there is no such thing.
Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You true-believers
have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing. You
cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
non-believers, knucklehead.
We, the agnostics, led by Huxley, have proposed that there is an
absence of any evidence either way, as to whether there is a god or
not.
If you contest this, you must show that our assumption of no
evidence (non-existence) either way is wrong. Since that puts you in
the position of claiming that something exists, versus our claim
that it does not, the burden of proof is all yours, and welcome to
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 07:31:01 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
not
mean there is no such thing.
Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You
true-believers
have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing. You
cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
non-believers, knucklehead.
We, the agnostics ...
You are not agnostic. Agnostics deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods, knucklehead.
"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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
If you contest this, you must show that our assumption of no
evidence (non-existence) either way is wrong. Since that puts you in
the position of claiming that something exists, versus our claim
that it does not, the burden of proof is all yours, and welcome to
it.
The full burden of proof is on you nitwits who insist that it is true that
invisible sky pixies may in reality exist, knucklehead. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 09:30:47 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
:not
;> > > mean there is no such thing.
:> >
;> > Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You
:true-believers
;> > have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing. You
:> > cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
;> > non-believers, knucklehead.
:>
;> We, the agnostics ...
:
;You are not agnostic. Agnostics deny and repudiate religious belief in the
:existence of gods, knucklehead.
Nope. It says right belows that agnostics deny and repudiate is the
doctrine that there are propositions which men ought to believe
without evidence, not of the propositions themselves. Read it yourself:
:"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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;
:
;
:
;> If you contest this, you must show that our assumption of no
:> evidence (non-existence) either way is wrong. Since that puts you in
;> the position of claiming that something exists, versus our claim
:> that it does not, the burden of proof is all yours, and welcome to
;> it.
:
;The full burden of proof is on you nitwits who insist that it is true that
:invisible sky pixies may in reality exist, knucklehead. The burden of proof
;cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
Please explain why holding the null hypothesis involves shifting any
burdends.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 10:16:55 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgghun$k3e@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
:not
;> > > mean there is no such thing.
:> >
;> > Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You
:true-believers
;> > have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing.
You
:> > cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
;> > non-believers, knucklehead.
:>
;> We, the agnostics ...
:
;You are not agnostic. Agnostics deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
:existence of gods, knucklehead.
Nope.
Yep.
It says right belows that agnostics deny and repudiate is the
doctrine that there are propositions which men ought to believe
without evidence, not of the propositions themselves.
Denial and repudiation of any any religious doctrine like Christianity for
example, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence, means that one ought not believe
propositions like the tenets of Christianity for example, which includes a
tenet that a magic invisible sky pixie with three heads may in reality exist
because there is no proof it has a zero probability of existing (your
argument _ad ignorantiam_, knucklehead).
:"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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;
:
;
:
;> If you contest this, you must show that our assumption of no
:> evidence (non-existence) either way is wrong. Since that puts you in
;> the position of claiming that something exists, versus our claim
:> that it does not, the burden of proof is all yours, and welcome to
;> it.
:
;The full burden of proof is on you nitwits who insist that it is true
that
:invisible sky pixies may in reality exist, knucklehead. The burden of
proof
;cannot be shifted. Logic 101.
Please explain why holding the null hypothesis involves shifting any
burdends.
It doesn't, knucklehead. You just don't know what the term 'null' [zero]
means.
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
Where you theists shift the burden of proof is in your argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that an ad hoc hypothetically invisible god may exist because
there is no proof the hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 07:34:49 AM |
|
|
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does not
mean there is no such thing.
Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You true-believers
have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing. You
cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
non-believers, knucklehead.
We, the agnostics, led by Huxley, have proposed that there is an
absence of any evidence either way, as to whether there is a god or
not.
Right; but we are not denying that there *may be* evidence, just
waiting for Septic Sophie or some other anti-agnostic (Big Bird, for
example) to produce some.
If you contest this, you must show that our assumption of no
evidence (non-existence) either way is wrong. Since that puts you in
the position of claiming that something exists, versus our claim
that it does not, the burden of proof is all yours, and welcome to
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 07:57:26 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020434.240764ea@posting.google.com...
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
not
mean there is no such thing.
Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You
true-believers
have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing.
You
cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
non-believers, knucklehead.
We, the agnostics, led by Huxley, have proposed that there is an
absence of any evidence either way, as to whether there is a god or
not.
Right; but we are not denying that there *may be* evidence, just
waiting for Septic Sophie or some other anti-agnostic (Big Bird, for
example) to produce some.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted to those who do not share your belief
that a magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist, knucklehead. Logic
101.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Dunce keeps trying to shift the burden of proof |
02 Aug 2003 02:23:41 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308021105.6e950d54@posting.google.com...
Perhaps you should learn some logic before you try teaching it. In
logic, no assertsions are true without proof, whether 'denials' or
not.
Perhaps you should learn some English, Mr. Dunce.
An assertion ("A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist") is an
assertion.
The denial, the negation in logic ("False, there is no such thing") is the
denial, the negation in logic, not an assertion standing in need of proof,
because the burden of proof cannot be shifted under any pretext,
knucklehead.
"Shifting the burden of proof
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: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce keeps trying to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 11:05:54 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030548.4b3b14b5@posting.google.com...
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting
the burden of proof, a *special case* of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is
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
(emphasis added)
Precisely so, Mr. Dunce. Well done.
It is logical fallacy (begging the question) to assume that the assertion
you are championing, "It is true that an invisible gawd may in reality
exist" is true unless proven otherwise, but it is not logical fallacy to
assume it is false unless proven otherwise.
This is a basic principle of science, knucklehead.
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce keeps trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 12:34:43 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1D616B.22571103082003@[63.218.45.211]...
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something MUST be true simply because
it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that
this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been
proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
And you knuckleheads are arguing that it MUST be true that an ad hoc
hypothetically invisible something you can't even define in any kind of
meaningful way may in reality exist, because that is a proposition not even
a genius like Galileo could prove false.
(Note that it is OK for us atheists to assume that your hypothesis is false
unless proven true, a basic scientific principle.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce keeps trying to shift the burden of proof |
02 Aug 2003 10:00:04 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
You yoursels said: "What prevents us from using the logical, sytematic,
scientific method of investigation to investigate the proposition 'there
is no such thing as a god'?"
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition (hence the snip of the rest of your response -- it was
based on a false reading of my words). In logic, a proposition is a
statement that affirms or denies something. "There is no god" is a
proposition. You yourself stated that all propositions should be
investigated using the scientific method. Please proceed.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
01 Aug 2003 01:17:18 PM |
|
|
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>, says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"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?)
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say there is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good concrete
evidence. For example: How many of the following do you believe exist?
Witches, warlocks, devils, zombies, gremlins, aliens visiting earth,
Ghosts, Goblins, Yeti, fire breathing dragons, Nessie, alien abductions,
leprechauns, spontaneous combustion of humans, telekinesis, Spontaneous
generation, cold causes colds, Santa, the tooth fairy, angels, thousands of
Gods and goddesses, magic, honest politicians, and invisible people living
in your shorts.
--
------
D. Haas
"Consistency requires you be as ignorant today as you were a year ago."
Bernard Berenson
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 07:28:20 AM |
|
|
David Haas <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.199478a7283d69e79898a5@news-server.nc.rr.com>...
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>, says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:"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?)
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say there is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good concrete
evidence.
Yes, but not believing that a thing exists is not the same as
believing that that thing does not exist. The second implies the
first, but not vice versa.
And the second requires evidence, whereas the first does not.
For example: How many of the following do you believe exist?
Witches, warlocks, devils, zombies, gremlins, aliens visiting earth,
Ghosts, Goblins, Yeti, fire breathing dragons, Nessie, alien abductions,
leprechauns, spontaneous combustion of humans, telekinesis, Spontaneous
generation, cold causes colds, Santa, the tooth fairy, angels, thousands of
Gods and goddesses, magic, honest politicians, and invisible people living
in your shorts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
02 Aug 2003 07:57:27 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020428.4140eb7d@posting.google.com...
David Haas <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.199478a7283d69e79898a5@news-server.nc.rr.com>...
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>,
says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-8EBD86.18281930072003@[63.218.45.211]...
:
;
:> ... belief that there is no god ...
;
:That is not a belief, it is a fact that there is no such thing in
evidence
;(unless you are prepared to define your term 'god' and demonstrate one
:today?)
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say there
is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good concrete
evidence.
Yes, but not believing that a thing exists is not the same as
believing that that thing does not exist.
It does not matter. Even those who believe that there are no gods also have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods, and that is all that is
essential to atheism, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted from the
proponents of their hypothetical thing under any pretext. Logic 101,
knucklehead.
It is all about religious belief.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
03 Aug 2003 10:06:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XyOWa.33867$It4.19503@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020428.4140eb7d@posting.google.com...
David Haas <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.199478a7283d69e79898a5@news-server.nc.rr.com>...
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>,
says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:"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 ...
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that does
not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say there
is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good concrete
evidence.
Yes, but not believing that a thing exists is not the same as
believing that that thing does not exist.
It does not matter. Even those who believe that there are no gods also have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
Of course it matters. Those who have an absence of the theist belief
in the existence of gods can also have an absence of the antitheist
belief that there are no gods: agnostics, for example, and also weak
atheists. You are simply trying to conflate atheism and antitheism.
and that is all that is
essential to atheism,
Irrelevant. We are discussing the antitheist belief that there are no
gods, not atheism (which is not characterized by belief).
It is all about religious belief.
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
Precisely; and that is not what we are discussing. You are simply
trying to conflate atheism and antitheism.
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief.
Actually, agnostics deny and repudiate the idea of holding any beliefs
not based on reasons or evidence, antitheist as well as theist:
"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: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
03 Aug 2003 11:11:05 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030706.1b94e1c0@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XyOWa.33867$It4.19503@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020428.4140eb7d@posting.google.com...
David Haas <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.199478a7283d69e79898a5@news-server.nc.rr.com>...
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>,
says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:"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 ...
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that
does
not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say
there
is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good
concrete
evidence.
Yes, but not believing that a thing exists is not the same as
believing that that thing does not exist.
It does not matter. Even those who believe that there are no gods also
have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
Of course it matters. Those who have an absence of the theist belief
in the existence of gods can also have an absence of the antitheist
belief that there are no gods ...
That's not a belief (subjective conviction), it is a fact that there are
zero gawds in evidence, Mr. Dunce.
[unsnip]
Even those who believe that there are no gods also have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods, and that is all that is
essential to atheism, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted from the
proponents of their hypothetical thing under any pretext. Logic 101,
knucklehead.
It is all about religious belief.
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:
"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: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
03 Aug 2003 10:07:26 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tuaXa.39980$cF.13964@rwcrnsc53>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030706.1b94e1c0@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XyOWa.33867$It4.19503@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020428.4140eb7d@posting.google.com...
David Haas <dhaas@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.199478a7283d69e79898a5@news-server.nc.rr.com>...
In article <bge7f3$3jr@neptune.myri-local.com>,
says...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:"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 ...
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that
does
not
mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes belief to say
there
is
no such thing.
Most people do not believe things exist unless there is good
concrete
evidence.
Yes, but not believing that a thing exists is not the same as
believing that that thing does not exist.
It does not matter. Even those who believe that there are no gods also
have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
Of course it matters. Those who have an absence of the theist belief
in the existence of gods can also have an absence of the antitheist
belief that there are no gods ...
agnostics, for example, and also weak
atheists. You are simply trying to conflate atheism and antitheism.
That's not a belief (subjective conviction), it is a fact that there are
zero gawds in evidence, Mr. Dunce.
As Virgil has already explained to you (but you have not seen fit to
answer), even if:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, ... that
that does not mean there is no such thing. It therefore takes
belief to say there is no such thing.
Even those who believe that there are no gods also have
an absence of belief in the existence of gods, and that is all that is
essential to atheism,
So what? We are discussing whether the antitheist claim that "there
are no god" is a belief or a 'fact', as you claimed. What is
'essential to atheism' is irrelevant. You are simply trying to
conflate atheism and antitheism.
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted from the
proponents of their hypothetical thing under any pretext. Logic 101,
knucklehead.
In Septic Logic, perhaps. But in the logic that everyone else uses,
antitheist claims require proof no less than theist claims; and it's
basic logical fallacy to argue otherwise.
It is all about religious belief.
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
Precisely; and, as you know, 'absence of belief' is not what we are
discussing. You are still trying to conflate atheism and antitheism.
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief:
Actually, as I already told you (and you chose to try to hide from
rather than answer), agnostics deny and repudiate the idea of holding
any beliefs
not based on reasons or evidence, antitheist as well as theist:
"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: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 02:06:16 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031907.34c5f1a8@posting.google.com...
As Virgil has already explained to you (but you have not seen fit to
answer), even if:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, ... that
that does not mean there is no such thing.
Somebody has to prove there is no such thing? Why? Let me see if I
understand your argument. It must be true that a magic invisible something
may in reality exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence,
because there is no proof there is no such thing?
That argument sounds familiar.
Oh yes, here it is in Copi's logic textbook:
---
<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: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 11:06:43 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:6312c50b.0308031907.34c5f1a8@posting.google.com...
:
;
:
;> As Virgil has already explained to you (but you have not seen fit to
:> answer), even if:
;> > > > > > > It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, ... that
:> > > > > > > that does not mean there is no such thing.
;
:Somebody has to prove there is no such thing? Why?
Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
"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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
It is necessary to deny and repudiate, as immoral, the contrary
doctrine, the doctrine that says there are propositions (such as "there
is no such thing") which men ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence.
;Let me see if I
;understand your argument. It must be true that a magic invisible something
:may in reality exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence,
;because there is no proof there is no such thing?
:
;That argument sounds familiar.
No one is arguing that.
;Oh yes, here it is in Copi's logic textbook:
:
;---
:<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)
;---
Please attach the second paragraph from the quoted text and show how
Galileo show the theolog's arguments to be argument ad ignorantiam, and
do the same to that which you say is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 10:52:10 PM |
|
|
In article <0IvXa.45783$It4.26731@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing ...
"False, there is no such thing" is not a claim
Then stop claiming it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 11:31:55 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
in alt.atheism:
Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
05 Aug 2003 11:24:18 AM |
|
|
In a previous article Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
:
;On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
:in alt.atheism:
;
:>Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
;>claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
:
;Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
Yes it does. Existentially negative assertion on something is an
existantially positive assertion on something else. The only
reasonable course of action is to assert nothing in absence of
evidences.
;"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
:When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
;why I dismiss yours."
:- Stephen F. Roberts
;(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
:rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
06 Aug 2003 09:18:37 PM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2003 09:24:18 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
in alt.atheism:
In a previous article Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
;On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
:in alt.atheism:
:>Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
;>claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
;Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
Yes it does. Existentially negative assertion on something is an
existantially positive assertion on something else.
That's right. And only the positive assertion bears the burden.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could beunder-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
06 Aug 2003 11:40:46 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> said:
On 5 Aug 2003 09:24:18 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
in alt.atheism:
In a previous article Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
;On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
:in alt.atheism:
:>Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
;>claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
;Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
Yes it does. Existentially negative assertion on something is an
existantially positive assertion on something else.
That's right. And only the positive assertion bears the burden.
No, whatever I doubt bears the burden.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
07 Aug 2003 07:06:18 AM |
|
|
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> said:
On 5 Aug 2003 09:24:18 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
in alt.atheism:
In a previous article Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
;On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
:in alt.atheism:
:>Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
;>claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
;Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
Yes it does. Existentially negative assertion on something is an
existantially positive assertion on something else.
That's right. And only the positive assertion bears the burden.
No, whatever I doubt bears the burden.
I doubt that.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
07 Aug 2003 09:35:04 AM |
|
|
(Brian F. King) said:
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> said:
On 5 Aug 2003 09:24:18 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
in alt.atheism:
In a previous article Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
;On 4 Aug 2003 09:06:43 -0700, (Wen-King Su) posted
:in alt.atheism:
:>Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
;>claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
;Sorry, no - existentially negative assertions bear no burden of proof.
Yes it does. Existentially negative assertion on something is an
existantially positive assertion on something else.
That's right. And only the positive assertion bears the burden.
No, whatever I doubt bears the burden.
I doubt that.
I doubt that.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 11:17:49 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:6312c50b.0308031907.34c5f1a8@posting.google.com...
:
;
:
;> As Virgil has already explained to you (but you have not seen fit to
:> answer), even if:
;> > > > > > > It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, ... that
:> > > > > > > that does not mean there is no such thing.
;
:Somebody has to prove there is no such thing? Why?
Whoever who made a claim that there is no such thing has to prove the
claim of course -- as explain by Huxley:
"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 "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
It is necessary to deny and repudiate, as immoral, the contrary
doctrine, the doctrine that says there are propositions (such as "there
is no such thing") which men ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence.
;Let me see if I
;understand your argument. It must be true that a magic invisible something
:may in reality exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence,
;because there is no proof there is no such thing?
:
;That argument sounds familiar.
No one is arguing that.
;Oh yes, here it is in Copi's logic textbook:
:
;---
:<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)
;---
Please attach the second paragraph from the quoted text and show how
Galileo show the theolog's arguments to be argument ad ignorantiam, and
do the same to that which you say is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 01:02:27 PM |
|
|
In article <IBnXa.59991$uu5.5102@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031907.34c5f1a8@posting.google.com...
As Virgil has already explained to you (but you have not seen fit to
answer), even if:
It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, ... that
that does not mean there is no such thing.
Somebody has to prove there is no such thing? Why? Let me see if I
understand your argument. It must be true that a magic invisible something
may in reality exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence,
because there is no proof there is no such thing?
That argument sounds familiar.
It should, Septic, you created it. it is entirely your own
inventions, made out of whole cloth.
A correct statement of what Septic has misstated might be:
"It might be true that a god might in reality
exist because there is no evidence against it.
Septic will try to misstate this somehow using MUST instead of
MIGHT, but there is no MUST in the agnostic statement, only in the
Septic statement.
Thus. if the word "must", or any equivalent, appears in Septic's
miswroding of the actual agnostic statement, it is entirely Septic's
statement and not attributable to anyone else.
Whether Septic beleives in his version is another matter, but no one
else is obligated to.
Snipped a quote from Copi which shows that a statement that only
Septic has ever made comes close to being a fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 10:50:58 PM |
|
|
In article <GuyXa.45637$Vt6.17142@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B4078E.12022704082003@[63.218.45.211]...
"It might be true that a god might in reality
exist because there is no evidence against it.
Argument _ad ignorantiam_, as shown by Copi:
Septic now claims "must" = "might", and that "absolutely convinced"
does not mean what it says, since "must" is what is necessary for
Copi&Cohen's definition to apply, but "might" is what occurs above.
Irrelevant parts of the quote deleted.
---
<quote>
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.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
03 Aug 2003 10:25:04 PM |
|
|
In article <tuaXa.39980$cF.13964@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course it matters. Those who have an absence of the theist belief
in the existence of gods can also have an absence of the antitheist
belief that there are no gods ...
That's not a belief (subjective conviction), it is a fact that there are
zero gawds in evidence, Mr. Dunce.
First, Septic is ignnoring that he has yet to prove the existence of
something called zero. Without such proof, we mast assess his
assertion as meaningless, and therefore not factual.
Second, the absence of something being "in evidence" is not proof of
its non-existence, only of its not being immediately present.
Tomorow's dawn is not, at this moment, in evidence, but one
seriously hopes that it will exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Dunce flunks Logic 101 |
04 Aug 2003 11:15:40 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-A2AB4B.21250403082003@[63.218.45.211]...
... the absence of something being "in evidence" is not proof of
its non-existence ...
No proof that a hypothetical thing does not exist is ever required,
knucklehead. You know why.
Right. Shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ingorantiam_).
---
<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)
---
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
