| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Goldhammer" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2004 09:26:13 PM |
| Object: |
Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
This is an updated list of identities
used by the troll Donald R. Alford,
of Bellingham, WA, BNSF ex-trainman,
UTU Local 1024, (360) 733-6496, otherwise
known as Skeptic, Septic, etc.
Septic, 1995 - 2004
"ABC" <abc@hotmail.com>
Ace (dralford@pacificrim.net)
"Al" <arc@nospam.com>
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com>
"Arn" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arno" <arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arnold" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art" <art300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art2" <art2300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"B. Corporeal" <bcorp392@hotmail.com>
"B. Corporel" <bcorp39874@hotmail.com>
"Ben" <someone @microsoft.com>
"Bill Gates" <billg@microsaused.com>
bfskinner@my-deja.com
"Bo Hica" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Bob D." <bobd2004@comcast.com>
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
"Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
muddyboggs@hotmail.com (Boggs)
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net>
"C. Tailor" <ct98229@hotmail.com>
"Creon" <douglacia@nospamathome.com>
"D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com>
"D R" <nospam@please.com>
D_R_Alford,dralford-pacificrim.net@carletonbe.ottawa.on.ca
(D R Alford,dralford@pacificrim.net)
"***** Dragon" <Matt-Sweetman-Is-A-Fraud@alloverthe.net>
"***** Dragon" <nospam@all.net>
Diesel <abuse-mail@uu.net>
DRAlford@gnn.com (Donald R. Alford)
"Donald Alford" <donald_alford@email.msn.com>
Donald Alford <dralford@pacificrim.net>
"Donald Alford" <y3kSPAM@uswest.net>
DR Feelgood <drfeelgood3000@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
"Dr. Sister" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sister" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
dtrout@wolfe.net.com (Fish)
"Duck" <quacker@webfoot.net>
"Fish" (David B. Trout) <fish@infidels.invalid>
"Frazier" <fraz@stones.com>
"Fred" <someone@amazon.com>
"Fred Skinner" <nospam@all.all>
"Fred Skinner" <y3k@NOSPAMuswest.net>
"Frisbyterian" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Frisbyterian Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Gawud" <dad@home.com>
"Hans" <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Hans Van M." <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Ho Hum" <hohum@weareallone.net>
"Ho Hum" <nospam@forme.please>
Hum <hohum2001@my-deja.com>
"Huxley" <someone@microsoft.com>
"Hy" <hrh@hrh.net>
"I M Notajoiner" <nospam@all.atall>
"Ima Skeptic Too" <Dad@home.com>
int@hotmail.com
"John McTavish" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"JR1" <jr1@jr.com>
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com>
"JR3" <jr3@jr.com>
"KB" <kb@hotmail.com>
"KBC" <kbc@westlink.cop>
"Krait Bungarus Caeruleus" <kbc@wesltink.com>
"Mac" <mac@mac.com>
"Mac Intosh" <macint@mac.com>
"McSweeny" <mcs@hootmon.com>
"Mekkala's Alleged \"Blithering Fucking Idiot\"" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Muddy Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
Navigator <nav@nospam.com>
navigator3001@hotmail.com (Navigator)
"Nick" <nospam@all.all>
"Oil-O-Matic" <aikin@nospam.com>
"one" <one@world.net>
"Otto" <ottumwa3001@hotmailt.com>
"Page Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Paige Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
PBJ <pbj@nospam.com>
"PsychStudent" <psychstudent@earth.net>
"Proulx" <pru@az.net>
"Ray" <ray@hotmail.com>
"Rhode Island Red" <rirrooster2000@hotmail.com>
"Roger Bush" <roger@bush.com>
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster)
"Romeo" <romeo@shakespear.net>
"Rooster" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Rooster" <nospam@all.all>
"Rooster" <rooster@hotmail.com>
"Salmon Loaf" <sal097236@hotmail.com>
"Sam Spade" <sspade@hotmail.com>
"Shleptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uu.net>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <Dad@home.com>
"Skeptic" <nospam@all.all>
"Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Skeptic Schemeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Smith" <nospam@all.all>
"Spike Nail" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Stanley Leverlock" <stan@nospam.com>
"Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever" <stan@nospam.com>
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
"T. Jefferson" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"The Theeeenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Theenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Thinkerator" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Threeball Hall" <hall31728@hotmail.com>
Tim <tim3000@nospam.com>
toadfrog3001@hotmail.com (Todd Field)
"Tom Wetsuit" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Vital Basics" <vb32987@hotmail.com>
"Whitey" <tonyb@hotmail.com>
"Whosya Daddy" <Dad@home.com>
"Wolf Blister" <wolf@uunet.com>
oilomatic@hotmail.com (Y3K)
"Y3K" <y3k@hotmail.com>
"Yoda" <yoda@hotmail.com>
.
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 07:01:39 PM |
|
|
Arvin, the title of this, "Skeptic: 1995 - 2004" looks like something
written on a tombstone. Are you assuming that 2004 will be the final
year in the life of Skeptic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 11:32:12 PM |
|
|
In article <S%cZb.355530$xy6.1820007@attbi_s02>,
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Arvin, the title of this, "Skeptic: 1995 - 2004" looks like something
written on a tombstone. Are you assuming that 2004 will be the final
year in the life of Skeptic?
One hopes it may be the last year of his intransigent dishonesty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 04:38:06 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Arvin, the title of this, "Skeptic: 1995 - 2004"
looks like something written on a tombstone. Are
you assuming that 2004 will be the final year in
the life of Skeptic?
Why, are you going to claim then that he threatened
you, and turn him in to his ISP, you little weasel?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 01:03:25 AM |
|
|
Goldhammer wrote:
This is an updated list of identities ...
<snip>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.99.201.163
X-Complaints-To:
Copy of your message has been sent to Sprint Canada.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Austin Cline" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 06:40:58 AM |
|
|
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<17EYb.350106$na.519098@attbi_s04>...
Copy of your message has been sent to Sprint Canada.
What's the matter, Septic? Aren't you proud of all that you have done?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 10:59:56 AM |
|
|
"Austin Cline" <pioneer@infidels.org> wrote in message
news:b688ddac.0402180440.756f9939@posting.google.com...
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:<17EYb.350106$na.519098@attbi_s04>...
Copy of your message has been sent to Sprint Canada.
What's the matter, Septic? Aren't you proud of all that you have done?
Have I done anything to be ashamed of? Is it wrong to point out the
principles of valid argument (logic) when people are ignoring them? Is it
wrong to disagree with you concerning what characterizes agnosticism?
This is not about anything I have done, it is about what this group of
stalkers, Sinister, Snipper, Richardson, (now you?), et al, has done.
Are you proud to make yourself a party to this, perhaps the most elaborate
of arguments _ad hominem_ in the history of Usenet? Are you proud to have
aided and abetted Sniper, Richardson, Sinister, et al, in perpetrating it?
You should know better, being the person in charge of an About dot com
website, shouldn't you, sir?
Copy of your message sent to About dot com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Austin Cline" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 05:26:46 PM |
|
|
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<gSMYb.5880$4o.27446@attbi_s52>...
Have I done anything to be ashamed of?
If not, then you should be happy for people to know the different
names you have posted under. Why let all the credit go to someone else
- stand up and be counted... over and over and over again. Be proud of
all that you have written!
You should know better, being the person in charge of an About dot com
website, shouldn't you, sir?
I know better than to post under multiple names, changing identities
on a regular basis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 06:34:11 PM |
|
|
Austin Cline wrote:
What's the matter, Septic? Aren't you proud of all that you have done?
Have I done anything to be ashamed of?
If not, then you should be happy for people to know the different
names you have posted under.
That's not the issue, and you know it. I am overjoyed that people
recognize me simply by the way in which I ask questions concerning their
cherished beliefs, just as you recognized me from the way I have
questioned your misunderstanding of what characterizes agnosticism, right?
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of? If so, please explain.
8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Austin Cline" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 09:03:09 AM |
|
|
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<7wTYb.348905$xy6.1736164@attbi_s02>...
I am overjoyed that people recognize me
Strange that you keep changing names...
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of? If so, please explain.
I didn't say you had anything to be ashamed of. I simply wondered why
you would object to someone posting all of your various identities if
you weren't proud of everything your wrote under all of your various
aliases. If you are proud of what you have written, you should be
overjoyed at the fact that everyone will know exactly who wrote all of
that material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 11:12:26 AM |
|
|
Austin Cline wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<7wTYb.348905$xy6.1736164@attbi_s02>...
I am overjoyed that people recognize me
Strange that you keep changing names...
Not when you consider that he's been killfiled almost
as often as he's been called invincibly ignorant. The
other reason is, when he thinks that he's getting his
***** kicked, he brings in a sock puppet for support.:)
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of? If so, please explain.
I didn't say you had anything to be ashamed of. I simply wondered why
you would object to someone posting all of your various identities if
you weren't proud of everything your wrote under all of your various
aliases. If you are proud of what you have written, you should be
overjoyed at the fact that everyone will know exactly who wrote all of
that material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 10:56:42 AM |
|
|
Austin Cline wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<7wTYb.348905$xy6.1736164@attbi_s02>...
I am overjoyed that people recognize me
Strange that you keep changing names...
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of? If so, please explain.
I didn't say you had anything to be ashamed of. I simply wondered why
you would object to someone posting all of your various identities ...
I don't object to that. What I am taking exception to is the logical
fallacy of diversion away from the issue genuinely under discussion in a
particular thread, say "Non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove"
for example. (This thread was created as a diversion from that one, in
an attempt to make me go away. It isn't working. I am still here.)
Argument _ad hominem_ is just one member of this family of logical
fallacies:
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Austin Cline" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 07:16:11 AM |
|
|
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<eV5Zb.345894$I06.3637460@attbi_s01>...
Austin Cline wrote:
What I am taking exception to is the logical
fallacy of diversion away from the issue genuinely under discussion in a
particular thread...
If this were being posted in such a "particular thread," then you
might have a case. Ad hominem arguments aren't fallacies in every
instance, but it would be legitimate to at least try and note "who I
am is irrelevant to the point at hand."
That, however, isn't the case here. In this case, we have a completely
independent thread drawing attention to all of the names under which
you have posted. Unless you object to people knowing the names under
which you have posted, I simply don't see what the problem is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 04:37:01 PM |
|
|
"Austin Cline" <pioneer@infidels.org> wrote in message
news:b688ddac.0402200516.363f4d1@posting.google.com...
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:<eV5Zb.345894$I06.3637460@attbi_s01>...
Austin Cline wrote:
What I am taking exception to is the logical
fallacy of diversion away from the issue genuinely under discussion in a
particular thread...
[unsnip]
.... say "Non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove"
for example. (This thread was created as a diversion from that one, in
an attempt to make me go away. It isn't working. I am still here.)
Argument _ad hominem_ is just one member of this family of logical
fallacies:
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 11:17:05 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Austin Cline wrote:
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote in message news:<7wTYb.348905$xy6.1736164@attbi_s02>...
I am overjoyed that people recognize me
Strange that you keep changing names...
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of? If so, please explain.
I didn't say you had anything to be ashamed of. I simply wondered why
you would object to someone posting all of your various identities ...
I don't object to that. What I am taking exception to is the logical
fallacy of diversion away from the issue genuinely under discussion in a
particular thread,
A diversion from what, you fucking imbecile? Your
(so-called) arguments had been refuted, defeated,
& destroyed more times than you've changed names.
say "Non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove"
for example. (This thread was created as a diversion from that one, in
an attempt to make me go away. It isn't working. I am still here.)
Argument _ad hominem_ is just one member of this family of logical
fallacies:
Calling a fucking imbecile a fucking imbecile is
not ad hom. In laymens terms, a spade's a spade.
"The Fallacies of Diversion :...
[snip cut and paste, argumentum ad nauseam]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
18 Feb 2004 10:19:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:34:11 GMT, Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Austin Cline wrote:
What's the matter, Septic? Aren't you proud of all that you have done?
Have I done anything to be ashamed of?
If not, then you should be happy for people to know the different
names you have posted under.
That's not the issue, and you know it. I am overjoyed that people
recognize me simply by the way in which I ask questions concerning their
cherished beliefs, just as you recognized me from the way I have
questioned your misunderstanding of what characterizes agnosticism, right?
We recognize you as an obsessive nitwit who keeps harping on the same
points even after years of everyone else explaining to you why you're
wrong about them.
Now how about an answer to the question above: Have I done anything to
be ashamed of?
Plenty. You consistently and dishonestly selectively snip your
opponents arguments to change their meaning entirely; you seem
incapable of correcting yourself even when it's pointed out in
painstaking detail exactly why you're wrong; you've changed handles to
avoid killfiles over 100 times by Goldhammer's count; you accuse
anyone who disagrees with your misunderstandings of logic of being a
theist; you constantly regurgitate the same misunderstood quotes that
neither mean what you think they mean nor support your position...
shall I go on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 06:57:15 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
... you accuse
anyone who disagrees with your misunderstandings of logic of being a
theist ...
That's not true. All I have done is point out that anyone who agrees
with the theists, as you and Steven Snyder and company do, that a magic
invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing,
not even anything remotely resembling any such thing, in evidence is
theist, since that is what characterizes theism. If you walk like a duck
and quack like a duck then odds are you are a duck.
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 11:30:29 PM |
|
|
In article <LXcZb.355502$xy6.1819719@attbi_s02>,
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
... you accuse
anyone who disagrees with your misunderstandings of logic of being a
theist ...
That's not true. All I have done is point out that anyone who agrees
with the theists, as you and Steven Snyder and company do, that a magic
invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing,
not even anything remotely resembling any such thing, in evidence is
theist, since that is what characterizes theism. If you walk like a duck
and quack like a duck then odds are you are a duck.
One of your major lies, which appears in the patheic misrepresentation
of facts above, is that if one agrees with deists on any point, one must
agree with them on all points.
There are those, like Thomas Huxley, who invented the word "agnostic",
who find your form of militant anti-deism more offensive that the
offices of the Inquisition.
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong, again. It is simple logic. The only thing that can establish any
claim is a successful argument in support of it.
Septic would have you believe that one ought to accept without proof
that "It is a fact that there are no gods". A claim that he has made
many times under many aliases.
Honest agnostics, of which group Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is not
one, do not accept anything as fact without supporting evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
19 Feb 2004 11:57:54 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <LXcZb.355502$xy6.1819719@attbi_s02>,
Navigator, aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arno,
aka Art, aka Rooster, aka Yoda <nav@nav.com> wrote:
[snip]
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong, again. It is simple logic. The only thing that can establish any
claim is a successful argument in support of it.
AaI is claiming something must be true because it
hasn't been proven false, or, claiming it must be
false because it hasn't been proven true. Stating
that something may be true because it hasn't been
proven false is not only _not_ a logical fallacy,
it's stating the obvious. Septic's an imbecile, &
a liar to boot. That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods", as the Septic ***** has you
believe. It was made in response to him claiming:
"It is a fact that the alleged GodŽ is imaginary,
and nothing more", to which Geoff correctly said:
"The only thing that can establish that a claim's
false is a successful argument that it is false."
Septic knows very well that's what occured, we've
been down this road before, & I posted citations.
A simple Google search will yield the facts here.
Septic would have you believe that one ought to accept without proof
that "It is a fact that there are no gods". A claim that he has made
many times under many aliases.
Honest agnostics, of which group Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is not
one, do not accept anything as fact without supporting evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 01:17:10 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigator:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
... That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods"...
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 01:44:21 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
... That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods"...
What do you think we were discussing....
I just told you, and you snipped it, weasel.
[unsnip]:
AaI is claiming something must be true because it
hasn't been proven false, or, claiming it must be
false because it hasn't been proven true. Stating
that something may be true because it hasn't been
proven false is not only _not_ a logical fallacy,
it's stating the obvious. Septic's an imbecile, &
a liar to boot. That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods", as the Septic ***** has you
believe. It was made in response to him claiming:
"It is a fact that the alleged GodŽ is imaginary,
and nothing more", to which Geoff correctly said:
"The only thing that can establish that a claim's
false is a successful argument that it is false."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 04:55:07 PM |
|
|
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:4035BAD5.CED6B237@gotcha.com...
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When
we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist,
he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS
A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
... That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods"...
What do you think we were discussing....
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 05:14:53 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:4035BAD5.CED6B237@gotcha.com...
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When
we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist,
he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS
A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
... That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods"...
What do you think we were discussing....
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think...
I think you're a fucking imbecile, even on one
of your better days.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 06:55:42 PM |
|
|
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:403694ED.ADBFA2E6@gotcha.com...
Navigator wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote in message
news:4035BAD5.CED6B237@gotcha.com...
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove.
When
we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might
exist,
he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE
IS
A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
... That statement wasn't made as "an
argument for gods"...
What do you think we were discussing....
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think...
I think you're a fucking imbecile, even on one
of your better days.
[snip]
So Snipper's love affair with argument _ad hominem_ continues.
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 12:41:27 AM |
|
|
In article <i0yZb.90030$jk2.436074@attbi_s53>,
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
It is a valid argument, whoever might use it.
No one has a monopoly on the use of valid arguments. Even the most
ardent of theists admits that indirectly in
"The devil can quote scripture for his own use."
But no one has ever accused you of being as logical as those you oppose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
20 Feb 2004 07:12:57 PM |
|
|
Navigator, aka Art, aka Arn, aka Arno, aka Muddy Boggs,
aka Yoda, aka Rooster, aka Roger Bush, aka Bill Gates,
aka Todd Wetsuit, aka Dr. Sister, aka The Theenker, aka
Ho Hum, aka Hum, aka ***** Dragon, aka Todd Fields, aka
T. Jefferson, aka Skeptic, aka Lying Fucking ***** wrote:
"THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE
IS A SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven
true. Stating that something may be true (or) may be
false isn't a logical fallacy. It has been explained
to you more times than you've changed your names, so
why do you idiotically keep rehashing the same crap?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 10:13:57 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false ...
The theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ is that everyone ought to believe
it is true that an invisible god might exist anyway, even though there
is no such thing, not even anything remotely resembling any such of a
thing, in evidence, because they argue _ad ignorantiam_, "THE ONLY THING
THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT
IT IS FALSE!!"
That's just a not-too-cleverly-disguised theist attempt to shifting the
burden of proof, but that won't work, since the non-believers have
nothing (no thing) to prove, do they sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 04:37:26 PM |
|
|
In article <9tLZb.236653$U%5.1498247@attbi_s03>,
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false ...
The theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ is that everyone ought to believe
it is true that an invisible god might exist anyway,
No theist has ever argued that "an invisible god might exist anyway".
To attribute such an argument to theism is a flat out LIE.
Firstly, a minor point: a theist might describe his god as unseen, but
that does not mean invisible.
Secondly, a major point: theists argue that their god "must" exist, and
would universally reject "might".
Thirdly, also a major point, theists argue for the existence of their
gods on the basis of what they regard as positive evidence, not merely
the absence of negative evidence.
Thus Simple Capon, the Septic Pimple, lies on three levels in one false
claim.
even though there
is no such thing, in evidence, because they argue _ad ignorantiam_, "THE ONLY THING
THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT
IT IS FALSE!!"
If Simple Capon, the Septic Pimple, rejects that statement then Simple
Capon, the Septic Pimple, must be arguing that there are claims that can
be PROVED false without the aid of evidence.
That's just a not-too-cleverly-disguised theist
That very statement is a central part of the agnostic coda as
promulgated by Thomas Huxley. So is Simple Capon, the Septic Pimple, now
claiming now that Huxley is a theist?
Attempt to shifting the
burden of proof, but that won't work, since the non-believers have
nothing (no thing) to prove, do they sir?
You believe that it is a fact that there are no gods, and you have
stated that belief frequently, and you have tried to promulgate that
belief. So you cannot hide behind your customary false facade of mere
non-belief.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Septic" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 10:39:42 AM |
|
|
Navigator, aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arno, aka Art,
aka Yoda, aka Rooster, aka Roger Bush, aka Donald Alford wrote:
Sniper wrote:
"THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false ...
The theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ is that everyone ought to
believe it is true that an invisible god might exist anyway...
That statement didn't make that plea, it simply stated
the obvious. Snipping a reply won't make it disappear:
[unsnip]:
:Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
:claims something must be true because it hasn't been
:proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven
:true. Stating that something may be true (or) may be
:false isn't a logical fallacy. It has been explained
:to you more times than you've changed your names, so
:why do you idiotically keep rehashing the same crap?
Tell you what, Septic. Find a reference in a textbook
of informal logic that says saying something might be
true if it hasn't been proven false is a an "Argument
to Ignorance"? Then after failing in that, try giving
a citation of me saying an invisiable god might exist
anyway? Then after failing at that go ***** up a rope.
-------------------------------------------------------
:Paul King: Up to now I've pretty much left the Twit
:list alone but now I've found a candidate who is
:eminently worthy for his invincible ignorance I am
:forced to nominate "Skeptic" for retaining his bizarre
:ideas concerning logic despite citing sources that
:clearly contradict him and his demonstrated inability
:to construct a valid logical argument.
:Mark Richardson: Do we think a charge of "invincible
:ignorance" is now warranted for Skeptic? You are
:completely insane.
:Maky: i have seen various opponents (and my self)
:correct errors and mis-understandings through
:discussions here, but not septic. that dude will
:die dumb. believe me, after close to two years of
:arguing with the *****, i am quite aware that he
:is dumb to the core.
:Niall McAuley: Therefore we can conclude that Skeptic
:is the stupidest person alive. Skeptic has a variety
:of the same illness which afflicts bleaters. He knows
:his conclusion is true, so any argument which seems to
:support his conclusion looks good to him, no matter
:how full of holes the argument is.
:Kronk: Skeptic is truly quite fascinating. A mode
:of thought governed by rules accepted on the basis
:of their authority sources, selectively exempted
:according to personal preference, and dogmatically
:defended against all sense and reason.
:Alex Hunsley: Skeptic is actually one of the only
:posters I've ever seen in alt.atheism who passes the
:UnTuring Test - i.e. the postings appear to be computer
:generated, but are probably written by a human. The
:UnTuring test is one of the cornerstones of AS
:(Artificial Stupidity), for which Skeptic is our best
:model currently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 03:49:33 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false ...
The theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ is that everyone ought to believe
it is true that an invisible god might exist anyway, even though there
is no such thing, not even anything remotely resembling any such of a
thing, in evidence, because they argue _ad ignorantiam_, "THE ONLY THING
THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT
IT IS FALSE!!"
That's just a not-too-cleverly-disguised theist attempt to shifting the
burden of proof, but that won't work, since the non-believers have
nothing (no thing) to prove, do they sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptic: 1995 - 2004 |
21 Feb 2004 08:39:55 PM |
|
|
In article <MnQZb.362731$I06.3797849@attbi_s01>,
Navigator <nav@nav.com> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
[unsnip]
What do you think we were discussing, the alleged existence of chopped
liver, sir?
Sniper even insists that non-believers have something to prove. When we
were discussing the theist claim that an invisible god might exist, he
shouted, "THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's a standard theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, right?
Wrong! It is a basic principle of agosticism that the only way to
establish that a claim is true OR FALSE is by solid evidence supporting
that result. Septic has produced no such evidence and now tries to
weasel out of his responsibilty to provide it, by saying, without
evidence, "I'm always right until you prove me wrong!"
Wrong. An argument to ignorance occurs when somebody
claims something must be true because it hasn't been
proven false ...
The theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ is that everyone ought to believe
it is true that an invisible god might exist anyway,
Septic Pimple claims that theists standardly argue something that no
theist has ever argued. Thus the Simple Pimple is a simple liar along
with all his other faults.
even though there is no such thing,
Claimed without evidence.
"THE ONLY THING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE IS A
SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS FALSE!!"
That's just a not-too-cleverly-disguised theist attempt to shifting the
burden of proof, but that won't work, since the non-believers have
nothing (no thing) to prove, do they sir?
If you are trying to claim that you believe in nothing, you are
forsworn. You have many times claimed that "it is a fact that there are
no gods". Do you now claim not to believe that?
Unless you deny it, you must prove it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Skeptic: 1995 - 2004
1995 #4 Religious test ban
1995 #3 Comment from another books bible reading publishing
1995 #2 Churched, Bible, Books published, books read
1995 #1 Bible only book in colonial America
When descriptions from ancient texts are compared to the imagery and content from the 1995 produced Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom it is found that there is an exact match of pictures and information.
When descriptions from ancient texts are compared to the imagery and content from the 1995 produced Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom it is found that there is an exact match of pictures and information.
1995 #3 Bible books readign etc
| Excerpts: The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: Heather Whitestone 1995 Miss America.
Moderates, Liberals, Democrats, and Kerry in 2004.
Re: 'GOP Will Make Gay People and their Relationships the Willie Hortons of 2004'
ATJ 2004: THE NEW ERA - out with the old, in with the new
OT: Aides Say Bush Is Already Absorbed in 2004 Race
Re: *** Post of the Month for April 2004: Vote Now! ***
|
|
|
