| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Matt B" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2006 06:57:56 AM |
| Object: |
Something that's been bugging me... |
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
Matt
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 02:07:09 PM |
|
|
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ga7s15hjjagj0eo0dfu7hdqd28cvqvoqu@4ax.com...
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
Troll
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt B" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 02:11:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:07:09 -0500, "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ga7s15hjjagj0eo0dfu7hdqd28cvqvoqu@4ax.com...
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
Troll
Not one bit.
Matt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 12:14:46 PM |
|
|
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ga7s15hjjagj0eo0dfu7hdqd28cvqvoqu@4ax.com...
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
In the case of theists, faith means absolute certainty, because someone who
says "there might be a god" is not considered to have faith in god.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
In the case of atheists, faith means uncertainty, because that's what you
have in the absence of knowledge. That's why we will likely use phrases like
"probably" and "most likely" when describing what underlies the existence of
the universe.
Why are you dishonestly trying to conflate the two?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt B" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 02:11:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:14:46 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ga7s15hjjagj0eo0dfu7hdqd28cvqvoqu@4ax.com...
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
In the case of theists, faith means absolute certainty, because someone who
says "there might be a god" is not considered to have faith in god.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
In the case of atheists, faith means uncertainty, because that's what you
have in the absence of knowledge. That's why we will likely use phrases like
"probably" and "most likely" when describing what underlies the existence of
the universe.
Why are you dishonestly trying to conflate the two?
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "MagicRub" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 02:58:17 PM |
|
|
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5c38s1peh2ssl5b6hmmu8i9ugiiv5ddg6i@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:14:46 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ga7s15hjjagj0eo0dfu7hdqd28cvqvoqu@4ax.com...
Religious people have faith in the idea of a god as creator of the
universe. It's a ridiculous notion, because it's wholly unsupported by
any evidence. Case closed.
In the case of theists, faith means absolute certainty, because someone
who
says "there might be a god" is not considered to have faith in god.
Many atheists (including me) believe that natural physical laws
underlie the existence of the universe. If there's no proof yet that
this is the case, isn't this an example of faith on the atheists'
part?
In the case of atheists, faith means uncertainty, because that's what you
have in the absence of knowledge. That's why we will likely use phrases
like
"probably" and "most likely" when describing what underlies the existence
of
the universe.
Why are you dishonestly trying to conflate the two?
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof solipsism is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt B" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
10 Jan 2006 04:34:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:58:17 -0800, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof solipsism is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
I don't follow. Can you explain please?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "MagicRub" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
11 Jan 2006 10:10:38 AM |
|
|
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k1d8s1p5j3jmrruplnmijh60kcacavpi6c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:58:17 -0800, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof solipsism
is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
I don't follow.
You can keep up with a little critical thinking can't you? Your hypothesis
that it might be the case that there are no other humans, you might be all
there is, just a brain in a vat "wired up to a simulator," is known as
solipsism syndrome, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_Syndrome
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
11 Jan 2006 12:24:38 PM |
|
|
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QZGdnZwaW_ZpsFjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k1d8s1p5j3jmrruplnmijh60kcacavpi6c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:58:17 -0800, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof solipsism
is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
I don't follow.
You can keep up with a little critical thinking can't you? Your hypothesis
that it might be the case that there are no other humans, you might be all
there is, just a brain in a vat "wired up to a simulator," is known as
solipsism syndrome, isn't it?
Yes, what isn't clear is why it's claimed to be an argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_Syndrome
As a matter of fact the Wikipedia article states that it cannot be
disproved, which it could be if it was an obvious logical fallacy.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "MagicRub" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
11 Jan 2006 01:20:36 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IKmdnZr1u89D0VjeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QZGdnZwaW_ZpsFjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k1d8s1p5j3jmrruplnmijh60kcacavpi6c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:58:17 -0800, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof solipsism
is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
I don't follow.
You can keep up with a little critical thinking can't you? Your
hypothesis that it might be the case that there are no other humans, you
might be all there is, just a brain in a vat "wired up to a simulator,"
is known as solipsism syndrome, isn't it?
Yes, what isn't clear is why it's claimed to be an argument from
ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_Syndrome
As a matter of fact the Wikipedia article states that it cannot be
disproved, which it could be if it was an obvious logical fallacy.
I think you will find that you are mistaken. The problem with it is that to
argue that it is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false (just like
theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God) is the logical
fallacy of argument from ignorance. That inherent illness of form is what
kills the argument for solipsism.
<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!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
11 Jan 2006 02:54:46 PM |
|
|
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eICdnZvNzbjhx1jeRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:IKmdnZr1u89D0VjeRVn-uQ@io.com...
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QZGdnZwaW_ZpsFjeRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k1d8s1p5j3jmrruplnmijh60kcacavpi6c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:58:17 -0800, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:
I'm not trying to 'dishonestly conflate' anything. The point of my
post was to get an answer to a question that was bothering me, and
the
responses to the question have all been excellent. Some really sound
reasoning there.
My definition of "faith" would be belief that is not based on any
empirical fact. As eaglessgame pointed out though, there is no clear
cut distinction between empirical fact and faith - which I suppose is
the way I was looking at it previously.
If we took the definition at face value, I suppose everything would
be
a matter of faith - from belief in god, to the fact that I believe
that I am writing this message in reply to another human being, to
the
fact that I actually exist and am not just a brain wired up to a
simulator.
Probably...
Matt
You can't legitimately argue as you do, that there is no proof
solipsism is
false. That is fallacy of argument from ignorance.
I don't follow.
You can keep up with a little critical thinking can't you? Your
hypothesis that it might be the case that there are no other humans, you
might be all there is, just a brain in a vat "wired up to a simulator,"
is known as solipsism syndrome, isn't it?
Yes, what isn't clear is why it's claimed to be an argument from
ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_Syndrome
As a matter of fact the Wikipedia article states that it cannot be
disproved, which it could be if it was an obvious logical fallacy.
I think you will find that you are mistaken. The problem with it is that
to argue that it is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false (just like
theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God) is the logical
fallacy of argument from ignorance. That inherent illness of form is what
kills the argument for solipsism.
No. If he was making an argument that we WERE wired up to a simulator and we
could not disprove it, then THAT would be an argument from ignorance.
But he's not, he's merely offering it as a possibility that cannot be
completely dismissed. And he's right.
<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!
Yes, they were making an argument that the crystalline substance was
actually there. That's why it's an argument from ignorance.
But to merely state a hypothesis that happens to not be falsifiable is not
argument from ignorance.
Besides, you said above that the argument from ignorance is a hypothesis
that cannot be proved wrong. But your example of crystal material filling
the valleys was proved wrong by moon landings. If you object that it was
unprovable *at the time,* then every scientific hypothesis yet to be tested
is an argument from ignorance since it has not been proved, and thus a
logical fallacy.
I don't think that untested scientific hypothesis are arguments from
ignorance.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
12 Jan 2006 09:35:31 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I don't think that untested scientific hypothesis are arguments from
ignorance.
But solipsism is not a scientific (empirical) theory, it is simply argument
from ignorance, the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can
prove false (just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no
God). That inherent illness of form is what kills the argument for
solipsism. Try it for yourself. Try to come up with any argument for
solipsism that does not entail argument from ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 12:32:47 AM |
|
|
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OqydncET5JKzvVreRVn-oA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I don't think that untested scientific hypothesis are arguments from
ignorance.
But solipsism is not a scientific (empirical) theory,
I never said it was. I specifically compared it to a hypothesis.
it is simply argument from ignorance,
Then scientific hypothesis are arguments form ignorance in your view.
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false
It is true that no one can prove it false.
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true for god descriptions that cannot be falsified. And
that's fine. What you CAN'T do, and what IS an argument from ignorance, is
claiming that the god (or brain in box scenario) is true BECAUSE you can't
prove it false.
That inherent illness of form is what kills the argument for solipsism.
No. Saying that solipsisim is a possible explanation for things is
completely valid. Stating that it IS the explanation for things BECAUSE you
can't disprove it is an argument from ignorance.
Try it for yourself. Try to come up with any argument for solipsism that
does not entail argument from ignorance.
Let's see...
Gravity is a possible explanation for the motion of planetary bodies.
Solipsism is a possible explanation for the motion of planetary bodies.
If one is not an argument from ignorance, then the other one isn't either.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 12:55:30 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Now you are starting to argue like a typical theist. Nobody can prove there
are no leprechauns, and nobody can prove there is no God, but that does not
alter the fact that it is argument from ignorance to argue that there is no
proof one's hypothesis is false. That is textbook logical fallacy for which
theists have been famous for hundreds of years:
<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!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of
crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove
false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 01:26:59 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
I stand corrected.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 02:53:45 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for God, Goober, it's
logical fallacy. Why don't you just relax and try to absorb some of what I
am telling you about the logic that governs this situation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 05:39:57 PM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nfadnYonKYnbjlXeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for God, Goober, it's
logical fallacy.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but that's not what I did. You don't even
know what an ad hom is, do you?
Did I say your argument was wrong BECAUSE you are a fucking idiot? No. So no
ad hom was presented.
Why don't you just relax and try to absorb some of what I am telling you
about the logic that governs this situation?
But you've already demonstrated that you are willing to lie in order to
further your arguments.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 06:14:24 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:866dnacqVbbUp1XenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nfadnYonKYnbjlXeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for God, Goober, it's
logical fallacy.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but that's not what I did.
Sure you did. See above. Look for the term, 'fucking idiot'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 03:13:44 AM |
|
|
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xv6dnTRTcNvW31XenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:866dnacqVbbUp1XenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nfadnYonKYnbjlXeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for God, Goober,
it's logical fallacy.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but that's not what I did.
Sure you did. See above. Look for the term, 'fucking idiot'.
Oh sure! I called you a fucking idiot because you're a fucking idiot. I did
not say your argument was invalid BECAUSE you're a fucking idiot.
So it wasn't an ad hom, it was just an observation.
It seems that others performing the same experiment have made the same
observation.
So the hypothesis that you're a fucking idiot has passed several tests. So
much so that I now feel safe in making predictions based on the hypothesis.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 02:46:34 AM |
|
|
In article <Xv6dnTRTcNvW31XenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:866dnacqVbbUp1XenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@io.com...
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nfadnYonKYnbjlXeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case for God, Goober, it's
logical fallacy.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but that's not what I did.
Sure you did. See above. Look for the term, 'fucking idiot'.
On the contrary, the statement cited does not call Septic a "fucking
idiot".
Though his misreading of it may show him to be one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 04:06:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:26:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
I stand corrected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 06:10:29 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:329gs15dl1dc5tov6hkj6838l8qjdfenhk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:26:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove
false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 02:44:24 AM |
|
|
In article <deidnRtKicv83FXeRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
Atheists can argue ad hominem. Look at all the times Septic has misnamed
good atheists as theists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 08:39:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:44:24 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <deidnRtKicv83FXeRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
Atheists can argue ad hominem. Look at all the times Septic has misnamed
good atheists as theists.
That's septic. But sometimes strong atheists who have fallen for
theist redefinitions, false trichotomy etc get mistaken for theists.
I'm pretty certain septic isn't atheist. The flaws in his argument are
so transparent even the most brainwashed fundy can see through them.
He is a theist pretending, to make atheists look stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
13 Jan 2006 08:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:10:29 -0800, "Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
- Refer: <deidnRtKicv83FXeRVn-sg@comcast.com>
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:329gs15dl1dc5tov6hkj6838l8qjdfenhk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:26:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove
false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
What's that got to do with being able to spot an idiot, and then point
out that observation?
Aren't atheists allowed to perform this essential social task?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 12:26:22 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:0rngs1p4lq0s1rhloq5uskcjege0q45ks0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:10:29 -0800, "Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
- Refer: <deidnRtKicv83FXeRVn-sg@comcast.com>
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:329gs15dl1dc5tov6hkj6838l8qjdfenhk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:26:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove
false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
What's that got to do with being able to spot an idiot, and then point
out that observation?
Calling me an idiot is just silly argument _ad hominem_, and I think you and
Denis know that.
Denis just doesn't like me pointing out the holes in his arguments.
Argument _ad hominem_ like that is just another form of trying to change the
subject, trying to create a diversion. You are familiar with these
principles of valid argument, aren't you?
"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: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 03:33:32 AM |
|
|
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:IImdndXp2Y4MBFXeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:0rngs1p4lq0s1rhloq5uskcjege0q45ks0@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:10:29 -0800, "Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
- Refer: <deidnRtKicv83FXeRVn-sg@comcast.com>
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:329gs15dl1dc5tov6hkj6838l8qjdfenhk@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:26:59 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2NmdnY_DksN_0lreRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote
it is simply argument from ignorance,
the argument that solipsism is an hypothesis that nobody can prove
false
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true
Ah, now you are dishonestly issuing partial quotes out of context.
I had previously thought you were just a fucking idiot who at least
displayed some integrity and actually believed his own arguments. Now I
see
that you are just a dishonest fucking idiot with no integrity.
It took you this long?
You are going along with Denis Loubet's silly argument _ad hominem_? I
thought you were atheist.
What's that got to do with being able to spot an idiot, and then point
out that observation?
Calling me an idiot is just silly argument _ad hominem_, and I think you
and Denis know that.
No. I did not attack your position by calling you a fucking idiot. Read the
link you supplied below: "The argument attacks a position by appealing to
the despicable qualities, moral turpitude, and over-all lowness and meanness
of the people who hold the position."
I did not attack your position. I simply pointed out your dispicable
qualities.
Denis just doesn't like me pointing out the holes in his arguments.
You like flinging the names of logical fallacies around in a random and
arbitrary manner.
Like the argument from ignorance. I quote your link below: The argument
mistakes lack of evidence for evidence to the contrary. In effect, the
argument says, "No one knows it is true. Therefore it is false."
Thus "You can't disprove solipsism" is NOT an argument from ignorance, but
"You can't disprove solipsism, therefore it's true" IS an argument from
ignorance.
Argument _ad hominem_ like that is just another form of trying to change
the subject, trying to create a diversion. You are familiar with these
principles of valid argument, aren't you?
Are you? "The argument attacks a position by appealing to the despicable
qualities, moral turpitude, and over-all lowness and meanness of the people
who hold the position."
I didn't attack your position. I simply observed that you're a fucking
idiot.
"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
You might try reading that link sometime.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 02:51:11 AM |
|
|
In article <IImdndXp2Y4MBFXeRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote:
Calling me an idiot is just silly argument _ad hominem_, and I think you and
Denis know that.
That depends on whether the argument was aimed at the person so labeled
or was between others with the targeted peson irrelevant.
Since Septic, aka "Bullet" is always irrelevant, ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt B" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 05:39:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:32:47 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OqydncET5JKzvVreRVn-oA@comcast.com...
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true for god descriptions that cannot be falsified. And
that's fine. What you CAN'T do, and what IS an argument from ignorance, is
claiming that the god (or brain in box scenario) is true BECAUSE you can't
prove it false.
Apologies for my late follow-up to this thread, but university exams
have consumed my time for the past week. Good to see that it has
generated some interesting debate though!
Denis, yes I think this is an important distinction. There is a big
difference between saying that you cannot disprove something and
saying that you cannot disprove something, and therefore it must be
true. The former is an argument for weak atheism and the latter an
argument for theism isn't it?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
14 Jan 2006 06:11:00 PM |
|
|
"Matt B" <mattb333@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:062js11a75c3gsdse4ebbfeaeml3804clt@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:32:47 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Bullet" <bullet@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OqydncET5JKzvVreRVn-oA@comcast.com...
(just like theists arguing that nobody can prove there is no God).
That statement is true for god descriptions that cannot be falsified. And
that's fine. What you CAN'T do, and what IS an argument from ignorance, is
claiming that the god (or brain in box scenario) is true BECAUSE you can't
prove it false.
Apologies for my late follow-up to this thread, but university exams
have consumed my time for the past week. Good to see that it has
generated some interesting debate though!
Denis, yes I think this is an important distinction. There is a big
difference between saying that you cannot disprove something and
saying that you cannot disprove something, and therefore it must be
true. The former is an argument for weak atheism and the latter an
argument for theism isn't it?
Pretty much! :-)
But don't tell that to Bullet, or whatever the hell he calls himself. (I'm
sure you can tell that just from reading one or two posts of his. Yikes!)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Something that's been bugging me... |
11 Jan 2006 07:28:44 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote in message
<snip>
I don't think that untested scientific hypothesis are arguments from
ignorance.
Hi Denis, MagicRub is Skeptic (AKA OS XI etc)
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
