| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 10:33:11 PM |
| Object: |
Theophobia |
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 02:55:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:29:15 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Scotmc wrote:
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God ...
"There is no God" is not an assertion (statement standing in need of proof),
moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial, as you know very well, so you might as well give up
trying:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Interesting. So stating "There is no God" is not asserting something?
William
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 the assertion is
true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 05:18:14 PM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
04 Apr 2005 06:31:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
He imagines that his view of "God" applies to everybody.
He is incapable of grasping that the word "God" doesn't mean the same
thing to people outside his religion (not just atheists) that it means
to him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 07:51:53 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 03:06:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 06:48:53 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd55rh1.s60.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
ScotMc wrote:
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
So you seem to be saying that "assertion" is a generic umbrella
term covers "falsifiable conclusions" and "wild-assed guesses".
And you claim "falsifiable conclusions" have some "special integrity".
Frankly the I don't care about your "special integrity" of anything you say.
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" and I think it is wrong then I'm
going to tell you that I think it is wrong.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I think it is wrong then I'm going
to tell you that I think it is wrong.
Moreover, if you say "I, Steve Mading, believe X is true" then I will take
that as an assertion of X. I would treat your statement "I, Steve
Mading, have reached the falsifiable conclusion that X is true" the
same way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 10:30:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:48:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd55rh1.s60.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
ScotMc wrote:
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
So you seem to be saying that "assertion" is a generic umbrella
term covers "falsifiable conclusions" and "wild-assed guesses".
Yes. That's why it's wrong to try to throw away the distinction
between assertions in gerneral (which includes a lot of irrational
fallicious thinking) and the specific kind of assertion you called
a "falsifiable conclusion" (really a falsifiable hypothesis is the
right word for it) which is perfectly rational, and the ONLY WAY
anyone can ever come to the statement that some hypothetical
thing doesn't exist. The only way to get there is to start there
by default.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 05:29:55 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd56lhp.t3h.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:48:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd55rh1.s60.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
ScotMc wrote:
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
So you seem to be saying that "assertion" is a generic umbrella
term covers "falsifiable conclusions" and "wild-assed guesses".
Yes. That's why it's wrong to try to throw away the distinction
between assertions in gerneral (which includes a lot of irrational
fallicious thinking) and the specific kind of assertion you called
a "falsifiable conclusion" (really a falsifiable hypothesis is the
right word for it) which is perfectly rational, and the ONLY WAY
anyone can ever come to the statement that some hypothetical
thing doesn't exist. The only way to get there is to start there
by default.
Frankly the I don't care about any distinction between assertions in
general.
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" (Christopher Lee's term) and
I think it is wrong then I'm going to tell you that I think it is wrong.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I think it is wrong then I'm going
to tell you that I think it is wrong.
Moreover, if you say "I, Steve Mading, believe X is true" then I will take
that as an assertion of X. I would treat your statement "I, Steve
Mading, have reached the falsifiable conclusion that X is true" the
same way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 06:41:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:29:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd56lhp.t3h.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:48:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote: >>> >>>"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message >>>news:slrnd55rh1.s60.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu... >>>
ScotMc wrote:
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
So you seem to be saying that "assertion" is a generic umbrella
term covers "falsifiable conclusions" and "wild-assed guesses".
Yes. That's why it's wrong to try to throw away the distinction
between assertions in gerneral (which includes a lot of irrational
fallicious thinking) and the specific kind of assertion you called
a "falsifiable conclusion" (really a falsifiable hypothesis is the
right word for it) which is perfectly rational, and the ONLY WAY
anyone can ever come to the statement that some hypothetical
thing doesn't exist. The only way to get there is to start there
by default.
Frankly the I don't care about any distinction between assertions in
general.
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" (Christopher Lee's term) and
I think it is wrong then I'm going to tell you that I think it is wrong.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I think it is wrong then I'm going
to tell you that I think it is wrong.
Moreover, if you say "I, Steve Mading, believe X is true" then I will take
that as an assertion of X. I would treat your statement "I, Steve
Mading, have reached the falsifiable conclusion that X is true" the
same way.
Then you are being deliberately deceptive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 09:18:06 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd58sgn.d8q.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:29:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
Frankly the I don't care about any distinction between assertions in
general.
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" (Christopher Lee's term) and
I think it is wrong then I'm going to tell you that I think it is wrong.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I think it is wrong then I'm going
to tell you that I think it is wrong.
Moreover, if you say "I, Steve Mading, believe X is true" then I will take
that as an assertion of X. I would treat your statement "I, Steve
Mading, have reached the falsifiable conclusion that X is true" the
same way.
Then you are being deliberately deceptive.
You honestly think that the following is deliberately deceptive?
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" [Christopher's term]
and I can see an error and I try to show you the error.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I can see an error
and I will try to show you the error.
Do you think that the above is deliberately deceptive?
I think it is deliberately deceptive to dismiss
"wild-assed guesses" out of hand, simply on
the basis that they are wild-assed guesses.
Do you think that when you make the statement
"I, Steve Mading believe X is true" it is deliberately
deceptive of me to consider whether X is true and
(if I find the X is false) try to show you that X is false?
Do you think that when you make the statement
"I, Steve Mading have reached the conclusion that
X is true" it is deliberately deceptive of me to look for
errors in your logic and (if they exist) try to show you
the errors in your logic?
If you honestly find that to be deliberately deceptive
then I should remember not to bother responding
to your posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 11:56:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:18:06 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd58sgn.d8q.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:29:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
Frankly the I don't care about any distinction between assertions in
general.
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" (Christopher Lee's term) and
I think it is wrong then I'm going to tell you that I think it is wrong.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I think it is wrong then I'm going
to tell you that I think it is wrong.
Moreover, if you say "I, Steve Mading, believe X is true" then I will take
that as an assertion of X. I would treat your statement "I, Steve
Mading, have reached the falsifiable conclusion that X is true" the
same way.
Then you are being deliberately deceptive.
You honestly think that the following is deliberately deceptive?
If you make a "falsifiable conclusion" [Christopher's term]
and I can see an error and I try to show you the error.
If you make a "wild-assed guess" and I can see an error
and I will try to show you the error.
Do you think that the above is deliberately deceptive?
No - when you said you will treat the statements the same way,
that's where you were promising to be deliberately deceptive.
There exist things that are errors for one kind of statement
that are not for the other kind of statement.
And when you pretend like these differences haven't been
brought up before, then you're being deceptive in THAT as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 05:53:55 AM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd59evn.dhb.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
No - when you said you will treat the statements the same way,
that's where you were promising to be deliberately deceptive.
There exist things that are errors for one kind of statement
that are not for the other kind of statement.
Example please?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 11:51:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:53:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd59evn.dhb.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
No - when you said you will treat the statements the same way,
that's where you were promising to be deliberately deceptive.
There exist things that are errors for one kind of statement
that are not for the other kind of statement.
Example please?
I already covered this in previous posts. Having no evidence
is a strike against a positive assertion, but not against
a default hypothesis assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 12:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5aor7.e5i.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:53:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd59evn.dhb.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
No - when you said you will treat the statements the same way,
that's where you were promising to be deliberately deceptive.
There exist things that are errors for one kind of statement
that are not for the other kind of statement.
Example please?
I already covered this in previous posts. Having no evidence
is a strike against a positive assertion, but not against
a default hypothesis assertion.
Your statement implies that the assertion in question is the
CORRECT "default hypothesis assertion". I'm
talking about a general approach to evaluating ALL assertions
without assuming anything. I "treat all statements"
pretty much as follows:
(1) You look at the assertions for whether they are precise
or vague or ambiguous.
(2) You look at the logic behind the assertion. What are the
underlying assumptions if any?
(3) You look for direct evidence.
(4) If you can't find direct evidence you might look for an
analogy to see if it sheds light on the assertion at hand.
(There might be more possible things you could think about
when evaluating claims/assertions, but that is just off
the top of my head. And no, I'm not perfect at evaluating
assertions. I ***** it up all the time.)
So I'm going to stand by my statement (which is an assertion):
It is correct to call ALL assertions "assertions"
whether they are "falsifiable conclusions" [Christopher's term]
or "wild-assed guesses" or look like they might be
"default hypothesis assertions".
and you treat them roughly the same way.
(where "treat them" is as described above).
Do you think THAT is 'deliberately deceptive'?
I do not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 04:30:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:53:44 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5aor7.e5i.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:53:55 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net>
wrote:
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd59evn.dhb.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
No - when you said you will treat the statements the same way,
that's where you were promising to be deliberately deceptive.
There exist things that are errors for one kind of statement
that are not for the other kind of statement.
Example please?
I already covered this in previous posts. Having no evidence
is a strike against a positive assertion, but not against
a default hypothesis assertion.
Your statement implies that the assertion in question is the
CORRECT "default hypothesis assertion".
Yes. And it is. It's just a specific case of the more general
rule that when asking if a thing exists, "no" is the falsifiable
default hypothesis.
I'm
talking about a general approach to evaluating ALL assertions
without assuming anything. I "treat all statements"
pretty much as follows:
(1) You look at the assertions for whether they are precise
or vague or ambiguous.
(2) You look at the logic behind the assertion. What are the
underlying assumptions if any?
(3) You look for direct evidence.
(4) If you can't find direct evidence you might look for an
analogy to see if it sheds light on the assertion at hand.
(There might be more possible things you could think about
when evaluating claims/assertions, but that is just off
the top of my head. And no, I'm not perfect at evaluating
assertions. I ***** it up all the time.)
So I'm going to stand by my statement (which is an assertion):
It is correct to call ALL assertions "assertions"
whether they are "falsifiable conclusions" [Christopher's term]
or "wild-assed guesses" or look like they might be
"default hypothesis assertions".
and you treat them roughly the same way.
(where "treat them" is as described above).
Do you think THAT is 'deliberately deceptive'?
I do not.
Then we disagree. Unless, of course, you heap the same level of
contempt on people who assert leprechauns or santa claus doesn't
exist as you do on people who assert god doesn't exist. In which
case I'd consider you a looney, but at least a fair and consistent
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 09:12:54 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd5b973.edp.madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu...
Scotmc wrote
So I'm going to stand by my statement (which is an assertion):
It is correct to call ALL assertions "assertions"
whether they are "falsifiable conclusions" [Christopher's term]
or "wild-assed guesses" or look like they might be
"default hypothesis assertions".
and you treat them roughly the same way.
(where "treat them" is as described above).
Do you think THAT is 'deliberately deceptive'?
I do not.
Then we disagree. Unless, of course, you heap the same level of
contempt on people who assert leprechauns or santa claus doesn't
exist as you do on people who assert god doesn't exist. In which
case I'd consider you a looney, but at least a fair and consistent
one.
You have see "heaping contempt" huh? Obviously you are talking
about the ongoing spat with Christopher Lee that you have
taken up. I don't want to take up that discusion here because
we are having in another part of this thread. But since you
bring it up, I'll talk about the honesty and/or "heaping contempt"
in our discussions.
First of all, let me say this: I don't heap contempt on people
who assert the biblical g/God doesn't exist. I actually AGREE
with people who assert the biblical God doesn't exist.
But in the discussion with Christopher, I honestly believe
I have spotted an error in *what he has written*. I
emphasized the *what he has written* just now because I
don't think it actually represents his position. I think he means
"He doesn't apply 'God' as a premise, at all, ever" and I actually
have a huge problem with that position. I don't apply 'God' as
a premise [in my life] but I do apply 'God' as a premise in
discussions of whether God exists. But I honestly think his
words " 'God' as a premise does not apply to me" doesn't
say that same thing. So I have tried to show (and tried to
be politely actually) what I think *his words* actually mean.
[And again, I emphasize that I'm critical of *his words* and
not critical of his position because, as I see it, they actually
differ.]
I try hard to make my posts clear. So I find it extremely
frustrating that someone else cannot see what I think I am
making extremely clear. What you are seeing as "heaping
contempt" is, in my opinion, my mounting frustration that is
being aggravated by his name calling.
I'll admit that I have sworn at Christopher. And I admit
that it is not much of a justification to say this but
"He started it!"
However, I submit that I am the one who tries to bring the
discussion back to the issue and he is the one who
tries to 'heap the contempt'.
And frankly, Mr. Mading, I have detected a little comtempt
coming from your general direction. I believe you accusing
me of "deliberate deception" was off base. But we are
still discussing the issue (mostly politely) and so it goes on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 03:40:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:06:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
I doubt it, because they blur the differences in meaning and get in
the way of communication. Which should be obvious even to
philosophers.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
Of course he is. That's where his strawmen come from. He won't let
people outside his religion see his deity the way they actually do.
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
Exactly. And anybody with pretensions of being a philosopher would be
expected to know this - because philosophy is all about quality of
argument.
And it's another example of better words that carry meaning being
replaced, in order to remove the meaning one of the protagonists is
attempting to convey. Deliberately and dishonestly IMNSHO.
I've never seen "assertion" used the way Scott claims. It is another
mark against philosophy if it uses it that way.
I suspect he does know this, because he definitely equivocates - after
substituting the word "assertion" for the words used in two statements
that meant different things, in order to pretend they mean the same
thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 06:58:20 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5qs5515n4qdv562m32t1oifai8krjarapt@4ax.com...
Scotmc wrote:
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
I doubt it, because they blur the differences in meaning and get in
the way of communication. Which should be obvious even to
philosophers.
If the issue is whether X is true or false, then the difference in how
strongly someone feels about it is irrelevant.
example: I don't care how strongly Jim believes his assertion that
the sun orbits around the earth. Objective evidence says that
his assertion is wrong.
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
Exactly. And anybody with pretensions of being a philosopher would be
expected to know this - because philosophy is all about quality of
argument.
Yes. And how strong someone believes is irrelevent to the objective
truth of the claim/assertion/justified conclusion/falsifiable conclusion
etc.
I suspect he does know this, because he definitely equivocates - after
substituting the word "assertion" for the words used in two statements
that meant different things, in order to pretend they mean the same
thing.
No, he doesn't "know" that. *I* know what I was taught in philosophy.
The bottom line is that you should treat ALL claims the same way
whether the person says he "only" believes it, or believes it strongly,
or is damn certain. The objective truth of the CLAIM is the issue
not the certainty of the speaker.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Incubus" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 03:54:52 PM |
|
|
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
It's not called 'falsifiable CONCLUSION' in science, the correct term is
'falsifiable HYPOTHESIS' (see Karl Popper, _The Logic of Scientific
Discovery_), like the null hypothesis in any case, 'There is no X', which is
the only reasonable default presumption, like the default presumption of 'No
guilt' in court, or 'No god' in the case presented by the theist true believers.
A CONCLUSION is that statement at the END of a logical argument, reached
through valid inference from the premise(s).
'There is no god' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the negation) of one,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to de nail.
"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 the assertion is
true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Any questions on this point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 03:49:05 AM |
|
|
Incubus wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0400, Scotmc
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that
there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa
Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
It's not called 'falsifiable CONCLUSION' in science, the correct term is
'falsifiable HYPOTHESIS' (see Karl Popper, _The Logic of Scientific
Discovery_), like the null hypothesis in any case, 'There is no X',
which is the only reasonable default presumption, like the default
presumption of 'No guilt' in court, or 'No god' in the case presented by
the theist true believers.
A CONCLUSION is that statement at the END of a logical argument, reached
through valid inference from the premise(s).
'There is no god' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the negation)
of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to de nail.
"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 the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Any questions on this point?
I thought denial was a river in Africa ? ( sorry .... they MADE me say it :)
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
06 Apr 2005 07:24:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:49:05 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey59_remove@yahoo.com> wrote:
they MADE me say it :)
How many tapeworms do you have?
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 05:42:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:54:52 -0700, Incubus <in@in.net> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0400, Scotmc <scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g8j3511gaa3a2eao2301g66795gfkrv1lt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:18:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Mading) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 14:27:54 -0700,
Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
Steve Mading wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
But that's VERY false because a "falsifiable conclusion" is only
one of many kinds of assersions. To equivocate them is to
remove the special integrety that falsifiable conclusions have,
that other types of assertions do not.
It's not called 'falsifiable CONCLUSION' in science, the correct term is
I just parroted back the same terms he used back at him.
'falsifiable HYPOTHESIS' (see Karl Popper, _The Logic of Scientific
Discovery_), like the null hypothesis in any case, 'There is no X', which is
the only reasonable default presumption, like the default presumption of 'No
guilt' in court, or 'No god' in the case presented by the theist true believers.
A CONCLUSION is that statement at the END of a logical argument, reached
through valid inference from the premise(s).
'There is no god' is not an assertion, it is the denial (the negation) of one,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to de nail.
"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 the assertion is
true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Any questions on this point?
Yes - when will you learn that posting by cut-and-paste is rude?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Incubus" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 02:34:47 PM |
|
|
Scotmc wrote:
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
But 'claim', 'assertion', and 'denial (negation of assertion)' are not synonyms.
Denial and negation are synonyms.
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
The point you are missing here is that the statement, "There is no God" is not
an assertion (statement standing in need of proof), moron, it is the denial
(the negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial, as you know very well, so you might as well give up trying:
"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 the assertion is
true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 01:39:17 PM |
|
|
Scotmc wrote:
As a lurker on this thread I have no idea what
indicent you are referring to
There several instances where Christopher A. Lee asserts that
there is
no God, and then claims this is justified because the statement is
identical in form to positively asserting that there is no Santa
Claus.
I agree that the form is the same, but it seems Chris wishes to
deny
that these are positive assertions.
Do you take on any burden of proof for making the "assertion"
that santa claus doesn't exist? Not really. Everyone understands
that It's just a linquistic fuzzy shorthand for "I don't know that
he does, and there's lots of facets of his description that seem
highly improbably, and therefore there's no reason to act like he
does exist." One problem I have is that people assume that
disbelief
in god needs proof when they DON'T equally apply that to any of the
other similarly improbable but not disprovable things, like santa,
or leprechauns. That seems very dishonest to me.
He was lying again. I make no such assertion. It is merely somebody
else's irrelevant religious belief.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists. They make
no
claim, assertion, or any of the other loaded words he substitutes
for
things like "falsifiable conclusion".
Here we see that a philosopher [someone who has a bit of formal
training in philosophy] can no longer communicate with someone
who has no formal training in philosophy. To a philosopher the
terms "claim" and "assertion" and "falsifiable conclusion" are all
synonymous.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
No. He is saying that a strong atheist makes a "falsifiable
conclusion" also known as a "claim" or an "assertion".
So the filter that is being used is " 'claim' and 'assertion' are
just others words for 'falsifiable conclusion' "
Thank you. You hit it right on the nail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 02:17:15 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2005 11:39:17 -0700, "Nico Demusopelous"
<nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
You hit it right on the nail.
The expression is "You hit the nail right on the head."
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 01:38:21 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
He was lying again. I make no such assertion.
It is merely somebody else's irrelevant religious
belief.
Here we go again! One literally hundreds of occasions Christopher A.
Lee has asserted that "God" is something that only exists within the
religious beliefs of theists... it is merely somebody else's delusion.
In other words, Christopher A. Lee is positively asserting that God
does not exist in reality. So it seems Chris is lying again.
I haven't anything to make such an assertion about.
See above, liar.
I have corrected him several times about strong atheists.
Cite one example. Just one.
They make no claim, assertion,
BZZZZT! Wrong! What defines a positive atheist is the tendency to make
the positive assertion that there are no deities. So stop lying.
The problem is that he filters everything through his utter and
unjustified certainty that the deity of his religion exists in the
real world.
Do I? Can you cite some evidence from my posting history that is along
these lines? Of course you can't, as this is not true at all.
Christopher the lying liar uses this sort of claim to poison the well.
I'm engaging in discussions about philosophy, and he's trying to paint
me as an irrational fundo of some sort.
He imagines that his view of "God" applies to everybody.
Can you prove that is what I imagine? Of, but this has been explained
to you before. When a theist makes a claim about the existence of a
deity, they are making an ontological claim, they are making a claim
about reality, and thus they do believe it applies to others. But of
course this is mostly irrelevant to what I have written in my various
exchanges with Christopher. In fact, there is no one (NOT ONE!) thing I
have written in response to Christopher over the last year that would
be changed by whether I was a theist or atheist. Hence the reason I say
Christopher is poisoning
He is incapable of grasping that the word "God"
doesn't mean the same thing to people outside
his religion (not just atheists) that it means
to him.
How is this relevant to a discussion on positive assertions? Oh that's
right, it's not! Just another attempt to throw out a circumstantial
ad-hominem on Christopher's part. My points have been made (and
repeated!), and since Christopher is incapable to actually taking part
in the discussion, he starts to unpack his suitcase of red herrings and
straw man arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 05:40:24 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:1112726300.981198.297360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
He was lying again. I make no such assertion.
It is merely somebody else's irrelevant religious
belief.
Here we go again! One literally hundreds of occasions Christopher A.
Lee has asserted that "God" is something that only exists within the
religious beliefs of theists... it is merely somebody else's delusion.
In other words, Christopher A. Lee is positively asserting that God
does not exist in reality. So it seems Chris is lying again.
This is of course a natural thing to infer. If somebody keeps saying that
there is a rhinoceros in their room when ostensibly there is no evidence for
a rhinoceros in their room, then it is reasonable to infer that the
rhinoceros is a delusion, and only exists in their heads. What is the
alternative?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 05:48:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:40:24 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:1112726300.981198.297360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
He was lying again. I make no such assertion.
It is merely somebody else's irrelevant religious
belief.
Here we go again! One literally hundreds of occasions Christopher A.
Lee has asserted that "God" is something that only exists within the
religious beliefs of theists... it is merely somebody else's delusion.
In other words, Christopher A. Lee is positively asserting that God
does not exist in reality. So it seems Chris is lying again.
Why does Nichol keep lying?
If he honestly thinks that, then he is incredibly stupid. The more
charitable alternative is that he is lying.
This is of course a natural thing to infer. If somebody keeps saying that
there is a rhinoceros in their room when ostensibly there is no evidence for
a rhinoceros in their room, then it is reasonable to infer that the
rhinoceros is a delusion, and only exists in their heads. What is the
alternative?
Which is a conclusion not an assertion.
But once again he deliberately misrepresents me:
There is simply no reason to treat it as any more than somebody else's
religious belief.
That's not rocket science. Yet he twists that into emotionally
prejudicial statements I haven't made about something irrelevant, and
then accuses me of making them.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 07:05:47 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b256519tvs2cahtmq8c93000h2tmb33ivu@4ax.com...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:40:24 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nico D. wrote:
Here we go again! One literally hundreds of occasions Christopher A.
Lee has asserted that "God" is something that only exists within the
religious beliefs of theists... it is merely somebody else's delusion.
In other words, Christopher A. Lee is positively asserting that God
does not exist in reality. So it seems Chris is lying again.
Why does Nichol keep lying?
He is not lying. Nico filters everything through his
worldview that there is only ONE objective reality. He
asserts that we all live in that one objective reality. He
asserts that assertions apply to that one objective reality
and everyone within it if those assertions are, in fact, true.
And he asserts that assertions do not apply to objective
reality nor apply to everyone within it if those assertions
are, in fact, false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
05 Apr 2005 07:51:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:05:47 -0400, "Scotmc"
<scotmc@SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote:
Nico filters everything through his
worldview that there is only ONE objective reality. He
asserts that we all live in that one objective reality.
There is only one objective reality that supports the Worldview of
Existential Realism.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
