| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 04:18:38 AM |
| Object: |
You cannot disprove God |
It cannot be done.
Paul
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 12:50:47 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-02C856.21185920122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-tednbOyPL1QyzXenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
Accept the theist hypothesis that there might be a god or gods
because
there is no proof that hypothesis is false?
There is a difference, at least among agnostics like me, between
accepting a statement and not rejecting it.
There is no difference;
There is a difference, sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 05:02:09 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
Accept
Not reject.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 07:57:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
I don't think there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously. `
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 12:41:06 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1135173420.850290.122030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being
too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore
the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
I don't think there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously. `
You offering free psychiatric diagnosis now, Deli? Anything to evade the
real issue, eh?
"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
The issue genuinely under discussion between you theists and us atheist
agnostics is this irrational religious belief you theists have that
there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing you theists can point to and say,
'There, that's what I'm talking about'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 03:19:37 PM |
|
|
In article <2f6dne_ra8ooODTenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1135173420.850290.122030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don't think there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously. `
You offering free psychiatric diagnosis now, Deli?
Why not, when Septic offers al sorts of diagnoses that he is eminently
and obviously unfit to offer.
The issue genuinely under discussion between you theists and us atheist
agnostics
The issue actually under discussion by everyone except the Gnostic
anti-theist known as Septic is the 'religious' behaviour of said Septic
in ignoring facts in order to mislabel those who have repeatedly
expresssed their disbeleif in any god(s) as being theist.
Only the very faithfully religious can be so immune to facts they do not
want to acknowledge as Septic is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 07:53:49 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <2f6dne_ra8ooODTenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1135173420.850290.122030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don't thin k there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously. `
You offering free psychiatric diagnosis now, Deli?
Why not, when Septic offers al sorts of diagnoses that he is eminently
and obviously unfit to offer.
You can see how the idea of no one paying him attention
terrifies him. As it is he has entirely abandoned subtlety--
he used to work his way up to exposing his full blown
flaming neurosis--but nobody takes the bait any more.
Like his fellow theist, Duke, he must act outrageous to
provoke the attention he craves.
In my research of net neurotics I replied to one of his e-mails
which kicked off a flood of it from him in which he pleaded
for understanding of his neurotic behavior. It is a sad tale indeed.
He can't help it, you see. But now he is mad at me for posting
some of it on line as I promised to do if he persisted in lying
about me. He needs to learn that there are consequences to his
behavior. But now I am a "traitor" for doing what I promised
to do so he has decided to stalk me as "punishment." LOL!
The issue genuinely under discussion between you theists and us atheist
agnostics
The issue actually under discussion by everyone except the Gnostic
anti-theist known as Septic is the 'religious' behaviour of said Septic
in ignoring facts in order to mislabel those who have repeatedly
expresssed their disbeleif in any god(s) as being theist.
Only the very faithfully religious can be so immune to facts they do not
want to acknowledge as Septic is.
t
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 08:06:15 PM |
|
|
Del wrote:
Like his fellow theist, Duke,
Theist? But Septic is a blood-sucking fiend! Look at his outfit!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
22 Dec 2005 03:37:13 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Del wrote:
Like his fellow theist, Duke,
Theist? But Septic is a blood-sucking fiend!
My point exactly.
Look at his outfit!
He gets it from the Bible: "Wherefore, if God so clothe
the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is
cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you,
O ye of little brain?" Matthew 6:300
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 02:17:31 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1135173420.850290.122030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being
too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore
the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
I don't think there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously. `
You offering free psychiatric diagnosis now, Del?
Sounds like Del hit a nerve. Ever been diagnosed as neurotic, Septic?
Schizophrenic (or borderline)? Psychotic even? Come on, spill the
beans. Enquiring minds...
You also did not answer my previous questions above, Septic. Are you
evading again? Wasn't your previous response a straight Fallacy of ad
hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid argument? Your answers go
here, Septic:
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 08:29:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1135173420.850290.122030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kic ked out of college for being
too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore
the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
I don't think there is anyone who takes our resident
neurotic seriously.
You offering free psychiatric diagnosis now, Del?
Sounds like Del hit a nerve.
I must have. He can't even take his own advice and ignore
me. LOL!
Ever been diagnosed as neurotic, Septic?
Should I tell him, Septic?
Schizophrenic (or border line)? Psychotic even? Come on, spill the
beans. Enquiring minds...
Be careful what you ask for. He just might start sending
you e-mail...
You also did not answer my previous questions above, Septic. Are you
evading again? Wasn't your previous response a straight Fallacy of ad
hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid argument? Your answers go
here, Septic:
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 10:10:08 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Whoever puts forward an assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation in logic) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial in any case as you lot are always trying to do.
The principle that governs this situation:
"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." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Now watch as Del ignores this little lesson in logic and goes on his
merry way, delusional as ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:36:13 PM |
|
|
In article <882dnY66hI_RGTreRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Whoever puts forward an assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then let is by all means ignore it as it can be of no importance unless
someone is willing to assert it.
it is the denial (the negation in logic)
The 'negation in logic' of any statement is the counterclaim that the
original is false. Any claim of either truth or falsehood is an
assertion and any such assertion not supported by logically convincing
evdenced should be rejected as unproven.
See any text on logic for confirmation on this point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 10:04:13 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Whoever puts forward an assertion ...
'There is no God'
Didn't I warn you what I would do if you lied about
me again? I told you I would post your e-mail, didn't I?
Here is an excerpt from November 29th
Muddy Boggs wrote
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Septic Wrote
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
OS XI wrote
[...]
chronic flatulance problem, how the hell am I supposed
to have a social life?
I'm sorry to hear that but is that really anyone elses
problem?
"I know, I know. I'm sorry I lied about you and
Virgil, and, well, everybody. I just can't help it. Becides
the flatulance I have a speech impediment...
Try to think positively. What are some of your
good attributes?
Well, I play the banjo and I've been in movies. Ever see
Deliverance?
That was you? You play a mean banjo.
and I wet the bed. And I've never been with a woman!
A few sheep, a pig and one really cute collie is all. That's why I
crave attention so much. I harass people because I want them
to likke me. Why isn't it working??
Hmmmmmmm. You may wish to ask your team of
shrinks this question.
Do you think I like people--everybody--thinking I'm a
lowlife piece of ***** moron troll who could improve
life on earth if I turned myself into fertilizer? I
see people on line who are popular and I want to be
like them. You for instance. You are gods give to
newsgroups.
Well, I don't know about that.
No you are! I wouldn't lie--except in usenet of course.
That's why I feel so bad lying about you, unlike that twat
Fisher. That zit makes me look good.
A thankless task.
If I didn't have the internet and my gift for repulsiveness
I don't know whai I'd do. Well, there is a trim little
cocker spaniel down at the car wash where I am interning.
But that's sex, not friendship. I'm tired of the "wham
bam thank you *****" kind of relationships. Plus I
don't need the fleas. So do you see why I like about
you? Because I can never be like you!
[...]
Etc.`Next time I post the embarrassing stuff..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 08:13:32 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Whoever puts forward an assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion,
Yes it is, sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
16 Dec 2005 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:26:13 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim (the statement standing in need of proof),
moron, the affirmative is. Otherwise you are going to be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 03:48:14 PM |
|
|
In article <8NqdnZtYI6SocDveRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim
The negation in logic of any statement bears the same burden of proof
that the original bears. Only the refusal to accept a claim on grounds
of incomplete proof can escape requirement for its own proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 06:59:42 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8AD37F.14481419122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8NqdnZtYI6SocDveRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim (the statement standing in need of
proof),
moron, the affirmative is. Otherwise you are going to be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
The negation in logic of any statement bears the same burden of proof
that the original bears.
If that were true then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 07:40:27 PM |
|
|
In article <tIWdnQjxL4Q0yjrenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8AD37F.14481419122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
The negation in logic of any statement bears the same burden of proof
that the original bears.
If that were true then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
On the contrary, the LAW requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
on the laudable theory that it is better for the guilty to occasionally
to go free than ever to have the innocent wrongly convicted. The law
does not require evidence of innocence, but does not despise it either.
Septic reveals here both his profound ignorance of logic AND his
profound ignorance of the Anglo/American judicial systems.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 07:12:19 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8AD37F.14481419122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8NqdnZtYI6SocDveRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim
The negation in logic of any statement bears the same burden of proof
that the original bears.
If that were true then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove.
False. Court pleas are 100% a legal matter, not a logical one, as I've
already explained in another post (which you ignored), Septic. You
thus commit the Fallacy of Equivocation yet again here, Septic.
Your 'logic' is broken.
Rather Septic's logic is long broken.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 09:46:18 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135041139.206232.187320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8AD37F.14481419122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <8NqdnZtYI6SocDveRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim
The negation in logic of any statement bears the same burden of
proof
that the original bears.
If that were true then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim
that
you have to prove.
False. Court pleas are 100% a legal matter, not a logical one
Don't be silly, the same principles of valid argument apply to
statements in any venue, in every human enterprise, moron.
If you had your way then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:00:46 PM |
|
|
In article <f62dnbTr-8kn4zrenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
If that were true then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim
that
you have to prove.
False. Court pleas are 100% a legal matter, not a logical one
Don't be silly, the same principles of valid argument apply to
statements in any venue, in every human enterprise, moron.
If you had your way then you would be stuck in court
with a default presumption that your plea, "Not guilty" is a claim that
you have to prove. Your 'logic' is broken.
The principle of law is that it is better to risk the guilty being
acquitted rather than risk the innocent being convicted, so the scales
of criminal justice are deliberately biases against the latter risk.
This is a moral issue, not a logical one.
As anyone with more moral sense than Septic might easily deduce.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:42:18 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative
The negative is not the claim
I deny what you say. Negative claims can be made, Septic.
You are not making any sense atall atall, Septic. (That's a negative
BTW.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
18 Dec 2005 02:27:54 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Don't be stupid, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists
do.
The negative is not a claim, moron, it is the denial (the negation in
logic) of one, and the burden of proof can never be shifted to the
denial as you are always trying to do:
"Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Note: this is not the same as assuming that the hypothesis there might
be X is false unless proven true, a basic principle of science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
18 Dec 2005 12:38:07 PM |
|
|
In article <lZWdndjmltjogDjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Don't be stupid, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists
do.
That depends entirely on the form of atheism involved! Those Gnostic
anti-theist anti-agnostic atheists like Septic, aka OS XI, have quite as
much to prove as any theist, and no more evidence to prove it with.
The negative is not a claim, moron, it is the denial (the negation in
logic)
It is Septic who is being the moron here, by misrepresenting logic!
The negation in logic of any proposition is itself the proposition that
the original proposition is false, and, as such, requires as much proof
as the proposition it is calling false. This is a basic principle of
logic which Septic seems incapable of comprehending.
of one, and the burden of proof can never be shifted to the
denial as you are always trying to do
If one denies a statement merely by saying that it has not been
sufficiently proven to be accepted as true, such a mere denial does not
need to prove the original statement false, but Septic has said
explicitly that what he means is the negation in logic, which is an
entirely different thing.
This sort of denial is not the same as a 'negation in logic' with which
Septic tries to conflate it.
Such conflation constitutes a significant portion of Septic's arsenal of
fallacious arguments, and he rarely, if ever, displays any other kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 12:34:06 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-80546C.11380718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <lZWdndjmltjogDjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Don't be stupid, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you
theists
do.
That depends entirely on the form of atheism involved!
No it doesn't. No atheist of any stripe has anything (any thing) to
prove in this case, only you theists do, your hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) God/Creator/First Cause thing. Is there something about the
statement, 'atheists have no thing to prove' you don't understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 03:57:22 PM |
|
|
In article <2Y6dnQW4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-80546C.11380718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <lZWdndjmltjogDjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Don't be stupid, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you
theists
do.
That depends entirely on the form of atheism involved!
No it doesn't. No atheist of any stripe has anything (any thing) to
prove
Septic, and his fellow Gnostic anti-theists, who claim knowledge that
gods do not exist, have much to prove any no evidence hot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 06:56:02 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3A016B.14572219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2Y6dnQW4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-80546C.11380718122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <lZWdndjmltjogDjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134752463.046643.262420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Nobody ever has to prove the negative,
False. Anyone who claims the negative has to prove it.
Don't be stupid, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you
theists
do.
That depends entirely on the form of atheism involved!
No it doesn't. No atheist of any stripe has anything (any thing) to
prove in this case, only you theists do, your hypothetical ('might
be'
conjecture) God/Creator/First Cause thing. Is there something about the
statement, 'atheists have no thing to prove' you don't understand?
... claim ...
That's you straw man claiming something, moron, not me. Atheism is not a
claim, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 07:31:37 PM |
|
|
In article <x9ednWkhe6dRyzreRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3A016B.14572219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
... claim ...
That's ... me. Atheism is ... belief in the
existence of gods."
Atheist agnostics go ... to religious belief in the
existence of gods:
Snip for snip!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 09:58:56 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-336F01.18313719122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <x9ednWkhe6dRyzreRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3A016B.14572219122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
... claim ...
That's ... me. Atheism is ... belief in the
existence of gods."
Atheist agnostics go ... to religious belief in the
existence of gods:
Snip for snip!
Your snipping doesn't result in anything relevant to the issue, your
allegation that I have made a claim.
... claim ...
That's you straw man claiming something, moron, not me. Atheism is not a
claim, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
