Religions > Bible > Re: agnostics are atheist too (Septic is stupid too)
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Steven the Septic slayer" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 12:12:30 AM |
| Object: |
Re: agnostics are atheist too (Septic is stupid too) |
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to". Since I did not
use the word god, it therefore wasn't an argument for god,
any more than it's an argument for invisible pink unicorns
or green men two inches tall, living in your refrigerator.
Aren't you just being disingenuous?
Curious, I just made that very same observation about you.
Why would you bring your argument from ignorance
Why would you remain this fucking stupid, after so many of
us have tried to drive this through that thick bone on top
of your hunched shoulders: An argument from ignorance only
occurs when one argues something must be true (exists, for
instance), or must be false (doesn't exist, for instance),
because it's opposite hasn't been proven. A statement that
something _might_ be true (might exist), isn't an argument
from ignorance, because it hadn't claimed it must be true.
.
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
03 Apr 2004 12:57:43 AM |
|
|
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable, including the hypothetical
God we have been discussing, invisible pink unicorn, anything. You just
conceded that point. Thanks.
Since I did not use the word god ...
.... even though the hypothetical God thingy is what we were discussing,
it does not matter, since X is a variable that represents anything
imaginable, the hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
03 Apr 2004 01:55:58 AM |
|
|
In article <Hftbc.63540$K91.152985@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable, including the hypothetical
God we have been discussing, invisible pink unicorn, anything. You just
conceded that point. Thanks.
Since I did not use the word god ...
... even though the hypothetical God thingy is what we were discussing,
it does not matter, since X is a variable that represents anything
imaginable, the hypothetical God we were discussing included.
That's it for us then, we are done.
You are done, and you are still wrong, old pimple.
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof. And you have repeatedly argued that your
creed should be accepted without proof. Huxley has nasty things to say
about immoral people like you:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought
to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
-- Thomas Huxley in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
That last sentence of the quote is what nails Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, to the cross, metaphorically speaking, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
03 Apr 2004 10:28:55 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Hftbc.63540$K91.152985@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable, including the hypothetical
God we have been discussing, invisible pink unicorn, anything. You just
conceded that point. Thanks.
Since I did not use the word god ...
... even though the hypothetical God thingy is what we were discussing,
it does not matter, since X is a variable that represents anything
imaginable, the hypothetical God we were discussing included.
That's it for us then, we are done.
You are done, and you are still wrong, old pimple.
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof.
===>EXACTLY CORRECT!
It is equivalent to saying "NO X IS POSSIBLE", when, in fact,
it depends on what we decide "X" stands for.
It is the same with the symbol "GOD". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 02:38:08 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Hftbc.63540$K91.152985@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable, including the hypothetical
God we have been discussing, invisible pink unicorn, anything. You just
conceded that point. Thanks.
Since I did not use the word god ...
... even though the hypothetical God thingy is what we were discussing,
it does not matter, since X is a variable that represents anything
imaginable, the hypothetical God we were discussing included.
That's it for us then, we are done.
You are done, and you are still wrong, old pimple.
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof.
Virgil is lying, atheists don't make any assertion (statement standing
in need of proof), theists do. "There is no such thing" is not an
assertion, it is the denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial. Atheists have nothing (no thing) spoor
of which to point out, theists do.
===>EXACTLY CORRECT!
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
Clue: I haven't been making any assertion, I have been denying Virgil's
and your assertion that there might be a god, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial:
Here again is the principle of valid argument (logic) you and Virgil and
Snipper and Company are ignoring:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 05:23:15 PM |
|
|
In article <AuZbc.73187$w54.417619@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof.
Virgil is lying, atheists don't make any assertion (statement standing
in need of proof), theists do. "There is no such thing" is not an
assertion, it is the denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial. Atheists have nothing (no thing) spoor
of which to point out, theists do.
The agnostic principle, as set out by Thomas Huxley, says that it is
immoral to say that something true unless one can provide logically
satisfactory proof of its truth.
"There is no such thing as a god" is something that Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, says is true, though neither he, nor anyone, can present
any proof of its truth.
Such an act is immoral, as is the one who performs it.
Secondly, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, doewn't sem to know the
difference between atheists and theists, as he attributes to theists a
belief held only by atheists, namely that while it is not known that any
god must exist, as far as we know, a god might exist.
That statement, "while it is not known that any god must exist, as far
as we know, a god might exist", is compatible with agosicism and
atheism, but not theism, yet Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps
attributing it to theists while denying that agnostics or atheists can
believe it.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is off in a world of his own where
black is white and white is black, and truth and falsehood are only what
HE says they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 11:17:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-E2BB6E.16231504042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <AuZbc.73187$w54.417619@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof.
Virgil is lying, atheists don't make any assertion (statement standing
in need of proof), theists do. "There is no such thing" is not an
assertion, it is the denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial. Atheists have nothing (no thing) spoor
of which to point out, theists do.
The agnostic principle, as set out by Thomas Huxley, says that it is
immoral to say that something true unless one can provide logically
satisfactory proof of its truth.
"There is no such thing as a god" is something that Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, says is true, though neither he, nor anyone, can present
any proof of its truth.
Such an act is immoral, as is the one who performs it.
Secondly, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, doewn't sem to know the
difference between atheists and theists, as he attributes to theists a
belief held only by atheists, namely that while it is not known that any
god must exist, as far as we know, a god might exist.
That statement, "while it is not known that any god must exist, as far
as we know, a god might exist", is compatible with agosicism and
atheism, but not theism, yet Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps
attributing it to theists while denying that agnostics or atheists can
believe it.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is off in a world of his own where
black is white and white is black, and truth and falsehood are only what
HE says they are.
The flaw here with the statement 'a god might exist...' is that you
haven't even defined what you mean by 'god'. That is, you must provide
a description of what you're talking about when you say 'god', and
then provide us with evidence that what you're trying to push onto us
is credible enough for us to give you some benefit of the doubt.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 12:54:08 AM |
|
|
Kenny Leong wrote:
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-E2BB6E.16231504042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <AuZbc.73187$w54.417619@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
You have asserted the truth of the statement that no gods are posible
but you have provided no proof.
Virgil is lying, atheists don't make any assertion (statement standing
in need of proof), theists do. "There is no such thing" is not an
assertion, it is the denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial. Atheists have nothing (no thing) spoor
of which to point out, theists do.
The agnostic principle, as set out by Thomas Huxley, says that it is
immoral to say that something true unless one can provide logically
satisfactory proof of its truth.
"There is no such thing as a god" is something that Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, says is true, though neither he, nor anyone, can present
any proof of its truth.
Such an act is immoral, as is the one who performs it.
Secondly, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, doewn't sem to know the
difference between atheists and theists, as he attributes to theists a
belief held only by atheists, namely that while it is not known that any
god must exist, as far as we know, a god might exist.
That statement, "while it is not known that any god must exist, as far
as we know, a god might exist", is compatible with agosicism and
atheism, but not theism, yet Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps
attributing it to theists while denying that agnostics or atheists can
believe it.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is off in a world of his own where
black is white and white is black, and truth and falsehood are only what
HE says they are.
The flaw here with the statement 'a god might exist...' is that you
haven't even defined what you mean by 'god'. That is, you must provide
a description of what you're talking about when you say 'god', and
then provide us with evidence that what you're trying to push onto us
is credible enough for us to give you some benefit of the doubt.
Kenny L.
I wouldn't expect any reasonable reply from Virgil if I were you. He'll
just try to slow-***** you to death with the same tired argument from
ignorance repeated _ad nauseam_ that an invisible something he can't
even define might exist anyway because you can't prove that's false.
Virgil doesn't seem capable of understanding the basic principles of logic.
I think it might be best to just ignore him in future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 01:51:11 AM |
|
|
In article <4w6cc.76581$K91.170302@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
The flaw here with the statement 'a god might exist...' is that you
haven't even defined what you mean by 'god'. That is, you must provide
a description of what you're talking about when you say 'god', and
then provide us with evidence that what you're trying to push onto us
is credible enough for us to give you some benefit of the doubt.
Kenny L.
I wouldn't expect any reasonable reply from Virgil if I were you.
Not if you consider what Septic Capon , the Simple Pimple, argues
reasonable.
There are a plethora of definitions, not all of which are
self-contradictory, say the "first cause" which Russell argues does not
have to exist, for example. Note that Rusell distinctly did not say that
a first cause could not exist, only that one need not.
On the basis of present evidence we cannot know for certain whether such
a first cause does or does not exist, and, in particular, we cannnot say
absolutely that we know it to be impossible. That is all that "might
exist" means, that we cannot say absolutely that we know it to be
impossible.
Now Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, will claim (and it is a claim) we
can say absolutely that it is impossible, but he gets his knowledge by
some kind of anti-divine revelations not available to the rest of us.
He'll
just try to slow-***** you to death with the same tired argument from
ignorance repeated _ad nauseam_ that an invisible something he can't
even define might exist anyway because you can't prove that's false.
That is what not proving it false means, oh thou of too much muddled
faith.
Virgil doesn't seem capable of understanding the basic principles of logic.
I understand them and honor them. I don't really know if Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, understands them or not, but he violates them ad
nauseam and ad infinitum.
For example, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, continually conflates the
meanings of "might and "must".
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does this with respect to the Russell
quote.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does this with respect to what
separates atheists and agnostics from theists.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, may do it all the time, for I have yet
to see him use them correctly except by merest accident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too -- NO "FIRST CAUSE" |
05 Apr 2004 12:28:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <4w6cc.76581$K91.170302@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
The flaw here with the statement 'a god might exist...' is that you
haven't even defined what you mean by 'god'. That is, you must provide
a description of what you're talking about when you say 'god', and
then provide us with evidence that what you're trying to push onto us
is credible enough for us to give you some benefit of the doubt.
Kenny L.
I wouldn't expect any reasonable reply from Virgil if I were you.
Not if you consider what Septic Capon , the Simple Pimple, argues
reasonable.
There are a plethora of definitions, not all of which are
self-contradictory, say the "first cause" which Russell argues does not
have to exist, for example. Note that Rusell distinctly did not say that
a first cause could not exist, only that one need not.
On the basis of present evidence we cannot know for certain whether such
a first cause does or does not exist, and, in particular, we cannnot say
absolutely that we know it to be impossible. That is all that "might
exist" means, that we cannot say absolutely that we know it to be
impossible.
===>The idea of a "first cause" is self-contradictory.
The only logical conclusion is that the COSMOS, the
"susbtance" of all that exists, has always existed
in some form.
The question has a long history, as shown in the
statement of Heraclitus of Ephesus some 26 centuries ago,
who concluded that
"This Cosmos, the same for all, [or "the Universal Process"]
was not made by gods or men, but always was and is and ever
shall be ever-living fire, igniting in measures and extinguishing in
measures."
Similarly, in Hinduism, Brahman is the
ultimate, both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite
existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall b,
i.e. the same as the COSMOS, as defined by Carl Sagan in
his book and TV series of that title.
And in another book , Sagan expresses this vision:
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the
universe as revealed by modern science,
might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and
awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge. (Pale Blue Dot -- 1994) .
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too -- SPINOZA'S GOD |
04 Apr 2004 07:12:40 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
It is no different from saying "no X is possible",
which is meaningless.
Forget about the word "GOD".
For all "X"s, there is at least one definition of "X"
that makes it correct to say that "X" exist.
The same is true for all "GOD"s.
LET ME REPEAT MY POINT:
Unless you specify what you mean by "GOD",
BOTH affirmations AND denials of the existence of
such is meaningless, as are statement such as
"There is no X" or "X exists". -- L.
E.g. "GOD" as defined by the philosopher Spinoza
(i.e. NATURE, the Cosmos) DOES EXIST. -- L.
"I believe in Spinoza's God
who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists,
not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
actions of human beings." Albert Einstein
April 24, 1921. SEE:
Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.
The "GOD" of Spinoza and Einstein DOES EXIST,
regardless of what you are willing or unwilling to call it.
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 12:22:57 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
Here again is the principle of valid argument (logic) you and Snipper
and Company are ignoring:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
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]
For all "X"s, there is at least one definition of "X"
that makes it correct to say that "X" exist.
So everything imaginable actually exists? That doesn't make sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 01:25:30 AM |
|
|
In article <R26cc.76503$K91.170041@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion.
No matter how many times Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, repeats that
lie, it will remain a lie. His repeated attempts to lie his way out of
the hole he has dug for himself is the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 12:05:53 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion,
===>No, it is rather an ASSertion,
as I like to put it. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 04:50:56 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion,
===>No, it is rather an ASSertion,
as I like to put it. -- L.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
Here again is the principle of valid argument (logic) you and Snipper
and Company are ignoring:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
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]
For all "X"s, there is at least one definition of "X"
that makes it correct to say that "X" exist.
So everything imaginable actually exists? That doesn't make sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 09:05:38 PM |
|
|
In article <4xkcc.81449$JO3.42592@attbi_s04>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Then you won't have any trouble posting a link to the message in which I
made an assertion that no gods are possible. I will be waiting while the
crickets chirp.
===>But that assertion is still wrong.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion,
===>No, it is rather an ASSertion,
as I like to put it. -- L.
"There are no gods" is not an assertion, it is the denial of one, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
It doesn't matter how many times Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, posts
this lie, repetition doesn't change lies into truths.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
06 Apr 2004 04:59:08 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
For all "X"s, there is at least one definition of "X"
that makes it correct to say that "X" exist.
So everything imaginable actually exists? That doesn't make sense.
===>It is YOU who make no sense.
How can you come up with such a dumb question?
Because you are incapable of comprehending logical arguments.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
03 Apr 2004 02:56:57 AM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable...
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
Have a nice day.
It just got better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 11:33:15 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable <snip argument _ad hominem_>
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right? Why
would you exclude the hypothetical God we were discussing? Don't want t
be seen arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that an invisible God might exist
anyway, even though there is no spoor you can point out?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 05:41:43 PM |
|
|
In article <fNWbc.72421$K91.159643@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable <snip argument _ad hominem_>
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right? Why
would you exclude the hypothetical God we were discussing? Don't want t
be seen arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that an invisible God might exist
anyway, even though there is no spoor you can point out?
X cannot be know not to exist until X is known not to exist.
By the definition oft repeated by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, one
cannot know what has not been demonstrated.
But anything that is not known not to exist might exist.
Gods are not known not to exist, at least in the sense insisted upon by
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, himself.
Thus the valid argument is not from ignorance, but to the ignorant, in
this case, to Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, which he will continue to
reject, not on actual logical groundsm but only because it conflicts
with his faith, which he clings to despite logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 01:45:04 PM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 07:02:59 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
===>Of course, IF the one uses it is willing to define it.
The same with the "theist", "atheist", or "agnostic" arguments
about the "variable" term "G-O-D". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 03:05:11 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
Doesn't what you say apply to that brand of X (as in Merry XMas) as well
as anything else imaginable? You haven't explained why there would be
any exceptions, have you, other than that you just do not want to be
caught arguing for the theist "God," proposition?
Don't you have the courage of your convictions? If what you say applies
to anything then it applies to this hypothetical God thingy, doesn't it?
If not, then why make an exception for that one thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 06:03:12 PM |
|
|
In article <XTZbc.73795$K91.161624@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
<skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
Why would he want to include "hypothetical, or "magic" or "invisible",
as these are purely Septic in nature and usage.
The issue genuinely under discussion, which Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, tries to defer attention from, are the continual lies and
diversions by which Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, hopes to hide the
flaws in his arguments.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, would claim, without proof, that no
gods can exist, and then claim it is not a claim and does not need
proof, in direct violation of that agnostic principle which he also
claims only applies to theists and agnostics, but not to him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 03:42:16 AM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
Genuinely under discussion by _you_, Stupidus. I was discussing
principles of informal logic as they apply to logical argument.
[]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 01:42:57 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I was discussing
principles of informal logic as they apply to logical argument.
And those principles of valid argument do not apply to what we were
discussing, the hypothesis that a magic invisible God might exist
anyway, even though there is no spoor any theist has ever pointed out?
At any rate, your argument that in any case, an invisible X (whatever X
is imagined to be) might exist, unless that hypothesis is proven false
is standard theist argument from ignorance. Textbook example:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantium_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 05:30:08 PM |
|
|
In article <RMhcc.74398$gA5.896174@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I was discussing
principles of informal logic as they apply to logical argument.
And those principles of valid argument do not apply to what we were
discussing, the hypothesis that a magic invisible God might exist
anyway, even though there is no spoor any theist has ever pointed out?
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps wanting to discuss what nobody
else has said anything about.
The true issue is between "No gods can exist" as Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, claims and "we do not know that no gods can exist", which
is what every one else says.
At any rate, your argument that in any case, an invisible X (whatever X
is imagined to be) might exist, unless that hypothesis is proven false
is standard theist argument from ignorance.
(1) It is not theist, since that argument is heretical to any theist.
(2) It is the agnostic rejection of the unproven creed of Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, that gods are known to be impossible. Thus it is not
from ignorrance, but to the ignorant.
Just as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, cannot distinguish between
"might" and "must", he now seems confused by the difference between
"from" and "to".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 05:15:44 PM |
|
|
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Skepticus Stupidus wrote:
Steven wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
I hate to confuse you with the facts, Septic, but:
1) The above says nothing about "gods".
So X is not a variable that represents anything imaginable,
including the imaginary "God" thingy that we were discussing?
It _is_ a variable, but substituting "god" for "x" is just
as disingenuous as claiming I say "invisible pink unicorns
might exist unless they're proven not to".
No, it isn't disingenuous, since, as you just stipulated, X is a
variable that represents anything imaginable the
hypothetical God we were discussing included.
Thanks for conceding the point.
That's it for us then, we are done.
Hey pissbucket, learn to read. I didn't say it represents
anything imaginable. I said "X" was a variable, I did not
say it's anything imaginable. How's the crack habit, son?
You said, "X is a variable."
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
<snip argument _ad hominem_> I was discussing
principles of informal logic as they apply to logical argument.
And those principles of valid argument do not apply to what we were
discussing ...
Don't include "me" in your "we", Stupidus. I was making
a point about the principles of informal logic, and you
were gibbering endlessly about gods. The rules of logic
remain the same, regardless of the topic. However, that
doesn't mean that when I say "X might exist unless it's
known not to exist", this means I was arguing for gods.
Some things are more likely to exist than others, which
is why we can't take a blanket statement like the above
and apply it to _anything_ we want with equal veracity.
I'm sure all this is well over your pointy little head.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 07:16:19 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
===>Because in your stubbornness you deny the possibility that
there are definitions of the word "GOD" other than what you are
talking about. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 09:49:35 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
===>Because in your stubbornness you deny the possibility that
there are definitions of the word "GOD" other than what you are
talking about. -- L.
What's 'GOD' (all caps)? The one we were discussing is the one with a
capital G.
God : capitalized : creator and ruler of the universe
http://www.m-w.com
There cannot be any such thing due to the fatal problem with the very
idea of it (special pleading for God inherent in the idea) explained by
Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
04 Apr 2004 10:58:12 PM |
|
|
In article <3P3cc.75224$w54.430888@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
Sniper wrote:
If X is a variable, then it stands for anything imaginable, right?
Wrong. It stands for what the one who uses it, defines it as.
Why would you want to exlude the hypothetical magic invisible God that
is the issue genuinely under discussion here?
===>Because in your stubbornness you deny the possibility that
there are definitions of the word "GOD" other than what you are
talking about. -- L.
What's 'GOD' (all caps)? The one we were discussing is the one with a
capital G.
It is anything that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, doesn't understand,
which means most of the universe.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
Russell was right, but Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is wrong about
Russell. That wrongness has been clipped.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
