| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John Rohrer" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2004 12:03:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: No evidence of God yet... |
Douglas wrote:
I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening.
Well, there's the power of expectations, hope, self-fulfilling prophecies,
mind-body medicine...what did I leave out...
I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case. I tried to talk to God, but he won't answer me back. He must not
like me.
Well, the bible says He gave us free will, right? As far as your "no reply", it
may be that you're not listening in the right way or in the right frame of mind.
Hey, it's plausible anyway.
All I have to say to a theist is prove it. They will freeze
up...naturally because even they know their beliefs are totally irrational.
They will often come back with "Prove he doesn't exist". The burden of
proof lies in the theist lap. They should convince me he is real, not scare
me into believing he is real with the "threat" of Hell after death. I
believe when you die, you die. No heaven or hell. Just nothing. It will
feel the way you felt before you were born.
I don't know how you can say to such a certain degree. It seems congruent with
common sense and observation, but common sense and observation may not be
equipped to give us any thorough understanding of mortality. Many perspectives
can be taken, and they all make sense to those who take them. For instance,
who's to say that there's nothing to the idea of reincarnation? Who's to say
we're not just the eyes of the universe winking open and shut as we watch
ourselves through the ages? Is the concept of personal identity inherently
misleading? If our identities are functions of our brief, local experience of
the universe, what are the implications? Alternately, if there is a more basic,
essential identity, would that not live in each locus of experience manifested
throughout the universe? ...food for thought anyway.
I can accept that. Theist
can't. So they decided to make up a nice place for good people and a bad
place for bad people. Sounds like this was made up a long time ago to keep
people in line and give them hope that "when I die, I will go to heaven."
Without religion, people would see no reason to live here. Anarchy would
happen.
Perhaps "civilized" culture (where the food is under lock and key) breeds
heirarchy and injustice and suppresses true tribal democracy. If you've toiled
under oppression your whole life while a privileged few commit atrocities with
impunity (as the system enables), divine justice is an understandably welcome
concept. "Keeping the masses in line" sounds to me like an attempt to save a
society whose social bonds were dissolved by and insidious atmosphere of control
and personal entitlement (the dangerous combination which seems to me to be at
the heart of the agricultural revolution which spawned the need for
"salvationist" religions. You see, indigenous cultures (still being extinguished
by civilization's zealous expansion) ascribe to "animistic" religions focused on
the interdependent harmony of life, rather than a way to cope with our current
disequilibruim. If you contest that the alternative is anarchy, I submit the
opinion that heirarchical governmental systems create the suffering which
"salvationist" religions medicate.
Heaven, sounds nice...lets go there and prove it once and for all...oh,
thats right. How convienient. We can't go there alive and there is no
scientific reason to believe in its existence anyway. Heaven is not real.
Period.
Well, who's to say unequivocally that it's not? Or maybe it's all a matter of
perspective. It seems real enough as a metaphor for creating a utopian society.
But then, utopianism seems inherently divisive, as it rejects compromise in
favor of the One Right Way which seems to cause so many conflicts.
God, sounds like an interesting person...I would like to meet him
now...oh, thats right. How convienient. He doesn't talk back and science
has yet to find his radio frequency. Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist.
Begging for opinions please.
Maybe we *are God in the sense that we're indistinguishably connected to every
perticle in the known universe. Maybe we're trying to playing God all over this
planet. Or maybe, just *maybe, there *is a real God out there who entrusted us
with this fine planet... which will cease to be when Christ returns to send the
non-Christian 2/3 of the planet straight to hell or purgatory along with all of
the Christian sects who happened to be wrong (oops) any any within the *right
faith who weren't quite able to follow all of the rules. Oh yeah, I forgot to
include any sentient beings inhabiting any of the other trillion planets
throughout the universe.Gee, hell sounds like the place to be to meet new
people.
Crossing my fingers,
John
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No proof of No God --> NO PROOF OF NO BAAL |
06 Mar 2004 07:27:27 PM |
|
|
The same "prrof" exists, or rather, is MISSING,
for ALL the deities invented by man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
06 Mar 2004 08:08:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
How many gods in evidence are there by your count? Isn't it a fact that
your answer must be none?
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial as you are trying to do, god boy:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
06 Mar 2004 11:22:56 PM |
|
|
In article <uuv2c.71863$ko6.410811@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist, at least by scientific
standards, is quite correct, but is quite different from making Simple
Septic's (the Purple Pimple) claim that gods have been proven not to
exist, which is a claim and is quite wrong.
Quoted from
http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks2.html
<begin quote>
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't
have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the
argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or
doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from
a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In
other words, you can't win by default.
<end quote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
07 Mar 2004 10:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-71DEEA.22225506032004@news.nntpservers.com...
In article <uuv2c.71863$ko6.410811@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead.
The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist, at least by scientific
standards, is quite correct, but is quite different from making Simple
Septic's (the Purple Pimple) claim that gods have been proven not to
exist, which is a claim and is quite wrong.
Proof is not the issue. I can present a better case for the non-existence of
God than someone else can for the existence of God. Therefore
(provisionally, in practical terms) God does not exist.
Quoted from
http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks2.html
<begin quote>
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't
have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the
argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or
doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from
a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In
other words, you can't win by default.
<end quote>
Exactly.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
07 Mar 2004 12:48:35 PM |
|
|
John Burton wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-71DEEA.22225506032004@news.nntpservers.com...
In article <uuv2c.71863$ko6.410811@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead.
The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist, at least by scientific
standards, is quite correct, but is quite different from making Simple
Septic's (the Purple Pimple) claim that gods have been proven not to
exist, which is a claim and is quite wrong.
Proof is not the issue. I can present a better case for the non-existence of
God
The non-existence of what? "God" is just part somebody else's religion,
having no meaning outside his religion. Why lend credence to it by
allowing the true-believer to shift the burden of proof to you? Just
tell him you have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate, he does, since it
is his proposition in the first place.
than someone else can for the existence of God. Therefore
(provisionally, in practical terms) God does not exist.
Quoted from
http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks2.html
<begin quote>
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't
have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the
argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or
doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from
a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In
other words, you can't win by default.
<end quote>
Exactly.
John
No, what he says is wrong. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial (negation) of the theists claim. The atheists have nothing (no
thing) to prove, the theists do.
The error in the above is in insisting that "There is no God" is a claim
(statement standing in need of proof). It is not a claim, it is the
denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial under any pretext:
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
07 Mar 2004 05:25:59 PM |
|
|
In article <78K2c.136063$4o.173108@attbi_s52>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist, at least by scientific
standards, is quite correct, but is quite different from making Simple
Septic's (the Purple Pimple) claim that gods have been proven not to
exist, which is a claim and is quite wrong.
Proof is not the issue. I can present a better case for the non-existence of
God
The non-existence of what? "God" is just part somebody else's religion,
having no meaning outside his religion. Why lend credence to it by
allowing the true-believer to shift the burden of proof to you? Just
tell him you have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate, he does, since it
is his proposition in the first place.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's claim is that any such thing as a
god is imposssible, in spite of no such impossibility having been proven.
Quoted from
http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks2.html
<begin quote>
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't
have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the
argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or
doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from
a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In
other words, you can't win by default.
<end quote>
Exactly.
John
No, what he says is wrong. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial (negation) of the theists claim. The atheists have nothing (no
thing) to prove, the theists do.
According to Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, theists are only claiming
that some sort of god "might" exist. The denial is then a claim that any
sort of god is impossible.
And then Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, wants to shift the burden of
proof to those who would question the gospel according to Saint Septic.
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
07 Mar 2004 12:51:56 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <uuv2c.71863$ko6.410811@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist ...
That's not a "claim" (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead,
it is a statement of fact. (Unless you are prepared today to demonstrate
some god that has been proven to exist?)
[unsnip what virgil can't seem to face up to, so he just keeps snipping
it, hoping that will make it go away]
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial as you are trying to do, god boy:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No God |
07 Mar 2004 05:37:16 PM |
|
|
In article <gbK2c.133179$Xp.566469@attbi_s54>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uuv2c.71863$ko6.410811@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <qPf2c.53999$ko6.404315@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... his false gospel of
" it has been proven that there are no gods"
Straw man. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods, knucklehead. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the atheists, the atheists have
nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists do.
But you anti-theists, who proclaim your gospel of "it is a fact that
there are no gods" ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... must prove that gospel.
"There are no gods" is not a claim
To claim that no gods have been proven to exist ...
That's not a "claim" (statement standing in need of proof), knucklehead,
Which the part of my clipped sentence by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple
stated. Then he also clipped the sentence in which I frefuted the gospel
according to Saint Septic.
it is a statement of fact. [ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[unsnip what virgil can't seem to face up to, so he just keeps snipping
it, hoping that will make it go away]
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial as you are trying to do.
"There are no gods" is not the denial of what Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, says is the theist belief. Septic says that theists only claim
that there might be a god, not that they claim that there actually is
any god. And the negation of that alleged claim is that it is impossible
that there be any god(s). So if Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is
denying what he states theists believe, he puts himself in the position
of bearing the burden of proof that gods are impossible.
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
We deny and question your perennial assertion that it impossible thet
there be any god(s), which you maintain even though there is no proof of
any such thing.
And, if you follow your own arguments above, you cannot shift the burden
of that proof away from yourself.
So how about coming up with some proof, sonny?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
03 Mar 2004 03:16:59 PM |
|
|
Navigatorator, aka Skeptic, aka Arno wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... The former was an assertion ...
"There is no God" is not an assertion ...
No, it's the lyrics of a song from your
best hits collection, right, Septic? :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 11:39:07 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigatorator, aka Skeptic, aka Arno wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... The former was an assertion ...
"There is no God" is not an assertion ...
[snip]
[unsnip what Snipper can't face up to]
"There is no God" is not an assertion, knucklehead, it is the denial
(negation) of the theist assertion that a magic invisible something
theists refer to as "God" might exist anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the atheists under any pretext, as you are always trying to get away with.
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
The denial (negation),"There is no God" is a perfectly reasonable
presumption, in fact it is the only reasonable presumption, as long as
there is no evidence of any such thing, just like the standing
presumption at SETI, "There are no ETs."
Is this difference between an assertion and the denial (negation) of
that assertion really too complex for you to grasp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 11:40:01 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigatorator, aka Skeptic, aka Arno wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... The former was an assertion ...
"There is no God" is not an assertion ...
[snip]
[unsnip what Snipper can't face up to]
"There is no God" is not an assertion...
No, it's the latest flavor at Ben & Jerry's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 02:13:13 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigatorator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigatorator, aka Skeptic, aka Arno wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... The former was an assertion ...
"There is no God" is not an assertion ...
[snip]
[unsnip what Snipper can't face up to]
"There is no God" is not an assertion...
No, it's the latest flavor at Ben & Jerry's.
[unsnip what Snipper can't face up to]
"There is no God" is not an assertion, knucklehead, it is the denial
(negation) of the theist assertion that a magic invisible something
theists refer to as "God" might exist anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the atheists under any pretext, as you are always trying to get away with.
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
The denial (negation),"There is no God" is a perfectly reasonable
presumption, in fact it is the only reasonable presumption, as long as
there is no evidence of any such thing, just like the standing
presumption at SETI, "There are no ETs."
Is this difference between an assertion and the denial (negation) of
that assertion really too complex for you to grasp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 02:14:17 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator wrote:
"There is no God" is not an assertion, knucklehead
BWAHAHAHAGHAGHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
01 Mar 2004 01:09:41 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator wrote:
It is the meaning that matters, not the exact wording, knucklehead.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *WHEEZE* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 05:18:42 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
"This statement cannot be proved."
That is a true statement, but I'd like to see you prove it.
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.
LOL - not if the refutation is sound, you boofhead. The burden of proof
shifts from moment to moment based on argument and evidence. Or don't
you get that at all?
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
Funny enough, that goes to the heart of your insane unreasoning.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 07:15:35 PM |
|
|
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
That must be your straw man implying that. I haven't implied any such
thing, knucklehead. What I said was, "Except for the denial (negation)
of a claim. For example, 'False, what you say is not known to be true,
there are no gods.'"
You are smart enough to recognize the difference between claim and
denial (negation) of claim, aren't you, sport?
The statement, "False, there is no invisible God as you claim known to
exist" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), it is the
denial (negation) of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial:
Shifting the burden of proof [a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_] 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
<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: No evidence of God yet... |
01 Mar 2004 12:07:46 AM |
|
|
In article <X8w0c.11474$PR3.278078@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
That must be your straw man implying that. I haven't implied any such
thing, knucklehead. What I said was, "Except for the denial (negation)
of a claim. For example, 'False, what you say is not known to be true,
there are no gods.'"
You say that "there are no gods" is not a claim?
Then "there are gods" is not a claim either, and you have just proved
the existence of gods.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
03 Mar 2004 05:47:38 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <X8w0c.11474$PR3.278078@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
That must be your straw man implying that. I haven't implied any such
thing, knucklehead. What I said was, "Except for the denial (negation)
of a claim. For example, 'False, what you say is not known to be true,
there are no gods.'"
You say that "there are no gods" is not a claim?
Then "there are gods" is not a claim either ...
Yes it is, knucklehead, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
anyone who questions or denies the assertion in question. That's logical
fallacy:
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
Is this difference between assertion and denial (negation) of assertion
too complex for you to understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 01:27:00 AM |
|
|
In article <u8u1c.452463$I06.5076563@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <X8w0c.11474$PR3.278078@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
That must be your straw man implying that. I haven't implied any such
thing, knucklehead. What I said was, "Except for the denial (negation)
of a claim. For example, 'False, what you say is not known to be true,
there are no gods.'"
You say that "there are no gods" is not a claim?
Then "there are gods" is not a claim either ...
Yes it is, knucklehead, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
anyone who questions or denies the assertion in question. That's logical
fallacy
It is NOT an error of logic to refuse to accept as fact anything which
is not proven fact.
It is NOT an error of logic to refuse to accept as false anything which
is not proven false.
But it is an error to declare as fact the falsity of anything without
proof of its falsity.
This latter error is one which Snidely Septic urges on us continually.
Since we question your statement that it is a fact that there are no
gods, by your own argument. the burden of proof cannot be shifted to us.
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.
Since we question your statement that it is a fact that there are no
gods, by your own argument. the burden of proof cannot be shifted to us.
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
Since we question your statement that it is a fact that there are no
gods, by your own argument. the burden of proof cannot be shifted to us.
Is this difference between assertion and denial (negation) of assertion
too complex for you to understand?
Is this distiction between refusal to accept and denial too complex for
you to inderstand, Snively Septic?
Refusal to accept a statement as true does not mean automatically
accepting its negation as true. Though this seems to be just what
Snively Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is arguing for.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
03 Mar 2004 08:54:36 PM |
|
|
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<u8u1c.452463$I06.5076563@attbi_s01>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <X8w0c.11474$PR3.278078@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...
Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."
Er, it is entirely illogical to imply that a claim that isn't proven
is necessarily false. For example:
That must be your straw man implying that. I haven't implied any such
thing, knucklehead. What I said was, "Except for the denial (negation)
of a claim. For example, 'False, what you say is not known to be true,
there are no gods.'"
You say that "there are no gods" is not a claim?
Then "there are gods" is not a claim either ...
Yes it is, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
anyone who questions or denies the assertion
Then I deny that "there are gods" is a claim. And you lose by
self-refutation yet again, Septic.
Is this difference between assertion and denial (negation) of assertion
too complex for you to understand?
Is the problem of self-refutation, of you, by you, still too complex
for you to understand Septic?
Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely clueless, mendacious,
hopeless, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:50:21 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator (aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs) wrote:
Sniper wrote:
[snip]
"Objective, verifiable, independent evidence" is
external. I'm told by Christians, that the proof
they require comes by way of internal certainty.
Therefore, Christians will never convince anyone
who only believes what is physically measurable,
and atheists will never convince anyone ...
Atheists don't have anything (any thing) to convince
anyone of. Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove,
theists do, knucklehead.
I didn't say atheist's _have_ to convince anyone ...
Then why say "atheists will never convince anyone," kucklehead?> >
Because, just as _some_ theists try to convince atheists,
_some_ atheists try to convince theists. Get it *****?
Tryinb to convince somebody" doesn't have anything to do
with atheism, knucklehead.
I didn't claim that it did, numbnuts. Learn to read.
Then why say, "Some atheists try to convince theists" if trying to
convince somebody doesn't have anything to do with atheis, knucklehead?
Let's see if you can pull your head out of your
ignorant ***** long enough to follow along. There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong, just as some Christians try
to convince atheists that they're wrong. I only
pointed out that it's fruitless, so long as the
criteria they use is different from each other.
Pointing this out is not equivalent to claiming
that it has something to do with the meaning of
atheism. Now pass the crack pipe back your mom.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
What you are talking about is extraneous to atheism, knucklehead.
This isn't a debate about the meaning of atheism, numbnuts.
It's not a debate period, knucklehead. All we have here is your silly
idea that atheists have something to prove, something of which to
convince others.
LOL. I didn't say any such thing, numbnuts. As
I stated, neither side will convince the other
of anything, so why bother? How that mushy mop
you call a brain deciphered that as me stating
that atheists have something to prove can only
be explained by you being dropped on your head
as a child. Now be a good boy and go *****.
[]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 03:52:19 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
29 Feb 2004 02:03:33 PM |
|
|
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
An theist who is not trying to promulgate his theism has nothing to
prove.
It is not what one believes, or doesn't believe, that requires proof, it
is only what one is trying to get others to believe.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, would stop sermonizing on his
beliefs, he would no longer be required to produce proofs for his
beliefs, or lack of them. But, as a preacher, Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, needs to supply those proofs which he so far has been unable to
supply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
29 Feb 2004 06:08:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:03:33 -0700, Virgil <virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
Nitpick.
"Proof" - only if understood in the most general terms - not formal
mathematically/logically rigorous proof.
I prefer to say "reasons".
"I believe because..."
"I do not believe because..."
If A wants B to accept his arguments or (less ambitiously) accept
that he is reasonable in holding the beliefs he does then he should be
willing to explain the *reasons* why he believes as he does.
I agree entirely with the *spirit* of your point.
I would just express it differently.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
29 Feb 2004 06:46:29 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
An theist ...
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
01 Mar 2004 12:20:48 AM |
|
|
In article <FJv0c.443474$na.1067793@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
An theist ...
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
It is as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, preaches it.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
04 Mar 2004 06:07:14 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <FJv0c.443474$na.1067793@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
An theist ...
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
It is ...
You aren't reading for understanding, knucklehead, atheism is not a
belief, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
04 Mar 2004 11:22:47 PM |
|
|
In article <SwP1c.41188$ko6.357036@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FJv0c.443474$na.1067793@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
An theist ...
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
Your own source says you are wrong:
<quote from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<end quote>
It is ...
You aren't reading for understanding, knucklehead, atheism is not a
belief, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Your own source says you are wrong:
<quote from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<end quote>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
01 Mar 2004 12:55:36 AM |
|
|
In article <FJv0c.443474$na.1067793@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <nDi0c.84127$4o.106663@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Sniper wrote:
... There
are some atheists trying to convince Christains
that they're wrong...
You still don't get the picture, knucklehead. Atheism does not entail
trying to convince anybody of anything; "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, theists do, knucklehead.
It is you,Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who do not get the picture.
It is those who are trying to promulgate their beliefs to others,
whatever those beliefs are, who need proofs.
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
<quote from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<end quote>
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, tries to preach strong atheism, or
better, anti-theism, which is a belief, not just the lack of one.
Fortunately for the survival of truth, but he is a very poor preacher
man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence from Septic yet... |
01 Mar 2004 01:06:28 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <FJv0c.443474$na.1067793@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
[snip]
An atheist who is not trying to promulgate his atheism (unlke Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple) has nothing to prove.
That's where you go wrong, knucklehead. Atheism is not a belief,
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
<quote from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<end quote>
I have posed this very thing to our resident idiot.
Septic never acknowledges that he's wrong, it's the
hallmark of one who's invincibly ignorant. Septic's
response to the above was to simply ignore the fact
that the very website he used for his citation also
contradicts his other assertions regarding atheism.
Septic could not admit he was wrong if he had a hot
poker shoved up his dumbass. He'd probably like it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
