Re: Definition of God

[stoney]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:25:40 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:0iqtf293bd6rrqs4i8hsq5kdpv5mvk625j@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:45:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:di4jf2l4g5a87597jkbkf4pehe1rc5gh8g@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:11:45 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:k4rgf2ti0v4q21vpdh1huaqejsnim6ip2f@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:khjef29jc6dhsh5mofj8i7qd3blljp1p2b@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood"
><danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>> ><danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
>> >> ><drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling
>theist.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there
>is
>> >> >> >> >something
>> >> >> >> >> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus
>> >Christ.
>> >> >> >> >> >I could never deny him.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who
>is
>> >> >> >> >real to me!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Take your meds, Dan.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Thanks, but so far I've been able to get along just fine without
>> >> >> >any meds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's a common statement amongst the psychotic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Are you acousing me of being psychotic???
>> >>
>> >> Guilty conscience I see.
>> >>
>> >> >If so this is liable.
>> >>
>> >> You're liable to be psychotic?
>> >>
>> >> Please make up your mind.
>> >>
>> >No, you have slandered me.
>>
>> You really should see a doctor about your paranoia. Nothing can be done
>> about your lack of cognitive aptitude though. [shrug] That's your
>> personal problem.
>>
>No one is after me or is out to harm me in any way, except
>maybe my ex., so what is your problem?

Stupid **** Dan has a reading problem (and honesty) and blames others.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gh9k1kt0js040@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
>>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
>>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
>>>> theology.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
>>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
>>
>> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
>>
>> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
>
> Why are you lying here when people can easily check



Yes. They can check and they'll find this....


Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders

And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.

What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.

I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.

Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin


[excerpt]


Summary

The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.

But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.

 

[Bob]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:21:12 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> Such a God does not exist in the realist objective ontological world.

>> Maybe that will help you sort out the massive confusion you suffer
>> from.

>****, Bob - next you'll be telling him Santa isn't real.

No one has ever provided a specification for the essence of Santa.
Until someone does, "Santa" is just an idealist subjective
epistemological fantasy and therefore does not exist in the realist
objective ontological world. Claiming "Santa" exists is a
contradiction and claiming "Santa" does not exist is a tautology.

If the person making a claim about the existence or non-existence of
something is not able to provide a complete specification of the
essence of that something, then they cannot make a valid claim about
the existence or non-existence of that something in the realist
objective ontological world of Physics.

..


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:ve9hg2tibtf9dj0dsfchq8k4bdpssl6hne@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:50:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> newstOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O"
<sendspam@here.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not
me.
> >If
> >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me,
unless
> >you
> >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
> >needs
> >> > to
> >> >> >> read the Christian bible.
> >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
> >> >> >> wrathful
> >> >> >> killer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
> >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
> >innocent
> >> >> >> >>people.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
> >way,exactly?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
> >named
> >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
> >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New
Testament,
> >or
> >> > did
> >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
> >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
> >> >>
> >> >> No change then.
> >> >>
> >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
> >> > was made with man.
> >> >
> >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer.
> >>
> >Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the
> > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as
> >a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man.
> >
> >But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love,
> >understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself
> >on behalf of man.
>
> Multiple lies and there was no 'sacrifice.'
>
And you proof is_____?
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:379hg211fa7v9pq85vp7chbm1cq160mcpv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:53:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me.
If
> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless
you
> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
needs
> >to
> >> >> read the Christian bible.
> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
wrathful
> >> >> killer.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
innocent
> >> >> >>people.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
way,exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
named
> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament,
or
> >did
> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
> >> >> >
> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
> >>
> >> No change then.
> >>
> >Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
> >was made with man.
>
> No. The 'old laws' remained in effect until 'heaven and earth passed
> away.' It's quite common for Christians to be very ignorant of their
> bronze age superstition, so don't feel bad.
>
No, until all is fulfilled ie Christ's mission on earth.

Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:949hg297v5tf1e0e1ho1k1onbbruvhgua0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:35:44 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
> in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> >>>> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >>>> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me.
If
> >>>> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless
you
> >>>> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
needs
> >>>> to
> >>>> read the Christian bible.
> >>>> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
wrathful
> >>>> killer.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
> >>>> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
innocent
> >>>> >>people.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
> >>>>
> >>>> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
named
> >>>> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
> >>>> >
> >>>> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
> >>>> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or
> >>>> did
> >>>> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
> >>>> >
> >>>No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
> >>>New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
> >>
> >> No change then.
> >
> >I think he's trying to say that God became a born again Christian when
Jesus
> >arrived on the scene...
>
> If so, no change then.
>
If you are going to be critical of Christanity, at least know somethingt
about it.

Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:m2qgg25d2q2aacnblbd4lclrf2v8b6boch@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:51:11 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >news:c5stf2p772bpbiaefvi8ulgs16bm2lpciu@4ax.com...
>
> []
>
> >> >Chris, otoh, thought we were miles apart. One example:
> >> >in applying the laws of physics we can go to go back to
> >> >Planck Time. But, where we disagreed, imho, was the
> >> >period beyond Planck Time. My position was that while
> >> >some kind of physics was at work during this epoch i.e.
> >> >T0 - 10^-43 secs. This was were no modern laws of
> >> >physics as we understand them.
> >>
> >> I would agree about 'no modern laws...' but am uncertain about if 'some
> >> kind of physics' is even a player.
> >>
> >The laws of physics break down at 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang.
>
> I know.
>
>
> >For this reason we cannot extrspolate beyond Planck Time with the same
> >degree of confidence.
>
> Agreed. That's why I said I was uncertain if 'some kind of physics'
> applied.
>
This is old news, but Chris and I were not so far apart. I think we were
talking past each other.

Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:eupgg2lcm039kv0upvel38lr68a4rip459@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:27:36 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> >news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> alt.atheism
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dan Wood wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >[...]
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to
those
> >> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,
> >forthright
> >> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing
honest
> >> >> and sincere discussions.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day,
> >> >> Dan
> >> >
> >> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity
> >>
> >> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
> >> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
> >>
> >Such is bound for punnishment.
>
> Rapunnzel Rapunnzel.
>
> Free clue Dan; when a character has omni characteristics all results are
> as it wants it.
>
Sorry I must disagree. There was, as I see it, only two options. We
would live strictly according to deterministic dictates (puppets
on a string) or by free will.

I appreciate and respect your thoughts,
Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... the brain might need some help in
> maintaining consciousness

Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal soul'
thingy?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in
> maintaining consciousness

To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need some
[metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> ... the brain might need some help in
>> maintaining consciousness
>
> Some help from what,

Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition of the
argument from ignorance.

 

[Virgil]

In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... the brain might need some help in
> > maintaining consciousness
>
> Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal soul'
> thingy?

How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
etc.? And how will it verify its consciousness without any means of
commuication?

A brain in vacuo is quickly dead.
As Septic's seems to be.

 

[Virgil]

In article <7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in
> > maintaining consciousness
>
> To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need some
> [metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?

That a brain might need "metaphysical" help is purely Septic's silly
notion.


My notion of "needed help" is that the brain needs considerable physical
help in maintaining consciousness. Any brain in vacuo is quickly dead
and then totally and forever unconscious.

Much like Septic's normal state.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
> >
> > > Copi quotes ...
> >
> > Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad
> > ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends
>
> The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"

The hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact) is
that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And this
hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!"

<quote>
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly [hypothetically] filling the valleys, he put
forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks --
but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics
could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in
>> maintaining consciousness
>
> To be logically consistent........

To be logically consistent, YOU might want to start actually using valid
logic.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:uiiNg.10663$xQ1.878@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ef2dneio3KDrMJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>... your religious bigotry
> >
> > Atheism is not a religion
>
> Anti-theism is a religion

No it isn't, it is OPPOSITION to religion, opposition to theism, which is
what agnostics rightly do, as Huxley explains. (You haven't done your
homework, have you, son?)

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... confessions of ignorance

More like argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which theists are
FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Virgil]

In article <SJCdnSaT3vcCq5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
> > >
> > > > Copi quotes ...
> > >
> > > Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad
> > > ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends
> >
> > The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"
>
> The hypothesis is
> that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
> crystalline substance

False!!! The hypothesis in question is that the moon IS IN FACTa perfect
sphere.

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_
given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of
his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen
through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced
that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian
science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see
what appear to be mountains and valleys,
THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT
SPHERE
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

So that Septic, the fool, remains in total ignorance of what is required
for an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Virgil]

In article <xsqdnYNWasXD3JfYnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uiiNg.10663$xQ1.878@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ef2dneio3KDrMJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>... your religious bigotry
> > >
> > > Atheism is not a religion
> >
> > Anti-theism is a religion
>
> No it isn't, it is OPPOSITION to religion

Any anti-theist faith without evidence, such as Septic's, is
indistinguishible from theist faith without evidence, and therefore is
equally a religion.




, opposition to theism, which is
> what agnostics rightly do, as Huxley explains. (You haven't done your
> homework, have you, son?)

Huxley never opposes theism itself, he only opposes that part of some
theist religions which Septic himself adopts, the claim that one should
believe in the claimants beliefs without logically convincing evidence.
>
> "That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
> doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
> logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
> 'agnostic', http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

So that believing Septic's claims without evidence is immoral, according
to Huxley. And I follow with Huxley on that issue.

 

[Virgil]

In article <q42dnUPlMt0Q35fYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... confessions of ignorance
>
> More like argument from ignorance

Only someone as ignorant as Septic would ever conflate the two.

WE atheist agnostics insist that one cannot reject any possibility
without proof of its impossibility. That includes the possibility that
there are no gods as well the opposite possibility.

Septic argues that the lack of proof either way proves that there is no
possibility god any gods.

Now that is a real ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM.