Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com... > >> > > No one knows for certain. > >> > > >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists > >> > are > >> > famous, as Copi explains: > >> > > >> Your logic aside, > > > > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking > > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right? > > > >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact > >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind? > > > > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there is > > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan. > > > > the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer. You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic. Definition: logical fallacy : a fallacy in logical argumentation wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Arguing for consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that hypothesis is false is logical fallacy, Sean, it is a fallacy in logical argumentation. See argument _ad ingorantiam_. Quote
Guest Shawn Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Let the facts show that on 8/30/06 4:04 PM, Steve O at sendspam@here.com wrote: > > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > news:5eabf2d8qj4v1tgq5vee956dbtp70o4h9j@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:09 +0100, "Agnes" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in >> alt.atheism >> >>> >>> "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message >>> news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> Dan Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah >>>> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely >>>> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still >>>> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded, >>>> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save >>>> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit >>>> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say? >>> >>> Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again >>> to >>> finish the job. >>> We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and >>> now >>> they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The >>> Rapture" >>> Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it? >>> At least, in their minds it does. >>> The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze >>> themselves through have always fascinated me. >> >> Hi Agnes! Guess you ate Steve...... >> >> Mental toddlers, ya know. > > Oh shit! > Agnes is a pseudonym I use posting to the cranks over in rec.uk.psychic. > Agnes is a nice old dear who really pisses off the true believers in that > newsgroup because she insists she is in communication with the dead, but in > her case she's a little choosy, and only gets messages from famous > celebrities who have passed to the "other side" > Drives the kooks crazy, especially when she talks about having Frank Sinatra > singing to her at night. > Now I've been rumbled! > All because I forgot to change the name back! > Oh well, it wasn't that funny any more anyway! > Your secret is safe with us, and anyone that doesn't know how to search on Google Groups... Here's my take on it. The devoutly Christians are hypochites and won't admit it. If a random person was found to have abused children, people would be rightly up in arms. But if that person's a priest, the church covers it up and doesn't stop their parishoners for "praying for the good name of our priest". Because, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary, people think the Christianity equals good, and therefore anyone hiding behind the religion is good too. Know what would happen if a group of Humanists discovered another Humanist had been molesting kids? They'd be up in arms. Because being a Humanist means you know there's no dispenser of Concentrated Good and Concentrated Evil, it's people that take advantage of situations and people. It has always been the case, it will always be the case. So a Humanist won't defend a sicko just because they happen to classify themselves as belonging to the same cliche. There was a news article this month that around 30% of Americans believe the Bible is literal. I can only assume that these people are paying lip-service to saying thet're Literal Christians because they've never read the book they're meant to. Article is at: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060821/23880.htm Take Genesis 1. First chapter, first book. When was the Sun made, Christians? Not a hard question, it's a big thing that your guys said revolved around the Earth not too long ago. Giver of light, engine of light and nuclear fusion, when? Well, Genesis 1 says that light and dark were made on Day One. However, the sun wasn't made until Day Four. OK, could have been The Light Of The Lord for a few days. Fair enough, but a poor weasel out of it, so what about the trees? When did god make the trees? Specifically; before Mankind, or after. Well the answer is before. And after. God created the trees, then Adam, then he created ALL the trees. All, meaning none were around before. "It's not meant to be taken literally," I hear some say. Well, tell that to the 30% that are the kind of people that sit in front of you in the cinema and say "I don't understand this story at all, why's he in that Superman costume and why's he flying that fast? Isn't he meant to be a reporter or something?" because that's what we have here. A book covering quite a few pages and 30% of Americans interviewed couldn't even spot the two continuity errors in the opening paragraphs. And it's obviously tied in with politics in the States. The people at Focus On The Family (right-wing group that got the vote out in 2004) are behind the drive to put the Bible back in people's lives, even though it's increasingly less and less relevent in today's world. Seriously: looking for a Messiah? Say; someone born into poverty, a man that used peace to defeat the largest Empire in the world, a man killed for preaching peace and love and passive resistance to all that's wrong in the world? Looking really hard. You missed him. Mahatma Gandhi. I guess he wasn't white enough for Evangelical Americans, though. So we have hundreds of TV programs dedicated to Christianity, thousands of radio hours a week. Millions of churchgoers paying and spending billions to their churches and splinter groups ...and the devil's still such a bit threat? You're expending this energy and time and still hardly drawing level with the character you've created as your nemesis? Looks to me like this devil fella's the stronger one and you've all been duped. Look at it this way: if you were going through the TV channels and you came across an arm-wrestling contest and you'd wonder "who's winning here", you'd size the two competitors up. Who's expelling the most energy. Who's making the most noise, and what's it getting them. Well, we have Christians throwing everything at the opponent. An opponent expelling virtually no energy whatsoever. And the Christians are STILL having to tell people to put more into it or the devil will win. Who would YOU say's winning in this little anthropomorphic arm-wrestle? It's a good job the whole lot of it's complete nonsense. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:4llrgpF2gpnvU1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > "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. > > So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do? > This wasn't addressed to you! Dan Wood, DDS > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire > #1557 > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:p8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@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! 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. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:daniel_t-827DA6.10372830082006@news.west.earthlink.net... > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the > > > > > > consciousness is Pure Being the power behind physical > > > > > > reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of > > > > > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that > > > > > > expression in the current form, but the consciousness > > > > > > continues and does not die, unlike the physical body. > > > > > > > > > > > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual > > > > > > without the need for physical death, but I wouldn't > > > > > > recommend it unless you're willing to re-formulate your > > > > > > world view much larger than it currently is. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Are you open to answering a question, sir? > > > > > > > > > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind > > > > > physical reality" and that it does not cease with the death > > > > > of the individual. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the > > > > > case so that anyone who is skeptical might check your > > > > > observations, scientifically? > > > > > > > > Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for > > > > science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically? > > > > If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of > > > > science? > > > > > > What supernatural? > > > > Can you predict what discoveries the future will bring? > > That's the whole point of the scientific method. We make predictions > based on theories and then check to see if our predictions are true. If > so, then it lends credence to the theory. > And theories are based upon observation and expermentation. > > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula. Does > > that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The existance > > of microscopic organisms was not recognized for centuries before > > the invention of the microscope. Does that mean they did not exist > > before they were discovered? > > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic > organisms until after they were discovered. > They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless, they were very real. > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural? > A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye) microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our knowledge into prevention and cures. An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time. > > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which come > > true. > > People win the lottery too. > Sure, but this proves only good luck. I had a relative who won $10 M. and was broke in two years. Bad investments and trusting the wrong people. Thanks and Best Wishes, Dan Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Marshall" <marshall.spight@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156917819.266515.51030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Sean wrote: >> >> What is this illogical rule that says a) I have no right to make >> extraordinary claims or that b) that I must give you or anyone something >> real to go on or c) that I have to prove it to you to your satisfaction? > > Without this rule, anyone can say anything about anything. Gosh. Yes they can. Do you mean you and others have issues with Free Speech as well? Sounds like it. > At that point, all speech becomes meaningless. We pursue > this rule because we wish for speech to be meaningful. > > > Marshall > Well you're welcome to pursue any rule you wish. Doesn't mean it's rational. This is Usenet, not a University or a Science research centre where I am required to meet particular standards because I have already freely agreed to them in order to be accepted. I reject your rules. They do not apply to me. If that causes any discomfort, well not my problem. I don't need your approval to feel ok about myself and my own beliefs, opinions, knowledge, or experiecnes. But thanks for explaining how you see things. Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a > part of his religion. > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html > I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-) imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods." Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is a comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views and how those were arrived at. If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation to others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't. Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do. Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else. imho. Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aM2dndWVo7tHnGvZnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com... >> >> > > No one knows for certain. >> >> > >> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists >> >> > are >> >> > famous, as Copi explains: >> >> > >> >> Your logic aside, >> > >> > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking >> > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right? >> > >> >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact >> >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind? >> > >> > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there > is >> > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan. >> > >> >> the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer. > > You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic. > > Definition: > > logical fallacy : a fallacy in logical argumentation > wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > I used to think that, now I see it differently. I don;t agree with princeton, but only from a semantic pov. . ;-)) > Arguing for consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that > hypothesis is false is logical fallacy, Sean, it is a fallacy in logical > argumentation. See argument _ad ingorantiam_. > I disagree. You are looking at this from your own pov, knowledge and expereince. Your ad ignorantiam is the assumption there is not, and cannot be any proof. You have no idea of other people's personal experiences and abilities to connect the dots that you may not be aware even exist. You have no evidence to judge anothers pov, only your own. I never said anyone had to believe me either. Further more logical fallacies [ see how I'm willing to switch to your terms ] are about argument and debate. I wasn't, and am not in an argument. I expressed my different pov based upon what I know & believe. It's called sharing, not arguing. <smile> > > > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > I don;t agree with princeton Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ <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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > I reject your rules. Rules are for ball games and such. This is not about rules, this is about the principles of valid argument that apply to arguments made by anyone, even you. Study up, or prepare to be ignored: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com... > > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of > > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity > > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a > > part of his religion. > > > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of > > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html > > > > I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of Virgil's and Sean's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a part of their religion. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com... >> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of >> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity >> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just >> > a >> > part of his religion. >> > >> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of >> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html >> > >> >> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. > > Atheism is not a claim, But atheists can and do make claims. When they do, they bear the burden of proof. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > >> I don;t agree with princeton > > Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ > > <quote> > Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ Which you've proven you don't understand regardless of how famous it is. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 In article <HM-dnbZju6VDnWvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-F0397F.23250629082006@news.usenetmonster.com... > > In article <sKGdnY43UM5ah2jZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > > > > > > > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote > > > > > > > > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate > > > > > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical, > > > > > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding > any > > > > > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement > at > > > > > all, > > > > > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the > power > > > > > behind > > > > > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on. > > > > > > > > Why do I have to? > > > > > > Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours > concerning > > > the nature of things. > > > > Septic has made claims just as extraordinary > > Virgil is a liar. There are others who are aware of Septic's postings under other false names of those anti-theist claims, so that even if I were a liar, there are others to testify that "Septic has made claims just as extraordinary" is not a lie. And Septic is a liar to claim that atheists cannot have the belief that no gods exist or can exist. The ONLY belief that atheists like me cannot have, and be atheists, is that there actually is some god. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 In article <aM2dndWVo7tHnGvZnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com... > > >> > > No one knows for certain. > > >> > > > >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists > > >> > are > > >> > famous, as Copi explains: > > >> > > > >> Your logic aside, > > > > > > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking > > > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right? > > > > > >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact > > >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind? > > > > > > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there > is > > > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan. > > > > > > > the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer. > > You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic. Septic, as usual, has hold of the wrong end of the stick. The objection to "logical fallacy" is not to its meaning but to its being applied improperly, which Septic, did, as usual. So the only mistake here is Septic's. and Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!! Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 In article <AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > > > I don;t agree with princeton > > Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ > > <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. Note that there is a difference between the astronomers' "is in fact" argument and anything less certain, which makes anything less certain NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 In article <27qdnV4q8_Z78mvZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > > > I reject your rules. > > Rules are for ball games and such. Logic has rules, and those, like Septic, who ignore them when they are inconvenient, are illogical. >This is not about rules, this is about > the principles of valid argument The statements of those "principles" are rules to be followed by those, unlike Septic, who wish to make valid arguments. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ Or does Septic wish claim that valid argument is without rules? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 In article <U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com... > > > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of > > > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity > > > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a > > > part of his religion. > > > > > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of > > > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html > > > > > > > I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. > > Atheism is not a claim Septic falsely implies by his claim that atheists never make claims. But atheists make claims. Septic above has just claimed that atheism is not a claim. And the religious Gnostic anti-theist version of atheism, like Septic's, tends to make a lot of claims, and not all of them true. Quote
Guest chazwin Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Sean wrote: > > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of > > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity > > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a > > part of his religion. > > > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of > > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html > > > > I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-) > > imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods." > > Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has > very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is a > comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views and > how those were arrived at. > > If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation to > others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at > how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't. > Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a > criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do. > Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else. imho. The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i don't know": agnostic. "A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist position. Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I think the god idea is utterly incoherant. But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism. If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist". Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:27qdnV4q8_Z78mvZnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > >> I reject your rules. > > Rules are for ball games and such. This is not about rules, this is about > the principles of valid argument that apply to arguments made by anyone, > even you. Study up, or prepare to be ignored: > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ > > I think you may be the one who needs to polish up on logic and rational thought, not to mention the "rules" in basic communication. Ignore me, feel free. ;-)) > Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1157008855.756390.181760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Sean wrote: >> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of >> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity >> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just >> > a >> > part of his religion. >> > >> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of >> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html >> > >> >> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-) >> >> imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods." >> >> Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has >> very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is >> a >> comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views >> and >> how those were arrived at. >> >> If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation >> to >> others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at >> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't. >> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a >> criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do. >> Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else. >> imho. > > The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a > perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a > belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i > don't know": agnostic. > "A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that > those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some > kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably > reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist > position. > > Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought > whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me > to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I > become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I > think the god idea is utterly incoherant. > But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism. > If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to > argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist". > Well I enjoy the way you put things! ;-) and I do take the point about a-theist/anti-theist that you are making, and that's how you do see it, and am willing to say that without any reactive clap trap. Let me be clear that I am not arguing the point, or saying you are wrong about your views on atheism/god/creator, and how you arrive at those. They are valid, for you. and I accept that without any problems at all. I am not insisting on anything either. My distinction could be explained by saying that I am not claiming a "system of belief" as such .... maybe have another look at this part of what I said to the other chap and I'll highlight a few keys words then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at >> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or >> isn't. >> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. and i'll clarify that again by saying a " whole pile of personal beliefs ....." You should notice that I didn;t use the word "atheist" just above. I am speaking to a deeper level than just a non-belief or rejection of others religious beliefs. Can you see what I mean? as a rough analogy, I'd call athesism an F18 fighter jet. I am speaking about the aircraft carrier that supports the fighter jet. I thinks that fair, given ur "Apurplewheatist". hehehe Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:U4ydnfMZc9YD7GvZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f63e66@news.eftel.com... >> > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of >> > Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity >> > anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just >> > a >> > part of his religion. >> > >> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of >> > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html >> > >> >> I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. > > Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of Virgil's and > Sean's > religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity anyway, even > though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a part of their > religion. > If you say so. <smile> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of > gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html > > > > > > Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:AOidnRXEZpU99WvZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > >> I don;t agree with princeton > > Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ > Gee, I'm blushing at your selective snipping. Quote: I don;t agree with princeton, but only from a semantic pov. Did I say I rejected logic? No. I also didn't say that argument ad ignorantiam was a fallacy. But thanks for the quotes. > <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.] > > > > Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 correction sorry, forgot NOT ... I also didn't say that argument ad > ignorantiam was NOT a fallacy.> Quote
Guest Daniel T. Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote: > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything > > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula. > > > Does that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The > > > existance of microscopic organisms was not recognized for > > > centuries before the invention of the microscope. Does that > > > mean they did not exist before they were discovered? > > > > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic > > organisms until after they were discovered. > > > They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless, > they were very real. Right. > > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural? > > A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by > supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye > etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye) > microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed > except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our > knowledge into prevention and cures. > > An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see > this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have > absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to > the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but > has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact > that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could > possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time. Exactly. So many times, things that we thought were supernatural turned out to have natural explanations. Are you sure you want to assert that the things you currently think are supernatural will never have any sort of natural explanation? Are you like that "out of touch" TV watcher? > > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which > > > come true. > > > > People win the lottery too. > > Sure, but this proves only good luck. That's all intuition is... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.