Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4502449e$0$29445$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > >> > > >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > > >> > dwell exclusively in the brain? > > >> > No one knows for certain. > > > > > >> That is not an argument. > > > > > > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument > > > > In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an > assertion > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate > consciousness outside the brain No one has asserted that, so that Septic's STRAW MAN dies a deserved death. What we assert is that no one knows that a naked brain is sufficient. if Septic wants to volunteer as a subject to prove that it is... Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <GOGdnQZVvfigwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > You don't know what the hell you're talking about. > > Yes I do. I am talking about your side trying to get away with arguing from > ignorance "P, because there is no proof that hypothesis is false" Wrong! We have said that P might or might not be the case, in part because it has not been proved not to be the case, but Septic is creating a STRAW MAN to say anything more. It is Septic's hidden agenda indirectly to support his faith that gods are impossible that he is trying to hide under all these false accusations against agnostics. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <EoOdncOEGOpCwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > The issue is how will you establish there is a possibility of > consciousness outside the brain? No one has claimed that. What has been questioned is whether a naked brain with no ancilliary suppport is sufficient. Does Septic wish to volunteer to test the issue? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:01:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in > <eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>: > > > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote > > > >> You don't understand Copi. > > > >Oh yes I do. It's very simple. Virgil and friends argue P, because there is > >no proof that hypothesis is false. That is argument from ignorance, logical > >fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains: > > I have read this many times. What I am stating is that you do not > understand what Copi has written. Your argument does not apply to the > situation at hand. It is NOT argument from ignorance, because no one is > arguing the final false conclusion What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here? > ><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 September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote <SNIP!!> <unsnip> That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false ("No one knows for certain there is no consciousness outside the brain.") That is 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-5E32F5.14154309092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4502449e$0$29445$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > news:IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > >> > > > >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > > > >> > dwell exclusively in the brain? > > > >> > No one knows for certain. > > > > > > > >> That is not an argument. > > > > > > > > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument > > > > > > In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an > > assertion > > > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate > > consciousness outside the brain > > No one has asserted that You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_: > Does consciousness dwell > exclusively in the brain? > No one knows for certain. And you all are pissing your pants trying to prop up his argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi explains. <unsnip> That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false ("No one knows for certain there is no consciousness outside the brain.") That is 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > >> It is not an argument. > > > > Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that > > there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof > > that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for > > which you 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.] > > > > You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space. Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_, but as you know that is logical fallacy and it will not help your side establish that there might be consciousness outside the brain. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > <SNIP!!> > > <unsnip> > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance I'm not trying to 'demonstrate' anything, and I'm not aware of anyone else demonstrating anything either. So far as I'm aware, and I'm pretty sure I've read more on the subject than you have, the Mind/Body problem is still being actively researched and debated by experts from several fields. The question is whether or not making a statement such as 'no one knows for sure where consciousness originates' or asking a question such as 'does anyone know where consciousness originates?' is an argument from ignorance. Since neither simple statements nor simple questions are arguments, they cannot be arguments from ignorance. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly with citations from appropriate authorities. Why do you continue to hold to such an ignorant position? As to my arguing anything, I've made only one argument: 1. The Argument from Ignorance is an argument that is logically invalid for specific reasons. 2. A question is not an argument. 3. A simple statement is not an argument. 4. In order to be an argument from ignorance, there must be an argument. 5. Therefore neither questions nor simple statements can be arguments from ignorance. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ormdnTx5mcT68Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-5E32F5.14154309092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4502449e$0$29445$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> > > >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > news:IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> > > >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> > > >> >> > > >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness >> > > >> > dwell exclusively in the brain? >> > > >> > No one knows for certain. >> > > > >> > > >> That is not an argument. >> > > > >> > > > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. >> > > >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument >> > > >> > > In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an >> > assertion >> > >> > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > demonstrate >> > consciousness outside the brain >> >> No one has asserted that > > You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_: > >> Does consciousness dwell >> exclusively in the brain? >> No one knows for certain. The statement above consists of a question and a statement. The question can be neither true nor false. The statement might be either. Neither the question nor the statement are arguments. Taken together, they are not an argument. Since they are neither an argument separately nor an argument collectively they cannot be an argument from ignorance. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:nv-dneCbyJU28J7YnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> > >> >> It is not an argument. >> > >> > Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ > that >> > there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no >> > proof >> > that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy > for >> > which you 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.] >> > >> >> You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space. > > Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_, Actually, the argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily a logical flaw. If an ad hom actually describes a fact necessary to a more complete understanding of an issue, the ad hom is quite permissable. In this case, considering your enormous spamming of Copi's quote and the tragic way in which you misapply it, it is in fact a waste of space. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:vcWdnYb9gsjc-p7YnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:01:50 -0700, in alt.atheism >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in >> <eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>: >> > >> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote >> > >> >> You don't understand Copi. >> > >> >Oh yes I do. It's very simple. Virgil and friends argue P, because there > is >> >no proof that hypothesis is false. That is argument from ignorance, > logical >> >fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains: >> >> I have read this many times. What I am stating is that you do not >> understand what Copi has written. Your argument does not apply to the >> situation at hand. It is NOT argument from ignorance, because no one is >> arguing the final false conclusion > > What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here? The conclusion you keep accusing everyone of, Septic. You seem to believe that simply asking questions or offering critiques are examples of the argument from ignorance. If that is what you truly believe, you have zero understanding of the argument from ignorance, and you have clearly never understood what Copi wrote on the subject. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <ormdnTx5mcT68Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > demonstrate > > > consciousness outside the brain > > > > No one has asserted that > > You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_: > > > Does consciousness dwell > > exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > Septic deliberately misinterprets the above, as usual. To falsify that consciousness dwells exclusively in the brain, it would be quite sufficient to show that a brain in isolation cannot be conscious. This in no way requires or implies existence of any consciousness independent of any brain, as Septic tries to imply. it merely says that a brain cannot maintain consciousness entirely on its own. Which is quite possibly the case. At least I can see no way for a brain in total isolation to remain conscious. So that we may separate things into Septic's thesis that brains in total isolation from everything else are still capable of maintaining consciousness, versus Woodie's questioning of that thesis. Septic would no doubt be glad to supply his brain to g to settle the issue, at least if he could prove that it could be conscious even with help. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <vcWdnYb9gsjc-p7YnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:01:50 -0700, in alt.atheism "Your Logic > > Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in > > <eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>: > > > > > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote > > > > > >> You don't understand Copi. > > > > > >Oh yes I do. It's very simple. Virgil and friends argue P, because > > >there is no proof that hypothesis is false. Septic misquotes, or deliberately elides. We agnostics admit that there might or might not be any gods because there is not proof either way. Septic ignores the parts of that admission of ignorance that do not suit his lies. > > > > I have read this many times. What I am stating is that you do not > > understand what Copi has written. Your argument does not apply to > > the situation at hand. It is NOT argument from ignorance, because > > no one is arguing the final false conclusion > > What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here? The distinction between "might" and "must", between possibility and necessity. The Copi argument deals with a claim of necessity. Our agnostic admission deals with possibility. Only someone as willfully blind to the truth of that difference would continue to maintain the lie that Septic repeats. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > <SNIP!!> > > <unsnip> > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate > consciousness outside the brain Septic is the only one asserting consciousness ouotside the brain. The rest of us concede that the brain is necessary, but question whether there is any evidence proving it sufficient. If ever Septic could bring himself to understand the real question, instead if his lies about it, he would not have to lie about it any longer. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 In article <nv-dneCbyJU28J7YnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space. > > Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_ Septic presumes that what it is "ad" is "homo". Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mf1gjF5sq9eU1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:I%fMg.8$C26.3@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > > news:4mddeuF5lpdeU1@individual.net... > >> > >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > >> > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net... > >> >> > >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:PtOLg.48368$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. > >> >> > >> > Best Wishes, > >> > Dan > >> > >> So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong. > >> That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit > >> that. > >> > > The Old Testament concept of God was fundamentally wrong. I'm of > > the opinion, this was one reason for the coming of Christ and the > > New Testament - to correct the image of God created in the Old. > > Most mainline Churches claim to be a New Testament church. > > > > There is a reason for that. Do you have any idea as to why that is? > > They don't want to be associated with the old, jealous and bloodthirsty > killer God of the Old Testament? > > > > > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around > > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. > > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. > > I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. > Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a prophet? > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more than a prophet. > > > John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets they had > > no purpose in the New Testament. > > So there were at least two prophets mentioned in the New Testamant, right? > So why make the claim that the New Testament has no prophets? > I make no claim at being an authority on the Bible, but as I understand it no christian church today believes in modern day prophets. There is no need for prophets or prophesying in the N. T. According to the Bible , "the law and the prophets were _until_ John, since that time the kingdom is preached....." Luke 16:16. So based upon this maybe I was wrong John was not a prophet. Best Wishes, Dan Wood, DDS > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mf18jF5p26uU1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:TLfMg.1$C26.0@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" < <snip> >> >> > >> >> > NOw please answer my questions. > >> >> > > >> >> > What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, > >> >> > or why the New Testament was necessary? > >> >> > >> >> One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament > > was > >> >> necessary at all. > >> >> If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question. > >> >> > >> > Ok, so you have no idea! In all due respect, how then can you > >> > criticize that which you do not understand? > >> > > >> I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation. > >> I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted > >> in > >> the Old Testament is the same God that you worship. > >> > > Your observation doesn't take into account that people often > > misconstrue and fail to understand each other, to say nothing > > of misunderstanding the written word found within the pages > > of the Bible. There is often disagreement among dedicated > > Christians regarding the meaning of the messages contained > > within the Bible's pages. > > Whether it is misconstrued or not - the message of the Old Testament is > clear- it's a bloodthirsty little book written by primitive people > describing a bloodthirsty God. > No matter how much you try to interpret it's meaning, that doesn't change. > Yes, I have seen where the Jewish people enlist God wrath upon their enemies and when misfortune overtakes themselves or their enemies they attributed this to God. But as you said these were "primitive people" who jealously guarded God and claimed exclusive right to him. Even to the point of reversing the claim, i.e. He claims them - they (the Jews) are Gods chosen people. > > >> > >> You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old > >> Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God, > >> > > Nowhere have I argued this. I do not accept this. > > Perhaps it was someone else. > Yes, it wasn't me! > >> > > then later > >> weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's > >> misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem. > >> Jeez..... a slippery lot, aren't you? > >> > > This has been my position all along. The differenence is not different > > Gods, but different human impressions of God's nature . The > > New Testament does not depict God as vindictive, cruel, wrathful > > God demanding sacrifices as does the Old Testament: rather the > > N.T. pictures God as kind, loving giving and self-sacrificing. > > And this has been my view all along - no reason to weasel. > > So, you've bought into a watered down version of the Old Testament God then. > Perhaps that's why the New Testament is so popular. > God Lite, as it were. > The Good News is _not_ contained in the Old Testament. Consequently, the Christian looks to the N.T. for the Story of Jesus: his comming; his mission; his life; his sacrifice; his teachings the promise of Christ. This is the New Covenant. This is not found in the O.T. . > > > > You have shown that you have very little idea as to the difference > > where the Old and the New Testament is concerned. > > I am fully aware of all of the differences between the Old Testament and the > New Testament. > > > All you > > seem to know is that one was written before the other and the > > New Testament was unnecessary. > > It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible. > > But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can > > one take you seriously? > > How many times have you read the entire bible? > If it is less than twice, then I am more qualified to comment on it than you > are. > Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself. > > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > This is wrong. (imho) Best Wishes, Dan > > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:AdNMg.2546$726.64@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4mf1gjF5sq9eU1@individual.net... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:I%fMg.8$C26.3@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >> > news:4mddeuF5lpdeU1@individual.net... >> >> >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >> > >> >> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:PtOLg.48368$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. >> >> >> >> >> > Best Wishes, >> >> > Dan >> >> >> >> So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong. >> >> That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to > admit >> >> that. >> >> >> > The Old Testament concept of God was fundamentally wrong. I'm of >> > the opinion, this was one reason for the coming of Christ and the >> > New Testament - to correct the image of God created in the Old. >> > Most mainline Churches claim to be a New Testament church. >> > >> > There is a reason for that. Do you have any idea as to why that is? >> >> They don't want to be associated with the old, jealous and bloodthirsty >> killer God of the Old Testament? >> >> > >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. >> >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a prophet? >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more > than a prophet. Of course Jesus was a prophet. He prophesied the "end of days" He also prophesied that it would happen"within the generation of those around him at the time", which makes him a prophet, albeit a pretty crap one. >> >> > John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets they had >> > no purpose in the New Testament. Nope, Jesus was allegedly the last prophet. >> >> So there were at least two prophets mentioned in the New Testamant, >> right? >> So why make the claim that the New Testament has no prophets? >> > I make no claim at being an authority on the Bible, but as I understand it > no christian church today believes in modern day prophets. There is no > need for prophets or prophesying in the N. T. And yet there are still prophecies contained within it. If you don't believe me, look for them. > According to the Bible , "the law and the prophets were > _until_ John, since that time the kingdom is preached....." Luke 16:16. > So based upon this maybe I was wrong John was not a prophet. > > Best Wishes, > Dan Wood, DDS >> -- >> Steve O >> a.a. #2240 >> "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the > way >> that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" >> >> >> > > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:4502b200.29069187@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >>> Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself. > >>I see. >>Please fuck off and talk to someone else - you are a bit too weird for me. > > You are the weird one. > I beg to differ. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 >> I am fully aware of all of the differences between the Old Testament and > the >> New Testament. >> >> > All you >> > seem to know is that one was written before the other and the >> > New Testament was unnecessary. >> > It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible. >> > But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can >> > one take you seriously? >> >> How many times have you read the entire bible? >> If it is less than twice, then I am more qualified to comment on it than > you >> are. >> > Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can > safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made > a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself. What would be the point? It's a jumbled up contradictory mess full of fanciful ideas, myths and legends which don't mean anything at all in a modern world. If you want to fully understand all of the contradictions and faults, and the complete silliness of the whole thing, I would suggest you visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ It will tell you all you need to know about the bible. It's the best bible study tool available. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 >> I am fully aware of all of the differences between the Old Testament and > the >> New Testament. >> >> > All you >> > seem to know is that one was written before the other and the >> > New Testament was unnecessary. >> > It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible. >> > But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can >> > one take you seriously? >> >> How many times have you read the entire bible? >> If it is less than twice, then I am more qualified to comment on it than > you >> are. >> > Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can > safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made > a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself. What would be the point? It's a jumbled up contradictory mess full of fanciful ideas, myths and legends which don't mean anything at all in a modern world. If you want to fully understand all of the contradictions and faults, and the complete silliness of the whole thing, I would suggest you visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ It will tell you all you need to know about the bible. It's the best bible study tool available. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. >> >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a prophet? >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more > than a prophet. >> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days would come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming. The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet. Check your bible out if you don't believe me. However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >>> >>>> It is not an argument. >>> Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ > that >>> there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof >>> that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy > for >>> which you 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.] >>> >> You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space. > > Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_, but as you know > that is logical fallacy and it will not help your side establish that there > might be consciousness outside the brain. You cannot distinguish between what is and what is not an argument, let alone what is or is not an ad hominem argument. > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net... > >> > I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around > >> > taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. > >> > And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. > >> > >> I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that. > >> Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a prophet? > >> > > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they > > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more > > than a prophet. > >> > According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days would > come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming. > The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet. > Check your bible out if you don't believe me. > I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the prophet; or Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc. But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old Testament prophets. But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my wife when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong. > > However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would > occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made > him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point. > No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a prophet. In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough he had ample opportunity to do so. He wasn't satisfied with these answers He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself as a prophet. Regards, Dan > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > Copi deals with a claim of necessity. The gullible might believe what you say, were it not for the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" 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.