Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <R9-dnfg9O-k6m5vYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > Don't act so stupid. Septic should not try to give advice he cannot follow. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Atheism is not a viewpoint Septic's viewpoint IS a viewpoint and a biased one, which claims that everyone who is not a Gnostic anti-theist, like Septic, is his enemy. And Septic's attitude towards neutral agnostics, and other reasonable people, is enough to turn anyone who might start by being neutral into enemies of Septic and all his fallacies. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot. What, nothing but hate talk from a well known loser? You lose! Virgil wrote: > > While a brain may well be necessary for consciousness, it has not been > shown by itself to be sufficient, which issue is sufficient to justify > Gandalf's questioning of Septic's dogmatism. It has been so shown. 1. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > ... no proof either way. > > > > That is argument That is fact. Unless Septic has proof one way or the other. Well do you, punk? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <XaidnT09G-IGmJvYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Atheism is not a viewpoint Then Septic is not an atheist, because he is all viewpoint, and a lousy one at that. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," And includes "There is no proof there is a god." And hardly constitutes an argument for either side. What pisses off Septic is that the neutrality of "No proof either way" tends to make the bias and argumentum ad ignorantiam of Septic's "Gods are impossible because of no proof there are any" too obvious to ignore. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 In article <Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > You really are a moron, aren't you? Only to imbeciles like Septic, and other lower forms of life who can't see any higher. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:4jpNg.701$IA.479@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Virgil wrote: >> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote: >> >>> Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad >>> ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof >>> there isn't >> >> What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or >> might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. > > For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big. > We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that > half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there > somewhere. > >> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position >> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. > > Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm > not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest > in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't > think I'd say that the question is unresolved. I don't think I would be either. The question here is a bit more fundamental. What it comes down to is the essential meaning of "might be/might not be." Septic's position is that anytime someone says that something isn't proven to be false, they MUST be saying that it MUST be true. And anytime they say something isn't proven to be true, they MUST be saying that it MUST be false. That kind of argument is the argument from ignorance. Furthermore Septic's position is that saying that something "might be" true is exactly equivalent to saying that it MUST be true, and to say that something "might be" false is exactly equivalent to saying that it MUST be false. A moment's thought will convince you that this is not the case. We can all question the amount of evidence for something's truth without actually making an argument one way or the other. For example: suppose you ask me if I know whether or not it will rain today. If I say "I don't know" it would be absurd to accuse me of taking the position that it CAN'T be true that it will rain today OR that it MUST be true that it will rain today. One way of looking at the argument from ignorance is that it is a way of warning us that an absence of evidence should never be taken as equivalent to some kind of conclusion beyond the fact that there is an absence of evidence. It should also be plain after some consideration that simply pointing out that there is an absence of evidence is not in itself an argument. For example, pointing out that there are gaps in the fossil record has often been used as an argument that evolution is a failed theory and that god must have created life on earth. The argument goes.... 1. There are gaps in the fossil record, therefore Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. 2. If Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong then God must have created life. This argument fails for two reasons. 1. Statement one is the argument from ignorance. There are gaps in the fossil record. Scientist cannot offer physical proof as to what happened in those gaps Therefore Darwinian evolution does not fully explain the fossil record Therefore Darwinian evolution must be a failed theory. 2. The argument assumes that either evolution is completely correct and can explain everything right now or God created life. This assumes that Darwinian evolution vs Creationism are two arguments that are both mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. > > > -- > --Bryan Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gc7o7gk46n768@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >>> You lie and I correct your lies. >>> You are the liar not me. >> >> You are a child. > > All you have is ad hominem attacks? All you have is re-pasted dreck. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gc95etd9ddg24@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot. > > What, nothing but hate talk from a well known loser? Irony. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:XaidnT09G-IGmJvYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505fc11$0$24206$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints. >> >> > >> >> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint >> >> >> >> Viewpoints > > [unsnip]...... Viewpoints are not simply opinions, my stupid little friend. The argument from ignorance is a complex subject that you have never defended in your own words. There are many logicians who have looked at the subject, there are IN FACT, a number of recognized viewpoints toward it, and the subject has in fact changed over the years from its introduction into philosophy by John Locke. The fact that you continuously misuse and abuse the term is evidence that you've never actually made an attempt to understand the rule. You only use it because you believe it to be a magic bumpersticker that can be hammered into supporting your bigoted viewpoints. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:R9-dnfg9O-k6m5vYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> > > >> >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> Copi quotes ... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Copi quotes ... >> >> > > >> >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... >> >> > >> >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron >> >> >> >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must >> >> declare certainty >> > >> > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might > be' >> >> Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really >> not a part of it. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis >> ... >> "to suppose"...... Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really not a part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> > >> >> ... no proof either way. >> > >> > <BITCHSLAP>..... >> >> "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ... > > <BITCHSLAP> > > "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," Which is not an argument. Since it is not an argument It is not the argument from ignorance Likewise "there is no proof there is a god" is not an argument. Therefore it is not the argument from ignorance. Either way, you lose, Septic Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> > > >> >> > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> Copi quotes ... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Copi quotes ... >> >> > > >> >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... >> >> > >> >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron >> >> >> >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must >> >> declare certainty >> > >> > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might > be' >> >> Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really >> not a part of it. > > You really are a moron, aren't you? > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis >> ... >> "to suppose" > > That means conjecture...... BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!! Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really not a part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 > There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two > dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. > So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling > into their world? A two dimesnional being would describe it as a line, popping into existence from nowhere into the middle of their world, growing larger, shrinking , and then vanishing. Didn't you watch "Cosmos" or didn't you read "Flatlanders"? >A resident of a water world gifted with a > highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he > cannot see, You mean dolphins? I beg to differ. They are resident of a water world, have highly developed brains and can comprehend thimgs they cannot see quite well by using sonar. >We cannot always see reality. Correction, reality is what we see. (or feel, or detect) Dan, you need to think things through a bit more. Perhaps you could understand things a litttle better if you tried. It would also help if you didn't stop using your brain when it comes to the subject of God. -- 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 Bob Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:58:57 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: >> >So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling >> >into their world? A resident of a water world gifted with a >> >highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he >> >cannot see, We cannot always see reality. Until the >> >Hubble, we could not see planets circling a star in Orion. >> >That doesn't mean they were not there. >> >When electricity was first discovered it was a curious >> >phenonium without any visible cause. >> You are an agnostic. >It's interesting I been called everything from an atheist to a fundy >an now an agnostic. If the shoe fits... -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 On 11 Sep 2006 18:36:12 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote: >> Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists >> or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or >> tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you >> claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a >> God that does not exist. >How is it that this essenceless God 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. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message > news:12gc7o7gk46n768@corp.supernews.com... >> Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >>> >>>> You lie and I correct your lies. >>>> You are the liar not me. >>> >>> You are a child. >> >> All you have is ad hominem attacks? > > All you have is re-pasted dreck. I post facts, you post nonsense. Now you are down to merely post ad hominems as you realize you dont have any facts. Dualism is a bad error from Descartes. Nobody but metaphysical oriented idiots take it seriously. Brain states are conciousness as the facts show, which facts you are utterly ignorant of, as is Virgil. There is no metaphysical mind "out there" beyond the brain, that suggestion is metaphysical nonsense, argument from ignorance, no proof for that, just a statement that ignores many lines of hard evidence conciousness is a property of a highly evolved brain. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Bryan Olson wrote: > Virgil wrote: >> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote: >> >>> Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad >>> ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof >>> there isn't >> >> What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or >> might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. > > For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big. > We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that > half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there > somewhere. > >> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position >> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. > > Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm > not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest > in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't > think I'd say that the question is unresolved. > > There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and take over the planet. As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things that might or might not be. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mn5acF6os66U1@individual.net... > > > > > There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two > > dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. > > So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling > > into their world? > > A two dimesnional being would describe it as a line, popping into existence > from nowhere into the middle of their world, growing larger, shrinking , and > then vanishing. > Didn't you watch "Cosmos" or didn't you read "Flatlanders"? > > >A resident of a water world gifted with a > > highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he > > cannot see, > > You mean dolphins? > I beg to differ. > They are resident of a water world, have highly developed brains and can > comprehend thimgs they cannot see quite well by using sonar. > > > >We cannot always see reality. > > Correction, reality is what we see. > (or feel, or detect) > > > Dan, you need to think things through a bit more. > Perhaps you could understand things a little better if you tried. > It would also help if you didn't stop using your brain when it comes to the > subject of God. > Everything I wrote, Steve is strictly imaginary and purely supposition. Not a real universe. And _only_ to make a point that we do not see everything. My dog hears and sees thing I cannot. This is not supposition. Yet, I cannot, this does not make it unreal? 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 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:45063fd9$0$24184$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> Copi quotes ... > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Copi quotes ... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... > >> >> > > >> >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron > >> >> > >> >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must > >> >> declare certainty > >> > > >> > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might > > be' > >> > >> Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really > >> not a part of it. > > > > You really are a moron, aren't you? > > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis > >> ... > >> "to suppose" > > > > That means conjecture...... > > BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!! Buzz all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that to suppose means 'might be' conjecture. That means 'might be' conjecture, moron. Snap out of it! Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning: hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, supposition, hunch, intuition, belief, faith And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally probable hypothesis," in the following, is there? <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 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.] Will you ever be able to get this through your thick skull, son? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote : > ... For example: suppose You mean do some 'might be' conjecture? Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning: hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition, belief, faith And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally probable hypothesis," in the following, is there? <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 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.] Will you ever be able to get this through your thick skull, son? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gdbnr826ucuab@corp.supernews.com... > Bryan Olson wrote: > > > Virgil wrote: > >> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote: > >> > >>> Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad > >>> ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof > >>> there isn't > >> > >> What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or > >> might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. > > > > For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big. > > We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that > > half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there > > somewhere. > > > >> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position > >> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. > > > > Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm > > not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest > > in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't > > think I'd say that the question is unresolved. > > > > > > There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or > A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and > take over the planet. > > As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things > that might or might not be. Contrary to what Virgil and GG are saying, agnosticism does NOT entail agreeing with the theists that there might be a god anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence, agnosticism is the rightful denial and repudiation of any religious doctrine like Christianity or Islam for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically satisfactory 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', 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 Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:6JednWM-dsvUeJvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote : > > >> ... For example: suppose > > You mean... It's not possible for the interested reader to see what anyone 'means' when you snip 99% of a post. If you want to start discussing things rationally, stop pasting bumpersticker replies, and stop editing the efforts of your opponents to express themselves. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aqednc6bR_NRfpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:45063fd9$0$24184$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> Copi quotes ... >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Copi quotes ... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron >> >> >> >> >> >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must >> >> >> declare certainty >> >> > >> >> > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means > 'might >> > be' >> >> >> >> Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is > really >> >> not a part of it. >> > >> > You really are a moron, aren't you? >> > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis >> >> ... >> >> "to suppose" >> > >> > That means conjecture...... >> >> BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!! > > Buzz all you want..... And conjecture still isn't equivalent to a hypothesis. 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.