What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Incubus on 1 Apr 2005 11:57 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > ... Your claims are no > better than the epistemological system you use to support them. ... Your system is letting you down, old boy. One fact you evidently do not know is that atheism is not about making claims, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the existence of gods: "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
From: SOB) on 1 Apr 2005 11:58 On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:10:18 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >My "blathering" is that there are things I may never know and I am man >enough to be able to admit it instead of making up fantasies to explain >them. Pretty simple and easily to understand - only one sentence of >"blathering." All of us suffer from ignorance but that does not mean we have to indulge it like atheists do. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Incubus on 1 Apr 2005 12:00 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On 1 Apr 2005 05:50:14 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> > wrote: > > >>>>They've resettled the Tigris/Euphrates valley? > > >>>Is Jerusalem in the valley? > > >>You actually think their "original homeland" was in Jerusalem? :-) > > > <Geez> Geez is all hearsay: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm Did a historical Jesus exist? by Jim Walker originated: 12 June 1997 / additions: 25 May 2004 Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus. ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay.
From: Hector Plasmic on 1 Apr 2005 12:23 >>>> You actually think their "original homeland" was >>>> in Jerusalem? :-) >>> <Geez> >> So much for your precious prophecies, eh, Bobby? :-) > You are free to believe or not. I am interested because I see a > pattern in Prophesy that seems to relate to today's world. I See a Pattern in Bobby that Seems to Relate to your Being a Very, very Silly Bobby. > If you reject prophesy outright, then you risk Nothing at all, Bobby, nothing at all. And hey -- that's a Prophesy there, Silly Bobby.
From: SOB) on 1 Apr 2005 13:09
On 1 Apr 2005 08:48:51 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >> What makes you think that physical reality began in time? >Probably the same time-bound thing that gave you the idea that the >universe needed a cause -- because when we look _within_ the universe >that's how most things work. > Both are, of course, unwarranted assumptions. You claim that after looking "within the universe" you conclude that Causality is not present? You are a loony. >> In fact, as I argued earlier, the Universe is part of what we call >> Objective Reality, so it likely has existed along with God for all >> eternity. >The universe has existed for all of time, time being part of the >universe (in other words, there was never a time when the universe did >not exist), I agree, but unlike you I have reasons to accept that as true. > but time does not appear to be infinite (into the past, at >least), so you appear to be incorrect -- again. "Infinite" is a Mathematical and Theological concept. It is not part of objective reality. Therefore it is meaningless to use it to characterize the Universe or our part called the universe. You need to get an education before you can discuss Physics, Mathematics and Philosophy. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life." |