Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2119262
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.talk.creationism, sci.skeptic, alt.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: common logical fallacy |
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <drfdbqF5pi8U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <fkookb9dshnrj4igeihbbeosib8ru0fndr@4ax.com> <dr48n6FtaniU1@mid.individual.net> <qufrkbd9i6peogmvsco990vhbkk7fcft4p@4ax.com> <dr6tviFf5l0U1@mid.individual.net> <uoe4lbd4p253ks1h953elvhhq932i0c8nd@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
On 4/06/2016 12:28 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:01:18 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> > wrote: > >> On 1/06/2016 2:48 AM, Dale wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:46:14 +1000, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31/05/2016 1:56 AM, Dale wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:45:30 +1000, Sylvia Else >>>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 30/05/2016 1:14 PM, Dale wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:12:50 +1000, Sylvia Else >>>>>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30/05/2016 3:34 AM, Dale wrote: >>>>>>>>> Affirming the consequent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if an atheistic cosmos then some atheistic parts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> some atheistic parts >>>>>>>>> an atheistic cosmos >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> applies to a recent discussion where a poster said abiogenesis (life >>>>>>>>> from non-life) "had" to happen, whereas we have never observed it and >>>>>>>>> observe biogenesis (life from life) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or you simply misconstrued the posting. If you'd give specifics, we >>>>>>>> could form a judgement. At the moment, you're asking us to take your >>>>>>>> conclusion on trust. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (if atheistic cosmos therefore abiogenesis) therefore (if abiogenesis >>>>>>> therefore atheistic cosmos) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> see the thread on talk.origins >>>>>>> Subject: ID after the Bait and Switch >>>>>>> original post Message-ID: <nh7aak$1tr$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it >>>>>>>> remind me of? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> apologies, I did a copy/paste without consideration >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dale >>>>>>> http://www.dalekelly.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, this post then: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, how does that support your claim? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you kind of have to read the parts of the thread I was in >>>> >>>> That really doesn't work. Your claim was a strong one. You should be >>>> able to cite specifics. If all you have is a gut feeling from an >>>> extended discussion, then you should not have made the claim in the form >>>> that you did. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> the particulars were just an example >>> >>> there is a bad habit in the mainstream type science to assume there >>> must be a whole atheistic explanation, I don't know how far up or down >>> this goes, I don't whether this is propaganda, but it is frustrating >>> -- >>> Dale >>> http://www.dalekelly.org >>> >> >> That's a far cry from your original posting which related to flawed >> reasoning. >> >> Yes, atheists assume that God does not figure in the working of the >> universe. > > They/You have faith that there are no beings who could be considered God(s) > anywhere in the entire universe, or at the very least that there are none > associated with this planet or this star system. They/You want everyone to put > their own faith in that same thing, but they/you have no evidence to support > their/your faith that their/your belief about it is correct. Thay/You can't even > pretend they/you do. > Generally speaking, I care very little about other people's religious beliefs provided they don't try to impose them on me. That said, belief in God has been handed down over the generations, through child indoctrination, from a time when people understood very little about anything. If we were starting from a religious blank-sheet now, there's precious little chance a belief in God would get much traction. It's a historical hang-over, nothing more. Sylvia.
Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 13:34 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 12:46 -0500
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:55 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 14:19 -0500
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 21:51 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:35 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:05 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 23:34 -0500
Re: common logical fallacy JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 21:49 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:56 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:53 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 14:13 -0500
Re: common logical fallacy Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-29 18:14 +0000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:51 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-29 21:06 +0000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:07 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 23:35 -0500
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:26 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:46 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:44 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:59 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 23:26 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 23:51 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-30 00:02 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-30 00:05 +0100
Re: common logical fallacy Prince Michael <t2judgment@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 16:16 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-05-29 17:30 -0700
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-30 12:12 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:14 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-30 13:45 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-30 11:56 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-31 11:46 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-31 12:48 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-01 12:01 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-06-03 22:28 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:12 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:46 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-31 13:53 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-06-03 22:29 -0400
Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:13 +1000
Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400
csiph-web