Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2115623 > unrolled thread

common logical fallacy

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#2115754

Life is eternal both before and after.
Life has no beginning and life has no end.
People were not "created" they have always existed, same as Angels
have always existed.
Everyone in a sense lives for ever, but on Earth you live you die and
then you are reborn.  But you do still continue for ever even though
Earth people live in a Reincarnation Cycle where you do have old age
and death.

But death is merely the transition to the next life.

You cannot destroy or end life.
You can put it into some kind of none conscious state for an
indefinite period of time.
You can make Men into birds or fish.
But the essence of Self, sometimes called the Soul or character of a
person is eternal in nature.

Life is different from none life.
That is why abortion is wrong, because it is Life that they are
murdering and it is not none life.
There is a lot of difference between a human embryo and a vacuum
cleaner.  The human embryo WILL become a person if the woman does not
kill him.  A vacuum cleaner never would.
So women do get punished for abortion and they do have a Price to pay
if they do abortion and they pay that Price in their future lives.

You are trying to ponder Life and the Meaning of Life when you are
right down at a very, very low level.
Since the women appeared and interfered with the Men, the whole of
Earth is down at the very, very low level of women and there is no
Intelligence there.
So no doubt you are finding it hard to figure things out and it is
very doubtful that you will understand a word of this message.

But do not worry.
Once the women are back in order and back in their place then the Men
will have Intelligence again and you will regain your much higher
Conscious Level and you will find that things look very different up
there.  And that you understand all kinds of things that you do not
and cannot understand while you are down at the very, very low level
of women.  And you will remember your relationship with God.  That is
something that Men have that women never had.

But you do not have your REAL memories while you are down at the very,
very low level of women.
And you do not have your Intelligence and many other things.

But do not worry Dale.
You are a good sort and you will be fine.
Keep the Faith and one day Life will be good again.




On Sun, 29 May 2016 13:34:02 -0400, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> 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)
>
>also, if an experimenter "could" create life from non-life, the
>experimenter is the creator, is alive and life is the causal factor,
>there for life from life

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116501

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:26:19 +0100, The BORG <borg@future.com> wrote:

>Life is eternal both before and after.
>Life has no beginning and life has no end.
>People were not "created" they have always existed, same as Angels
>have always existed.
>Everyone in a sense lives for ever, but on Earth you live you die and
>then you are reborn.  But you do still continue for ever even though
>Earth people live in a Reincarnation Cycle where you do have old age
>and death.
>
>But death is merely the transition to the next life.
>
>You cannot destroy or end life.
>You can put it into some kind of none conscious state for an
>indefinite period of time.
>You can make Men into birds or fish.
>But the essence of Self, sometimes called the Soul or character of a
>person is eternal in nature.
>
>Life is different from none life.
>That is why abortion is wrong, because it is Life that they are
>murdering and it is not none life.

    If "Life has no beginning and life has no end" then there's no reason to
believe abortion is always wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115766

The only Form of Life is Man.
Men are the ONLY Form of Life.
All Life are Men or Boys of one kind or another.
The Gods, Angels, Avatars, Kings, Rulers, Leaders, Saviours, Soldiers,
Warriors, Monks and a whole range of different kinds of Men and
ordinary people.  They are all Men.

Women are Men who have had their masculinity removed.
They are basically what is left when all the "Man" parts have been
removed.

You may wonder how they lost their masculinity and became women.

Well if you look at how they behave, it is hardly surprising that they
are NOT ALLOWED to be Men!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115780

Due to feminism and the interference of women in Male Only Professions
and Male Only Places, the women dragged the Men of Earth down to their
very, very low level.

That meant all the Men lost their intelligence and became vacant
headed and empty headed like the women.

That is why you have atheism and science on Earth.
You certainly would not have those things if the Men were up at the
Higher Conscious Level where they are supposed to be.

But the women cannot get up there you see, so they dragged the Men
down to their very, very low level.

When the Men are up there, then they do understand a lot of things
that they do not currently understand while they are down at the very,
very low level of women.

They know about Life and about the Meaning of Life, they know many
things that they have learnt over thousands of years.
Things that the women know nothing about.

And the Men do have a relationship with God which they do not remember
right now.

Remember that the women have corrupted history and the past and the
religions and medicine and music and art and maths and many other
things.

If you want to know the Truth then listen to us.

We are all Men so we can maintain a Higher Conscious Level without
interruption or interference from any women.

We do know what we are doing you know.
And we are INTELLIGENT whereas Earthmen are currently not intelligent
at all because they are down at the very, very low level of women.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115788

If you want some help or comfort during the bad times, then tune into
the Radio Station that we gave you.
That is a BORG Transmission and is one of the few places on Earth
where you can find some really good music.
We have catered for Earth people and made it appropriate to Earth.
There are a few other BORG Transmissions on Earth but we have given
you one that we think is suitable.

Music matters a lot.
And when the women started to threaten the Men, the Men stopped
singing and they stopped producing the Music and Earth lost the Music.
And they lost the Rhythm of Earth and the Rhythm of Life.

Life was very, very different BEFORE the women ruined things.
Life was Heaven.  Life was Paradise.  Life was a wonderful thing.
You never thought about atheism or science.
Why would you do that when you were all so happy?
You all thought you were in Heaven.

You do not remember right now.

The memories of the Men are all much higher up at the Higher Conscious
Level.

Down there at the very, very low level of women, you do not remember.

But we do.
Men Make Heaven.
Men ARE Heaven.

For women it is an honour and a privilege to live with Men because
they cannot make Heaven themselves.

A Man can TAKE a woman to Paradise, but a woman cannot go there on her
own.

Women should honour and respect and obey the Men.
What are they without Men?
They have NOTHING.

Men are what it is all about.

Women must NOT interfere with what Men are all about.
They must NOT corrupt War or Army or Medicine.
They must NOT corrupt Sport or Justice or Religion.
They must not fly aircraft of drive large cars.
They must not do engineering or technology or woodwork or any other of
the Men's things.
They must not play guitar or drums or keyboards. 
They must not interfere with Male Dominance or Male Leadership or
World Affairs or World Government.
Those things were given to Men by God and they were for the Men to do.
They were NOT for the women to do.
They must NOT in any way interfere with the image of Man which is like
unto God and like unto Angels.

The image of Man is Holy and she must not interfere with it and place
Whores and Tarts and Jezebels into places where Men should be.

She must not put her inferior womanly body or her inferior womanly
self into places where ONLY Men should be.

She must not effect the IMAGE of Man.

Women are in a LOT of trouble.

So make SURE you do not support her feminism or abortion or any other
of her Evil and Sins.

And NEVER portray an Angel as a woman in any way.

You can be absolutely SURE that there are no bitches "up there".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115791

The women are so bad and so rude that the Gods cannot deal with them.

Earth cannot HAVE a God because the women are so bad.
The women are so appalling that the Gods do not have the vocabulary to
describe her.
What the women do and how they behave is beyond the knowledge and
vocabulary of the Gods.
The Gods literally cannot deal with her.

So Earth cannot have a God.

So The BORG have to deal with Earth.

How about that!

And you can call us God if you like.
After all we are much higher and a lot more powerful than the Gods.

But there is nothing to do.
It has been done.

It is only a matter of time.

But the Men should try to be strong and try to keep the Faith.
Remember that you do not know a great deal down there at the level of
the women and you have no Intelligence down there.
And you do not have your Real memories.
That is why you have atheism and science at the moment rather than the
BELIEF you used to have before the women ruined Life on Earth.

And remember that History and Religion and Maths and Music and
Literature and Medicine and many other things have been corrupted by
the women and they are not True and they are not Real.

All the ugly things and bad things come from the women.
They are going AGAINST Creation.
All the pain and misery and suffering comes from the women.

So what can you do if you cannot HAVE a God because the women are so
BAD?

Well it is just as well for you that The BORG do exist then, isn't it?

But we do understand the situation and we do not blame the Men.
What can the Men do without their Intelligence or Knowledge or
Memories?
How can the Men live or operate down at the very, very low level of
women with empty heads and vacant heads and chicken brains?

How can they possible be Dominant and in Charge and Rule the World
with bossy feminist bitches bossing them around and telling them what
to do?
How can they Lead the way into the Future with women pushing them out
of the way?

Earth only works when the Men are in Charge and when the Men lead the
way into the Future.

It does not work and it will not work any other way.

And THAT is why you have so much suffering.
Because the women are interfering with the Balance and Order and
Harmony and they are interfering with Creation and the Design.

And we should know.
After all it was us who Created Earth you know.

And you can be sure that if Men created the place then ONLY Men know
how to Run the place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115797

When Earth was Created, the official language of Earth was English.
The English language is a very good language, it is a form of Art, and
you will find that many words rhyme, and that is not a coincidence it
was intentional.

We knew that Men would write poetry and songs and so the language was
arranged that way.

But sadly the language has been very badly corrupted by the women when
they interfered in places where they are not allowed to be, so you can
"Make yourself understood" in the English language, but a lot of the
Beauty and Art of the Original Creation is no longer there.

But when the Men do get up to their Higher Conscious Level again and
they regain their Intelligence and Real Memories, then you will
remember many of the words that you used to use.

And it will come back to you.

And you will also remember many of the Songs you used to sing.

And you will remember the way Life used to be.
The way things were before.

Before the women Ruined the Show.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115798

And one day when you look back on these bad times, you will SEE just
how much damage and suffering and ugliness the women caused.

And you will probably hate women for ever.

And that is Good.
And that is how it should be.

You SHOULD hate the Devil.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115805

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 4:05:22 PM UTC-7, The BORG wrote:
> And one day when you look back on these bad times, you will SEE just
> how much damage and suffering and ugliness the women caused.
> 
> And you will probably hate women for ever.
> 
> And that is Good.
> And that is how it should be.
> 
> You SHOULD hate the Devil.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/52.40?lang=eng

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115863

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:16:05 PM UTC-4, Prince Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 4:05:22 PM UTC-7, The BORG wrote:
> > And one day when you look back on these bad times, you will SEE just
> > how much damage and suffering and ugliness the women caused.
> > 
> > And you will probably hate women for ever.
> > 
> > And that is Good.
> > And that is how it should be.
> > 
> > You SHOULD hate the Devil.
> 
> https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/52.40?lang=eng
> 
> 14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations

Now you're calling yourself Satan? Poor Peasant Michael.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115917

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. Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it 
remind me of?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115948

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115959

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116113

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
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116405

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116757

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117125

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. That not fundamentally different from your assumption that God 
does, except that the absence of actual evidence of God's existence (as 
distinct from evidence that some people believe in God's existence) 
seems to support the atheist assumption better than it does yours.

Were concrete evidence of God's existence to appear, atheists would have 
to rethink their position. As yet, that hasn't happened, with the 
religious movement's position being little more than an assertion that 
some things are beyond comprehension and have to be explained by the 
existence of God.

Of course, even if the existence of God were formally demonstrated, 
science would simply proceed with the task of explaining God.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2119191

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2119262

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2115960

On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:14:51 -0400, Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>Message-ID: <nh7aak$1tr$1@dont-email.me>

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY%5B1-25%5D
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web