Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2115623 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 13:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 45 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p62qkb1lr9svbiu5sdaeekkfmprdtq1r39@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2115917 |
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. Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it
>remind me of?
Strong atheism is the most faith or conclusion on trust based religious
belief of all, since there could never be any evidence to support it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 13:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dr4g56F271U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2116498 |
On 31/05/2016 1:45 PM, mur@. 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. Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it >> remind me of? > > Strong atheism is the most faith or conclusion on trust based religious > belief of all, since there could never be any evidence to support it. > What has that to do with this thread? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j7f4lbpb52orn73k4dh35prpo21r1p5h8u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2116505 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:53:10 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
>On 31/05/2016 1:45 PM, mur@. 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. Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it
>>> remind me of?
>>
>> Strong atheism is the most faith or conclusion on trust based religious
>> belief of all, since there could never be any evidence to support it.
>>
>
>What has that to do with this thread?
Can't you think of anything it has to do with it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <drfdcrF5pi8U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2119193 |
On 4/06/2016 12:29 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:53:10 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> > wrote: > >> On 31/05/2016 1:45 PM, mur@. 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. Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it >>>> remind me of? >>> >>> Strong atheism is the most faith or conclusion on trust based religious >>> belief of all, since there could never be any evidence to support it. >>> >> >> What has that to do with this thread? > > Can't you think of anything it has to do with it? > Nup. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <372qkbtnrpmk7diobgtkcojtcj7000rthk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2115623 |
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,
My position on that is:
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
which is another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
>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] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web