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

Groups > alt.atheism > #2119263

Re: common logical fallacy

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 17:13 +1000
Message-ID <drfdcrF5pi8U2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <cr9mkbdt1bh23g9eijtp2u2ae34k70cbar@4ax.com> <dr1lt3Fd5snU1@mid.individual.net> <p62qkb1lr9svbiu5sdaeekkfmprdtq1r39@4ax.com> <dr4g56F271U1@mid.individual.net> <j7f4lbpb52orn73k4dh35prpo21r1p5h8u@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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