Post by aaa Post by Peter Pan Post by aaa Post by Peter Pan Post by aaa Post by email@example.com
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:12:25 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by email@example.com
He's the Creator of all things in existence. He even created
statue of zeus..
Not if you can't prove God exists.
He's the creator of all things in existence.
Assertion isn't an actual logical argument, and it doesn't contain
That would make all testimonies of the court irrelevant.
Not everyone's testimony is irrelevant, but i'm pretty
sure testimony from brain-damaged people and their pet
spiritual dragons is inadmissible.
Such assertion isn't an actual logical argument, and it doesn't contain
Oh noooo! I better write that down so I won't forget...
"All assertions must be in the form of actual
logical arguments, and must contain evidence!!!"
-- aaa's Law
You are not paying attention. It's Mr. Kevin's law.
Unevidenced assumptions can be part of logical arguments,
but only as axioms.
A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established,
accepted, or self-evidently true.
As atheists, or perhaps as agnostics, regular a.a members
refuse to accept the axiom of the existence of a ghod or ghodz.
Pro-religious argument can be exquisitely logical
(think of the Scholastics) IF you accept certain axioms.
We who do not accept those do not find them self-evident.
If the axioms aren't accepted, the arguments may be
The "style of argument" of many of the trolls here is to reiterate
the axioms they treat as self-evident, often in planted form.
A good example of the latter is calling existence "creation,"
assuming a creator in the very name. Another is treating some
claimed personal inspiration as a source of knowledge. Any
imagined message presumes some intelligence sending it, as
opposed to a feeling or idea generated internally, and only
attributed to an imaginary other.
Of course, their are the religious frauds. Do you devout
Christians think L Ron Hubbard was telling the truth about
his "spiritual understandings?" How about Joseph Smith?
William Miller? Jim Jones? "Rev" Moon? Do Jews accept
Jacob Frank was the Messiah? Rabbi Schneersohn? Oh, Muslims,
was the Shirazi the Mahdi, or Sudan's Muhammad Ahmad?
These are equally reliable as traditional religious revelation,
from an atheist'sz perspective.
Or, we could believe Zeus went around impregnating beautiful
women, with the ghod disguised as various animals. "It's a