... that is the point we've been trying to make to Sipp .. who thinks that as soon as something is expressed as a negative, it no longer bears any burden of proof. When the question is on firearm safety, When the question is on firearm danger The issue is firearm safety, knucklehead. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3af6vj I thought the issue was antitheism

...hold the god does not exist, because without proof he cannot state that a statement is true (or false). That once again tidies up the issues ... other than the topic of anti-theism Antitheism is (active) opposition to theism .. ie opposition to belief in the existence of gods. Agnostics are therefore antitheist, Agnostics are also anti-strong-atheism. Of course, this is only the case ...

...then you have no BOP, IMO. * As you have been reminded repeatedly, atheism is not characterized by proselytizing, But Septic is characterized by proselytizing, though whether for his gospel of antitheism or against it is difficult to say. He nominally argues for anti-theism, but his arguments are so ugly that he is more likely to persuade people to oppose him than join him.

.... Septic is saying that refusal to reject any possibility of any god, even though there is no proof against possibility, makes one a theist. Thus, Septic's terms, failure to believe that gods are impossible makes one theist. Those like me who reject both Septic's anti-agnostic antitheism as well as any belief in any actual gods, are atheists, despite Septic's extreme prejudice.

... out of context to make it look that way (typical sip) Not so! Sip actually got it right! But there has been another mistake in the attributions on this thread. In his post "Re: Antitheism" on 3/25/2007 1:35 PM, Chazwin falsely attributed the following to Jim07D7: Jim07D7 wrote: Some ignoramuses have the misconception that knowledge is unrelated to belief. But that is not the ...

... wrote: So what? You are off thread and way off the mark. If you want to bat on about the purity of logic then start another thread - this one concerns "antitheism". Threads evolve. Nobody can stop them from evolving.- Hide quoted text - Jeckyl was denying the relevance of definitions and applications of logic. If this is an appropriate course of action, then what ...

... far. It would be better to say (something like) "the purity of Jeckyl's logic denies the relevance of Jeckyl's personal attributes to the argument". Chazwin wrote: So what? You are off thread and way off the mark. If you want to bat on about the purity of logic then start another thread - this one concerns "antitheism". Threads evolve. Nobody can stop them from evolving.

... logic without it being applied to a particular topic shows a lack of understanding or mental processes on your part. It is like saying that you cannot talk about mathematics unless you are applying it to physical objects. So what? You are off thread and way off the mark. If you want to bat on about the purity of logic then start another thread - this one concerns "antitheism".

... > George Dance wrote: "Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com> Re: Antitheism I don't think I invented the term but I have been ...>> George Dance wrote: "Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com> Re: Antitheism I don't think I invented the term but I have been ...

...yahoo.com> wrote: On Feb 28, 6:06 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: George Dance wrote: "Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com> Re: Antitheism I don't think I invented the term but I have been seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think the first use of it I've ever seen was ...