The case of Drafterman v. Semi

[semi]

If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
important enough "conviction" to disprove it.

May the prosecution present its case:

Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?

[Trance Gemini]

Because according to your logic he can make that statement and it's true simply because he believes it.

I believe Drafterman's statement is true as well and so it is.
 

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[rappoccio]

He doesn't need to show why you owe him a million dollars. Since there
are around four people who believe that you owe Drafterman a million
dollars, then there are more people that believe you do, than the
number that don't. Therefore, according to your logic, you must now
disprove that you owe him a million dollars, or else we can accept as
"true" that you do.

[semi]

lol

On May 28, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[semi]

I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
conviction is disproved.

On May 28, 12:31 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

[semi]

Are you Drafterman? May the prosecution present its case.

Like I said:

"I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
conviction is disproved."

On May 28, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 12:31 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> important enough "conviction" to disprove it.

Irrelevant. Your philosophy, as presented, does not address the issue
of the "importance" of convictions, simply that, once formed, they are
true until disproven.

>
> May the prosecution present its case:
>
> Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?

Because I hold that conviction. Your philosophy states that a
conviction is true until proven otherwise.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, semi <semino...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you Drafterman? May the prosecution present its case.

Like I said:

"I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
conviction is disproved."

As DMan said, that appears to be irrelevant according to your philosophical approach, however, I'm happy to let DMan argue his own case.

I'm just letting you know that there are more people who believe DMan than you therefore DMan's claim must be true. Right? ;-)
 

On May 28, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > May the prosecution present its case:
>
> > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?
>
> Because according to your logic he can make that statement and it's true
> simply because he believes it.
>
> I believe Drafterman's statement is true as well and so it is.
>
>
>
> --

> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns
> out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 12:49 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> conviction is disproved.

According to your philosophy the truth of the statement "you owe me a
million dollars" is dependent on whether or not I hold it as a
conviction, NOT whether or not it is a result of you having borrowed
me money.

Even if we step outside your insane philosophy there are many reasons
you could legitimately owe me a million dollars without having had
borrowed that money from me in the first place. Some of these reasons
include (but are not limited to):

1) You stole the money from me.
2) It is the price of services rendered.
3) It is assigned as punitive damages or reparations
4) You lost a bet.

But, we need not consider such rational atlernatives because we are
dealing with your irrational philosophy where truth is established by
personal conviction. I think you are just mad that I beat you to the
punch.

>
> On May 28, 12:31 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > May the prosecution present its case:
>

> > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[semi]

On May 28, 1:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 12:49 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> > I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> > evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> > conviction is disproved.
>
> According to your philosophy the truth of the statement "you owe me a
> million dollars" is dependent on whether or not I hold it as a

> conviction.....

Until you lose the case, which you are about to do.

> Even if we step outside your insane philosophy there are many reasons
> you could legitimately owe me a million dollars without having had
> borrowed that money from me in the first place. Some of these reasons
> include (but are not limited to):
>
> 1) You stole the money from me.

No I did not. I never even saw your face.

> 2) It is the price of services rendered.

What services?

> 3) It is assigned as punitive damages or reparations

What damages?

> 4) You lost a bet.

What was the bet?

> But, we need not consider such rational atlernatives because we are
> dealing with your irrational philosophy where truth is established by
> personal conviction. I think you are just mad that I beat you to the
> punch.

O.K. So I will assume that you have this conviction. Now, based upon
the possible ways you mentioned that I can owe you a million dollars,
I assert that none of them apply to me. You are the one making the
claim, so present your evidence or else I keep my milli.

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 1:13 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 1:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 12:49 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> > > I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> > > evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> > > conviction is disproved.
>
> > According to your philosophy the truth of the statement "you owe me a
> > million dollars" is dependent on whether or not I hold it as a
> > conviction.....
>
> Until you lose the case, which you are about to do.
>
> > Even if we step outside your insane philosophy there are many reasons
> > you could legitimately owe me a million dollars without having had
> > borrowed that money from me in the first place. Some of these reasons
> > include (but are not limited to):
>
> > 1) You stole the money from me.
>
> No I did not. I never even saw your face.
>
> > 2) It is the price of services rendered.
>
> What services?
>
> > 3) It is assigned as punitive damages or reparations
>
> What damages?
>
> > 4) You lost a bet.
>
> What was the bet?

You apparently missed the point. I was simlpy outlining possible ways
one person can owe another person outside having borrowed the money.
This effectively renders moot your attempt to prove you don't owe me
money by claiming you didn't borrow it. Borrowing money is not the
only way one can owe it to another. In any event this was essentially
a tangent since these operate under the rules of reality, I was not
discussing your philosophy in this section, I made that clear:

"Even if we step outside your insane philosophy..."

>
> > But, we need not consider such rational atlernatives because we are
> > dealing with your irrational philosophy where truth is established by
> > personal conviction. I think you are just mad that I beat you to the
> > punch.
>
> O.K. So I will assume that you have this conviction. Now, based upon
> the possible ways you mentioned that I can owe you a million dollars,
> I assert that none of them apply to me.

I also asserted that those ways apply to methods "outside your insane
philosophy". That is, I was not talking about your insane philosophy
when I mentioned them.

> You are the one making the
> claim, so present your evidence or else I keep my milli.

Your philosophy places the burden of proof on the person attempting to
disprove the conviction, not the person making it. Ergo the burden of
proof is on you.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 28, 9:48 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> lol

Pay up, deadbeat.

> > out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[semi]

OK. So I am assuming that it is a true conviction. The whole point now
is to disprove it.

On May 28, 1:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[semi]

On May 28, 1:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your philosophy places the burden of proof on the person attempting to
> disprove the conviction, not the person making it. Ergo the burden of
> proof is on you.

The disproof is this:

For your claim: Lack of evidence >> evidence. In fact, since there is
NO evidence to support your conviction (we are not even talking about
proof, but some kind of evidence), then your claim is rejected and
disproved.

[Sebastian]

This just shows why you cannot assign truth or non-truth to statements
before the evidence has been presented (which is what she is trying to
do in her philosophy).

[semi]

On May 28, 1:34 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This just shows why you cannot assign truth or non-truth to statements
> before the evidence has been presented (which is what she is trying to
> do in her philosophy).

Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to
prove or disprove the thing convicted of.

[Answer_42]

On May 28, 12:31 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

Because he says so, duh!
___________________________________________
Evolution is the most important battle that Christians have to fight
today, a battle we must win by any means, fair or foul!
-- Hank Hanegraaff

[Sebastian]

Great, thanks for this statement. Now let's examine this carefully.
Firstly, if you want to apply this to god, then you must be saying
that there is no evidence to prove or disprove his existence. Hence
conviction constitutes evidence. Good to know that you believe there
is no other evidence. So all we need to do to convince you that there
is no evidence at all for god's existence is to show that conviction
does not constitute evidence.

Here is proof by contradiction. There is no evidence for either
christian or muslim gods, other than conviction. The convictions of
christians are muslims are therefore both true. But they cannot be
both true because they contradict each other. Hence, conviction does
not imply truth.

I will be interested to see if you will now stick to your statement of
there being no evidence for god and become an atheist or retract your
philosophy of conviction implies truth.

[Answer_42]

On May 28, 12:58 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Like I said:
>
> "I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> conviction is disproved."

So, unbless you present evidence that god is real, your conviction is
disproved.

You make it so easy, I guess that you knew what you were doing when
you chose your handle...

[semi]

On May 28, 1:48 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, unbless you present evidence that god is real, your conviction is
> disproved.
>
> You make it so easy, I guess that you knew what you were doing when
> you chose your handle...

Evidence (not proof) of God's existence: Cosmological argument.

Conviction sustained.

[semi]

I never said there was no other evidence to support God other than
conviction. You are putting words in my mouth.

[rappoccio]

"I will declare that God does not exist because semi has not provided
evidence that he does. May semi present the evidence that God exists,

or else his conviction is disproved."

On May 28, 12:58 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rappoccio]

What caused God?

Conviction overruled.

[rappoccio]

For your claim of God's existence: Lack of evidence >> evidence. In
fact, there is NO evidence to support your conviction (we are not even

[rappoccio]

Only in your world.

See "Semi + Joe's Fallacy of Conviction". Special case of the "True
Scotsman Fallacy".

[Trance Gemini]

Okay so Drafterman's conviction that you owe him a million dollars constitutes evidence when there is no other evidence to prove or disprove the Drafterman's conviction that you owe him a million dollars.

You are now required to provide evidence that you do not owe Drafterman a million dollars and if you cannot do so then I'm afraid you do owe him a million dollars.

I'll take my 10% now DMan :-)
 

[ThelemicCatholic]

The words "believe," "belief," and "conviction," are being rampantly
abused in this thread.

"Belief" and "conviction" are roughly synonyms, and "believe" is the
verb meaning "hold a belief (that. . .)"

To believe means to think true. To lie means to signify (i.e. say,
write, type) as true what one actually thinks false. There is a
difference between lying and expressing one's belief. They are
opposites in fact. There is a possible difference between signifying
a belief and actually having a belief. When someone signifies that
they think or believe something, and they actually think or believe
something contrary to what they say, they are lying.

So, to the point, and for example, when rappoccio claims to believe,
below, that "there are around four people who believe that you owe
Drafterman a million dollars," he is lying, since he knows that no one
actually believes that. Those four people, since they signify what
they do not hold as true, are also lying.

Lies really don't prove anything, except possibly desperation, which
the atheists are displaying in this thread and in related threads.

[semi]

On May 28, 2:12 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What caused God?
>
> Conviction overruled.

The cosmological argument is used to show that there must be an
eternal and necessary being, not that this being in and of itself has
a cause.

Conviction sustained.

[semi]

On May 28, 2:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 1:34 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 1:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Your philosophy places the burden of proof on the person attempting to
> > > disprove the conviction, not the person making it. Ergo the burden of
> > > proof is on you.
>
> > The disproof is this:
>
> > For your claim: Lack of evidence >> evidence. In fact, since there is
> > NO evidence to support your conviction (we are not even talking about
> > proof, but some kind of evidence), then your claim is rejected and
> > disproved.

The cosmological argument is evidence.

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 1:34 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your philosophy does not require that I have evidence for my claim to
be accepted as true, simply that I hold it as a conviction.

Furthermore (and this is a tangent) in reality (outside the scope of
your insane philosophy) lack of evidence does NOT constitute disproof.

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 1:40 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.

Pay up.

[semi]

On May 28, 3:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your philosophy does not require that I have evidence for my claim to
> be accepted as true, simply that I hold it as a conviction.

Until it is disproved. So, since lack of evidence >> than evidence in
this case, you have been disproved.

> Furthermore (and this is a tangent) in reality (outside the scope of
> your insane philosophy) lack of evidence does NOT constitute disproof.

Theoretically, you are right. Practically, you are still right, but I
never said lack of evidence is disproof. I said lack of evidence >>
evidence is disproof.

[semi]

On May 28, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
> according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.
>
> Pay up.

Except the disproof is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 3:46 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your philosophy does not require that I have evidence for my claim to
> > be accepted as true, simply that I hold it as a conviction.
>
> Until it is disproved. So, since lack of evidence >> than evidence in
> this case, you have been disproved.

Not according to you. According to you, lack of evidence outside the
conviction makes the conviction itself evidence.

>
> > Furthermore (and this is a tangent) in reality (outside the scope of
> > your insane philosophy) lack of evidence does NOT constitute disproof.
>
> Theoretically, you are right. Practically, you are still right, but I
> never said lack of evidence is disproof. I said lack of evidence >>
> evidence is disproof.

What is "lack of evidence >> evidence is disproof"?

[Drafterman]

You've provided no disproof.

Your assertion that I'm lying is not disproof.
Lack of evidence in support of my conviction is not required (per your
philosophy) and, based on subsequent information actually makes the
conviction itself evidence.

[semi]

On May 28, 3:51 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:46 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 3:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Your philosophy does not require that I have evidence for my claim to
> > > be accepted as true, simply that I hold it as a conviction.
>
> > Until it is disproved. So, since lack of evidence >> than evidence in
> > this case, you have been disproved.
>
> Not according to you. According to you, lack of evidence outside the
> conviction makes the conviction itself evidence.

This is what I said:

"Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to
prove OR DISPROVE the thing convicted of."

In other words, if the disproof exists, then the conviction no longer
constitutes as evidence.

[semi]

Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
dollars. In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
dollars. In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
because lack of evidence >> evidence. Since this disproof is true, the
conviction itself is no longer evidence.

[Drafterman]

On May 28, 3:59 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:52 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 3:48 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
> > > > according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.
>
> > > > Pay up.
>
> > > Except the disproof is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.
>
> > You've provided no disproof.
>
> > Your assertion that I'm lying is not disproof.
> > Lack of evidence in support of my conviction is not required (per your
> > philosophy) and, based on subsequent information actually makes the
> > conviction itself evidence.
>
> Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
> dollars.

The conviction itself is evidence, according to you.

> In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
> dollars.

My conviction is evidence, according to you.

> In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
> because lack of evidence >> evidence.

This is nonsensical. How can lack of evidence make my conviction both
evidence and not evidence?

> Since this disproof is true, the
> conviction itself is no longer evidence.

That disproof is not true.

1. Under no existing system of logic does lack of evidence of any
degree constitute disproof.
2. According to you, lacking evidence makes the conviction itself
evidence.
3. Your philosophy does not require evidence other than the
conviction.


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On May 28, 1:57 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So, unbless you present evidence that god is real, your conviction is
> > disproved.
>
> > You make it so easy, I guess that you knew what you were doing when
> > you chose your handle...
>
> Evidence (not proof) of God's existence: Cosmological argument.
>
> Conviction sustained.

I guess that when one is delusional, even fallacious arguments count
as "evidence"...

[Answer_42]

On May 28, 2:41 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What caused God?
>
> > Conviction overruled.
>
> The cosmological argument is used to show that there must be an
> eternal and necessary being, not that this being in and of itself has
> a cause.
>
> Conviction sustained.

Of course, it is hardly surprising that to a superstitious and fearful
mind, the illogical conclusion to a fallacious argument appears
convincing...

[Sketch System]

I also think it's true.

On May 28, 9:33 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > May the prosecution present its case:
>

> > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?
>
> Because according to your logic he can make that statement and it's true
> simply because he believes it.
>
> I believe Drafterman's statement is true as well and so it is.
>
>
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sketch System <sketch...@gmail.com> wrote:

I also think it's true.

So we win the numbers game as well :-)
 

[Observer]

On May 28, 9:31 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> May the prosecution present its case:
>
> Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?

Observer
Can you not read?

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On May 28, 9:58 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you Drafterman? May the prosecution present its case.
>
> Like I said:
>
> "I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> conviction is disproved."

Observer
His argument is much like that of the dumb ass christian perspective
which states that since one can not disprove the existence of a god
thing then such must thereby exist and further more the hideously
superstitiopus filth of the bible bust also be true.




Again can you not read?

Since you can not disprove that the allegation that you borrowed a
million dollars from Drafterman you are thereby in his debt for that
amount and he has a right to demand payment forth with.

So pay up Dead beat.

Psychonomist
>
> On May 28, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > > May the prosecution present its case:
>
> > > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?
>

[Observer]

Observer
Refutation of cosmoloigical argument rendering it as other than
evidence.

Quote
Scientific positions

See also: Stochastics


"Gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without
requiring anything or anyone to get them moving."
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation
of Aristotelian physics. Some physicists feel that the development of
the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in
the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the
cosmological argument.[19] Modern physics has many examples of bodies
being moved without any known moving body, apparently undermining the
first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must
be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly
addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying
that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and
the laws governing molecular physics. He gives an example— "gas
molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without
requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku,
these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So,
there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Psychonomist



>
> Conviction sustained.

[Observer]

On May 28, 11:29 am, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Observer
You poor demented, sick dimwitted , christian, miscreant , can you not
even understand the use of analogies in argumentation.

If this whole process needs to be explained to you then we can safely
be assured that the reason for your commitment the christian
superstitious filth is due entirely to your low grade mentality and
lack of any useful education.

Now go play with children as catholics are want to do and we will see
you hung for any crimes you commit against them.

Psychonomist

[rappoccio]

On May 28, 2:41 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

This has not been demonstrated, because if there must be an eternal
and necessary being for something to exist, then that being is subject
to the same restriction.

>
> Conviction sustained.

Not even close.

[rappoccio]

Can you write down the Bayesian inference via which this becomes
support of the postulate "God exists"?

Show what prior you use (a Jeffrey's prior is fine, if you want), and
show how the evidence of "the universe exists" gives a HIGHER
probability for the postulate "God exists" than the negative of that
statement (!God exists).

[rappoccio]

On May 28, 2:29 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The words "believe," "belief," and "conviction," are being rampantly
> abused in this thread.
>
> "Belief" and "conviction" are roughly synonyms, and "believe" is the
> verb meaning "hold a belief (that. . .)"
>
> To believe means to think true.  To lie means to signify (i.e. say,
> write, type) as true what one actually thinks false.  There is a
> difference between lying and expressing one's belief. They are
> opposites in fact.  There is a possible difference between signifying
> a belief and actually having a belief.  When someone signifies that
> they think or believe something, and they actually think or believe
> something contrary to what they say, they are lying.
>
> So, to the point, and for example, when rappoccio claims to believe,
> below, that "there are around four people who believe that you owe
> Drafterman a million dollars," he is lying, since he knows that no one
> actually believes that.

Prove it.

>  Those four people, since they signify what
> they do not hold as true, are also lying.
>
> Lies really don't prove anything, except possibly desperation, which
> the atheists are displaying in this thread and in related threads.

Not really, since you have no demonstration that we are lying. Your
argument is that conviction means that the burden of proof magically
shifts to others to disprove them.

How many people must have a conviction for something to be true in
order for the burden of proof shift from them (to show it's true) to
their opponents (to show it's false)?

A simple majority? 2/3 majority? Unanimous? Everyone except those
named "Joe Geloso"?

Way to go, with the continuation of the "Fallacy of Conviction (aka
Joe and Semi's fallacy)".

[rappoccio]

On May 28, 3:48 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:

The disproof of God is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.

[rappoccio]

Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that God exists. In fact,
there is NO evidence that God exists. In this case the conviction does

[Sebastian]

OK, so if you are not saying that, then do you believe that simply
conviction is not enough to prove existence of god?

On May 28, 7:01 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never said there was no other evidence to support God other than
> conviction. You are putting words in my mouth.
>
> On May 28, 1:48 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks for this statement. Now let's examine this carefully.
> > Firstly, if you want to apply this to god, then you must be saying
> > that there is no evidence to prove or disprove his existence. Hence
> > conviction constitutes evidence. Good to know that you believe there
> > is no other evidence. So all we need to do to convince you that there
> > is no evidence at all for god's existence is to show that conviction
> > does not constitute evidence.
>
> > Here is proof by contradiction. There is no evidence for either
> > christian or muslim gods, other than conviction. The convictions of
> > christians are muslims are therefore both true. But they cannot be
> > both true because they contradict each other. Hence, conviction does
> > not imply truth.
>
> > I will be interested to see if you will now stick to your statement of
> > there being no evidence for god and become an atheist or retract your
> > philosophy of conviction implies truth.

[ranjit_...@yahoo.com]

On May 28, 3:56 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:51 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > According to you, lack of evidence outside the
> > conviction makes the conviction itself evidence.

> This is what I said:
> "Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to
> prove OR DISPROVE the thing convicted of."

So, you accept the existence of Goddess Kali? (In accordance with what
you said, the conviction of worshippers of Goddess Kali is evidence
that Kali exists since you have no evidence to prove or disprove
Kali's existence.)

> In other words, if the disproof exists, then the conviction no longer
> constitutes as evidence.

So, until you can find disproof, you will continue to believe in
Goddess Kali's existence?

[rappoccio]

And are you going to actually address his refutation of your argument
(i.e. the fact that it leads to a logical contradiction?)

On May 28, 2:01 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never said there was no other evidence to support God other than
> conviction. You are putting words in my mouth.
>
> On May 28, 1:48 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks for this statement. Now let's examine this carefully.
> > Firstly, if you want to apply this to god, then you must be saying
> > that there is no evidence to prove or disprove his existence. Hence
> > conviction constitutes evidence. Good to know that you believe there
> > is no other evidence. So all we need to do to convince you that there
> > is no evidence at all for god's existence is to show that conviction
> > does not constitute evidence.
>
> > Here is proof by contradiction. There is no evidence for either
> > christian or muslim gods, other than conviction. The convictions of
> > christians are muslims are therefore both true. But they cannot be
> > both true because they contradict each other. Hence, conviction does
> > not imply truth.
>
> > I will be interested to see if you will now stick to your statement of
> > there being no evidence for god and become an atheist or retract your
> > philosophy of conviction implies truth.
>
> > On May 28, 6:40 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 1:34 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This just shows why you cannot assign truth or non-truth to statements
> > > > before the evidence has been presented (which is what she is trying to
> > > > do in her philosophy).
>

> > > Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to

[semi]

On May 28, 9:01 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The cosmological argument is used to show that there must be an
> > eternal and necessary being, not that this being in and of itself has
> > a cause.
>
> This has not been demonstrated, because if there must be an eternal
> and necessary being for something to exist, then that being is subject
> to the same restriction.

How so, if it is eternal?

[semi]

That does not disprove the cosmological argument. In fact, if I accept
what you are saying, then that's proof of a first cause. The argument
is not intended to prove God's existence but to show that their must
be a first cause. It is used as evidence for the existence of God, not
proof.

[semi]

On May 28, 6:14 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Observer
> His argument is much like that of the dumb ass christian perspective
> which states that since one can not disprove the existence of a god
> thing then such must thereby exist and further more the hideously
> superstitiopus filth of the bible bust also be true.

That's not exactly my argument. I cannot disprove the existence of a
unicorn, but I am not convicted of it's existence either. Therefore,
it's not just about disproof, it's about conviction that cannot be
disproved.

[semi]

Why would you want to use statistics to prove arguments of
philosophical nature?

Don't bring knives to gun fights.

[ThelemicCatholic]

On May 28, 9:08 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 2:29 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The words "believe," "belief," and "conviction," are being rampantly
> > abused in this thread.
>
> > "Belief" and "conviction" are roughly synonyms, and "believe" is the
> > verb meaning "hold a belief (that. . .)"
>
> > To believe means to think true.  To lie means to signify (i.e. say,
> > write, type) as true what one actually thinks false.  There is a
> > difference between lying and expressing one's belief. They are
> > opposites in fact.  There is a possible difference between signifying
> > a belief and actually having a belief.  When someone signifies that
> > they think or believe something, and they actually think or believe
> > something contrary to what they say, they are lying.
>
> > So, to the point, and for example, when rappoccio claims to believe,
> > below, that "there are around four people who believe that you owe
> > Drafterman a million dollars," he is lying, since he knows that no one
> > actually believes that.
>
> Prove it.
>

It is not necessary to prove what is already accepted by both sides.

> >  Those four people, since they signify what
> > they do not hold as true, are also lying.
>
> > Lies really don't prove anything, except possibly desperation, which
> > the atheists are displaying in this thread and in related threads.
>
> Not really, since you have no demonstration that we are lying.

True, because lying is something a soul does, and there is no
empirical proof that a soul even exists. If your lie left traces, I
could prove it, but as it is it is only your lying words. You haven't
acted on your lie, other than to type it here, so there is nothing
susceptible to proof.

> Your
> argument is that conviction means that the burden of proof magically
> shifts to others to disprove them.
>

No, I never advanced such a thing. If you like, this is another
example of a lie presented by you.

> How many people must have a conviction for something to be true in
> order for the burden of proof shift from them (to show it's true) to
> their opponents (to show it's false)?
>

Burden of proof and truth of a belief are two very different things.
If I want to convince you there's God, then I do have the burden of
proof, even if six billion people agreed with me and you were the only
atheist. However, I am not trying to do that. I know there is God,
and I also know that you have your reasons for saying you don't
believe me. I'm not trying to change that, so I do not have the
burden of any proof.

> A simple majority? 2/3 majority? Unanimous? Everyone except those
> named "Joe Geloso"?
>
> Way to go, with the continuation of the "Fallacy of Conviction (aka
> Joe and Semi's fallacy)".
>

If there is a fallacy of conviction it would consist in this:

1. I believe X.
2. Therefore X is true.

But that is not what I am saying, so I have not committed that
fallacy.

To start getting back to talking about something substantial, there is
a common principle that seems valid:

1. P believes X.
2. P is not insane.
3. Therefore X is worth looking into.

To apply this principle to two different things:

1. I believe in God.
2. I am not insane.
3. Therefore the existence of God is worth looking into.

1. Dman and rapp and Neil and Trance *do not believe* Dman owes semi
$1,000,000.
2. OR, Dman and rapp and Neil and Trance are insane.
3. Therefore the question of the $1,000,000 is NOT worth looking into.

[semi]

On May 29, 8:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So, you accept the existence of Goddess Kali? (In accordance with what
> you said, the conviction of worshippers of Goddess Kali is evidence
> that Kali exists since you have no evidence to prove or disprove
> Kali's existence.)

If you read what I wrote in the other thread you would see that what
you are saying here has nothing to do with my argument. First off, my
argument obviously implies that conviction does not necessarily mean
the person should assume it is true. Didn't you read my distinction
between a pure conviction and a conviction formed from speculation?

The fact that there are many religions is evidence for the conviction
of theism. Now, the specifics within the religions can be forced
convictions. Therefore these are not pure, but the idea of an "object"
of worship is a pure conviction.

[semi]

On May 29, 7:27 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, so if you are not saying that, then do you believe that simply
> conviction is not enough to prove existence of god?

Yes, I agree with that, in the sense of 100% empirical proof. However,
my argument is if there is no disproof of the conviction, then it will
be more reasonable to hold to the conviction and assume it's truth,
than to use speculation against it and assume it is not true. The
emphasis is on MORE REASONABLE. I'm not even saying it cannot be
speculated against either.

[semi]

On May 29, 10:08 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And are you going to actually address his refutation of your argument
> (i.e. the fact that it leads to a logical contradiction?)

If you actually follow the conversation, you would see that's not
necessary.

[semi]

On May 28, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
> > dollars.
>
> The conviction itself is evidence, according to you.

No it is not.

> > In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
> > dollars.
>
> My conviction is evidence, according to you.

No, it is not.

> > In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
> > because lack of evidence >> evidence.
>
> This is nonsensical. How can lack of evidence make my conviction both
> evidence and not evidence?

It was counted as evidence INITIALLY when there was no known evidence
other than itself, and no known lack of evidence against it.

> > Since this disproof is true, the
> > conviction itself is no longer evidence.
>
> That disproof is not true.
>
> 1. Under no existing system of logic does lack of evidence of any
> degree constitute disproof.

Not lack of evidence. Lack of evidence being far greater than the
evidence. How many times must I repeat this? This is practically a
disproof. If you want to be difficult by just purely being theoretical
all the time, then what's the point of even having a discussion?

> 2. According to you, lacking evidence makes the conviction itself
> evidence.

Here is my argument:

Concerning a pure conviction (see the other thread for difference b/w
pure conviction and a general conviction): This conviction may not be
proved, but if it is not disproved, it is more reasonable to assume
its truth than to use speculation to assume it is not true. If it is
disproved by showing lack of evidence is far greater than evidence to
support it, then it can be assumed to be not true. Maybe I should use
the term "evidence against" instead of lack of evidence. That's what I
will use.

A disproof will be if evidence against is greater than evidence for.

> 3. Your philosophy does not require evidence other than the
> conviction.

The pure conviction can be accepted so long as it is not disproved -
that being more reasonable than forming speculations to assume it not
being true.

An example:
Person A has the pure conviction that there is an ultimate first
cause. He never really examined it, but always assumed this conviction
was true. Person B mentions that there is no proof of an ultimate
first cause, that causes might be infinite. Person A examines this
statement and sees that it is not disproof of his conviction, but mere
speculation. It is speculation mainly because of the natural tendency
for man to assume first causes for events that happen in every day
life.

Now, if Person A was to now accept the speculation and use it to
assume that there was no first cause, that will be less reasonable
than him keeping his pure conviction.

[Drafterman]

On May 29, 3:26 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
> > > dollars.
>
> > The conviction itself is evidence, according to you.
>
> No it is not.

Liar.

"Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to
prove or disprove the thing convicted of."

>
> > > In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
> > > dollars.
>
> > My conviction is evidence, according to you.
>
> No, it is not.

Liar.

"Conviction constitutes as evidence when there is no other evidence to
prove or disprove the thing convicted of."

>
> > > In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
> > > because lack of evidence >> evidence.
>
> > This is nonsensical. How can lack of evidence make my conviction both
> > evidence and not evidence?
>
> It was counted as evidence INITIALLY when there was no known evidence
> other than itself, and no known lack of evidence against it.

This doesn't make any sense. What is the difference between "no known
evidence other than itself" and "no known lack of evidence against

it."

>
> > > Since this disproof is true, the
> > > conviction itself is no longer evidence.
>
> > That disproof is not true.
>
> > 1. Under no existing system of logic does lack of evidence of any
> > degree constitute disproof.
>
> Not lack of evidence. Lack of evidence being far greater than the
> evidence. How many times must I repeat this?

Repeating it does not make it any more nonsensical. Lack of evidence
is lack of evidence. There are no "degrees" of lack of evidence.

Either you have evidence or you don't. "Lack of evidence greater than
evidence" is nonsensical. If you had evidence, then you wouldn't lack
it.

> This is practically a
> disproof. If you want to be difficult by just purely being theoretical
> all the time, then what's the point of even having a discussion?

If you're not willing to put your money where your philosophy is, why
bring it up?

>
> > 2. According to you, lacking evidence makes the conviction itself
> > evidence.
>
> Here is my argument:
>
> Concerning a pure conviction (see the other thread for difference b/w
> pure conviction and a general conviction): This conviction may not be
> proved, but if it is not disproved, it is more reasonable to assume
> its truth than to use speculation to assume it is not true.

Which I've done vis-a-vis you owing me a million dollars.

> If it is
> disproved by showing lack of evidence is far greater than evidence to
> support it,

Well, your nonsensical mumblings about lack of evidence greater than
evidence don't disprove anything.

> then it can be assumed to be not true. Maybe I should use
> the term "evidence against" instead of lack of evidence. That's what I
> will use.

Well they're two completely fucking different things. They're not
interchangable. So which is it?

>
> A disproof will be if evidence against is greater than evidence for.

You've provided no evidence against.

>
> > 3. Your philosophy does not require evidence other than the
> > conviction.
>
> The pure conviction can be accepted so long as it is not disproved -

You haven't disproved it. So your philosophy requires you to accept my
conviction.

> that being more reasonable than forming speculations to assume it not
> being true.
>
> An example:
> Person A has the pure conviction that there is an ultimate first
> cause. He never really examined it, but always assumed this conviction
> was true. Person B mentions that there is no proof of an ultimate
> first cause, that causes might be infinite. Person A examines this
> statement and sees that it is not disproof of his conviction, but mere
> speculation. It is speculation mainly because of the natural tendency
> for man to assume first causes for events that happen in every day
> life.
>
> Now, if Person A was to now accept the speculation and use it to
> assume that there was no first cause, that will be less reasonable
> than him keeping his pure conviction.

Why don't we take the example of Person A having the pure conviction
that Person B owes him a million dollars? Person B doesn't want to pay
a million dollars to Person A so he accuses Person A of lying and
makes nonsensical remarks about lacking evidence being greater than
having evidence and then claims that as disproof.

Why don't we address THAT scenario, since it's the one we're in?

[rappoccio]

Why is it special?

[rappoccio]

On May 29, 1:59 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 28, 9:08 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2:29 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The words "believe," "belief," and "conviction," are being rampantly
> > > abused in this thread.
>
> > > "Belief" and "conviction" are roughly synonyms, and "believe" is the
> > > verb meaning "hold a belief (that. . .)"
>
> > > To believe means to think true.  To lie means to signify (i.e. say,
> > > write, type) as true what one actually thinks false.  There is a
> > > difference between lying and expressing one's belief. They are
> > > opposites in fact.  There is a possible difference between signifying
> > > a belief and actually having a belief.  When someone signifies that
> > > they think or believe something, and they actually think or believe
> > > something contrary to what they say, they are lying.
>
> > > So, to the point, and for example, when rappoccio claims to believe,
> > > below, that "there are around four people who believe that you owe
> > > Drafterman a million dollars," he is lying, since he knows that no one
> > > actually believes that.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> It is not necessary to prove what is already accepted by both sides.

I don't accept that. Now prove that I'm lying.

Then why do you maintain that conviction somehow counts as evidence?

>
> > A simple majority? 2/3 majority? Unanimous? Everyone except those
> > named "Joe Geloso"?
>
> > Way to go, with the continuation of the "Fallacy of Conviction (aka
> > Joe and Semi's fallacy)".
>
> If there is a fallacy of conviction it would consist in this:
>
> 1. I believe X.
> 2. Therefore X is true.
>
> But that is not what I am saying, so I have not committed that
> fallacy.
>
> To start getting back to talking about something substantial, there is
> a common principle that seems valid:
>
> 1. P believes X.
> 2. P is not insane.
> 3. Therefore X is worth looking into.

What the hell does "worth looking into" even mean in the context of a
debate?

[ThelemicCatholic]

On May 29, 3:57 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:59 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 9:08 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 2:29 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > The words "believe," "belief," and "conviction," are being rampantly
> > > > abused in this thread.
>
> > > > "Belief" and "conviction" are roughly synonyms, and "believe" is the
> > > > verb meaning "hold a belief (that. . .)"
>
> > > > To believe means to think true.  To lie means to signify (i.e. say,
> > > > write, type) as true what one actually thinks false.  There is a
> > > > difference between lying and expressing one's belief. They are
> > > > opposites in fact.  There is a possible difference between signifying
> > > > a belief and actually having a belief.  When someone signifies that
> > > > they think or believe something, and they actually think or believe
> > > > something contrary to what they say, they are lying.
>
> > > > So, to the point, and for example, when rappoccio claims to believe,
> > > > below, that "there are around four people who believe that you owe
> > > > Drafterman a million dollars," he is lying, since he knows that no one
> > > > actually believes that.
>
> > > Prove it.
>
> > It is not necessary to prove what is already accepted by both sides.
>
> I don't accept that. Now prove that I'm lying.
>

That you are in fact lying is something I know but do not know how to
prove, at present. It is possible that I could know it and not have
any means at all of proving it, sort of like my belief in God (though
it is not proven that there is no proof of God.)

Because conviction is caused, and usually, it is caused by either
logic or evidence. Though there are other possible causes, for
example, grace.

The problem with conviction, as adequately demonstrated by this
thread, is that there is not always a way reliably to differentiate
between an honest statement of conviction and a lie.

If Dman were actually convinced that he has a million dollars coming,
that would be an indication that that might be true. As it is, no
such conviction exists in him, so it is not evidence of anything,
other than desperation, which in itself is kind of interesting.

>
>
> > > A simple majority? 2/3 majority? Unanimous? Everyone except those
> > > named "Joe Geloso"?
>
> > > Way to go, with the continuation of the "Fallacy of Conviction (aka
> > > Joe and Semi's fallacy)".
>
> > If there is a fallacy of conviction it would consist in this:
>
> > 1. I believe X.
> > 2. Therefore X is true.
>
> > But that is not what I am saying, so I have not committed that
> > fallacy.
>
> > To start getting back to talking about something substantial, there is
> > a common principle that seems valid:
>
> > 1. P believes X.
> > 2. P is not insane.
> > 3. Therefore X is worth looking into.
>
> What the hell does "worth looking into" even mean in the context of a
> debate?

Sometimes people debate about things that exist in real life. Some
things in real life are worth looking into.

There is a difference between a mere statement in words and an actual
belief. That P states X does not prove that P believes X, because P
could be lying. But if P really believes X, there is probably a
reason for that.

[rappoccio]

You claim that the cosmological argument is evidence of God's
existence. This is a mathematically definable statement.

Saying "X is evidence of Y" really means that the probability that X
is observed is LARGER if one hypothesizes Y, than if one hypothesizes !
Y. This is a simple case of Bayesian inference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

So we let

X = the universe exists (the cosmological argument, in other words)
Y = God exists.

Now, to support your argument that "the cosmological argument is
evidence that God exists", you must show

P(X|Y) > P(X|!Y).

Proof:

Let Y = evidence.
Let X = hypothesis.

Bayes' Theorem gives us:

P(Y|X) = P(X|Y) / P(X) * P(Y)

where

* P(Y|X) is the probability that the hypothesis Y is true, given
evidence X
* P(Y) is the prior probability assumption of the hypothesis Y
(usually taken as the Jeffrey's prior, in this case 0.5).
* P(X) is the probability of the evidence given all possible
hypotheses. This must be calculated.

To calculate P(X), we are only considering one hypothesis (Y), so the
two possibilities are Y and !Y.

Thus, P(X) = Sum( P(X|Y) + P(X|!Y) ). For your hypothesis Y to be
strengthened, you must therefore show that the quantity

P(X|Y) / ( P(X|Y) + P(X|!Y) ) > 0.5

or

P(X|Y) > P(X|!Y)

in order for your postulate Y to be strengthened by evidence X, and
hence say that "X is evidence of Y".

So let's hear it. Where's your justification?

[rappoccio]

Following the conversation, you are simply redefining words so that
you get to pretend you're being rational and reasonable, when in fact
you have no rational nor reasonable basis for your conviction.

Your (unsupported) argument is:

"If there is no disproof of the conviction, then it will

be more reasonable to hold to the conviction and assume it's truth,

than to use speculation against it and assume it is not true. "

This is a quantifiable statement, as I've told you already. "More
reasonable" is quantifiable.

You're not getting off by claiming ignorance here, semi. Sorry.

[semi]

On May 29, 3:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't we take the example of Person A having the pure conviction
> that Person B owes him a million dollars? Person B doesn't want to pay
> a million dollars to Person A so he accuses Person A of lying and
> makes nonsensical remarks about lacking evidence being greater than
> having evidence and then claims that as disproof.
>
> Why don't we address THAT scenario, since it's the one we're in?

Alright. Let's look at the evidence against verses the evidence for:

Evidence against:

For me to owe you something implies that I am under an obligation. An
individual being obligated under another individual of the same nature
is not established by pure conviction, but can be established by
conviction through speculation. In fact, to say someone has this pure
conviction is nonsensical, because pure conviction does not go against
natural reasoning and natural reasoning will not say that someone is
under obligation of another human by pure conviction.

Evidence for:
Your non-pure conviction.


Conclusion: I do not owe you a million dollars. BACK OFF!!

[semi]

It's more reasonably assumed than any other option based upon the
nature human beings reason. I am after all human, and must reason as
such seeing that I am bound to certain natural laws. I may deny these
laws in theory, but in practice they will remain evident.

[semi]

Also, if I am under obligation and I do not adhere to it, there must
be repercussions. If I don't pay you, what you gonna do about it bub?

On May 29, 3:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

On May 29, 4:50 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 3:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't we take the example of Person A having the pure conviction
> > that Person B owes him a million dollars? Person B doesn't want to pay
> > a million dollars to Person A so he accuses Person A of lying and
> > makes nonsensical remarks about lacking evidence being greater than
> > having evidence and then claims that as disproof.
>
> > Why don't we address THAT scenario, since it's the one we're in?
>
> Alright. Let's look at the evidence against verses the evidence for:
>
> Evidence against:
>
> For me to owe you something implies that I am under an obligation. An
> individual being obligated under another individual of the same nature
> is not established by pure conviction, but can be established by
> conviction through speculation.

Wrong. Under your philosophy things ARE established by pure
conviction.

> In fact, to say someone has this pure
> conviction is nonsensical, because pure conviction does not go against
> natural reasoning and natural reasoning will not say that someone is
> under obligation of another human by pure conviction.
>
> Evidence for:
> Your non-pure conviction.

What is your evidence that my conviction is non-pure?

>
> Conclusion: I do not owe you a million dollars. BACK OFF!!

Since there there is only evidence for (my pure conviction) I will
await your check. Or I could do paypal.

[Drafterman]

On May 29, 5:06 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, if I am under obligation and I do not adhere to it, there must
> be repercussions. If I don't pay you, what you gonna do about it bub?

The complete, utter and public implosion of your nonsensical
philosophy is repercussion enough. :)

[philosophy]

On May 30, 3:34 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That does not disprove the cosmological argument. In fact, if I accept
> what you are saying, then that's proof of a first cause. The argument
> is not intended to prove God's existence but to show that their must
> be a first cause. It is used as evidence for the existence of God, not
> proof.

Well, if you look into some early indian texts, they suggest that the
original cause was related to the basic law of positive and negative
currents, not in those terms of course. I find it interesting that you
feel there must be a "first cause". Why?

[semi]

On May 29, 5:47 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The complete, utter and public implosion of your nonsensical
> philosophy is repercussion enough. :)

This is only POSSIBLE if you really never had that conviction. You
see, that statement shows that you never were convicted of me owing
you a million dollars in the first place because you just want to try
and set up a false scenario to ATTEMPT to show my philosophy is false.

Thanks for your admission of lying about your conviction. The defense
rests.

[Sebastian]

None of these are reasonable. For instance, consider statements A and
B, where A is contradictory to B (assume not A is the same as B) and
there is no evidence to support either. Then thinking A is true means
you think B is not true and thinking A is not true means you think B
is true. In other words, to believe something is true or isn't true
when there is no evidence is equally unfounded. None of these is more
reasonable than the other, they are both unreasonable, since in fact
they are an equivalent fallacy. To illustrate this point:

A = God does not exist
B = God exists

Now not A = B and there is no evidence for either of the claims (this
is what we will assume for now, although I do not believe this is
true). Then believing that A is true when there is no evidence is no
more reasonable than believing B is true when there is no evidence.
Exactly the same fallacy. The same thing can be used to argue both A
and not A, when there is no evidence for either.

In short: To make truth judgment without evidence is not a good
practice.

[Drafterman]

On May 29, 6:00 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 5:47 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The complete, utter and public implosion of your nonsensical
> > philosophy is repercussion enough. :)
>
> This is only POSSIBLE if you really never had that conviction. You
> see, that statement shows that you never were convicted of me owing
> you a million dollars in the first place because you just want to try
> and set up a false scenario to ATTEMPT to show my philosophy is false.

I don't need to step up a false scenario to show your philosophy is
false. A true one will do and does not resort to my lying.

However, I explained why the truth or falsehood of my statement is
irrelevant, the point of the scenario remains valid in either case.
One wonders why, if you are trying to support your philosophy, you are
concentrating on points that are irrelevant.

>
> Thanks for your admission of lying about your conviction. The defense
> rests.

I never admitted I lied about my conviction.

[Sebastian]

I think she believes that her conviction of you lying proves that it
is true.

[Observer]

Observer
Your use of the word conviction in the sense of the state of being
convinced.
Lends absolutely no weight to any argument that you provide, for
example ones being convinced ot the existence of unicorns does not
magically produce a corresponding actuality that unicorns exist.

Further your disparate clinging to the product of fear and hate
based ,superstitious lunacy projected from the collective ids of
uneducated , primitive desert dwellers who were isolated from all of
the information gathered by science in the past two to six thousand
years indicates that you are presently incapable of critical thought ,
know very little of scientific actualities , and nothing of the
process of scientific method.

Now if one is to defend the belief in anything it is necessary that s/
he be able to provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
sufficient to prove such to be actual.

Furthermore one that believes (is convinced of the actuality) (has a
conviction that something exists) and has not done the necessary due
diligence to provide such scientifically verifiable substantiating
data for one's self is just too ignorant to be given credence when
they argue for their belief and have betrayed them selves into the
hideous condition that has allowed the horrors and atrocities of the
past several thousand years.

When people refuse to educate themselves the are easy prey for the
despots of the world . Those who are the beneficiaries of your self
imposed isolation from education are the very persons who will impose
all manner of control mechanisms such as those found in all of the
dogma of the world , be it political, philosopohical, religious/
superstitious or any of the isms that seek power over you.

The only hope for humanity is that it's citizens learn the power of
critical thought absorbing to their fullest capacity the broadest
possible collection of scientific data from all the disciplines , and
then incorporating in their decision making processes the fullness of
scientific method.

Belief in superstitious filth and adherence to dogmatic assertions of
any kind are a direct road to the final demise of humanity and the
cause of the billions of deaths , torturers and other atrocities that
have befallen humanity over the millennia.

Learn to learn deny the advance of ignorance . Get an education and
participate as a fully responsible member of society.

Ignorance is curable by the act of acquiring an education . Stupidity
is the refusal to do so and is a crime against one's self and
humanity.

I wish you well

Psychonomist

[semi]

On May 29, 8:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't need to step up a false scenario to show your philosophy is
> false. A true one will do and does not resort to my lying.

Well, you have not shown that a true scenario proves my philosophy
false. Whenever you're ready, present a true scenario of a valid
conviction.

> However, I explained why the truth or falsehood of my statement is
> irrelevant, the point of the scenario remains valid in either case.
> One wonders why, if you are trying to support your philosophy, you are
> concentrating on points that are irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. Because if your conviction is false my
philosophy does not apply.

> > Thanks for your admission of lying about your conviction. The defense
> > rests.
>
> I never admitted I lied about my conviction.

You basically did. If the consequence of me not paying you is to show
my philosophy is false, then that is only possible if your conviction
is false. This is because if your conviction was true, another
consequence would apply for me NOT paying up that has nothing to do
with showing a supposed falsehood in my argument.

[semi]

On May 29, 8:21 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think she believes that her conviction of you lying proves that it
> is true.

I'm a "he". And my conviction of Drafterman lying does not prove my
philosophy is true. It's true by it's own argument. However, if
Drafterman wants to try and disprove it, he should have atleast came
with a true conviction.

[Dev]

You guys are such pathetic dingbats. You argue that something can be
taken as true unless it's disproven, but as soon as somebody makes an
assertion you don't like you move the goalposts and _now_ assertions
need to be backed up by evidence, even though you still can't provide
any good evidence for your fucktarded beliefs. This is why thetards
need to eat shit and die.

On May 28, 10:58 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you Drafterman? May the prosecution present its case.
>
> Like I said:
>
> "I will declare that I do not owe Drafterman a million dollars because
> I never borrowed a million dollars from him. May he present the
> evidence that I have borrowed a million dollars from him, or else his
> conviction is disproved."
>
> On May 28, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > > May the prosecution present its case:
>

> > > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?
>
> > Because according to your logic he can make that statement and it's true
> > simply because he believes it.
>
> > I believe Drafterman's statement is true as well and so it is.
>
> > --
> > “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns
> > out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dev]

It's also an argument that is on it's face completely illogical. You
say the universe needs a cause because everything needs a cause, so
present an uncaused God that contradicts the very premise you use to
come up with it, and when the contradiction is presented Brock
ejaculates into a cup and you drink it.

On May 29, 11:34 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That does not disprove the cosmological argument. In fact, if I accept
> what you are saying, then that's proof of a first cause. The argument
> is not intended to prove God's existence but to show that their must
> be a first cause. It is used as evidence for the existence of God, not
> proof.
>

> > > Conviction sustained.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Remarkable that some thetard has been going through this thread giving
all the atheists one-star ratings because they flat-out refuted semi's
logic.

This is why thetards are so hopeless. This is why there is no grounds
for getting along with them or being nice to them. I don't like
Drafterman because he's dishonest, but what would have happened if he
were talking to a fucking person is semi would have revised his
argument or abandoned it altogether. Instead, he starts a thread that
goes on forever as we keep flogging a dead horse. He's fucking
_refuted_. Refuted and retarded. The more refuted thetards are, the
more they repeat their refuted statements. They don't care that it
makes them more wrong by doing so.

It's not just semi, it's all of them. I've challenged OldMan and
simon, who think we should respect their beliefs because we can't
prove there's no God, to prove they aren't pedophiles or else quit
their bitching. They uniformly dodge this quagmire. It is on its face
unethical to bitch about an unsubstantiated statement given in jest
while demanding your own sincere unsubstantiated assertions be
respected. If they were human beings with brains and consciences, they
would behave in precisely the opposite way that they behave.

Psychologists in criminal trials over people who have murdered
children because they thought God wanted them to have basically
conceded that there is no line to draw between their beliefs being
delusional and any other theist's beliefs. All theists should be
treated the same as child killers, because there's no fundamental
difference. They're impossible to reason with and an existential
threat.

On May 28, 10:45 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 28, 12:31 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we find this a matter of grave importance, then perhaps we shall go
> > on with the proceedings. If it's not that important, then my case
> > regarding convictions still stands seeing that this is not an
> > important enough "conviction" to disprove it.
>
> > May the prosecution present its case:
>
> > Drafterman, why do I owe you a million dollars?
>

[Dev]

He likes turtles.

> > > statement (!God exists).- Hide quoted text -

[Sebastian]

Aha, now that we know that you are a he, I am convinced. Good job on
answering my post above! You win. Oh and by the way, it is my true and
honest conviction that god does not exist.

[ThelemicCatholic]

The problem with that, of course, is that it is extremely difficult if
not outright impossible to find a true conviction that is also truly
baseless.

He settled for meeting the baselessness criterion, thinking the truth
criterion superfluous. Which goes a long way towards revealing the
atheists' general attitude towards truth, which may go a long way to
explaining atheism.

[ThelemicCatholic]

On May 28, 9:22 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:59 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 3:52 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 3:48 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
> > > > > according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.
>
> > > > > Pay up.
>
> > > > Except the disproof is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.
>
> > > You've provided no disproof.
>
> > > Your assertion that I'm lying is not disproof.
> > > Lack of evidence in support of my conviction is not required (per your
> > > philosophy) and, based on subsequent information actually makes the
> > > conviction itself evidence.
>
> > Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
> > dollars. In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
> > dollars. In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
> > because lack of evidence >> evidence. Since this disproof is true, the

> > conviction itself is no longer evidence.
>

> Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that God exists. In fact,
> there is NO evidence that God exists.

Saying, even shouting, that there is NO evidence for God does not
magically make all the evidence go away.

You should be more honest, and say that there is nothing that you will
accept as evidence.

> In this case the conviction does

> not count as evidence because lack of evidence >> evidence. Since this

[ThelemicCatholic]

On May 28, 9:09 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:48 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
> > > according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.
>
> > > Pay up.
>
> > Except the disproof is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.
>

> The disproof of God is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.

Show the evidence.

[Observer]

On May 31, 2:05 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 31, 5:57 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Aha, now that we know that you are a he, I am convinced. Good job on
> > answering my post above! You win. Oh and by the way, it is my true and
> > honest conviction that god does not exist.
>
> > On May 30, 3:05 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 8:21 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think she believes that her conviction of you lying proves that it
> > > > is true.
>
> > > I'm a "he". And my conviction of Drafterman lying does not prove my
> > > philosophy is true. It's true by it's own argument. However, if
> > > Drafterman wants to try and disprove it, he should have atleast came
> > > with a true conviction.
>
> The problem with that, of course, is that it is extremely difficult if
> not outright impossible to find a true conviction that is also truly
> baseless.

Observer
Of course that is true , the base for your superstition and your
mindless regurgitation of nonsense is the dogmata thereof.

There existed a basis for conviction that the world was flat .

It is important that one structure their convictions based upon usable
information which most closely resembles the actualities( a concept
which approaches a verifiable nearness of truth) rather than
misinformation and second hand fictions.

>
> He settled for meeting the baselessness criterion, thinking the truth
> criterion superfluous.  Which goes a long way towards revealing the
> atheists' general attitude towards truth, which may go a long way to
> explaining atheism.

Observer
What you fail to apprehend is that all people, atheists and Christians
included, base their lives , actions, and reactions on fictions
produced of conclusions made from their sensory perceptions .

The profound difference between the fictions formulated by christians
and atheists lies in the fact that christians far less actively
pursue any attempts to align their fictions to ***a nearness of
truth*** through the application of critical thought applied to a
broad base of scientifically verifiable data using scientific method.

It is incumbent upon any one who claims membership it the family of
human kind to perform such*** due diligence*** to the end that all
superstition, and self imposed isolation from education be eradicated
from their operating psyches so as to properly contribute a fair
share to the maturation , well being , prosperity,and peacefulness of
the specie.

Psychonomist

[Drafterman]

On May 30, 10:02 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't need to step up a false scenario to show your philosophy is
> > false. A true one will do and does not resort to my lying.
>
> Well, you have not shown that a true scenario proves my philosophy
> false.

The scenario itself is only part. Your refusal to apply your
philosophy is the lynch pin.

> Whenever you're ready, present a true scenario of a valid
> conviction.

Already did. Pay up.

>
> > However, I explained why the truth or falsehood of my statement is
> > irrelevant, the point of the scenario remains valid in either case.
> > One wonders why, if you are trying to support your philosophy, you are
> > concentrating on points that are irrelevant.
>
> It is not irrelevant. Because if your conviction is false my
> philosophy does not apply.

But it isn't false, so it does apply.

>
> > > Thanks for your admission of lying about your conviction. The defense
> > > rests.
>
> > I never admitted I lied about my conviction.
>
> You basically did.

No, I didn't.

> If the consequence of me not paying you is to show
> my philosophy is false, then that is only possible if your conviction
> is false.

It is also possible if you actually don't believe in your philosophy
when push comes to shove.

[ThelemicCatholic]

You appear to be asserting that "all truth is fiction."

Are you?

The science of confirming the truth of Catholicism entails praying.
If you aren't willing to do that, you aren't willing to verify the
truth of Catholicism, and you will continue to think it is vile,
superstitious filth. And likely say so, as obnoxiously as possible.

But if you ever begin to pray, you will be on the way to something
really valuable. Just so you know, the option is there.

[semi]

I suggest Observer first leearns some things about prayer before
conducting his "experiment" if he chooses:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.vi.xx.html?highlight=prayer#highlight

On Jun 2, 12:40 am, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[rappoccio]

This does not make a requirement for it to be considered special or
different from anything else.

[rappoccio]

After all, it's turtles all the way down.

[rappoccio]

On May 31, 5:11 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 28, 9:22 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 3:59 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 3:52 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 3:48 pm, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 28, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since there is no other evidence other than my conviction then,
> > > > > > according to you, the conviction itself constitutes evidence.
>
> > > > > > Pay up.
>
> > > > > Except the disproof is evident. Therefore your conviction is rejected.
>
> > > > You've provided no disproof.
>
> > > > Your assertion that I'm lying is not disproof.
> > > > Lack of evidence in support of my conviction is not required (per your
> > > > philosophy) and, based on subsequent information actually makes the
> > > > conviction itself evidence.
>
> > > Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that I owe you a million
> > > dollars. In fact, there is NO evidence that I owe you a million
> > > dollars. In this case the conviction does not count as evidence
> > > because lack of evidence >> evidence. Since this disproof is true, the
> > > conviction itself is no longer evidence.
>
> > Lack of evidence far greater than evidence that God exists. In fact,
> > there is NO evidence that God exists.
>
> Saying, even shouting, that there is NO evidence for God does not
> magically make all the evidence go away.
>

Saying, even shouting, that there is EVIDENCE for God does not
magically make it appear.

> You should be more honest, and say that there is nothing that you will
> accept as evidence.

I would not say that. Your narcissistic personality disorder just
disallows you from conceiving that you yourself have made a shitty
case for your invisible friend, and so you place the blame on everyone
else around you.

[ThelemicCatholic]

Ah. Good of you to be concerned, but there is precious little chance
Observer will conduct this particular "experiment." He is allergic to
praying.

On Jun 2, 1:07 am, semi <seminole10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest Observer first leearns some things about prayer before
> conducting his "experiment" if he chooses:
>

> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.vi.xx.html?highlight=pra...

[Observer]

On Jun 1, 9:40 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You appear to be asserting that "all truth is fiction."
>
> Are you?

Observer

Please , Joe , take a remedial reading class.

>
> The science of confirming the truth of Catholicism entails praying.
> If you aren't willing to do that, you aren't willing to verify the
> truth of Catholicism, and you will continue to think it is vile,
> superstitious filth.  And likely say so, as obnoxiously as possible.

Observer
That, Joe, is analogous to saying that the existence of superman is
confirmed through the reading Superman DC publications and then
praying .

If you are not aware that I did all of that ( though it shames me to
admit such) then you have not been paying attention.

Christ is a fraud, the bible is a fraud,the catholic church is a
fraud , the pope is a fraud, your entire collection of filthy
superstitious myths are fraudulent. and you are utterly stupid to
believe otherwise.

>
> But if you ever begin to pray, you will be on the way to something
> really valuable.  Just so you know, the option is there.

Observer
I guarantee that if you pray to dog shit you will get exactly the same
results. Dog shit will answer all prayers just as your fictive god
does.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Psychonomist