|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2011 : 18:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, Please don't tell me you put all your trust in Wikipedia. You are going to glad we corresponded and you will much more sophisticated than you are now.
Wikipedia might be all right to get you started in researching something but you should also look up at least three other sources. Pranksters are always screwing around in Wikipedia. |
So you're willing to accept an online dictionary definition but not entire encyclopedia entry because you think it may have been tampered with? That's idiotic. The article is fine. People who know what they are talking about have read it and found no issues. Go read the article already and don't come back until you have an understanding of it. Then if you still have questions at least it will be based on something more than your own imagination.
| Still waiting for the evidence agnosticism is based on. |
Even asking this question proves how confused you are.
| Wishing God exists doesn't make it so. |
Sure doesn't. It also has nothing to do with agnosticism.
| Are you skeptical agnostics waiting for the second coming of Christ before making your decision? |
An agnostic wouldn't agree that we can know god exists even if Jesus appeared in the sky surrounded by a choir of harp-playing angels. But you wouldn't know that because you refuse to educate yourself on what agnosticism is.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/22/2011 18:46:05 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 18:49:29 [Permalink]
|
agnosticism: This entry comes from Encyclopædia Britannica Concise and is provided by Merriam–Webster
No amount of definition is going to matter, it seems, but here you go. I would have loved to give you Britannica's full definition, which probably would have included agnostic/atheist, but I'm not willing to pay for it just because you, Rod, don't understand what it means. By the way... Wiki has been studied for errors along side Britannica and they came in pretty close in that department. I'd go look for that link, but this is silly and I need to go shopping. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 18:49:44 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert, Don't leave us hanging. Give us a definition of agnosticism. Also tell us what possible use an atheist
could make of this specious philosophy. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 18:58:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
H. Humbert, Don't leave us hanging. Give us a definition of agnosticism. Also tell us what possible use an atheist
could make of this specious philosophy.
|
Why are you still asking questions instead of reading? Are you allergic to learning?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 19:19:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dave W., Cowardice is what prevents agnostics from being atheists. |
Another bald assertion, and not evidence or logic that supports your earlier claim. If you're going to propose ground rules for the discussion and then immediately ignore them, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone here that your argument holds any water.Maybe this will help you understand.
from Madalyn O'Hair.
"Agnostic followers have always been allies of the church. The false notion that the world is unknowable undermines science and reinforces theology. It inclines man to faith and induces humankind to trust religious doctrines.
The church does not anathematize the agnostic and even the Roman Catholic Church will accept the agnostic in its fold." |
A quote is neither evidence nor logic that supports your claim. We also do not have O'Hair to argue with any longer, and by just quoting her, you're denying our ability to have a discussion at all. For you to come in here and talk about finding "common ground" but then flinging quotes around without providing a robust commentary of your own shows that you have no intention of doing anything but preaching. Not many of us here are interested in Official Atheist Dogma™, Officiant.
You also wrote:| Kil, Made up definitions are useless. |
Since Huxley invented the word "agnostic," you'd do well to listen to his definition.| Please give me a dictionary definition of agnostic and name the dictionary. |
You already have. What's wrong with the definitions you provided? Despite what you said, it doesn't look like anyone has actually rejected the Merriam-Webster definitions. They've just given you the historical context.I do not agree with the racism and male chauvinism Huxley
advocates... |
That's a textbook argumentum ad hominem.| ...and he does not even agree with himself. |
Where's the evidence for that claim?| Agnosticism does not provide demonstrable evidence. |
That's just awesome in its cluelessness. Agnosticism, per Merriam-Webster, asserts that it is impossible for there to be demonstrable evidence. In other words, according to the definition you provided, your demands that agnosticism provide evidence are misguided at best, and outright dishonest at worst.
Also:| Valiant Dancer says,"A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable is an agnostic." Don't you skeptics trust the scientific method? |
Yes, and we also know that some realities are untestable by the scientific method. For example, from what we know now, that there exists a "multiverse" is a hypothesis that can never have evidence in support of it.| Victor Stenger shows that God does not exist in God: The Failed Hypothesis. Can you skeptics refute Stenger? |
This is another attempt to get authorities to argue for you without them actually being here. If you could, in your own words, summarize Stenger's argument, that'd give me an indication that you're seriously interested in the responses you might get.Is God hiding? Why is he unknowable? We have the Koran, the Bible and the Torah
for evidence don't we? |
That only demonstrates how limited your imagination is for what "god" might be. We can decide that every particular deity that humanity has invented in its history is false for a variety of sociological and scientific reasons, but that doesn't "disprove" the basic god hypothesis.| How long can you skeptics defer on making a call on the supernatural? |
Given that you call us "agnostic athiests," we haven't deferred on anything. We don't believe in god(s) (the "atheist" part) but cannot strictly rule them out (the "agnostic" part). Anyone who's familiar with the philosophy of science and the scientific method(s) should understand that science cannot rule anything out; the only thing we can say is that "that hypothesis is not supported by evidence."| We have been looking for thousands of years for evidence and have found nothing. |
Carl Sagan, in his Baloney Detection Kit, reminded us that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you're going to defer to Sagan, you'd better get him right.If you can demonstrate any
evidence of the supernatural James Randi will pay you a million dollars and he has been waiting for many years for someone to collect. |
No, the Million Dollar Challenge is not about "any evidence of the supernatural," but is instead about personal, testable supernatural abilities. Evidence in favor of the existence of god is therefore not a part of Randi's challenge. Do you really care so little about your arguments that you can't get simple, inarguable facts correct?
You also wrote:| Dear Ebone4rock, Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea. |
An argument from consequences, and badly targeted at that. The devastation that human religion has caused is in no way relevant to question of whether or not some sort of deity exists.Madalyn Murray O'Hair
from Madalyn O'Hair.
"Agnostic followers have always been allies of the church... |
That would probably be news to Huxley, by the way.| ...The false notion that the world is unknowable undermines science... |
Have you ever heard of scientism? O'Hair was engaging in it right there.| ...and reinforces theology. It inclines man to faith and induces humankind to trust religious doctrines." |
Which is utter baloney. But as I said above, we don't have O'Hair to argue with any more. Why don't you argue, instead of quoting? Quoting with little commentary is a hallmark of creationist argumentation, after all.| Ask an agnostic organization like Humanist Canada why they denied me freedom of expression... |
Wow! How could they possibly do that? I mean that literally: does Humanist Canada have policing powers that allowed them to lock you up and refuse you access to all public platforms for expression?| ...and broke two of their own bylaws to refuse to renew my membership. |
Oh, I see: this is an anecdote, and not data.| Tell me the difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic. They both attend church and they look identical to me because I'm an atheist. |
I haven't attended church in 30+ years. Well, I did go to a couple of memorial services for family members, but I was just as appalled at the religious bullshit as you would have been.
You also wrote:| Dear Kil, Please don't tell me you put all your trust in Wikipedia. You are going to glad we corresponded and you will much more sophisticated than you are now. |
How utterly arrogant and condescending.| Wikipedia might be all right to get you started in researching something but you should also look up at least three other sources. Pranksters are always screwing around in Wikipedia. |
This puts argumentum ad Webster's in a whole new light for me. It's not a good light, either. You do understand that dictionaries have armies of editors because they might be wrong, yes?| Still waiting for the evidence agnosticism is based on. |
I'm still waiting for the evidence that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes."| Wishing God exists doesn't make it so. |
Where in the Merriam-Webster definition does it say that agnostics wish that god exists?| Are you skeptical agnostics waiting for the second coming of Christ before making your decision? |
Bwahahaha. Sorry, Kil, but this guy is a loon.
You also wrote:You should really can the "dear" crap.| ...You are not able to counter my arguments... |
Officiant, you haven't made an argument, you've just tossed out a bunch of assertions.Please leave the policing of our forums to us, the staff.| ...and tell me the difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic. |
Why would there be one? Are you telling us that if evidence that some god exists somewhere were to come to light, you wouldn't change your mind?
You also wrote:H. Humbert, Don't leave us hanging. Give us a definition of agnosticism. Also tell us what possible use an atheist
could make of this specious philosophy. |
You've got to be kidding me. Officiant, you set the conditions for the discussion based on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry's guidelines, and have utterly failed to meet that standard for your claim, that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes." The guidelines from CSI clearly state that for your claim, you need to provide three things:- Evidence
- A concept of falsifiability
- Logic
You, Officiant, have offered us none of those with regards to the claim of yours that I've repeatedly quoted. The burden of proof is on you. And until you provide it, you have no room to demand that others provide any sort of counter-proof. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 20:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Officiant, I admire your passion against the dangers of religion, I just think you are barking up the wrong tree by attacking agnostics. If I can be bold as to offer you a little direction, I think you should check into the ongoing debates between the new atheists and the accommodationists (people who many feel prop up the privilege of religion at the expense of reason and honesty). Also, it might interest you to note that renowned biologist Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True, held a contest to come up with a good word for atheists who are soft on faith: | Provide a snappy, one-word name for those atheists who are nonetheless soft on faith (i.e., atheist accommodationists). You know them — the kind of people, like Michael Ruse, who say, “I am an atheist, but . . .”. In other words, the folks who, says Daniel Dennett, have “belief in belief.” That’s a snappy phrase, but it ain’t one word. |
The winning word was faitheist. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 20:31:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Bwahahaha. Sorry, Kil, but this guy is a loon. |
He does have an interesting information filtering mechanism doesn't he?
By the way. I have already pointed out to him the Huxley ad hominem. Guess it didn't take. (For a guy who's fond of Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and CSI rules, he sure throws the fallacies around.) As it turnes out, that's a claim creationists like to use. Henry Morris seems to have originated its use at the ICR. It's laughably ironic that an atheist would use the same claim, only for a different reason to dismiss Huxley. Creationists hate him because he was a champion of Darwin. Officiant hates him because he coined the term Agnostic. Talk origins points out that for his time, Huxley was rather progressive. For example, Huxley deplored slavery. Here's a link to Talk Origins take on the claim's veracity.
Claim CA005.3: |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 20:52:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
It (agnosticism) asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)
|
Officiant also provides a definition of agnostic:
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god |
I take it that Officiant can't see the contradiction here...
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2011 : 21:51:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
He does have an interesting information filtering mechanism doesn't he? |
I would use the term "absurd" instead of "interesting." The idea that "the Second Coming of Christ" is what agnostic atheists are waiting for to make a decision is utterly ludicrous. We're atheists, forcryingoutloud. But that was his (Officiant's) unprompted, uncoerced example.
I really don't have a large enough vocabulary to express how ridiculous that is.
And Hawks pointed out another beautiful example of this "filter" at work. Maybe Officiant seems so angry because the cognitive dissonance is causing him so much pain.| By the way. I have already pointed out to him the Huxley ad hominem. Guess it didn't take. (For a guy who's fond of Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and CSI rules, he sure throws the fallacies around.) |
I think it's all the "filter," Kil. Officiant has a bad case of Morton's Demon (even though he's not a YEC, the basic idea holds). He's also got a lot in common with the 9/11 Truthers: he seems to think that any disagreement with him is some sort of pro-religion argument, much like the Truthers think that any objection to their nonsense means you're trying to protect George Bush.
Officiant is definitely one of those people that Barbara Drescher was talking about as exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He's full of himself, but gets everything very badly wrong, and he doesn't even realize it.
He's what I would call a "sound-bite atheist." He knows only enough to drop some atheist names and throw out key phrases, so he thinks he's some sort of expert, but he hasn't internally synthesized what he's read so he doesn't understand any of it. If he ever bothers to give us his own thoughts about the quotes he's liberally tossing around, I predict those ideas will be scattered and ungrounded, if not wholly incomprehensible. He'd likely take criticism or requests for clarification as signs of nothing less dramatic than that he'd presented a rock-solid argument, when a more humble, self-aware person might think they'd screwed up.
Once again, we have met someone who, in real life, is like Otto in the movie A Fish Called Wanda. This happened before with JerryB who came here to lecture us on the mathematics of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when it was clear that he couldn't comprehend basic algebra concepts. Officiant thinks he can provide a more "sophisticated" view of agnosticism, but all he's come up with so far is a self-contradictory pile of mush. That's not sophistication, it's sophistry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 01:08:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
He does have an interesting information filtering mechanism doesn't he? |
I would use the term "absurd" instead of "interesting." The idea that "the Second Coming of Christ" is what agnostic atheists are waiting for to make a decision is utterly ludicrous. We're atheists, forcryingoutloud. But that was his (Officiant's) unprompted, uncoerced example.
I really don't have a large enough vocabulary to express how ridiculous that is.
|
He said, "Are you skeptical agnostics waiting for the second coming of Christ before making your decision?"
He didn't say "agnostic atheists waiting..." He doesn't grok that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, so he had to change how we define ourselves to fit his caricature of agnostics. To Officiant, there is only one kind of agnostic. And that agnostic doesn't even fit his Websters definition. As far as he's concerned, all agnostics are secretly needing for there to be a god but are too cowardly to admit it. Attach agnosticism to atheism and he filters the atheist part out. I've pointed out to him several times that I'm an atheist, but he has yet to acknowledge it because agnostic/atheist doesn't fit his version of either one. Agnostic or Atheist.
That's probably the reason why he dismissed the wiki links as being "made up." They all included agnostic/atheist in their definitions. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 04:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Ebone4rock, You are not able to counter my arguments so you call me a troll on a thread that I started. That makes you the troll.
Please stay on topic and tell me the difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic.
|
1. I am an atheist.
2. I haven't much patience for exercizes in futility.
3. I have already had this discussion and thrown my own light-hearted jabs at those who call themselves agnostic.
4. You don't seem to want to accept any reasonable arguments. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 04:21:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You should really can the "dear" crap. |
To be fair I started it. Sorry. I sometimes defer to Miss Manners mode when dealing with feminine hygiene products.
 |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 06:01:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, Made up definitions are useless. Please give me a dictionary definition of agnostic and name the dictionary. I do not agree with the racism and male chauvinism Huxley
advocates and he does not even agree with himself. Agnosticism does not provide demonstrable evidence.
Valiant Dancer says,"A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable is an agnostic." Don't you skeptics trust the scientific method? |
Interesting. Taking people's words out of context seems to be an ongoing logical flaw of yours.
I also said that science is a journey, not a destination. Science describes the world as we currently understand it, not ultimate reality.
Victor Stenger shows that God does not exist in God: The Failed Hypothesis. Can you skeptics refute Stenger? Is God hiding? Why is he unknowable? We have the Koran, the Bible and the Torah
for evidence don't we? How long can you skeptics defer on making a call on the supernatural? We have been looking for thousands of years for evidence and have found nothing. If you can demonstrate any
evidence of the supernatural James Randi will pay you a million dollars and he has been waiting for many years for someone to collect.
|
Existance/non-existance of a diety is tangental to the argument concerning agnosticism. This is a red herring. So is your quote from O'Hair as she is not a scientist and is stating her opinion, not fact.
Stick to the argument you posited which is "agnosticism is a cowardly position".
We've shown and defended here that it is not. You keep bouncing off into the "God proof" red herring. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 06:05:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Ebone4rock, Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
from Madalyn O'Hair.
"Agnostic followers have always been allies of the church. The false notion that the world is unknowable undermines science and reinforces theology. It inclines man to faith and induces humankind to trust religious doctrines."
Ask an agnostic organization like Humanist Canada why they denied me freedom of expression and broke two of their own bylaws to refuse to renew my membership. |
Because you act like a dick. Wasn't that hard to figure out why they would not renew your membership. Also, freedom of expression apllies to the machinations of government, not private groups.
Tell me the difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic. They both attend church and they look identical to me because I'm an atheist.
|
A skeptical agnostic does not attend church. You have made a giant unsupported logical leap to "all agnostics are theistic agnostics". That is no where near the case. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 06:56:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Ebone4rock, You are not able to counter my arguments so you call me a troll on a thread that I started. That makes you the troll.
Please stay on topic and tell me the difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic.
|
And you've been acting like an asshole the second you came here. (and on Facebook before that).
Why don't you stay on topic, and try defending your assertions. Preferable starting by answering this post.
You post a lot of dreck along with your "Rules of critical thinking", but you cannot bother to apply the rules to your own writing. That makes you a hypocrite. But there's still a chance to salvage this thread. Your assertions have been challenged, now please provide evidence that they are valid.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
