|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2011 : 12:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Hoo boy!
Officiant:
99.999999% accurate is not mathematically the same as 100% accurate. However for purposes of practical reality it is the same. I am 99.999999% sure that the supernatural does not exist. |
How sure you are that there is no supernatural isn’t relevant to backing up your previous assertions. Plus, I don’t see anyone here asserting that there is such a thing as the supernatural. For example, if we were to find that psi actually exists, we would likely conclude that it’s a natural phenomenon that once lacked evidence for its existence.
Officiant:
The agnostic says I am .000001% wrong and it is impossible to know. |
A nod to empiricism is not a game of made up statistics.
Officiant:
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
An agnostic is not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God; an agnostic professes ignorance
about His existence. For the latter, God may exist, but reason can neither prove nor disprove it. |
And I should care what a Catholic encyclopedia says, why?
Officiant:
So who's side are you wishy-washy, one foot on the platform; the other on the train agnostics really on? |
More evidence that you think that all agnostics are of the theistic variety, as I and others have said. Well… You are wrong. For example, and I know I can say this until I’m blue in the face and you still won’t get it, but here I go again… I AM AN ATHEIST.
Officiant:
Intellectual integrity or religious faith? |
Ummm... Now wait a sec. I have to think about this. Ummmm... Hold on... Hold on...
Okay, I've decided. I choose intellectual integrity!
Now how about supporting some of your claims?
|
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 - 08/23/2011 : 12:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Dear Valiant Dancer, Theism and Atheism can stand on their own. The is no logical need for the addition of specious agnosticism to tag along to muddy the water. Agnosticism is garbage. Google it.
Do you not find it interesting that the Catholic Church considers you agnostics as allies? Your reference to fundies and the sliding scale is also straw-man. Please provide me with precise examples
of what I said that you consider intellectual fraud. I should not mislead you into thinking I originated the idea that agnostics are cowards. Please read Cowardly Agnosticism"
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/FortRev/Mallock.html |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 13:27:25 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Officiant! Do you think that the church, or any of those who profess a belief in god can support their belief in existence of god with empirical evidence? A simple question. I think you can handle it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2011 : 15:08:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
99.999999% accurate is not mathematically the same as 100% accurate. However for purposes of practical reality it is the same. I am 99.999999% sure that the supernatural does not exist. |
So am I.| The agnostic says I am .000001% wrong and it is impossible to know. |
You are wrong.This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
An agnostic is not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God; an agnostic professes ignorance
about His existence. For the latter, God may exist, but reason can neither prove nor disprove it. |
Try Merriam Webster again, instead.So who's side are you wishy-washy, one foot on the platform; the other on the train agnostics really on?
Intellectual integrity or religious faith? |
I've got more intellectual integrity in my little finger than you've got in your whole head.
You also wrote:Please provide me with precise examples
of what I said that you consider intellectual fraud. |
I already have. Why should Val have to do the work over again when it's clear that you're too much of a coward to address criticisms of your claims head-on?I should not mislead you into thinking I originated the idea that agnostics are cowards. Please read Cowardly Agnosticism"
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/FortRev/Mallock.html |
Bwahahahaha! Officiant is taking the same stand as a defender of the Church of England! And he has the balls to call us friends of theists?
What an astounding hypocrite.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 16:11:54 [Permalink]
|
Val said:
| I'm almost tempted to refer to you as Vincini. Primarily because you keep bandying around the term "agnostic" in unsupported ways. As Inego Montoya would say, "you keep saying that word. I do not thin it means what you thin it means." |
I love that book and movie!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 16:36:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
99.999999% accurate is not mathematically the same as 100% accurate. However for purposes of practical reality it is the same. I am 99.999999% sure that the supernatural does not exist.
The agnostic says I am .000001% wrong and it is impossible to know. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
An agnostic is not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God; an agnostic professes ignorance
about His existence. For the latter, God may exist, but reason can neither prove nor disprove it.
So who's side are you wishy-washy, one foot on the platform; the other on the train agnostics really on?
Intellectual integrity or religious faith?
|
The problem here can be summed up very easily. You, Officiant, don't have a fucking clue.
Using the catholic definition of agnosticism? While it is technically correct, it is expressed in language that fails to convey the actual definition.
I doubt that you will be able to process this, but let me try anyway.... There are, literally, an infinite number of things that you assert are true. Inside that set is an equally large set of things that you can't prove are true. Agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, takes part of that set and says that you can't really say anything about it because the claims are untestable in principle.
This is not the wishy-washy, maybe so, maybe not, bullshit you seem to think it is. It certainly isn't covered by the catholic definition. What agnosticism says about those claims is that it is impossible in principle to make a case for or against them. Let me translate that for you: It means that those claims are just some shit a person made up.
If you had the first fucking clue about science or the scientific method (you don't), you'd understand that agnosticism is a resounding condemnation (just phrased in polite smart people language) of the base claim of religion, that some god exists.
Agnosticism is as strong a rejection of those claims as it is possible to make and remain inside the realm of reason and rational thought. As a consequence of agnosticism, all agnostics are also atheists.
I do not believe there is any deity, I do not believe there might be one out there. I certainly do not think any deity described by humans is a real thing. Because I base my beliefs on evidence. What I won't say, and don't mistake this for fence sitting, is that there can't be some deity. I say that because the claim, like the claim there is a deity, is untestable in principle.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 18:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dude, You said, "The problem here can be summed up very easily. You, Officiant, don't have a fucking clue." That statement gives us all a clue to your powers of reason. I keep using it like Thor's
hammer but please read God: The Failed Hypothesis. Science shows that God does not exist. The deity claims are testable and Stenger has already tested them. I have yet to see anyone refute Stenger. Let's see you try. It is stupid to ignore the principles of critical thinking because you have invested your life in a love affair with wrong-headed agnosticism. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 18:48:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God.
He then splits agnostics into two groups, those who won't commit yet for lack of evidence, and those who believe it is impossible to know. The difference between the two is whether the question of God's existence can ever be answered using science. Dawkins claims that it can be. Which group are you in Dave? Lack of evidence or impossible to know? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 19:23:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by OfficiantYou, Officiant, don't have a fucking clue...
..read God: The Failed Hypothesis. Science shows that God does not exist. The deity claims are testable and Stenger has already tested them. |
You really are clueless. Is your imagination really so poor that it can't even fathom that there are possible deities that can't be tested for? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 19:51:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dave W. Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. |
Therefore, since you cannot provide evidence for your statement, "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes," the reasonable thing for you to do is to not take such a position, and retract your statement with apologies.| Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God. |
That's obviously special pleading. I certainly can't trust you to report Dawkins' position accurately on this matter (because you've gotten so much else wrong), so I don't think that it's Dawkins who is guilty of special pleading here.
At any rate, since your logic is flawed from the outset (regardless of whose premise it is), I can ignore the rest of your argument as unsound.| Which group are you in Dave? Lack of evidence or impossible to know? |
It's odd that you think it must be one or the other. It's a clear false dichotomy.
You also wrote:| I keep using it like Thor's hammer but please read God: The Failed Hypothesis. |
It's more like limp spaghetti. But this is another interesting parallel you have with the creationists: you have a Bible. Written by Stenger. Which you admit to using religiously.| Science shows that God does not exist. The deity claims are testable and Stenger has already tested them. |
All of them? Stenger must be a busy guy, seeing as how there have been at least 40,000 sects in recorded history, and who knows how many more god concepts will be developed in the future.| I have yet to see anyone refute Stenger. |
I'd bet that's because you cover your eyes. But tell us: do you think Stenger is infallible?Let's see you describe just one of Stenger's arguments in your own words.| It is stupid to ignore the principles of critical thinking because you have invested your life in a love affair with wrong-headed agnosticism. |
You are projecting your failures onto others. |
- 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 : 23:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Science shows that God does not exist. The deity claims are testable and Stenger has already tested them. I have yet to see anyone refute Stenger. |
That's not exactly true. Stegner focused on the Judeo Christian version of god. How would you scientifically test for a naturalistic version of god, like that held by Pantheists? Also, Stenger only gets as far as it's extremely unlikely that the god he tested for exists. And you will not get an argument on that from any of us. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 06:06:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, Theism and Atheism can stand on their own. The is no logical need for the addition of specious agnosticism to tag along to muddy the water. Agnosticism is garbage. Google it. |
I've researched it. Your assertions are bullshit.
Do you not find it interesting that the Catholic Church considers you agnostics as allies? |
No. The Westboro Baptist Church considers me a Devil worshipping miscreant. Why should I care what they think?
Your reference to fundies and the sliding scale is also straw-man. Please provide me with precise examples
of what I said that you consider intellectual fraud. I should not mislead you into thinking I originated the idea that agnostics are cowards. Please read Cowardly Agnosticism"
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/FortRev/Mallock.html
|
The Catholic Encyclopedia also assumes the existence of God, yet you reject that as accurate. However, you cling to a Catholic Encyclopedia definition of agnosticism.
Your fraud extends to ignoring context and committing a number of logical fallacies which you refuse to acknowledge.
You also assume that I have not done my homework. I have.
Odd Games Fundies Play
Here is the reference. So far I have seen you do the following (just remove the references to religion and replace them with Stenger)
#6, 25, 28, 52, 62, 71, 74, 79, 82, 117, 143, & 148.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/24/2011 06:11:32 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 07:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dude, You said, "The problem here can be summed up very easily. You, Officiant, don't have a fucking clue." That statement gives us all a clue to your powers of reason. I keep using it like Thor's
hammer but please read God: The Failed Hypothesis. Science shows that God does not exist. The deity claims are testable and Stenger has already tested them. I have yet to see anyone refute Stenger. Let's see you try. It is stupid to ignore the principles of critical thinking because you have invested your life in a love affair with wrong-headed agnosticism.
|
I've read Strenger's books on this topic. All of them. They do not say what you think they say. Clearly the majority of claims about deities are, in principle, testable. Equally clear is that some of those claims are not. I happen to be in the school of thought that says religion is an anthropological phenomenon, that it changes through time to suit the needs of the culture it resides in, and that none of the claims made by any religion (that are testable) have any evidence to support them. Most of those claims have been repeatedly tested and failed to produce any evidence to support them.
But so what? You seem to be incapable of understanding what agnosticism actually means. It takes those claims that are in principle untestable and says that you can't conclude anything about them. You'd have to be a moron to think that means an agnostic thinks those claims "may" be true. Apparently you are a moron.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 09:27:11 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Officiant for raising this topic. However, I learned more from others answering your comment than from you.
By the way, it is skepticism on this site not insultism. You seem more intent on insulting others rather than raising an interesting topic for discussion |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 09:37:50 [Permalink]
|
All cowardly agnostics of every stripe are afraid of of applying the best available scientific knowledge to the supernatural because they know they would have give up on immortality and that scares them.
Dude says some of those claims are in principle untestable. This is wishful thinking. Science can examine anything. There is no forbidden knowledge. If any of you brave enough can tell us anything about their imaginary god we can put it to the test right now. Some of you have imaginary gods living on the the other side of the universe that you communicate with telepathically or maybe they exist in the Multiverse Parallel Universes. Trot them out so we can see what you've that can not be attributed to an overactive imagination. Please try to respond without the usual lowlife scatological references. I still find revealing that the Catholic Church likes you agnostics because you are not atheists. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
