|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2011 : 10:00:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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. |
Can you please..
1) ...quote Dawkins including a proper reference so we can actually verify this is really what he claimed?
2) ...show us the evidence and explain to us how you think this evidence supports the assertion that science can answer the question about god's non-existence.
|
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. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 10:20:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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.
|
Officiant is not just a garden veriety moron.
He's a Creationist in Atheist clothing. Just exchange his claims to atheism with Jesus Christ, and you'll mistake him for a Born-Again fanatically Bible-thumping Christian evangelist.
Instead of adressing any criticism of the major points of his position, he keeps on hammering his failed message including insults.
Officiant doesn't seem to realize that his approach is taking him down a dead-end street which accomplishes nothing.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 10:51:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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. |
Wow. What a load of unsupported bullshit.
Dude says some of those claims are in principle untestable. This is wishful thinking. Science can examine anything. There is no forbidden knowledge. |
Wow. Is that ever wrong. If I say I am thinking about a particular subject, how will science examine that? It can't. There are some things that are currently untestable because we lack the tools to do so.
| If any of you brave enough can tell us anything about their imaginary god we can put it to the test right now. |
More of your God proof strawman bullshit? Still drinking the "there are no atheist agnostics" Kool-Aide?
| 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. |
And how, pray tell, does the athiest agnostic present something he has no belief in?
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.
|
The Catholic Church also believes that the sacrement transmutes to the blood and flesh of Christ, but you don't see anyone around here advocating for that either. Who the fuck cares what an organization that they are not a part of thinks? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 11:05:10 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
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. |
Me:
As far as he's concerned, all agnostics are secretly needing for there to be a god but are too cowardly to admit it. |
See what I’m saying? We could try to explain agnosticism to Officiant until the cows come home, and he still won’t get it. He asked me over on facebook if I ever changed my mind on anything. I answered in the affirmative. It seems, like all “true believers” that quality is not shared by Officiant. He’s impervious to correction. And that makes his claims to being a critical thinker a joke. Dave’s point that Officiant is demonstrating the Dunning–Kruger effect is well taken.
| The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. |
It seems rather pointless to respond to his assertion that all agnostics are cowards because he’s a closed circuit. He thinks he knows and he has shown that nothing will convince him otherwise. And rather than support his position by making his own case for it, the best he can do, because he lacks the ability to make his case, is to quote mine. The funny, or maybe its a sad thing, is that he thinks his quotes are devastating evidence in support of his assertions. Even quotes that paraphrase what someone else said that Dawkins said, taken from a bad review of Dawkins book, or his mining quotes from Catholic church. The mind boggles... 
Officiant:
I still find revealing that the Catholic Church likes you agnostics because you are not atheists. |
And just like you, they don’t understand what it means either. Agnosticism as employed by Huxley was absolutely a way to undermine their claims of a creator. What they say about it reveals nothing accept your confirmation bias, which is another one of your logical fallacies.
|
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 - 08/24/2011 : 12:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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. |
Moron.
| Dude says some of those claims are in principle untestable. This is wishful thinking. Science can examine anything. |
Moron.
| There is no forbidden knowledge. |
Moron.
| If any of you brave enough can tell us anything about their imaginary god we can put it to the test right now. |
How about this: there is a god and it controls things. Test that. Moron.
| I still find revealing that the Catholic Church likes you agnostics because you are not atheists. |
Moron.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 12:58:29 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dr. Mabuse, This from from page 2 of my copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? (Well do you, Dr. Mabuse, Valiant Dancer, Kil et al?) If, so, I hope that Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis..."
On page 46."Meanwhile I turn to agnosticism, and the erroneous notion that the existence or non-existence is an untouchable question, forever beyond the reach of science."
Buy the book for more of the same Dr. Mabuse.
I found your straw-man comparison of me to a Christian odious and insulting...as you no doubt intended it to be. I'm winning this argument. The intellectual poverty of your position has reduced you to sputtering crude insults. What ideas have you that could not be expressed by an honest atheist who is not an agnostic atheist? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 13:19:59 [Permalink]
|
Officiant said:
| I'm winning this argument. |
That is awesome. I mean that in the very literal sense. You have caused me to feel awe at the incredible level of your arrogance and stupidity. Thank you.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 13:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dr. Mabuse, This from from page 2 of my copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? (Well do you, Dr. Mabuse, Valiant Dancer, Kil et al?) |
Nope. Both are reasonable positions. Sorry to bust your bubble like that.
If, so, I hope that Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis..."
On page 46."Meanwhile I turn to agnosticism, and the erroneous notion that the existence or non-existence is an untouchable question, forever beyond the reach of science."
Buy the book for more of the same Dr. Mabuse. |
Again with the God Proof strawman. Do you ever learn?
I found your straw-man comparison of me to a Christian odious and insulting...as you no doubt intended it to be. |
Wasn't a strawman. You employ the same invalid argumentation techniques that are evident in Creationist arguments.
| I'm winning this argument. |
You're a legend in your own mind. When you get finished high-fiving yourself, do try to see where your arguments have flaws.
| The intellectual poverty of your position has reduced you to sputtering crude insults. |
Yet you started with insults and have not had a problem with them prior to this point. Hmmmmmmmm.
What ideas have you that could not be expressed by an honest atheist who is not an agnostic atheist?
|
Ah, here it is. The No True Scottsman fallacy. I was wondering when that one would show up. How is an agnostic atheist dishonest since they do not accept the premise of the existence of a God? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 13:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Officiant has made it abundantly clear now that he's not here for a discussion, he's here to preach his little dogma. He's got a Bible written by an infallible deity, Victor Stenger. He's got the words of the prophets, O'Hair and second-hand Dawkins. He's been persecuted by foreigners with different beliefs, Humanist Canada. He has a religious hero, W.H. Mallock. And Officiant even bases his attacks on the authority of the friggin' Pope.
Officiant might claim to be an atheist, but I have many doubts. |
- 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 - 08/24/2011 : 13:31:41 [Permalink]
|
Officiant said:
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. |
You either aren't paying attention or you are too stupid to understand. Which is it?
I'll type slowly so you can follow. Feel free to re-read this until you get it.
There are some claims that are untestable in principle. The agnostic position on those claims is not to say they may be true, it is to say that the claim is useless unless you can test it. You can't conclude anything about untestable claims because, well, they are untestable. You can't generate evidence for them or against them. That leaves you with.... nonsense. Untestable claims are nonsense. They fail in logical structure and are therefore useless to anyone looking for knowledge.
There are plenty of claims out there that are, in principle, untestable. Get used to it.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 13:46:08 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
"Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? (Well do you, Dr. Mabuse, Valiant Dancer, Kil et al?) |
I am an atheist.
Officiant:
I found your straw-man comparison of me to a Christian odious and insulting... |
It’s not a strawman to point out that you argue like a creationist. That’s a straight observation that many of us have made.
Officiant:
I'm winning this argument. |
If you actually believe that you are delusional. Your apparent deficits with regard to cognition support that.
Officiant:
What ideas have you that could not be expressed by an honest atheist who is not an agnostic atheist? |
Aside from this being an example of the no true scotsman fallacy, Humbert has said that he is not an agnostic/atheist, and yet he doesn’t agree with you either. Yours is a position of a seriously uninformed person who thinks he knows it all. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
|
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 - 08/24/2011 : 15:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
I'm winning this argument. |
I won the Boston marathon. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 15:18:42 [Permalink]
|
Dear Hawks, Why are you corresponding with me if you think I'm a moron? Your reasoning powers have obviously reached their limit. To answer your medieval question about a controlling God I need to know if He was responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust,cancer,leprosy and child molesting. Is your God an insane bloodthirsty monster?
Dear Dude, You are right. I am awesome. Thanks for the compliment.
Dear Valiant Dancer, I don't think you appreciate the obtuseness of agnosticism. For wrong-minded agnostics even "the very idea of evidence is not applicable.",says Dawkins.
How many more years of religious atrocities will have to occur before you accept that the probability of Hawks' controlling god is .000001% or as close to zero as practical reality can make it?
Dear Kil, You advocate for agnosticism and the Pope loves you for it. You are obliviously on the creationist side of the fence. I would like to remind you that the majority is usually wrong
and it is a logical fallacy to use this as an argument for anything. (We did stir up some shit though didn't we?) |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 15:56:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Hawks, Why are you corresponding with me if you think I'm a moron? Your reasoning powers have obviously reached their limit. |
The limit of YOUR reasoning powers were reached, it seems, at about age 12. But anyhow...
| To answer your medieval question about a controlling God I need to know if He was responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust,cancer,leprosy and child molesting. Is your God an insane bloodthirsty monster? |
It's not MY god. It's a possible god. The god proposed is a thought experiment for you. YOU are supposed to use science to test the claim that there is a god that controls things. As you yourself said:
| Dude says some of those claims are in principle untestable. This is wishful thinking. Science can examine anything. |
So, go on... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
