|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2011 : 16:03:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
|
 |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 16:17:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, You advocate for agnosticism and the Pope loves you for it. You are obliviously on the creationist side of the fence.
|
Wow, so agnosticism = Catholicism = creationism? Who knew?
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. |
Kil hasn't once used an appeal to popularity to defend agnosticism. Neither is agnosticism particularly popular. However, by dishonestly equating agnosticism with theism, you have labeled agnosticism the popular position only so that you could then accuse Kil of appealing to popularity, which he never did in the first place.
Officiant, this sort of confused thinking permeates your posts. You put words into other people's mouths and misrepresent their positions while ignoring what people do say and the positions they do hold. If this were a formal debate you would have lost long ago, and lost badly. Nothing you have written even approaches a rational argument. In fact, your rants are so confused and off the mark that I'm beginning to suspect you need mental help. Whatever your issues are, it's safe to say that you are not upholding the principles of reason and rationality which you claim to value.
|
"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 08/24/2011 16:33:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 18:28:59 [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?) 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... |
No, not more of the same. That is an outright lie.
Dawkins' argument is highly nuanced, and he definitely says that agnosticism is the proper attitude to have towards certain questions: those which are scientifically testable in principle but for which we do not have good evidence yet one way or another, and those which are not testable at all. Those are both reasonable agnostic positions to take, according to Dawkins (pp 46, 47).
Dawkins' argument is that the question of god's existence doesn't belong in the latter category, and because it is testable in principle, we can apply some probabilities and find out just how agnostic we should be. Dawkins' answer is on page 51, after listing seven categories of belief:6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong Atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as [C. G.] Jung "knows" there is one.'
...I count myself in category 6, but leaning twoards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about faries at the bottom of the garden. Officiant is definitely a category 7 kind of guy, while Dawkins says (still pg 51):I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7... Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. It's clear that Officiant isn't using reason to get to where he is, so this makes perfect sense.
Dawkins is absolutely correct that if we're talking about a god that leaves some measurable trace within the universe, then its existence is a purely scientific question, even if we have no evidence of its existence now. Thus, Dawkins is saying that it's wrong to put the God Hypothesis on the same philosophical footing as "do you see the color red the same as I see it," and other questions which are unanswerable even in principle.
What Dawkins has a problem with (and I do, too), is people who somehow decide, regardless of their philosophical outlook, that there's a 50/50 chance of some god existing somewhere. That's the sort of agnostic he's referring to in the quote from page 46, and I don't think that's the sort of agnostic that any of us are (it's another of Officiant's lies that we are). Dawkins is himself a fence-sitter, it's just that the fence he's sitting on isn't smack in the middle of the field.
I will very much agree with Dawkins' positions (note the plural) on agnosticism, and even put myself at the same place as him on his (somewhat misguided, in my opinion) scale of belief. And I will continue to call myself - with justification from Dawkins, and contra Officiant - an agnostic atheist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 18:33:51 [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. 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? |
You are assuming a Judeo-Christian God. You have yet to address the other pantheons of Gods and Goddesses that do not have these traits.
Could you say the same for Isis or Ra?
Dear Dude, You are right. I am awesome. Thanks for the compliment.
|
Dude, please attach the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags for our dense friend here. He seems to have taken you seriously.
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 Officiant, as you have failed yet again to grasp, agnosticism does not necessarily assume the existence of a God. There are atheistic agnostics. That the Catholics assume it does is immaterial to the argument as is the existence of aforementioned god(desses).
You have misstated Hawks' position. He does not assume the existence of some sky thug that will kick his ass forever if it is not followed. Nor do I. Again, you misunderstand science. Science describes the way the world works as we understand it. It makes no assumptions that they have any idea of the ultimate reality. As I have said before. Science is a journey, not a destination.
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?)
|
Whoa. Did you have a net for this huge, unsupported leap of logic. You like totally missed. Kil advocates that agnosticism recognizes that there are some things that we lack the tools to test and some conditions that are so ill-defined that they are untestable. At no time does he EVER suggest that a God exists.
Again, you bring up other organizations of which Kil does not belong to or agree with. Why is their opinion relevant. Again, this is the opinion, not a testable hypothesis. Sort of like Congressional campaign promises. Believe them if you ever see them. |
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 : 20:01:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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? |
What does it matter to the question of whether or not you can test for its existence? Being an insane, bloodthirsty monster is not a trait held by deities alone (as your references to Roman Catholic atrocities and Hitler acknowledge), so applying such a test would result in many, many false positives.
Now maybe if you wanted to test for the ability to turn seas to blood or to instigate and direct plagues of locusts, you might be onto something. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 20:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Dear H. Humbert, You are wrong again. Kil has twice here used the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity. I'll check facebook later for more.
"That's idiotic. The article is fine. People who know what they are talking about have read it and found no issues."
and "Well... Others here have pretty much answered your question as I would have."
Dawkins does not think agnosticism is a reasonable position. He uses the word erroneous to describe agnosticism and he does think science has sufficiently advanced to examine the ultimate question. You skeptic agnostics think we should wait for few more suicide bombers before finally deciding that belief in the supernatural is dangerous and insane. You can't give up your slender chance of a thread to the afterlife. Science, agnostics say, needs better ghost detectors so we are going to wait and reserve judgment before we condemn religion. "Kil advocates that agnosticism recognizes that there are some things that we lack the tools to test and some conditions that are so ill-defined that they are untestable." So you skeptical agnostics are just like fundamentalist creationists in that neither of you trusts science enough to base your opinions on it. SkyDaddy lives for both of you.
It is important what religions and the Mother Ship Catholics think of agnosticism. They use agnosticism like a crutch to prop up belief in God. For some little kid who is not sure they will tell him that you can't prove there is no God.
My belief category would be 7 because that is the default position. I see no other choice without the woowoo. You skeptic wienies are 2s,3s and4s. I hope to persuade you otherwise so you will end your tacit approval of religion and become honest atheists and leave agnosticism on the dust heap of history. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 20:12:13 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Kil has twice here used the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity. |
Your second example is not an appeal to popularity. And you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it hit you in the head.
I have looked for your first example, and I can't find it. It also doesn't sound like something I would say. Please direct me to it. |
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 : 20:18:18 [Permalink]
|
| So, go on... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 20:34:04 [Permalink]
|
Ok, at this point Officiant is nothing more than a bad joke. It's like the guy can't read English. He certainly can't be reasoned with, and he refuses to stop ranting long enough to learn anything. I mean, "skeptical agnostics are just like fundamentalist creationists in that neither of you trusts science enough to base your opinions on it. SkyDaddy lives for both of you." That's just so weapons-grade crazy that it defies response. He might as well dedicate his life to convincing Vegans to stop eating meat.
|
"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 08/24/2011 20:34:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 20:55:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dawkins does not think agnosticism is a reasonable position. |
That is a bold lie that you cannot back up with a page number from The God Delusion because Dawkins says otherwise, as I have already cited.| He uses the word erroneous to describe agnosticism... |
He uses the word "erroneous" to describe a particular brand of agnosticism. Other types of agnosticism he clearly calls "reasonable" on pages 46 and 47. That you cannot distinguish between them is a symptom of your dogmatic, irrational atheism, and not a failing of ours.| ...and he does think science has sufficiently advanced to examine the ultimate question. |
So long as the god in question leaves testable evidence behind, and we have access to that evidence, yes. If one or both conditions are lacking, then no, science cannot examine the question.
Since when is "does god exist" the ultimate question, anyway? Oh, because you're so unreasonably devoted to atheism, that's why.| You skeptic agnostics think we should wait for few more suicide bombers before finally deciding that belief in the supernatural is dangerous and insane. |
Another lie, and a fallacious appeal to consequences. Schizophrenia is a dangerous insanity, do you deny its existence?| You can't give up your slender chance of a thread to the afterlife. |
Another lie.| Science, agnostics say, needs better ghost detectors so we are going to wait and reserve judgment before we condemn religion. |
Another bigoted lie. I condemn religion whole-heartedly. What I cannot do (and what Dawkins refuses to do) is claim that science can prove the universal non-existence of something for which there is no evidence.| My belief category would be 7 because that is the default position. |
Dawkins thinks category 7 requires as much faith as category 1 (page 51).| I see no other choice without the woowoo. |
That's because you have willfully blinded yourself to reality. Your wishful thinking demands that there be only blacks and whites, and no shades of grey. While life would be much, much easier if that were true, it's just another lie.| You skeptic wienies are 2s,3s and4s. |
No, I am a Dawkins-style 6.| I hope to persuade you otherwise so you will end your tacit approval of religion... |
You are terribly confused.| ...and become honest atheists and leave agnosticism on the dust heap of history. |
So now you're calling Dawkins a dishonest atheist. Yet you quote him approvingly, much like your church-defending hero Mallock, and even the Roman Catholic Church. And you really don't see how embarrassing that should be for you. You are pathetic. |
- 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 - 08/24/2011 : 21:05:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
He might as well dedicate his life to convincing Vegans to stop eating meat.
|
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 21:35:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Officiant:
Kil has twice here used the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity. |
Your second example is not an appeal to popularity. And you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it hit you in the head.
I have looked for your first example, and I can't find it. It also doesn't sound like something I would say. Please direct me to it.
|
Okay. I've now done a search on both statements that you said I made, Officiant. The second statement, which isn't an appeal to authority, I made and I remembered making. I ran it anyway to make sure the search engine would pick up on an exact sentence. There is nothing for your first example. You are a liar. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 23:03:59 [Permalink]
|
Officiant said:
| Dear Dude, You are right. I am awesome. Thanks for the compliment. |
There is little doubt that your arrogance is awe inspiring. I think you top the guy who argued here for hundreds of pages that the sun was a solid ball of iron. You remind me of that guy, but just a shade more stupid and arrogant. At least he could present an actual evidence based argument for his case, even if all of his evidence was a result of his pathetic failure to understand the data he was looking at. He could form an argument inside that context even though every one of his premises was false. It is always impressive when you encounter a person (you) who is more stupid and arrogant than a guy who thinks the sun is a solid ball of iron.
You have been told a dozen times why your definition of agnostic is wrong. You have been given links directly to the source, the guy who coined the word. It has been explained why agnosticism is a strong rejection of untestable claims.
In spite of all that you still insist on clinging to your flawed and failed definition, insist on characterizing those here who label themselves agnostic based on your flawed and failed interpretation, and you remain intractable in the face of evidence that clearly shows you are wrong. Before you posted here I honestly didn't think there was such a thing as a faith based atheist, but that is what you are. You hold beliefs about agnosticism and the testability of claims that are not supported by any evidence, you have been shown evidence that contradicts your beliefs, and you still hold those beliefs. It leads me to question your reasoning process that led you to call yourself an atheist in the first place. In fact, I'd probably classify you as a faith based fundamentalist atheist. You are basing your atheism on arguments you don't comprehend (you are taking it on faith, as it were), you have stated a desire to stamp out agnosticism (because you don't understand it and think it contradicts your beliefs), and you are preaching for converts. Yep, faith based fundie atheist is what you are.
What you need to do is take a step back, stop embarrassing yourself, learn why you are wrong, make corrections to your thinking, and move on.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 00:12:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Okay. I've now done a search on both statements that you said I made, Officiant. The second statement, which isn't an appeal to authority, I made and I remembered making. I ran it anyway to make sure the search engine would pick up on an exact sentence. There is nothing for your first example. You are a liar.
|
That's because the first example was something I said back on page 3. You had linked to Wikipedia's entry on agnosticism and Officiant tried to poison the well by suggesting that "pranksters" screw with information there, making it an uncredible source. I responded by telling him that we had vetted the material and that it was entirely sufficient to convey the ideas he still wasn't understanding.
| 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. |
Since the information there would explode Officiant's claims about agnosticism, he has to make up a new reason why he doesn't need to read the article, and it looks like he's decided I made an appeal to popularity simply by stating that several of us could confirm that the Wikipedia article was not adulterated or incorrect in any significant way.
|
"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 08/25/2011 00:19:50 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 07:15:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
Okay. I've now done a search on both statements that you said I made, Officiant. The second statement, which isn't an appeal to authority, I made and I remembered making. I ran it anyway to make sure the search engine would pick up on an exact sentence. There is nothing for your first example. You are a liar.
|
That's because the first example was something I said back on page 3. You had linked to Wikipedia's entry on agnosticism and Officiant tried to poison the well by suggesting that "pranksters" screw with information there, making it an uncredible source. I responded by telling him that we had vetted the material and that it was entirely sufficient to convey the ideas he still wasn't understanding.
| 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. |
Since the information there would explode Officiant's claims about agnosticism, he has to make up a new reason why he doesn't need to read the article, and it looks like he's decided I made an appeal to popularity simply by stating that several of us could confirm that the Wikipedia article was not adulterated or incorrect in any significant way.
|
Back on page.... 4 I think.... I linked to a webpage of 101+ odd games fundies play and then listed some numbers of the games we've seen Officiant play here.
I have to update that list by adding numbers 11, 19, 20, 33, 39, 47, 67, 79, and 111.
He is now sinscreaming with the sin here being that anyone being agnostic (although I am technically a 4 on the scale as being theistic but I recognize the validity of agnosticism.) must be a 2-4 agnostic and 6's do not exist. Since a great majority of the denizens here are 6's (according to Dawkins' criteria), your assertation fails.
But, according to our sinscreaming friend, we must rejoice in the fact that the Catholic church considers us friends. Why a theistic organization's opinion has anything to do with non-adherents and non-believers is beyond me, but Officiant seems pretty adamant about it.
The argumentation style seems familiar......
Latinijral? Did you learn how to speak English better? That you, fellah? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
