|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2006 : 21:13:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You seem to be using unnecessary and unimportant interchangably here, dave. But they are not interchangable. While it might be useful in some circumstance to provide both data points, they are logically unrelated. Just like saying "I'm an atheist and my favorite football team is the Green Bay Packers," both data points need not be expressed to convey either one.
In response to your queries about how one can be both an atheist and an agnostic, both things are absolutely necessary. Or did you forget what we're talking about in this thread?quote:
More to the point, Dawkins is calling out all those atheists who publicly "consider" themselves or otherwise tell others they are agnostic out of a misguided sense of not wanting to offend to realize that they are actually atheists--and to stand up for themselves. So it's not agnosticism Dawkins is calling wishy-washy, it's the people who hide behind the term he is calling wishy-washy.
Yes, that subset of atheists (I was one, long ago) is just as mistaken as you were with your idea that agnosticism is about uncertainty, but that's hardly relevant to the question you asked and the answers you dismissed as "quibbling."quote:
Another straw man, dave. The problem with going from P1 to C is that given P1, there is no P2. If one cannot know god--or more to Huxley's point, the supernatural--your P2 is a meaningless statement and could as easily be represented as "I have no evidence against god." Or, "Pink unicorns are the tastiest."
It's only a strawman if you (you, ergo), make the mistake of thinking "evidence for God" is equal to "knowing God exists." We've got some evidence for dark matter, but we don't quite know it exists, yet (we need more evidence). Plus, there's the problem of the most-popular deity ideations today including a god that can change the laws of the universe on a whim, thus preventing us from knowing anything about it unless it wants to be known. Couple that with the whole "proof denies faith" tenet, and you'll find that plenty of theists also start with P1 ("I can't know God exists"), but don't assume P2, and so reach a different conclusion.quote:
So, C can be "I believe god exists," or "I believe god doesn't exist." Or, it can be "I believe the Packers are the best team in football." Or, "dave likes to build straw man arguments." The point being, that all the Cs here are equally invalid conclusions given P1 and a meaningless statement in the place of P2.
But you're the one making P2 meaningless by an inappropriate dependency, not I. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 21:28:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Dave, I'm going to dismiss your post as it does nothing to forward my understanding of anyone's pov on the topic.
Unless you can add to the discussion in a meaningful way, please stay off my threads.
I was unaware of an ownership transfer from Kil and @tomic to you, ergo.
You don't own this board and you have no place to demand that any other member "stay off your thread". You don't own the thread, bunkie. You may be the originator, but you have no ownership of it.
You can ask that people stay on topic.
*** Moderator mode, off ***
uh, right... that's why I said please... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 22:08:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
No, at the heart of agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know the supernatural. Agnosticism does not equal ignorance.
Well, golly. You sure do take the narrow view. But hey, thanks for straightening me out on that.
My pleasure, kil.
quote:
I doubt that this will mean anything to you since you seem to know exactly what agnostic means, but there are lots of kinds of agnostics. And not all of them take the cannot view. Most agnostics take the probably not view.
More claims without evidence...
quote:
I am not comfortable with dogma. And I am sorry if you can't understand or respect that.
Hey, I feel you dawg. Dogma can be a real bee-otch.
"Always remember, the only dogma worth following is 'don't follow dogma.'" MC Escher |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 22:23:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
More claims without evidence...
No, see, Ergo, when someone supplies a cited quotation to back up their claim, that would be a claim with evidence.
You really need to stop confusing your refusal to look at evidence with a failure to provide it.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 22:33:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You seem to be using unnecessary and unimportant interchangably here, dave. But they are not interchangable. While it might be useful in some circumstance to provide both data points, they are logically unrelated. Just like saying "I'm an atheist and my favorite football team is the Green Bay Packers," both data points need not be expressed to convey either one.
In response to your queries about how one can be both an atheist and an agnostic, both things are absolutely necessary. Or did you forget what we're talking about in this thread?
No, it's just that I was asking kil and Liar why they felt compelled to provide unrelated information along with "I'm an atheist." Do try to keep up; you are frequently several rounds behind, davie.
quote:
quote:
Another straw man, dave. The problem with going from P1 to C is that given P1, there is no P2. If one cannot know god--or more to Huxley's point, the supernatural--your P2 is a meaningless statement and could as easily be represented as "I have no evidence against god." Or, "Pink unicorns are the tastiest."
It's only a strawman if you (you, ergo), make the mistake of thinking "evidence for God" is equal to "knowing God exists."
No davie, because if the supernatural is unknowable, there can be no evidence of it (because evidence is knowable). Your dark matter example does not apply here because dark matter is not supernatural.
...you'll find that plenty of theists also start with P1 ("I can't know God exists"), but don't assume P2, and so reach a different conclusion.
Exactly my point davie--and all those different conclusions are invalid.
quote:
quote:
So, C can be "I believe god exists," or "I believe god doesn't exist." Or, it can be "I believe the Packers are the best team in football." Or, "dave likes to build straw man arguments." The point being, that all the Cs here are equally invalid conclusions given P1 and a meaningless statement in the place of P2.
But you're the one making P2 meaningless by an inappropriate dependency, not I.
[/quote]
I didn't make P2 meaningless; P1 makes P2 meaningless. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 22:41:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
More claims without evidence...
No, see, Ergo, when someone supplies a cited quotation to back up their claim, that would be a claim with evidence.
You really need to stop confusing your refusal to look at evidence with a failure to provide it.
What evidence did kil provide for his claim that "Most agnostics take the probably not view.?" |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 00:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
More claims without evidence...
The above is a lie by omission. My post directly contradicted your assertion of what an agnostic must believe, with citation. Only you chose to leave that part out of your response. Instead you went for a bit of misdirection. Nice try.
I'll tell you what though. I will amend my comment to just include those agnostics who I know personally. And since that is only anecdotal evidence, you are free to go to town on me since that was the part of my post that was of the greatest importance to you, apparently.
Your dishonesty makes it impossible for me to have a conversation with you.
I gave you another chance and, well, you are what you are. And with that, I'm out of here.
Have a nice life.
Edited... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 06:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I doubt that this will mean anything to you since you seem to know exactly what agnostic means, but there are lots of kinds of agnostics. And not all of them take the cannot view. Most agnostics take the probably not view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More claims without evidence...
Well lets see, Kil runs a skeptic forum, which is visited by many agnostics, most of whom, myself included, take the probably not view.
Your little cry baby thing you are doing is really sad, just because your WTC arguement is awful and unrecognised doesnt mean you need to act like an ass in every thread. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 07:45:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
More claims without evidence...
The above is a lie by omission. My post directly contradicted your assertion of what an agnostic must believe, with citation. Only you chose to leave that part out of your response. Instead you went for a bit of misdirection. Nice try.
I'll tell you what though. I will amend my comment to just include those agnostics who I know personally. And since that is only anecdotal evidence, you are free to go to town on me since that was the part of my post that was of the greatest importance to you, apparently.
Your dishonesty makes it impossible for me to have a conversation with you.
I gave you another chance and, well, you are what you are. And with that, I'm out of here.
Have a nice life.
Edited...
It is not a lie--of omission or otherwise.
Here is what you said--with what you are referring to as your citation. I have put your claim in bold:
I doubt that this will mean anything to you since you seem to know exactly what agnostic means, but there are lots of kinds of agnostics. And not all of them take the cannot view. Most agnostics take the probably not view. It really wouldn't hurt for you to do a little research before you start spouting, with the absolute certainty of the recently converted, as though you know what you are talking about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnosticism:
Agnostics claim that either it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you provide a citation that discusses the different flavors of agnosticism it provides absolutely no support for your claim as to what most agnostics believe.
What inhibits our discussion is not dishonesty on my part, but an unwillingness to clarify before accusing on your part. I find it ironic that someone who accuses me of taking the narrow view does the same thing with regard to my posts.
But maybe, as you suggest, "you are what you are."
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 07:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
quote:
I doubt that this will mean anything to you since you seem to know exactly what agnostic means, but there are lots of kinds of agnostics. And not all of them take the cannot view. Most agnostics take the probably not view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More claims without evidence...
Well lets see, Kil runs a skeptic forum, which is visited by many agnostics, most of whom, myself included, take the probably not view.
Your little cry baby thing you are doing is really sad, just because your WTC arguement is awful and unrecognised doesnt mean you need to act like an ass in every thread.
And why do you assume the handful of agnostics on this forum in any way accurately represent the views of agnostics world-wide? Participation in this forum is self-initiated, right? As such, there is no reason to suspect the proportion of "Probably Not" agnostics found here--as if kil even knows what that is--in any way reflects the proportion of "Probably Not" agnostics around the world.
It's not about being an ass--it's about being a good scientist. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 10:07:43 [Permalink]
|
Just a note:
In the above two posts, ergo is still playing at misdirection. Since he defined with certainty (note his bolding in the original post that I responded to) that agnostics must believe that the supernatural cannot be knowable, and I refuted that assertion, with citation, all of the above is nothing but a smoke screen. As way for him to not address the central point of my reply, he is still arguing in defense of his attack on my comment about most agnostics, which was admittedly anecdotal.
So lets review, shall we? ergo sidestepped the actual argument by focusing on (cherry picking) that which he could respond to, in order to not address the refutation of his assertion.
He made a positive claim about agnosticism, it was addressed, he ignored that and he now claims that, “it's about being a good scientist”. You know, quote mining…
Edited to add: I know I am feeding a troll. These comments are not directed at ergo however. I offer the above observation in order for our members to understand exactly how a troll does his thing.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 10:23:08 [Permalink]
|
| Yup, rather than admit he was wrong, ergo instead takes issue with your use of the word "most," while hypocritically he also has criticized quibbling over semantics and definitions, calling it a method of stalling discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 11:15:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Just a note:
In the above two posts, ergo is still playing at misdirection. Since he defined with certainty (note his bolding in the original post that I responded to) that agnostics must believe that the supernatural cannot be knowable, and I refuted that assertion, with citation, all of the above is nothing but a smoke screen. As way for him to not address the central point of my reply, he is still arguing in defense of his attack on my comment about most agnostics, which was admittedly anecdotal.
So lets review, shall we? ergo sidestepped the actual argument by focusing on (cherry picking) that which he could respond to, in order to not address the refutation of his assertion.
He made a positive claim about agnosticism, it was addressed, he ignored that and he now claims that, “it's about being a good scientist”. You know, quote mining…
Edited to add: I know I am feeding a troll. These comments are not directed at ergo however. I offer the above observation in order for our members to understand exactly how a troll does his thing.
You didn't admit it was anecdotal until after I busted you on not providing a source. How could you think I was referring to the other part of your post for which you provided a reference? I submit that is your bias at work, kil--seeing my response as a lie instead of focusing on the part of your post that was, indeed, not supported with evidence.
And I acknowledge the flavors of agnosticism. But I had been relying on the definition outlined by the guy who coined the term--i.e., the traditional meaning. I asked you pages ago if you were using some other definition and you didn't comment--suggesting you were not.
For someone who is uncomfortable with dogma, you stick to the "ergo's a troll" dogma pretty devoutly... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/21/2006 13:47:33 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 03:47:41 [Permalink]
|
I'm both an agnostic and a strong atheist, if by agnosticism is meant method as rationalism and naturalism do. I can't imagine even wanting to worship anything! So bizarre.  |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 04:18:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
For someone who is uncomfortable with dogma, you stick to the "ergo's a troll" dogma pretty devoutly...
Well, there are plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
