|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 16:24:14 [Permalink]
|
| Dear alienist, You used the word boring twice in a single line without addressing the topic. Go back to sleep. |
 |
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 16:45:59 [Permalink]
|
| Dear H. Humbert, There are people here following the lead of Dawkins in becoming strong atheists. Dave W. must find it particularly galling to be leaning towards category 7. Please don't start relying on the appeal to popularity. The majority once believed the earth was flat. I did not start this thread to preach to the choir and tell what you already think you know. I'm here to rattle your cage. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 16:57:20 [Permalink]
|
Here's some amusing grist for the mill from your Catholic friends at www.newadvent.com Let's discuss this.
Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 17:28:47 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Dave W., How dishonest you are. I was a member. I was not cited for not following the principles. I criticized our President for wasting a large amount of money and lying which he could not deny. It was unethical to break the By-Laws. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2011 : 17:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Hawks, I need something to put in my beaker and test tube. You made the claim that there is a god that controls things. You are the claimant. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. No one can be expected to supply evidence to prove you wrong.
|
Nice try. Well... Not really. It's actually a transparent reality shift by you to protect your ass. Here's the deal. You made the claim that "Science can examine anything" and "If any of you brave enough can tell us anything about their imaginary god we can put it to the test right now."
Your words... Your claim...
All Hawks did was to call your bluff (or demonstrate your ignorance) by providing you with a hypothetical claim to test. The actual claim was yours. You said, "Science can examine anything." You haven't admitted you were wrong, even though you have pulled back from that statement. You haven't admitted your error which you would do if you were an honest man. But you're not. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 17:54:27 [Permalink]
|
officient | Dear marfknox, It's not cute at you think you moron. You conveniently forgot to post the following. |
No, I didn't. I know you weren't saying I was totally on your side. I was commenting about you finding ANYTHING about me to be commendable. You commended me for being a strong atheist, and I don't think that is commendable. I don't think it is shameful or bad either. It just is what my worldview is. Big whoop. I'm making fun of you for putting so much importance on the minute details of personal worldviews. I love how you characterize that as dishonest of me considering that what I chose not to quote is right here on the thread for everyone to see.
| Name those right wing atheists or lose all credibility. |
LOL! Well first of all, if they are allied with the religious right they aren't likely to advertise their atheism. However, there are enough like Carl Rove and his ilk to speculate that there are plenty right wings who are happy to use the religious right to get the Christian vote. Your faith in the virtue of atheists is hilarious. Atheists have just as much potential to be cold, calculating, violent, manipulative fucks as anyone else. They can be just as corrupted by power as anyone else.
| Have you ever heard Allah u Akbar on your TV? Those people think it makes a difference to what they will do. |
Oh look, another asshole who bashes all Muslims because of what a teeny tiny minority of terrorists do, and totally ignores the huge number of Muslim leaders and organizations that have denounced Islamic terrorism. *yawn*
| Your example of two adherents to the same religion is obviously dumb because they both have faith; |
You have apparently never chatting with a group of Unitarians or east coast Quakers. Or any of the masses of free range religious humanists out there who are often members of mainline Christian and Jewish sects.
| the ability to believe what is otherwise absurd which is necessary for religion; not optional. |
Naw, in most religions it is optional. They don't throw you out for having doubt, which plenty of people who identify as religious adherents have.
| No you are not just arrogant with a lowlife vocabulary you are also an apathetic self-centered narcissist who is as you aptly put it,"...just more interested in what I'm having for dinner tonight.." You don't care that the greatest cause of human misery is religion and that some of us recognize the danger and want to do something about it. |
So because I don't agree with what you think is evil, I'm self centered and apathetic? Wow, news to me. Wonder why I've been doing volunteer service work for the past 18 years. *chuckle* In between checking my email and this forum I'm actually sewing a doll for a public performance intended to raise awareness about human trafficking in Philadelphia and protest local newspapers which run ads for places that engage in human trafficking. But, no, you're right, I'm totally unengaged with the world. You know, 'cause I don't agree with you that religion is the root cause of evil (I believe religion more often to be a symptom, not a cause.)
My comment about caring more about dinner was referring to my lack of interest in knowing the answers to the big questions. I don't think trying to answer questions that we don't have enough data yet to answer is very important given what's right in front of us and which we actually have some control over.
Not that you are going to comprehend anything I'm writing in this post. You've proven over and over again that you don't actually try to understand what others are saying, and are only interested in twisting what they say into straw arguments and then personally insulting them. But hell, it's a lazy Saturday evening during a hurricane, so I'll indulge myself in a response to you. This is sort of fun.
Well that explains a lot.
| You have no clue what motivates me. It's altruism. Religion should be exposed as fraudulent and the poison should not be passed on to future generations. |
LOL! If you think you are going about this in a way that is actually going to chance anyone's mind, you are really fooling yourself. All you seem to be doing is re-enforcing stereotypes of us atheists as arrogant, insulting, confrontational fuckheads. So what are you doing other than insulting people who already support church-state separation and religious criticism on online forums?
Already did. It was delicious. ;-)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 17:57:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Here's some amusing grist for the mill from your Catholic friends at www.newadvent.com Let's discuss this.
Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.
|
The actual link is: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm
And who cares what a Catholic encyclopedia says about a term and a method that was described by Huxley to demonstrate that they are wrong? Are you a secret Catholic, Officiant? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 18:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Hawks, I need something to put in my beaker and test tube. You made the claim that there is a god that controls things. You are the claimant. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. No one can be expected to supply evidence to prove you wrong. |
Dear Officiant, I need something to put in my beaker and test tube. You made the claim that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes." You are the claimant. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. No one can be expected to supply evidence to prove you wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 18:51:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dave W., How dishonest you are. I was a member. |
I know. I said they never should have offered you membership because you couldn't possibly agree with their principles.| I was not cited for not following the principles. |
So what?| I criticized our President for wasting a large amount of money and lying which he could not deny. |
So you claim. Where is your scientific evidence that you did that?| It was unethical to break the By-Laws. |
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has broken the Humanist Canada by-laws. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 18:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear H. Humbert, There are people here following the lead of Dawkins in becoming strong atheists. |
Dawkins thinks that category seven atheists are irrational and have as much faith as category one theists. Dawkins is not leading anyone towards category seven. It is a lie to suggest that he is.| Dave W. must find it particularly galling to be leaning towards category 7. |
Why?| Please don't start relying on the appeal to popularity. The majority once believed the earth was flat. |
Where is your evidence that "The majority once believed the earth was flat?"| I did not start this thread to preach to the choir and tell what you already think you know. I'm here to rattle your cage. |
No, you're here to proselytize an unreasonable faith-based, anti-rational atheism. |
- 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 - 08/27/2011 : 19:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Hawks, I need something to put in my beaker and test tube. You made the claim that there is a god that controls things. You are the claimant. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. No one can be expected to supply evidence to prove you wrong.
|
You really don't understand do you? How pathetic does it make you that you argue from a position that you fail to comprehend?
You said you could test any claim. A claim was provided for you to test, all you have to do at this point is describe the hypothetical test for the claim provided.
If you can't do it, guess what? You are admitting you are an agnostic!
You are an agnostic when it comes to the claim "there is a deity and it controls stuff"! Welcome to the club Officiant.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 20:15:42 [Permalink]
|
10 Sane person: Science can't test everything.
20 Officiant moron: That's wishful thinking. Science can test ANYTHING.
30 Sane person: Test xyz.
40 Officiant moron: I need more info to test xyz.
50 Sane person: The whole point about postulating xyz was to show that xyz can't be tested. There is no more info on xyz. I.e. Science can't test xyz.
60 GOTO 10. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 20:28:20 [Permalink]
|
| Hawks, love that last post. Great point made. Although I fear it will be lost on officiant. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 22:47:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
10 Sane person: Science can't test everything.
20 Officiant moron: That's wishful thinking. Science can test ANYTHING.
30 Sane person: Test xyz.
40 Officiant moron: I need more info to test xyz.
50 Sane person: The whole point about postulating xyz was to show that xyz can't be tested. There is no more info on xyz. I.e. Science can't test xyz.
60 GOTO 10. |
Awesome!
Here's my code for an Officiant-bot:while (true)
{
claim(x);
claim("science and evidence are vital to support claims");
ignoreAll(request.evidenceFor(x));
}
|
- 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 - 08/28/2011 : 05:40:21 [Permalink]
|
Are you flaky agnostics really Raelians? It all fits. One of you even identifies as alienist. Just like you Raelians also see themselves as atheists. Do you skeptical agnostics also share the belief
scientists from another planet created all life on Earth? Sure seems to be the kind of science you pinheads would espouse. |
|
|
 |
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
