|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2011 : 18:03:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
I already wrote that I am only 99.999999% sure that atheism is all there is. |
Oh, by the way, this statement proves you're not a category seven atheist. Category seven atheists aren't 99.9999% sure there are no gods, they know there aren't any gods, with as much faith as a category one theist knows that god exists.
So, you've shot your "strong atheist" creds in the foot by allowing for any uncertainty at all. You are an agnostic atheist, Officiant. One that couldn't reason his way out of a paper sack, but an agnostic atheist nonetheless.
Of course, since you are a cowardly, pseudo-intellectual dilettante, you shouldn't be surprised. |
- 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 - 08/30/2011 : 18:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, Madalyn Murray O'Hair was one of the litigants in the case of Murray vs. Curlett, which led the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1963 decision, to ban organized prayer in public schools. The decision made O'Hair the country's most famous atheist. She founded the group American Atheists in 1963. She was a category 7 atheist and she is a hero.
http://tinyurl.com/3ryxdfo
Your bumbling agnostic hero Thomas Huxley supported using the Christian Bible in schools. From your Wikipedia.
There's the difference between us Kil.
Edited to repair bad link.
Kil |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 18:32:14 [Permalink]
|
| Dave W., You are basing your argument on splitting hairs, blond ones. You construction workers will know what I mean. And check your math and the Riemann Hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 18:57:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dr. Mabuse, You are looking for a one size fits all solution. That's childish. |
Stop making straw-men.
I wasn't looking for a one size fits all solution.
I was answering to your simplistic "It stretches one's credibility to think a Muslim would volunteer to die without being brainwashed by religion.", by providing example that you don't need to be brainwashed by religion to become a suicide bomber.
Yes, people can kill in anger but that's hardly news to anyone is it? |
Will you make up your mind already? A few posts ago, you seemed to be thinking that religious brainwashing was required to be a suicide bomber.
Besides, how is the Columbine Shooter, or Virginia Tech shooter and similar, different from a siucide bomber? They weren't religiously brain washed, and they didn't strap a bomb to their chests, but they still murdered many people in one swoop which got themselves killed in the process (by the police or by their own gun).
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 19:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dave W., You are basing your argument on splitting hairs... |
Not at all: my argument is based on what Dawkins himself wrote about the categories that he invented for purposes of illustrating an argument. You're trying to position yourself as courageous for being a category seven, but you can't be a category seven if you harbor even the smallest doubt about the non-existence of the gods, just like category one theists harbor no doubts at all about their existence. If you want to call that splitting hairs, you'll have to argue it with Dawkins. All I did was read the book and apply it to what you've said about yourself. Neither category six nor category seven are about percentages of belief, so you can't claim membership in one or the other based on a particular confidence level in your position.| And check your math and the Riemann Hypothesis. |
What about it? It states, "The real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is 1/2." What does that have to do with anything we've been discussing?
By the way, I'd still like to see your evidence that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes." |
- 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 - 08/30/2011 : 19:18:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, Provide some evidence that you are not an illiterate moron who does not even know what a question is. It was not necessary to kick the shit out of your wrong-headed and erroneous list of allegedly unanswered questions. It only required a punt. I do commend you for a valiant effort though and it is nice to know you are paying attention to my every word. Please keep reading and all will be revealed. Are you a 6.9999 or merely a 6.9?
|
I see you are definately one of those posters who suffers from the buttkickin ratio. This is where the chances of some poster continually being insulting is inversely proportional to the chance they will get a buttkickin in real life.
I have provided you with a list of unsupported claims.
You aren't going to support any of them.
Typical.
I knew making a list of these would be futile.
Oh, well.
Continue being intellectually dishonest and keep wondering why the Humanists in Canada wouldn't let you re-up. I'm sure the president of that organization provided you with answers. You, like here, refused to accept the answers in the face of evidence to the contrary. So they gave you the heave ho because you violated the rules. (No matter how you deny it, you did.)
Fuck off and die, asshole. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 20:56:54 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Valiant Dancer, What a dumb lowlife you are. You wrote,"Fuck off and die, asshole." You and your friends consider that real clever and witty don't you. Did you think it up all by yourself or did you get help from your nurse? You have been continually insulting so you suffer from the so-called buttkickin ratio yourself. Hoist on your own petard. You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Being oblivious has served you in good stead and saved you from the embarrassment an intelligent person would have suffered to learn all the work you put into your stupid list was for naught because you failed to understand that a question would be followed by a question mark. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 22:28:19 [Permalink]
|
Unlikely a 7. In spite of her antipathy toward agnosticism, which was wrong headed of her and just like you, required her to change the definition of agnostisism, and is probably the source of much of your foolishness, her definition of atheism is almost identical to Huxley’s definition of agnosticism.
O'Hair:
The Atheist position is that the traditionalist historical concepts of god are quite fallacious and that the notion of some "super power" is not now susceptible of proof by existing scientific methods or by the accumulation of knowledge presently accessible to man… |
Bolding is mine.
Well gosh. That’s an agnostic position. She goes on:
O'Hair:
…Therefore the Atheists live as if there were no god, no efficacy in prayer, and no life after death. We are free from theism… |
So, she was an agnostic/atheist.
And then there is her rejection of Pascal's Wager, which is also something she has in common with agnostic/atheists.
O'Hair:
…We bet everything on this as being accurate. |
Of course, by saying “We bet” she is also saying that she isn’t a 7. She’s wisely agreeing that there is some uncertainty in her position, however small it may be. Can’t be a 7 if there is any room for uncertainty, eh?
Officiant:
Your bumbling agnostic hero Thomas Huxley supported using the Christian Bible in schools. From your Wikipedia.
There's the difference between us Kil. |
Nice. I see you walked back your claim that Huxley was a church goer.
Okay, then. Let’s consider the context by quoting the two paragraphs that deal with Huxley and the bible, shall we?
Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. This may seem out of step with his agnostic convictions, but he believed that the Bible's significant moral teachings and superb use of language were relevant to English life. "I do not advocate burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches".[98] However, what Huxley proposed was to create an edited version of the Bible, shorn of "shortcomings and errors... statements to which men of science absolutely and entirely demur... These tender children [should] not be taught that which you do not yourselves believe".[99][100] The Board voted against his idea, but it also voted against the idea that public money should be used to support students attending church schools. Vigorous debate took place on such points, and the debates were minuted in detail. Huxley said "I will never be a party to enabling the State to sweep the children of this country into denominational schools".[101][102] The Act of Parliament which founded board schools permitted the reading of the Bible, but did not permit any denominational doctrine to be taught.
It may be right to see Huxley's life and work as contributing to the secularisation of British society which gradually occurred over the following century. Ernst Mayr said "It can hardly be doubted that [biology] has helped to undermine traditional beliefs and value systems"[103] — and Huxley more than anyone else was responsible for this trend in Britain. Some modern Christian apologists consider Huxley the father of atheistic evangelism, though he himself maintained that he was an agnostic, not an atheist. He was, however, a lifelong and determined opponent of almost all organized religion throughout his life, especially the "Roman Church... carefully calculated for the destruction of all that is highest in the moral nature, in the intellectual freedom, and in the political freedom of mankind" |
Source
Bolding is mine.
This all took place almost one hundred years before Madeline Murray O'Hare did her thing. That both she and you had to change what Huxley was saying about agnosticism, creating a strawman version of it in order to attack it, and that both she and you don’t understand how Huxley laid much of the groundwork for what was to follow is an indication of both of your boneheadedness with regard to Huxley.
O'Hare was not infallible. She was a great woman (which is me giving much more credit to O'Hare than you are willing to give to Huxley) but she was occasionally wrong.
Occasionally wrong is a much better score than you get so far, Officiant.
|
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 - 08/31/2011 : 05:32:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, What a dumb lowlife you are. You wrote,"Fuck off and die, asshole." You and your friends consider that real clever and witty don't you. Did you think it up all by yourself or did you get help from your nurse? You have been continually insulting so you suffer from the so-called buttkickin ratio yourself. Hoist on your own petard. You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Being oblivious has served you in good stead and saved you from the embarrassment an intelligent person would have suffered to learn all the work you put into your stupid list was for naught because you failed to understand that a question would be followed by a question mark.
|
I'll accept this response as a complete lack of support for the unsupported claims you have made.
Therefore, all claims made by you are now dismissed for lack of evidence. This includes your original post claiming that agnostics are cowardly psuedo-intellectual dilettantes.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 05:37:54 [Permalink]
|
| That's at least three times that you've avoided answering the questions. Instead you choose the diversionary tactic of arguing over whether they are declaratives or interrogatives. A very transparent attempt I might add. Since your posts have been increasingly filled with name-calling, childish taunts and empty bluster, it is clear that you are losing this argument and that you are well aware of it. Also, these avoidance tactics can be appropriately considered cowardly. No need to resort in personal attacks... merely answering even one of the questions/claims in a rational manner would be sufficient. Feel free to "kick the shit" out of the list, though I don't know how one would do so. Merely answering them in a concise manner without insults would be adequate. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
| Edited by - Fripp on 08/31/2011 05:58:35 |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 05:55:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, What a dumb lowlife you are. You wrote,"Fuck off and die, asshole." You and your friends consider that real clever and witty don't you.
|
I know I don't consider it "clever and witty," but oddly enough, it does seem entirely appropriate in this context.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 06:00:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hal
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, What a dumb lowlife you are. You wrote,"Fuck off and die, asshole." You and your friends consider that real clever and witty don't you.
|
I know I don't consider it "clever and witty," but oddly enough, it does seem entirely appropriate in this context.
|
Actually, it seems to be the only level of discourse that Officiant can understand. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 07:55:04 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Kil, "Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. This may seem out of step with his agnostic convictions, but he believed that the Bible's significant moral teachings and superb use of language were relevant to English life." Do you agree with your racist,male chauvinist hero that the Bible has significant moral teachings?? The Bible endorses rape,murder,slavery,ritual human sacrifice and burning nonbelievers. Give your head a shake. Educate yourself on the evil of agnosticism. Without further delay all you agnostics who love Huxley please exorcise your demons and ignorance;go immediately to www.EvilBible.com I would love for you all to tell me how the Bible has inspired you and fed your spirit with its significant moral teachings. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 08:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, "Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. This may seem out of step with his agnostic convictions, but he believed that the Bible's significant moral teachings and superb use of language were relevant to English life." Do you agree with your racist,male chauvinist hero that the Bible has significant moral teachings?? The Bible endorses rape,murder,slavery,ritual human sacrifice and burning nonbelievers. Give your head a shake. Educate yourself on the evil of agnosticism. Without further delay all you agnostics who love Huxley please exorcise your demons and ignorance;go immediately to www.EvilBible.com I would love for you all to tell me how the Bible has inspired you and fed your spirit with its significant moral teachings.
|
You know what? You pick on the stupidest things without considering historical context. He was against slavery, supported the vote for every citizen, and he was endorsed by woman's groups. Now you are trying to imply that he was okay with rape. I have provided a link that debunks those lies. I'm sure you didn't bother to look at it. But never-mind that now. You require him to be your enemy. But in truth, Huxley was out there fighting with the church, same as O'Hare did in more modern times, and you just go looking for out of context faults. And why? Only to support your strawman version of agnosticism. Your denigration of Huxley is you denigrating a man who did as much as anyone, and probably more to push the secularism in government that we hold dear and strongly defend. What the hell have you done? His promotion of evolutionary biology made it respectable. What the hell have you done? Your attacks on this great man because of one word that you don't like just shows how shallow you really are. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you haven't the sense to be.
There is a story about Ansel Adams commenting on what he thought of Ronald Reagen after meeting him. He described Reagen as opaque. "No light goes in and no light comes out." I think that pretty much sums up a conversation with you, Officiant. You can't learn, you skip over what you can't answer, and will do anything to hold on to your precious boneheaded stawman conclusions, even when corrected. Bigotry is never rational, and you are a bigot. I have wasted too many words and time doing research to demonstrate your foolishness.
By the way. Another claim you made is O'hare was a 7. I just took that assertion apart line by line. As usual, you just skipped over it. So have fun wallowing in your ignorance. At least there is this. You stand as a beacon of everything I despise. If you were a true example of atheists, I would probably drop "atheist" as a part of how I describe myself out of embarrassment. You are a detriment to your cause. The good news is that most atheists aren't you. I have many atheist friends. Most of them are sane. As Dave has pointed out to me, in every movement like skepticism and atheism, there are bound to be those who are simply loons or cynical contrarians. You are one of those. A lost cause...
|
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 - 08/31/2011 : 09:38:13 [Permalink]
|
KIl, Some pages back you choose intellectual integrity. That is not consistent with your appeal to ridicule logical fallacy that I pick on the stupidest things without considering historical context.Your agnostic hero Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. Please address that fact. By contrast my hero, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, (at least learn how to spell her name) was the driving force in banning prayer from the public schools of one of the most god obsessed countries in the world. You dismiss this monumental achievement with "did her thing."
I am willing to learn how historical context would make it legitimate to support the reading of the Bible in schools. Please consider the views of a contemporary of Huxley's, Charles Bradlaugh,
in addressing the historical context. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
