|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 09:20:52 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Kil, I trust you are at least still lurking on this thread. I clicked on agnosticism from your reply on page 17. The bottom line from Madalyn Murray O'Hair reads, "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." I know her from her writing and two telephone calls and she would have kicked you where it hurts if you called her a cowardly agnostic. If Madalyn does not qualify as a proud atheist no one does. It is disrespectful of her memory to even suggest she was agnostic. Abuse me if you must but please retract your claim this great woman was an agnostic. |
 |
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2011 : 09:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Fripp, Dave W.,Valiant Dancer, Now that Kil has avoided answering by withdrawing would you apply your fine intellects to answer and rationalize Thomas Huxley, the inventor of agnosticism, supporting the reading of the Bible in schools. As an atheist I think it is indefensible because as I previously posted on page 17 www.EvilBible.com makes it abundantly clear the Christian Bible
is not a good source of 'significant moral teachings'.
|
It's now been forty-eight hours since your unsupported claims have been listed. And you still have yet to address them. You instead try to divert attention from them. Quite poorly i might add. |
"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 - 09/01/2011 : 09:41:32 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Dave W., A Supreme Court ruling is still not small potatoes. Go to page 17 and click on agnosticism on Kil's reply. And reread Einstein's definition of insanity. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 10:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dude, You make a claim. You provide the evidence. Your evidence will predicate the method. I did notice that on page 13 you said, " a reality I can detect" but above this changed to, "I can't detect." Was that a Freudian slip or a a change in position? I would also like to remind you that there are meaningless questions. What is the meaning of life is one of them.
|
It isn't possible that you are this stupid and I'm not here to help you understand simple English.
My claim is that there is no test for an external reality, therefore the default position is agnosticism.
Your task, because you made the claim that science can test any practical real world claim, is to provide me a method to test the claim. It is my contention that there is no method to test for an external reality. I am challenging your claim.
So you need to back up your claim with evidence. In this case the evidence will be a method to test for external reality.
All this other rubbish is just you avoiding the topic. You can't engage this question because you know you will fail, and as a result of that failure you will be forced to retract your position on agnosticism.
I've nothing else to say to you until you provide a method to test for external reality.
|
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 - 09/01/2011 : 10:12:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Fripp, Dave W.,Valiant Dancer, Now that Kil has avoided answering by withdrawing would you apply your fine intellects to answer and rationalize Thomas Huxley, the inventor of agnosticism, supporting the reading of the Bible in schools. As an atheist I think it is indefensible because as I previously posted on page 17 www.EvilBible.com makes it abundantly clear the Christian Bible
is not a good source of 'significant moral teachings'.
|
Question was answered by Kil.
You have refused the answer. The answer provided did, in fact, answer the question and applied the social landscape of the time and the societal usage of the Bible at the time.
This is not rationalization, but analysis.
Like Noam Chomsky, you ignore societal norms of the time period and techniques that were effective in reaching the masses.
Instead, you have chosen to quote a site likely to focus on the negatives vs the positives in the teachings of the Bible, much like the George Sales 1801 translation of the Qu'ran. Sales, unlike Sir E. Dennison Ross, was up front about how he was choosing the translation and context to show Islam in the worst possible light.
The basics in the Bible for morality are concepts common to all religions and societies. (Be nice to one another, don't steal, don't murder, etc)
The website you point to does not look at the moral codes expressed directly and instead focuses on the stories of where God ordered the wholesale murder and enslavement of conquered people and does not look at the historical record of how conquered people were treated by non-Christians.
Subverted support for your assertation.
You also refuse to support the list of your claims supplied to you. Instead, you want to argue over something completely different. Red Herring, anyone? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/01/2011 10:16:41 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 10:19:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, I trust you are at least still lurking on this thread. I clicked on agnosticism from your reply on page 17. The bottom line from Madalyn Murray O'Hair reads, "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." I know her from her writing and two telephone calls and she would have kicked you where it hurts if you called her a cowardly agnostic. If Madalyn does not qualify as a proud atheist no one does. It is disrespectful of her memory to even suggest she was agnostic. Abuse me if you must but please retract your claim this great woman was an agnostic.
|
When did these 2 phone calls happen?
I am curious.
It is a common tactic that I have seen for someone to claim personal contact with their intellectual heroes to somehow bolster their argument's standing. Especially when that argument is slowly circling the bowl. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:04:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dave W., A Supreme Court ruling is still not small potatoes. |
I never said it wasn't.| Go to page 17 and click on agnosticism on Kil's reply. |
What about it?| And reread Einstein's definition of insanity. |
Why? I'm not expecting a different response from a lying coward like you, Officiant.
So where is 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. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:45:53 [Permalink]
|
Officiant wrote: | Dear marfknox, Regarding Madalyn Murray O'Hair from Wikipedia. She is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending government-sponsored prayer in American public schools. A Supreme Court ruling is not small potatoes. |
Once again your filter is in place.
First, I never said that what O'Hair did was small potatoes. What I was criticizing you for was making her out to be some sort of lone, atheist hero, while not only ignoring the many other players who contributed to keeping prayer out of schools, but in fact you have been debasing anyone who isn't a strong atheist throughout this entire thread. How the fuck is it okay for you to rip to shreds anyone who isn't a strong-enough atheist - even if they have made huge contributions to secularism and freedom from religion - but then you go ape shit because Kil isn't showing proper veneration for O'Hair? Your bias is dumbfounding.
So to be specific: Murray vs. Curlett was consolodated with Abington School district vs. Schempp, which was brought up by a Unitarian Universalist father. The ruling cited Engel v. Vitale (a case involving Ethical Culture and Jews) as precedent. And let's not forget the more recent 2000 ruling in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe which involved Mormon and Catholic parents objecting to student lead prayer in public school football games - that went to the Supreme Court, too.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/01/2011 11:51:42 |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:47:10 [Permalink]
|
| Dave W., Your postings and Madalyn are the evidence. This may be paranoia but if any of you skeptic friends have disabled my computer and e-mail please restore all its functions. I need it for business. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Officiant: | Dear Kil, I trust you are at least still lurking on this thread. I clicked on agnosticism from your reply on page 17. The bottom line from Madalyn Murray O'Hair reads, "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." I know her from her writing and two telephone calls and she would have kicked you where it hurts if you called her a cowardly agnostic. If Madalyn does not qualify as a proud atheist no one does. It is disrespectful of her memory to even suggest she was agnostic. Abuse me if you must but please retract your claim this great woman was an agnostic. |
On page 17 Kil puts up a pretty convincing argument using O'Hair's own words that she had at least some agnostic qualities to her worldview. And his argument isn't based on what labels she uses, but rather, how she describes her doubt and uncertainty. O'Hair and the organization she founded American Atheists are known for their obsession with the label "Atheist". (They were, after all, the first to start capitalizing the "A".) For her the label was about projecting strength. It was about drawing a clear line in the sand that no one could confuse. And it was about a certain approach to PR. It was not about intellectual accuracy. But hey, everyone has their flaws. She did do a great deal of good for the secular cause, she is a hero, and the world is better off having a good helping of outspoken iconoclasts like her around. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/01/2011 11:59:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:58:44 [Permalink]
|
| This may be paranoia but if any of you skeptic friends have disabled my computer and e-mail please restore all its functions. I need it for business. |
May be paranoia? Man, you got problems. |
"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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:00:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dave W., Your postings and Madalyn are the evidence. |
My postings are evidence of your cowardice. O'Hair's statements are merely opinions, and not evidence.| This may be paranoia but if any of you skeptic friends have disabled my computer and e-mail please restore all its functions. I need it for business. |
Ah, ramping the excuses for running away up a whole bunch of notches. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:02:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
This may be paranoia but if any of you skeptic friends have disabled my computer and e-mail please restore all its functions. I need it for business.
|
This statement speaks volumes about your intellect. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:09:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dave W., Your postings and Madalyn are the evidence. This may be paranoia but if any of you skeptic friends have disabled my computer and e-mail please restore all its functions. I need it for business.
|
We haven't touched it.
With an attitude that you've shown us, it is not surprising that you have raised the ire of someone with less than stellar ethics. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:20:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, So sorry to see you go. I was having a nice time winning this argument.
|
If you think you're winning this argument, you're delusional.
| There is no way you or anyone secular on the planet could rationalize Thomas Huxley, the inventor of agnosticism, supporting the reading of the Bible in schools. |
It has already been done. You just failed to recognise the arguments for that rationale. Thomas Jefferson was thinking in similar directions when he made the Jefferson Bible.
| Another good example of how agnosticism enables religion and faith. |
So does Atheism as long as atheists like you support religious freedom in your country.
| So it is perfectly understandable that you should retire and leave the arena before you lose your dignity. |
Kil has his dignity intact, it's you Officiant who is the emperor without clothes here. You haven't managed to make a single important argument stick.
| You tell me I'm an idiot deserving of ridicule |
OK.
- You're an idiot deserving of ridicule!
That would a good example of an Ad Hominem Abuse.A personal attack...a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim. |
And you don't have a good grasp of when different logical fallacies are applicable and not. When they apply, and how. You have shown this lack of knowledge time and time again, but you refuse to learn from it. You have constantly failed to acknowledge corrections given to you, but keep repeating disproved falsehoods.
Any credibility you could have had, you've wasted on empty posturing.
The lesson Skeptic Friends Network got from your visit is that even atheists can be as religious as the most rabid christian evangelists. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
