|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2011 : 10:46:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Valiant Dancer and Dr. Mabuse, Please tell me why you think why you think Thomas Huxley promoting the reading of the Bible in schools was not a religious exercise? Charles Bradlaugh and W.H Mallock were contemporaries so the historical context argument is fatuous. There is no time in history when the Bible in school can ever be justified. Your agnostic hero Huxley was a unwitting stooge for Christianity. That's why the Catholic Church considers you agnostics allies against atheism.
|
Asked and answered before. If you cannot read the answers, this is your failure.
I will not be doing any more of your homework until such time as you address the unsupported claims that you have made. We made you a list.
You also fail to see the effacy of one method over another.
Huxley is no hero to me. I don't idolize any one thinker. I do listen to each argument they make on their own.
Something that you fail to do. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 10:49:13 [Permalink]
|
List of unsupported claims made by Officiant.
pg 1 Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes
pg 1 According to Dawkins, agnosticism is flawed because it assumes that the probability that God exists is equal to the probability that God does not exist
pg 2 Kil puts all his trust in Wikipedia
pg 2 A skeptical agnostic must always attend church
pg 3 Agnosticism is a specious philosophy
pg 3 (inference) All agnostics are theistic agnostics
pg 5 Agnosticism is garbage
pg 5 Science can examine anything
pg 5 Agnostics are not atheists
pg 6 I'm winning this argument
pg 6 Kil is using Argumentum ad Populum
pg 7 It is important what religions and the Mother Ship Catholics think of agnosticism
pg 7 SFN denizens are Dawkins scale 2, 3, and 4 only
pg 8 I'm sure with the anger expressed you all would gladly have me burnt at the stake as an unbeliever in your precious pseudo intellectual agnosticism
pg 9 Hawks is a religious adherent
pg 10 Praying is putting your hands together, making a face like you are having a bowel movement and communicating telepathically with an imaginary entity
pg 12 SFN atheist denizens are Raelians
pg 14 Thomas Huxley is a scumbag
There. No more "questions" red herring argument.
If you refuse to defend these, then they can be dismissed as opinion with no basis in fact. |
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 - 09/02/2011 : 11:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Agnostics
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Charles Bradlaugh was the first militant Atheist in the history of Western civilization. He was elected to the British parliament six times, and each time that body refused to seat him because he was an Atheist -- and because he would not swear his allegiance to queen and country, so help him "God." Everyone in England knew Bradlaugh and his fight, and he raised the issue of Atheism to every person in public life as he sought allies.
The intellectual community contained, at the time, Sir Thomas Huxley, and he coined the word agnostic in 1869 to keep from aligning himself with the hard-pressed Bradlaugh. The word gnosis is the Greek for "knowledge." In words of Greek derivation the prefix a is a privative, that is -- it gives the word a negative sense. Literally it means "against knowledge" or "negating knowledge." Huxley in his letters to the literate community pointed out that he did not feel that salvation could be attained through knowledge.
We don't know what "salvation" is. But we do know that Huxley referred to the New Testament biblical story of Acts 17:23 wherein Paul visited Athens and admonished the people for a statue he found there. He said, "as I passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription 'to the unknown God' . . ."
Huxley held that there was a "god" and this was implicit in his definition of agnosticism. He said two things which are quite different:
1. God is -- and God is unknown.
2. God is -- and God is unknowable.
Agnosticism is very close to the religious dogma that the ways of god are unfathomable, that human reason is fallible, and that man requires a different, non-scientific, path to the truth -- such as faith. Agnostic followers are always allies of the church. The false notion that anything is unknowable undermines science and reinforces theology. It inclines man to faith and induces men to trust religious doctrines. The church does not anathematize the agnostic and even the Roman Catholic church will accept the agnostic in its fold.
Popularly, the word agnostic has been corrupted (just as the words Atheist and Epicurian have been corrupted) to mean to the man in the street, "I don't know whether there is a god or not." But an inspection of that sentence leads one into accepting the logic of Huxley above.
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. Therefore the Atheists live as if there were no god, no efficacy in prayer, and no life after death. We are free from theism. We bet everything on this as being accurate.
The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp.
Text prepared and distributed by American Atheist Online Services, P O Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195. Voice: (512) 458-1244. BBS: (512) 302-0223.
This text may be freely downloaded, reprinted, and/other otherwise redistributed, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to American Atheist Online Services.
Copyright American Atheist Press. All rights reserved. Printed copies of this essay can be obtained from: American Atheist Press P. O. Box 140195, Austin, Texas 78714-0195. Stock #8710. 50 copies of this item for $1.00. Texas residents please add sales tax. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 11:51:33 [Permalink]
|
From All the Questions You Ever Wanted To Ask American Atheists With All The Answers by Jon Murray and Madalyn O'Hair
In confrontation to the position of agnosticism, when questioned concerned with it at the Tenth Annual National American Atheist Convention, Dr. Albert Ellis, one of our nation's foremost psychologists, elaborated on Atheism and agnosticism. He noted that currently there is a trend in all of science to state that there is only a "probability" concerned with natural laws and that scientists are not 100% certain of their grounds any more or at least at this time. They are only 99.999999% certain of their grounds any more or at least at this time. They can only show that certain laws have been the same for 4 1/2 billion years. He laughed and said, "For all practical purposes in your life, then, you can accept that natural laws 'may be true.' To premise your life on the very slim hope that they may not be true, is to act in an absurd and unproductive fashion. " The odds against the god idea are in the same magnitude. Yet the agnostic rejects the major for the minor premise of both time and percentage and says that he really cannot make a decision.
|
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 11:58:04 [Permalink]
|
I trust the majority of your concerns are answered by the above items by Madalyn O'Hair and Albert Ellis. For the rest go back and read them in the original context.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 12:08:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
I trust the majority of your concerns are answered by the above items by Madalyn O'Hair and Albert Ellis. For the rest go back and read them in the original context.
|
We have discussed O'Hair's opinion post. We have also pointed out how it changes the meaning of agnostic to only mean theistic agnostics. The source is lacking and has suspect passages whereby the dictionary lists a different definition than the one applied in the opinion piece. The claims are still unsupported.
Only attempts to address 2 of the 18 claims you have made.
The remaining are accurate in context. You have failed to support any of them and they are herewith dismissed due to lack of support. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/02/2011 12:10:34 |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 12:10:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
I trust the majority of your concerns are answered by the above items by Madalyn O'Hair and Albert Ellis. For the rest go back and read them in the original context.
|
Oh, I'm sure some smarty-pants will come along and say, "you can't 'support' your assertions by referencing someone else's unsupported assertions." But hang in there, you know you have them on the ropes!
But I'll admit, even I'm a little confused by this:
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. Therefore the Atheists live as if there were no god, no efficacy in prayer, and no life after death. We are free from theism. We bet everything on this as being accurate.
|
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment (pun intended), why can't someone who simply says, "Don't Know, Don't Care," live "as if there were no god"? How is it that that kind of agnostic remains burdened by theism?
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 12:35:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dr. Mabuse, Christianity and the Christian Bible are based on a fictitious character. I wanted to make sure everybody knew that so they would know the Bible is without merit.
I apologize for making it appear that you personally held that view that Jesus was a historical real person. |
Apology accepted.
Now, what made you think most members of SFN would think otherwise, that you needed to make sure that we knew the Bible was without merit?
|
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. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 13:18:49 [Permalink]
|
| I'm just wondering why he thinks agnostics are so dumb as to accept the bible uncritically? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 14:50:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
I trust the majority of your concerns are answered by the above items by Madalyn O'Hair and Albert Ellis. For the rest go back and read them in the original context. |
Perhaps you should go back and re-read Einstein's definition of insanity. |
- 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 - 09/02/2011 : 15:27:36 [Permalink]
|
Dear Podcat et al, All types and categories of agnostics are dumb in dealing with faith and religion. Some try to split hairs and tag along with atheists as agnostic atheists. Atheism has no use for this cowardly stance.
Civilization would have progressed faster in debunking religion without this fraudulent philosophy which the Catholic Church loves as an ally. It is dangerous because it attracts the unsophisticated dilettantes who are lured by its specious appeal to have your cake and eat it too.
It is not even a decision. It is putting off making a decision because just like the religious believers it childishly demands 100% certainty which not even the best possible science can give. 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'.
Don't claim it is already answered. If that is the case just copy and paste so I can see it again.
And don't make it conditional that I answer the same fatuous questions before you deign to reply. Indulge me: Please answer the question. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 17:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Podcat et al, All types and categories of agnostics are dumb in dealing with faith and religion. Some try to split hairs and tag along with atheists as agnostic atheists. Atheism has no use for this cowardly stance. |
How could atheism possibly "have a use for" anything? It's not a positive ethic which (or even an ethic at all) which strives to build something. It's a category label, and nothing more. You may as well be saying that purple has no use for agnosticism, because it makes as much sense.| Civilization would have progressed faster in debunking religion without this fraudulent philosophy which the Catholic Church loves as an ally. |
Where is you evidence for that claim?| It is dangerous because it attracts the unsophisticated dilettantes who are lured by its specious appeal to have your cake and eat it too. |
Where is your evidence for those two claims?It is not even a decision.
It is putting off making a decision because just like the religious believers it childishly demands 100% certainty... |
Where is your evidence for that claim?| ...which not even the best possible science can give. |
Agnosticism is an acknowledgement that science cannot provide 100% certainty. You've got this completely backwards, don't 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'.
Don't claim it is already answered. |
But it has been answered. You don't like the answer because the answer recognizes that there was a different social context when Huxley was alive than there is today. At least, you couldn't refute it better than above, where you confuse parts of the Bible with other parts (which is no refutation at all). |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 20:36:06 [Permalink]
|
I don't expect a response to anything below...Originally posted by Officiant
There were no unanswered questions. |
The Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and maybe someone will believe it.
I had some time to kill tonight. Here's a first run at a list of unanswered questions, in order from page one until your latest reply (question marks on every one):- What assertion do you think agnosticism makes, exactly?
- You are aware that agnosticism has nothing to with belief in god and that it's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist, right?
- Agnosticism makes no outright claims doesn't it, but rather just says that we don't, or can't know if any god exists, right?
- In what way is that [number 3] not supported by evidence?
- Are you referring to Theistic agnosticism or atheistic agnosticism?
- How so? [Agnosticism is antithetical to science and is the enemy of civilization. It only serves to protect the supernatural.]
- Are you bothering to distinguish between types of agnostics?
- Perhaps you are a bigot?
- Do you not agree with this? [Huxley quote: "...do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."]
- Or this? [Huxley quote: "...it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."]
- I am curious about what you are trying to accomplish?
- Turn folks who identify as agnostics into atheists even though for all practical purposes they are pretty much the same?
- How about responding to my replies?
- And how can you not be embarrassed by quoting someone who is paraphrasing what he [Dawkins] thinks Dawkins is saying, and perhaps taking it out of context while writing a bad review of his book?
- So you're willing to accept an online dictionary definition but not entire encyclopedia entry because you think it may have been tampered with?
- Why are you still asking questions instead of reading?
- Are you allergic to learning?
- What's wrong with the definitions [of "agnostic"] you provided?
- Where's the evidence for that claim? [That Huxley "does not even agree with himself."]
- Do you really care so little about your arguments that you can't get simple, inarguable facts correct?
- Have you ever heard of scientism?
- Why don't you argue, instead of quoting?
- How could they possibly do that? [Humanist Canada denying you freedom of expression]
- [D]oes Humanist Canada have policing powers that allowed them to lock you up and refuse you access to all public platforms for expression?
- You do understand that dictionaries have armies of editors because they might be wrong, yes?
- Where in the Merriam-Webster definition does it say that agnostics wish that god exists?
- Why would there be one? [A "difference between a religious doubting Thomas and a skeptical agnostic."]
- Are you telling us that if evidence that some god exists somewhere were to come to light, you wouldn't change your mind?
- And I should care what a Catholic encyclopedia says, why?
- Now how about supporting some of your claims?
- Do you think that the church, or any of those who profess a belief in god can support their belief in existence of god with empirical evidence?
- Why should Val have to do the work over again when it's clear that you're too much of a coward to address criticisms of your claims head-on?
- Is your imagination really so poor that it can't even fathom that there are possible deities that can't be tested for?
- All of them? [Has Stenger tested all diety claims ever made?]
- [D]o you think Stenger is infallible?
- How would you scientifically test for a naturalistic version of god, like that held by Pantheists?
- Why should I care what they [Catholics] think?
- If I say I am thinking about a particular subject, how will science examine that?
- More of your God proof strawman bullshit?
- Still drinking the "there are no atheist agnostics" Kool-Aide?
- And how, pray tell, does the athiest agnostic present something he has no belief in?
- Do you ever learn?
- How is an agnostic atheist dishonest since they do not accept the premise of the existence of a God?
- You either aren't paying attention or you are too stupid to understand. Which is it?
- Wow, so agnosticism = Catholicism = creationism?
- Could you say the same for Isis or Ra? [That god is an insane bloodthirsty monster]
- What does it [that god is an insane bloodthirsty monster] matter to the question of whether or not you can test for its existence?
- Since when is "does god exist" the ultimate question, anyway?
- Schizophrenia is a dangerous insanity, do you deny its existence?
- Are you that blind that you cannot see that [strawman fallacies] is what YOU have been doing for 8 pages worth of discussion?!
- [I]sn't the very title of this topic (which you created) an ad hominem attack?
- Don't the same rules [about fallacious logic] apply to you?
- Are you too much of a coward, or are you a man who accepts responsibility for his misdeeds?
- Do you really not understand what Hawks is asking of you?
- You really don't understand that religion is the set of dogmas and rituals that are built by humans around their faith in deities?
- That without faith, religion would be harmless dress-up games and social clubs?
- [Science is] The only way [to obtain knowledge]?
- And you're comparing us to rioting religious fanatics?
- What theory do we have about the world in which the non-existence of any gods plays a part?
- [S]o where is the evidence that you must supply to support your claim, "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes"?
- Why not pay attention to the primary meaning [of "agnostic"]?
- Why don’t you just admit that you were wrong?
- I’m an atheist, you dimwit. How many times do I have to say it?
- Can you please explain to us why you think we do [have an obligation to produce evidence even though we haven't made extraordinary claims]?
- Why do you think this [prayer] is relevant?
- Who in this forum have you ever seen advocate for the existence of anything supernatural?
- Why are you still trying to argue against your imbecilic straw man version of agnosticism?
- [S]ince you started this crusade against agnostics, how many people have you been able to find who agrees with your arguments?
- Do you seriously think you can have an invitation-only conversation on a public web forum?
- So who are those people here who believe that fairies are living at the bottom of the garden?
- Why are you quoting a book you think is written by a cowardly agnostic?
- So because I don't agree with what you think is evil, I'm self centered and apathetic?
- So what are you doing other than insulting people who already support church-state separation and religious criticism on online forums?
- 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?
- Where is your scientific evidence that you [criticized your President for wasting a large amount of money and lying which he could not deny]?
- Why [must I "find it particularly galling to be leaning towards category 7"]?
- Where is your evidence that "The majority once believed the earth was flat?"
- How pathetic does it make you that you argue from a position that you fail to comprehend?
- Have you ever admitted to being wrong?
- So, either "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes" is not a "practical real world claim" (in which case you've been arguing useless metaphysics), or you're a lying coward. Which is it, Officiant?
- If, as you now say (changed your tune because you know you were wrong), all "practical real world claims" can be tested... then what is the test for my claim?
- Are you going to accept my evidence or are you going to take my bars and run a quick displacement and density check on them?
- So why do you keep on doing what you're doing?
- Are you ten years old, Officiant?
- You see reality as a crutch? What is it a crutch for? Not being able to deal with your faith in atheism?
- Or did you just make it ["Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes"] up out of whole cloth?
- What the hell do you care what others choose to call themselves?
- If you already knew this, why did you ask what the difference between faith and religion are in the first place?
- [A]nyone even slightly short of 100% Atheist is suspect?
- What does that [the Reimann Hypothesis] have to do with anything we've been discussing?
- Can’t be a 7 if there is any room for uncertainty, eh?
- May be paranoia?
- Can you grasp the distinctions here, Officiant?
- [H]ow is anyone going to test your claim?
- Why is there a need to resort to insults?
- [H]ow would this sort of "childish dependency" manifest itself?
- And how does one "kick the shit" out of a list, precisely?
- Wouldn't that [failure to support your claims] be considered cowardice?
- Where do you get such crazy ideas from?
- You are ascribing ideas and thoughts to us which are false, why do you insist on doing that?
- Why do you invent stuff about us which isn't true?
- How is it that that kind of agnostic remains burdened by theism?
- Now, what made you think most members of SFN would think otherwise, that you needed to make sure that we knew the Bible was without merit?
- I'm just wondering why he thinks agnostics are so dumb as to accept the bible uncritically?
|
- 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 - 09/02/2011 : 20:52:30 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dave W. You actually thought this was a good argument? Dave wrote,"You may as well be saying that purple has no use for agnosticism" Dave W. You are fatigued and mentally confused. Your blood sugar level needs to be checked.
I give you Albert Ellis, Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Charles Bradlaugh and you are reduced to naming colours to back your argument. Red and green also have no use for agnosticism. All the colours agree that agnosticism is just plain yellow. Agnosticism is useless. Express an idea as an agnostic atheist that an atheist could not express.
Could you tell what me just would comprise the evidence for my opinions. Apparently reason and logic have no appeal to you. Are you looking for forensic evidence? Could I offer you a toe nail clipping for DNA testing. All I have is words and ideas. The god detector in my laboratory shows no data.
I already gave you quotes from Richard Dawkins which show he loathes agnosticism. Under the heading THE POVERTY OF AGNOSTICISM we find " What this preacher couldn't stand was agnostics: namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy pallid fence sitters" and this "..respected the committed religious believer and also the committed atheist. He reserved his contempt for the wishy-washy boneless mediocrities who flapped around in the middle."
Dave W. You poor sod. You are looking for 100% certainty? You can only find that in God. You need to talk to an Imam . Are you a man of God? That would explain a lot. According to Madalyn you've already got one safe foot in the god camp.
Come on; do me a favour. Copy and paste the answers again. The social context excuse is bogus. This did not happen in the Dark Ages. Charles Bradlaugh was a militant atheist. Huxley was in the way. I think you are bluffing. I call your bluff. Turn your cards over face up. I haven't even mentioned Sam Harris. Oh well...next time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2011 : 22:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dave W. You actually thought this was a good argument? Dave wrote,"You may as well be saying that purple has no use for agnosticism" Dave W. You are fatigued and mentally confused. Your blood sugar level needs to be checked.
I give you Albert Ellis, Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Charles Bradlaugh and you are reduced to naming colours to back your argument. Red and green also have no use for agnosticism. |
Of course they don't. They are colors, and not people. "Atheism" isn't a person, either, and so has no use for anything.| All the colours agree that agnosticism is just plain yellow. |
Hardy har har.So is atheism.| Express an idea as an agnostic atheist that an atheist could not express. |
What sort of atheist? A category seven atheist couldn't say, "I'm 99.99999% sure that god doesn't exist," could he?| Could you tell what me just would comprise the evidence for my opinions. |
I can't even tell you what that sentence means. Oh, I see: you're missing a "what" between "just" and "would." So you want me to tell you what sort of evidence you would need to have before you could rationally reach the conclusion that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes?" How about sociological data that suggests your claim is true? All you've provided so far are dictionary definitions, mined quotes and arguments from authority, haven't you?| Apparently reason and logic have no appeal to you. |
You are projecting.| Are you looking for forensic evidence? |
No, just some real-world data. You do understand that science deals with things in the real world, yes?| Could I offer you a toe nail clipping for DNA testing. |
What use would I have for DNA testing on you?| All I have is words and ideas. The god detector in my laboratory shows no data. |
So now you are admitting that you have no evidence that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes?" Good for you. I know that being a man is difficult sometimes, especially when one has to admit one is wrong, yes?
Of course, the evidence for "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes" would have nothing to do with any gods or "god detectors", since it is a claim about people, isn't it?| I already gave you quotes from Richard Dawkins which show he loathes agnosticism. |
And I already proved that you lied about what he meant, with quotes from the same book (even the same page), right? But you don't care that you're a demonstrated liar, do you? Besides, why do you continue quoting an admitted cowardly agnostic like Dawkins?| Dave W. You poor sod. You are looking for 100% certainty? |
No, didn't you pay attention when I told you that agnosticism is an acknowledgment that we cannot have 100% certainty?| You can only find that in God. |
No, you can have it with faith, like category seven atheists have.| You need to talk to an Imam . |
Why would I need to talk to an Imam? Are you a Muslim? Do you think Imams hold some special wisdom of which I am in need?No, I'm an atheist. Are you an idiot?| That would explain a lot. |
No, it wouldn't.| According to Madalyn you've already got one safe foot in the god camp. |
Another argument from authority. Why is O'Hair correct? Can you even attempt to give an answer to that question which doesn't assume some other hero of yours is correct?| Come on; do me a favour. Copy and paste the answers again. |
Why should I copy-and-paste anything for you? It was only a couple/few pages ago, I'm sure you could find the quotes again, couldn't you?| The social context excuse is bogus. This did not happen in the Dark Ages. |
No, it wasn't, but England's state religion was much stronger in Huxley's day, wasn't it? If teaching via the Bible was going to happen anyway, thanks to the government, wouldn't have been better to teach a Bible expurgated of miracles and faith?| Charles Bradlaugh was a militant atheist. Huxley was in the way. |
Mallock was a militant defender of the church, a man who was definitely in the way, but you quoted him approving of his authority to speak on the topic of religion, didn't you?| I think you are bluffing. I call your bluff. Turn your cards over face up. |
What bluff? What cards? What could I possibly have to hide?| I haven't even mentioned Sam Harris. |
You're going to present another argument from authority, aren't you?I can't wait.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
