|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2011 : 09:44:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Officiant
This is for the continuing education of all you hyphenated agnostic pinheads.
Sam Harris on problems with religious moderates and agnostics ...
dangerousintersection.org › Culture › American Culture - Cached |
Link to article. Quote:Per Harris, agnostics refuse to disavow claims for which there isn’t a drop of evidence. So Sam Harris is wrong, too, isn't he? Your fallacious appeals to authorities, Officiant, won't get you anywhere when your authorities are flatly wrong when the context is us, right?
|
Oh cripes! Even Harris builds a strawman! Well... It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong.
Harris:
The right question is, “Is there any reason whatsoever to think there’s a god named Thor?” |
Who the hell thinks there is a god named Thor or any god for that matter? Not any of us! Same goes for the god of the bible.
What is so hard to understand for Harris, O'hair, and Officiant what an agnostic, at least of the kind that we are, is?
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." – Carl Sagan
That's it! Is that really so hard to grasp? |
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 - 09/09/2011 : 09:55:41 [Permalink]
|
Updating the list. You guys know that if you make your arguments in the form of questions, this list will grow more rapidly, right?- 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?
- Where is your evidence for your claim that "Civilization would have progressed faster in debunking religion without this fraudulent philosophy which the Catholic Church loves as an ally?"
- Where is your evidence for your claim that "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 your claim that "It is putting off making a decision because just like the religious believers it childishly demands 100% certainty?"
- A category seven atheist couldn't say, "I'm 99.99999% sure that god doesn't exist," could he?
- 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?
- You do understand that science deals with things in the real world, yes?
- What use would I have for DNA testing on you?
- So now you are admitting that you have no evidence that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes?"
- 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?
- 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?
- [W]hy do you continue quoting an admitted cowardly agnostic like Dawkins?
- [D]idn't you pay attention when I told you that agnosticism is an acknowledgment that we cannot have 100% certainty?
- 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?
- Are you an idiot?
- Why is O'Hair correct?
- Can you even attempt to give an answer to that [previous] question which doesn't assume some other hero of yours is correct?
- Why should I copy-and-paste anything for you?
- 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?
- 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?
- What bluff?
- What cards?
- What could I possibly have to hide?
- I'm not the one who offered a toenail clipping as potential evidence that agnostics are cowards, am I?
- [Y]ou're not going to answer any of those unanswered questions you say don't exist?
- That means my prediction about you was correct, doesn't it?
- So is it correct to say that you think that someone who is apathetic about whether or not any gods exist is necessarily also apathetic about government abuses?
- That's just a bizarre non-sequitor, isn't it?
- Yes, Officiant, I imagine that your own cognitive dissonance in trying to keep "Dawkins thinks all agnosticism is bad" and "Dawkins is a category-six agnostic" together in your head simultaneously is very painful, isn't it?
- You just try to ignore one of those two ideas, don't you?
- So dispite our efforts to explain to you that most of us are atheists, you are still convinced that we're theists, just because we are agnostics?
- That's your whole argument now?
- That some authorities would allegedly be in your "corner," assuming that they even knew you existed?
- Of course, the fact that Hawking jumps to an inappropriate conclusion cannot logically support any argument you have presented here, can it?
|
- 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 - 09/09/2011 : 11:53:26 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, In your own words, "What is so hard to understand for Harris, O'hair, and Officiant what an agnostic, at least of the kind that we are, is?"
So just what kind of pseudo intellectual dilettante are you Kil? Are you the spotted kind or the yellow-stripped kind? Maybe you are the racist, male chauvinist
Thomas Huxley kind of agnostic who supports the Christian Bible and proselytizing religion in schools? The world really has no need of the wrong-headed Victorian agnostic.
So why do you think real atheists find your kind of agnostic so hard to understand? Is it because, unlike your superior and sensitive kind of agnostic, we are not attuned to the spirit world?
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:11:03 [Permalink]
|
| What a joke |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:13:16 [Permalink]
|
If you build a strawman version of what we are, and then knock it down, you will learn nothing, Officiant. Clearly I suffer from the affliction of thinking I can get through to you even knowing that I can't. What you all have in common is you are lying or don't understand what it means to be agnostic. But I bet a short talk with Harris, and he would agree with me. That will never happen talking to you.
I see you are wallowing in your ad homs, no true Scotsman and strawmen fallacies again. What else is new? Three logical fallacies in one post. Can you go for four?
Edited to add:
| So just what kind of pseudo intellectual dilettante are you Kil? |
Did you ever stop sexually molesting your children, Officiant?
I missed that one. He did manage four logical fallacies in one short paragraph. I think he might be closing in on a world record.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:17:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiantunlike your superior and sensitive kind of agnostic, we are not attuned to the spirit world?
|
Now you've got me worried again. I thought I was free of all this pin-headed agnostic clap-trap, but maybe, just maybe, I'm still plugged into the "spirit world" in some way I'm not even aware of? How can I tell? Help me! Is there some sort of fee associated with becoming a 7th-level atheist, kind of like the Scientologists have? Can I send you a check, or is it OK if I just try and keep my windows rolled up whenever I drive by a church?
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:20:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
What a joke
|
Really. I try not to do this, but Officiant really might be the biggest fool to have ever graced this forum. And again, as I have said, I'm happy that most atheists aren't him, or I would drop the atheist part from how I identify because as Officiant uses the term, it's faith based and exactly the same as a religion.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:27:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hal
Is there some sort of fee associated with becoming a 7th-level atheist, kind of like the Scientologists have? |
I think to reach 7th level Atheist requires experience points, perhaps some gold is involved? I don't play those games... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 12:47:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Hal
Is there some sort of fee associated with becoming a 7th-level atheist, kind of like the Scientologists have? |
I think to reach 7th level Atheist requires experience points, perhaps some gold is involved? I don't play those games...
|
Yup. You have to get the quest from Dawkins or O'Hair and then complete it. You have to save vs INT and fail to attain it.
A couple of grand in XP. To complete the training required I think it costs 4 gp.
Oooooo. Kobold with a sharp stick.
Roll for initiative. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 18:48:06 [Permalink]
|
It's like we are speaking to this guy and his tiny little brain keeps translating what we say into the limited vocabulary he is capable of processing. He really appears incapable of comprehending.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 07:04:38 [Permalink]
|
You agnostics like to keep the door just a little bit open to the God idea. Try this at home. Leave your door open just a little bit. Soon you will be living with rats,mice, squirrels, raccoons, snakes, birds, bats,wasps, mosquitoes, stray cats and all manner of vermin. In the same way giving a nod and waiting forever for the magical 100% proof leaves the door open wide enough for religious nuts to fly airplanes into buildings and wear suicide vests.
|
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 07:16:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
You agnostics like to keep the door just a little bit open to the God idea. Try this at home. Leave your door open just a little bit. Soon you will be living with rats,mice, squirrels, raccoons, snakes, birds, bats,wasps, mosquitoes, stray cats and all manner of vermin. In the same way giving a nod and waiting forever for the magical 100% proof leaves the door open wide enough for religious nuts to fly airplanes into buildings and wear suicide vests. |
So it's another logical fallacy, the argument from consequences, now? Why don't you try to put together something that will hold up under the least little bit of scrutiny? |
- 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 - 09/10/2011 : 08:21:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
You agnostics like to keep the door just a little bit open to the God idea. Try this at home. Leave your door open just a little bit. Soon you will be living with rats,mice, squirrels, raccoons, snakes, birds, bats,wasps, mosquitoes, stray cats and all manner of vermin. In the same way giving a nod and waiting forever for the magical 100% proof leaves the door open wide enough for religious nuts to fly airplanes into buildings and wear suicide vests.
|
You are an idiot. I have told you a dozen times that I do not believe in any god or gods. As far as any god ever described by any human being goes, I am a strong atheist. In fact, I actively reject those ideas as being even remotely plausible, because there is no evidence to support those claims. Rejecting an idea due to lack of evidence is agnostic philosophy in action.
Now, back to your other problem. Stop ignoring this question: What is the test to determine if there is a reality outside of your mind. What evidence can support that claim?
If you can't provide the test for external reality then every claim you make about anything rests on unevidenced assumptions. Clearly you have chosen faith, unquestioning belief, as your answer. The rest of us, those who wish to remain rational, accept that agnosticism must be the default position for this problem. Therefore there must be some uncertainty about anything you think you know.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 09:50:06 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Rejecting an idea due to lack of evidence is agnostic philosophy in action. |
Officiant can't accept that explanation anymore than a creationist can accept the existence of transitional fossils, because if he does, he will have to admit his mistake. So he chooses to ignore it, no matter how often it comes up. After 26 pages of having this concept explained to him over and over again, rather than to offer any objection to it based on a rational argument, he has ignored it in favor of his strawman version of what it means to be agnostic and has not made any attempt to understand what we are actually saying to him. He puts his fingers in his ears and goes la la la la la... In that way he's rather child like in his total rejection of the term. "My Daddy (appeals to authority) says your wrong!" Outside of a cascade of insults, he has yet to make an argument without turning to Daddy for help.
He gets off on calling us intellectual dilettantes which is really just projecting because he is incapable of forming an intellectual argument in support of his own bankrupt position. He just stomps is feet and yells "Daddy says so!"
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
