|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2011 : 10:52:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Merriam-Webster
|
Glad you can define it.
Too bad you don't recognize it in your own posts. |
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 - 09/14/2011 : 10:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Hal, Slowly read Kil's message above where he says, "if you are able to read between the lines"
and then tells me do something anatomically impossible. Now Kil made an incorrect use of the phrase
to sarcastically emphasize his utter contempt for me but I took his lead and used the phrase correctly.
You may have to scroll back a bit but I have repeatedly asked Kil to respond to a claim that agnosticism
is self-refuting. By creating a smoke screen of ad hominems he avoided honestly addressing the question.
So I read between the lines.'I perceived that he is unable to challenge the claim because it is valid.
No clairvoyance was required. If you have difficulty understanding this try answering the claim yourself
and you will see Kil's dilemma.
|
Kil has no dillemma. You, however, do.
You made the claim that agnosticism is self refuting. Kil asked you to support that. You insisted that he "address your claim". You are attempting to cowardly and dishonestly shift the burden of proof from the claimant (you).
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 11:10:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Falconjudge, You better sit down. Go to www.EvilBible.com
|
It'll teach you how to make fallacious arguments based on strawmen.
It ignores the stated moral code in the Bible and instead focuses on the actions of followers irrespective of how conquering armies treated vanquished lands in that area around that time period. |
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 - 09/14/2011 : 11:10:23 [Permalink]
|
Dear Valiant Dancer, Here's a test for your intellectual integrity. Kil avoided answering this. The ball is in your court.
Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.
The link is: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm
|
|
|
|
Falconjudge
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 11:33:26 [Permalink]
|
Fascinating bunch of words. Regrettable that they don't mean anything...
The thing about Agnosticism is, unlike atheism, it has no systems. It's just a more open-minded thought process.
PS, we all know this guy is full of shit, so if we want him to go away, shouldn't we just ignore him all together? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 11:37:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, Here's a test for your intellectual integrity. Kil avoided answering this. The ball is in your court.
Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.
The link is: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm
|
Boy, did that ever do damage to your point.
1) Your link is to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
2) The "self-refuting" portion is opinion based on the second definition out of seven.
3) The seventh definition specifically refutes your contention that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. It specificially states that agnosticism is mostly associated with atheism.
4) The second definition is a relabling of existentalism, not agnosticism. The idea that we cannot know anything based on what we experience ala Emmanuel Kant.
5) The last section is quite clear. "The Agnostic denial of the ability of human reason to know God is directly opposed to Catholic Faith." And with it, your contention that Catholics love agnostics becomes refuted.
And that's just using the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition.
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. 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, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty." - Thomas H. Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity, vol. V (D. Appleton & Co., 1894), pp. 310-11.
Straight from the horse's patoot.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 12:05:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Falconjudge
Fascinating bunch of words. Regrettable that they don't mean anything...
The thing about Agnosticism is, unlike atheism, it has no systems. It's just a more open-minded thought process.
PS, we all know this guy is full of shit, so if we want him to go away, shouldn't we just ignore him all together?
|
At this point, that's not a bad idea. But at the beginning of this thread, many of us were able to present our objections to Officiant's silly thesis and in so doing, help lurkers and people who don't understand what it means to be an agnostic/atheist to understand where we are coming from. In that way, Officiant served a purpose.
And in his way, he is still serving a purpose. Officiant is the poster child for faith based atheism, in which even a pretty good and reasoned position can become dogma if it's not understood correctly. Guy's like Officiant should serve as a warning to the whole freethinking community that not all rational positions are acquired and held rationally. It is possible to turn a lack of belief into a belief system that is no different from religious belief. We know that because Officiant exists.
Has this gone on for too long? Probably. I think all of the points have been made. Hell. I have even answered his "self refuting" question. Sure, I did it sarcastically, but for anyone paying attention, the answer to his question is there, and really, all over this thread. He poses a question aimed at philosophical agnosticism or "complete and total agnosticism" which is not something I happen to promote or agree with. I don't know anyone who does! The argument is made by the Catholic church, because they don't want to deal with empiricism, which is what agnosticism is based on. On that score, they come up empty. And so does Officiant. The Catholic church and Officiant share the same strawman version of agnosticism. So he has aligned himself them. Some atheist, eh? I wonder if he also agrees with their position on contraception as long as he's making them alies of his? |
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 - 09/14/2011 : 12:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Dear Valiant Dancer, I gather you agree with the Bible but you don't like EvilBible.com at all. Where do I find the "stated moral code" in the Bible.
The ten commandments are exposed as garbage by EvilBible and The ThinkingAtheist
The Ten Commandments - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWwzT4ulkA4 min - 5 Oct 2009 - Uploaded by TheThinkingAtheist
Ever wonder if The Ten Commandments were truly the divinely-inspired, foundational rules for our lives...or incomplete, semi-irrelevant rip ... |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 13:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Valiant Dancer, I gather you agree with the Bible but you don't like EvilBible.com at all. Where do I find the "stated moral code" in the Bible.
The ten commandments are exposed as garbage by EvilBible and The ThinkingAtheist
The Ten Commandments - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWwzT4ulkA4 min - 5 Oct 2009 - Uploaded by TheThinkingAtheist
Ever wonder if The Ten Commandments were truly the divinely-inspired, foundational rules for our lives...or incomplete, semi-irrelevant rip ...
|
Nope. You gather, as usual, incorrectly. You project your own failings on others so you can try to ridicule them so you don't have to address refutations of your points.
Did you even READ your link?
The moral codes are in the Ten Commandments and several of the parables of the New Testament. The Evil Bible ignored those specifically and focused instead on the actions of followers. Unlike you, the site at least acknowledges this saying that the codes exist but they were going to focus on the actions of the followers instead.
I also do not claim that Christianity has exclusivity to those moral codes. They are merely all in one document.
Speaking of refutations, the Catholic Encyclopedia also refutes your views on agnostics. Specifically the page you offered as evidence. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/14/2011 13:20:19 |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 19:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Dear Valiant Dancer,
1)We established that back on page 12.
2)Duh. So far you are stating the obvious.
3)I already wrote that agnostic atheists are just using agnosticism as training wheels until they grow up to be real atheists.
4)You can't change the subject of the claim which is all about agnosticism.
5)Didn't ask you about any other sections. Irrelevant.
Had Huxley followed reason as far as it can carry you he would have had to call himself an atheist and would have known better
than to support putting Bibles in schools.
Your entire argument is straight from the horse's patoot which makes it pure horseshit. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 19:06:51 [Permalink]
|
American Atheists have some expertise on the subject of Cowardly Agnostics. Don't run away and cut me off just yet Kil; I'm just getting started here.
American Atheists | Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism
www.atheists.org/Agnosticism%3A_The_Basis_for_Atheism - Cached
What does all of this have to do with Agnosticism? Everything, as it turns out. Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and .. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 19:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
American Atheists have some expertise on the subject of Cowardly Agnostics. Don't run away and cut me off just yet Kil; I'm just getting started here.
American Atheists | Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism
www.atheists.org/Agnosticism%3A_The_Basis_for_Atheism - Cached
What does all of this have to do with Agnosticism? Everything, as it turns out. Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and .. |
Another own goal by Officiant:...Agnosticism is not an alternative position to Atheism, because Agnosticism and Atheism are completely different kinds of phenomena, not simply different positions on the same continuum. Agnosticism is in fact not a position at all but a method for arriving at a position. It is not on the belief spectrum in any sense. Second, Agnosticism is the only proper approach to the particular problem it addresses - the problem of knowledge - and as such it is not only compatible with Atheism but is actually a foundation, the essential foundation, for Atheism.
...
My conclusion is that everyone is agnostic or at least should be; Agnosticism, like reason, is the only trustworthy method for threshing the true from the false.
...
It should be immanently clear that there is no agnostic path to Theism. Agnosticism is a path indeed - the only viable and reliable path - through the thicket of theistic claims, but its necessary and inevitable destination is Atheism. (My bold.)
So according to Officiant's volunteered reference, Officiant either is an agnostic or should be one.
It's a shame that he's also a cowardly fascist Catholic-lover. |
- 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 - 09/14/2011 : 20:00:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
5)Didn't ask you about any other sections. Irrelevant. |
Yeah, this seals it. I know the method to your madness now. You're just willfully ignoring what your own sources say, and making shit up instead. This allows you to:- deny that Dawkins ever said that certain types of agnosticism are justified,
- claim that Eller's article supports your contention that agnostics are cowards when it really demands that all atheists be agnostic, and now
- deny that Catholics hate agnostics, only because you refuse to read that section of the document.
Covering your ears, closing your eyes and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" when presented with facts is a brilliant political strategy, Officiant, isn't it? I'm sure you'll gain many converts to atheism using it. Look at how successful creationism has been by using the same tactic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 20:06:24 [Permalink]
|
I was reading that thinking WTF? This guy understands why we are agnostic/atheists. He knows that they are completely different in that one is a method and the other a conclusion. Agnosticism informs atheism. So why would Officiant send us to someone who gets what we have been telling him?
I can't wait to hear how he will spin that one... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
