|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2011 : 20:16:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I can't wait to hear how he will spin this one... |
He will simply quote one half-sentence, "Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice..." and deny that the rest of the article exists. If you tell him about other parts of the article, he will steadfastly assert that you are wrong about the article. If you quote other parts of the article, he will ignore them. That's how he behaved regarding his Dawkins quote.
On a serious note: Why the hell would anyone adhere to a "philosophy of atheism?" My atheism is a conclusion drawn from an empirical application of evidentialism. In that sense, atheism is just a label for a particular state of being within the realm of questions of theology. It's no more a philosophy than red is a philosophy of hair color. |
- 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 : 20:29:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
I can't wait to hear how he will spin this one... |
He will simply quote one half-sentence, "Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice..." and deny that the rest of the article exists. If you tell him about other parts of the article, he will steadfastly assert that you are wrong about the article. If you quote other parts of the article, he will ignore them. That's how he behaved regarding his Dawkins quote.
On a serious note: Why the hell would anyone adhere to a "philosophy of atheism?" My atheism is a conclusion drawn from an empirical application of evidentialism. In that sense, atheism is just a label for a particular state of being within the realm of questions of theology. It's no more a philosophy than red is a philosophy of hair color.
|
Yes. He gets that part wrong. Atheism is a conclusion. It doesn't inform anything beyond being an answer to those who ask if you believe in any sort of god.
The stance of "New Atheists" might be considered a philosophy. A way of dealing with the politics that happen once you say you are an atheist. But that's just a stance and it doesn't have to be atheism in particular. The same stance can and has been taken by gays, for example. |
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 - 09/14/2011 : 20:48:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The stance of "New Atheists" might be considered a philosophy. A way of dealing with the politics that happen once you say you are an atheist. But that's just a stance and it doesn't have to be atheism in particular. The same stance can and has been taken by gays, for example. |
Yeah, the New Atheism is a political movement. Eller seems to think that the "philosophy of Atheism" is also a "cause," though, one which can be "hurt" by atheists who think of atheism in the wrong way. Okay, maybe he just meant "politics" when he said "philosophy." |
- 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 - 09/14/2011 : 22:09:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
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.
|
I'm not changing subject of the claim. I am correcting a bad document with an actual real term. You refuse to accept it. Typical.
Your opinion is worthless in light of your continued intellectual dishonesty.
Doesn't matter if you asked me about other sections. I merely refused to allow you to cherry pick quotes out of the entire document.
Huxley's quote goes to the heart of agnosticism because he invented the term. Within that quote is the true meaning of the term, not the skewed and patently incorrect version used by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
And more Ad homs that you decry in posts against you. Why am I not surprised.
|
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 : 23:46:24 [Permalink]
|
From Officiant's latest link:
| Atheists who dilute their Atheism into Agnosticism are not only doing the cause and philosophy of Atheism a disservice, but they are also committing a crucial conceptual error - and allowing others to commit it too. The error is the assertion that "Agnostic" is some third thing to be, an alternative to both belief and non-belief, and in fact a milder and more acceptable alternative to belief than Atheism. Agnostics are supposedly people who claim to be "undecided" about religious questions or possibly uninterested in them. They are "not sure" or noncommittal, they do not have "enough information," and hypothetically they are waiting, actively or passively, for some basis on which to settle the two "claims" of Theism and Atheism. Agnostics - persons who declare themselves to be Agnostics - allegedly say "I don't know." |
You know what's funny about this? It's not us committing a crucial conceptual error. It's Officiant making the mistake. What he's doing is claiming that the above paragraph discribes us, but in reality, it discribes Officiant's mistaken understanding of what agnosticism is and trying to foist it on us, even though we keep correcting him. He's the one committing a crucial conceptual error!
I agree with the author. Anyone who thinks agnosticism is some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism is making a mistake. That would be you, Officiant.
 |
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 - 09/15/2011 : 07:00:26 [Permalink]
|
Kil, Do you agree that all agnostics are leaving the door open for God to come and give them a warm fuzzy hug?
Falconjudge
New Member
USA
18 Posts
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 08:57:19 [Permalink] Show Profile Email Poster Send Falconjudge a Private Message Reply with Quote
Hey, I'm an Agnostic. You know why?
Because I've known, all my life, that a loving God is up there taking care of us. Now that I can't be a Christian anymore (truth and proof vs rhetoric, can't I still just believe that part? Do you know how horrible it is to imagine having arms around you your entire life, and then just suddenly have them not just gone, but find out that they were never there in the first place?
Once a person wakes up from the dream of Biblical infallibility, what's next? Can you really just expect us to accept that no, no loving power is keeping us safe, that we're really alone, save for the rest of evil humanity? Agnosticism leaves the door open, at least. A little, probably vain, hope that maybe, maybe we're wrong, and there is someone out there. And, at least, it has no specific superstition of its own! At least, that's how I feel.
Come on, give us this one. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 07:11:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, Do you agree that all agnostics are leaving the door open for God to come and give them a warm fuzzy hug?
Falconjudge
New Member
USA
18 Posts
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 08:57:19 [Permalink] Show Profile Email Poster Send Falconjudge a Private Message Reply with Quote
Hey, I'm an Agnostic. You know why?
Because I've known, all my life, that a loving God is up there taking care of us. Now that I can't be a Christian anymore (truth and proof vs rhetoric, can't I still just believe that part? Do you know how horrible it is to imagine having arms around you your entire life, and then just suddenly have them not just gone, but find out that they were never there in the first place?
Once a person wakes up from the dream of Biblical infallibility, what's next? Can you really just expect us to accept that no, no loving power is keeping us safe, that we're really alone, save for the rest of evil humanity? Agnosticism leaves the door open, at least. A little, probably vain, hope that maybe, maybe we're wrong, and there is someone out there. And, at least, it has no specific superstition of its own! At least, that's how I feel.
Come on, give us this one.
|
No, he doesn't. Your rash generalization is a load of crap.
Ouiqa board malfunctioning for you or is the mind reading just off?
Oh, I know, you are inventing something to justify your position. Just like normal for your intellectually dishonest method. |
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 - 09/15/2011 : 07:54:18 [Permalink]
|
"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." American Atheists
I am a proud Atheist. I've reached the inevitable destination. Perpetual procrastinators; agnostics are still dithering and dawdling like toddlers on the road to reason. While agnostics are half asleep and navel gazing the Imams are building their mosques. Have you seen them going up in your own neighborhood? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 08:08:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
"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." American Atheists
I am a proud Atheist. I've reached the inevitable destination. Perpetual procrastinators; agnostics are still dithering and dawdling like toddlers on the road to reason. While agnostics are half asleep and navel gazing the Imams are building their mosques. Have you seen them going up in your own neighborhood? |
Well, I was wrong about what Officiant was going to say in particular, but I was right that he was going to flatly ignore the point of the article he referenced.
And then he tops it off with fear mongering. But that's a fascist for ya. |
- 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 - 09/15/2011 : 08:45:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, Do you agree that all agnostics are leaving the door open for God to come and give them a warm fuzzy hug? |
No. Agnosticism is a method of looking at evidence. What it says is that if the evidence doesn’t exist, from a scientific standpoint all that we can say with any degree of certainty is that we see no evidence. We shouldn’t make positive claims about the existence of something that lacks empirical evidence to support its existence. That’s it! Science, of course, leaves the door open for anything that is supported by empirical evidence. That’s how science rolls. It’s a dry method. What it isn’t is a conclusion. It might inform a conclusion, but that’s the application of a different epistemology. Based on a complete lack of empirical evidence, I conclude that there is no god. I am both agnostic and an atheist. By the way, agnosticism doesn't only apply to religious claims.
As for Falconjudge, he has started out on a journey. It’s impossible for me to know where it will lead, but only last week he was a Christian with many doubts. If he has any questions about agnostisism, he can find them in this thread and in other places. Leaving a life long religion is a trauma, and I’m unwilling to beat him over the head with your crap, Officiant.
Originally posted by Officiant
"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." American Atheists
I am a proud Atheist. I've reached the inevitable destination. Perpetual procrastinators; agnostics are still dithering and dawdling like toddlers on the road to reason. While agnostics are half asleep and navel gazing the Imams are building their mosques. Have you seen them going up in your own neighborhood?
|
Way to miss the point of the sentence you quoted. Way to miss the concept! But then, your atheism is faith based and the opposite of a reasoned approach. You just blew a learning chance in order to cling to your bigotry. Nice work.
Just for a moment there, I thought you might get it. How silly of me.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 09:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
"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." American Atheists
I am a proud Atheist. I've reached the inevitable destination. Perpetual procrastinators; agnostics are still dithering and dawdling like toddlers on the road to reason. While agnostics are half asleep and navel gazing the Imams are building their mosques. Have you seen them going up in your own neighborhood?
|
Your problem is one of reading comprehension. You share this problem with other faith based fundamentalists like yourself too, just so you know. You and people like Ken Ham look at a simple English sentence and you filter it through your faith, you completely ignore context if it helps you support your conclusion, and you ignore the meaning of the writer in favor of your own distorted definition.
Let me translate that sentence for you:
Agnosticism = method
Atheism = conclusion reached via applied agnosticism
Atheism is not a rejection of agnosticism, it is a conclusion you reach when you apply agnosticism.
You are so firmly entrenched in your faith that even if your tiny brain comprehends this you can't admit your mistake here now. Your pride won't let you.
Now hurry up and answer my question.
|
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 - 09/15/2011 : 10:37:24 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil and Dude, Do you not consider Victor Stenger and Stephan Hawking to be respected men of science? They both separately came to a conclusion. The best scientific evidence shows that God does not and can not exist. Will agnosticism ever come to this conclusion?
As for Falconjudge let us lead him directly to his necessary and inevitable destination which is atheism. Let us get him cleanly out of the swamp and morass of theology. There no need for anyone to waste their time on wrong-headed wishy-washy Victorian methods. Do you want him to avoid reality and remain agnostic forever.? Cut to the chase.
This from marfknox back on page 9.
I used to be an agnostic. Existentially, it was the most frightening few years of my life because my worldview contained no certainty about anything. When I became intellectually convinced of an atheistic worldview, I felt relieved. I find the idea of real, final death comforting at times, because let's face it, a lot of life is pain. It also makes my life seem that much more valuable to know that it is temporary. But more than anything, the idea of some weird, unknown afterlife scares the shit out of me! I don't mean hell. The concept of a literal hell such as born-again types believe in is just childish. But just the idea that somehow our memories and self awareness continue on in some unknown way - that's kind of creepy. People find the concept of an afterlife comforting because they avoid thinking about it too hard.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 10:45:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
The best scientific evidence shows that God does not and can not exist. |
For certain specific definitions of "God." Once again, Officiant ignores everything that doesn't match his prejudice. |
- 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 - 09/15/2011 : 11:23:45 [Permalink]
|
Officiant said:| Dear Kil and Dude, Do you not consider Victor Stenger and Stephan Hawking to be respected men of science? They both separately came to a conclusion. The best scientific evidence shows that God does not and can not exist. Will agnosticism ever come to this conclusion? |
I am not responsible for your failure to understand the words of those men. You don't understand what they have to say and you are immune to correction.
Now answer my question.
|
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 - 09/15/2011 : 12:31:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil and Dude, Do you not consider Victor Stenger and Stephan Hawking to be respected men of science? They both separately came to a conclusion. The best scientific evidence shows that God does not and can not exist. Will agnosticism ever come to this conclusion?
As for Falconjudge let us lead him directly to his necessary and inevitable destination which is atheism. Let us get him cleanly out of the swamp and morass of theology. There no need for anyone to waste their time on wrong-headed wishy-washy Victorian methods. Do you want him to avoid reality and remain agnostic forever.? Cut to the chase.
This from marfknox back on page 9.
I used to be an agnostic. Existentially, it was the most frightening few years of my life because my worldview contained no certainty about anything. When I became intellectually convinced of an atheistic worldview, I felt relieved. I find the idea of real, final death comforting at times, because let's face it, a lot of life is pain. It also makes my life seem that much more valuable to know that it is temporary. But more than anything, the idea of some weird, unknown afterlife scares the shit out of me! I don't mean hell. The concept of a literal hell such as born-again types believe in is just childish. But just the idea that somehow our memories and self awareness continue on in some unknown way - that's kind of creepy. People find the concept of an afterlife comforting because they avoid thinking about it too hard.
|
I suppose that area of expertice is a foreign concept to you.
Lets take the subject of one Noam Chomsky. He is an expert in liguistics. When he speaks on history, he is not an expert.
But to good ol Pope Officiant I of Atheism, a scientist is a scientist. Expertice in all things scientific can be attributed to them.
Hawking as misquoted by you is an expert on a great deal of scientific disciplines such as astrophysics. He is not an expert on paleontology.
Whether they are considered respected men of science is immaterial to the subject of expertice. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
