|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 18:37:04 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Fripp, I am not the guy in the Agnosticism is not a middle ground youtube. Could someone please invite him to the scrum on this forum before Kil pulls the pin? |
 |
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 18:45:56 [Permalink]
|
Dear H. Humbert, Agnosticism is a method avoiding the inevitable default position which is atheism. If that is not correct please reiterate
just what Kil has been saying. Thank you for your kind patience and understanding.
You don't have to answer this but are you also a Wiccan? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 18:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Kil, From what you've told me agnosticism is a method avoiding the inevitable default position which is atheism. |
This quote takes my breath away. First off, it's a lie or such a gross misunderstanding of what agnosticism is, that, well... It takes my breath away. Second, it ignores that as a method, agnosticism can't come to a conclusion. But I have. Based on my agnosticism, I'm an atheist. It's all been explained. Officiant will never get it because I dunno? He's stupid? He's insane? Perhaps both? lMaybe he's just trolling now? He linked to an article that explains all of this, and we have been trying to explain his mistake for 37 pages now. Nothing gets through and nothing ever will get through. Ever! (Unless he's trolling. But I don't think he is. And even if he were he would still pretend to be amazingly dense. So if he's faking it or he's for real, it doesn't make a difference.)
That said, I'm rather doubtful this thread serves any useful purpose any longer. Hmmmm... What to do? What to do?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2011 : 19:19:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear H. Humbert, Agnosticism is a method avoiding the inevitable default position which is atheism. |
That is an incorrect answer.
| If that is not correct please reiterate just what Kil has been saying. Thank you for your kind patience and understanding. |
Officiant, it would do no good for me to repeat what has already been said. It is important that you demonstrate the capability of correctly understanding your opponent's position. After all, if you cannot be said to understand it, then you cannot be said to have refuted it. In short, if you can't accurately restate the definition of agnosticism as presented by Kil, then you lose the debate by default. And it seems like Kil is getting ready to lock the thread, so you better do it quickly if you don't want to be officially declared a loser.
You don't have to answer this but are you also a Wiccan?
|
I am not a Wiccan. I'm an atheist.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/16/2011 19:20:30 |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 02:17:00 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, while Dr. Mabuse may need to apologize to marfknox, I think Officiant may need to apologize to marf for posting a reply so poorly that marf's words could be easily mistaken for Officiant's, resulting in unintentional plagiarism. |
“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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 04:48:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, while Dr. Mabuse may need to apologize to marfknox, I think Officiant may need to apologize to marf for posting a reply so poorly that marf's words could be easily mistaken for Officiant's, resulting in unintentional plagiarism.
|
Indeed.
Marfknox, I apologise for my sloppy reading, and thinking that what you wrote was something of Officiant's.
My interpretation of what was written, as if written by Officiant, made so much sense.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/17/2011 04:51:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 08:18:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Let's wait and see if you can show some class, Dr. Mabuse. |
How about showing some class of your own by answering some questions?- 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?
- 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?
- Did you ever stop sexually molesting your children, Officiant?
- 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?
- What is the test to determine if there is a reality outside of your mind. What evidence can support that claim?
- Ever hear of a slippery slope argument?
- If you didn't get it the first time, why on earth would I take the time to do it again?
- Also, at 27 pages, don't you think it's time for you to learn how to use the quote tags on this site?
- Or to at least learn to write in paragraphs?
- So you skipped answering the question: [Stenger]'s such a no-body you couldn't bother a single sentece?
- Then why bring him up in the first place?
- Who is right, Sagan or Stenger?
- Officiant, in all seriousness, how often do you pray to yourself?
- Sagan would say that agnosticism is science, wouldn't he?
- Why is Sagan wrong and Stenger right?
- Why should we care about how Stenger defines an agnostic when we don't fit that description?
- Do you think that just because Stenger uses a word that we use, that we necessarily agree with his definition?
- Well, see, Officiant, O'Hair was wrong right there, wasn't she?
- You certainly cannot provide any evidence that I'm an ally of any church, can you?
- What the fuck is an "agnostic follower," anyway?
- Where was O'Hair's evidence to support her claims?
- Why won't you support your claims with evidence?
- Stenger appears to be stupefied by religious people who won't back up their claims with evidence, so I imagine he would be dumbfounded by you, as well, right?
- You've done nothing but point to your own version of the Holy Books - even citing chapter and verse - in defense of your claims, haven't you?
- Why are you so much of a coward that you won't answer most of the questions put to you?
- Since angels don't exist, the question is nonsensical, isn't it?
- So in your view agnosticism is actually worse than theism?
- You're an atheist who believes in angels?
- Where is your evidence that angels exist?
- Is this all you have? Endless appeals to authority?
- You're quoting a Roman Catholic Sunday-school teacher, now?
- Who cares how the Catholic church defines agnosticism?
- What does that have to do with the fact that you used a comedian (Colbert) play-acting in a role as an Appeal to Authority?
- Instead, why don't you answer even one of your specious claims?
- Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need a Famous Name to lend credence to your argument?
- Are you [sure] you're not a Jesus-freak?
- And Dawkins says that certain types of agnosticism are justifiable, contradicting some other of your experts. Who is correct, and why?
- And how does that relate to your Colbert quote?
- Who says that Huxley is my hero? You?
- You get that out of my head through mind reading or did you use Tarot, oh Pope of Atheists(tm)?
- What exactly were you trying to accomplish with this topic of yours?
- Why do you think the violent restriction of civil liberties is the only solution to the problem, Officiant?
- Tell me: exactly how successful has "ridicule" been here at Skeptic Friends?
- Did you even READ your link?
- 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?
- Ouiqa board malfunctioning for you or is the mind reading just off?
- Are you really this dumb? Honestly. Are you?
- So tell me Officiant. Do you think we should claim to have knowledge that we do not have?
- Who died and made you the boss around here?
- What have you won, Officiant?
- Do you have children?
- Q for you: If you're so "brave", why are you such a gutless turd about supporting your innumerable claims?
- Don't you have to know what agnosticism is to make a case that it's being erroneously used?
- Can you demonstrate even a basic understanding of his [Kil's] objections?
- How is that different than a christian who have just been saved from hell through his belief in Jesus Christ?
- Officiant, high school was a tough time for you, wasn't it?
- Is this how you're getting back at the jocks and the girls who ignored you?
|
- 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 - 09/17/2011 : 08:55:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dude, You wrote, "Now, if you can't answer my question," and "a question philosophers have struggled with for millennia and no one has been able to answer it."
Is this the only tune you can play? You been asking the same goofy question ad nauseam for weeks. No one has answered it for thousands of years. How many more thousands
of years are you going to keep on asking the same unanswerable question??
I believe that religion is the greatest cause of human misery and we should use education to eradicate it.
My cause is to convert the cowardly fence sitting agnostics into brave rational atheists and so remove this deceitful pillar of faith.
|
You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Your response only proves that you are immune to rational argument.
You lose. You can't provide a test for my question, you can't back your assertion that science can test any real world problem, and you can't even accurately define agnisticism after it has been defined for you a dozen times.
The funny thing is, if there was actually a person who fit the distorted definition of agnostic you use, most of us would be at least partly on your side of the argument.
Your problem is the same one all religious fundamentalists have, you can't be reasoned out if you position because you didn't use reason to get there in the first place.
You also still fail to even understand my question to you. Epistemology is not casually dismissed, it represents a very real problem for anyone with the brains to think about it. The fact that you can't prove reality exists outside your head should humble you, your imbecilic dismissal of the problem means only that you don't understand it. Did you even open the link I gave you on induction? Too many big words for you maybe?
You lose, and its time for you to move on to a new topic if you aren't even going to make an effort to participate in this one.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 11:34:40 [Permalink]
|
I just found this:
Originally posted by Officiant
Dr. Mabuse, You really are septic. In fact I find you quite odious in your clumsy attempts to slur me. By now you surely realize your blunder in attributing the insights of marfknox to me. |
Yes. When I read Podcat mentioning I probably owed Marf an apology, I started wondring for what. Looking through the thread, I realised my mistake and apologised for it the moment I realised my mistake. I just now found this little post by Officiant.
You see, unlike Officiant, I am open to be corrected when I'm wrong and when I make mistakes.
Your nasty jibes were aimed at me Officiant. |
...and well deserved, I think. It would make sense, but now in retrospect, I realise that is does not jab with the fact that Officiant is extensively using the works of the "sworn enemies", the Catholics, as ammunition for his derision against agnostics. It would make more sense that he was an undercover Catholic, or a former Catholic who exchanged his belief in the Catholic God for a belief in Atheism.
The mistake was repeated by Hal. |
Probably other as well. I have already criticised you for not using forum formatting to attribute quotes. Your unwillingess to correct yourself dispite being asked to do so makes this partly your fault. Yes, I should have double-checked. And I apologised as soon as I realised my mistake.
Let's wait and see if you can show some class, Dr. Mabuse.
|
Oh, I do have class. Something that can't be attributed to you, Officiant.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/17/2011 11:38:50 |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 11:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Dear H. Humbert, From your recent posting. "If that is not correct please reiterate just what Kil has been saying. Thank you for your kind patience and understanding.
Officiant, it would do no good for me to repeat what has already been said. It is important that you demonstrate the capability of correctly understanding your opponent's position. After all, if you cannot be said to understand it, then you cannot be said to have refuted it. In short, if you can't accurately restate the definition of agnosticism as presented by Kil, then you lose the debate by default. And it seems like Kil is getting ready to lock the thread, so you better do it quickly if you don't want to be officially declared a loser."
It seems to me that you are avoiding answering the question on the pretext it has been answered somewhere else. You could have simply reiterated the position using far less Keystrokes. I understand the dictionary definition. I am really trying to understand your position on agnosticism and instead of telling me what it is I'm told I am too stupid to understand so it would do no good.
Please be patient with me. If it has already been said then just take a minute to cut and paste the answer. Thank you in advance for your time and co-operation.
I have no agnosticism in my life and I don't think I'm missing anything. I can express any idea without it.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 13:45:05 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
I have no agnosticism in my life and I don't think I'm missing anything. I can express any idea without it. |
This may be one of the funniest statements I have ever read on the SFN forum.
Okay then. Explain how you can conclude that there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden?
(Hint. Now that you have said that you have no agnosticism in your life, you can't use a lack of evidence for fairies to arrive at your conclusion.)
Good luck!
|
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 - 09/17/2011 : 14:21:04 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, You don't understand the scientific method. You are the claimant here. The onus is on you to provide the evidence of that claim.
Good luck! Consider the probability. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 14:28:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, You don't understand the scientific method. You are the claimant here. The onus is on you to provide the evidence of that claim.
Good luck! Consider the probability.
|
Really? What's my claim? |
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 - 09/17/2011 : 14:41:34 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, Sloppy thinking is your problem. Podcat was clearly referring to my previous post requesting you apologize.
In any event you have apologized and good for you.
Please be assured that I am pure Atheist. My list of ingredients does not contain anything nutty like agnosticism.
I have more respect for Catholics than I do for agnostics. At least they have a sense of direction.
Ditch water has a better sense of direction than the dithering agnostic. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 14:44:41 [Permalink]
|
Kil, You claim, "there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden"
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
