|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2011 : 15:00:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, You claim, "there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden"
|
Where do you get that? I made no such claim. Of course, I don't think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. My agnosticism informs my very strong doubt along those lines.
But again, I made no such claim. And once again, either your reading comprehension is very bad, (as to be almost non existant) or you are a liar, Officiant. Either way... |
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 : 15:06:32 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I did check out induction. There's mathematical, electromagnetic, teacher and presidential induction.
There's even induction cooking and the induction of labor at childbirth. Please instruct us all how it relates to
to cowardly agnosticism.
As to your unsolvable for millenia question, please fold it over and wipe your ass with it. There is your answer. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 15:08:06 [Permalink]
|
| Come to think of it, you are such a failure at critical thinking Officiant that maybe you should just give it up. Your inability to grasp even the simplest concepts and your willingness to change what is actually on the page to suit yourself was at one time interesting. Now it's just tedious. |
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 : 15:13:04 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, Those are your words. You were not misquoted. I copy and pasted them. Sheesh.
A little bit agnostic is like being a little bit crazy. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 15:42:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, Those are your words. You were not misquoted. I copy and pasted them. Sheesh.
A little bit agnostic is like being a little bit crazy.
|
Me:
Explain how you can conclude that there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden? |
(Bold and underline is mine.)
Officiant:
Kil, You claim, "there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden" |
So you think you get to remove the context, the full sentence of what I wrote, and then say that I made a claim, and you are being honest? NO! That makes you a liar! A quote minor! So completely lacking in integrity that nothing you say is worth regarding seriously. You have no credibility. It wasn't enough that you got agnosticism wrong. You get critical thinking wrong, skepticism wrong, science wrong, and even atheism wrong. In fact I'd be hard pressed to know exactly what, if anything, you're right about?
You are a complete fail!!! |
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 : 15:50:55 [Permalink]
|
Consider three schools teaching mathematics to children. One is religious, one is atheist and the third school is agnostic.
In the religious and atheist schools the children are taught that 1+1=2. Agnostics don't believe in certainty so in the agnostic
school the children are taught that sometimes 1+1=1.9999 and sometimes 1+1=2.0001 but you cannot come to conclusion because
agnosticism is only a method not a conclusion.
Falconjudge is a recent Christian. Kil said he would not hit him over the head with atheism. He wants Falcon to remain in the
halfway house of agnosticism before confronting him with the reality that atheism is the default position. Kil wants to tell
Falconjudge that he doesn't have to face a Godless world. There is no certainty so he can keep a foot in the God camp as Madalyn
O'Hair said.
Kil is an enabler like the wife with an alcoholic husband who pays for and even picks up her husband's beer and liquor. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 15:53:06 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Falconjudge is a recent Christian. Kil said he would not hit him over the head with atheism. He wants Falcon to remain in the
halfway house of agnosticism before confronting him with the reality that atheism is the default position. Kil wants to tell
Falconjudge that he doesn't have to face a Godless world. There is no certainty so he can keep a foot in the God camp as Madalyn
O'Hair said. |
More lies. What I said is that I'm unwilling to beat him over the head with your crap! Go look, asshole. |
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 : 16:17:29 [Permalink]
|
Kil, I was cleaning up your potty mouth language. Have you ever won an argument by out-cussing your opponent?
Let's try to be civilized here. When your opponent runs out of logical argument and is reduced to name calling you know you've got him on the ropes.
You made a claim; now provide the evidence for it. I have provided reams of evidence from respected sources.
Do you agree with your Wiccan buddy Valiant Dancer that only expert theologians can comment on matters of religion? Are you Wiccan as well?
Maybe you are a Scientologist? They are atheist I think. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 16:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, I was cleaning up your potty mouth language. Have you ever won an argument by out-cussing your opponent?
Let's try to be civilized here. When your opponent runs out of logical argument and is reduced to name calling you know you've got him on the ropes. |
You have been calling us names since you got here. I can't begin to match you in name calling, you hypocrite. And logical arguments roll off you like water off a ducks back. No real point in even attempting a logical argument with you anymore. You lost back on page three. You have not once refuted my position because, as Humbert correctly pointed out, you can't even describe it. How can you refute what you can't describe?
Officiant:
You made a claim; now provide the evidence for it. I have provided reams of evidence from respected sources. |
You seem once again to be completely lacking in reading comprehension skills. I just adressed your lie about the "claim" you say I made. And most of your citing's have supported our position. You have provided no evidence what-so-ever that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes." Not a shred. Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth, you know. Or maybe you don't know?
Officiant:
Do you agree with your Wiccan buddy Valiant Dancer that only expert theologians can comment on matters of religion? Are you Wiccan as well?
Maybe you are a Scientologist? They are atheist I think.
|
Did Val actually say that? Or are you taking something else out of context? If he did say that, (which I doubt) no. I don't agree that only expert theologians can comment on matters of religion. But in areas like historicity and other more scholarly theological pursuits, yeah. Just like I can comment and even debate for evolution, but I haven't the expert knowledge of an evolutionary biologist. That is why we cite experts in the field they are expert in. If it's not their field that they are opining about, and we invoke their credentials to support an argument that is outside of their field, that is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean they're wrong, necessarily. But to say that
Stephan Hawking, a theoretical physicist, is an expert in theology because he's a theoretical physicist, or even just a scientist, is a logical fallacy.
And no. I'm an agnostic/atheist. Where it comes to questions of god and faith, that's it. Agnosticism is the method, atheism is the conclusion. <--- A concept that is clearly over your head.
I've never actually said this to anyone on this forum before, but you, Officiant, got your ass handed to you, and you're too dumb to know it. |
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 - 09/17/2011 : 17:37:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dude, I did check out induction. There's mathematical, electromagnetic, teacher and presidential induction.
There's even induction cooking and the induction of labor at childbirth. Please instruct us all how it relates to
to cowardly agnosticism.
As to your unsolvable for millenia question, please fold it over and wipe your ass with it. There is your answer.
|
You don't even know what an inductive argument is. That speaks to the depth of your ignorance. You are actually unaware of how out of your depth you are.
|
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 - 09/17/2011 : 18:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Kil, Are you saying that one of greatest minds on the planet Stephan Hawking cannot determine that God is a fairytale because he is not a qualified theologian???
Are you aware that Victor Stenger is not only an emeritus professor of physics and astronomy but he is also a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado.
Is that enough expertise in theology for you? He uses science to shows that God does not exist. Can anyone on this thread refute him?
Do you skeptics think science has not advanced sufficiently to examine God? You are talking like religious fundamentalists. Time to take off the agnostic/ training wheels. Be a proud Atheist
and stand on your own.
Science is the method and it doesn't require the fiddling wishy-washy method of the agnostic. Agnosticism is not atheism. I say atheism is the default position; you say it is the conclusion.
Why not bring people to the inevitable conclusion without dragging them through the swamp first?
Here's some thing to scare you Kil.
www.ChristianPartyNC.com |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 18:57:09 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dude, Help me out of my ignorance. I'm asking you again. Tell us how inductive argument shows that agnosticism is not pure garbage.
Did you finally work out an answer to your question? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 19:11:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Are you aware that Victor Stenger is not only an emeritus professor of physics and astronomy but he is also a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado.
Is that enough expertise in theology for you? He uses science to shows that God does not exist. Can anyone on this thread refute him? |
This happened already. Stenger proves that only a particular sort of god does not exist.| Do you skeptics think science has not advanced sufficiently to examine God? |
Yes, when god presents itself for examination.| You are talking like religious fundamentalists. |
Bwahahahahahahaha! This coming from the guy who wants to violently oppose the building of mosques.Science is the method and it doesn't require the fiddling wishy-washy method of the agnostic. Agnosticism is not atheism. I say atheism is the default position; you say it is the conclusion.
Why not bring people to the inevitable conclusion without dragging them through the swamp first? |
Your own references explain why: it's important that people come to atheism through a rational process, and not as a faith like yours.Why are you promoting the fundamentalist Constitution Party, Officiant? Isn't there a Catholic political party for you to support? |
- 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 - 09/17/2011 : 19:40:55 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
Kil, Are you saying that one of greatest minds on the planet Stephan Hawking cannot determine that God is a fairytale because he is not a qualified theologian???
Are you aware that Victor Stenger is not only an emeritus professor of physics and astronomy but he is also a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado.
Is that enough expertise in theology for you? He uses science to shows that God does not exist. Can anyone on this thread refute him? |
I dunno. Why would we want to? What I can say is that the god that they debunk is assumed to be constrained by the physical laws of this universe as I have already explained to you. As an agnostic, I dismiss ALL possible gods, because there is no evidence for any of the hundreds if not thousands of god concepts. Hawking and Strenger are very impressive in debunking one version of god. And I see the value in doing that. But they didn’t have to do it for my benefit. Do you think I actually sit around and wonder if that god exists? As I said before, I really enjoyed the Hawking video. I loved the science in the video. But the claim that he has debunked god is a stretch. He debunked one version of god. The beauty of the agnostic approach is I don't have to consider any god claim, no matter what god is being proposed. Without evidence, god is a non-starter. And unless actual empirical evidence shows up for a god or gods, I never will have to consider any god claim. Debunking god claims is all well and good but ultimately unnecessary because understanding what we can legitimately say about a claim lacking any evidence is already science based. Or to put it another way, agnostics could have told Strenger and Hawking what they were likely to find.
So you go ahead and keep knocking your Merriam-Webster’s version of agnosticism and keep foisting that version on us. Go for it. Knock yourself out. They've got it wrong and you've got it wrong. Given all that has been explained to you, if you prefer putting your ignorance on display, what can I do about it? Keep calling us names. Whatever...
Officiant:
Do you skeptics think science has not advanced sufficiently to examine God? |
Debunking one concept of god is all well and good. As I said, it’s interesting. Of course, neither of them debunked a pantheistic god, now did they? One down!
Officiant:
You are talking like religious fundamentalists. |
No. You are. We here, most of us anyhow, are talking like agnostic/atheists. Fundementalists, like you Officiant, are satisfied basing their belief on faith.
Officiant:
Why not bring people to the inevitable conclusion without dragging them through the swamp first? |
You mean I should just tell them to have faith that god doesn’t exist? I think a better way is to show them a method that when applied demonstrates that god is not even worth considering unless there is evidence to consider a god, which there isn't. You know… Science.
Officiant:
Here's some thing to scare you Kil. |
Yes. That does scare me. What’s your point?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2011 : 17:27:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Officiant
Kil, I was cleaning up your potty mouth language. Have you ever won an argument by out-cussing your opponent?
Let's try to be civilized here. When your opponent runs out of logical argument and is reduced to name calling you know you've got him on the ropes. |
You have been calling us names since you got here. I can't begin to match you in name calling, you hypocrite. And logical arguments roll off you like water off a ducks back. No real point in even attempting a logical argument with you anymore. You lost back on page three. You have not once refuted my position because, as Humbert correctly pointed out, you can't even describe it. How can you refute what you can't describe?
Officiant:
You made a claim; now provide the evidence for it. I have provided reams of evidence from respected sources. |
You seem once again to be completely lacking in reading comprehension skills. I just adressed your lie about the "claim" you say I made. And most of your citing's have supported our position. You have provided no evidence what-so-ever that "Agnostic atheists are cowardly pseudo-intellectual dilettantes." Not a shred. Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth, you know. Or maybe you don't know?
Officiant:
Do you agree with your Wiccan buddy Valiant Dancer that only expert theologians can comment on matters of religion? Are you Wiccan as well?
Maybe you are a Scientologist? They are atheist I think.
|
Did Val actually say that? Or are you taking something else out of context? If he did say that, (which I doubt) |
Nope. I did not say that at all. I did point out that an appeal to authority only is valid if the person is an expert in the field being studied. He took an untestable question that a diety existed and attempted to use the opinion of the untestable question by experts in astrophysics and other scientific disciplines as proof positive that the opinion was an expert proven fact.
no. I don't agree that only expert theologians can comment on matters of religion. But in areas like historicity and other more scholarly theological pursuits, yeah. Just like I can comment and even debate for evolution, but I haven't the expert knowledge of an evolutionary biologist. That is why we cite experts in the field they are expert in. If it's not their field that they are opining about, and we invoke their credentials to support an argument that is outside of their field, that is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean they're wrong, necessarily. But to say that
Stephan Hawking, a theoretical physicist, is an expert in theology because he's a theoretical physicist, or even just a scientist, is a logical fallacy.
And no. I'm an agnostic/atheist. Where it comes to questions of god and faith, that's it. Agnosticism is the method, atheism is the conclusion. <--- A concept that is clearly over your head.
I've never actually said this to anyone on this forum before, but you, Officiant, got your ass handed to you, and you're too dumb to know it.
|
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
