02 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh, the usual ad populum. Nice to see the screeching apologists trot out their well-worn fallacies again and again and again...almost ad infinitum, wouldn't you say, freaky? And delivered in such a wonderful, condescending fashion. Hammy will be so proud of you!
You are somehow able to dismiss what hundreds of greater minds before you have been unsuccessful in doing: lay waste to the basis for the Christian faith.
Perhaps it won't be a 'great mind' that finally drags christianity into the light, but a series of archaelogical discoveries. Of course, since there is a vested interest in the status quo, I have my doubts your church's leaders would ever allow the truth to be told. Shame, that.
03 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaBoy, you really need to go back to 1st Grade and brush up on reading comprehension.
Your only form of argument is saying I didn't address your questions when that's all what I've been doing.
I maintain that there is no evidence for a Creator, you maintain that there is. Calling yourself agnostic and saying that there is evidence for the existence of a creator is a logical contradiction, by your own definition of agnosticism. If you think ...[text shortened]... o see you admit using derogatory comments as a tool in your arguments. At last, some honesty.
There is NO CONTRADICTION between saying there is SOME evidence for a Creator (which there clearly is) but that the amount of that evidence is insufficient to make one a theist. You clearly don't understand what an agnostic is; please have someone explain my first few posts in this thread to you as you clearly don't understand them.
I cannot see any point where science will solve whether the universe had a Creator. I cannot imagine what scientific proof there would be. The question of how life formed on Earth is obviously different in degree and type than the question whether something Created this universe. That seems self-evident to me.
Your last sentence is a non sequitur. I use derogatory comments when people deserve them. Such derogatory comments ARE NOT a "tool in my arguments". They are a separate free good that fools like you get.
To Telerion: Generally, I would state the premises as this:
Idiots/Morons make very stupid arguments
A has just made a very stupid argument,
Therefore, A is an idiot/moron
This is the format of my derogatory comments.
A makes an argument
I think A is an idiot/moron or his argument is similiar to B's argument which is invalid
Therefore, I claim that the argument is invalid
That is an ad hominem fallacy.
In the first case, one addresses the actual argument, destroys it and concludes anyone making such an argument must be an idiot/moron. This is a logically valid way to argue albeit some sensitive souls might not like it.
In the second case, one ignores the substance of the argument and addresses some character trait of the one making it or claims it is similiar to Hitler's (for example) arguments. This is a logical fallacy.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIs it your claim that the syllogism you present is valid?
Idiots/Morons make very stupid arguments
A has just made a very stupid argument,
Therefore, A is an idiot/moron
In the first case, one addresses the actual argument, destroys it and concludes anyone making such an argument must be an idiot/moron. This is a logically valid way to argue albeit some sensitive souls might not like it.
03 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot in all cases, but it is a reasonable inference from the premises. Idiots/morons when they try to present arguments almost invariably present very stupid ones. Now it is possible, though unlikely, that an idiot/moron could make a good argument; virtually anything is possible.
Is it your claim that the syllogism you present is valid?
On the other hand, it is true that even those who aren't idiots/morons occasionally will make stupid arguments through carelessness, laziness or a myriad of other factors. If those who I label idiots/morons are not, in fact, idiot/morons but have simply made a stupid argument due to one of these factors, then they should quickly realize the stupidity of their argument and agree with me that they have been an idiot/moron and that they will strive in the future to not make stupid arguments.
Thus, I am providing a service both to A) those who aren't idiot/morons by bringing to their attention that they have acted in an idiotic/moronic way (something they surely don't want to do); and B) Actual idiot/morons who may be toooooooo much of idiot/morons to know that they are idiot/morons. Now that I have so informed them, they can seek help in curing their idiocy/moronity or simply stop embarrassing themselves by showing their idiocy/moronity by making stupid arguments. I might add that I am generously providing this service free of charge.
03 Jan 06
So does this conflict between Pal and no1 boil down to a meaning of agnosticism?
No1 claims that there is evidence of a Creator, however, it is insufficient to justify a claim to know such a being. In this way, one can simultaneously claim that acknowledge evidence and not acknowledge a Creator. Agnosticism in this sense is a position characterized by ambivalence in the face of inconclusive evidence.
Pal seems to take the view that agnosticism implies that one lacks knowledge of a Creator to the point that one cannot even identify positive evidence for a Creator's existence.
My only addition would be that "Creator" is such a broad term that I find it difficult to conceive of anything that is not evidence of a Creator.
Let me know if I'm way off base and actually have to read all these posts.
03 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI can't speak for him and I don't understand how one can claim there is "no evidence" for a creator. Perhaps the term is broad but I was speaking of a specific type of evidence regarding the strength of the basic forces of the universe. We've had this discussion before and I wish I could find it but the basic premise was that even minor changes in the strength of the basic forces would have made the universe one which was impossible for life to exist in. I'm not just talking about Earth, but minor changes would have made the formation of galaxies, etc. etc. etc. impossible.
So does this conflict between Pal and no1 boil down to a meaning of agnosticism?
No1 claims that there is evidence of a Creator, however, it is insufficient to justify a claim to know such a being. In this way, one can simultaneously claim that acknowledge evidence and not acknowledge a Creator. Agnosticism in this sense is a position characterized by f a Creator.
Let me know if I'm way off base and actually have to read all these posts.
I stated that this was some evidence of a Creator or perhaps that the universe was "self-designed" absent something like other, lifeless universes (which would make a life hospitable universe merely a statistical fluctuation) or some kind of META laws which require the basic forces of the universe HAD to be as they are. Those are possibilities, so I believe the question is very much open to discussion.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by David Cthe screeching apologists
There's no condescending like someone else's condescending, eh? Sounds like a great name for a hard rock band, I'd say.
Three problems with your 'archaelogocial discovery' hopes.
One, every single stinking time someone goes digging in the dirt in attempt to prove or disprove any event, i.e., digging with a purpose, their purposes are thwarted in the most Rivera-esque manner. This applies to both sides of the purpose-ers.
Two, any related digs up to this point, consistently back the biblical acccounts, including those which, at first blush, seem to contradict the same.
Three, your assumption that the 'stauts quo' is somehow related to the correct and proper use of the Bible. Were the Bible read and understood correctly, the supposed power it wields over the duped would evaporate. The Bible does not align itself on the side of the warlords, Republicans, Democrats or even the Independents and/or undecided.
In fact, the Bible is decisively undecided, relative to politics, and world power-struggles.
Want freedom? Set the Bible free!
Want people to act humanely toward one another? Follow its dictates!
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by telerionHere's a link with a basic overview, though it's a bit smug for my taste. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/pearcey/np_tailormade090200.htm
So does this conflict between Pal and no1 boil down to a meaning of agnosticism?
No1 claims that there is evidence of a Creator, however, it is insufficient to justify a claim to know such a being. In this way, one can simultaneously claim that acknowledge evidence and not acknowledge a Creator. Agnosticism in this sense is a position characterized by ...[text shortened]... f a Creator.
Let me know if I'm way off base and actually have to read all these posts.
03 Jan 06
http://dict.die.net/agnostic/
http://dict.die.net/gnostic/
http://dict.die.net/atheist/
http://dict.die.net/theist/
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/websermons/agnosticgnostic.htm
Does it make any sense? Make up your own mind whether or not it's a cop-out to be an agnostic. I think maybe, because the agnostic won't take side, the atheists and the theists seem to think the agnostic is beneath them; (s)he has not yet decided. But it seems to me, that the agnostic is in fact beyond them.
I stand corrected on my previous posts on the matter, though. Since the agnostic simply refuses to take side since it's meaningless to base your life on belief, you cannot be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. An agnostic is beyond belief of any kind.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIs the Zen master not influenced by the illusions of our everyday lifes? Will the zen master acknowledge that supernatural knowledge is impossible to attain?
Would a Zen master be a supreme agnostic?
An agnostic in Robert Price's definition would be any person who has broken free from the illusion portrayed and upheld by the masses. Yes? So, in a sense, you're not really an agnostic until you can see the illusion from another angle. That would be to realize what things in life we consider to be the truth and yet have no evidence whatsoever that it is in fact the truth.
It seems to me very hard to be a supreme agnostic. (S)he has to scrutinize every aspect of his/her knowledge and separate facts from make-believe nonsense. Those are sometimes very hard to separate, because we tend to derive "facts" from previous knowledge. The derived facts may very well proove to be false when looked at from another lense.
I suppose, what we'll never see a supreme agnostic do, is stick to "facts" that are made doubtful when seen in a new light. Our ability to see the truth would then stand in direct correlation with our ability to separate out fact from fiction.
Would the Zen master do that?
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenWell, seeing through the "veil of illusion" covering reality is an important part of all Buddhism. As far as I know they don't go in for the supernatural either. They are allergic to abstractions of all kinds.
Is the Zen master not influenced by the illusions of our everyday lifes? Will the zen master acknowledge that supernatural knowledge is impossible to attain?
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, in that case (using our definition of an agnostic as stated by Robert Price) the zen master is indeed an agnostic of sorts.
Well, seeing through the "veil of illusion" covering reality is an important part of all Buddhism. As far as I know they don't go in for the supernatural either. They are allergic to abstractions of all kinds.
There's so much I want to learn about now. Zoroastrianism, gnosticism, buddhism, astro-physics and whole bunch of unrelated subjects. I wish I could slow time down so I could study in depth and still have time for carnal pleasures and everyday duties.
Well, see you all in a day or two 'cause I just gotta take some time off this forum. 🙂
09 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauderogatory, the creationist.
I can't speak for him and I don't understand how one can claim there is "no evidence" for a creator. Perhaps the term is broad but I was speaking of a specific type of evidence regarding the strength of the basic forces of the universe. We've had this discussion before and I wish I could find it but the basic premise was that even minor changes in the st are. Those are possibilities, so I believe the question is very much open to discussion.
Meta laws that HAD to be as they are? Minor changes that would have made the universe impossible for life to exist in?
Your looking it from the other way around, the universe is the way it is because your so called meta laws are what they are.
The pattern is the product of the algorythm, not the other way around.