| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Marakith" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2003 04:16:27 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
..\\arakith
.
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
28 Oct 2003 09:16:00 AM |
|
|
"Marakith" <marakith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba964de8.0310280216.30e229f8@posting.google.com...
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
It also defines "agnostic" as:
Agnostic: "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of
God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."
This dictionary also has a word history footnote that says: "An agnostic
does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds
that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not."
Clearly by these definitions an agnostic is not an atheist.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Theists believe in a God or gods. Atheist believe that there are no gods.
People who do not believe either way are neither theists or atheists. There
is no default position. Agnostics are not atheists or theists.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters. However, the word has been
misunderstood for so long that some dictionaries now list a new definition
of the word. For example www.m-w.com adds: "broadly; one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or
a god".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
28 Oct 2003 03:06:43 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
"Marakith" <marakith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba964de8.0310280216.30e229f8@posting.google.com...
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
OK. Now that you have shown that you can use a dictionary perhaps you
should use one now to look up the meaning of the word "or".
Jeff Jones
Austin, Texas
aa #2044
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
29 Oct 2003 06:08:27 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
... Agnostics are not atheists or theists. ...
Balderdash! Everyone is either theist or atheist, one or the other.
I am agnostic, and I can tell you that you are operating under a popular
misconception of what agnosticism is. This is all about religious belief in
the existence of gods (theist) and the absence of it (atheist), or the
outright denial and repudiation of it on principle (agnostic).
Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
29 Oct 2003 07:11:40 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
... Agnostics are not atheists or theists. ...
Balderdash! Everyone is either theist or atheist, one or the other.
I am agnostic, and I can tell you that you are operating under a
popular misconception of what agnosticism is.
Nope.
You have no f'ing idea. What is it with you that you cant understand
plain English. Agnostics, as defined by Huxley, is *not* about
repudiation of the existence of gods. It is only about not believing in
gods *without proof*.
Look, read my lips:
Huxley:
"This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is
essential to Agnosticism. That it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty."
Now, go away.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
28 Oct 2003 11:41:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Theists believe in a God or gods. Atheist believe that there are no gods.
The "A" prefix means "lack of". "Lack of" "belief in a god or gods"
(lower case in both instances) is not belief in no gods.
People who do not believe either way are neither theists or atheists. There
is no default position. Agnostics are not atheists or theists.
Agnostic atheists are agnostics and atheists. Gnostic atheists are
gnostics and atheists. There's no contradiction.
True agnostics are not fence sitters. However, the word has been
misunderstood for so long that some dictionaries now list a new definition
of the word. For example www.m-w.com adds: "broadly; one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or
a god".
Which has nothing to do with "agnostic", a word VERY clearly defined
at its coining.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
28 Oct 2003 05:14:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Marakith" <marakith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba964de8.0310280216.30e229f8@posting.google.com...
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Now look up the meaning of "disbelieves", "or" and "deny" and see if
you still have a problem.
Also: There is more than one english dictionary in the world and some
do a better job than others.
It is foolish to worship the ONE True Dictionary.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
29 Oct 2003 10:40:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com>, Message ID: <bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
"Marakith" <marakith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba964de8.0310280216.30e229f8@posting.google.com...
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
(sigh) Disbelief is a lack of belief.
Denies includes not giving credence to which is a lack of belief.
It also defines "agnostic" as:
Agnostic: "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of
God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."
Without knowledge.
a=without
gnosis=knowledge
This dictionary also has a word history footnote that says: "An agnostic
does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds
that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not."
Clearly by these definitions an agnostic is not an atheist.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Theists believe in a God or gods. Atheist believe that there are no gods.
Atheists lack that belief in deity. Whether one makes the flat
statement (which can be sustained) but its no different than saying
"Santa Claus" does not exist. Its all something that someone else
believes.
People who do not believe either way are neither theists or atheists. There
is no default position. Agnostics are not atheists or theists.
Yes, there is. The default position is atheist. One must be
indoctrinated into/taught there is deity.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true scotsman fallacy.
However, the word has been
misunderstood for so long that some dictionaries now list a new definition
of the word. For example www.m-w.com adds: "broadly; one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or
a god".
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 08:43:42 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com>, Message ID: <bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
"Marakith" <marakith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba964de8.0310280216.30e229f8@posting.google.com...
Hello.
Apologies if this has been covered in another post.
I'm quite happy to wear the label Atheist. I have no belief in any
god(s) whatsoever. In the absence of belief, I profess unbelief.
I have met a few people who are quite happy to say that they don't
believe in any god(s). When I then ask them how they label themselves,
they declare themselves to be agnostic.
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that
atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of
the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
(sigh) Disbelief is a lack of belief.
"Disbelief" is only "a lack of belief" if you make up your own definitions
of words. Apparently you and many others here have no problem with that.
This same dictionary defines "disbelief" as "refusal or reluctance to
believe". Sorry, no "lack of belief" here.
I will agree that someone who refuses, or is reluctant, to believe in God
also has a "lack of belief" in God, but it doesn't work the other way
around. If I was to draw a Venn diagram, "lack of belief" would be a large
circle and "refusal or reluctance to believe" would be a smaller circle
completely enclosed by the "lack of belief" circle.
Denies includes not giving credence to which is a lack of belief.
From the same dictionary:
Deny;
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4. a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's
request; denied the prisoner food or water. b. To give a refusal to; turn
down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied. c. To
restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
There is nothing here about "lack of belief" or "not giving credence".
It also defines "agnostic" as:
Agnostic: "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence
of
God but does not deny the possibility that God exists."
Without knowledge.
a=without
gnosis=knowledge
The etymology of a word is not the definition of a word. For example, a
"submarine" sandwich (aka "sub") is not served underwater.
This dictionary also has a word history footnote that says: "An agnostic
does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather
holds
that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not."
Clearly by these definitions an agnostic is not an atheist.
My understanding of things is that Atheism is the default position.
We're none of us theists until we believe in god(s). Until then, we
are without belief in god(s): Atheists.
Theists believe in a God or gods. Atheist believe that there are no
gods.
Atheists lack that belief in deity. Whether one makes the flat
statement (which can be sustained) but its no different than saying
"Santa Claus" does not exist. Its all something that someone else
believes.
All people who believe that God does not exist (atheists) lack a belief in
God. But it doesn't work the other way around. (Picture the Venn diagram
above.) Babies lack a belief in God but they aren't atheists.
People who do not believe either way are neither theists or atheists.
There
is no default position. Agnostics are not atheists or theists.
Yes, there is. The default position is atheist. One must be
indoctrinated into/taught there is deity.
I agree that babies are not theists. That doesn't make them atheists. An
atheist believes that there are no gods. Babies are neither theists or
atheists.
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the fence
and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one claim a
third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury to come in,
or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's own jury does
come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
You are wrong again. A Scotsman is "one of the men of Scotland". That's
the commonly accepted definition of the word. When I say "true agnostic", I
am referring to the commonly accepted definition of the word. I am not
making up my own definition like you are doing or like the "true Scotsman"
fallacy does.
However, the word has been
misunderstood for so long that some dictionaries now list a new
definition
of the word. For example www.m-w.com adds: "broadly; one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God
or
a god".
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 08:49:16 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com>, Message ID: <bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that
atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of
the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
(sigh) Disbelief is a lack of belief.
"Disbelief" is only "a lack of belief" if you make up your own definitions
of words. Apparently you and many others here have no problem with that.
This same dictionary defines "disbelief" as "refusal or reluctance to
believe". Sorry, no "lack of belief" here.
Answering "no" to the question "do you have any apples" implies that one
lacks apples.
Answering "no" to the question "do you have any belief in X" implies
that one lacks belief in X.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 12:16:31 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:c092qv4pi6egk02ge6n5jpq9jr9pdrbpi7@4ax.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:16:00 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com>, Message ID: <bnm17l$g84$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
wrote
in alt.atheism;
There are some VERY VOCAL people in this newsgroup who insist that
atheism
is "a lack of belief in a god or gods". However, this is not a
commonly
accepted definition. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of
the
English Language, 3rd Ed. defines "atheist" as:
Atheist: "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods."
(sigh) Disbelief is a lack of belief.
"Disbelief" is only "a lack of belief" if you make up your own
definitions
of words. Apparently you and many others here have no problem with that.
This same dictionary defines "disbelief" as "refusal or reluctance to
believe". Sorry, no "lack of belief" here.
Answering "no" to the question "do you have any apples" implies that one
lacks apples.
Answering "no" to the question "do you have any belief in X" implies
that one lacks belief in X.
And I addressed that in the very next paragraph which you deleted:
"I will agree that someone who refuses, or is reluctant, to believe in
God
also has a "lack of belief" in God, but it doesn't work the other way
around. If I was to draw a Venn diagram, "lack of belief" would be a large
circle and "refusal or reluctance to believe" would be a smaller circle
completely enclosed by the "lack of belief" circle."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
30 Oct 2003 10:24:56 AM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the
fence and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one
claim a third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury
to come in, or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's
own jury does come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
You are wrong again. A Scotsman is "one of the men of Scotland".
That's the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Not at all:-)
A "true Scotsman" is a man born in Scotland who does not ware any under
garments under his kilt.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 02:16:14 AM |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sXaob.425$NR5.156@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the
fence and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one
claim a third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury
to come in, or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's
own jury does come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
You are wrong again. A Scotsman is "one of the men of Scotland".
That's the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Not at all:-)
A "true Scotsman" is a man born in Scotland who does not ware any under
garments under his kilt.
Nay, ye can wear whatever ye want. The important thing is that no true
Scotsman ever puts sugar in his oatmeal. 8^)
And Stoney is right, true agnostics are not fence sitters, they are the ones
who boldly deny and repudiate religious belief, just as Thomas Huxley
explained a hundred years ago.
Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 07:56:15 AM |
|
|
"John McTavish" <jmt98229@hootmon.com> wrote in message
news:iToob.49766$mZ5.311015@attbi_s54...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sXaob.425$NR5.156@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the
fence and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can one
claim a third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury
to come in, or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until one's
own jury does come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
You are wrong again. A Scotsman is "one of the men of Scotland".
That's the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Not at all:-)
A "true Scotsman" is a man born in Scotland who does not ware any under
garments under his kilt.
Nay, ye can wear whatever ye want. The important thing is that no true
Scotsman ever puts sugar in his oatmeal. 8^)
And Stoney is right, true agnostics are not fence sitters, they are the
ones
who boldly deny and repudiate religious belief, just as Thomas Huxley
explained a hundred years ago.
Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
This is the *only* thing you got right in the whole post.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
This web site is wrong and in contradiction to *every* reputable dictionary
definition of the word "atheism". I suggest you look up definitions of
words in a dictionary. It is the intelligent thing to do.
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Your conclusion about what this quote says shows that you have very limited
reading comprehension abilities.
Here is the complete paragraph from which this quote came from:
"The people who call themselves "Agnostics" have been charged with doing
so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "Infidels." It
has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape the
unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. To this wholly
erroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the term "Agnostic"
did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it; and my
statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted. Moreover, [310] speaking for
myself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the term
in another sense, I further say that ***Agnosticism is not properly
described as a "negative" creed,*** nor indeed as a creed of any kind,
except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a
principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be
stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a
man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is
essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as
immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men
ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that
reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic
principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in
the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so
far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its
validity."
Clearly, agnosticism does not "deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods".
"Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed..."
Agnostics "deny and repudiate... that there are propositions which men ought
to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 02:01:05 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:bntpmb$qi4$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
"John McTavish" <jmt98229@hootmon.com> wrote in message
And Stoney is right, true agnostics are not fence sitters, they are the
ones
who boldly deny and repudiate religious belief, just as Thomas Huxley
explained a hundred years ago.
Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Your conclusion about what this quote says shows that you have very
limited
reading comprehension abilities.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you make your case, it is simply another
form of logical fallacy of diversion. "The Fallacies of Diversion : The
fallacies in this family share the characteristic that they distract
attention away from the issue that is genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
Here is the complete paragraph from which this quote came from:
A preposition is not a very good thing with which to end a sentence with.
8^)
preposition: a word or phrase placed typically before a substantive and
indicating the relation of that substantive to a verb, an adjective, or
another substantive, as English at, by, with, from, and in regard to.
(Just kidding. Please keep writing whatever the ***** you want to, doofus.
It's a free world, for the most part.)
"The people who call themselves "Agnostics" have been charged with
doing
so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "Infidels." It
has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape
the
unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. To this wholly
erroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the term "Agnostic"
did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it; and my
statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted. Moreover, [310] speaking
for
myself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the
term
in another sense, I further say that ***Agnosticism is not properly
described as a "negative" creed,*** nor indeed as a creed of any kind,
except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a
principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be
stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for
a
man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is
essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men
ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that
reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic
principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether
in
the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that,
so
far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its
validity."
Clearly, agnosticism does not "deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods".
Agnosticism doesn't do anything; 'agnosticism' is just a descriptive term,
meaning behavior which characterizes those people who are agnostic, but
those people like me, Huxley, and others, who are agnostic (the people who
actively deny and repudiate any doctrine like Christianity, for example,
that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity for example,
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence, as
Huxley explains) do actively deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods, because there is no logically satisfactory evidence of
any god.
Note that sentence I highlighted above, which points out that agnostics
actively deny and repudiate, as immoral, any contrary doctrine like
Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example, which men ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 11:51:09 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:bntpmb$qi4$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
"John McTavish" <jmt98229@hootmon.com> wrote in message
news:iToob.49766$mZ5.311015@attbi_s54...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sXaob.425$NR5.156@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:1a51qvcd17nglutri15tkj6dnbu39lee1m@4ax.com...
Are Agnostics merely shy atheists or can one really sit on the
fence and claim not to believe either way. In other words, can
one
claim a third position (Agnosticism) whilst waiting for the jury
to come in, or is one still, by definition, an Atheist until
one's
own jury does come in?
True agnostics are not fence sitters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
You are wrong again. A Scotsman is "one of the men of Scotland".
That's the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Not at all:-)
A "true Scotsman" is a man born in Scotland who does not ware any
under
garments under his kilt.
Nay, ye can wear whatever ye want. The important thing is that no true
Scotsman ever puts sugar in his oatmeal. 8^)
And Stoney is right, true agnostics are not fence sitters, they are the
ones
who boldly deny and repudiate religious belief, just as Thomas Huxley
explained a hundred years ago.
Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
This is the *only* thing you got right in the whole post.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
This web site is wrong ...
No sir, it is absolutely correct. The only thing that all atheists share in
common is an absence of theism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 01:15:30 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<bntpmb$qi4$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
(snipping unwieldy monster of a post for bandwidth courtesy)
And then there is this quote from Huxley, describing how his coinage
of the phrase came about, which I think makes it even more clear what
Huxley's intentions were:
From the link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
(note that this is elsewhere on the same site that Bob cites)
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether
I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I
came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of
these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of
these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed
from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain
"gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of
existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong
conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on
my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that
opinion. [...]
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate
title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic
to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much
about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest
opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a
tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in "Encylopaedia of Religion and
Ethics", 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]"
And this quote, which I found at wikipedia: the free encyclopedia: "I
neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for
believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving
it."
I therefore find that Bob's insistence that "agnostics go one step
further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the existence of
gods" is wrong headed. Huxley neither affirms or denies. Bob is taking
his words out of context.
I further find that Bob's assertion that agnosticism as professed by
Huxley is a form of atheism is esp. wrong-headed. Huxley identified
himself most with the freethinkers more than anything . He didn't
align himself with any of the "ists" including atheist, who he says
"were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more
or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was
quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the
problem was insoluble."
Now if Bob wants to detach himself from Huxley, and proclaim that the
definition of "agnostic" should include certain concepts, then I have
no quarrel. There is certainly room for it. But he MUST stop asserting
that agnosticism as professed by Huxley denies anything. It does not.
Leave Huxley out of this, Bob. Forge your own way, and stop trying to
lend credence and legitimacy to YOUR definition by attaching it to the
originator of the word.
-------------------------------
One of the resources I found interesting in my research was the
wikipedia's discussion of the meaning of the word agnostic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
I found the above link interesting because it includes a discussion of
the origins of the word, its various modern uses, and some views that
are included within "agnosticism". I esp. liked the comment: "The term
has many uses, however, most in fundamental disagreement with the
others." Noooo kidding.
Have at it, boys and girls.
Erica
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 02:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dfe32b8.0310311115.85ae6a3@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<bntpmb$qi4$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
(snipping unwieldy monster of a post for bandwidth courtesy)
And then there is this quote from Huxley, describing how his coinage
of the phrase came about, which I think makes it even more clear what
Huxley's intentions were:
From the link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
(note that this is elsewhere on the same site that Bob cites)
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether
I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I
came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of
these denominations, except the last. ...
Yes, except the last, 'freethinker' (one who doubts or denies religious
doctrine [same as an atheist these days, according to atheists]).
The most relevant quotation about the behavior which is characteristic of
those who are agnostic is from Huxley's excoriation of the christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity," one of his final writings on the subject of
the agnostic, published in 1899. [Huxley died in 1895]
"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various ways, but
they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism
asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Note the part about agnostics denying and repudiating any doctrine like
christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of
christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence?
Nothing could be more clear as to what characterizes the agnostic
freethinking atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
31 Oct 2003 07:10:34 PM |
|
|
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
wrote:
"Erica" <scribe53151@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dfe32b8.0310311115.85ae6a3@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<bntpmb$qi4$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
(snipping unwieldy monster of a post for bandwidth courtesy)
And then there is this quote from Huxley, describing how his coinage
of the phrase came about, which I think makes it even more clear what
Huxley's intentions were:
From the link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
(note that this is elsewhere on the same site that Bob cites)
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether
I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I
learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I
came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of
these denominations, except the last. ...
Yes, except the last, 'freethinker' (one who doubts or denies religious
doctrine [same as an atheist these days, according to atheists]).
The most relevant quotation about the behavior which is characteristic of
those who are agnostic is from Huxley's excoriation of the christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity," one of his final writings on the subject of
the agnostic, published in 1899. [Huxley died in 1895]
"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various ways, but
they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism
asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Note the part about agnostics denying and repudiating any doctrine like
christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of
christianity for example, which people ought to believe, without logically
satisfactory evidence?
Nothing could be more clear as to what characterizes the agnostic
freethinking atheist.
Once again, that will depend on what definition of "freethinker" you
accept. How about this one:
A freethinker has been defined by the Freedom From Religion Foundation
(references) as
free-think-er n. a person who forms opinions about religions on the
basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established
belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
There are strong ties between the words atheism, heretic, skepticism,
and both humanist and secular humanism and the word freethought, but
these words are not synonymous. A precise definition is at best
difficult, as freethought is defined differently by different persons.
For example, in principle, one could be a freethinker and simultaneously
believe in the existence of a God, provided the basis for that belief
was rational argument, rather than arguments from authority, tradition,
or scripture. Some atheist freethinkers, however, believing that there
are no rational arguments for deism or theism, are reluctant to accept
the claims of deists or theists to be freethinkers.
A related movement is that of the "Brights", a term coined in 2003 by
Paul Geisert of Sacramento, California to refer to people who hold a
naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. A
similar movement advocates the term Universist and notably includes
Deists."
It appears, if this definition and discussion are relatively accurate,
that the meaning of freethinker is as much open to debate as
agnosticism. At any rate, it appears that an atheist could be called a
freethinker, but not all freethinkers are athesits. Perhaps according to
*some* atheists, they are. But not all.
These words are not synonymous, John.
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
02 Nov 2003 06:38:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
02 Nov 2003 11:04:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your straw
skeptic, Richardson? Would it kill you to stick to dealing with the issues
that are genuinely under discussion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
02 Nov 2003 11:33:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:04:20 GMT, "Pat Hand"
<badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your straw
skeptic, Richardson?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
How is it ad-hominem to point out that two posters are in fact the
same guy - you?
I can understand others suggesting it, but why would you say it is an
insult to say that someone is you?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:22:36 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kvpbqvoi7j2kf07atmeu31l8tqvp91dvt8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:04:20 GMT, "Pat Hand"
<badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your
straw
skeptic, Richardson? Would it kill you to stick to dealing with the
issues
that are genuinely under discussion?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
No, Richardson, the fact is that you are still working on your argument _ad
hominem_ against your straw skeptic. Notice the link to your scurrilous
website? Is it because you don't like having your cherished beliefs
questioned?
How is it ad-hominem to point out that two posters are in fact the
same guy - you?
It is just more fallacy of diversion from the issue genuinely under
discussion (theists, atheists, agnostics). And now you are even over in
another thread trying to help that other theist, Jeffy Young, get away with
his fallacy of diversion.
I can understand others suggesting it, but why would you say it is an
insult to say that someone is you?
I didn't say insult, knucklehead. That's your term. I said argument _ad
hominem_, which is simply another form of fallacy of diversion from the
issue genuinely under discussion. Your argument _ad hominem_ is no insult to
me; it is an insult to the intelligence of the other readers here. Shirley
you know this principle, that diversion is logical fallacy, and you are just
trying to get away with it, hoping nobody notices? Is that it, or are you
simply ignorant of the principles of valid argument (logic)?
The question is, why can't you just calmly deal with the issue that is
genuinely under discussion here (theists, atheists, agnostics) instead of
trying to get away with fallacy of diversion, your argument _ad hominem_?
[unsnip]
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 02:49:45 AM |
|
|
In article <kvpbqvoi7j2kf07atmeu31l8tqvp91dvt8@4ax.com>,
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:04:20 GMT, "Pat Hand"
<badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Holy guacamole. That's a hell of a list there. Dang. He's been a busy
boy.
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your straw
skeptic, Richardson?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
How is it ad-hominem to point out that two posters are in fact the
same guy - you?
I can understand others suggesting it, but why would you say it is an
insult to say that someone is you?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
And she thanks you for it. I'm just glad I wasn't wrong. To accuse
someone falsely sucks.
So, does he switch personas like this every time he's losing an
argument?
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:22:37 AM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151NOSPAM-4FCE5F.02494503112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <kvpbqvoi7j2kf07atmeu31l8tqvp91dvt8@4ax.com>,
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:04:20 GMT, "Pat Hand"
<badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic"
<jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same
cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John
McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who
knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I
am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Holy guacamole. That's a hell of a list there. Dang. He's been a busy
boy.
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your
straw
skeptic, Richardson?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
How is it ad-hominem to point out that two posters are in fact the
same guy - you?
I can understand others suggesting it, but why would you say it is an
insult to say that someone is you?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
And she thanks you for it. I'm just glad I wasn't wrong. To accuse
someone falsely sucks.
So, does he switch personas like this every time he's losing an
argument?
Losing what argument? Can you explain exactly 'how I have lost anything, or
are you just adding to Richardson's argument _ad hominem_?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 04:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:49:45 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <kvpbqvoi7j2kf07atmeu31l8tqvp91dvt8@4ax.com>,
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Holy guacamole. That's a hell of a list there. Dang. He's been a busy
boy.
Indeed - and he never changes his tune.
(If you think that list is impressive you should see the full Excel
sheet with names, dates, ip addresses etc i keep on him for research
purposes.
8-) )
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your straw
skeptic, Richardson?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
And she thanks you for it. I'm just glad I wasn't wrong. To accuse
someone falsely sucks.
So, does he switch personas like this every time he's losing an
argument?
No - he is always losing arguments so that cant be it - sometimes he
keeps the same name for many months and sometimes he changes it
several times a week.
Many of his identities are for single posts.
When he is particulary busy up to 3 or 4 of the people in the one
thread will be him - its usually obvious because "they" all say
exactly the same things in exactly the same way!
I have noticed that he switches when I point out his identity - for
example John Mctavish turned into "Pat" and "Pat Hand" after I posted
that Skeptic was now posting as Mctavish.
He is a fascinating example of pathology even if a very boring
correspondent.
Mark.
(Skeptologist)
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 08:19:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:49:45 -0600, Erica wrote:
In article <kvpbqvoi7j2kf07atmeu31l8tqvp91dvt8@4ax.com>,
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:04:20 GMT, "Pat Hand"
<badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:er8bqvsceb516ubj9ecirs2aofi6lp8u9h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:10:34 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <wxzob.71150$HS4.627697@attbi_s01>,
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
An aside: Why is John McTavish arguing in almost exactly the same cut
and paste style, using many of the same references as Bob White. And
when I check the details of both a Bob White post and a John McTavish
post, why are they almost identical. Same newsreader, Posting Host
(12.231.81.82), Organization (Comcast Online). Could someone who knows
about these things take a look? I have a suspicion that will be both
funny and sad if I am correct. And I will owe John an apology if I am
not.
Erica
John Mctavish *is* Bob White *is* Skeptic.
See the Skeptic FAQ
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/faqs/skeptic.php
Holy guacamole. That's a hell of a list there. Dang. He's been a busy
boy.
Mark.
You still working on building your argument _ad hominem_ against your straw
skeptic, Richardson?
No Muddy, just answering the nice ladies question.
How is it ad-hominem to point out that two posters are in fact the
same guy - you?
I can understand others suggesting it, but why would you say it is an
insult to say that someone is you?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
And she thanks you for it. I'm just glad I wasn't wrong. To accuse
someone falsely sucks.
So, does he switch personas like this every time he's losing an
argument?
I don't know about "losing" so much as Skeptic latches onto one or two
fallacies and tries hammering them into pretty much each and every
situation. Whether they apply or not.
Most of the time, his "arguments" just don't make *sense.
Which I guess can be considered "losing." I tend to consider it
"confusing" more than anything...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"The computer revolution is over. We lost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:27:05 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.03.14.19.55.703672@eac.org...
Most of the time, his "arguments" just don't make *sense.
What argument does not make sense? Can you explain why you say that, or are
you just adding to Richardson's argument _ad hominem_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:31:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:27:05 +0000, Pat Hand wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.03.14.19.55.703672@eac.org...
Most of the time, his "arguments" just don't make *sense.
What argument does not make sense? Can you explain why you say that, or are
you just adding to Richardson's argument _ad hominem_
You explain his babble that people must "prove" their internal states.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 11:56:20 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.03.16.31.40.135357@eac.org...
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:27:05 +0000, Pat Hand wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.03.14.19.55.703672@eac.org...
Most of the time, his "arguments" just don't make *sense.
What argument does not make sense? Can you explain why you say that, or
are
you just adding to Richardson's argument _ad hominem_
You explain his babble that people must "prove" their internal states.
Have you lost the train of thought here? The proposition is "John Mctavish
*is* Bob White *is* Skeptic."
It is Jeffy young, and not any of McTavish, White, or Skeptic who said
"people must prove their internal states."
Please try to keep up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism OR Theism? What about Agnosticism? |
03 Nov 2003 10:56:06 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:27:05 +0000, Pat Hand wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.03.14.19.55.703672@eac.org...
Most of the time, his "arguments" just don't make *sense.
What argument does not make sense? Can you explain why you say that, or are
you just adding to Richardson's argument _ad hominem_
You explain his babble that people must "prove" their internal states.
He seems to be arguing that since we can't prove our internal state, he
doesn't have to prove that his "God" is anything other than an internal
state.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
