| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Virgil" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 08:40:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: agnostics are atheist too |
In article <EEGac.45175$gA5.563076@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Kenny Leong wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<Eirac.142508$_w.1623244@attbi_s53>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
So the agnostic claim is ...
Agnosticism does not entail making any 'claim' (statement standing in
need of proof) any more than atheism does, sir; agnostics (who are also
atheist, by the way, since anyone who is not theist is atheist)
agnostics simply go one step further than other atheists to deny and
repudiate, on principle, 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
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, insists that he knows that there cannot
be any gods, which is in contradiction to both the above definitions.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it? Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definition
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
.
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
31 Mar 2004 10:02:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <EEGac.45175$gA5.563076@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Kenny Leong wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<Eirac.142508$_w.1623244@attbi_s53>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
So the agnostic claim is ...
Agnosticism does not entail making any 'claim' (statement standing in
need of proof) any more than atheism does, sir; agnostics (who are also
atheist, by the way, since anyone who is not theist is atheist)
agnostics simply go one step further than other atheists to deny and
repudiate, on principle, 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
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown. This isn't about knowledge, it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam, for example. See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it? Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definition
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
even though there is no god spoor you can point out, and you are trying
to shift the burden of proof to the negative, remember?
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
01 Apr 2004 01:22:52 AM |
|
|
In article <HvMac.50685$w54.318885@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <EEGac.45175$gA5.563076@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Kenny Leong wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<Eirac.142508$_w.1623244@attbi_s53>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
So the agnostic claim is ...
Agnosticism does not entail making any 'claim' (statement standing in
need of proof) any more than atheism does, sir; agnostics (who are also
atheist, by the way, since anyone who is not theist is atheist)
agnostics simply go one step further than other atheists to deny and
repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
And repudiate , on the same principle, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
and all his niltheist works.
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not
<end quote>
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
Huxley, in the above quote, speaks quite clearly about knowledge as well
as beleif, so Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is again totally wrong.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown.
Since agnostics talk about knowledge and agree that a god might exist
and just be unknown, and only niltheists like Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and theists reject this view, thhis marks Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, as being anti-agnostic as well as antitheist.
This isn't about knowledge,
Huxley says it is!
it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam,
and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's niltheistic creed that gods are
known to be impossible, even thogh there is no smidgen of proof of any
such thing.
See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it?
The man who coined the term would be much more in agreement with the
definition that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, rejects reather that
the one Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, proffers.
Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
A great deal in Huxley gives reason to take exception to almost
everything Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says. Note Huxley's tone
towards what he calls anti-theology in the quote above.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definitions
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
It is scarcely a straw man to say that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
tries to push on everyone the statement that gods are imppossible, even
though he knows that there is no evidence of any such thing.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
Which is logically the same as saying that there is no proof that gods
can not exist. And since there is no such proof, the statement is a mere
statement of know fact.
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
As I am not hunting for any god, a lack of fumets does not bother me.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, ever finds proof that gods cannot
exist, I will still be quite comfortable with my agnostic position, but
if he never does I shall also be quite comfortable with my agnostic
position.
As an agnostic I need not, as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does,
claim to believe or to know anything that has not been proved.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's creed, like theist creeds, insists
on the truth of statements for which there are no proof. Which tends to
make him edgy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
01 Apr 2004 08:31:11 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AC09C8.00225101042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <HvMac.50685$w54.318885@attbi_s01>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <EEGac.45175$gA5.563076@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Kenny Leong wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<Eirac.142508$_w.1623244@attbi_s53>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
So the agnostic claim is ...
Agnosticism does not entail making any 'claim' (statement standing in
need of proof) any more than atheism does, sir; agnostics (who are also
atheist, by the way, since anyone who is not theist is atheist)
agnostics simply go one step further than other atheists to deny and
repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
And repudiate , on the same principle, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
and all his niltheist works.
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
Like I said.... if somebody goes ahead to ask us to prove that santa
claus and the easter bunny doesn't exist, then we can actually tell
them to take a hike, and get a life.
Kenny L.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not
<end quote>
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
Huxley, in the above quote, speaks quite clearly about knowledge as well
as beleif, so Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is again totally wrong.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown.
Since agnostics talk about knowledge and agree that a god might exist
and just be unknown, and only niltheists like Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and theists reject this view, thhis marks Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, as being anti-agnostic as well as antitheist.
This isn't about knowledge,
Huxley says it is!
it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam,
and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's niltheistic creed that gods are
known to be impossible, even thogh there is no smidgen of proof of any
such thing.
See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it?
The man who coined the term would be much more in agreement with the
definition that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, rejects reather that
the one Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, proffers.
Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
A great deal in Huxley gives reason to take exception to almost
everything Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says. Note Huxley's tone
towards what he calls anti-theology in the quote above.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definitions
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
It is scarcely a straw man to say that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
tries to push on everyone the statement that gods are imppossible, even
though he knows that there is no evidence of any such thing.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
Which is logically the same as saying that there is no proof that gods
can not exist. And since there is no such proof, the statement is a mere
statement of know fact.
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
As I am not hunting for any god, a lack of fumets does not bother me.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, ever finds proof that gods cannot
exist, I will still be quite comfortable with my agnostic position, but
if he never does I shall also be quite comfortable with my agnostic
position.
As an agnostic I need not, as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does,
claim to believe or to know anything that has not been proved.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's creed, like theist creeds, insists
on the truth of statements for which there are no proof. Which tends to
make him edgy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 11:23:15 AM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>...
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AC09C8.00225101042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
That seems to be the actual point under contention; that many theists,
and some antitheists like you, believe that there is such a thing as
'automatic knowing'
- that you can 'know' a proposition just by having a high belief in it
- while agnostics do not believe in any such thing.
Like I said.... if somebody goes ahead to ask us to prove that santa
claus and the easter bunny doesn't exist, then we can actually tell
them to take a hike, and get a life.
Kenny L.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not
<end quote>
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
Huxley, in the above quote, speaks quite clearly about knowledge as well
as beleif, so Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is again totally wrong.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown.
Since agnostics talk about knowledge and agree that a god might exist
and just be unknown, and only niltheists like Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and theists reject this view, thhis marks Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, as being anti-agnostic as well as antitheist.
This isn't about knowledge,
Huxley says it is!
it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam,
and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's niltheistic creed that gods are
known to be impossible, even thogh there is no smidgen of proof of any
such thing.
See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it?
The man who coined the term would be much more in agreement with the
definition that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, rejects reather that
the one Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, proffers.
Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
A great deal in Huxley gives reason to take exception to almost
everything Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says. Note Huxley's tone
towards what he calls anti-theology in the quote above.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definitions
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
It is scarcely a straw man to say that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
tries to push on everyone the statement that gods are imppossible, even
though he knows that there is no evidence of any such thing.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
Which is logically the same as saying that there is no proof that gods
can not exist. And since there is no such proof, the statement is a mere
statement of know fact.
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
As I am not hunting for any god, a lack of fumets does not bother me.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, ever finds proof that gods cannot
exist, I will still be quite comfortable with my agnostic position, but
if he never does I shall also be quite comfortable with my agnostic
position.
As an agnostic I need not, as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does,
claim to believe or to know anything that has not been proved.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's creed, like theist creeds, insists
on the truth of statements for which there are no proof. Which tends to
make him edgy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
06 Apr 2004 09:04:54 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0404050823.1125ae63@posting.google.com>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>...
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AC09C8.00225101042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
That seems to be the actual point under contention; that many theists,
and some antitheists like you, believe that there is such a thing as
'automatic knowing'
- that you can 'know' a proposition just by having a high belief in it
- while agnostics do not believe in any such thing.
George ... I automatically know that santa claus, the tooth fairy and
the easter bunny do not exist. Well, my definition of agnostic, as it
has always been, is that an agnostic is unsure/uncertain if something
(ie the christian god) exists or not. So may I ask you if you're
uncertain whether the christian god as defined in the bible (with the
fatally flawed stories in it) exists or not George?
Kenny L.
Like I said.... if somebody goes ahead to ask us to prove that santa
claus and the easter bunny doesn't exist, then we can actually tell
them to take a hike, and get a life.
Kenny L.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater
part of popular theology, BUT ALSO THE GREATER PART OF
ANTI-THEOLOGY. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy
professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not
<end quote>
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
But the thing is..... if such a person, that was previously not
commited to finding out whether this 'christian' god exists or not,
decides to join alt.atheism to listen in on things .. then obviously
there is some interest about whether such a christian god as defined
by the bible exists or not .. right? And then.....after hearing our
logical and solid explanations that such a christian god cannot exist,
then the agnostic (that previously was not commited) should then
automatically know...if they're bright enough...that such a christian
'god' cannot exist (because the stories of this DEFINED christian god
has proven to be fatally flawed). And to talk about some other 'god'
that is modified from the christian god is meaningless because the
word 'god' is actually meaningless until it is defined. It's easier to
say you do not know if there's some powerful entity out there in
space...that's alien to you, rather than say this meaningless word
'god'.
Kenny L.
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
Huxley, in the above quote, speaks quite clearly about knowledge as well
as beleif, so Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is again totally wrong.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown.
Since agnostics talk about knowledge and agree that a god might exist
and just be unknown, and only niltheists like Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and theists reject this view, thhis marks Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, as being anti-agnostic as well as antitheist.
This isn't about knowledge,
Huxley says it is!
it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam,
and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's niltheistic creed that gods are
known to be impossible, even thogh there is no smidgen of proof of any
such thing.
See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it?
The man who coined the term would be much more in agreement with the
definition that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, rejects reather that
the one Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, proffers.
Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
A great deal in Huxley gives reason to take exception to almost
everything Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says. Note Huxley's tone
towards what he calls anti-theology in the quote above.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definitions
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
It is scarcely a straw man to say that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
tries to push on everyone the statement that gods are imppossible, even
though he knows that there is no evidence of any such thing.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
Which is logically the same as saying that there is no proof that gods
can not exist. And since there is no such proof, the statement is a mere
statement of know fact.
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
As I am not hunting for any god, a lack of fumets does not bother me.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, ever finds proof that gods cannot
exist, I will still be quite comfortable with my agnostic position, but
if he never does I shall also be quite comfortable with my agnostic
position.
As an agnostic I need not, as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does,
claim to believe or to know anything that has not been proved.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's creed, like theist creeds, insists
on the truth of statements for which there are no proof. Which tends to
make him edgy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
07 Apr 2004 11:40:52 AM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404060604.1bd10df0@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0404050823.1125ae63@posting.google.com>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>...
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AC09C8.00225101042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
That seems to be the actual point under contention; that many theists,
and some antitheists like you, believe that there is such a thing as
'automatic knowing'
- that you can 'know' a proposition just by having a high belief in it
- while agnostics do not believe in any such thing.
George ... I automatically know that santa claus, the tooth fairy and
the easter bunny do not exist.
Kenny ... I know that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter
Bunny (show some respect and use proper caps, man <bg>) don't exist
either. But that's not 'automatic knowledge', but inferential, or
reasoned, or justified knowledge. Let me give you that reasoning (and
please bear with me, as there's an extremely important point involved
here; but I don't see how to put it clearly without this first bit).
When I was a kid, presents would appear under the family tree once a
year; candy eggs would appear in our home once a year, and money would
appear under my pillow whenever I lost a tooth. Santa, TF, and EB
were stories I was told to explain those other facts; and, as long as
I was justified in the facts, and S, TF & EB were the best explanation
of those facts, it was reasonable for me to believe in them as well.
But as I got older, I inferred a better explanation of those facts
(better because I had some evidence that supported the theory): my
parents were doing these things, but not wishing to take credit. That
gave me *no* reason to believe in S, TF, and EB, so I stopped
believing in them.
Now, are you open to at least the possibility that you made the same
inferences, and that's why you don't believe in S, TF, and EB? That
you didn't just 'grow out' of those beliefs, in the same way you grew
out of your baby teeth? That you didn't just 'know' they didn't exist
because you no longer believed strongly that they didn't exist, but
for reasons?
If so, then are you open to the possibility that you, I, or anyone
does not know *any existential propositions* without having reasons or
evidence for them? IOW, that when it comes to knowledge of actual
reality, there is no such thing as 'automatic knowledge' (as defined
above)? Because that's what Huxley is claiming, and what anyone who
meets his definition of 'agnostic' claims. And they claim that for an
important reason (which I can finally get to).
The reason is that this 'automatic knowledge' (defined again, as
claiming to know something just because one has a high degree of
belief that it's true) is exactly what Christians claim, and what they
found their claims of actual knowledge on. They call that automatic
knowledge 'faith', but that's an ambiguous word - 'faith' is simply
'confidence' or 'trust', which can be either justified or unjustified
- a better word would be 'gnosis', as it's exactly the
pseudo-knowledge that agnostics say is not in fact knowledge at all.
Well, my definition of agnostic, as it
has always been, is that an agnostic is unsure/uncertain if something
(ie the christian god) exists or not.
That follows logically from what Huxley says. An agnostic (at least,
by Huxley's definition, and I follow his definition because it's *his*
term) is unsure about everything for which he doesn't have sufficient
evidence and/or reason to justify a belief.
So may I ask you if you're
uncertain whether the christian god as defined in the bible (with the
fatally flawed stories in it) exists or not George?
Well, no. Just as in the cases of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the
Easter Bunny:
(1) I'm aware of a primitive fact - in this case, that the physical or
material world exists, and (2) The Christian God is a story I've been
told to explain that fact. Unlike the former, the Christian God is
not the only god-story, and it's not a particularly good story; as
you're well aware, there are good reasons to think that any actually
existent god would be nothing like the one in the story at all.
Please look at the evidence that the majority of agnostics were raised
as Christians, and they became agnostics for the same reasons (ie,
because) they rejected the Christian story of God as an adequate
explanation of anything - they are aChristian - and, as they similarly
reject all other theological stories, they are atheists. Their view
of Christianity is no different from yours.
But as to whether there is such an 'actually existent god' - whether
some intelligent agent from outside 4-dimensional reality acted to
bring about 4-dimensional reality - is a question that agnostics
insist is still open; precisely because (unlike in the cases of Santa,
the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny) there is no better explanation
- all explanations are equally unjustified, so the agnostic does not
believe any of them, but for the same reason he doesn't rule any of
them out, either. When he has a good reason to believe one or the
other story, he'll stop being an unbeliever in all stories; but until
he has a reason, he has to stay in that state of pure unbelief - he
knows very well that he cannot get out of it just by claiming gnosis
(automatic knowledge).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
07 Apr 2004 02:10:28 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 9:40 AM, in article
6312c50b.0404070840.4bb48887@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in message
news:<29154d7c.0404060604.1bd10df0@posting.google.com>...
Well, my definition of agnostic, as it
has always been, is that an agnostic is unsure/uncertain if something
(ie the christian god) exists or not.
That follows logically from what Huxley says.
No it doesn't, and I'll tell you why. Agnostics are atheists too. Anyone who
believes that there might be an invisible God is theist, period. There is
nothing to be "uncertain" about; God is just a hypothetical magic invisible
something from somebody's religion, and it has no meaning outside that
religion.
"Uncertain" means that you lend the idea credence, that you believe as the
theists do, that the theists hypothetical God might exist anyway, even
though there is no evidence of it. That makes you theist, period, not
atheist (and agnostics are atheist too, having an absence of the theist
belief that a magic invisible something they call 'God' might exist).
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god might
exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it (theists), the absence
of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter of
principle (agnostics).
"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 than other atheists to deny and repudiate, on
principle, 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
07 Apr 2004 03:41:15 PM |
|
|
In article <BC99A034.2DBE%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 9:40 AM, in article
6312c50b.0404070840.4bb48887@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in message
news:<29154d7c.0404060604.1bd10df0@posting.google.com>...
Well, my definition of agnostic, as it
has always been, is that an agnostic is unsure/uncertain if something
(ie the christian god) exists or not.
That follows logically from what Huxley says.
No it doesn't, and I'll tell you why. Agnostics are atheists too.
That Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, declares something, does not make
it true. Only proof makes a staement true and Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, has none.
Anyone who
believes that there might be an invisible God is theist, period.
This lie does not improve with age, it is still as stupid as the first
time Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, posted it. I can only assume that
"period" means that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is suffering from
PMS, and is thus in a particularly unfriendly mode.
There is
nothing to be "uncertain" about;
We are quite uncertain where you get your certain knowledge of all these
things that no one else knows. Do you have a direct line to soome sort
of divine revelation?
God is just a hypothetical magic invisible
something from somebody's religion, and it has no meaning outside that
religion.
Where do "hypothetical" and "magic" and "invisible" come from? Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's direct line?
"Uncertain" means that you lend the idea credence, that you believe as the
theists do, that the theists hypothetical God might exist anyway
Make up your mind. Do you mean "as theists do" or do you mean "God might
exist"? The two are incompatible as any sensible person knows. What
theist creed says "God might exist"? None.
That makes you theist, period, not
atheist (and agnostics are atheist too, having an absence of the theist
belief that a magic invisible something they call 'God' might exist).
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is still at Kindergarten level, unable
to distinguish between the " god might exist" of agnosticism and the
"God must exist" of theism.
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god might
exist anyway,
One sees Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, repeating this lie like a
mantra, hoping to compel belief in this falsehood if he repeats it often
enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
01 Apr 2004 11:52:24 PM |
|
|
In article <29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>,
(Kenny Leong) wrote:
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
That is only one particular god. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says
he knows that no god can exist, though he does not point to any
demonstration of that knowledge.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, also says that knowledge requires
public demonstration of the thing known.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is at war with himself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
02 Apr 2004 07:14:40 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-A0D77E.22522401042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>,
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote:
The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple:
<start quote>
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or
modern. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT A MAN SHALL NOT SAY HE KNOWS OR
BELIEVES THAT WHICH HE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS FOR PROFESSING
TO KNOW OR BELIEVE.
No...there are certain things that we automatically 'know' to not
exist...such as stories of the christian god that does all of these
contradictory things, with fatally flawed events/actions that are
described in the bible.
That is only one particular god. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says
he knows that no god can exist, though he does not point to any
demonstration of that knowledge.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, also says that knowledge requires
public demonstration of the thing known.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is at war with himself.
I agree with this Septic Capon guy, whoever he is. No 'god' exists
because the real view of life and observation of our surroundings,
plus understanding the fatal flaws in every single 'made-up' 'god' is
the public demonstration itself. Let's face it. Christians ignore
certain parts of reality, and they accept fatal flaws in their
stories, and follow something that committed genocide.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
05 Apr 2004 11:29:48 AM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404021714.30ff7e68@posting.google.com>...
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-A0D77E.22522401042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>,
(Kenny Leong) wrote:
That is only one particular god. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says
he knows that no god can exist, though he does not point to any
demonstration of that knowledge.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, also says that knowledge requires
public demonstration of the thing known.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is at war with himself.
I agree with this Septic Capon guy, whoever he is. No 'god' exists
because the real view of life and observation of our surroundings,
plus understanding the fatal flaws in every single 'made-up' 'god' is
the public demonstration itself.
No doubt all agnostics have no direct experience of any gods - it's
hard to see how someone could and remain an agnostic - but they also
know that lack of direct experience does not imply non-existence. For
instance, I don't have any direct experience of any worlds besides
this - but that doesn't prove that the 'many worlds' interpretation of
QM is false.
Neither do the 'fatal flaws in every single 'made-up' 'god' imply
anything more than that nothing exists that matches that description;
and there is no reason that any actual existent would have to match
such a description.
Let's face it. Christians ignore
certain parts of reality, and they accept fatal flaws in their
stories, and follow something that committed genocide.
Kenny L.
??? How could a non-existence commit genocide?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
06 Apr 2004 08:53:57 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0404050829.1dfbd37d@posting.google.com>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in message news:<29154d7c.0404021714.30ff7e68@posting.google.com>...
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-A0D77E.22522401042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <29154d7c.0404011831.3e6ce222@posting.google.com>,
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote:
That is only one particular god. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says
he knows that no god can exist, though he does not point to any
demonstration of that knowledge.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, also says that knowledge requires
public demonstration of the thing known.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is at war with himself.
I agree with this Septic Capon guy, whoever he is. No 'god' exists
because the real view of life and observation of our surroundings,
plus understanding the fatal flaws in every single 'made-up' 'god' is
the public demonstration itself.
No doubt all agnostics have no direct experience of any gods - it's
hard to see how someone could and remain an agnostic - but they also
know that lack of direct experience does not imply non-existence. For
instance, I don't have any direct experience of any worlds besides
this - but that doesn't prove that the 'many worlds' interpretation of
QM is false.
See George....QM has been defined. And it works as far as we can see.
However, the word 'god' is also defined by many people....and the
definitions are incompatible with itself. That is...the stories are
fatally flawed. So by saying 'there may or may not be gods out there'
is meaningless because first of all they're not even defined, and
therefore are not 'gods'. Besides ... the word god is meaningless in
itself. In nature and according to philosophers, having more and more
power is actually a curse as well....so therefore if you got so much
power etc etc etc...then you may not be better than something that has
hardly anything.....you could even be worse off.
Now..secondly...if someone said to you...prove that santa, flying
reindeers, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy don't exist. What are
you going to say? Something like .... 'errr....I don't know..I have no
knowledge of that'?
Kenny L.
Neither do the 'fatal flaws in every single 'made-up' 'god' imply
anything more than that nothing exists that matches that description;
and there is no reason that any actual existent would have to match
such a description.
Let's face it. Christians ignore
certain parts of reality, and they accept fatal flaws in their
stories, and follow something that committed genocide.
Kenny L.
??? How could a non-existence commit genocide?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: agnostics are atheist too |
01 Apr 2004 08:27:14 PM |
|
|
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<HvMac.50685$w54.318885@attbi_s01>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <EEGac.45175$gA5.563076@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Kenny Leong wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<Eirac.142508$_w.1623244@attbi_s53>...
Mark Richardson wrote:
So the agnostic claim is ...
Agnosticism does not entail making any 'claim' (statement standing in
need of proof) any more than atheism does, sir; agnostics (who are also
atheist, by the way, since anyone who is not theist is atheist)
agnostics simply go one step further than other atheists to deny and
repudiate, on principle, 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
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
That doesn't agree with how the freethinker, Thomas Huxley described
agnostics. See above.
It agrees with Huxley better than ...
It does not agree with Huxley at all. Huxley is talking about belief.
The citation given is talking about knowledge, and taking it for granted
that God might exist and just be unknown. This isn't about knowledge, it
is about denial and repudiation of religious belief like Christianity or
Islam, for example. See above.
Why take that bogus explanation over what the man
who coined the term says about it? Is there anything in what Huxley says
to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, take exceptions to both definition
when he claims to know that there are no gods.
Straw man. I have made no statement standing in need of proof at all.
You are the one with the claim that an invisible god might exist anyway,
even though there is no god spoor you can point out, and you are trying
to shift the burden of proof to the negative, remember?
Some hunting guide you turned out to be, claiming that there might be
something when you can't even point out one iota of spoor.
Exactly ... it's the same as folks asking us to prove that santa claus
and the easter bunny and the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Stupid little
idiots.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
