Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
541 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, PaulK, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 534 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,210 Year: 4,322/6,534 Month: 536/900 Week: 60/182 Day: 32/16 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
John
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 239 (28331)
01-02-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by gene90
01-02-2003 1:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
How do you (as an agnostic) claim to know what is "rational" and what is not?

This is non-sense. If you want to discuss something, please do better than this. Try to disentangle the inferences and construct something tangible. I don't feel like doing it for you.

quote:
Much as it is silly to claim that any one of them, or all of them are wrong.

When you feel you can manage to not miss the point yet again, get back to me. Oh, and when you do, try to address the points raised rather than select a few lines from which to launch petty little jabs.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 1:33 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by gene90, posted 01-03-2003 1:43 AM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 214 of 239 (28340)
01-03-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by John
01-02-2003 7:32 PM


quote:
Try to disentangle the inferences and construct something tangible.

What "inference"? Are you an agnostic or aren't you?

quote:
Oh, and when you do, try to address the points raised rather than select a few lines from which to launch petty little jabs

Sounds familiar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by John, posted 01-02-2003 7:32 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by John, posted 01-03-2003 9:34 AM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 239 (28347)
01-03-2003 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by gene90
01-03-2003 1:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
What "inference"? Are you an agnostic or aren't you?

You can't seriously have missed the point this badly. In fact, I know you didn't. You are quite intelligent enough follow this thread and to respond, but you choose not to do so, and post this is my-head-is-in-the-sand trash instead.

The inference refered to is not my agnosticism but the multiple implied relationships between agnosticism and rationality. Possible interpretations: Agnostics cannot determine what is reasonable. That one should be damned obvious. How about? God is required for rational thought. Agnosticism and rationality are diametrically opposed. It sounds a lot like forgiven's 'materialists can't account for metaphysical entities.' I could think of more associations but you sort it out. It was your quip.

quote:
quote:
Oh, and when you do, try to address the points raised rather than select a few lines from which to launch petty little jabs

Sounds familiar.


I wish this forum had some form of 'post quality meter' which reflected the feeling of the people reading the threads-- a voting booth, so tho speak.

Why don't you review the last few posts and do some soul searching? I don't see that you addressed a single point from post #209. You missed the main point of post #182, and several others. hmmm.... your primary tactic on this thread seems to be to miss the point and attack something else instead. Consequently, it has become unbelievably pointless to debate with you.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by gene90, posted 01-03-2003 1:43 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 6:30 PM John has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 239 (28403)
01-04-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by gene90
01-02-2003 1:36 PM


But hey, you were shocked when you found out about the monkeysex right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by gene90, posted 01-02-2003 1:36 PM gene90 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 4:04 PM Gzus has taken no action

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 239 (28408)
01-04-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Gzus
01-04-2003 8:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
But hey, you were shocked when you found out about the monkeysex right?

But hey, wouldn't anyone be shocked to find out about monkey-sex?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Gzus, posted 01-04-2003 8:48 AM Gzus has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 218 of 239 (28758)
01-09-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by John
01-03-2003 9:34 AM


quote:
I wish this forum had some form of 'post quality meter' which reflected the feeling of the people reading the threads-- a voting booth, so tho speak.

So if the public at large doesn't like my posts I must be wrong? Argument from authority. And what if you're the unpopular one? Would that mean I have defeated you?

quote:
How about? God is required for rational thought.

What is this? Agnostics by definition claim to not know if there is a God. Therefore by extension agnostics cannot know what is reasonable. To claim that a belief in a God is unreasonable requires *knowing* (or assuming) that there is no God.

Where the heck are you getting "without God there can be no reason"? Atheists claim to know there is no God. I claim they are wrong but I cannot make the case that they do not claim to know what is reasonable because they think there is a reasonable side (theirs). Instead I have to work in different directions than I do with agnostics.

Come on, it took less time for me to poke holes in your argument than it probably did for you to type up the idea. You can do better.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-09-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by John, posted 01-03-2003 9:34 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by John, posted 01-09-2003 10:10 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 226 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 8:13 AM gene90 has taken no action

John
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 239 (28772)
01-09-2003 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by gene90
01-09-2003 6:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
So if the public at large doesn't like my posts I must be wrong?

Didn't say that.

quote:
Argument from authority.

Are you that afraid of feedback?

quote:
And what if you're the unpopular one?

What if... ? I am not afraid to find out.

quote:
Would that mean I have defeated you?

It isn't about defeat, but feedback. The combined opinions of the readers of this board do not constitute truth, but those opinions may be worth considering.

quote:
quote:
How about? God is required for rational thought.

What is this?


One possible implication of a statement you made.

quote:
Agnostics by definition claim to not know if there is a God. Therefore by extension agnostics cannot know what is reasonable.

Then you do claim that God is required for rational thought?

quote:
To claim that a belief in a God is unreasonable requires *knowing* (or assuming) that there is no God.

And is believing in the jackalope also reasonable since no one can prove they don't exist? You can prove false every instance of a jackalope sighting, but you can never quite prove jackalopes don't exist. You can prove false every instance of UFO sightings, but can't quite prove they don't exist. Santa Claus? Same thing. You don't like it, but tough. Santa == zero evidence. God == zero evidence. Are both equally rational beliefs? They must be. Bigfoot? Astrology? All rational beliefs, because like it or not, nothing can be proven false by the definitions you provide. Why is it fair to say that jackalopes do not exist? There is no evidence for a jackalope. Do you know insist that jackalope doubters are unreasonable because they must assume there to be no jackalopes? No. At least, I hope not.

quote:
Where the heck are you getting "without God there can be no reason"?

Yet another option from which you may chose.... but I guess you didn't realize that.

quote:
Come on, it took less time for me to poke holes in your argument than it probably did for you to type up the idea.

Well, if you count missing the point as a victory, I feel sorry for you.

I wish there were a laughter meter on the forum also. Just a thought.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 6:30 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by gene90, posted 01-12-2003 6:55 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 220 of 239 (28932)
01-12-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by John
01-09-2003 10:10 PM


quote:
Are you that afraid of feedback?

No, I'm just pointing out that you're trying to use an argument from authority since you apparently have failed to substantiate your views.

I want to know how you, as an agnostic, have enough information to determine was is "reasonable" and what is not. It is a simple question really. How about answering it instead of making quips about "popularity". Really now.

Of course other's opinion of my posts don't bother me because it is only a function of what the masses believe. In an atheist forum I'd be quite unpopular, but in a forum stacked towards theism you would probably be on the losing end. Such a poll here would only tell us which side more lurkers were on. It would have no bearing on my arguments or the quality (or lack) thereof (Look at the debates Gish has had, and read the evolutionist primers on YEC debates for a classic example of how useless audience participation is in judging arguments). Plus it would be of no use to me; though I wonder why you bring it up....do you want an audience to pander to? It wouldn't surprise me that if you cannot answer simple questions about your views and if theists such as myself are outnumbered you would try to resort to popular opinion to "justify" your views if you cannot use reason. Of course, I am only speculating---you are welcome to debate substantively at any time. I believe we were discussing how agnostics define what is "reasonable" ?

quote:
The combined opinions of the readers of this board do not constitute truth, but those opinions may be worth considering.

"Worth considering", eh? Hmmmmmmm, what could that imply? Perhaps it could imply that maybe people the readership doesn't like should excuse themselves from posting? That unpopular ratings might serve as a sort of under-the-table censorship? Or am I speculating too much? After all, maybe somebody's ego needs to be fed. Again, just a thought...

quote:
Then you do claim that God is required for rational thought?

That would presuppose that I believe the agnostic worldview (that there is not enough information) is valid. Clearly I do not, therefore that is not my claim.

quote:
Santa == zero evidence. God == zero evidence.

So it is your belief that anything with zero evidence for it clearly does not exist? First of all that means you cannot be an agnostic by definition you cannot be an agnostic because you claim that the lack of evidence is a proof that there is no God, therefore you are actually an atheist (why you deny it continues to perplex me but I guess that's your problem. And don't tell me that you know your own beliefs better than I therefore you must be right; because it is merely an appeal to your own authority. You might be claiming that you're a wood duck but that doesn't mean I have to agree that you have feathers, lay eggs, and eat bread handouts from kids at the neighborhood pond). Second of all, as a famous astronomer liked to say to push his belief in undetected extraterrestrials somewhere out there in the universe, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Radio waves were not discovered until fairly recently in history but that doesn't mean that they suddenly appeared the day Faraday was born. If I make a deposit at the bank I may not be able to see the money in the vault but that doesn't mean that it necessarily ceased to exist. Yet there is still "no evidence".

quote:
I wish there were a laughter meter on the forum also. Just a thought.

Yet another appeal to mass authority, which you assume ridicules my posts. Wow, that sure is convincing.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by John, posted 01-09-2003 10:10 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by John, posted 01-12-2003 10:21 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 227 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 8:20 AM gene90 has taken no action

John
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 239 (28948)
01-12-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by gene90
01-12-2003 6:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
No, I'm just pointing out that you're trying to use an argument from authority since you apparently have failed to substantiate your views.

It is this attitude that you are the final arbiter that makes me wish there were some form of feed back mechanism on the forum. You see, gene, you can and will stubbornly repeat yourself as well as misrepresent me-- this little bit above is yet another example of that-- and there is no real solution. Your cause is blinding you to the dead obvious.

Feed back is not an appeal to authority. It is something smart people ask for when trying to work through a problem. Of course, you have made it clear that this is not something you want or would appreciate-- an attitude shared by tyrants and fanatics throughout the ages.

Of course, if my posts were full of slander and misrepresentation I'd have a problem with feed back as well.

I must admit that I can understand how you may think this was an appeal to authority until I clarified my reasons in my last post. That you continue with the 'appeal to authority' tack shows a profound lack of integrity.

quote:
I want to know how you, as an agnostic, have enough information to determine was is "reasonable" and what is not.

What does agnosticism have to do with the determination of what is reasonable? You make absolutely no sense.

quote:
How about answering it

Answering it? How does an agnostic make a determination of what is reasonable? I have given that answer more times than I remember. Do you think that pretending I haven't and continually asking is going to score points for you?

Why don't you explain your reasons? I asked for clarification when you first brought this up and you did not provide any. Can you make an argument? Or do you feel that your assertions are sufficient?

quote:
instead of making quips about "popularity". Really now.

Yes, really now. The 'popularity quip' was yours. From your post 118:

And what if you're the unpopular one? Would that mean I have defeated you?

quote:
Of course other's opinion of my posts don't bother me because it is only a function of what the masses believe.

It is frightening that you do not care about the opinions of others. Technically you are correct, but people tend to see things differently and those viewpoints can be enlightening. That is why I care. What you are doing is insulating yourself.

quote:
It would have no bearing on my arguments or the quality (or lack) thereof

Then you truly are insulating yourself.

quote:
Plus it would be of no use to me

Then you are a fool.

quote:
though I wonder why you bring it up....do you want an audience to pander to?

I have explained this.

quote:
It wouldn't surprise me that if you cannot answer simple questions about your views and if theists such as myself are outnumbered you would try to resort to popular opinion to "justify" your views if you cannot use reason.

If there were an opinion meter on this site and it were stacked against me, I would be concerned and endeavor to find out why such was the case. That is called integrity and apparently you don't have any. It may be that people simply disagree out of sheer fanaticism, but perhaps not. I am not talking about logic here, but self-reflection.

quote:
Of course, I am only speculating---you are welcome to debate substantively at any time.

But sadly, until I agree with you I won't get credit for it. Denail is a powerful force and the force is strong with you.

quote:
I believe we were discussing how agnostics define what is "reasonable" ?

Actually, this line was started when you implied that agnostics CANNOT determine what is reasonable and you have yet to make an argument for that assertion.

quote:
"Worth considering", eh? Hmmmmmmm, what could that imply?

LOL.... exactly what it says. Paying attention to the people around you is not such a great evil. I imagine that most people figure this out pretty early on, or else grow up to be megalomaniacs.

quote:
Or am I speculating too much?

Yes, and desperately trying to justify your fear of feed back.

quote:
After all, maybe somebody's ego needs to be fed.

Some egos are much too well fed as it is. Listening to people is good medicine for that illness.

quote:
Again, just a thought...

More of a stab really.

quote:
quote:
Then you do claim that God is required for rational thought?

That would presuppose that I believe the agnostic worldview (that there is not enough information) is valid. Clearly I do not, therefore that is not my claim.


What?????? Your response does not remotely follow.

God is required for rational thought. How exactly does this presume that you believe the agnostic worldview?

That aside, your response indicates that you do not believe that God is required for rational thought. How then is it that an agnostic should have trouble determining what is reasonable?

quote:
So it is your belief that anything with zero evidence for it clearly does not exist?

It is clearly your intention to continue reciting your garbage. I said nothing about existence. It isn't about existence. It is about reasonable belief. And you seem quite averse to addressing that issue, instead prefering to perpetually divert the discussion to your straw man.

quote:
First of all that means you cannot be an agnostic ...

I've deleted a whole bunch of misguided ranting. I hope you don't mind. It has all been covered too many time to count anyway.

quote:
Second of all, as a famous astronomer liked to say to push his belief in undetected extraterrestrials somewhere out there in the universe, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

ummm... nor does absense of evidence make a belief reasonable, no matter much as you would like it to do so. oh wait... That isn't what you claim? No matter. I claim you claim it so obviously you do.

quote:
Radio waves were not discovered until fairly recently in history but that doesn't mean that they suddenly appeared the day Faraday was born. If I make a deposit at the bank I may not be able to see the money in the vault but that doesn't mean that it necessarily ceased to exist. Yet there is still "no evidence".

Yes, if you ignore the bulk of physics. I don't have a problem with inference and implication, apparently you do.

quote:
Yet another appeal to mass authority, which you assume ridicules my posts. Wow, that sure is convincing.

I just want the whole world laugh with me. Just spreading the joy.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by gene90, posted 01-12-2003 6:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by gene90, posted 01-13-2003 11:06 AM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3059 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 222 of 239 (28988)
01-13-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by John
01-12-2003 10:21 PM


quote:
Feed back is not an appeal to authority.

I bet. What purpose would feedback serve, except either to lend dubious support to one side? Therefore it is an argument from authority.

But if it interests you, in past debates with you I have privately asked for the opinions of others through email, partly to see if I was missing some point you were pushing or had glossed over anything important. The response was completely neutral. Our exchange was interesting to outsiders (the person had already been quietly following the thread) but neither side had demonstrated any logical superiority, both arguments were equally credible and we were at an impasse.

quote:
an attitude shared by tyrants and fanatics throughout the ages.

Now explain this to me. If people on the board disagree with me, I must be wrong? Do you really want to bring this up? Even if that were not an argument from authority (which it is) you would be on the losing side. How many theists are there in the world? How many atheists and agnostics are there? If we tallied up the religious opinion of every human being on the planet, what percentage would agree with you that there is/are no gods?

Of course, fortunately, their opinion does not make you wrong, nor does whatever opinion of people on the board make one of us wrong.

quote:
What does agnosticism have to do with the determination of what is reasonable?

Without information about the nature of God or existance or non-existance of God, which agnostics lack by definition, it is impossible to determine if any particular belief is "reasonable" or not. Therefore an "agnostic" that knows which religious beliefs are "reasonable" or contends that certain beliefs are not reasonable is an internal contradiction. To judge the validity of any belief you must know first (or at least claim to know) what is valid, or you must claim to know whether or not there is a God and what the nature of that God (if there is one) is. That precludes agnosticism.

In the past you have misrepresented this to claim that I am stating that there must be a God for there to be rational thought. That is not a valid extension of my argument. An atheist, by definition, claims to know that there is no God, therefore an atheist may claim to know what is rational and declare that belief in God is irrational without internal contradiction. How the atheist arrives at that conclusion is more of a problem, but I'm not worried about that now because it is a part of atheism, by definition.

quote:

It is frightening that you do not care about the opinions of others.

Why? Should I base my belief system on what is popular? Should I say and think only what would please others? No I do not care about the opinion of others when it comes to my beliefs and opinions, because I am quite capable of making up my own mind. When I decide which direction to part my hair in the morning, should I take a public poll the night before?

It is disturbing to me that you even suggest this. Non-theists often style themselves as "free thinkers". Are you leaving this behind?

quote:
Technically you are correct, but people tend to see things differently and those viewpoints can be enlightening.

This is a public forum. People with strong viewpoints can jump in on either side at any time. However I do not think anybody particularly cares or is interested. I don't see people standing in line waiting to throw in their hat.

quote:
That is why I care. What you are doing is insulating yourself.

Have you suddenly began persuing a political career? Come on, you have a spine too, you know that mass beliefs should have no bearing on one's opinion. Hence the phrase, "personal opinion", which is what I am touting here.

quote:
Yes, and desperately trying to justify your fear of feed back.

Again, this is an open forum with minimal censorship.

However, I fear that you have decided that you won't win and you feel like you need to resort to mass authority to at least leave wtih some credibility. Hence, this sudden interest in others opinions.

But then again, who's afraid of feedback? I suspect most lurkers are YECs, but do not post because the most active members are evos. I'm not a YEC but compared to you I am the next best thing. Feedback could possibly serve me well but it would not mean anything because it would just serve as a useless authority.

Which brings me back to the question of why you want to obfuscate the topic with others opinions which are irrelevant.

quote:
Yes, if you ignore the bulk of physics.

The bulk of physics as it were before radio waves were discovered? Ok so even if you are right on this minor point the radio waves might have magically appeared before Faraday is born, but they weren't around in ancient Greece because there was no evidence for them. Right? Because no evidence = doesn't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by John, posted 01-12-2003 10:21 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by John, posted 01-13-2003 2:04 PM gene90 has taken no action
 Message 225 by DaveF, posted 01-15-2003 9:19 AM gene90 has taken no action

John
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 239 (28995)
01-13-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by gene90
01-13-2003 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I bet. What purpose would feedback serve, except either to lend dubious support to one side? Therefore it is an argument from authority.

... like talking to a brick wall.

quote:
But if it interests you, in past debates with you I have privately asked for the opinions of others through email, partly to see if I was missing some point you were pushing or had glossed over anything important.

Then you understand the point of feed back, so drop the 'appeal to authority' farce.

And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that interests me.

quote:
Now explain this to me. If people on the board disagree with me, I must be wrong?

Nope. Didn't say that. This is your imagination. I have explained how I consider this, but then, you don't listen. This is the same point you brought up in your last post and the same point I addressed in my last post.

quote:
Even if that were not an argument from authority (which it is) you would be on the losing side.

Of course, this is not what I propose and you know that. Or, you would know that if you'd read my posts.

quote:
Of course, fortunately, their opinion does not make you wrong, nor does whatever opinion of people on the board make one of us wrong.

LOL.... thanks for that wisdom.

John from post #219 writes:

The combined opinions of the readers of this board do not constitute truth, but those opinions may be worth considering.

quote:
Without information about the nature of God or existance or non-existance of God, which agnostics lack by definition, it is impossible to determine if any particular belief is "reasonable" or not.

So you keep saying, gene. WHY? You are not telling why this is so.

quote:
Therefore an "agnostic" that knows which religious beliefs are "reasonable" or contends that certain beliefs are not reasonable is an internal contradiction.

Until you come up with something better than an assertion, this is just smoke.

quote:
To judge the validity of any belief you must know first (or at least claim to know) what is valid, or you must claim to know whether or not there is a God and what the nature of that God (if there is one) is. That precludes agnosticism.

I have told you how I determine what is valid. You have not directly addressed that issue, but keep returning to this insistence that rational thought must include a determination of whether God exists or not. It doesn't make sense. You base the idea of rationality on the idea of God and for no good reason that I can tell. Of course, it is hard to tell what you mean as you haven't given any reasons at all thus far.

Equally curious is that the way you have it formulated, either an atheist or a theist can determine what is reasonable. Apparently they are each basing the determination on criteria different from that of the agnostic and perhaps different from each other as well, but you haven't bothered to explain what that criteria is.

quote:
In the past you have misrepresented this to claim that I am stating that there must be a God for there to be rational thought.

hmmm.... statements with question marks at the end are questions. Didn't realize that qualified as misrepresentation.

quote:
An atheist, by definition, claims to know that there is no God, therefore an atheist may claim to know what is rational and declare that belief in God is irrational without internal contradiction.

Why does God have to enter into it at all? Why does one need to know the answer to this question in order to determine what is reasonable?

quote:
It is disturbing to me that you even suggest this. Non-theists often style themselves as "free thinkers". Are you leaving this behind?

What is the problem with asking for feed back? It is the only reason I post to this forum. Do I believe what people tell me? Nope, but it point out things I may have missed. Simple.

quote:
This is a public forum. People with strong viewpoints can jump in on either side at any time. However I do not think anybody particularly cares or is interested. I don't see people standing in line waiting to throw in their hat.

Yes, I know. It is unfortunate.

quote:
Have you suddenly began persuing a political career? Come on, you have a spine too, you know that mass beliefs should have no bearing on one's opinion. Hence the phrase, "personal opinion", which is what I am touting here.

I know that in the past I have been well served by listening to people who disagree. Simple. I search out people who disagree. I look for people who diagree. My favorite people fight with me whenever they are around.

quote:
However, I fear that you have decided that you won't win and you feel like you need to resort to mass authority to at least leave wtih some credibility. Hence, this sudden interest in others opinions.

LOL.... I am not at all worried about my credibility. Nor am I worried about your pronouncement that I won't win. I am quite convinced that you will never admit that I have won and won long ago, but that is different.

quote:
But then again, who's afraid of feedback? I suspect most lurkers are YECs, but do not post because the most active members are evos.

Who is afraid? I am asking for it. You are objecting vehemently.

quote:
Feedback could possibly serve me well but it would not mean anything because it would just serve as a useless authority.

ah... the hubris!

quote:
Which brings me back to the question of why you want to obfuscate the topic with others opinions which are irrelevant.

Yes, other people are irrelevant aren't they gene?

quote:
Because no evidence = doesn't exist.

Except I have not said this. My formulation is "no evidence == no reason to believe and hence not reasonable" but I am sure you'll ignore that correction this time just like countless other times.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 01-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by gene90, posted 01-13-2003 11:06 AM gene90 has taken no action

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3958
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 224 of 239 (28998)
01-13-2003 2:21 PM


I haven't been following this topic very closely, but my impression is that it has now gone well beyond it's intended function.

Time to close it? Schraf, you started the topic - What do you think?

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


DaveF
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 239 (29179)
01-15-2003 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by gene90
01-13-2003 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Without information about the nature of God or existance or non-existance of God, which agnostics lack by definition, it is impossible to determine if any particular belief is "reasonable" or not. Therefore an "agnostic" that knows which religious beliefs are "reasonable" or contends that certain beliefs are not reasonable is an internal contradiction. To judge the validity of any belief you must know first (or at least claim to know) what is valid, or you must claim to know whether or not there is a God and what the nature of that God (if there is one) is. That precludes agnosticism

You can be agnostic and still reject the tenets of any established religion. An agnostic may simply be open to the concept of deism, which hardly precludes them from commenting on any aspect of an organised religions beliefs.

Your argument is akin to condemning an undecided voter for having opinions on political affairs.

[This message has been edited by DaveF, 01-15-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by gene90, posted 01-13-2003 11:06 AM gene90 has taken no action

nator
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 239 (29253)
01-16-2003 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by gene90
01-09-2003 6:30 PM


quote:
Agnostics by definition claim to not know if there is a God. Therefore by extension agnostics cannot know what is reasonable.

What? Why do you think you can make any claim "by extension"?

It is through empiricism and reason that Agnostics come to their result, Gene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 6:30 PM gene90 has taken no action

nator
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 239 (29254)
01-16-2003 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by gene90
01-12-2003 6:55 PM


quote:

That would presuppose that I believe the agnostic worldview (that there is not enough information) is valid. Clearly I do not, therefore that is not my claim.

What information do you have which would constitute evidence for God's existence?

quote:
Santa == zero evidence. God == zero evidence.

quote:
So it is your belief that anything with zero evidence for it clearly does not exist?

I think the point is that it is not REASONABLE to assume it exists without evidence.

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by gene90, posted 01-12-2003 6:55 PM gene90 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by John, posted 01-16-2003 10:03 AM nator has taken no action
 Message 229 by zipzip, posted 01-18-2003 3:33 AM nator has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022