Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.skeptic > #109693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mur@. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 468 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.skeptic
www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love mur@. - 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Seymore4Head <Seymore4Head@Hotmail.invalid> - 2016-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-20 10:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:30 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:55 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:54 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 12:19 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:34 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:27 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "wagner" <wagner@dont-email.me> - 2016-04-01 03:52 +0200
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-01 02:42 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-03 20:52 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-04 02:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-09 10:23 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-02-28 16:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 18:58 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:22 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:35 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 08:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 15:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 21:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:24 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-05 02:21 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:52 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 14:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:18 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 16:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 20:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 19:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 18:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 04:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 00:14 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 09:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:13 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 09:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:24 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:58 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-05 13:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:55 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 14:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:07 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 16:15 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 21:03 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:23 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:46 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 12:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 01:04 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 19:10 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 17:59 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 00:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 14:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:27 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 12:35 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:48 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 00:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-03-03 18:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 00:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 01:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:55 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 01:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-24 17:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-24 11:12 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-24 15:10 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-25 21:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-27 23:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 17:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:19 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 21:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:04 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:41 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:57 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:13 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800
Page 5 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <dccedb1ijutbhdd422il4l6ichukjslbqh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109867 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 11:28:01 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com>: <snip> >Tell me why do you a atheist get to define what agnostics believe? Who >made you a god? When I tried to define atheist this group through a >fit. Guess some atheist are as bad as theist when it comes to >hypocrisy. > >This describes it best IMO > >"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in >the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the >existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently >unknown in fact." This also applies to agnostic theists, who hold a belief in the existence of a particular deity but recognize that its existence is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. And *that* is why agnosticism isn't equivalent to atheism in *any* form. <snip> -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <afaedb938f2gkd4uv7od0ji9mqfmo0qpv3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109863 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>><no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>> >>>>>Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>> evidence. >>>> >>>>Yep. >>>> >>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>> >>>>Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>*course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>> >>>It's actually Catholic doctrine. >> >>It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>subscribe to Catholic doctrine. > >It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics, >and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has >read the words of the service from an official book, telling the >congregation that everybody knows it. OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't count. >>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>>>>> >>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>>>>> not it does". >>>>>> >>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics). >>>> >>>>Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by >>>>Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : >>> >>>I know. >>> >>>But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a >>>mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of >>>atheists. >>> >>>Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>> >>>Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian >>>redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived >>>opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist". >>> >>>And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that >>>[something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually >>>irrelevant and unimportant to them. >>> >>>But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an >>>accurate description of their position. >>> >>>In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy >>>and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than >>>addressing their actual positions. >>> >>>>"Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain >>>>claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such >>>>as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are >>>>unknown and perhaps unknowable." >>>> >>>>And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I >>>>know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the >>>>word): >>>> >>>>"The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>"knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." > >However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only >people who bring it up, that establishes the context. Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists, including "strong" atheists. >>>>IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>agnostics, both believers and non-believers. > >Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's >imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the >level of something that could or could not exist. To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is the most rational position, irrespective of belief either way. >You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to >see it that way. I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than evidence of the existence of deities. >And most atheists are outside it. > >>>And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>>wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >> >>Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >>which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >>agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >>unrelated. > >Because that's the context when theists bring the subject up. How about when non-theists bring it up? >Words have different meanings accordiing to context. And in that >context, agnosticism is specifically about the Christian god. Agreed, Huxley coined it in the context of religious belief. But it's generally applicable to *any* unevidenced belief for which no evidence is likely to be discovered. >You have to be aware of this when trying to communicate. otherwise >everybody is talking past eaxh other. And I am; my original comment was intended to clarify exactly what *I* meant by "agnostic, and why. >>>>And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>>decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>>utility. Just my 20 mills... >>> >>>Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>> >>>Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>>"atheist". >> >>Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >>that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >>and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >>meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >>traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >>and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. > >Knowledge about what? Again, when theists raise the subject, that >establishes the context as being the Christian god. So the response is >in that context and it is disingenuous to expand that to include other >things. You might want to keep in mind that it applies to *any* claims regarding the existence of deities; Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. Although discussions here (sci.skeptic) usually involve the Christian version, the strength of the term lies in its general applicability. Yes, I consider context when forming my posts, but as I noted I prefer to also note that the term has universal applicability *if used as Huxley intended*. >And in that context, their god is merely something they believe as >part of their religion to non-Christians (also non-Jews and >non-Muslims) - it's not something which could or could not exist. Ummm... the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who states unequivocally that no deities exist or *can* exist is making exactly the same error as the theists. We have no evidence of the existence of deities, but that's exactly why Huxley, who knew we're not omniscient, decided to coin a term to describe "unknowable knowledge". And for that matter, that's why science doesn't address the question of the existence of deities in general, but limits itself to refuting specific claims, such as the Noachian Flood. Without objective evidence scientific investigation is impossible. >In much the same way we see Santa Claus as a cultural phenom,enon. a >charming game played with the kids at Christmas. Sure, and we know that what Santa does *cannot* happen by what we know of the laws of physics, if nothing else. So? That argument goes right out the window when deities, specifically omniscient, omnipotent deities unrestrained by physical law, are involved. >>>Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>>through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>>strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>>levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >> >>Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >>concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >>fact, everyone is born an atheist. >> >>>Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>> >>> “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>>accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>>something he can understand.” >>> >>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >> >>I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >>thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. > >Sadly. > >The problem is that our explanations are from outside the box, but >they are interpreted as if they were from inside it. Yep, the blind spot again. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <tbfedbdtg7nfh37n4ihgdp5p8mtndce42e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109901 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee ><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>>><no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>>> >>>>>>Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>> >>>>>Yep. >>>>> >>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>>> >>>>>Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>>*course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>>him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>>> >>>>It's actually Catholic doctrine. >>> >>>It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>>failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>>subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >> >>It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics, >>and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has >>read the words of the service from an official book, telling the >>congregation that everybody knows it. > >OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and >Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't >count. It's an unqualified "everybody", and it was clear from the rest of it that it meant everybody. You've seen how Sir Pukelot refuses to accept that atheists don't share his doctrinal beliefs. [..] >>>>>"The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>>"knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>>describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>>all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>>ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >> >>However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only >>people who bring it up, that establishes the context. > >Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their >knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning >escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists, >including "strong" atheists. Those who have fallen for the common usage theist misrepresentations which would be a false dichotomy even inside the Christian paradigm. So many people accept the labels as a least-bad fit, even though they don't actually describe them Atheists, at least, are outside the Christian paradigm and can't be describes as if its tenets applied to us. >>>>>IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>>limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>>for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>>agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >> >>Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's >>imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the >>level of something that could or could not exist. > >To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is >the most rational position, irrespective of belief either >way. There is no "either way" - just Christians who expect everybody else to take their unsubstantiated beliefs seriously. Do you also see the existence of Zeus, UFO abductions, Santa Claus, etc as having an "either way? Or do you see them as things some other people believe, but you don't? Please stop misrepresenting atheists. >>You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to >>see it that way. > >I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about >evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a >similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting >Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they >exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than >evidence of the existence of deities. Never heard of the falsifiable default about ridiculous claims? >>And most atheists are outside it. >> >>>>And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>>>wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >>> >>>Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >>>which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >>>agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >>>unrelated. >> >>Because that's the context when theists bring the subject up. > >How about when non-theists bring it up? Very few do. >>Words have different meanings accordiing to context. And in that >>context, agnosticism is specifically about the Christian god. > >Agreed, Huxley coined it in the context of religious belief. >But it's generally applicable to *any* unevidenced belief >for which no evidence is likely to be discovered. But we're not talking about any old unevidenced belief. We're talking about theists insisting the irrational is fact. >>You have to be aware of this when trying to communicate. otherwise >>everybody is talking past eaxh other. > >And I am; my original comment was intended to clarify >exactly what *I* meant by "agnostic, and why. Except that it was in the specific context of theists who invent positions atheists don't have. >>>>>And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>>>decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>>>utility. Just my 20 mills... >>>> >>>>Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>>> >>>>Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>>>"atheist". >>> >>>Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >>>that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >>>and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >>>meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >>>traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >>>and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. >> >>Knowledge about what? Again, when theists raise the subject, that >>establishes the context as being the Christian god. So the response is >>in that context and it is disingenuous to expand that to include other >>things. > >You might want to keep in mind that it applies to *any* >claims regarding the existence of deities; Christian, >Jewish, Islamic, etc. Although discussions here >(sci.skeptic) usually involve the Christian version, the >strength of the term lies in its general applicability. Yes, >I consider context when forming my posts, but as I noted I >prefer to also note that the term has universal >applicability *if used as Huxley intended*. And? >>And in that context, their god is merely something they believe as >>part of their religion to non-Christians (also non-Jews and >>non-Muslims) - it's not something which could or could not exist. > >Ummm... the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who >states unequivocally that no deities exist or *can* exist is >making exactly the same error as the theists. We have no For fuck's sake. Why do you keep attacking a straw man? >evidence of the existence of deities, but that's exactly why >Huxley, who knew we're not omniscient, decided to coin a >term to describe "unknowable knowledge". So it is reasonable to assume they don't - pending evidence that they do. Which people were doing with ostensibly ridiculous claims long before Popper formulated it as part of his philosophy of science. >And for that matter, that's why science doesn't address the >question of the existence of deities in general, but limits >itself to refuting specific claims, such as the Noachian >Flood. Without objective evidence scientific investigation >is impossible. No. Science doesn't because nothing whatsoever points in that direction, there is no reason even to posit them. Not to mention that science is parsimonious and god-claims are maximal - some unevidenced magical superbeing is supposed to have a variety of infinite powers and attributes, which between them make what is claimed an impossibility. Anybody who tries to bring gods up, has to provide scientific evidence for them. But in any case, scientists who happen to be theist, leave their god-beliefs outside when they do their work. >>In much the same way we see Santa Claus as a cultural phenom,enon. a >>charming game played with the kids at Christmas. > >Sure, and we know that what Santa does *cannot* happen by >what we know of the laws of physics, if nothing else. So? >That argument goes right out the window when deities, >specifically omniscient, omnipotent deities unrestrained by >physical law, are involved. No. It is up to their proponents to demonstrate them, or at least justify them. They fail long before they reach that point, because no theist has ever been able to demonstrate anything unrestrained by physical laws, let alone gods. >>>>Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>>>through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>>>strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>>>levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >>> >>>Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >>>concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >>>fact, everyone is born an atheist. >>> >>>>Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>> >>>> “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>>>accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>>>something he can understand.” >>>> >>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >>> >>>I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >>>thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. >> >>Sadly. >> >>The problem is that our explanations are from outside the box, but >>they are interpreted as if they were from inside it. > >Yep, the blind spot again. In the real world, there are hundreds, if not thousands, or different god beliefs. Christians claim theirs is more than just a belief, without giving the rest of us any reason to think so. By default, it is just a belief - and it remains so until they demonstrate otherwise. That is not a belief in itself, but the way unsupported claims are treated in the real world, especially when they are un-necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <974gns.dta.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109915 |
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>>>> >>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine. >>>> >>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >>> >>> It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics, >>> and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has >>> read the words of the service from an official book, telling the >>> congregation that everybody knows it. >> >> OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and >> Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't >> count. > > It's an unqualified "everybody", and it was clear from the rest of it > that it meant everybody. > > You've seen how Sir Pukelot refuses to accept that atheists don't > share his doctrinal beliefs. > > [..] >>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>> >>> However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only >>> people who bring it up, that establishes the context. >> >> Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their >> knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning >> escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists, >> including "strong" atheists. > > Those who have fallen for the common usage theist misrepresentations > which would be a false dichotomy even inside the Christian paradigm. > > So many people accept the labels as a least-bad fit, even though they > don't actually describe them > > Atheists, at least, are outside the Christian paradigm and can't be > describes as if its tenets applied to us. > >>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>> >>> Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's >>> imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the >>> level of something that could or could not exist. >> >> To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is >> the most rational position, irrespective of belief either >> way. > > There is no "either way" - just Christians who expect everybody else > to take their unsubstantiated beliefs seriously. > > Do you also see the existence of Zeus, UFO abductions, Santa Claus, > etc as having an "either way? > > Or do you see them as things some other people believe, but you don't? > > Please stop misrepresenting atheists. > >>> You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to >>> see it that way. >> >> I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about >> evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a >> similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting >> Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they >> exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than >> evidence of the existence of deities. > > Never heard of the falsifiable default about ridiculous claims? Ordinary claims, require ordinary evidence Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Ridiculous claims can be dismissed in a sense of any evidence. The claim of gods is ridiculous, and the absence of evidence the claim is dismissible. I know some people will say "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but if one does consider the ridiculousness of the claim then the absence of evidence is telling. The ridiculousness of those defending their claim under the burden of proof clauses using self referencing collection of myths is at best the fallacy of circular logic, and the fallacy of post hoc declaration. One can always consider claims falling the burden of proof when fallacy are used to defend the claim. Remember the old saying before I'll go searching for evidence about your claim of a purple invisible unicorn in your lower garden, prove you have a lower garden 1st. The theist can not provide any evidence to support a ridiculous claim, then the claim is dismissible. This is as bad as the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of pin. They need to show angels actually exist or the time in discussion is wasted over a ridiculous claim. > >>> And most atheists are outside it. >>> >>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >>>> >>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >>>> unrelated. >>> >>> Because that's the context when theists bring the subject up. >> >> How about when non-theists bring it up? > > Very few do. > >>> Words have different meanings accordiing to context. And in that >>> context, agnosticism is specifically about the Christian god. >> >> Agreed, Huxley coined it in the context of religious belief. >> But it's generally applicable to *any* unevidenced belief >> for which no evidence is likely to be discovered. > > But we're not talking about any old unevidenced belief. > > We're talking about theists insisting the irrational is fact. Any ridiculous claim is dismissible. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the claimant. As a non-theist is is my right to dismiss the claim under the ridiculous clause. How would you treat a person making a ridiculous claim like "I can fly by flapping my arms"? You dismiss the claim after waiting for the claimant to provide proof or evidence to support his claim after a short wait of a few seconds. Ridiculous claims require some evidence to remove >>> You have to be aware of this when trying to communicate. otherwise >>> everybody is talking past eaxh other. >> >> And I am; my original comment was intended to clarify >> exactly what *I* meant by "agnostic, and why. > > Except that it was in the specific context of theists who invent > positions atheists don't have. > >>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills... >>>>> >>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>>>> >>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>>>> "atheist". >>>> >>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. >>> >>> Knowledge about what? Again, when theists raise the subject, that >>> establishes the context as being the Christian god. So the response is >>> in that context and it is disingenuous to expand that to include other >>> things. >> >> You might want to keep in mind that it applies to *any* >> claims regarding the existence of deities; Christian, >> Jewish, Islamic, etc. Although discussions here >> (sci.skeptic) usually involve the Christian version, the >> strength of the term lies in its general applicability. Yes, >> I consider context when forming my posts, but as I noted I >> prefer to also note that the term has universal >> applicability *if used as Huxley intended*. > > And? > >>> And in that context, their god is merely something they believe as >>> part of their religion to non-Christians (also non-Jews and >>> non-Muslims) - it's not something which could or could not exist. >> >> Ummm... the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who >> states unequivocally that no deities exist or *can* exist is >> making exactly the same error as the theists. We have no > > For fuck's sake. > > Why do you keep attacking a straw man? > >> evidence of the existence of deities, but that's exactly why >> Huxley, who knew we're not omniscient, decided to coin a >> term to describe "unknowable knowledge". > > So it is reasonable to assume they don't - pending evidence that they > do. > > Which people were doing with ostensibly ridiculous claims long before > Popper formulated it as part of his philosophy of science. > >> And for that matter, that's why science doesn't address the >> question of the existence of deities in general, but limits >> itself to refuting specific claims, such as the Noachian >> Flood. Without objective evidence scientific investigation >> is impossible. > > No. Science doesn't because nothing whatsoever points in that > direction, there is no reason even to posit them. Not to mention that > science is parsimonious and god-claims are maximal - some unevidenced > magical superbeing is supposed to have a variety of infinite powers > and attributes, which between them make what is claimed an > impossibility. > > Anybody who tries to bring gods up, has to provide scientific evidence > for them. > > But in any case, scientists who happen to be theist, leave their > god-beliefs outside when they do their work. Or should leave it outside. >>> In much the same way we see Santa Claus as a cultural phenom,enon. a >>> charming game played with the kids at Christmas. >> >> Sure, and we know that what Santa does *cannot* happen by >> what we know of the laws of physics, if nothing else. So? >> That argument goes right out the window when deities, >> specifically omniscient, omnipotent deities unrestrained by >> physical law, are involved. > > No. > > It is up to their proponents to demonstrate them, or at least justify > them. > > They fail long before they reach that point, because no theist has > ever been able to demonstrate anything unrestrained by physical laws, > let alone gods. Absences of evidence the ridiculous is dismissible. >>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >>>> >>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist. >>>> >>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>>> >>>>> A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>>>> something he can understand. >>>>> >>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >>>> >>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. >>> >>> Sadly. >>> >>> The problem is that our explanations are from outside the box, but >>> they are interpreted as if they were from inside it. >> >> Yep, the blind spot again. > > In the real world, there are hundreds, if not thousands, or different > god beliefs. Christians claim theirs is more than just a belief, > without giving the rest of us any reason to think so. > > By default, it is just a belief - and it remains so until they > demonstrate otherwise. > > That is not a belief in itself, but the way unsupported claims are > treated in the real world, especially when they are un-necessary. > So ridiculous claims are dismissible in the absences of any evidence. Beliefs based on ridiculous claims also dismissible because of the basis of the belief. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ul3fdbt3r26r1rujb6k0c48ng73lut1ies@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109921 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:58:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine. >>>>> >>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >>>> >>>> It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics, >>>> and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has >>>> read the words of the service from an official book, telling the >>>> congregation that everybody knows it. >>> >>> OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and >>> Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't >>> count. >> >> It's an unqualified "everybody", and it was clear from the rest of it >> that it meant everybody. >> >> You've seen how Sir Pukelot refuses to accept that atheists don't >> share his doctrinal beliefs. >> >> [..] >>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>>> >>>> However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only >>>> people who bring it up, that establishes the context. >>> >>> Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their >>> knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning >>> escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists, >>> including "strong" atheists. >> >> Those who have fallen for the common usage theist misrepresentations >> which would be a false dichotomy even inside the Christian paradigm. >> >> So many people accept the labels as a least-bad fit, even though they >> don't actually describe them >> >> Atheists, at least, are outside the Christian paradigm and can't be >> describes as if its tenets applied to us. >> >>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>>> >>>> Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's >>>> imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the >>>> level of something that could or could not exist. >>> >>> To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is >>> the most rational position, irrespective of belief either >>> way. >> >> There is no "either way" - just Christians who expect everybody else >> to take their unsubstantiated beliefs seriously. >> >> Do you also see the existence of Zeus, UFO abductions, Santa Claus, >> etc as having an "either way? >> >> Or do you see them as things some other people believe, but you don't? >> >> Please stop misrepresenting atheists. >> >>>> You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to >>>> see it that way. >>> >>> I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about >>> evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a >>> similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting >>> Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they >>> exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than >>> evidence of the existence of deities. >> >> Never heard of the falsifiable default about ridiculous claims? > >Ordinary claims, require ordinary evidence >Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence >Ridiculous claims can be dismissed in a sense of any evidence. > >The claim of gods is ridiculous, and the absence of evidence the claim is >dismissible. > >I know some people will say "The absence of evidence is not evidence of >absence", but if one does consider the ridiculousness of the claim then the >absence of evidence is telling. > >The ridiculousness of those defending their claim under the burden of proof >clauses using self referencing collection of myths is at best the fallacy >of circular logic, and the fallacy of post hoc declaration. > >One can always consider claims falling the burden of proof when fallacy are >used to defend the claim. > >Remember the old saying before I'll go searching for evidence about your >claim of a purple invisible unicorn in your lower garden, prove you have a >lower garden 1st. > >The theist can not provide any evidence to support a ridiculous claim, then >the claim is dismissible. > >This is as bad as the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of >pin. They need to show angels actually exist or the time in discussion is >wasted over a ridiculous claim. It never ceases to amaze me, when somebody tells us the only reasonable position is agnosticism - which this poster says is "either way", implying equivalence between the evidenced and undisputed, and the unevidenced, ridiculous and disputed. The theists' god-claims can be dismissed for all sorts of reasons, from the fact they are ridiculous, maximally defined instead of parsimonious, and that above all, they are un-necessary when we already have natural answers. Especially when nobody has ever demonstrated that anything is supernatural so there is no reason to give it a thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <734hdbte8k6cbmilcasoca74st7f9mragr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109929 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:16:13 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote: [Regarding agnosticism] >>>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>>>> >>>>> Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's >>>>> imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the >>>>> level of something that could or could not exist. >>>> >>>> To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is >>>> the most rational position, irrespective of belief either >>>> way. <snip> >It never ceases to amaze me, when somebody tells us the only >reasonable position is agnosticism - which this poster says is "either >way", implying equivalence between the evidenced and undisputed, and >the unevidenced, ridiculous and disputed. That's a misreading of my post. "Either way" referred to whether one was a believer or a non-believer, not to the probability of the existence of deities. Here it is, copied from above: >>>> To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is >>>> the most rational position, irrespective of belief either >>>> way. And since agnosticism is the belief that we will never have actual evidence, I consider it to be more rational that either "Gods exist!" or "No gods exist!" (the "either way" noted). Which is not to say that, IMHO, both positions have equal probability of being correct, or that one should spend time searching for such evidence (we shouldn't), only that certainty is not currently possible. Unless you consider unevidenced belief to be certainty. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <v8vgdb16cvp118i67bil0sgra04dvdqden@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109915 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:16:31 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>><no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>>*course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>>him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>
>>>>It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>>failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>>subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>
>>>It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics,
>>>and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has
>>>read the words of the service from an official book, telling the
>>>congregation that everybody knows it.
>>
>>OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and
>>Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't
>>count.
>
>It's an unqualified "everybody", and it was clear from the rest of it
>that it meant everybody.
OK; zealots abound.
>You've seen how Sir Pukelot refuses to accept that atheists don't
>share his doctrinal beliefs.
Yes. And he's wrong.
>[..]
>>>>>>"The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>>"knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>>describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>>all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>>ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>
>>>However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only
>>>people who bring it up, that establishes the context.
>>
>>Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their
>>knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning
>>escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists,
>>including "strong" atheists.
>
>Those who have fallen for the common usage theist misrepresentations
>which would be a false dichotomy even inside the Christian paradigm.
Ummm... What?
>So many people accept the labels as a least-bad fit, even though they
>don't actually describe them
All labels are incorrect to some extent, and no label
provides a full description of that labeled. It's a map vs.
territory problem, and unlikely to ever be resolved.
>Atheists, at least, are outside the Christian paradigm and can't be
>describes as if its tenets applied to us.
Of course not.
>>>>>>IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>>limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>>for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>>agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>
>>>Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's
>>>imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the
>>>level of something that could or could not exist.
>>
>>To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is
>>the most rational position, irrespective of belief either
>>way.
>
>There is no "either way" - just Christians who expect everybody else
>to take their unsubstantiated beliefs seriously.
You seem to miss my point, which is that whether one
believes or not, no evidence is likely to be found to
support that position.
>Do you also see the existence of Zeus, UFO abductions, Santa Claus,
>etc as having an "either way?
Of course; I'm an agnostic, and know I can never be sure.
Well, excepting Santa; Santa violates the laws of physics,
which purported aliens don't and omnipotent deities don't
have to worry about (being supernatural and omnipotent).
>Or do you see them as things some other people believe, but you don't?
My beliefs, or lack of them, are irrelevant. I see them as
things which have no evidence in support, and which are
unlikely to *ever* have such evidence. I do consider some to
be more plausible than others, but that's solely my belief
since I have no evidence either way.
>Please stop misrepresenting atheists.
I wasn't aware of misrepresenting anyone. Perhaps you could
show where I did? After several years of discussions and
reading thousands of posts on the subject (some in s.s, but
most in talk.origins), this is my understanding of the
subject:
Atheists don't believe deities exist, separated (loosely)
into two varieties, "strong" ("I have a positive belief that
no deities exist") and "weak" ("I have no belief in
deities"). And yes, they are different. Everyone is born a
"weak" atheist; some become believers, some become "strong"
atheists, and some of all three are agnostic.
>>>You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to
>>>see it that way.
>>
>>I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about
>>evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a
>>similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting
>>Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they
>>exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than
>>evidence of the existence of deities.
>
>Never heard of the falsifiable default about ridiculous claims?
Sure. And if it were a scientific debate that would fully
apply. But faith is about belief in the *absence* of
evidence.
>>>And most atheists are outside it.
>>>
>>>>>And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>>wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>>which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>>agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>>unrelated.
>>>
>>>Because that's the context when theists bring the subject up.
>>
>>How about when non-theists bring it up?
>
>Very few do.
In my observation agnosticism comes up fairly often, albeit
usually incorrectly as "unable to decide", which it is not,
since the ranks of both atheists and believers include
traditional agnostics (but not agnostics as the term is
coming, regrettably, to mean).
>>>Words have different meanings accordiing to context. And in that
>>>context, agnosticism is specifically about the Christian god.
>>
>>Agreed, Huxley coined it in the context of religious belief.
>>But it's generally applicable to *any* unevidenced belief
>>for which no evidence is likely to be discovered.
>
>But we're not talking about any old unevidenced belief.
Sure we are; all unevidenced beliefs which are unlikely to
acquire evidence are equivalent in that respect, even though
Huxley coined the term specifically about religion.
>We're talking about theists insisting the irrational is fact.
It *is* fact, to them. That's why I referred to it as a
"blind spot". And believers in alien abductions have the
exact same blind spot. Neither has what would be considered
evidence by science, and neither cares since they have what
*they* consider evidence.
>>>You have to be aware of this when trying to communicate. otherwise
>>>everybody is talking past eaxh other.
>>
>>And I am; my original comment was intended to clarify
>>exactly what *I* meant by "agnostic, and why.
>
>Except that it was in the specific context of theists who invent
>positions atheists don't have.
Sure, the blind spot again, based on their "facts".
>>>>>>And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>>decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>>utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>>"atheist".
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>>that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>>and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>>meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>>traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>>and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>
>>>Knowledge about what? Again, when theists raise the subject, that
>>>establishes the context as being the Christian god. So the response is
>>>in that context and it is disingenuous to expand that to include other
>>>things.
>>
>>You might want to keep in mind that it applies to *any*
>>claims regarding the existence of deities; Christian,
>>Jewish, Islamic, etc. Although discussions here
>>(sci.skeptic) usually involve the Christian version, the
>>strength of the term lies in its general applicability. Yes,
>>I consider context when forming my posts, but as I noted I
>>prefer to also note that the term has universal
>>applicability *if used as Huxley intended*.
>
>And?
No "and", simply noting a phenomenon.
>>>And in that context, their god is merely something they believe as
>>>part of their religion to non-Christians (also non-Jews and
>>>non-Muslims) - it's not something which could or could not exist.
>>
>>Ummm... the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who
>>states unequivocally that no deities exist or *can* exist is
>>making exactly the same error as the theists. We have no
>
>For fuck's sake.
>
>Why do you keep attacking a straw man?
What strawman? Claiming to *know* something for which no
evidence exists is an error, which includes "knowing" both
that deities exist and that *no* deities exist. Note that
this is not the same as failing to believe in, or ignoring
the possibility of, something for which no evidence exists,
which is rational. But belief without evidence is faith, not
science. And the last phrase, "it's not something which
could or could not exist", is such a belief, since we have
no evidence that deities *can't* exist, only no evidence
that they do. A subtle distinction, but one which has caused
more than one red face in the history of science when the
"impossible" was found to be reality. Yes, it's a pedantic
point, but I think a valuable one. YMMV.
>>evidence of the existence of deities, but that's exactly why
>>Huxley, who knew we're not omniscient, decided to coin a
>>term to describe "unknowable knowledge".
>
>So it is reasonable to assume they don't - pending evidence that they
>do.
Of course; I never claimed otherwise. But I tend to come at
this from the position of science, where your comment is a
given.
>Which people were doing with ostensibly ridiculous claims long before
>Popper formulated it as part of his philosophy of science.
>
>>And for that matter, that's why science doesn't address the
>>question of the existence of deities in general, but limits
>>itself to refuting specific claims, such as the Noachian
>>Flood. Without objective evidence scientific investigation
>>is impossible.
>
>No. Science doesn't because nothing whatsoever points in that
>direction, there is no reason even to posit them.
Correct. Which is essentially what I wrote; science can't
investigate anything for which no evidence exists, and thus
doesn't address the idea of deities, only claims made about
them regarding real-world effects.
> Not to mention that
>science is parsimonious and god-claims are maximal - some unevidenced
>magical superbeing is supposed to have a variety of infinite powers
>and attributes, which between them make what is claimed an
>impossibility.
>
>Anybody who tries to bring gods up, has to provide scientific evidence
>for them.
Of course, in a scientific discussion.
>But in any case, scientists who happen to be theist, leave their
>god-beliefs outside when they do their work.
Yep. As I noted.
>>>In much the same way we see Santa Claus as a cultural phenom,enon. a
>>>charming game played with the kids at Christmas.
>>
>>Sure, and we know that what Santa does *cannot* happen by
>>what we know of the laws of physics, if nothing else. So?
>>That argument goes right out the window when deities,
>>specifically omniscient, omnipotent deities unrestrained by
>>physical law, are involved.
>
>No.
Really? Why would an omnipotent being be restrained by laws
it formulated? I'm not saying such beings exist, only that
the logic follows.
>It is up to their proponents to demonstrate them, or at least justify
>them.
Yes, if they want to have them accepted by science. But
belief isn't about science, even though a few morons try to
get such tripe as "Intelligent Design" accepted in science
classes.
>They fail long before they reach that point, because no theist has
>ever been able to demonstrate anything unrestrained by physical laws,
>let alone gods.
Of course not. But then, they see no need to demonstrate
anything, since their faith is not science.
>>>>>Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
>>>>>through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
>>>>>strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
>>>>>levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
>>>>
>>>>Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
>>>>concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
>>>>fact, everyone is born an atheist.
>>>>
>>>>>Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>
>>>>> “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
>>>>>accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>>>>>something he can understand.”
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
>>>>
>>>>I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
>>>>thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
>>>
>>>Sadly.
>>>
>>>The problem is that our explanations are from outside the box, but
>>>they are interpreted as if they were from inside it.
>>
>>Yep, the blind spot again.
>
>In the real world, there are hundreds, if not thousands, or different
>god beliefs. Christians claim theirs is more than just a belief,
>without giving the rest of us any reason to think so.
AFAIK *all* religions have this trait; certainly all the
major ones do. And what they actually do is claim their
belief is based on fact. Hardly surprising, that.
>By default, it is just a belief - and it remains so until they
>demonstrate otherwise.
From the perspective of science, you are correct. But
religious belief, of *any* stripe, isn't about science or
objective evidence.
>That is not a belief in itself, but the way unsupported claims are
>treated in the real world, especially when they are un-necessary.
The "real world" includes several billion believers.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <j33hdbp3ujj6rf1s32g5c9ji482195tooj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109954 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:06:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:16:31 -0600, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
><c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:21:28 -0600, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:49:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>>><no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>>>*course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>>>him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>>>failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>>>subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>>
>>>>It's also doctrinal. I know enough Catholics including charismatics,
>>>>and I have accompanied my Lady Friend to masses where the priest has
>>>>read the words of the service from an official book, telling the
>>>>congregation that everybody knows it.
>>>
>>>OK. Sure he wasn't just addressing the congregation and
>>>Catholics as "everybody"? After all, non-Catholics don't
>>>count.
>>
>>It's an unqualified "everybody", and it was clear from the rest of it
>>that it meant everybody.
>
>OK; zealots abound.
>
>>You've seen how Sir Pukelot refuses to accept that atheists don't
>>share his doctrinal beliefs.
>
>Yes. And he's wrong.
>
>>[..]
>>>>>>>"The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>>>"knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>>>describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>>>all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>>>ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>>
>>>>However, that'snot how theists use it, and when they're the only
>>>>people who bring it up, that establishes the context.
>>>
>>>Theists don't usually admit to any limit to knowledge (their
>>>knowledge, of course), so it's obvious the original meaning
>>>escapes them. And I've seen it brought up by non-theists,
>>>including "strong" atheists.
>>
>>Those who have fallen for the common usage theist misrepresentations
>>which would be a false dichotomy even inside the Christian paradigm.
>
>Ummm... What?
>
>>So many people accept the labels as a least-bad fit, even though they
>>don't actually describe them
>
>All labels are incorrect to some extent, and no label
>provides a full description of that labeled. It's a map vs.
>territory problem, and unlikely to ever be resolved.
The dispute over the meaning of the word "atheist" is between the
theist's misrepresentation and what we actually are.
Unfortunmately, the theist's definitioin has become common usage, even
though it is incorrect.
The people who get to say what it means to be atheist, are the
atheiets. Theists aren't mind readers, no matter how much they insist
they know our POV better than we do ourselves.
It wouldn't be so bad if they kept it to themselves, or bothered to
listen when they are corrected after telling us what we "really" are.
>>Atheists, at least, are outside the Christian paradigm and can't be
>>describes as if its tenets applied to us.
>
>Of course not.
Yet that is the reason common usage gets our POV wrong.
>>>>>>>IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>>>limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>>>for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>>>agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>>
>>>>Very few non-believers are agnostic about the theist's god - it's
>>>>imply part of somebody else's religious beliefs and doesn't reach the
>>>>level of something that could or could not exist.
>>>
>>>To me, it's obvious that with zero evidence agnosticism is
>>>the most rational position, irrespective of belief either
>>>way.
>>
>>There is no "either way" - just Christians who expect everybody else
>>to take their unsubstantiated beliefs seriously.
>
>You seem to miss my point, which is that whether one
>believes or not, no evidence is likely to be found to
>support that position.
And you keep attacking a straw man.
Care to explain why one needs evidence not to believe?
When one simply has no reason to believe, and why not believing
something, is not a belief?
>>Do you also see the existence of Zeus, UFO abductions, Santa Claus,
>>etc as having an "either way?
>
>Of course; I'm an agnostic, and know I can never be sure.
>Well, excepting Santa; Santa violates the laws of physics,
>which purported aliens don't and omnipotent deities don't
>have to worry about (being supernatural and omnipotent).
Linguistically, "either way" implies some kind of equivalence where
there isn't any.
You don't seem to understand the concept of the falsifiable position,
either.
>>Or do you see them as things some other people believe, but you don't?
>
>My beliefs, or lack of them, are irrelevant. I see them as
>things which have no evidence in support, and which are
>unlikely to *ever* have such evidence. I do consider some to
>be more plausible than others, but that's solely my belief
>since I have no evidence either way.
>
>>Please stop misrepresenting atheists.
>
>I wasn't aware of misrepresenting anyone. Perhaps you could
>show where I did? After several years of discussions and
>reading thousands of posts on the subject (some in s.s, but
>most in talk.origins), this is my understanding of the
>subject:
Because you keep treating it as a belief, when it isn't.
And you keep treating the falsiable "no it isn't - prove it" as
another one.
>Atheists don't believe deities exist, separated (loosely)
>into two varieties, "strong" ("I have a positive belief that
>no deities exist") and "weak" ("I have no belief in
>deities"). And yes, they are different. Everyone is born a
>"weak" atheist; some become believers, some become "strong"
>atheists, and some of all three are agnostic.
What are deities?
Hint: they're a cultural phenomenon which some people BELIEVE.but we
don't.
Whatever they might mean to the believer, that's all they are outside
their religion.
And atheists are part of the world beyond it, who see the religion
and its gods from outside it.
>>>>You have to be at least part way inside their religious paradign to
>>>>see it that way.
>>>
>>>I disagree, since as I noted it's not about belief but about
>>>evidence and the perception of the limits of knowledge. In a
>>>similar way, I'm agnostic regarding ET spacecraft visiting
>>>Earth, although I think the evidence for them (if they
>>>exist, which I doubt) is more likely to be discovered than
>>>evidence of the existence of deities.
Wy do yiou imagine atheists have something (in the context oif
somebody else's god-belief, to be agnostic about?
Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more
reasonable then their atheism, you need to understand what the word
"god" means to atheists.
BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists -
and apparently to you as well.
That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists.
>>Never heard of the falsifiable default about ridiculous claims?
>
>Sure. And if it were a scientific debate that would fully
>apply. But faith is about belief in the *absence* of
>evidence.
Irrelevent.
We're not the ones who bring gods up as facts.
In any case, people were using the falsifiable default long before
Popper formalised it and gave it that name.
Even kids in the schoolyard.
>>>>And most atheists are outside it.
>>>>
>>>>>>And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>>>wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>>>which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>>>agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>>>unrelated.
>>>>
>>>>Because that's the context when theists bring the subject up.
>>>
>>>How about when non-theists bring it up?
>>
>>Very few do.
>
>In my observation agnosticism comes up fairly often, albeit
>usually incorrectly as "unable to decide", which it is not,
>since the ranks of both atheists and believers include
>traditional agnostics (but not agnostics as the term is
>coming, regrettably, to mean).
I've rarely seen that, unless theists ask the agnostic (or the
atheist. many atheists say they are agnostic to avoid upsetting theist
family, friends and co-workers).
>>>>Words have different meanings accordiing to context. And in that
>>>>context, agnosticism is specifically about the Christian god.
>>>
>>>Agreed, Huxley coined it in the context of religious belief.
>>>But it's generally applicable to *any* unevidenced belief
>>>for which no evidence is likely to be discovered.
>>
>>But we're not talking about any old unevidenced belief.
>
>Sure we are; all unevidenced beliefs which are unlikely to
>acquire evidence are equivalent in that respect, even though
>Huxley coined the term specifically about religion.
No.
We were talking about the specific context of theism.
You introduced a red herring.
>>We're talking about theists insisting the irrational is fact.
>
>It *is* fact, to them. That's why I referred to it as a
>"blind spot". And believers in alien abductions have the
>exact same blind spot. Neither has what would be considered
>evidence by science, and neither cares since they have what
>*they* consider evidence.
Even though it is nothing remotely resembling evidence.
But they're not asked to provide it until they bring their beliefs up,
at which point it becomes "put up or shut up".
And both groups do neither, usually resorting to ad hominems when
presented with awkward questions they can't answer.
>>>>You have to be aware of this when trying to communicate. otherwise
>>>>everybody is talking past eaxh other.
>>>
>>>And I am; my original comment was intended to clarify
>>>exactly what *I* meant by "agnostic, and why.
Which you introduced in the middle of a "discussion" about theism vs
atheism, insisting it was the most reasonable position.
And you refused to accept that (in that context) atheists don't have
anything to be agnostic about, ignoring reasons why they don't.
Of which the falsifiable default is just one.
Another is that in the real world beyond the theist's religion, it's
merely part of somebody else's belief system, and not substantively
different from all the others.
Which reminds me, what do people say when you tell them you are
agnostic about Zeus, Odin and all the others?
>>Except that it was in the specific context of theists who invent
>>positions atheists don't have.
>
>Sure, the blind spot again, based on their "facts".
And that is the context of this discussion.
>>>>>>>And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>>>decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>>>utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>>>"atheist".
>>>>>
>>>>>Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>>>that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>>>and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>>>meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>>>traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>>>and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>>
>>>>Knowledge about what? Again, when theists raise the subject, that
>>>>establishes the context as being the Christian god. So the response is
>>>>in that context and it is disingenuous to expand that to include other
>>>>things.
>>>
>>>You might want to keep in mind that it applies to *any*
>>>claims regarding the existence of deities; Christian,
>>>Jewish, Islamic, etc. Although discussions here
>>>(sci.skeptic) usually involve the Christian version, the
>>>strength of the term lies in its general applicability. Yes,
>>>I consider context when forming my posts, but as I noted I
>>>prefer to also note that the term has universal
>>>applicability *if used as Huxley intended*.
>>
>>And?
>
>No "and", simply noting a phenomenon.
Which has nothing to do with addressing my points.
>>>>And in that context, their god is merely something they believe as
>>>>part of their religion to non-Christians (also non-Jews and
>>>>non-Muslims) - it's not something which could or could not exist.
The theists who make the claim, have to take it beyond the belief we
observe them having,
Until they do that, all that can be said is that the belief exists.
And until them the object of that belief is in a sort of limbo - it
isn't YET something that could or could not exist.
>>>Ummm... the two are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who
>>>states unequivocally that no deities exist or *can* exist is
>>>making exactly the same error as the theists. We have no
>>
>>For fuck's sake.
>>
>>Why do you keep attacking a straw man?
>
>What strawman? Claiming to *know* something for which no
AND THAT'S THE FRIKKING STRAW MAN YOU'RE ATTACKING.
In the context of theism and atheists, that's the theist's
misrepresentation of atheists.
>evidence exists is an error, which includes "knowing" both
>that deities exist and that *no* deities exist. Note that
Which is why the falsifiable default is used.
Even theists use it for pretty much everything else. We just apply it
to their god-claims as well, because we are outside the domain of
discourse where they are automatically granted.
When it comes to their gods, all rationality goes up in smoke.
>this is not the same as failing to believe in, or ignoring
>the possibility of, something for which no evidence exists,
>which is rational. But belief without evidence is faith, not
>science. And the last phrase, "it's not something which
>could or could not exist", is such a belief, since we have
No, it remains merely their religious belief, until they demonstrate
otherwise.
>no evidence that deities *can't* exist, only no evidence
That's why it's the falsifiable position you keep ignoring.
>that they do. A subtle distinction, but one which has caused
>more than one red face in the history of science when the
>"impossible" was found to be reality. Yes, it's a pedantic
>point, but I think a valuable one. YMMV.
It hinges on the meaning of the word "God", which is different inside
and outside the theist's religion.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9161.htm
Here is the Merriam Webster's definition for the word God:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped
as creator and ruler of the universe
Encarta World Dictionary (print edition) defines the same word as
follows:
the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam,
and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the
universe, worshiped as the only god
The Oxford American Dictionary defines it this way:
the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and
Muslim teaching
Were I to use your understanding of the role that dictionaries play
in determining word meaning, and were I to rely solely upon the
Merriam Webster's, I'd be in big trouble, because this dictionary
expresses its definition as fact, rather than reporting it as the
opinion of some people. I'd have to believe that a "God" exists
because the dictionary does not qualify its definition as the
opinion of some but not all people.
The other dictionaries are more responsible than this, the second
reporting that this description is "believed" by certain groups, and
the third that this is according to the "teaching" of certain
groups. So, as a man who is proficient in the English language, I
would reject the first definition as patently biased, and would
accept the second and third as being accurate reports of how people
use this word.
Merriam Webster's changes its tune when it comes to defining the
word astrology:
the divination of supposed influences of the stars and planets on
human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions
Ah! The "supposed" influences of the stars and planets, not the
actual influence of the stars and planets! So we see that MW is at
least capable of showing that something is an opinion and doesn't
accept every controversial claim as fact. This is clearly a
double-standard, typical of somebody with an agenda (such as
propagating the Christian faith)..
Encarta says this:
the study of the positions of the Moon, Sun, and other planets in
the belief that their motions affect human beings
And Oxford American says this:
the study of the supposed influence of stars on human affairs
So here we have complete agreement between the three reference works
that astrology is a belief or an allegation made by some people.None
of the three presuppose that astrology is based in fact. This makes
sense, seeing as how the astrology movement has never never seen fit
to organize for the purpose of gaining widespread political control
over entire continents of nations, and thus has never become so
intoxicated with power that it would dare to think it could get away
with doing what Merriam Webster's has done with the word God.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <4tijdbhdg0temb1k5tcvdfmq08v125u11r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109972 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:34:54 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: <snip for clarification; this is getting excessively long and convoluted, with multiple redundancies> >Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more >reasonable then their atheism, you need to understand what the word >"god" means to atheists. I said "rational" not "reasonable". Given zero evidence for the existence of deities, atheism is eminently reasonable, and "weak" atheism is also rational. "Rational", to me involves consideration of the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. No evidence = nothing to consider, and thus no reason to believe in deities. Agnosticism, OTOH, takes the lack of evidence, and the expectation that evidence will remain unavailable, as reason to consider the potential existence of deities to be both unknown (correct by observation) and unknowable (a reasonable prediction). But again, it's basically about the limits of knowledge, not belief, and both atheists and theists can be, and have been, agnostics. >BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists - >and apparently to you as well. > >That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists. So, since it apparently doesn't mean to you "a supernatural being, purported by some to exist", why don't you explain what "God" (or "gods", or "deities") means to you, and provide your definition of "atheist", so I don't keep making the same egregious error of saying it means "has no belief in deities"? Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. Among other sources, these are ones I've used, including several of the references given in them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism Are they wrong? Are there better references which define the terms as you do? <snip> -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <979glo.ff4.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110041 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:34:54 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > > <snip for clarification; this is getting excessively long > and convoluted, with multiple redundancies> > >> Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more >> reasonable then their atheism, you need to understand what the word >> "god" means to atheists. > > I said "rational" not "reasonable". Given zero evidence for > the existence of deities, atheism is eminently reasonable, > and "weak" atheism is also rational. "Rational", to me > involves consideration of the evidence to arrive at a > conclusion. No evidence = nothing to consider, and thus no > reason to believe in deities. No evidence of a lower garden No evidence of a unicorn No need to even consider the claim. > Agnosticism, OTOH, takes the > lack of evidence, and the expectation that evidence will > remain unavailable, as reason to consider the potential > existence of deities to be both unknown (correct by > observation) and unknowable (a reasonable prediction). But > again, it's basically about the limits of knowledge, not > belief, and both atheists and theists can be, and have been, > agnostics. Ridiculous claims should never be considered a possible positive claim, until non-exist evidence is found. Especially when the claim is not supported by observation or any data. The lack of evidence is indication of failure to properly support the claim and the claim moves toward the area called post hoc fallacy. The post hoc fallacy then becomes part of dogmatic faith, where idle speculation is given false weight. And it is a simple step to a full blow religion. Agnosticism is simple not a logical or rational thought process. There comes a point in which you either dismiss ridiculous claims or you become one of the faithful. If you continue to stand on the razor, it makes you appear two faced and unable to make up your own mind. Once a person has a sound grasp on evidence, you either accept or reject the ridiculous claims. >> BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists - >> and apparently to you as well. >> >> That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists. > > So, since it apparently doesn't mean to you "a supernatural > being, purported by some to exist", why don't you explain > what "God" (or "gods", or "deities") means to you, and > provide your definition of "atheist", so I don't keep making > the same egregious error of saying it means "has no belief > in deities"? Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. > Among other sources, these are ones I've used, including > several of the references given in them: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism An atheist should avoid using the word 'believe', because it tends to confuse those that have some sort of faith. It make sure they understand the ridiculousness of the claim, ask the to substitute the deity of there choice with a well known ridiculous claim. The substitution could be a unicorn, elf, easter bunny, or even the flying purple people eater. > Are they wrong? Are there better references which define the > terms as you do? > > <snip> -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <md8mdbtheneasur6s6f7hlfpfjm7p623e8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110049 |
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 20:28:06 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:34:54 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> <snip for clarification; this is getting excessively long >> and convoluted, with multiple redundancies> >> >>> Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more >>> reasonable then their atheism, you need to understand what the word >>> "god" means to atheists. >> >> I said "rational" not "reasonable". Given zero evidence for >> the existence of deities, atheism is eminently reasonable, >> and "weak" atheism is also rational. "Rational", to me >> involves consideration of the evidence to arrive at a >> conclusion. No evidence = nothing to consider, and thus no >> reason to believe in deities. > >No evidence of a lower garden >No evidence of a unicorn >No need to even consider the claim. Nope. And that, to me, means the same thing as "doesn't believe the claim". As I've noted in past posts newborns are atheist by definition, and some remain that way. >> Agnosticism, OTOH, takes the >> lack of evidence, and the expectation that evidence will >> remain unavailable, as reason to consider the potential >> existence of deities to be both unknown (correct by >> observation) and unknowable (a reasonable prediction). But >> again, it's basically about the limits of knowledge, not >> belief, and both atheists and theists can be, and have been, >> agnostics. > >Ridiculous claims should never be considered a possible positive >claim, until non-exist evidence is found. Especially when the claim >is not supported by observation or any data. ...which has nothing to do with "classical" agnosticism as the term was coined by Huxley. Using Huxley's definition "we can never know" means exactly that, not "we can't decide". >The lack of evidence is indication of failure to properly support >the claim and the claim moves toward the area called post hoc >fallacy. The post hoc fallacy then becomes part of dogmatic >faith, where idle speculation is given false weight. And it is a >simple step to a full blow religion. Yes. And again, has nothing to do with agnosticism. >Agnosticism is simple not a logical or rational thought process. >There comes a point in which you either dismiss ridiculous claims >or you become one of the faithful. If you continue to stand on the >razor, it makes you appear two faced and unable to make up your >own mind. Once a person has a sound grasp on evidence, you >either accept or reject the ridiculous claims. You're apparently using the developing meaning of "agnosticism", which I've been careful to point out is *not* the one I use. In that developing definition, which amounts to "I can't decide", you are correct. >>> BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists - >>> and apparently to you as well. >>> >>> That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists. >> >> So, since it apparently doesn't mean to you "a supernatural >> being, purported by some to exist", why don't you explain >> what "God" (or "gods", or "deities") means to you, and >> provide your definition of "atheist", so I don't keep making >> the same egregious error of saying it means "has no belief >> in deities"? Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. >> Among other sources, these are ones I've used, including >> several of the references given in them: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism > >An atheist should avoid using the word 'believe', because >it tends to confuse those that have some sort of faith. OK, although the word isn't restricted to religion or faith, and the inability of those with faith to understand that shouldn't be reason to avoid the term. I believe, with good reason, that the 2nd Law of Thermo is generally applicable, so I believe a pot of water on a fire will get hotter while the flame products get cooler and not vice versa (although there's no actual physical requirement for that to happen; heat transfer is statistical and, in concept, reversible). I have numerous other beliefs of a similar nature, and I don't consider them to be religious, even the belief held by science, but unsupported by other than experiential evidence, that physical laws are consistent throughout the universe, regardless of the fact that our sample size is minuscule. >It make sure they understand the ridiculousness of the >claim, ask the to substitute the deity of there choice with a >well known ridiculous claim. I already know the position of believers, and the lack of evidence for that position (actually "positions"; there are as many positions as religions, and probably as many as believers). >The substitution could be a unicorn, elf, easter bunny, >or even the flying purple people eater. > >> Are they wrong? Are there better references which define the >> terms as you do? >> >> <snip> -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbd09p$ucg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #110041 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:36:38 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:34:54 -0600, the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > > <snip for clarification; this is getting excessively long and > convoluted, with multiple redundancies> > >>Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more reasonable >>then their atheism, you need to understand what the word "god" means to >>atheists. > > I said "rational" not "reasonable". Given zero evidence for the > existence of deities, atheism is eminently reasonable, and "weak" > atheism is also rational. "Rational", to me involves consideration of > the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. No evidence = nothing to > consider, and thus no reason to believe in deities. Agnosticism, OTOH, > takes the lack of evidence, and the expectation that evidence will > remain unavailable, as reason to consider the potential existence of > deities to be both unknown (correct by observation) and unknowable (a > reasonable prediction). But again, it's basically about the limits of > knowledge, not belief, and both atheists and theists can be, and have > been, > agnostics. > >>BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists - >>and apparently to you as well. >> >>That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists. > > So, since it apparently doesn't mean to you "a supernatural being, > purported by some to exist", Prince Philip, the Kim family of N. Korea, the Pharaohs and some of the Caesars are/were all supernatural beings? My definition of a god is: "Someone or something, real or imagined, that is purported to be endowed with supernatural powers and believed in by some people." > why don't you explain what "God" (or > "gods", or "deities") means to you, and provide your definition of > "atheist", so I don't keep making the same egregious error of saying it > means "has no belief in deities"? Then maybe we can have a rational > discussion. Among other sources, these are ones I've used, including > several of the references given in them: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism > > Are they wrong? Are there better references which define the terms as > you do? > > <snip> -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 13:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <dk06maF31nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110061 |
On 04/03/2016 21:56, Smiler wrote: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:36:38 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:34:54 -0600, the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> <snip for clarification; this is getting excessively long and >> convoluted, with multiple redundancies> >> >>> Before you rudely tell atheists that your agnosticism is more reasonable >>> then their atheism, you need to understand what the word "god" means to >>> atheists. >> >> I said "rational" not "reasonable". Given zero evidence for the >> existence of deities, atheism is eminently reasonable, and "weak" >> atheism is also rational. "Rational", to me involves consideration of >> the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. No evidence = nothing to >> consider, and thus no reason to believe in deities. Agnosticism, OTOH, >> takes the lack of evidence, and the expectation that evidence will >> remain unavailable, as reason to consider the potential existence of >> deities to be both unknown (correct by observation) and unknowable (a >> reasonable prediction). But again, it's basically about the limits of >> knowledge, not belief, and both atheists and theists can be, and have >> been, >> agnostics. >> >>> BEcause it doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to theists - >>> and apparently to you as well. >>> >>> That's why you keep misrepresenting atheists. >> >> So, since it apparently doesn't mean to you "a supernatural being, >> purported by some to exist", > > Prince Philip, the Kim family of N. Korea, the Pharaohs and some of the > Caesars are/were all supernatural beings? > > My definition of a god is: > "Someone or something, real or imagined, that is purported to be endowed > with supernatural powers and believed in by some people." Which definition would also include Superman and magicians like Darren Brown.... IMO, a functioning definition would not only have to include their powers but also attributes innate to their persons such as immortality or eternal youth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971ia2.a6f.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109857 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>> >>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>> >>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>> evidence. >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>> >>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>> >>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >> >> It's actually Catholic doctrine. > > It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is > failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't > subscribe to Catholic doctrine. > >>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>>>> >>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>>>> not it does". >>>>> >>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>>>> or not it is, for agnostics). >>> >>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by >>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : >> >> I know. >> >> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a >> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of >> atheists. >> >> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >> >> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian >> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived >> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist". >> >> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that >> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually >> irrelevant and unimportant to them. >> >> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an >> accurate description of their position. >> >> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy >> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than >> addressing their actual positions. >> >>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain >>> claims especially metaphysical and religious claims such >>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist are >>> unknown and perhaps unknowable." >>> >>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I >>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the >>> word): >>> >>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>> >>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >> >> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. > > Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement > which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and > agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially > unrelated. > >>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>> utility. Just my 20 mills... >> >> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >> >> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >> "atheist". > > Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept > that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, > and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either > meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, > traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, > and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. > >> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". > > Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a > concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In > fact, everyone is born an atheist. > >> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >> >> A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >> something he can understand. >> >> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy > > I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this > thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel of e dumbing down of people. Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe. I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <bkcedbdrvdkucqhoie5dc3tsjrjhpu6ddf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109870 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>> >>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>> evidence. >>>> >>>> Yep. >>>> >>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>> >>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>> >>> It's actually Catholic doctrine. >> >> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >> subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >> >>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>>>>> >>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>>>>> not it does". >>>>>> >>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics). >>>> >>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by >>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : >>> >>> I know. >>> >>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a >>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of >>> atheists. >>> >>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>> >>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian >>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived >>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist". >>> >>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that >>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually >>> irrelevant and unimportant to them. >>> >>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an >>> accurate description of their position. >>> >>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy >>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than >>> addressing their actual positions. >>> >>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain >>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such >>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are >>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable." >>>> >>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I >>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the >>>> word): >>>> >>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>>> >>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>> >>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >> >> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >> unrelated. >> >>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>> utility. Just my 20 mills... >>> >>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>> >>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>> "atheist". >> >> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. >> >>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >> >> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >> fact, everyone is born an atheist. >> >>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>> >>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>> something he can understand.? >>> >>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >> >> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. > >I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person >didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple >skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to >apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel >of e dumbing down of people. > >Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe. That's a bit too general. While many believers don't actually think about their beliefs, there are notable exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious example. There have been quite a few advances in science by believers who were also scientists, but were able to successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably because they were aware that the two are essentially unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition "belief without evidence". >I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells >people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or >"this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <974eoi.teh.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109905 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer > <no_email@invalid.invalid>: > >> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>>> >>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>> >>>>> Yep. >>>>> >>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>>> >>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine. >>> >>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >>> >>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>>>>>> not it does". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics). >>>>> >>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by >>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : >>>> >>>> I know. >>>> >>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a >>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of >>>> atheists. >>>> >>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian >>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived >>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist". >>>> >>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that >>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually >>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them. >>>> >>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an >>>> accurate description of their position. >>>> >>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy >>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than >>>> addressing their actual positions. >>>> >>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain >>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such >>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are >>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable." >>>>> >>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I >>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the >>>>> word): >>>>> >>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>>>> >>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>>> >>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >>> >>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >>> unrelated. >>> >>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills... >>>> >>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>>> >>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>>> "atheist". >>> >>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. >>> >>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >>> >>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >>> fact, everyone is born an atheist. >>> >>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>> >>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>>> something he can understand.? >>>> >>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >>> >>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. >> >> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person >> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple >> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to >> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel >> of e dumbing down of people. >> >> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe. > > That's a bit too general. While many believers don't > actually think about their beliefs, there are notable > exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious > example. There have been quite a few advances in science by > believers who were also scientists, but were able to > successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably > because they were aware that the two are essentially > unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition > "belief without evidence". Or in the face of contradictory evidence. Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R. False evidence appearing real. People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things. They can be separated. > >> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells >> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or >> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <c4qedbd5mujkmro1cb3giijoa0cjmkl58i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109918 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer >>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer >>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or >>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in >>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in >>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no >>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting >>>>>>>>> evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that >>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of >>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny >>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe. >>>>> >>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine. >>>> >>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is >>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't >>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine. >>>> >>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be >>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or >>>>>>>> not it does". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption >>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether >>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics). >>>>>> >>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by >>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism : >>>>> >>>>> I know. >>>>> >>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a >>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of >>>>> atheists. >>>>> >>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian >>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived >>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist". >>>>> >>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that >>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually >>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them. >>>>> >>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an >>>>> accurate description of their position. >>>>> >>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy >>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than >>>>> addressing their actual positions. >>>>> >>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain >>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such >>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are >>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable." >>>>>> >>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I >>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the >>>>>> word): >>>>>> >>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós >>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to >>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile >>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our >>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." >>>>>> >>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived >>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know >>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious >>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers. >>>>> >>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they >>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent. >>>> >>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement >>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and >>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially >>>> unrelated. >>>> >>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to >>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more >>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills... >>>>> >>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists. >>>>> >>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word >>>>> "atheist". >>>> >>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept >>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited, >>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either >>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said, >>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge, >>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence. >>>> >>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it >>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the >>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different >>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith". >>>> >>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a >>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In >>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist. >>>> >>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot. >>>>> >>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be >>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into >>>>> something he can understand.? >>>>> >>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy >>>> >>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this >>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth. >>> >>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person >>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple >>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to >>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel >>> of e dumbing down of people. >>> >>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe. >> >> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't >> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable >> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious >> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by >> believers who were also scientists, but were able to >> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably >> because they were aware that the two are essentially >> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition >> "belief without evidence". > >Or in the face of contradictory evidence. > >Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the >theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R. >False evidence appearing real. It's not our job - when they claim there are real, either explicitly or implicitly by talking outside their religion as if there were, they have shouldered the burden of proof. And (in that context, even though it should have been obvious) we have nothing to be agnostic about _or_ to believe doesn't exist. Because it's merely part of somebody else's religion - and with that added level of indirectness which changes the meaning, it is not "the creator of the universe" but "what Christians believe created the universe". And we're not Christians so it stops there. Before we can hold either of the positions in the false dichotomy which theists (and a few others) try to force fit us to, they have to make us see it in their light. >People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far >between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things. >They can be separated. It's actually pretty common outside fundamentalism. Non-fundamentalists switch between religion and real world modes all the time. Eg ask most British Christians when they're in real world mode, and they'll admit that virgin births don't happen, But don't ask them when they're in religion mode. It's how, eg Ken Miller, can be a Catholic and a cellular biologist - he's the expert witness who demolished Michael Behe's irreducible complexity claims in the Kitzmiller v the Dover Unified School District ID trial. In fact, I think the plaintiffs were all non-fundamentalist Christians, as were the expert witnesses - to forestall accusations that they were against ID because they were atheist, which is a common lie by creationists and IDiots which we see on Usenet every day..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <0s2hdbpta36hnuss783jg1a7du4cpi0efe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109918 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
<no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
>>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or
>>>>>>>> not it does".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
>>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether
>>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
>>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism :
>>>>>
>>>>> I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
>>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
>>>>> atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
>>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
>>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
>>>>>
>>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
>>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
>>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
>>>>> accurate description of their position.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
>>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
>>>>> addressing their actual positions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
>>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such
>>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are
>>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
>>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
>>>>>> word):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>> unrelated.
>>>>
>>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>> "atheist".
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>>
>>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
>>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
>>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
>>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
>>>>
>>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
>>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
>>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist.
>>>>
>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
>>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>>>>> something he can understand.?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
>>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
>>>
>>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person
>>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple
>>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to
>>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel
>>> of e dumbing down of people.
>>>
>>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe.
>>
>> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't
>> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable
>> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious
>> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by
>> believers who were also scientists, but were able to
>> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably
>> because they were aware that the two are essentially
>> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition
>> "belief without evidence".
>
>Or in the face of contradictory evidence.
They generally retreat to the "God of the Gaps", whether in
the original (?) venue of evolutionary biology or elsewhere.
>Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the
>theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R.
>False evidence appearing real.
I have yet to see evidence that there are no gods, only
evidence that various claims made regarding their actions
have been refuted. I confess I'm at a loss to think of what
form such evidence would or could take.
>People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far
>between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things.
>They can be separated.
Well, they certainly aren't synonyms; one can have faith
based on historical data ("sunrise and sunset will occur
tomorrow"). But at bottom, religious belief *is* about
faith, "belief without (scientific) evidence".
>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells
>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976pqp.hfh.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109955 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
>>>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or
>>>>>>>>> not it does".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
>>>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether
>>>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
>>>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
>>>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
>>>>>> atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
>>>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
>>>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
>>>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
>>>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
>>>>>> accurate description of their position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
>>>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
>>>>>> addressing their actual positions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
>>>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such
>>>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are
>>>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
>>>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
>>>>>>> word):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>>> unrelated.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>>> "atheist".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
>>>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
>>>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
>>>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
>>>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
>>>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
>>>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>>>>>> something he can understand.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
>>>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
>>>>
>>>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person
>>>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple
>>>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to
>>>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel
>>>> of e dumbing down of people.
>>>>
>>>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe.
>>>
>>> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't
>>> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable
>>> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious
>>> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by
>>> believers who were also scientists, but were able to
>>> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably
>>> because they were aware that the two are essentially
>>> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition
>>> "belief without evidence".
>>
>> Or in the face of contradictory evidence.
>
> They generally retreat to the "God of the Gaps", whether in
> the original (?) venue of evolutionary biology or elsewhere.
>
>> Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the
>> theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R.
>> False evidence appearing real.
>
> I have yet to see evidence that there are no gods, only
> evidence that various claims made regarding their actions
> have been refuted. I confess I'm at a loss to think of what
> form such evidence would or could take.
>
>> People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far
>> between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things.
>> They can be separated.
>
> Well, they certainly aren't synonyms; one can have faith
> based on historical data ("sunrise and sunset will occur
> tomorrow"). But at bottom, religious belief *is* about
> faith, "belief without (scientific) evidence".
And knowledge is based on understanding evidence and data.
I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
upstanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
really.
>
>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells
>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <1iijdblkvevujf2e6e92g78ugkrho866v6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109967 |
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
<no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:24:48 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:06:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:19:19 -0600, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:53:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
>>>>>>>>>>> even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
>>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
>>>>>>>>>>> gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
>>>>>>>>>>> gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For most of us, it's not even that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
>>>>>>>>>> everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
>>>>>>>> *course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
>>>>>>>> him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's actually Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's Catholic doctrine that God exists. The blind spot is
>>>>>> failing to understand the fact that non-Catholics don't
>>>>>> subscribe to Catholic doctrine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
>>>>>>>>>> "just part of somebody else's religion".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or
>>>>>>>>>> not it does".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
>>>>>>>>>> that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not it is, for agnostics).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
>>>>>>>> Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
>>>>>>> mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
>>>>>>> atheists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
>>>>>>> redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
>>>>>>> opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
>>>>>>> [something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
>>>>>>> irrelevant and unimportant to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
>>>>>>> accurate description of their position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
>>>>>>> and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
>>>>>>> addressing their actual positions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
>>>>>>>> claims ? especially metaphysical and religious claims such
>>>>>>>> as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist ? are
>>>>>>>> unknown and perhaps unknowable."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
>>>>>>>> know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
>>>>>>>> word):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
>>>>>>>> "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
>>>>>>>> describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
>>>>>>>> all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
>>>>>>>> ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
>>>>>>>> limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
>>>>>>>> for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
>>>>>>>> agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
>>>>>>> wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ummm... I fail to see the relevance of that to my statement
>>>>>> which preceded it, other than to confirm that atheism and
>>>>>> agnosticism are different critters, and are essentially
>>>>>> unrelated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
>>>>>>>> decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
>>>>>>>> utility. Just my 20 mills...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
>>>>>>> "atheist".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. One needn't redefine "atheist" to accept
>>>>>> that knowledge (that's knowledge, not belief) is limited,
>>>>>> and that neither a believer nor an atheist, in either
>>>>>> meaning of the term, can ever know for sure. As I said,
>>>>>> traditional agnosticism is about the limits of knowledge,
>>>>>> and has nothing to do with faith or its absence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
>>>>>>> through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
>>>>>>> strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
>>>>>>> levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed; atheism is not a faith, and one needn't even have a
>>>>>> concept of the existence of deities to be an atheist. In
>>>>>> fact, everyone is born an atheist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
>>>>>>> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>>>>>>> something he can understand.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm encountering exactly that in another discussion in this
>>>>>> thread. And not for the first time, nor the tenth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I too have encounter the mistranslation of something which the person
>>>>> didn't understand. I see this often with a group of people which simple
>>>>> skip over words or concepts they do not have the required background to
>>>>> apply or simple do not know the meaning of the words. It is part and parcel
>>>>> of e dumbing down of people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Religions require stupid and unthinking people to simply believe.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit too general. While many believers don't
>>>> actually think about their beliefs, there are notable
>>>> exceptions, Jesuit scientists being the most obvious
>>>> example. There have been quite a few advances in science by
>>>> believers who were also scientists, but were able to
>>>> successfully compartmentalize belief and science, probably
>>>> because they were aware that the two are essentially
>>>> unrelated. Faith, after all, has as a primary definition
>>>> "belief without evidence".
>>>
>>> Or in the face of contradictory evidence.
>>
>> They generally retreat to the "God of the Gaps", whether in
>> the original (?) venue of evolutionary biology or elsewhere.
>>
>>> Even if it we possible to prove, with evidence that there is no gods, the
>>> theist already have a plan. The have a ready Acronym on hand F.E.A.R.
>>> False evidence appearing real.
>>
>> I have yet to see evidence that there are no gods, only
>> evidence that various claims made regarding their actions
>> have been refuted. I confess I'm at a loss to think of what
>> form such evidence would or could take.
>>
>>> People that can compartmentalize their thinking process of are few and far
>>> between. And I don't alway think faith and religion are the same things.
>>> They can be separated.
>>
>> Well, they certainly aren't synonyms; one can have faith
>> based on historical data ("sunrise and sunset will occur
>> tomorrow"). But at bottom, religious belief *is* about
>> faith, "belief without (scientific) evidence".
>
>And knowledge is based on understanding evidence and data.
Yes. So? Religion isn't based on science, evidence or data;
it's based on emotion.
>I know the sun will rise and set not as a belief but and knowledge and
>upstanding of evidence and data. Faith doesn't enter into the equation,
>really.
Actually it does, if to a *very* limited extent. To argue
that "as in the past, so in the future" is a statement of
faith. Justifiable, but still faith, since none of us can
see the future. Admittedly, it's not very likely that Sol
will go nova overnight, but it's a nonzero possibility.
>>>>> I've been watching a few marketing gurus. One of these gurus always tells
>>>>> people lies and either prefaces or ends with "this is unbelievable" or
>>>>> "this is fantastic", and people,see to ignore the meaning of those phrases.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web