"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408020618.f4615ea@posting.google.co m...
> Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<256og059adbuj99v6kjkl8nkj6ge5i9a0c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it
this way -
> > >all babies are born atheists.
> >
> > No, they'd be born "agnostic".
>
> They are born agnostic *and* atheist. They are also born usually
> without much hair and without adult teeth. They are born without
> a fully developed visual cortex, with limited motor skills, without
> object permanence, and with an incomplete suture in their heads.
> They are born many things at once.
>
> The only people who seem to have problem with this concept are
> people with relatively ineffectual brains who believe that the
> label "agnostic" confers on them some sort of logical superiority.

Refreshing change to see someone here with a relatively ineffectual
brain apparently pursuing some sort of illogical inferiority.

In other words, who would proselytise what they believe to be a
logically inferior viewpoint, yer fuckwit!

Bob

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:47:37 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:

> To insist that a claim is false because there is no proof of its truth
> is a fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam,

But as a practical matter, if someone claimed an ocean liner was going
to fall on my head at night, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

--
AB5DB9CC

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:20:24 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> In other words, who would proselytise what they believe to be a
> logically inferior viewpoint..

I know an example. "Put 10% of your income in the basket." And it
works!

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2CA214F8

--
AB5DB9CC

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:PXAPc.218947$JR4.45596@attbi_s54...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:20:24 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In other words, who would proselytise what they believe to be a
> > logically inferior viewpoint..
>
> I know an example. "Put 10% of your income in the basket." And it
> works!
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2CA214F8
>

That's a logically superior way to facilitate a finacially superior
position!

Bob

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<f9wPc.236128$XM6.34242@attbi_s53>...
> Virtualoso wrote:
>
> > ... view that
> > only scientific claims are meaningful ...
>
> Statements, not claims, knucklehead. This is about meaningful
> statements, and not all statements are claims, some are the denial (the
> negation in logic) of them.
>
> The scientific statement, "There is no X" (whatever X is imagined to be,
> but is not in evidence) is not a claim (statement standing in need of
> proof), it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and it is a
> suitable scientific working hypothesis precisely because it is a
> statement which is falsifiable, knucklehead.

Naturally, you presume to not only insist that we frame everything
just-so according to your Scientismist dogmatic method, but also
specify the "correct" way it MUST be done. How very "scientific" of
you. Especially that scientific derision and insulting. Yes,
impeccably "objective" stance.

"Scientism usually means the acceptance of scientific theory and
scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the
world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion. Here, science is
held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of public policy and
even religion."

- Scientific American

> "There might be a magically invisible undetectable God anyway, even
> though there is no evidence of any such thing" is not falsifiable, so it
> is not a suitable scientific working hypothesis, it is merely
> meaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact.

It is also just a speculation that you, personally, posed. Not anyone
else. Typically, Scientism Religion cultists insist that only their
own concepts of "god(s)" that they reserve for what they disbelieve in
MUST be what any and every one else is conceiving.

And that these lack "scientific proof" (according to them) then MUST
"mean" that anything else is "meaningless...with no basis in fact." As
if their scientificky religious beliefs are the Only Truth.

Yes, you've demonstrated a classic case of Scientismist Faithful
Prosyletizing. Again.

Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<celcuo$gse$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>Dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the word based on popular
> >>usage.
> >
> > Indeed. So why do you have a problem with the popular usage of the
> > words "atheist" and "agnostic"?
>
> If we are going to have a meaningful discussion, you need to understand
> what *I* and most atheists mean by the word 'atheist'.

If you refuse meaningful discussion without insisting your own
preferred personal definition from among them all, and pretend that
you speak for "most atheists". For some reason.


> >>Again, faith can have more than one meaning. You could say that I have
> >>faith in my dentist/doctor/friends/computer. But it is based on past
> >>experience. Most importantly it is subject to change and revision.
> >>
> >>When I talk about faith in a religious sense. I am talking about when
> >>someone holds a belief based on a particular dogma. And will continue to
> >>believe NO MATTER WHAT. They will hold to their faith despite and in
> >>spite of and evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > In this thread, this is the first time the word "faith" was used in
> > this context. I specifically asked you how you conclude that "faith
> > in reason" is an oxymoron. Your definition of faith is not the
> > definition of faith that was being discussed when that question was
> > posed.
>
> Yes it was. Bob was trying to turn every statement I made into a
> declaration of *faith*. Likening it to religious dogma.

Bob certainly isn't alone in likening Scientismist Faith in their
dogma to other religious faiths. This often is a cause of discomfort
for the Scientism Faithful, who are oddly averse to that fact, since
their dogma includes the tenet to pretend that their faith isn't
"just" faith.

> The reason I object to this usage is because my beliefs are ALL subject
> to change.

What kind of "reason" is that, even as you continue to defend and even
insist upon your beliefs, unchanged?

> > So how about the faith of those who have a religious belief yet who
> > don't hold dogmatic notions?
> >
>
> I have never encountered such people.

Have you ever encountered a person that's walked on the moon? Do you
believe they exist? Sheesh. Answer the question O Faithless One.

Virtualoso wrote:
> Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<celcuo$gse$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>>>Dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the word based on popular
>>>>usage.
>>>
>>>Indeed. So why do you have a problem with the popular usage of the
>>>words "atheist" and "agnostic"?
>>
>>If we are going to have a meaningful discussion, you need to understand
>>what *I* and most atheists mean by the word 'atheist'.
>
>
> If you refuse meaningful discussion without insisting your own
> preferred personal definition from among them all, and pretend that
> you speak for "most atheists". For some reason.
>

I don't claim to speak for any atheists but myself.

However MOST atheists DO use the proper definition 'lack of theism'.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...athd_index.htm
http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml

It is obvious that you cling to your incorrect definition because you
want to call me something that I am not.

Since you prefer to use atheist to mean ‘lack of theism + some absurd
beliefs’, what word do you use to describe someone who simply ‘lacks
theism’. I will be happy to use that word instead of atheist if it makes
you feel any better.

>>
>>Yes it was. Bob was trying to turn every statement I made into a
>>declaration of *faith*. Likening it to religious dogma.
>
>
> Bob certainly isn't alone in likening Scientismist Faith in their
> dogma to other religious faiths. This often is a cause of discomfort
> for the Scientism Faithful, who are oddly averse to that fact, since
> their dogma includes the tenet to pretend that their faith isn't
> "just" faith.
>
>
>>The reason I object to this usage is because my beliefs are ALL subject
>>to change.
>
>
> What kind of "reason" is that, even as you continue to defend and even
> insist upon your beliefs, unchanged?
>

Don't be sad just because you have failed to give me a logical reason to
take up theism.

>>>So how about the faith of those who have a religious belief yet who
>>>don't hold dogmatic notions?
>>>
>>
>>I have never encountered such people.
>
>
> Have you ever encountered a person that's walked on the moon?

No.

> Do you
> believe they exist?

Yes.

> Sheesh. Answer the question O Faithless One.

Well it's a nonsensical question. "What about it?" First demonstrate to
me that that kind of faith exists. Give me an example even, then I will
dispense my opinion.