|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 22:51:37 GMT 10
So no error, just slogans. Argument from Silence is a fallacy. That IS an error by very definition.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 7, 2015 4:22:16 GMT 10
<sigh> There are logistical limitations to this type of to-ing and fro-ing. But here goes anyway ... You claim to be an agnostic, yet you are a Bible barracker at every opportunity . FRAUD "Bible barracker" just means I quote from the bible positively. "At every opportunity" just means "when appropriate" which, during hostile exchanges with shallow atheist fundamentalists on the Religion Board, means regularly and often. So what!! Is it fraudulent for someone who doesn't indulge in Christian worship and who entertains grave doubts about the religion he was brought up in to acknowledge and value the seminal value of the KJV bible? You may think so. I don't agree. Awww diddums! Let's amend that to say that I don’t accept the shallow repetitive fundamentalist paleo-atheist trolling indulged in by a few people on the Religion Board and will criticise the content of their trolling as a sham. You don't make any sort of a case for atheism. I could imagine an atheist of substance and depth ripping your adolescent trolling to shreds. You could try to lift your game. Of course I'm a lapsed Catholic!! Cor blimey mate the world is full of lapsed bloody Catholics! Lapsed Catholics make wonderful agnostics and great socialists. They look at someone like George Pell or Tony Abbott and they shudder in revulsion. If that's what it means to be a Catholic then they can shove it right up where the sun don't shine! Then again they can look at the way Catholicism informs a social progressive like Kristina Keneally or the thoughtful reflective Catholicism of defrocked priest and writer/philosopher Paul Collins, defrocked because he challenged the doctrine of papal infallibility, and respect and admire the way they've channelled their Catholicism so that it forms the moral/ethical basis of their social progressivism. Are you saying that an agnostic should scorn them? Heap ridicule? Despise the way they turn their faith into something of value? Are you arguing that the George Pell model is the only model of Catholicism and that the Keneally's and the Collinses of this world are frauds? Sorry, but I don't agree! Are you also saying that I am a fraud because I can look at someone like Kristina Keneally or Paul Collins and say "yes I admire and respect you, and even envy you, but I can't make your leap of faith". Now that's agnosticism. Yorick to be an atheist or an agnostic doesn't mean that you have to despise religion or be rude to people of faith and spam their discussion boards with hostile trolling. If I label them as "shallow" it's because I find them to be shallow. Stop whingeing and lift your game. Who's hijacking anything? This thread is another example of anti-Occam trolling with the intention of shutting down the Religion Board. It’s bullshit and its agenda is a malicious one. I'll defend any member who posts in good faith and who for the past few years has posted mainly on religious topics on a dedicated Religion Board. Nothing "bad faith" or "trolling" about that! And its certainly not fraudulent!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2015 6:19:17 GMT 10
Intention of shutting down the board?
Sorry, Pim, but that is just ridiculous.
How is thread anti-Occam? It was that super idiot skippy who came up with some bogus research about Atheism declining and this is another nail in his ridiculous argument.
Don't blame me that Occam stood up for such a twit. Take it up with him.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2015 6:21:09 GMT 10
So no error, just slogans. Argument from Silence is a fallacy. That IS an error by very definition. Huh? I'm lots of things, silent is not one of them. Just because you can't answer questions, doesn't man that you 'win'. (even if you declare yourself as such).
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 7, 2015 8:28:23 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 7, 2015 11:45:55 GMT 10
Who, me???
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2015 12:08:04 GMT 10
Settle down, kids.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 7, 2015 13:46:40 GMT 10
Nou ja, kijk, kerel, het is wel makkelijk om te gaan zoeken naar allerlei vertalingen voor "oui, toi!". Je hoeft alleen Meneer Google te vragen en "klik" daar heb je het. Maar vertel ons de waarheid: hoeveel talen ken je eigenlijk? Behalve Australisch Engels natuurlijk!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 5:33:43 GMT 10
Intention of shutting down the board? Sorry, Pim, but that is just ridiculous. How is thread anti-Occam? It was that super idiot skippy who came up with some bogus research about Atheism declining and this is another nail in his ridiculous argument. Don't blame me that Occam stood up for such a twit. Take it up with him. Thank you slarti for an response I can do something with. Unlike Yorick who's been indulging in sledging and then, in a moral and intellectual double twist with pike that rivals Christopher Pyne at his schoolboy worst against the Gillard government, accuses me of sledging, at least you tell me something I didn't know. I didn’t know about "super idiot" skippy's bogus research about atheism declining. I honestly thought you were referring to Occam. Actually I question the idea that skippy is a super idiot. This is not to defend skippy! In fact quite the contrary! I found malice and dissembling in his posts. He knew exactly what he was doing. I wish you'd made it clear in your OP who you were referring to. I don't resile from what I've said in defence of Occam's right to post on religious topics on the Religion Board without all the atheist sledging which ends up being a repetition of the same old same old. But if I'd realised this was about skippy I'd probably have left the thread alone since skippy isn't here to defend himself. The points I've made here in defence of Occam are points I've made elsewhere and I'll continue to make them.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 8, 2015 6:31:47 GMT 10
Occam has defended skippy and his findings and the topic is still here, but I will bump it up for you.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 8:57:19 GMT 10
I love it when you go to the trouble of putting my posts from over a period of time together in the one collection.
Sledging? I've read them through again. I call them debating, not sledging. Whassamadder Yorick! Can't handle debate?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 8, 2015 9:02:43 GMT 10
Atheism is merely a label dreamed up by weak-minded individuals who need the crutch of religion to survive.
It is used by “said” individuals to put-down those who aren't so weak-minded that they cannot exist without imaginary gods.
I don't consider myself to be an atheist, because I don't need to put a label on something which isn't even a belief, but a “lack of belief” in unproven fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 9:47:15 GMT 10
Argument from Silence is a fallacy. That IS an error by very definition. Huh? I'm lots of things, silent is not one of them. Just because you can't answer questions, doesn't man that you 'win'. (even if you declare yourself as such). So no error, just slogans. *Sigh* Study up, Slarti! You're embarrassing yourself. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 9:56:02 GMT 10
Geez, Ed's drama is reminiscent of another similar infamous internet outburst.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 10:19:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 10:24:31 GMT 10
We could all save ourselves the bother and just refer to Pompous Pim the fraud's standard mantra ... Great words & phrases. Love 'em all! And right here on NTB, with the quality of posts from both loony toons fruitcake freakshow extreme right over the years, plus the moral vanity and gesture politics shallowness of the lollipop faux "left" (and yes KTJ I'm looking at you!), I get lots of opportunities to give them a good workout!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 10:34:56 GMT 10
You're getting pretty worked up over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 10:46:59 GMT 10
What he's a fraud because he doesn't subscribe to your small minded atheist cliche? :rolleyes:
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2015 11:36:09 GMT 10
So he's only a free thinker when he agrees with everything YOU think, is that it? 'Cause that's how it sounds to me.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 13:00:32 GMT 10
Agnostics never quote from the bible?? News to me!! Agnostic, when deconstructed from the Greek, means "no knowledge". In other words when someone like Fat or Occam is asked if there's a God, what I think is a proper answer from them would be "I believe there is!" By contrast if an atheist is asked the same question their answer would be "Nope, nope, nope! I don't believe there is." An agnostic on the other hand would have to answer "I haven't the faintest idea!" In the case of both the atheist and the agnostic neither position would preclude them from being able to quote extensively from the Bible. Are you really arguing, Yorick, that being an atheist or an agnostic necessarily precludes you from valuing and being informed by the most seminal text of Western civilisation? PS: hey Occam, what are the odds Yorick responds with a sledge! This reminds me: an atheist, an agnostic and a religious fundamentalist walk into a bar. One then says to the others,"We should duck next time." Boom boom PS: the agnostic walks into it again, just to be sure ... PPS: the fundamentalist says "ducking is just a theory!"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 13:11:20 GMT 10
"Interpretation" You say that the bottom line meaning of this Greek-derived word for "no knowledge", agnostic, is an "interpretation"? Next thing you'll be saying that the bottom line meaning of the Greek-derived word for "no god", atheist, is an "interpretation". Did you fall into the hands of the Jesuits in your formative years, Yorick? Your casuistry is breathtaking.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 17:33:34 GMT 10
If I wander off it's because something else in the vast tapestry of my life - such as preparing dinner, having a gin & tonic, watching the wildlife around our cabin, answering the phone, playing with the grandchildren ... - demanded my attention.
The Greek word for "knowledge", of which the morpheme /kno/ in "knowledge" is a fragmentary relic, is "gnosis". Let’s not bother with the Greek letters. In phonology the phoneme /k/ is the unvoiced version of the voiced /g/ when the /g/ is hard as in "get". There are other pairs that work in the same way : /f/ is an unvoiced /v/; /s/ is an unvoiced /z/; /t/ is an unvoiced /d/ and so on. These are what linguists call "allophones" and what they show is that language is rule-based not just in syntax but also in phonology. So we know that "know", even though it looks nothing like Greek, is ultimately derived from ancient Greek. "Gnosis" also gives us parts of words in English, all to do with knowledge. But this time they come to us via Latin. The Latin for "know" is commonly given in 4 parts:
Cognosco = I know (first person singular present tense)
Cognoscere = to know (infinitive)
Cognovi = I knew (first person singular preterite tense)
Cognitum = known (past participle)
And it's from the Latin past participle that we get words like "cognitive" and "recognition".
Would you like me to go on unpacking the "gnostic" part of "agnostic"?
The/a/ morpheme in "agnostic" means exactly the same as the /a/ morpheme in "atheist", "atypical", "amoral", "asymmetrical" and "astigmatism".
Thus "agnostic" truly means "dunno". What's more an agnostic maintains that it can't be known. Which has always seemed a reasonable proposition to me and which is why I take you and slarti on the one hand, and Occam on the other hand to task over your endless bickering about "proof" Batshit boring? You bet it is!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 19:06:07 GMT 10
Fascinating. I accept all of the above definitions. And they all sound like Pim!
This part tells us more about you: Why quote the Bible as a "truth" if that is your view?
I dunno if I have quoted the bible as "a truth". Why the indefinite article? Are you distinguishing between "truth" as a generic term or are you being more specific? It's an odd fuzzy clunky phrase and that's your problem so I'll just guess that you mean that I quote the Bible as literal truth. If that is what you're saying then I protest and reject that assertion as blatantly untrue. But is there truth in the Bible? Of course there is and there's no shortage of thoughtful atheists who would agree that there's truth in the Bible. As there's truth in the Koran, as there's truth in Buddhism, in Hinduism, or indeed in all of the world's great religions. It's perfectly ok to be an atheist or agnostic and embrace that truth.
I think that's enough on this topic for one day don't you think, Yorick? Tomorrow the weather is expected to be a lot finer than the past 2 days so we can get out & about. Tathra beckons. Wander along the beach. Perhaps linger on that wonderful jetty. Perchance we'll find a restaurant where we can dine on the local seafood ... and I won't give a rodent's posterior about whether you accept that I'm agnostic or whether you don't!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 8, 2015 19:19:06 GMT 10
<sigh> Give it a break Yorick. Slarti can speak for himself and I'm under zero obligation to prove to you ("proof" again bloody hell, you guys and your obsession with "proof") or establish beyond reasonable doubt the excellent relations I enjoy with Slarti. Now go and watch television, or take the dog for a walk or have a cold shower, Yorick.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 13, 2015 1:16:14 GMT 10
Every time you are exposed as the biased poster that you are, and therefore a fraud, you go off in a huff. "So be it."
|
|