Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

... and then followed three more posts. More self contradiction.

 

You are confused, mjw. Don't be afraid of this; deal with it. Throw off the shackles of your indoctrination and cry out: Gouranga! Eureka! I'm an atheist and I never realised!

 

Nobody will think any the worse of you for this. Some, myself included, will even feel a little contrite because we will have been proven wrong in our belief that your self delusion was unassailable.

 

As I said, produce an alternative definition to that of the professors by an equally qualified person and we'll carry on that particular debate.

 

You can't, You are wrong but being the type you are, you don't have the character to admit it.

 

All the straw clutching diversionary tactics in the world aren't going to make you look less foolish.

 

You really are becoming tiresome you know. Tell me, did you leave school, go to college, attend university and then start teaching?

 

Or have you actually at some point had a proper job and experienced what the real worlds like?

 

It strikes me as probably the former, never having had to deal with other adults on an equal footing.

 

Mixing with immature kids all day, not having to deal with any opposing viewpoint, unable to handle it when it comes, and resorting to childish taunts when confronted.

 

I know quite a number of teachers including several cousins, a niece and two friends.

 

On a few occasions I have had to gently ( I like them ) remind some of them that they are not addressing a classroom when speaking to me.

 

Your little jibe about psychology went badly wrong didn't it?

 

My retort regarding your lack of affection hit home didn't it?

Edited March 2, 2014 by mjw47

[flamingjimmy]

It's like that experiment with Dr Emoto. He did literally said a blessing. Those sound waves did hit that area and its environment. The lake did then change and life did grow from that place for the first time in many years. Do I conclude that he is Jesus, or a reincarnation of Jesus? No. But, those things that he did, those are true premises and true facts. There does not have to be a theory to link it all sometimes, although it seems that you are more comfortable in knowing if that is the case.

 

Who is this Dr Emoto guy you keep going on about? And why?

[Waldo]

If a person is not qualified, his opinion is less valid? Surely the veracity of any position is purely down to the individual merit of that position, and not the social standing of the one who holds the position?

 

Was addressing that point to mjw47.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2014 at 23:47 ----------

 

As babies we have a blissful, pervading, non-conceptual awareness, that melts and blurs the lines between different aspects of our being. It takes time before we acclimatise and become anchored to physical reality. I remember the feeling well, looking around, everything was like woo.

[mjw47]

If a person is not qualified, his opinion is less valid? Surely the veracity of any position is purely down to the individual merit of that position, and not the social standing of the one who holds the position?

 

Was addressing that point to mjw47.

 

So there is no point in attending school or college in order to learn from a qualified teacher because your opinion is equally valid?

 

The man I am referencing has had papers published on the subject. You are fully entitled to question his final conclusion. In fact I do, as I am not an atheist.

 

But something as basic and prosaic as definitions which simply define the basic differences in points of view and beliefs?

 

You would be rather foolish to do that wouldn't you?

 

 

Of course the world is never short of fools.

[Waldo]

I need to be on my computer to properly quote your post mjw47. On iPad right now...

 

I'm not saying no point in formal education, just that there is more than one way to acquire knowledge and understanding (formal education does not have the monopoly). In my own field for example, I have little to no formal qualifications, yet my understanding and expertise is somewhat ahead of the average Joe who does.

 

So, just saying, keep questioning, and don't simply accept a position because it is uttered by some esteemed dude. No problem accepting that same position after you personally examine it and find it to have merit.

 

I agree, fools fools everywhere...

Edited March 3, 2014 by Waldo

[janie48]

Maybe he is Ignostic?

 

Its really a form of reductionism; sticking such labels on people to indicate theological position.

I've just looked that up, but I don't think I'm much the wiser since doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Waldo]

I've just looked that up, but I don't think I'm much the wiser since doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

Also another interesting article on the matter, Theological Noncognitivism Examined, thanks to the way back machine!

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040123040516/http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

[redwhine]

Got to go to meet the grandkids now but as that great philosopher Arnie said 'I'll be back.'

Would you agree that you child/children were conceived using sexual reproduction and that their children were conceived using sexual reproduction? (I presume your answer would be 'yes'.)

 

Some organisms reproduce without sex being involved...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

 

Can you think of a third option other than sex being involved or not? (I presume you would answer 'no'.)

 

The 'a' in asexual is the same as the 'a' in atheism. It means 'without'. If you believe in god you are a theist. Anything else and you are an atheist. There is no middle (or third) option between theism and atheism.

 

If you are a man, you cannot be absolutely certain (without dna testing) that your child/children are biologically descended from you. You can only believe that you are the father without certainty. That is a position regarding knowledge (gnosticism/agnosticism).

[janie48]

Also another interesting article on the matter, Theological Noncognitivism Examined, thanks to the way back machine!

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040123040516/http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Journal/Archives/2002/Conifer.htm

Yes it is interesting, and much of it makes sense, but I will need to read it again later to get a clearer understanding.

[redwhine]

Professor William L Rowe's definition in full was that an Agnostic ' Is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a Theist and an Atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

Professor William L Rowe was wrong because gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge and not belief. Also, not all atheists disbelieve in god, but all atheists lack belief in god.

 

 

And why are you of the opinion that you know more than a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy with regard to a subject he has specialized in?

This is a logical fallacy...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word 'agnosticism' and said, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

Also from that link...

 

"Agnostic atheism

 

The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.

 

Agnostic theism

 

The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence."

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:35 ----------

 

...there can be no questioning the fact that "something" does exists and is working with a purpose.

I question that "fact".

 

Evolution is driven by natural selection, but has no 'purpose'.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:43 ----------

 

Let's cut to the chase shall we? I notice no one has attempted to answer the three questions above?

 

Because none of you can, and the inability to do so shows the nonsense which you have been posting up for exactly what it is, nonsense.

 

Professor Rowe specialises in the philosophy of religion. His work has been acknowledged as being a major factor in the revival of analytic philosophy of religion since the 1970s.

 

His most notable contribution was his formulation of 'Evidential Argument from Evil.'

 

He received a Master of Divinity degree from Chicago Theological Seminary and later a Ph.D in philosophy from Michigan University.

 

He started off as an Evangelical Christian and originally planned to be a Minister.

 

Through the course of his long life - he is now 82 he gradually changed and is now an atheist.

 

He introduced the concept of the 'friendly atheist' in one of his papers.

 

Obviously, he never met any of you lot.

 

The point is that this man spent his life working on the subject we have been discussing.

 

His description of agnostic describes my belief exactly.

 

Unless you can answer the above three questions satisfactorily, or produce an equally qualified authority to contradict his definition, then as far as I'm concerned the matter has been decided.

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:45 ----------

 

And your qualifications in the field he has spent his entire career working in, are precisely what?

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:50 ----------

 

As I said, produce an alternative definition to that of the professors by an equally qualified person and we'll carry on that particular debate.

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:53 ----------

 

The man I am referencing has had papers published on the subject. You are fully entitled to question his final conclusion. In fact I do, as I am not an atheist.

 

But something as basic and prosaic as definitions which simply define the basic differences in points of view and beliefs?

 

You would be rather foolish to do that wouldn't you?

 

 

Of course the world is never short of fools.

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Edited March 3, 2014 by redwhine