Last I heard from the grand Taniwha, we were purging not recruiting
And the code behind W-AB scorelines is clearly a secret much too shocking for anywhere but youtube...
Last I heard from the grand Taniwha, we were purging not recruiting
And the code behind W-AB scorelines is clearly a secret much too shocking for anywhere but youtube...Tricky
Briefly immortal
I think you are falling back on the "No true agnostic Scotsman" fallacy, which goes something like:
"A man's a man for a' that... maybe."
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
I'm of the opinion that most people who call themselves agnostic actually have no idea what the word was supposed to mean.
This thread shows the same phenomenon regarding the word "atheist."
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
I am much better at taking icy civility than downright hostility. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference in text.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
Gr. agnostos, unknowing, unknown. from a=not and gignoskien = to know.
One who professes agnosticism, the doctrine that neither the existence not the nature of god is known, or in fact, knowable.
Can be generalized to a whole load of things that are presently unknowable, such as the origin of the universe and the location of my car keys.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
Most people don't know this, though. Most people just think it means " fence-sitter."
I don't think it "means" fence sitter, I simply think anyone who takes that position is in fact sitting on the fence (or if not sitting on the fence, at the very least avoiding the question). The facts are that there is no evidence of a deity. It is perfectly fine to claim that you can't 100% rule out the existence of a deity, and most atheists don't do this. You can even claim that a god which we can't possibly detect might exist - but then who cares?
Just to stir the # some more, I'd even argue the claim of pure agnosticism is a claim of faith. Belief without evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that we can't know everything one day
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
There is absolutely no evidence that we can't know everything one day
It's worse! We can't know if we'll know everything one day. Even when we know it all, we may not know if we know it all...
I think it was Asimov who wrote a few lines about that...
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
Okay, belatedly I see I've got you mixed up with I <3 Logic, who did make a positive claim that the original meaning of "atheism" meant "not-godism." Sorry about the mix-up. I reiterate that I was not taking issue with the present-day usage of the term, just with assertions regarding its original usage.
Urgh. Sorry to continue quibbling, since I was really taking issue with I <3 Logic's assertion and only lumped your in accidentally, but that's a bad analogy. "Asexual" isn't a term that was coined by people who routinely spoke Greek, like "atheism" was. You can tell because it's one of those unholy hybrids of Greek and Latin elements like "automobile" and "television." Thus, the rules of Greek (or Latin) never applied in the first place.
Come to mention it, though, "unholy" is an interesting case; going purely by the literal meaning of its components, it means nothing worse than "not holy," the "zero position" on the scale between "holy" and "anti-holy." I practice, though, it does mean "anti-holy," e.g. as in "of the Devil."
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
So did Rumsfield.It's worse! We can't know if we'll know everything one day. Even when we know it all, we may not know if we know it all...
I think it was Asimov who wrote a few lines about that...
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
I got it but most didn't. You are right, how would one know that one knew everything. Unless one were god and knew everything.
*Shrug* No skin off my nose, mate.
While this may be right, we have to remember that we are speaking english, not greek. Why rules may be borrowed and applied incorrectly, this doesn't make them incorrect for english. Asexual exemplifies the current usage of atheist.
As an aside, wiki has an interesting article on agnosticism. While I know that wikipedia isn't a good source, I tend to use it as a general reference.
Source.
This is what I was refering to earlier with regard to the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
It's worse! We can't know if we'll know everything one day. Even when we know it all, we may not know if we know it all...
I think it was Asimov who wrote a few lines about that...
Hah. Well that's true... it's not like we have some kind of cosmic book of answers to consult which will let us know if we learned all there is to know. What book by Asimov is that by any chance? I'd love to read it
.Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Hah. Well that's true... it's not like we have some kind of cosmic book of answers to consult which will let us know if we learned all there is to know. What book by Asimov is that by any chance? I'd love to read it
Ha! I was hoping nobody would call me on that.
It was the afterward in a book, and it had something to do with, 'even when we reach the end of the universe, we'll still ask 'why?''... or summat
It's a half-remembered memory, but it was definitely by one of the sci-fi 'greats.' If I have time later, I'll get on a Google search... it may be tough...
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
I imagine he is a big hero here. But I cannot understand Dr. Plait. How does being as astronomer qualify you to promote atheism any more than being a plumber or a geologist or any other science? He posts this on his home page today: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/11/13/letting-go-of-god/
Wait, don't tell me. It qualifies him because there is no invisible man living in the sky. Gee, did he figure that out all by himself?
Is questioning the actions of those regarded as heros and leaders here allowed?
Wait, don't tell me. It qualifies him because there is no invisible man living in the sky. Gee, did he figure that out all by himself?
Is questioning the actions of those regarded as heros and leaders here allowed?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
Does Plait actually claim that it does? His home page certainly doesn't convey that message.
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
His home page does not claim that by being an astronomer gives him special insight into religion but his home page promotes and supports his beliefs on this subject as perhaps a personal home page would. Ironically, that really is bad astronomy.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
How so? The fact that there is no evidence of any gods in astronomy only further cements the correctness of his conclusions.
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
There are no gods in plumbing or geology either as I said before.
Are people supposed to be looking for gods in these places?
For once, I have to agree with Ken.
Cosmological studies, including the discipline of astronomy, all point to the fallacy of mythology as a source for creation ... as an educated, degreed astronomer and skeptic, Plait has far better claim to talking about the scientific and skeptical basis of creation cosmology than most of us, especially the largely uneducated (by any conventional definition) Biblical creationists.
Cosmological studies, including the discipline of astronomy, all point to the fallacy of mythology as a source for creation ... as an educated, degreed astronomer and skeptic, Plait has far better claim to talking about the scientific and skeptical basis of creation cosmology than most of us, especially the largely uneducated (by any conventional definition) Biblical creationists.