Originally posted by dottewell
That's what we call the sticks we use to beat those idiots Nordlys was talking about.

You're thinking about teflon truncheons--"no-stick".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're thinking about teflon truncheons--"no-stick".

A gnu stick.

Originally posted by dottewell
A gnu stick.

Vy von't de beast stand still for me?!?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What about a gnostic?

gnostic: possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things

The agnostic is to a gnostic what an atheist is to a theist. Interesting. Have to read more on the subject and probably further educate myself. I thank you for pointing this out. 🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
It is speculation to associate them with theology. Actually, your reasoning is reminiscent of ID defenders.

Calling me ridiculous and close-minded works for you?

You are very confused. You stated there was "no evidence" which is plainly incorrect. Now looking at the evidence and trying to determine what it means leads, of course, to speculation; that occurs in every inquiry. Simply saying my "reasoning is reminiscent of ID defenders" is an ad hominem fallacy; you have to address the actual evidence and argument, not merely try to discredit the people making the argument and presenting the evidence. Note that ID people are generally addressing the question of where life came from (a quwestion where we already have plenty of evidence to support a specific scientific theory), not the question I am addressing i.e. the origin of the universe itself (which is metaphysical in nature).

I would add illogical and stubborn to my other descriptive terms of your state of mind on these matters.

Originally posted by stocken
In that case, he is saying he doesn't know. And if you say you don't know, you're an agnostic by definition. The agnostic seem to be more realistic. Since I don't know, I couldn't say wether there is or there isn't a god or gods. I just don't know.

Like I said. To believe is another matter entirely. So to clearly define the terms:

An atheist believe... fact that it's impossible to know for sure whether or not there is a God.

Couldn't pass this up:
An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

So theist and atheist are "believers"

and...

the agnostic is a non-knower. 🙂

Actually, I think you comments are more lucid than most. (I think that's the right word.) I agree that neither the atheist or the theist "knows" if God is real. But in the same sense of "know", neither does the agnostic.

Originally posted by Coletti
Couldn't pass this up:
[b]An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

So theist and atheist are "believers"

and...

the agnostic is a non-knower. 🙂

Actually, I think you comments are ...[text shortened]... ist "knows" if God is real. But in the same sense of "know", neither does the agnostic.[/b]

Which was my point exactly. Which also makes you somewhat an agnostic if you agree that you can't know about these matters. Apparently, if you claim that you do know about these matters in that sense, you're a gnostic.

Although, I've just started reading about gnosticism and I can't say that they're the exact opposite of what I considered an agnostic. I could be wrong then.

Hate it when that happens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are very confused. You stated there was "no evidence" which is plainly incorrect. Now looking at the evidence and trying to determine what it means leads, of course, to speculation; that occurs in every inquiry. Simply saying my "reasoning is reminiscent of ID defenders" is an ad hominem fallacy; you have to address the actual evidence and argument, ...[text shortened]... illogical and stubborn to my other descriptive terms of your state of mind on these matters.

Examining the evidence is far from speculation.

Guesswork is the only way to go from order in the universe to the existence of a Creator, hence it can only come from speculation and conjecture. It is reminiscent to ID defenders because they also conjecture the need of a God in face of complexity which is not far from what you are doing.

Does calling me confused, stubborn and illogical work for you?
(And I'm the one using ad hominem? Funny.)

Originally posted by stocken
An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

If you define agnostic like that, then I would be an agnostic atheist. I see your point and agree with your reasoning.

However, I agree more with no1's definition that adds that an agnostic also has no "default position". My comments were based under that definition of agnostic, which is then alternative to atheist/theist and also mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Palynka
Examining the evidence is far from speculation.

Guesswork is the only way to go from order in the universe to the existence of a Creator, hence it can only come from speculation and conjecture. It is reminiscent to ID defenders because they also conjecture the need of a God in face of complexity which is not far from what you are doing.

Does calling me confused, stubborn and illogical work for you?
(And I'm the one using ad hominem? Funny.)

Like so many on this forum, you seem incapable of understanding other people's posts and addressing their arguments. Your initial position was that there was "no evidence" for a Creator which you seem to be sticking to, but I really don't know since you refuse to address the substance of my musings. I would regard an assertion that there is "no evidence" as just plain wrong and insisting on a clearly incorrect position is illogical and stubborn. You also seem to have missed my point regarding the difference between ID proponents trying to use musings as "science" (which I oppose) and others using musings regarding questions of a metaphysical nature (where science is of little value).

You are also falling into Ivanhovian territory when you fail to understand the difference between the logical fallacy ad hominem and a derogatory term. I've already explained what an ad hiominem fallacy is, and how you were making it (and continue to make it). It's rather imprecise grammar to lump all derogatory terms or insults into the category of ad hominem when the latter term has a specialized meaning in logic.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you define agnostic like that, then I would be an agnostic atheist. I see your point and agree with your reasoning.

However, I agree more with no1's definition that adds that an agnostic also has no "default position". My comments were based under that definition of agnostic, which is then alternative to atheist/theist and also mutually exclusive.

I see. So the agnostic refuses to call himself either theist or atheist, because he needs proof of either? Hmmm. Well, it makes sense, in a way, so I'll just leave the stage for the moment (until I know 🙂 what I'm talking about).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like so many on this forum, you seem incapable of understanding other people's posts and addressing their arguments. Your initial position was that there was "no evidence" for a Creator which you seem to be sticking to, but I really don't know since you refuse to address the substance of my musings. I would regard an assertion that there is "no evidence" ...[text shortened]... g musings regarding questions of a metaphysical nature (where science is of little value).

You are also falling into Ivanhovian territory when you fail to understand the difference between the logical fallacy ad hominem and a derogatory term. I've already explained what an ad hiominem fallacy is, and how you were making it (and continue to make it). It's rather imprecise grammar to lump all derogatory terms or insults into the category of ad hominem when the latter term has a specialized meaning in logic.

I don't want to take any sides in this debate (although I wouldn't say that I'm agnostic about it). Very interesting.

Ok, so just to help me out.

If I respond to your post by saying, "An a$$hole would make that argument," then that's an ad hominem."

If I respond to your post by saying, "Your incorrect because of such and such, a$$hole," then that's just a derogatory comment.

Is this right?

Originally posted by telerion
[b]You are also falling into Ivanhovian territory when you fail to understand the difference between the logical fallacy ad hominem and a derogatory term. I've already explained what an ad hiominem fallacy is, and how you were making it (and continue to make it). It's rather imprecise grammar to lump all derogatory terms or insults into the category of ad h such and such, a$$hole," then that's just a derogatory comment.

Is this right?

[/b]It is saying that you are wrong BECAUSE of some personal trait.

As a former philosopher colleague of mine was fond of saying, it is an argument of the form:

"Not A because who cuts your hair, the council?"

(copyright Nick Southgate)

Originally posted by Coletti
Couldn't pass this up:
[b]An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

So theist and atheist are "believers"

and...

the agnostic is a non-knower. 🙂

Actually, I think you comments are ...[text shortened]... ist "knows" if God is real. But in the same sense of "know", neither does the agnostic.[/b]

Not having english as my native language I didn't realize what the word lucid means. I thought it referred to me being a lunitic or something. 😵

Now that I know the meaning of the word I say thank you (for introducing me to another word), and likewise; I consider your thinking to be quite lucid (if somewhat hard to follow at times). 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like so many on this forum, you seem incapable of understanding other people's posts and addressing their arguments. Your initial position was that there was "no evidence" for a Creator which you seem to be sticking to, but I really don't know since you refuse to address the substance of my musings. I would regard an assertion that there is "no evidence" ...[text shortened]... to the category of ad hominem when the latter term has a specialized meaning in logic.

Your only form of argument is saying I didn't address your questions when that's all what I've been doing.

I maintain that there is no evidence for a Creator, you maintain that there is. Calling yourself agnostic and saying that there is evidence for the existence of a creator is a logical contradiction, by your own definition of agnosticism. If you think it cannot be known if there is a Creator or not, how can you claim that evidence exists? Contradiction.

What is metaphysical now may not be in the future as science evolves. This was the same for the origin of species, hence my comment comparing both positions is valid.


Interesting to see you admit using derogatory comments as a tool in your arguments. At last, some honesty.