Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > You'll never see this on "God fearin' Dpreview

Reply
Thread Tools

You'll never see this on "God fearin' Dpreview

 
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
On Nov 15, 10:35*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
>
>
> > To assume that agnostics are fence-sitting is to assume that there are
> > only two choices *-to believe or to disbelieve- *when in truth
> > agnosticisim is a perfectly valid third position which does not sit
> > *between* athiests and believers but sits at right angles to both.

>
> Not exactly. The atheist is stating, "I do not believe in the existence
> of god(s)."
> The atheist does not bear the burden of proof, that remains with those
> who claim the existence of god(s). unadulterated faith does not cut it.
>
> If the agnostic asks the atheist to prove god(s) do not exist. The
> atheist's response should be "I am not claiming the existents of these
> god(s) which only exist in the imaginations of the believers. Therefore
> it is for the believers to demonstrate a proof, not for me to prove a
> negative."
> If the same question is asked of a believer, consider the lack of
> substance in the response.
>
> The question which an agnostic should consider is, "How do you prove a
> negative?" So in reality the neutral position is that of the atheist,
> logically not believing in that negative, which has not, and is not
> likely to be proven.
>
> The agnostic remains a fence sitter, not even knowing what question to ask.


Sorry again, but you're being silly on several counts:

1.) You're putting words into the mouths of agnostics to support your
own arguments. But people are generally agnostics because they've
already thought these things through from both sides of the coin in
some depth and have determined that the entire question of faith -or
a lack of it- is a grand waste of time.

They don't generally "ask athiests" to prove *anything* because they
already know that it can't be done.

2.) You're stating your opinions as if they were facts. They aren't.
They're only your opinions.

3.) You don't get to decide what questions are valid and which are
not. Not even if agnostics made a regular habit of asking athiests (or
believers) probing questions of a religious nature, which they
generally don't do anyway due to a lack of interest in the subject.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Superficially agnostics present themsevle as individuals with inquiring
>minds, and seekers of truth.



On the contrary, agnostics present themselves as ignorant, because
they admit that they simply don't know. That strikes me as an honest
admission, made in the knowledge that it makes them look indecisive
and therefore, in some people's eyes, weak.

Perhaps atheism appeals to agnostics who wish to appear decisive?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-11-16 03:05:28 -0800, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> Superficially agnostics present themsevle as individuals with inquiring
>>> minds, and seekers of truth.

>>
>> On the contrary, agnostics present themselves as ignorant, because
>> they admit that they simply don't know.

>
>Not according to Thomas Huxley, the man who coined the term "agnostic".
>His position was the agnostic was an inquiring skeptic. That cannot be
>done without aggressive inquiry. This was in the early and mid 19th
>century when a declaration of atheism would be socially unacceptable.
>Agnosticism seemed to be a safer, more logical middle road.
>
>Certainly at the time it was much more appropriate for men of science
>and seekers of knowledge to present themselves as agnostic, given the
>battles they fced with regard to issues such as Darwinism and "Origin
>of Species" of which Huxley was a major defender.
>
>It was not Huxley's position to present himself as ignorant, just the
>opposite. His concept of agnosticism was an instrument to disarm the
>religious creationist critics he face, without taking that step into a
>political void where he would be discounted by society at large.
>
>> That strikes me as an honest
>> admission, made in the knowledge that it makes them look indecisive
>> and therefore, in some people's eyes, weak.
>>
>> Perhaps atheism appeals to agnostics who wish to appear decisive?

>
>
>Atheism is an appropriate step for the agnostic who has reached a
>logical conclusion. An agnostic professing belief in god(s) has
>capitulated.
>
>With much of the developments in science, archeology,
>paleoanthropology, and anthropology since the time of Huxley and
>Darwin, there has been little need for the role played by the agnostic
>of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
>Agnosticism is not the social shield it once was, and has become the
>refuge of the fence sitter.



.... or the position of someone who doesn't care one way or the other?
It seems that you are demanding that people should be either believers
or atheists, and that no other position would be acceptable. Well, I
don't find that demand acceptable.

It is like demanding that people should choose their politics on a
binary basis - they have to be either Republican or Democrat,
Conservative or Labour, Christian Democrat or Social Democrat
(depending on which country they live in). Yet people have a much
wider range of views than can be expressed by a simple binary choice.
Some want to support other political views that don't easily fit into
a binary system. Others just don't care.

Whether in politics or faith, I am where I am through active choice,
not through passively sitting on a fence.

In politics, I either vote for the candidate who most closely
represents my centrist views, or I don't vote at all. As for faith,
that's an intensely personal matter. I won't subscribe to any
organised belief, nor to a lack of belief.

I am just not interested in being categorised as one thing or another,
in or out of categories which others seem to believe they can choose
for me. You see, I really don't like being labelled.

It's a Nikon/Canon/Hasselblad thing. Only the images matter.

 
Reply With Quote
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
On 11/15/2010 8:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-11-15 17:00:34 -0800, peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 11/15/2010 11:40 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 3:18 am, rwalker<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:42:06 -0800, John McWilliams
>>>>
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> who is more illogical, fanatical atheists, or religious
>>>>>> fundamentalists.
>>>>
>>>>> Atheism wins hands down, but neither is attractive when espoused
>>>>> vehemently.
>>>>
>>>> Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
>>>
>>> I wonder what happens in bakers dozens
>>>
>>>

>> You're half right.

>
> You might be half right, half wrong, 7/13ths right, 7/13ths wrong, or
> just confused.
>


If was half right, I would also be half left. And 7/13th is more than
1/5th.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
On 11/15/2010 8:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-11-15 16:51:21 -0800, peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 11/15/2010 11:54 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I see myself more of an agnostic, but do believe religion has it's
>>> uses in a similar way
>>> to the law it's mostly about hearding people to do what you want and
>>> punishing them if they don't.
>>>

>>
>> I think agnostics are the most intellectually honest. They admit they
>> do not know.

>
> The agnostics hedge their bets, and are actually intellectual cowards.
> They are actually saying, I am not sure, so I better not commit to
> saying it would be silly to believe in god(s), because what if I am
> wrong, as deep in my heart I really believe."
>
> The calm atheist is the one who will admit to not knowing, however he
> adds the decision not to believe, especially when believing is based on
> blind faith. Present a rational atheist with proof beyond blind faith,
> he will consider it, and make some revision to his prior choice.
> However that rational, non-blind faith evidence is not forthcoming, and
> is not likely to appear soon. So the atheist can continue to feel
> comfortable in not believing in the phantoms of the mind.
>
> The intellectual honesty of the agnostic is a rationalized myth
> expounded by those very same agnostics.
> An intellectual argument proving the existence of god(s) requires a
> proof from the proposers of the proposition, and they fall back on faith
> as an answer.
> There is no intellectual argument requiring the atheist to prove a
> negative. His only requirement is to state, "I don't believe god(s)
> exist." "Why should I believe in something that does not exist, and has
> yet to be proven to exist?"
> If challenged for proof of the basis of that non-belief, the burden of
> proof is not borne by the atheist.
> When those of faith state, "my god is the creator of all, and governs
> every aspect of the Universe and nature." and is asked by the agnostic
> to prove the existence of his god consider the response.
> Their only logical response has to be, "I believe, and that is all that
> matters" as there is no proof.
>
> The faithful are is some way far more intellectually honest than the
> agnostic. Their declared faith regardless of the foundation in ignorance
> and manipulation, is a courageous stance and should be respected.
> The agnostic remains out there on the fence without the moral or
> intellectual courage to go one way or another.


I am not sure it's moral courage. Could it also not be fear. "You will
go to hell if you do not <fill in the blanks>
How many wars have been started in the name of a peaceful religion.
BTW it's hypocrisy that I rant against, not thought out beliefs.

Are you saying that a statement of lack of sufficient facts is
Intellectual fence sitting? Just because some use that as an excuse,
doesn't make all, who do not have the facts intellectually dishonest.




--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
On 11/16/2010 2:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:

> My contention is they are intellectual cowards, < context snio>


Some may very well be. Some may have come to the conclusion that the
issue is temporarily insoluble.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
"G Paleologopoulos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>What the f*ck is all this cr*p doing in a photo ng???
>C'mon people, get a grip, it's been days now..........



Then why don't you change the habit of a lifetime, and start a new
thread on a photo topic that you think would be of interest?

Alternatively, you could just butt out.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
"G Paleologopoulos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>
>> "G Paleologopoulos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>What the f*ck is all this cr*p doing in a photo ng???
>>>C'mon people, get a grip, it's been days now..........

>>
>>
>> Then why don't you change the habit of a lifetime, and start a new
>> thread on a photo topic that you think would be of interest?
>>
>> Alternatively, you could just butt out.
>>

>
>
>OK, heeding your advice, let's exchange opinions on the merits of a dash of
>garlic in spaghetti sauce.
>Seems to me like a great thread for a digital photo ng.



Given that you have just complained about a subject that has drifted
off-topic, your suggestion appears equally off-topic. So I think the
best option by far would be for you to butt out.

A brief Google Groups search shows that you have never posted anything
remotely informative, interesting or useful on here so I have already
added you to my kill file. Bye!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Much of what you have said I can agree with. I can also profess to
>being a moderate, or centrist, and I find the extreme polarization in
>government to be stifling.
>
>As far as agnosticism goes it is a fashion, past its prime, and
>purpose, and which only survives as a position of social non-commitment.
>...and I guess this is a point we shall have to differ on.



The problem is that you see it as an "ism", apparently based on
Huxley's definition which was a product of its time (when atheism
could not be admitted) and basically not valid today.

To me, being agnostic is not an "ism", it is quite the opposite. It
is a rejection of the idea that there is, or should be, only a binary
choice between two diametrically opposed "isms" - religious faith on
one hand and atheism on the other. I do not subscribe to either, but
I respect others' right to choose one or the other if they so wish. I
would hope that others would respect my decision to reject both.

That isn't a "fashion", nor a "position". It is a refusal to make a
binary choice between two equally unacceptable belief systems - a
choice that simply does not need to be made.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete Stavrakoglou
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2010
"G Paleologopoulos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1289919849.769703@athprx04...
> What the f*ck is all this cr*p doing in a photo ng???
> C'mon people, get a grip, it's been days now..........


Let God sort them out.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wonders never cease. Someone posts good photos on Dpreview RichA Digital Photography 0 08-01-2009 07:15 AM
See the reaction to Dpreview slagging a Canon product RichA Digital Photography 0 11-25-2008 07:21 PM
You've never seen it before and you'll never see it again. Fred A Stover Computer Support 7 12-26-2007 03:33 AM
XML Schema never-never occurence of declared elements / attributes Soren Kuula XML 1 12-01-2005 01:27 PM
string routines go to never never land on unix Kevin C Programming 4 10-17-2003 06:07 PM



Advertisments