1.You accuse me (with CLEARLY no 'agnostic' May be about it) of "getting a bit hysterical."
Yes, I did. I thought you were going on and on, emphasizing things with dashes and capitals and italics which were not too important. I’ve already talked about contradictory objects and mythical objects. I have no problem saying such things do not exist. I am not holding out for the possibility that they may exist.
I said that just because there is no reason to accept that something exists, it doesn't mean it doesn't. It also doesn't mean it does. It means one does not have reason or evidence to make a knowledge claim about its existence or non-existence. It doesn't mean I am holding out for the possibility that it might exist or giving it more consideration than it deserves.
2. You accuse me as having "misquoted me [ie: you] and twisted some of my [ie: your] words to fit your [ie: my] straw men." --- You explain what you meant in your earlier post, re a quote I analyzed not at all differently in my following (here, previous) post, of what you meant in that quote, but, you quote me nowhere as to where or how I supposedly misquoted you. You allege and assert, but nowhere show what you 'claim.' Where's the 'straw men' here? It's in your spurious allegation, I would say. You may have meant that I mis-interpreted you (which I just 'explained' that I did not); I'll be 'agnostic' on that matter. However, misquoted you, I did not.
Let’s take things one at a time. You did misquote me. Here is your misquote from post 57:
Just because there is no rational reason for accepting a claim, it doesn't mean the claim is false. Lack of evidence is not lack. There may be a reason in the future. The only reasonable position, then in such a situation, is to refrain from making a knowledge claim and put the burden on those who do, one way or the other.
Here is the actual quote:
(Nick)You are slowly touching on something else. Just because there is no rational reason for accepting a claim, it doesn’t mean the claim is false. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. There may be reason in the future. The only reasonable position, then, in such a situation, is to refrain from making a knowledge claim and pout the burden on those who do, one way or the other.
Do you see the difference?
3. Regarding square circles and 'existence of concepts' of God (or god), you make clear to speak in 'maybe' terminology. You start off with: "I think we can say..." Umm, do we *know* if we can say it, or...? And, if we are not agnostic on that, *Can* we say it?. Uh, yes, it's possible that it's possible that such do not exist, but, is there any belief commitment you show as being applicable here (beyond my hystericalness, of course, which has no agnosticism about it)? It appears not. Square circles, etc, "we think we can say..." something about; as to whether such is an agnostic thinking or saying, you clearly stay ambiguous.
Then, you finally refer to my neverending questions about agnosticism re Santa with "There is also the category of mythological characters such as Santa.".....and THAT's IT? That's ALL you've got to comment about my questions therein?
Cripes!
Santa's (and, there ARE varied 'concepts' of him to 'agnostically' consider, you know) 'mythological'...but GOD isn't? And that's the fiat-'argument' you give? Your arguments-for-making-a-claim re keeping 'GOD' as a worthwhile concept-to-'agnostically'-consider you clearly avoid applying to Santa...by your arbitrary fiat. Excuse me, but, we're not talking 'rational' arguing/thinking here; we're talking psychological compartmentalization.
Clarified avoidance of the logic of something is advertising not only "hysterical" personal evasion, but also advertising that one is a waste of time for others to continue discussing your evasions on whatever-else subjects. --- I'm sorry I wasted my time reading your...'arguments.'
Gee, J-D, you go on and on, but you don’t make a concise case against my position that there is a difference between belief claims and knowledge claims and that knowledge claims require burden of proof. The weak atheist position, a kind of agnostic position, rejects the belief in God but makes no knowledge claims, thus has no burden of proof, and is not a coward, as Peikoff says agnostics are.
bis bald,
Nick
|
