Neo Agnosticism

[DrBarani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

You set the rules for your question "Prove to us it exists" so that it suits you well and you get the kind of answer you want

Thats what YOU did with respect to God. You wanted him proven to YOUR satisfaction. You don't like it when others play the same game by your rules!

as you have overruled Detection methods of X ray and this also implies that you will not agree to the kind of evidence for X ray which is in fact Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable.

An elementary common sense would have told you that it isn't about X-rays. You can only prove X-rays exist by their EFFECTS. You can use any detection method but you are only measuring EFFECTS. I ruled out proof by "effects" because you REFUSE to accept proof by "effects" about God. And once again you hate it when others play the same game by YOUR RULES!

This is something like saying prove or give evidence according my own rules only then I will accept it
In spite of that I must say that X ray is Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable and most importantly repeatable.

You can perform the same wrong experiment and it will be repeatable with the same wrong result! That won't prove a damm thing.

A "proof" is a matter of conforming to certain preset rules. You must first agree to the same set of rules with other person before telling the other person has wrong beliefs or nonbeliefs. Since you refuse to let others use your own rules, you aren't playing fair.

The analogy X ray does not fit in here
It seems to me like a case of Red Herring

It was simple example to alert you about the notions of "seeing" or demanding proof for something.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert {snip}

You must stop "copy and paste" from Wikipedia and start using your own common sense debate if you want others to take your claims seriously.

 

[arunshanker]

Thats what YOU did with respect to God. You wanted him proven to YOUR satisfaction. You don't like it when others play the same game by your rules! .

Did I please “quote me” as to where I did? I guess you got carried in eagerness to use the “red herring “ to create an immediate win – sort of KO away by the USA

An elementary common sense would have told you that it isn't about X-rays.

I did not ask about the X ray YOU asked. Whose common sense are we talking about here?
When you talk about the “my common sense” here are you taking the “Appeal to Ridicule”

I had already told you the “X Ray and USA” does not fit here
They can be evidenced by the “Scientific method” Do you mean God too can be evidenced by the “Scientific method”
I guess I triggered your anger as I spotted the Red Herring fallacy in your argument. Which has made you to resort to ridiculing and talking about “Common sense”
Please note this post of mine where I am trying to say the Xray and USA fall in the realm of science whereas God does not.

once again you hate it

Oh I think you are going overboard. Where did you see my “hate” here – it is a strong word. It is just a discussion. I think you have started to take things personal here!

before telling the other person has wrong beliefs or nonbeliefs.

Where have I told that “other person has wrong beliefs or nonbeliefs” could you please quote me here

Since you refuse to let others use your own rules, you aren't playing fair.

I cant understand this I never asked any one to prove or disprove anything
I just posted my views on Agnostism
I got replies from one person on USA and then from you on X Ray on top of that you post that “An elementary common sense would have told you that it isn't about X-rays.” I never said anything about X rays

You must stop "copy and paste" from Wikipedia and start using your own common sense debate if you want others to take your claims seriously.

Is my "copy and paste" from Wikipedia ( in fact I doing it from multiple other sources not just Wiki) irking you? You demand that I should not. I leave that for the moderator to decide.

start using your own common sense

How do you know if I have got. In fact I have a feeling you have made up your mind that I don’t
I guess you have taken off because I spotted the "red herring" that is as much as I can infer from your post with a hint of personal attack

 

[arunshanker]

Thats what YOU did with respect to God. You wanted him proven to YOUR satisfaction. You don't like it when others play the same game by your rules!



An elementary common sense would have told you that it isn't about X-rays. You can only prove X-rays exist by their EFFECTS. You can use any detection method but you are only measuring EFFECTS. I ruled out proof by "effects" because you REFUSE to accept proof by "effects" about God. And once again you hate it when others play the same game by YOUR RULES!



You can perform the same wrong experiment and it will be repeatable with the same wrong result! That won't prove a damm thing.

A "proof" is a matter of conforming to certain preset rules. You must first agree to the same set of rules with other person before telling the other person has wrong beliefs or nonbeliefs. Since you refuse to let others use your own rules, you aren't playing fair.




It was simple example to alert you about the notions of "seeing" or demanding proof for something.



You must stop "copy and paste" from Wikipedia and start using your own common sense debate if you want others to take your claims seriously.

DrBarani
I appeal to you that this is just a discussion
I request you kindly not attribute strong emotions such as “hate” and not to speculate on the presence or absence of “common sense” of the poster. Everybody may not be as intelligent and full of common sense to the level you expect them to be.
please don’t speculate on the intellectual capacity of the person who is posting

 

[arunshanker]

You can perform the same wrong experiment and it will be repeatable with the same wrong result! That won't prove a damm thing.

This in reply to my post that “Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable and most importantly repeatable”
What do you exactly mean here – Should I take it that evidencing X ray by Empirical measurement is a “same wrong experiment repeatable with the same wrong result” won’t prove a “damm" thing.
Could you please explain? By the way would I be correct if I say “Damn” is a swear word expressed in annoyance

 

[arunshanker]

It was simple example to alert you about the notions of "seeing" or demanding proof for something.

Where did I demand the proof? quote me if I did from my posts? (make me see the text just as I see a train on the track!) In fact if you read my posts carefully I have said” Neither am I” to your quote” I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God
Why alert me with something that is far from the topic with an example in the realm of science. You could have done it with an example connected with the topic under discussion. The” alert” is a classic case of Red Herring and by the way Wiki is not my source my source is Fallacies

You must stop "copy and paste" from Wikipedia and start using your own common sense debate if you want others to take your claims seriously.

In addition to the reply I have already posted on the above comment of yours I wish to add that how have you decided on seriousness of how “others” are going to take my post. Here I see that you have taken the role of a spokesperson for “others”

 

[suraju06]

Dear Arun,

I had already told you the “X Ray and USA” does not fit here
They can be evidenced by the “Scientific method” Do you mean God too can be evidenced by the “Scientific method”

When the scientific methods are themselves subject to many 'given initial conditions' and other holes, your harping on "scientific methods" as the final touch-stone for a subject which is outside it is just a lot of noise without any light. I think this is what Dr Barani is repeatedly telling and you are repeatedly skirting.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,




When the scientific methods are themselves subject to many 'given initial conditions' and other holes, your harping on "scientific methods" as the final touch-stone for a subject which is outside it is just a lot of noise without any light. I think this is what Dr Barani is repeatedly telling and you are repeatedly skirting.

Firstly I am not "harping" I am just posting what comes to my mind just as anybody
More importantly the thread is not about proof of the existence of God I have never asked for it If you read the first post on the thread- it is just views on Agnosticism
Could you elaborate on the "other holes" that scientific methods are themselves subject to
You have said "Dr Barani is repeatedly telling" Actually he is trying a one up instead of healthy discussion by attributing stong emotions of "hate" and speculating on the intellectual capacity of the poster. In fact he is also attributing what I have never said to me

 

[arunshanker]

For the accusations I have hurled at Dr. Barani I must say I was no better
I draw you attention to the following posts
I posted addressed at Dr. Barani "I think you have a closed mind and will not take science "
and later
When I did all the search I can on "visibility of X ray" I thought it was my duty to post this again addressed to Dr. Barani "I am sorry I said that you are not open to science guess that was an impulsive reaction Sorry again"

 

[arunshanker]

rs

your harping on "scientific methods" as the final touch-stone for a subject which is outside it is just a lot of noise without any light. I think this is what Dr Barani is repeatedly telling and you are repeatedly skirting.

Actually I never brought the topic of "scientific methods" here as I too think it a subject which is outside it like you have stated. But if you go thru the thread, the first reply I got was on "USA and the second on "X ray" it was these posted who brought a subject ( both USA and X ray are in the realm of science and are definitely out of the topic) which is outside it" My fault was I took the bait instead of saying what you have just said that " it is a subject which is outside". The worst is I get a lecture on "Common sense"

 

[zebra16]

I am amused to read some of the posts. When the flow of communications suited, message nos. 2 through 15 were passed through without demur on topics like USA, air and X-rays, may be in the fond hope that Dr. Barani was down on a mat. When the air cleared that Dr. Barani was correct, another set of logical cliches like "argumentum ad ignorantiam" etc. were introduced. Never mind the friendly jibes in between like "you have a closed mind" etc. They are a part of friendly discussion, but suddenly the words like "common sense" become loaded terms. Then again a free course on logic with phrases like "Red herring fallacy" and circuitous trip back to the (stated?) position "Topic A is under discussion. Here is it God" although at least 10 messages back Dr. Barani stated emphatically "I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God" and Sri Arunshanker confurred with it. I am trying to find what is the point of these discussions. Is the point logical or fallacious?

 

[arunshanker]

I am amused to read some of the posts. When the flow of communications suited, message nos. 2 through 15 were passed through without demur on topics like USA, air and X-rays, may be in the fond hope that Dr. Barani was down on a mat. When the air cleared that Dr. Barani was correct, another set of logical cliches like "argumentum ad ignorantiam" etc. were introduced. Never mind the friendly jibes in between like "you have a closed mind" etc. They are a part of friendly discussion, but suddenly the words like "common sense" become loaded terms. Then again a free course on logic with phrases like "Red herring fallacy" and circuitous trip back to the (stated?) position "Topic A is under discussion. Here is it God" although at least 10 messages back Dr. Barani stated emphatically "I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God." I am trying to find what is the point of these discussions. Is the point logical or fallacious?

Exactly you views cant be better. I took the bait on USA and X ray that has led to this
Please note that when "Dr. Barani stated emphatically "I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God." I simply replied " neither am I". Did you miss it or you are simply ignoring it

 

[arunshanker]

Exactly you views cant be better. I took the bait on USA and X ray that has led to this
Please note that when "Dr. Barani stated emphatically "I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God." I simply replied " neither am I". Did you miss it or you are simply ignoring it

Free course or paid bringing in USA and X RAY in the posts after mine is a ""Red herring fallacy" My pointing it out has irked a lot of people here I guess

 

[suraju06]

Free course or paid bringing in USA and X RAY in the posts after mine is a ""Red herring fallacy" My pointing it out has irked a lot of people here I guess

Dear Arun,

Dr Barani, in this thread, appears to be clear in his views. Only you have been leading us through one "fallacy" after another. When DrBarani said X-rays are not observable we all understood it clearly. We got it clear that he was only telling that X-rays are not visible and yet they exist. Similarly there are other things which may not be seen and yet may exist. Then you said existence of x-rays are deductible scientifically. Dr Barani said deduction is not visibility. Then you quoted some papers to prove that X-rays are indeed visible to human eyes. AT this point the discussion became too technical and DrBarani said still x-rays are not claimed to be visible.He said phosphorescence is only an effect of x-ray. And you have started this fallacies line. You have been shifting your position frequently and we do not understand where you stand. About the holes in scientific methods, I thought you are aware. I will try give you some of them separately. Time is the constraint.

Cheers.

 

[zebra16]

Exactly you views cant be better. I took the bait on USA and X ray that has led to this
Please note that when "Dr. Barani stated emphatically "I am not trying to prove or disprove existence God." I simply replied " neither am I". Did you miss it or you are simply ignoring it

neither. My omission to bring out the fact in my reply. Please see the edited version. Thanx

 

[arunshanker]

Dr Barani, in this thread, appears to be clear in his views

I agree with you here I am only telling here is the he has brought in a totally unconnected topic of X ray in the argument. Why was the USA and X ray brought in here by the other poster and Dr. Barani. Since you have understood the clarity of Dr. baranis post could you please answer this question straight. My opining was to that that it was brought in as a troll. I must say I did gain some know ledge here as I got to read the science of visibility of X ray and improved my knowledge on that. After that was resolved I came back to the part as I started to ask myself why was this USA and X ray brought up here which is entirely unconnected to the topic
Now I am asking you a simple question the same I asked myself . Please give your views on that
Q -Why was this USA and X ray brought up here which is entirely unconnected to the topic
In fact I just wrote my thoughts on Agnosticism I never asked for proof of God and anything like that did I?

 

[arunshanker]

neither. My omission to bring out the fact in my reply. Please see the edited version. Thanx

Thanks for the edit -
Actually I see here in this forum at least from the little what I have read that people jump to conclude or assume a poster is an Atheist or a theist and the further discussion follows on the basis of this assumption or conclusion. I just free post impromptu with a lot of material from the web
I am actually a "on and off" type in this forum with flurry of intense activity for a short period of time
Time has come to switch off more so because not many seem to like the kind of posts I do. I have come to this conclusion after I see that nobody here thinks good of my specifically pointing out the "Red Herring" in a post of a person with considerable fan base
Happy discussion
PS I need some friend requests here on FB. feel free to add me as friend here https://www.facebook.com/arun.k.shanker

 

[zebra16]

Thanks for the edit
I have come to this conclusion after I see that nobody here thinks good of my specifically pointing out the "Red Herring" in a post of a person with considerable fan base
Happy discussion
PS I need some friend requests here on FB. feel free to add me as friend here https://www.facebook.com/arun.k.shanker

I cant speak for others., but to me it appeared that the timing of "Red Herring" fallacy was not appropriate. After the side topic having been continued to run for about 20 posts or so, the "principle of estoppel" preclude any participant from appealing to set aside the conclusion or previous argument as irrelevant to the topic (under discussion).

My best wishes for your future endeavours, whatever that be.

Regards

 

[sangom]

Thanks for the edit
Actually I see here in this forum at least from the little what I have read that people jump to conclude or assume a poster is an Atheist or a theist and the further discussion follows on the basis of this assumption or conclusion. I just free post impromptu with a lot of material from the web
I am actually a "on and off" type in this forum with flurry of intense activity for a short period of time
Time has come to switch off more so because not many seem to like the kind of posts I do. I have come to this conclusion after I see that nobody here thinks good of my specifically pointing out the "Red Herring" in a post of a person with considerable fan base
Happy discussion
PS I need some friend requests here on FB. feel free to add me as friend here https://www.facebook.com/arun.k.shanker

Shri ArunShanker,

Since you posted in the other thread "God exists" also, I thought you might have tested the waters and then only started this thread. I find that you joined this forum much before me also. With my comparatively shorter association with this forum I would say that despite Shri Praveen having spelt out clearly that this forum is open to all and to all types of diverse views and opinions, there is a coordinated effort going on here to ensure that even under this General Discussions forum only those views which suit a set of extra-forum censors will be tolerated. So, I will suggest to you to choose between falling in line with the self-acclaimed super-moderators (a.k.a encraochers) or quitting this forum altogether.

I wonder if you will get any "friend" with broad outlook on the God question, from this forum now! May be you will have to trace out the Rishi who composed the naasadiya sookta

 

[arunshanker]

I cant speak for others., but to me it appeared that the timing of "Red Herring" fallacy was not appropriate. After the side topic having been continued to run for about 20 posts or so, the "principle of estoppel" preclude any participant from appealing to set aside the conclusion or previous argument as irrelevant to the topic (under discussion).

My best wishes for your future endeavours, whatever that be.

Regards

Thanks
Yes I totally agree that the timing was wrong it should have come right after the post on USA, naive of me. Yes "principle of estoppel" fits here I should not have gone back. But I did fall for the USA and Xray and paid for it and that has let all to this.

 

[arunshanker]

Shri ArunShanker,

Since you posted in the other thread "God exists" also, I thought you might have tested the waters and then only started this thread. I find that you joined this forum much before me also. With my comparatively shorter association with this forum I would say that despite Shri Praveen having spelt out clearly that this forum is open to all and to all types of diverse views and opinions, there is a coordinated effort going on here to ensure that even under this General Discussions forum only those views which suit a set of extra-forum censors will be tolerated. So, I will suggest to you to choose between falling in line with the self-acclaimed super-moderators (a.k.a encraochers) or quitting this forum altogether.

I wonder if you will get any "friend" with broad outlook on the God question, from this forum now! May be you will have to trace out the Rishi who composed the naasadiya sookta

Thats nice, but dont get mislead by my posts most importantly I am not an athiest I have my personal views and am open to change

 

[renuka]

Good Info in this.

 

[DrBarani]

This in reply to my post that “Empirically measurable and demonstrably provable and most importantly repeatable”
What do you exactly mean here – Should I take it that evidencing X ray by Empirical measurement is a “same wrong experiment repeatable with the same wrong result” won’t prove a “damm" thing.
Could you please explain?

Again, you make my life very easy, my friend. Science doesn't always depend on "emphatic measurements and repeatable experiments". Try reading up on W and Z field particles. These were measured only ONCE, and that too they were "found" 1 in 100,000 of what they should be actually found, and two Scientists (Carlos Rubbia and Simon Von Der Meer) got Nobel Prizes in 1984 for them. Why didn't the Nobel committee demand the "repeatability" "emphatic measurement"? In essence, you accept a one time measurement claimed by someone with weakest possible evidence as Gospel Truth as long as the word Science was tossed in with that, whereas, you refuse to accept that millions of ancestors in history may be RIGHT if they had claimed effects of supernatural powers.

Any topic about agnoticism automatically involves proof or disproof of God. You started it, wanted to claim agnoticism is a better line to follow.

 

[arunshanker]

Again, you make my life very easy, my friend. Science doesn't always depend on "emphatic measurements and repeatable experiments". Try reading up on W and Z field particles. These were measured only ONCE, and that too they were "found" 1 in 100,000 of what they should be actually found, and two Scientists (Carlos Rubbia and Simon Von Der Meer) got Nobel Prizes in 1984 for them. Why didn't the Nobel committee demand the "repeatability" "emphatic measurement"? In essence, you accept a one time measurement claimed by someone with weakest possible evidence as Gospel Truth as long as the word Science was tossed in with that, whereas, you refuse to accept that millions of ancestors in history may be RIGHT if they had claimed effects of supernatural powers.

Any topic about agnoticism automatically involves proof or disproof of God. You started it, wanted to claim agnosticism is a better line to follow.

Actually that's nice of you I expected some kind of "tirade" Guess learning is a continuous process. I must say I did not claim agnosticism to better but sure did say that it sounded attractive
"Supernatural powers" difficult to accept!!
PS "emphatic measurements" Empirical you mean typo I guess
I have got an array of full text access here I am on my way downloading and reading
Thanks again

 

[DrBarani]

I must say I did not claim agnosticism to better

Is that so? May be I misunderstood your very first post, part of which I reproduce here:

Agnosticism is not some kind of weak- atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, uncertainty in the possibility of certainty, antagonism to the unwarranted inevitabilities that atheism and theism have to offer. Agnosticism doesn't panic on in the case of uncertainty. Neither does it adhere in the dark or even in the light to the dogmas, beliefs, doctrines, canons, tenets, creeds and faiths of orthodox religion or atheism (to say that atheism has all this is again a debate). Agnosticism respects, compliments and may be venerates and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being. In fact shades of this can be inferred in Nasadiya Sukta in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda What about this - Is it possible to distinguish and the limits of rationality, There is one thing interesting here
Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can actually know and discern the answer is another. So that makes it like agnosticism is not for the unsophisticated or the simple minded which itself sets it in a so called higher plane and is not as affable if I must say as atheism and theism are.

 

[arunshanker]

Is that so? May be I misunderstood your very first post, part of which I reproduce here:

I guess you did misunderstand I said "so called higher plane" and affability is about being Friendly, good-natured not actually better. In truth the adj affable does not fit in here