|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2005 : 20:52:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I see some coincidende between the skpeticism with cults.
Really? What evidence do you have of this?
First: the wrong definition of CULT some pseduo skeptic organization like the SKEPTIC SOCIETY
Trying to relate CULTS only to religious groups is a fallacy and biased definition.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 21:28:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I see some coincidende between the skpeticism with cults.
Really? What evidence do you have of this?
First: the wrong definition of CULT some pseduo skeptic organization like the SKEPTIC SOCIETY
Trying to relate CULTS only to religious groups is a fallacy and biased definition.
From dictionary.com -- Cult:
"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest."
Skepticsim is neither faddish nor exclusive, and a skeptic venerates no one. Do tell us exactly your definition of the term. And whilst you're about it, define "New Skepticsim."
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/13/2005 21:32:32 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 21:43:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Trying to relate CULTS only to religious groups is a fallacy and biased definition.
Just to make sure, is the non-native and obviously far-from-fluent English speaker trying to tell the largely fluent-in-English readers of this forum that we're not using the word "cult" properly?
Assuming I have this correctly, could you expand on this?
Assuming I understand you correctly-- and the language barrier makes this difficult, so please correct me here-- what you're arguing is that skepticism is like a cult.
However, as you yourself imply, this only works if you take a definition of cult that simply doesn't exist. After all, there is no "leader" of skepticism-- not Randi, Sagan, or anyone else. Nor is there a singular skeptic movement.
Obviously, there are problems in your attempts. Please explain in more detail what you think a cult is, how you justify this definition, and then demonstrate how skepticism is like a cult.
Thanks! I look forward to hearing a straight, to-the-point answer from you. (In the while, I'll count the number of times the letter "e" shows up in my 31-volume set of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary here on my desk. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2005 : 00:52:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I see some coincidende between the skpeticism with cults.
We can make the difference, dear skpetics friends.
Still going after the “old skepticism?” If you have started this thread without the intention of defining the "new skepticism" first, this thread will be locked before the sun goes down in California.
In order to point out the flaws of skepticism, which there may be, it seems to me that it would be necessary to define your stated but yet to be defined alternative. You will make no headway at SFN in your campaign [to] further your cause until you first finish what you have started.
I will close every thread you open until you define “The New Skepticism.”
If you can't hang with that, feel free to move on…
Under what rule you will close my thread?
Under your piss off rule?
Start a topic about your curiosity.
Thi is about something else.
Stay on topic loser.
I am on topic. You could, if we let you, open a thousand threads about how bad the “old skepticism” is and continue to provide no evidence for your allegations. But we frown on trollish behavior. We are not here to provide you with a personal soapbox. I really couldn't care less what you think about skepticism, old or new. I do care about using multiple threads to put forth what is essentially the same stink emanating from the same bug up your ass. The fact of the matter is you have broken almost every rule for posting on our forum. I could have banned you without even looking back. I am giving you a chance here. Finish what you have started or move on.
Again, I will close every new thread you open until you define “The New Skepticism.” There is no reason to open a new thread to do that. And there is no reason anyone ells should have to. Call me a loser all you like. I don't care. If it takes treating you like a child by setting boundaries for you, I am up for it. I have kids. I'm used to it…
This thread is locked. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
