|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2009 : 12:41:31
|
|
Those who call themselves skeptics tend to be skeptics only about those who generally oppose their viewpoints. The idea of being skeptical about people or powers that be in general is really not part of this forum or the majority of skeptics that peruse it. Therefore, I would suggest that this forum be renamed. Liberal Skeptic Friends Network.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
Edited by - Doomar on 08/12/2009 12:42:12
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 13:15:54 [Permalink]
|
We just don't like bullshit. Are you tacitly admitting that all the stuff that you religious right/conservative types support and believe in is bullshit?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 08/12/2009 13:16:45 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 13:24:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
Those who call themselves skeptics tend to be skeptics only about those who generally oppose their viewpoints. The idea of being skeptical about people or powers that be in general is really not part of this forum or the majority of skeptics that peruse it. Therefore, I would suggest that this forum be renamed. Liberal Skeptic Friends Network.
|
Is this not true for everyone? Your net is not cast wide enough, my friend.
It's factual enough though, most of the regulars here are of a liberal persuasion (I'm becoming downright socialist and you can thank the scumbag behavior of the conservatives for it) but how does that separate us from reality?
No, I think the site is well enough named as it is.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 14:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
Those who call themselves skeptics tend to be skeptics only about those who generally oppose their viewpoints.
|
Have you ever seriously evaluated the merits of your viewpoints? Is a firm belief really a useful metric?
If we disagree with your viewpoints it just might be that your viewpoints are not adequately supported. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 14:24:11 [Permalink]
|
Doomar offers:
| I would suggest that this forum be renamed. Liberal Skeptic Friends Network. |
Doomar.....
I, for one, am highly skeptical about many genuine skeptics' posture of skeptical orthodoxy, which may be described as a unwilligness to consider anything but an extremely small statistical probability that certain concepts could be possible -- such concepts as the barely possible existence of extra sensory perception, or the idea that there might be a very small chance that some unexplained aerial phenomena are genuinely not explicable by attribution to currently known physical events. They demand vigorously tested and rigorously exhaustive experimental data to be developed on a hypothesis before even allowing the hypothesis to be considered as possible (or at least to be within the practical realm of possibility i.e. statistically possible)
Now I probably will get a lot of attention here for that skeptical sacrilege, I merely wanted to distance myself from your characterization of "those who call themselves skeptics".
However, it is not really my point to you. You state that SFN should be called Liberal SFN.
I cannot respond rationally to that suggestion until I know what you mean by liberal!
If you would kindly give us your definition of liberal as you used the word in the quote above, I (and perhaps others) will be happy to respond to your taunt. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 14:51:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
Those who call themselves skeptics tend to be skeptics only about those who generally oppose their viewpoints. |
It's interesting that you think that skeptics are primarily skeptical about people, and not ideas. That speaks volumes to where you're coming from. Of course, it's also hypocritical of you, since I've never seen you be skeptical of anyone who's the least bit conservative.| The idea of being skeptical about people or powers that be in general is really not part of this forum or the majority of skeptics that peruse it. |
Bwahahahahaha! You haven't been paying attention to the "accomodationism" arguments, then.| Therefore, I would suggest that this forum be renamed. Liberal Skeptic Friends Network. |
Why? That would alienate all our centrist members. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 16:26:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Of course we don't question things we believe in. What kind of crazy person would ever do that? |
Well, skeptics. We are constantly challenging our notions to see how well they match up against reality, and hopefully discarding the ones that don't do so well. Doomar's suggestion that we never challenge our own beliefs is pure projection on his part. Of course we do, which is why we can be confident in our conclusions. Our beliefs aren't arbitrary or selected because of pre-existing biases. We really do examine the evidence. Doomar, on the other hand, only seems to see evidence, however flimsy or discredited, which supports that which he wants to believe and ignores evidence which undermines his beliefs. That's pretty much why he's a religious birther nutcase and we aren't.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 18:44:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Just to make sure we're on the same page, HH, I was being sarcastic.
|
 Ok, glad you specified, for Doomar's sake at least. I'm sure he would have taken that at face value.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 21:38:22 [Permalink]
|
I now see the fallacy of my thinking...skepticism is not really what this forum is about. It is more of a place for people to simply lash out and express themselves about whatever. Condescension and smart retorts with sarcasm are the norm and seemingly expected. Civility is low on the totem pole and definitely not a requirement, though some practice it. Unbelief in God is the norm, and the M.O. of behavior is rejection of all who dare to express such belief. Attacking the person rather than discussing the argument is most common. So this is more of a social club of unbelievers with a smattering of those who believe otherwise outside of a small clique of insiders: your basic club for the elitist liberal thinker who thinks a bit too highly of him or herself. Skepticism with independent, critical thinking, focusing on ideas rather than people, would be a large step above this forum and perhaps too great of goal to propose, though it should be considered a worthy ideal.
My original suggestion for a name change stands, but I am open to suggestions for the name that more clearly represents this club. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 21:54:32 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, I personally think that people somewhat left of center are common at SFN, but that's like observing a correlation between Yankee fans and Bud Light aficionados. It's irrelelavant. Where one is on the political spectrum is a separate issue from skepticism. The local left-leaning ways of many posters here is a clustering (perhaps due to a bird-flocking-together effect) unrelated to skepticism itself.
Other skeptical sites have a different political mix. Someday Skeptic Friends Network may be filled with Marxists, libertarians or conservatives, and still be dedicated to using critical thinking on the core issues that are discussed here.
The fact is, skeptical thinking underpins and is reinforced by science. It's now so well established in science that we who are not scientists regularly go to the scientific well to hone our skeptical skills, while it is comparatively rare for scientists to need to look for ideas from nonscientific skeptics. Skeptics try to apply their critical thinking to almost everything, but politics is one of the areas least amenable to skeptical analysis. That's not going to stop us from trying, but skepticism is about as useful for political debate as Roberts Rules of Order is for classifying geological strata.
So what we happen to have here is a lot of skeptics, many of whom happen to be a bit left of center, along with some others who happen to be libertarian, conservative, apolitical, or socialist.
Being a lefty is not a litmus test for being active at SFN. Nobody here, that I am aware of, would wish it were so. But that doesn't mean that people here will silently accept unsubstantiated statements of political "fact" any more than they would those of a scientific nature.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/13/2009 00:57:13 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 21:55:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
I now see the fallacy of my thinking...skepticism is not really what this forum is about. It is more of a place for people to simply lash out and express themselves about whatever. Condescension and smart retorts with sarcasm are the norm and seemingly expected. Civility is low on the totem pole and definitely not a requirement, though some practice it. Unbelief in God is the norm, and the M.O. of behavior is rejection of all who dare to express such belief. Attacking the person rather than discussing the argument is most common. So this is more of a social club of unbelievers with a smattering of those who believe otherwise outside of a small clique of insiders: your basic club for the elitist liberal thinker who thinks a bit too highly of him or herself. Skepticism with independent, critical thinking, focusing on ideas rather than people, would be a large step above this forum and perhaps too great of goal to propose, though it should be considered a worthy ideal.
My original suggestion for a name change stands, but I am open to suggestions for the name that more clearly represents this club.
|
That's essentially one long list of insults.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 22:31:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
I now see the fallacy of my thinking...skepticism is not really what this forum is about. It is more of a place for people to simply lash out and express themselves about whatever. Condescension and smart retorts with sarcasm are the norm and seemingly expected. Civility is low on the totem pole and definitely not a requirement, though some practice it. Unbelief in God is the norm, and the M.O. of behavior is rejection of all who dare to express such belief. Attacking the person rather than discussing the argument is most common. So this is more of a social club of unbelievers with a smattering of those who believe otherwise outside of a small clique of insiders: your basic club for the elitist liberal thinker who thinks a bit too highly of him or herself. Skepticism with independent, critical thinking, focusing on ideas rather than people, would be a large step above this forum and perhaps too great of goal to propose, though it should be considered a worthy ideal.
My original suggestion for a name change stands, but I am open to suggestions for the name that more clearly represents this club.
|
While it's true that many of us do lean to the liberal side of politics at SFN, it certainly isn't a requirement of membership. But our politics doesn't have much to do with our skepticism. Really Doomar, you are just wrong about that.
You are correct that "unbelief in God is the Norm". That has to do with a lack of evidence for God. You are free to provide it if you like. But faith based beliefs are something that most skeptics reject, again, because faith is evidence of nothing. It's not a liberal position to doubt the existence of God, it's a skeptical position, no matter what political ideology a skeptic has.
We do promote critical thinking. If it happens that after doing that we agree on some things, even many things, that does not make us elitist. We go where the evidence points. I also reject homeopathic remedies as a valid treatment for illness or even the prevention of illness. I doubt paranormal claims, because not a single one has ever been substantiated. But I am still open to be shown that I am wrong about that. I doubt that we are being visited by aliens. I doubt that Bush and company, as bad as they were, conspired to bring down the World Trade Center just so they could get us into a war. (I do think they used 9/11 to get us into a war, but that's another thing.) I strongly doubt any claim to a perpetual motion machine, cold fusion, and spoon bending done by any method other than slight of hand.
You get the point.
It's just too damned bad if your claim that evolution doesn't happen is wrong. We didn't arrive at any of our tentative conclusions without substantial evidence to support whatever it is that we have investigated. A consensus of experts in specific area's of science is usually the position we support, being a science site and all.
Sour grapes is not becoming of you Doorar, but it's my guess that that's what's behind your suggestion.
As for politics, all the "birther" crap has been debunked. And that debunking was done by conservatives too. We don't much go in for conspiracy theories that don't hold up. And that's a skeptical position, not a political one. But if a "birther" does come along, we just might let that person know how crazy that idea is. Comes with the territory. Forums are like that.
We do let you make your case, if you have one Doomar. That's a lot more than I can say for Christian or conservative sites I have been to where banning is so common, you wonder what the hell they are afraid of?
So call us names Doomar. Whatever...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 22:45:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
Skepticism with independent, critical thinking, focusing on ideas rather than people, would be a large step above this forum and perhaps too great of goal to propose, though it should be considered a worthy ideal. |
But you asked us to focus on a person. Why the change of heart? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2009 : 23:23:15 [Permalink]
|
By the way, it's clear to me that Doomar's latest post in this thread is just a lame attack to attempt to distract away from the fact that he refuses to actually engage any of the proper and civil criticisms of the ideas he posts. "Just ignore the fact that I refuse to address any of the problems with the claims I have voluntarily made about Obama's citizenship," Doomar seems to be saying, "because it's much more important for everyone to know that you all are a bunch of meanies."
And don't miss out on the "elitist" in Doomar's screed. That's right: Doomar is obviously of the opinion that experts are bad. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Proposed name change for website
