|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
I once heard someone say that the more unsure someone is in their beliefs, the nastier they can be to the one who challenges their beliefs.
Well, I suppose that's often the case, but that doesn't mean the reverse is true, i.e. that nasty behavior is indicative of someone being unsure of their beliefs.
quote:
Many here in this forum ripped my ideas to shreds, called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant.
And many did not.
quote:
I harbor no resent to those who did so, but I guess I proved a point to myself.
What point would that be?
quote:
Good luck in all your pursuits, everyone.
Hmm. Does that mean you're leaving? Because if so, that would be a shame.
|
"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 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:34:44 [Permalink]
|
I hope Indeterminacy comes back soon to further elaborate on his reductive solipsism/epistemological nihilism (personally, I think my criticism of it, while wordy, requires less use of reference books  ) Otherwise I fear this conversation will descend into a cross between a college philosophy club and The Three Stooges.
"Remind me to kill you later."
"I won't have time, later."
"Then I'll kill you now."
"Every time you think you weaken the nation." -Moe
Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
(Edited to add: crap - I posted this 2 minutes too late!) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/20/2007 21:36:46 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:40:22 [Permalink]
|
To Indeterminacy:I second everything in Humbert's last post, especially: quote:
Hmm. Does that mean you're leaving? Because if so, that would be a shame.
Especially considering that I'm pretty curious as to why you came here in the first place. You don't at all seem like you are trying to convert anyone (neither am I or many others here) which means your reasons are probably a lot more interesting. But maybe that's just me being optimistic.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/20/2007 21:41:01 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:41:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
Just because he is stating a conclusion with a non-subjective modifier doesn't mean he isn't just stating an opinion! (or so says Kil, McQ, beskeptigal, and marfknox anyway).
quote:
Dude:
Ohh... I see now. Your standard is different based on who you are talking to, or about. By your previously stated criteria, you should be defending Indeterminancy's opinion! Not insisting that he change the phrasing to something that resembles an actual opinion.
Oh for crying out loud. Beskeptigal absolutely said it was an opinion in her very next post. And no one said you couldn't challenge her opinion. If Indeterminacy modifies his statement in his next post, will you not accept it anymore than you didn't accept it when beskeptigal said her statement was an opinion? Goddamn you're stubborn…
Is your plan to follow us around until we relent and acknowledge your superior critical thinking skills?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 22:07:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
But then again, marf didn't make an actual request of Indeterminacy, either.
I put that post out there in the hopes that Indeterminacy would clarify exactly what he meant. We all use unfortunate wording from time to time that can result in an unwanted interpretation, however slight. Jimmy Carter accidentally put a line in his most recent book that implied that terrorism on the part of Palestinians is OK. He didn't mean it to sound that way, but not he nor his editor caught it before publication. If Jimmy Carter can make a mistake, we all can. And if it wasn't a mistake, I put it out there fore Indeterminacy to re-assert and defend.
Not that this really bears much resemblance at all to the previously mentioned thread. Dude has a chip on his shoulder. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/20/2007 22:08:14 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 01:00:25 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
quote:
Is your plan to follow us around until we relent and acknowledge your superior critical thinking skills?
No. For the record, I do not think my ability to think critically is in any way "superior" to anyone else's.
I will hit you with this point when the opportunity presents, however, until you acknowledge that conclusions stated with non-subjective modifiers are not opinion. Or until you can present a convincing argument why such conclusions should be accepted as an opinion, especially in a skeptics forum.
quote:
Beskeptigal absolutely said it was an opinion in her very next post.
Regardless of how many times she claimed it as an "opinion", it isn't. Not when stated the way it was. Add to that her refusal to admit the faulty induction that lead her to the faulty conclusion, her refusal to restate her claim as a subjective statement, her challenge (issued multiple times) to prove her wrong, her exaggeration of the amount of bs in the green platform, her refusal to acknowledge (and admit the consequences of) political platforms being decided by committee... there is simply no way what she said can be accepted as just an opinion.
So call me stubborn if you like, but if we are going to hold our religious and conservative members to a standard of logic, evidence, and critical thinking.... then we shouldn't let those standards be more lax for our liberal members. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Dave_W said:
quote:
You may have a point there, Dude. But then again, marf didn't make an actual request of Indeterminacy, either.
True. But she was leading him. She is, in the post in question, passively suggesting that Indeterminancy should have stated his claim another way. The clear implication is that she wants him to restate his claim. Its a fine example of her passive agressive style.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 02:45:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
quote:
That being said it is simply not good enough to fill every gap of understanding with myths from a bronze age book.
Please prove to me that the Revolutionary War actually did occur and it's not just a myth. And don't use any books.
There is a lot of evidence. It isn't merely in books. There are pictures, letters, artifacts, grave sites, there is the Constitution, there is historical evidence in Great Britain as well and so on.
We didn't pass history down simply as a story. Not all the history books have done good jobs evaluating the evidence, and evidence from the past is not always complete. But there is evidence.
I've been in a similar discussion about this on JREF forum. The thread is sort of can you be a skeptic and a Christian. Sure, but you are choosing to selectively apply skepticism to your world interpretation.
So my question to you is, why do you reject other religions past and present and I'm not talking about just deciding yours is superior for whatever reason. Tell my why Pele' and Zeus are myths but Noah isn't.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/21/2007 03:10:09 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 02:47:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
...
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to proving that God does not exist, so what's your point?
I don't know about "most people". And while I take the position you speak of, I wouldn't apply the term "dedicated".
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 02:53:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...
Can't we seasoned regulars at SFN maybe show that we practice more than religious skepticism by not assuming that every person new to rationalism, who starts a polite conversation about belief and skepticism, is an idiot?
I totally concur here. This guy hasn't started out with proselytizing or anything negative. And the responses are a tad hostile. It seems to me Indeterminacy just wants to challenge some basic premises. A reasonable discussion from what I have read so far.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 02:56:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
There's a great representation of skepticism: telling someone that they're being “ridiculous”, setting up a statement to imply that he is either stupid or dishonest, giving a half-assed accusation of trolling, and then accusing him of being “willfully ignorant”, despite the fact that Indeterminacy seems so far quite open and genuine in his intent here at SFN.
Read this again...
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy...
Please prove to me that the Revolutionary War actually did occur and it's not just a myth. And don't use any books.
That attempt to support the validity of his belief in magic by trying to demonstrate that the Revolutionary War may be equally as unevidenced as the events depicted in the Bible was ridiculous... without quote marks. Get over it.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
This sort of bullying is IMO why we mostly seem to get hard-nosed rationalists and wack-jobs, and rarely people in between, at least those who stick around. Indeterminacy hasn't written anything that indicates he's being anything other than forthright, open, and honest with us. He very must seems to have both firm beliefs and opinions, but also an open mind. And it was Carl Sagan I believe who once said, “You have to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.”
Read this again...
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy...
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to proving that God does not exist, so what's your point?
And again, that statement is blatantly false. It appears he either radically misunderstands the position of the members of SFN and their concept of skepticism, or he is making a wholly unsubstantiated claim, or he is flat out lying. I didn't call him a liar. I asked Indeterminacy to specify. His comment was also pretty obviously confrontational. Therefore, to consider the possibility that he is a troll is quite reasonable given the evidence he has provided so far.
But Geemack, can't you simply point out a false assumption without being angry it was made? So the guy wants to challenge skeptics and he sees the world through different eyes?
Blatantly false? Is no one allowed simple error or difference of opinion?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/21/2007 03:11:44 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 03:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm wondering if this is simply an unfortunate choice of wording. What about this:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that God does not exist.
or perhaps the more wordy but also more accurate and specific:
Most of the people on the SFN religion forums are dedicated to asserting that the likelihood of God's existence is so small that it is not even worth considering.
I think the problem was the whole "are dedicated to" part, marf. That is, while I frequent SFN and all, I'd say my involvement in atheism falls far short of any reasonable definition of "dedicated to" or any such. Am I an atheist? Sure. But have I "dedicated [it] to asserting that God does not exist"? No, no really.
Is it possible that a person with religious convictions might perceive SFN posts (I'm thinking of my own here) in a way we ourselves do not perceive them and have it be an honest though incorrect interpretation? Can't we assume the best until there's a little more evidence some sort of fight is impending?
It is possible Indeterminacy's view is how it looks to him.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/21/2007 03:12:16 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 03:07:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I read that as sarcasm, not an actual request for her to restate her faulty conclusion as an actual opinion.
And I interpreted it as, this is what B said, most everyone else understood it that way, perhaps if you rephrase it Dude will stop insisting on his own version.
Apparently not.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 04:41:52 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
I will hit you with this point when the opportunity presents, however, until you acknowledge that conclusions stated with non-subjective modifiers are not opinion. Or until you can present a convincing argument why such conclusions should be accepted as an opinion,
I have already presented my argument. I don't have to convince you. Kil also presented a stunningly clear argument. He doesn't have to convince you. I still agree with my own reasoning over yours. I understand your point of view, and I don't think you are right. Constantly dragging this dead horse into additional conversations and proceeding to beat the crap out of it will only result in making shit stink.
quote:
She is, in the post in question, passively suggesting that Indeterminancy should have stated his claim another way. The clear implication is that she wants him to restate his claim. Its a fine example of her passive agressive style.
There you go, reading my mind again. I've already said what the intended implication of my post was, so you are essentially accusing me of either outright deception of others or self deception. I also did imply also on the other conversation that bgal's original wording was also unfortunate, but that she fixed it by backing off and softening her wording. So I've been entirely consistent here. Your incessant attacks on my integrity are really annoying and totally unsubstantiated. What is your personal problem with me? Get over it!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/21/2007 04:43:26 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 04:49:51 [Permalink]
|
bgal wrote: quote:
So my question to you is, why do you reject other religions past and present and I'm not talking about just deciding yours is superior for whatever reason. Tell my why Pele' and Zeus are myths but Noah isn't.
I gathered from the other stuff that he wrote that he'd say that it is just as reasonable to believe in Zeus as it is to believe in Jesus. (which I agree with - they are equally reasonable, though I doubt the level of reasonableness that I grant those beliefs is as high as his :-) The problem is if he claims it is equally reasonable to believe in Jesus/Zeus and that the Revolutionary War actually happened.
Again, quite a shame if he doesn't come back and speak for himself. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
Something to chew on....
