|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2007 : 05:44:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
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.
I hope my comments weren't misunderstood. I wasn't attacking Indeterminancy. Indeed, he seems (or seemed, if he's really gone) to be genuinely interested in having real discussion without engaging in trollish behavior.
But I do suppose that one might see SFN and its regular participants as somehow being "dedicated" to proving that there's no Yahweh (or Zeus, or Qos, or Marduk, or Set, or whomever). Of course, many to the most vocal atheists could be defined as "dedicated" to such things. But unlike Christianity, there is no mission or call to spread the 'Good News' of atheism (indeed, there is no single atheist 'gospel' or manifesto). |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 05:52:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
Blatantly false? Is no one allowed simple error or difference of opinion?
Yes. His statement was blatantly false. He said...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?
You see, there is no truth to it... blatantly false. And as to whether he is allowed a difference of opinion, yes, he is. One of his opinions, apparently, is that the Revolutionary War is equally well supported, or unsupported as it were, as the myths from the Bible. So while there are a variety of opinions on any issue, and everyone is entitled to have theirs, some of those opinions are blatantly false, wholly unsupported. Sometimes they are even ridiculous. And when one expresses that sort of opinion, occasionally (regularly on SFN) someone will point out the fact that it is unsupported, false, or even ridiculous. Happens here all the time. If you like I'll send you my comments before I post and you can tidy them up so they're kinder and gentler. 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 06:38:39 [Permalink]
|
One may be entitled to one's own opinions, but not to one's own facts.
Of course, with Indeterminacy's apparent idea that all knowledge is equally questionable, then perhaps he considers all facts to be opinions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 07:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
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.
I thought I already had. And I get that you don't agree with me. I am unwilling to go over all of that with you again. You can keep bringing it up and I will keep blowing it off since I have already stated my case. Suit yourself.
Anyone interested in the original debate can find it here.
quote:
Dude:
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.
I agree. However, if that's directed at me, you will need to demonstrate that I have done that.
quote:
Dave:
One may be entitled to one's own opinions, but not to one's own facts.
I agree. But even based on facts we often come to a different interpretation of what those facts signify. Especially in areas like politics. So even armed with facts, what conclusions we draw from them often comes down to an opinion. And of course, those opinions are open to challenge.
Edited: to be more clear about what I am saying. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 11:56:10 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
I agree. However, if that's directed at me, you will need to demonstrate that I have done that.
You defend beskeptigal's faulty assertion of fact as if it were just an opinion. (going so far as to issue an "official warning" to the one person in the thread who didn't agree with you, when the thread was filled with hostility and insults from multiple parties)
You don't defend Indeterminancy's faulty assertions of fact as if they were just opinions.
So, yes, I think you have a problem here.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 15:52:38 [Permalink]
|
Cune wrote: quote:
But unlike Christianity, there is no mission or call to spread the 'Good News' of atheism
Um, yes there is. I can't read a Humanist/skeptic publications or go to local or national events of such organizations without stumbling on references to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and their united mission to make all kinds of religious faith taboo. Not only that, but this mission, these “New Atheists” (Wired Magazine dubbed them) are being mentioned in many mainstream publications (NPR, New York Times).
Sure, you could argue that most atheists are not united under this mission, but likewise, no majority of believers are united under any one religious mission.
quote:
(indeed, there is no single atheist 'gospel' or manifesto).
There is no single Christian gospel either. And while there may be several manifestos of nonbelievers (such as the three Humanist Manifestos and the most recent Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris), Harris's Atheist Manifesto has been getting some success in uniting nonbelievers in a crusade against faith: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
GeeMack wrote: quote:
You see, there is no truth to it... blatantly false.
What, are you just trying to get us into another boring semantics discussion about the various meanings and connotations of “dedicated” and “prove”? Cune, bgal and I have all now expressed a willingness to read that statement from a less confrontational perspective and see how there is some truth to it from another perspective. Whether you agree or not, do you at least get what other people here are saying? I hope you know that I (and I'm pretty sure bgal too) understand your point of view here, which is why I gave a critical response to Interdetermacy in response to his statement that is in question. If we both understand each others' points of view (even if we continue to disagree), I'd say we can let this then drop. 
Dude wrote: quote:
You defend beskeptigal's faulty assertion of fact as if it were just an opinion. (going so far as to issue an "official warning" to the one person in the thread who didn't agree with you, when the thread was filled with hostility and insults from multiple parties)
You don't defend Indeterminancy's faulty assertions of fact as if they were just opinions.
So, yes, I think you have a problem here.
Edited - I had trouble getting the quote formatting right.
|
"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 15:56:35 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 16:04:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
I've lurked around the SFN forums for quite a while now, and I'd like to open a discussion about my viewpoint on the whole religion/faith thing. Bear with me and read…
Everybody questions things, whether they admit it or not. If we didn't, we wouldn't have grown as a society. Knowledge is spawn through challenge to ones beliefs. At one point, people didn't think the world was round, and it took a whole lot of garbage before all of us accepted it. Time and distance are man-made measurements, and there are an infinite number of ways to implement those measurements (the metric system, the lunar calendar, etc.) That being said, we don't know when existence (as we know it) began, or how it evolved. We don't know if there are parallel universes, as some have proposed. Matter of fact, we don't know much. There are very few truths, if any.
I'm a skeptic. I'm also a believer. My stance is beyond “fact” lies belief, and everyone can believe whatever they choose to. The Bible, with all its inconsistencies, myths, parables, and whatever else you want to throw in there, is a great book of principles. The figure of Jesus Christ, whether or not you believe if He even existed, was a tremendous teacher. I choose to follow many of the principles written in the Bible, but not all. I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. I don't believe that anyone lived for 900 years. I don't believe an ark can be built to hold every living creature. But I do believe in the power of prayer. I believe that sin, as it's described, is part of human nature. I believe in the message behind a lot of what's written in the Bible. I can go on… but, I will also say that I could be wrong about all of this, because in the end I really don't know, and there's no way for me to know, at least not now.
Truth is purely subjective. I say “what if…” to everything. I even say “what if” to my what ifs sometimes. I can keep saying “what if” until my imagination runs out, and no one can stop me. Why? Because I can. But if I don't take a position on things, I wouldn't be able to function.
If someone asked me how strong my faith in God is, I would answer “strong enough to question it,” because I couldn't grow in faith without challenging my beliefs.
Welcome to SFN, Indeterminacy!
What I think you are employing is the self-deception of factual relativism. There's a lot of it going around, as it provides a way of avoiding messy things like evidence and logic.
|
“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 - 03/21/2007 : 17:59:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
You defend beskeptigal's faulty assertion of fact as if it were just an opinion. (going so far as to issue an "official warning" to the one person in the thread who didn't agree with you, when the thread was filled with hostility and insults from multiple parties)
You don't defend Indeterminancy's faulty assertions of fact as if they were just opinions.
You have no idea how much I agonized over issuing that warning.
You were so far and away the most vulgar, the most taunting, the most patronizing, and in fact, I received multiple complaints about you and they weren't all from people posting on that thread. The idea that you were singled out because I was on the other side of a debate with you is not only incorrect, it's demonstrably false. Can you find where I have ever done that to anyone else?
Look at how long I put up with Ergo123! He didn't get warnings or banned until he started actively breaking our rules and challenged us to do something about it. And I was on the other side of the debate with him too. Hell, he literally crapped all over one of my threads and I didn't issue him a warning at that time. A troll. Not even a regular member. You are grasping at straws and I really don't understand why you are doing it. Do you need me to agree with you that much? I'll let my record of fairness at SFN speak for itself. Again, you need to demonstrate that I have been unfair to you and have been a hypocrite. Either that or you need to apologize to me for making that allegation.
On second thought, don't bother… I don't need it.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 18:38:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
What, are you just trying to get us into another boring semantics discussion about the various meanings and connotations of “dedicated” and “prove”?
No, I'm saying, and have been saying all along, that this statement is false, untrue, not true, a falsehood...
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?
... because it is. From my observation, not most of the people on these forums, not even a few, are dedicated, nor even engaged at any level, in the pursuit of trying to prove, or even provide any substantiation whatsoever, that God does not exist. There's no issue of semantics involved. His statement was false... everything about it. I understand that you, beskeptigal, and Cuneiformist, have considered some reasons why he may have made that false statement, but that in no way negates the fact that it was not true. Even I suggested some possibilities as to why he may have made that untrue statement. I even asked Indeterminacy to explain it, because only he can. Apparently he wasn't willing to offer any further comment.
He did follow up, however, by stating that many here in these forums have called him stupid, another falsehood of course, not true in any way. No person here even remotely suggested he was stupid. None. You, in considering a possible, but incorrect interpretation of one of my comments, suggested that I may have been inferring he was stupid. I didn't. I was suggesting, no not even suggesting, I was stating very plainly that his comment was untrue. And it was.
If you are going to claim that there is some truth to it, I'd sure like to see some evidence to show that most, or even some of the people in these forums are dedicated, or even actively involved in the effort to prove, or even to provide some kind of body of evidence to support the notion that God does not exist.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
If we both understand each others' points of view (even if we continue to disagree), I'd say we can let this then drop.
If we are agreeing that Indeterminacy's comment was untrue, and that there are a variety of possible reasons for him to have made that false statement, and that we might all understand better what he actually meant by that untrue statement if he were to explain for himself what he meant, then we understand each others' point of view.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 19:28:20 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack wrote: quote:
... because it is. From my observation, not most of the people on these forums, not even a few, are dedicated, nor even engaged at any level, in the pursuit of trying to prove, or even provide any substantiation whatsoever, that God does not exist. There's no issue of semantics involved. His statement was false... everything about it. I understand that you, beskeptigal, and Cuneiformist, have considered some reasons why he may have made that false statement, but that in no way negates the fact that it was not true. Even I suggested some possibilities as to why he may have made that untrue statement. I even asked Indeterminacy to explain it, because only he can. Apparently he wasn't willing to offer any further comment.
I guess my main point is that I thought you were making too much of it and taking it too literally. I agree 100% that the literal statement is false.
You are totally right about his giving up too quickly. I'm a little annoyed by his quick exit, especially considering that just as many of us were welcoming and kind as were aggressive. I also think his comment about proving a point to himself but not saying what that point was is a cheap shot. But maybe I speak too soon, and he'll come back and shed some light on all this.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 19:32:38 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Half, thanks for the sweet factual relativism link! |
"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 19:33:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 19:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Hey Half, thanks for the sweet factual relativism link!
A lot better than calling it "postmodernism," right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 21:09:31 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
You were so far and away the most vulgar, the most taunting, the most patronizing, and in fact, I received multiple complaints about you and they weren't all from people posting on that thread. The idea that you were singled out because I was on the other side of a debate with you is not only incorrect, it's demonstrably false.
Is it?
Isn't "rudeness" a matter of opinion?
What made you decide to single out any one person in a thread filled with people casting insults back and forth? Your opinion that I was more rude than the others? I probably threw out more profanity, but imo marfknox was by far the most rude (and the instigator of insults) in that thread. Her passive agressive taunts and sarcasm, imo, are far more rude than a bucketfull of "fuck you's". And there were several people engaging in the same behavior.
Whatver your reason it is an undeniable fact that the only person who recieved a warning was on the opposite side of the debate from you.
IMO you did not fairly moderate that thread.
|
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 : 21:15:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
....but incorrect interpretation of one of my comments, suggested that I may have been inferring he was stupid. I didn't. I was suggesting, no not even suggesting, I was stating very plainly that his comment was untrue. And it was.
...
I wouldn't say your post implied stupidity, it implied purposeful misstatement of facts.
The issue here isn't in disagreeing with people or even stating you find a statement of fact to be in error, the issue is making the statement in such a hostile way.
Look at this post from the eyes of a new forum member who posted a serious topic to explore with people he knows hold different views from his. quote:
Now you're simply being ridiculous, of course. So much so that it's difficult to consider your reply anything more than satirical, or perhaps a pretty feeble attempt at trolling. If you're actually being serious, your request demonstrates an obvious willful ignorance. We could make your comparison a bit more realistic, not to mention rational, if we were to word the request something more like this...
This tone just wasn't called for in my opinion. And you weren't the only one with a similar tone.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/21/2007 21:16:49 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 21:25:08 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
The issue here isn't in disagreeing with people or even stating you find a statement of fact to be in error, the issue is making the statement in such a hostile way.
There are only so many ways to tell people that they are wrong, and none of them are "polite".
Isn't it better to be straightforward and honest about it, rather than use some timid approach?
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to chew on....
