• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mobyseven said:
People died in wars not only so that we may have free speech, but also so that we may have the freedom not to be forced to listen to everything every half-coherent nut with a megaphone has to say.
Click to expand...
A fundamentalist with a megaphone! What a nightmare.
Only a politician with one, comes anywhere close to such a nightmare.
 
ambnp said:
Can I re-phrase that?
Click to expand...


Sure.

Most people have a story to tell and we should show a sliver of courtesy.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Downright idiots are not in the same boat.
Click to expand...


I admit that I sometimes even enjoy reading the idiot´s posts for entertainment reasons, but not everyone has to share my sense of humor.....

Like Articullet says; attack the message, not the messenger.
Click to expand...


If only she´d practice what she preaches........
O.K., I admit having attacked messengers as well, so I should not be too vocal with that kind of criticism. Glass house and stones and all that.....


But if the person attacks you because you don't agree with their loopy beliefs or distortion of facts, then you can only take so much, after all we are only human.
Click to expand...


Yep. All I wanted to point out was that putting people on ignore is not the same as denying them the right of free speech, and that was how I understood your post. Thanks for clearing that up. I don´t have anyone on ignore and at the moment can´t imagine a reason to change that.
 
articulett said:
Was that directed at me? Claus is going to hunt me down and make sure I can't ignore him? Is that what he's implying? I have to remember to keep myself surrounded at all times by larger skeptics. (Lets see... Grayman likes me... he could take Claus; RSL could too... and Penn Jillette could... Are you going to be there, Big Les?)
Click to expand...

articulett said:
I only need people bigger than me... and that is just about everyone. Even Randi.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what would be very interesting: You defending your stance in front of Penn, RSL and Randi.

Heck, why not throw in Shermer while you're at it?
 
Belz... said:
<Growl>
Click to expand...

Are you going to be at TAM??

Georg... I know I sometimes attack the arguer and not the argument... that's why I put people on ignore. I can't help it. I can't even figure out what Claus' "argument" is half the time. He asks leading questions he doesn't want the answer to and he's all over the place... and I think the people who have these sort of communication problems are incapable of recognizing that they are the problem... much less fixing it. I put them on ignore so as not to further the problem. The striking think about mental or personality aberrancies is that part of the symptomology is denial of "symptoms". You can't fix other people... and they cannot fix themselves if they don't know the problem is them. So the kindest thing, as you noted, is to not exacerbate them Ignore them. Especially, if like me, you tend to end up giving fuel to their fire.

I know my mouth gets me in trouble. And by extension my blurting on a forum. I'm surprised such genes lasted long enough through the generations to get passed on to me. For me this is extra true, because in real life, I have learned to shut up or suffer the consequences. But on line I am free to say what I think, and I've developed a thick enough skin where the things that people say about me that are negative just make me think less of that person--not of me.

I know it's wrong to attack the arguer... I know I do it and have wicked good fun doing it... I especially like to do it slyly... so it flies over the arguers head. In my mind, I never start it, and I never say anything worse than the person I'm responding to-- but I've received warnings on occasion
So I use the ignore button to keep myself from being "bad". It's my way of giving myself a "time out". It's not really a slam to the other person though I know they can perceive it as such. Frankly, I encourage other people to put me on ignore, too, if what I say needles them.

It's not a crime not to like people or to think they are blowhards--it's an opinion. It's not a crime to put ignore them. I think we can all accept that there are people who don't like us and those are usually the people we don't like either--and, also, that feelings, like beliefs and opinions change.
Facts don't. They accumulate.

What people think, feel, and believe is not necessarily logical (this is my attempt to get this thread back on track). But we can determine whether people are stating opinions or facts and use evidence to judge the veracity of those claims accordingly. I think that most skeptics have determined that beliefs regarding gods are not things anyone can conclude from factual evidence-- and thus most are agnostic atheists--they know that NOBODY can know about invisible undetectable immaterial entities (by definition)... and so they don't have any such entities they believe in... and they have no reason to presume that those claiming such knowledge actually have knowledge on the subject. It can only be a "subjective feeling". There is no evidence for any real immaterial forms of consciousness of any description.
 
ambnp said:
Can I re-phrase that? Most people have a story to tell and we should show a sliver of courtesy. Downright idiots are not in the same boat. Like Articullet says; attack the message, not the messenger. But if the person attacks you because you don't agree with their loopy beliefs or distortion of facts, then you can only take so much, after all we are only human.
Click to expand...

Trust me... putting people on ignore is a "sliver of courtesy" compared to "sharing my opinion" of their "opinions". ;)
 
So how will you translate your forum policy into telling Shermer he "hasn't thought out his skepticism", that Phil Plait is wimpy, that Hal is a woo and that Randi is "respecting" or "deferring" to religious folks by not telling them how stupid and woo they are at TAM 6?

Tell us "articulet"t, are you familiar with the word hubris?
 
Last edited:
This TAM sounds great. I wish I could be there.
Results will be posted, I hope. I would gladly tell Shermer to ''think his spepticism'', and not suffer fools as he sometimes seems to do. Become a bit more like Dawkins.
 
ambnp said:
This TAM sounds great. I wish I could be there.
Results will be posted, I hope. I would gladly tell Shermer to ''think his spepticism'', and not suffer fools as he sometimes seems to do. Become a bit more like Dawkins.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting sentiment as the two of them met at TAM 3 and I don't recall Dawkins telling Shermer he needed to become more like himself.

I suppose anonymous folks on message boards know more about what the effective public face of skepticism should be than the guy who founded the Skeptics Society tough... :rolleyes:
 
Mobyseven said:
US, could you kindly stop putting words in other people's mouths? It ent becomin' of ya.
Click to expand...

I try to avoid doing so, but in this case, I don't think I have since nothing in that post is imagined (I did attend TAM3 and saw evidence that Dawkins thought Shermer should become more like him - which ambnp clearly thinks should happen, nor have I created a straw man from ambnp's assertion which clearly is:
ambnp said:
I would gladly tell Shermer to ''think his spepticism'', and not suffer fools as he sometimes seems to do.
Click to expand...
where he obviously thinks he has a better idea of how heads of Skeptic organizations should act in public than Shermer - who is a head of a Skeptic organization - does.

Could you explain to me how I'm putting words in other people's mouths when I'm reacting to the very words they have typed?
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
US, could you kindly stop putting words in other people's mouths? It ent becomin' of ya.
Click to expand...

If it was directed at me, I have him on ignore. I think most people have learned by now to take his interpretations of what I say the way they take CFLs interpretations or The Atheist or the whole lot of them that seem to add a lot of negativity on the interpreting side of the equation that weren't there in the words themselves nor in the mind of the writer. They literally read words that are not there just like they appear to be defending some god that isn't there or something while denying it!. It reminds me of creationists... they're smarter... but they still don't way what they do believe or what their point is-- they just twist my words so that I'm "wrong" and yet they are hardly examples of "right".... I can't ever figure out how I can say things differently or how else one can express ones opinions without their bizarre extrapolation. I used to think it was me, but I've seen them do it to so many people, that I just think that it's them and due to anosognosia... they cannot see that it's their own "lens" that is giving them a messed up interpretation of my words--not my words.

In any case, the people I like... the smarter people :) --the funny people -- don't seem to have any problem understanding me... or responding to my attempts at clarification. And I understand most everybody. But there is a group of social incompetents that really seem to match my sig-- they don't KNOW they are the incompetent ones... and they so overestimate their abilities that they think they are in charge of fixing the "social incompetence" of others.

Of course, if US was putting words in someones mouth other than mine-- then it illustrates that this is a pattern for him, (as I believe it is.) (That's another thing-- they suck at separating fact from belief/opinion/feelings/etc.)
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I try to avoid doing so, but in this case, I don't think I have since nothing in that post is imagined (I did attend TAM3 and saw evidence that Dawkins thought Shermer should become more like him - which ambnp clearly thinks should happen, nor have I created a straw man from ambnp's assertion which clearly is:

where he obviously thinks he has a better idea of how heads of Skeptic organizations should act in public than Shermer - who is a head of a Skeptic organization - does.

Could you explain to me how I'm putting words in other people's mouths when I'm reacting to the very words they have typed?
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your reply to ambnp (though I can see how you might have thought that), I was referring to your reply to articulett. To the best of my knowledge (though please link me to the offending posts if I am wrong) she didn't say that Hal was woo, she didn't say that Phil Plait was wimpy, and she didn't accuse Randi of deferring to religious folks by not calling them stupd and woo.

I say this because it is not the first time you have done something like this (taken what someone has said and extrapolating to unreasonable conclusions).
 
Nor do I think any of those things! Ugh. And none us think we are better than Shermer or have a better method.... geez! We are talking about opinions... and what sort of approaches we like. I like both Dawkins and Shermer a LOT... I've talked to them both... and they like each other. Dawkins speaks more for me or "to me". But I read and love listening to all of those guys. All of the mentioned people are atheists. The only non-atheist is Hal who is a deist... whatever that means, and I haven't heard him ever play the apologist game. He believes in something or other but it's pretty nonspecific... and I really can't tell the difference between what he believes and non-belief. I His late wife was an atheist, so I'm sure he has no qualms with anything I say nor would he twist it into the message the apologists hear, plus he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

I am proud to let my words speak for themselves. What do the woo imagine Shermer would do... March over to me and say, "I heard you said I was a wimp?!" The thought makes me laugh. I adore Shermer-- I just prefer my atheists a little more churlish... Randi doesn't hold back at TAM. And I consider us very like-minded. Randi is my hero. I don't think I'm saying or giving the message the apologists are imagining... and I think you'd be hard pressed to find me saying anything harsher than Dawkins or Dennett who get accused of this crap all the time even though they are genteel beyond belief and people wouldn't bat an eye if they were talking about woo that didn't have "god" attached. ugh.

I just think it's so funny that a couple of grown ups are going to run an tell other grown ups on me for saying something I never said... but I doubt it would really matter to these people if I did. It's... crazy. I don't know what Unrepentant Sinner looks like... but I'll have my body guards warn me so I can blow kisses at him to disarm him should he approach me.

Boys... you really have got to grow up and quit making yourself look so silly. I am a harmless person whom most people have no problem understanding. I don't care what people believe any more than they care what I believe. I just can't imagine what "point" you are going to try and prove at TAM to whom and by doing what nor can I imagine why you think I deserve whatever it is you are "going to do" (give me a piece of your mind because I can't ignore you??). You guys are sounding a little creepy. You've called me a lot worse than "apologist", you know. And you've said a lot more vitriolic things than you imagine me inferring. Really. (Do a cut and paste blind comparison and ask someone who is creepier or more obnoxious sounding.)

I think you ought to figure out what it is you are really mad about and what terrible thing I've ACTUALLY said and why you think it's so "bad". You've allowed me to take up more time in your head than I'm worth and you've built me up to me some bad guy that I am not and now you are freaking out me and a couple of other people here.
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
I wasn't referring to your reply to ambnp (though I can see how you might have thought that), I was referring to your reply to articulett. To the best of my knowledge (though please link me to the offending posts if I am wrong) she didn't say that Hal was woo, she didn't say that Phil Plait was wimpy, and she didn't accuse Randi of deferring to religious folks by not calling them stupd and woo.

I say this because it is not the first time you have done something like this (taken what someone has said and extrapolating to unreasonable conclusions).
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dig through her long emotional diatribes just to see if she specifically said the very words I used but her sentiment about these things is more than clear for those of you who chose to actually slog though her needlessly verbose mental vomitings.

Oh, and I was wrong, she calls Shermer wimpy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3351892&postcount=142

Edit - I'd be more ammenable to your advice if you'd offer it to her as well regarding her constant misuse and abuse of "apologist".
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
That's an interesting sentiment as the two of them met at TAM 3 and I don't recall Dawkins telling Shermer he needed to become more like himself.

I suppose anonymous folks on message boards know more about what the effective public face of skepticism should be than the guy who founded the Skeptics Society tough... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I understand their great friends. And like I said, I love Shermer's books. I have in my bookshelf right now his last. '' Why Darwin Matters ''. and have read many more during the years. But compared to Dawkins, Shermer is at best agnostic as this following statement shows. "But if one is a theist, it should not matter 'when' God made the universe-ten thousand years ago or ten billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless to an omniscient and omnipotent being, and the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened. Likewise, it should not matter 'how' God created life-whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created.
The grandeur of God's works command awe regardless of what processes He used. We have learned a lot in four thousand years, and that knowledge should never be dreaded or denied. Theists and theologians should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.'' [ end quote] I agree with his sentiments 100%.

I endorse this book to anyone who has yet to read it. ~All the best. Angelo~
 
Last edited:
I was at TAM3 and I don't remember anything like what US remembers... but he interprets my own words differently than I meant, so I wouldn't let him characterize anyone else's. Dawkins and Shermer are friends. I don't think they are competing in any way. They both understand the importance of evolution. People in America would be afraid to teach their kids evolution if they thought it lead to atheism... but Dawkins feels that it DID lead to his atheism... at least in some ways and he doesn't want to pretend that it doesn't. Also, religion has been a huge thorn in the side to advancing science particularly in this most important area.

I suspect that Dawkins is responsible for a lot more people understanding evolution and/or letting go of faith as a method of knowledge-- than Shermer. Both of those are goals I share. And like Randi I am very interested in how and why people fool themselves and how can we avoid being fooled.

I've read all of Dawkins and Shermers books, I think. I don't think there should be sides in skepticism-- good guys and bad guys... there's room for all kinds of approaches. Don't ask me to defer to religion... I've had enough of it to last several last times. And don't expect to defer to authority I don't recognize as authority. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom