Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

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.

Personally, I think that she put it best herself just before:

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.

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

Fair enough. Doesn't seem to be a malicious comment, and it seems more directed at his approach to taking on 'woo' than at him personally. But point taken.

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".

Certainly.

Articulett: It is true that you can be very quick on the draw to label people apologists. While you are sometimes correct, there are also often times when you are incorrect, and because of this your posts are offputting to a number of people on both sides of the debate. I understand that you probably don't want to pull any punches - I often feel the same way - but perhaps the next time you want to label a newcomer an apologist, wait a little bit and see how the discussion pans out first. I offer this as sincere advice, no offence is intended.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I look forward to any updates or developments after the TAM event.

I am already contemplating TAM 7, not only for the intellectual aspect, but for the possibility of entertainment.

Perhaps I'll increase the androgenic administration to supra-physiological levels to add to the "effect." All that perspiration and rope like vascularity may provide a dis-incentive to unwanted attentions.

Though still vulnerable to high speed metals, most other situations have the potential of grim entertainment. Not that it will be sought out, this would be strictly in a defensive capacity.

Yes, there are cracks in the armor, but what be the point of a warrior if not to assist those in need?

 

[amb]

Articullet, regardless of what other posters think, I'm a fan.
Keep it up.

 

[articulett]

What "newcomer" did I call an apologist? And why is "apologist" a bad word? And I don't think I've called anyone an apologist until they've mischaracterized something I've said in the way apologists are known to do.

Yes, I think Unrepentent Sinner is an apologist... he's always hearing atheists saying things they didn't say and calling them "god haters"-- he totally mischaracterized Dawkins as he does me. He does it to everyone who dares to criticize religon-- suddenly the criticizer is the bad guy-- not religion-- not ever. He's known for that. So is Claus. But these are my opinions... I share my opinions of them only because they've been more than eager to share their opinions of me with me. And now they can share their opinions of me with each other to their hearts content, because I have them on ignore... and I think everyone I like can see why. I'm sure if they ever have a point, someone will quote them. And I'm sure if someone wonders what I actually said or if I'm actually as they characterize me, they can ask me or ask for a quote.

I'm glad to admit to egging people on and enjoying pissing off blowhards-- HOWEVER, what else is one to do when the vigilantes start mischaracterizing your statements and then beating up that strawman version of your statement. I think it's mighty big of me to be able to find amusement in that. I used to try and correct the misperceptions, but the blowhards would just call it "ranting" and the smart people already knew I didn't say whatever they extrapolated.

I am entitled to my opinion, boys. They are opinions. I can't figure out why they drive you so insane except that you are hearing things that aren't there and feeling threatened by something I never said. I think you are really peeved because you have woo beliefs you want to protect and you don't like the fact that I don't believe in them-- out loud. gasp.

If something is true--my opinion doesn't affect that truth. If I am a rabble rouser, you don't have the power to change me... and the rabble rousing might be a product of your imagination. Think of your goals before you try to get others to believe I'm whatever mean thing you've imagined me to be. Remember--opinions aren't facts and the facts are the same for everybody no matter what they believe or opine. Before correcting me or trying to fix me, perhaps you ought to wonder if you could use a little fixing first.

 

[articulett]

I look forward to any updates or developments after the TAM event.

I am already contemplating TAM 7, not only for the intellectual aspect, but for the possibility of entertainment.

Perhaps I'll increase the androgenic administration to supra-physiological levels to add to the "effect." All that perspiration and rope like vascularity may provide a dis-incentive to unwanted attentions.

Though still vulnerable to high speed metals, most other situations have the potential of grim entertainment. Not that it will be sought out, this would be strictly in a defensive capacity.

Yes, there are cracks in the armor, but what be the point of a warrior if not to assist those in need?

I feel like I've been told "you're going to get it when your dad comes home"-- but I don't know what I did! Or what I'm going to get. I mean, I enjoy riling them up...but I don't want to endanger myself. I love skeptics because they tend to be very rational... but I'm sensing some irrationality here and feeling nervous. I'm trying to imagine what they plan on doing. "pssst, Shermer--this broad has something she wants to tell you..."

I actually had a great talk with Shermer at one of the TAMS about, of all things, Mormon underwear... we both were wondering where you could by some and we were talking about peculiarities of Utah... "yeah Mike... I think you are a really great guy, but I gotta tell you... I just feel more kindred with Dawkins way of delivering messages then yours-- I like my men slightly riled and you're just always all smiley and such... --so CHANGE dammit... because I am the queen, and I define how skeptics should be!"

I don't even think skeptics should be any way. I like all the different brands-- except for the apologist/vigilante (oops) brand. I don't understand that kind. They just always seem peeved at something... and I know it has something to do with me... and I enjoy the attention... but I have no way to fix the stuff they spin and get mad at and so forth. It's invented in their heads which I don't have access too! So I tease them. Or I try not to, by putting them on ignore... but then someone quotes them... and if I can't be a little of the "evil" assigned to me for my atheist status, then what's the good of being an atheist? It's just words. They can put me on ignore. And I haven't ever said most of what they imagine I've said anyhow. (TAM 6 is in June... are you sure you can't come?)

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

No, no, no. It goes far beyond that.

You have made it clear that you think both Shermer and Randi are weaker skeptics, because you argue they defer to religion.

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.

Why? Shermer has a huge impact on skepticism, and so does Randi. If you are this concerned with how true skeptics should be, why don't you approach Shermer and Randi and tell them about your concerns? They are very approacheable, and would love a discussion about this. That's a huge fun part of what TAM is: To try your arguments and ideas against other people attending.

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...

Your words are very clear.

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.

Don't try to play the persecuted victim here. You are anything but, especially given your sarcasm and derision of those you don't agree with.

You should instead stand by what you have said, and be prepared to defend it. Why else be so incredibly verbose? Why clam up, when you face the people you criticize for not being as skeptical as you?

Are you just hot air when you are in a place where you can just mouth off? At TAM, we will find out.

 

[articulett]

Articullet, regardless of what other posters think, I'm a fan.
Keep it up.

Thanks. Beware: my fans have to share the wrath of the vigilantes.

It's a weird phenomenon, because every time they say bad things about me, they are clearly trying to show other people that I am "evil" or nefarious or something-- right? But I think it just makes them look like they are wacky. Especially when they cut and paste what I actually did say.

For example, I don't say that skeptics should be atheists... I merely point out that most ARE atheists because skepticism is about doubting claims until there is sufficient evidence to tentatively accept the claim-- and to move in accordance with the evidence in regards to strength of belief.

And I certainly don't imagine that anyone thinks I am the definer of what a skeptic is... but I am as entitled to an opinion about what it means to me. I presume most people recognize my opinion as an opinion. I just sense that the apologists are mad because I reject something that they believe but won't reveal. Atheists and theists could get along just fine if theist didn't feel threatened that people don't believe what they believe. People cannot imagine that someone would find their religion as crazy as Scientology or as untrue as a schizophrenic delusion. And yet, they feel that way about all other religions and supernatural claims. Am I supposed to respect and defer to someone's belief when they don't respect or defer to my lack of it? I don't go into churches and cult meetings and say, "don't you realize you guys are deluded????"

Why do faithers and apologists need me to believe it or defer to it or pretend it's good when I don't think so? If they care that I don't believe it why not just ignore me or not bring up the subject around me? Why would people think it's fine to tell me their opinions of me but then have a hissy fit when I return the favor?

I guess I should take the fact that they are provoked as a good sign. Sometimes change and growth are painful. I do think Dawkins pushes thinking along more rapidly than Shermer via provocation. Humor is probably best... but you use what you got.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks. Beware: my fans have to share the wrath of the vigilantes.

It's a weird phenomenon, because every time they say bad things about me, they are clearly trying to show other people that I am "evil" or nefarious or something-- right? But I think it just makes them look like they are wacky. Especially when they cut and paste what I actually did say.

For example, I don't say that skeptics should be atheists... I merely point out that most ARE atheists because skepticism is about doubting claims until there is sufficient evidence to tentatively accept the claim-- and to move in accordance with the evidence in regards to strength of belief.

And I certainly don't imagine that anyone thinks I am the definer of what a skeptic is... but I am as entitled to an opinion about what it means to me. I presume most people recognize my opinion as an opinion. I just sense that the apologists are mad because I reject something that they believe but won't reveal. Atheists and theists could get along just fine if theist didn't feel threatened that people don't believe what they believe. People cannot imagine that someone would find their religion as crazy as Scientology or as untrue as a schizophrenic delusion. And yet, they feel that way about all other religions and supernatural claims. Am I supposed to respect and defer to someone's belief when they don't respect or defer to my lack of it? I don't go into churches and cult meetings and say, "don't you realize you guys are deluded????"

Why do faithers and apologists need me to believe it or defer to it or pretend it's good when I don't think so? If they care that I don't believe it why not just ignore me or not bring up the subject around me? Why would people think it's fine to tell me their opinions of me but then have a hissy fit when I return the favor?

I guess I should take the fact that they are provoked as a good sign. Sometimes change and growth are painful. I do think Dawkins pushes thinking along more rapidly than Shermer via provocation. Humor is probably best... but you use what you got.

I think they are annoyed at you for using so many words. There's only so many words you know, you are using up a precious finite resource! No wonder the world is in a mess. Save The Word!!!!

 

[articulett]

I think they are annoyed at you for using so many words. There's only so many words you know, you are using up a precious finite resource! No wonder the world is in a mess. Save The Word!!!!

surely you are not insinuating that I'm a word waster--that I just use words willy nilly??

 

[Brainache]

surely you are not insinuating that I'm a word waster--that I just use words willy nilly??

No, but I believe (note: opinion) that some of the people you call apologists hate the fact that you are willing to create long posts objecting to their one or two line put-downs.

 

[amb]

Let me get this right. The argument is in the concept of skepticism. The I'm more skeptical than thou argument. Aren't we all on the same side? The degree of skepticism is in the beholder. There are people who are skeptical about astrology for example, yet without any evidence believe in an unseen, un -proveble existence of god.
Randi has placed his money where his mouth is which has to be admired whatever is thought of him otherwise. That no one has ever claimed the prize speaks volumes.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are you just hot air when you are in a place where you can just mouth off? At TAM, we will find out.

I was thinking of suggesting she confront them in a sidebar so as not to waste valuable Q&A time with an interminable, self-congratulatory diatribe, but I'd love to experience the reaction of a larger audience.

 

[CFLarsen]

I was thinking of suggesting she confront them in a sidebar so as not to waste valuable Q&A time with an interminable, self-congratulatory diatribe, but I'd love to experience the reaction of a larger audience.

I definitely think that it would be most interesting for the audience to hear articulett's criticism. She clearly feels this is of the highest importance, since she spends an inordinate amount of energy - and words - talking about it, and defending it.

The good thing about the Q&A is that interminable, self-congratulatory diatribes won't be allowed - both by the moderator of the Q&A, and the audience; the latter tend to sniff out such attempts real quickly and react accordingly with boos and jeers.

But, if articulett is not comfortable presenting her criticism in front of a large audience, I am sure there will be ample opportunity for her to do it in a smaller group.

Absolutely sure.

 

[Mobyseven]

What "newcomer" did I call an apologist? And why is "apologist" a bad word? And I don't think I've called anyone an apologist until they've mischaracterized something I've said in the way apologists are known to do.

Yes, I think Unrepentent Sinner is an apologist... he's always hearing atheists saying things they didn't say and calling them "god haters"-- he totally mischaracterized Dawkins as he does me. He does it to everyone who dares to criticize religon-- suddenly the criticizer is the bad guy-- not religion-- not ever. He's known for that. So is Claus. But these are my opinions... I share my opinions of them only because they've been more than eager to share their opinions of me with me. And now they can share their opinions of me with each other to their hearts content, because I have them on ignore... and I think everyone I like can see why. I'm sure if they ever have a point, someone will quote them. And I'm sure if someone wonders what I actually said or if I'm actually as they characterize me, they can ask me or ask for a quote.

I'm glad to admit to egging people on and enjoying pissing off blowhards-- HOWEVER, what else is one to do when the vigilantes start mischaracterizing your statements and then beating up that strawman version of your statement. I think it's mighty big of me to be able to find amusement in that. I used to try and correct the misperceptions, but the blowhards would just call it "ranting" and the smart people already knew I didn't say whatever they extrapolated.

I am entitled to my opinion, boys. They are opinions. I can't figure out why they drive you so insane except that you are hearing things that aren't there and feeling threatened by something I never said. I think you are really peeved because you have woo beliefs you want to protect and you don't like the fact that I don't believe in them-- out loud. gasp.

If something is true--my opinion doesn't affect that truth. If I am a rabble rouser, you don't have the power to change me... and the rabble rousing might be a product of your imagination. Think of your goals before you try to get others to believe I'm whatever mean thing you've imagined me to be. Remember--opinions aren't facts and the facts are the same for everybody no matter what they believe or opine. Before correcting me or trying to fix me, perhaps you ought to wonder if you could use a little fixing first.

For what it's worth, I agree with you most of the time. However, you can be quite hot-headed which I think can be off-putting to newcomers who don't share the same your views, and may disincline them to really critically examine their beliefs. Hot-headedness is fine in some situations: moderation is the key. Please don't take it as an insult, it is not intended that way.

Quite frankly I think US was trying to get me to chide you for calling him an apologist. Sadly for him, I'd rather share my honest opinion than lie to try and appease a religious apologist. Claus I don't know about...he certainly seems that way, but most of the time it seems he's happy just to argue any point contrary to what everyone else in the thread is saying, regardless of whether or not he winds up contradicting himself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Quite frankly I think US was trying to get me to chide you for calling him an apologist. Sadly for him, I'd rather share my honest opinion than lie to try and appease a religious apologist.

What, in your own words, is a religious apologist?

Claus I don't know about...he certainly seems that way, but most of the time it seems he's happy just to argue any point contrary to what everyone else in the thread is saying, regardless of whether or not he winds up contradicting himself.

Feel free to point out where I have contradicted myself.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Certainly.

Thanks. I tend to paraphrase people for expediency sake and I'll continue to do so with 3rd parties(except where a direct quote is required), but I'll do my best quote and link when discussing people on the Forum.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Quite frankly I think US was trying to get me to chide you for calling him an apologist.{snip}

Nah. I just think fair is fair, that's all. She'll keep lying about me and misrepresenting me no matter what anyone says.

 

[Mobyseven]

What, in your own words, is a religious apologist?

A person (atheist or theist) who makes an effort to apologise for the misdeeds and/or faulty arguments of religion, but who in doing so engages in errors of reasoning themselves.

(ETA: As opposed to the practise of bible apologetics.)

 

[CFLarsen]

A person (atheist or theist) who makes an effort to apologise for the misdeeds and/or faulty arguments of religion, but who in doing so engages in errors of reasoning themselves.

And who has done this, and where?

Can you to point out where I have contradicted myself or not?

 

[Mobyseven]

Oh, for Ed's sake Claus. Everytime you do this people point it out to you. I'm not about to bother to be your personal fetch-dog when everyone here knows full well that we'll only have to wait a week at most for you to do it again, to have it pointed out again, and to have you ignore it again only to get all uppity when people point out to you what you're doing.

Go and find another hobby - perhaps bird-watching? Or you could breed frogs? Anything that doesn't involve annoying me and everyone else on this forum would be a pleasant change, I assure you.