Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[-Fran-]

A further example. A woman is to be stoned to death for adultery, or even if she's not a virgin on the wedding night, she can be sent back to her family in shame who then can stone her to death. What is the equivalent punishment for a man?

And if they used the method of checking for blood on the sheets, I guess there must have been many women who went through a horrible punishment actually having been virgins, since far from all women bleed having penetrative sex the first time.

I think a man was punished for adultery (anyone?) but a man's virginity I don't think was ever demanded, and there would have been no way for them to check for it anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

It seems to me that personal preferences has something to do with it for YOU! So don't tell me to keep personal preferences out of it, I wasn't expressing a personal preference. I was saying that YOUR personal preferences seems to influence YOUR arguments, don't turn it around on me. And I'm just gonna stick to what I want to, OK? And if it isn't OK with you... well *shrug*

You are wrong. I don't let personal preferences influence the discussion.

My whole point was that yes, they do get punished also, but in many cases not as harshly as women even when their crimes is more severe. My whole point is that I don't fully agree with you about the point of the pillar of salt, so you don't need to repeat your point of the point of the pillar of salt. I got what you said the first time, and I do not agree!!

Why not? What, in the story of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, makes you think she was punished for being a woman?

Quotes, please.

 

[boojum]

Yes, he did, and he also, later on, had sex with his daughters, but he wasn't punished for such things at all, but Lot's poor wife was punished only for turning her head... so if someone interprets the whole thing as having a tad to do with misogyny, as Skeptigirl did, I think it's not completely crazy to say that that someone probably does have a point.

And in spite of the Old Testament record of these...questionable...character traits, the New Testament describes Lot as "righteous" or "just":

if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

Makes a mean old skeptic like me question Christian claims that the New Testament is somehow superior to the Old.

 

[-Fran-]

You are wrong. I don't let personal preferences influence the discussion.

Now that's better! I did not say I was right when I accused you of doing that (though I am FAR from convinced it's not so). But you didn't answer me with telling me that I was wrong, did you? You answered with turning it on me, telling ME not to do it.

Why not? What, in the story of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, makes you think she was punished for being a woman?

Quotes, please.

You may like to repeat yourself, I don't. I've explained already. Ask me again a million times if you want to (and I know you will ) I'm done.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now that's better! I did not say I was right when I accused you of doing that (though I am FAR from convinced it's not so). But you didn't answer me with telling me that I was wrong, did you? You answered with turning it on me, telling ME not to do it.

I told you personal preferences had nothing to do with my argument.

You may like to repeat yourself, I don't. I've explained already. Ask me again a million times if you want to (and I know you will ) I'm done.

I just want to see the passage(s) in the Bible that led you to believe that Lot's wife was being punished for being a woman.

Don't just say that you think this is so. Explain, with quotes, why you think this is so.

If you won't explain, then we won't understand. If you can't explain, then you don't understand.

 

[-Fran-]

I told you personal preferences had nothing to do with my argument.

And I told you I don't quite believe that.

I just want to see the passage(s) in the Bible that led you to believe that Lot's wife was being punished for being a woman.

Don't just say that you think this is so. Explain, with quotes, why you think this is so.

Why do I have to do that?

Well, I based my thoughts on what ISN'T there, you see, so I, naturally, can't show any quotes. There aren't any quotes saying that Lot got punished by god with death (I assume being turned into salt means you die) for the, much worse, things he did. Which lead me to the thought that, yeah, maybe god looked the other way when Lot erred so terribly, while he obviously didn't when Lot's wife erred not so very much. Now, this could have been because Lot's wife was a real bitch or something, but that misogyny has something to do with it is not really that awfully unlikely.

If you won't explain, then we won't understand. If you can't explain, then you don't understand.

(emphasis mine) speak for yourself.

 

[articulett]

You go girl. Everyone is following you Fran.

Heck, a woman "bites from the tree of knowledge" and all her descendants are threatened with hell and all her female descendants get painful childbirth. I'd say there is quite the double standard in the bible. It's my observation that those who attack skepticgirl seem to share a bit of the sexism.... but they are the first to deny it. Heck, Lots wife deserved to be turned into salt to them!

Lot the incestuous drunken dad who offers his daughters up for rape-- is ignored by Claus so he can derail a thread because of Skepticgirls offhand comment that was right on target. The "sins" of woman are punished far more harshly in the bible than sins of men. If women hadn't been so fearful of atheists and atheism, I suspect we'd hear a lot more of their voices in our world and on our forum. Skepticism is empowering for women. I think Claus has a wee bit of trouble handling this.

And will Claus conclude that maybe he over-reacted and derailed a thread yet again to show his nasty side and demonize those whom he finds to be strident atheists or whatever... nah. Claus is in his own world. And he thinks you are the unclear one and everyone is following him.

Amazing.

It must be grand to have an ego like that.

 

[CFLarsen]

And I told you I don't quite believe that.

It is completely irrelevant what you believe. It serves no purpose to bring up your feelings about the motives of other posters, other than to poison the discussion.

Why do I have to do that?

Well, I based my thoughts on what ISN'T there, you see, so I, naturally, can't show any quotes. There aren't any quotes saying that Lot got punished by god with death (I assume being turned into salt means you die) for the, much worse, things he did. Which lead me to the thought that, yeah, maybe god looked the other way when Lot erred so terribly, while he obviously didn't when Lot's wife erred not so very much. Now, this could have been because Lot's wife was a real bitch or something, but that misogyny has something to do with it is not really that awfully unlikely.

Why? Because that's how skeptics support their claims?

Do you think your argumentation is compelling? The story of Lot's wife isn't all that long, yet you can't show why you believe she was punished because she was a woman.

(emphasis mine) speak for yourself.

You can't explain why, therefore you don't understand.

Get back when you are ready and able to defend your own position.

 

[CFLarsen]

You go girl. Everyone is following you Fran.

Heck, a woman "bites from the tree of knowledge" and all her descendants are threatened with hell and all her female descendants get painful childbirth. I'd say there is quite the double standard in the bible. It's my observation that those who attack skepticgirl seem to share a bit of the sexism.... but they are the first to deny it. Heck, Lots wife deserved to be turned into salt to them!

Lot the incestuous drunken dad who offers his daughters up for rape-- is ignored by Claus so he can derail a thread because of Skepticgirls offhand comment that was right on target. The "sins" of woman are punished far more harshly in the bible than sins of men. If women hadn't been so fearful of atheists and atheism, I suspect we'd hear a lot more of their voices in our world and on our forum. Skepticism is empowering for women. I think Claus has a wee bit of trouble handling this.

And will Claus conclude that maybe he over-reacted and derailed a thread yet again to show his nasty side and demonize those whom he finds to be strident atheists or whatever... nah. Claus is in his own world. And he thinks you are the unclear one and everyone is following him.

Amazing.

It must be grand to have an ego like that.

Not so long now.

 

[-Fran-]

It is completely irrelevant what you believe. It serves no purpose to bring up your feelings about the motives of other posters, other than to poison the discussion.

Then why keep commenting on it? You don't know anything about what purposes it serves to me. But I guess it's only your purposes that counts, eh? I don't think it's irrelevant at all what I believe, I think it does serve a purpose, and I don't agree that it poisons anything.

Why? Because that's how skeptics support their claims?

Ah, I see. A person can not say anything without a quote to support it? I'd ask you for evidence about how much your personal preferences influence your arguments then.

Do you think your argumentation is compelling? The story of Lot's wife isn't all that long, yet you can't show why you believe she was punished because she was a woman.

Compelling? Nah, was it suppose to be? You asked how I came to that thinking, and that was how. Never said it would be good or anything, or that it would convince you of anything, wasn't my purpose either. I know fully well nothing phases you in the least. I don't care either.

You can't explain why, therefore you don't understand.

Get back when you are ready and able to defend your own position.

Sorry, that was it I'll let others be the judge of how much I understand or not now, and how badly I did.

 

[-Fran-]

You go girl. Everyone is following you Fran.

Thanks

Heck, a woman "bites from the tree of knowledge" and all her descendants are threatened with hell and all her female descendants get painful childbirth. I'd say there is quite the double standard in the bible. It's my observation that those who attack skepticgirl seem to share a bit of the sexism.... but they are the first to deny it. Heck, Lots wife deserved to be turned into salt to them!

Lot the incestuous drunken dad who offers his daughters up for rape-- is ignored by Claus so he can derail a thread because of Skepticgirls offhand comment that was right on target. The "sins" of woman are punished far more harshly in the bible than sins of men. If women hadn't been so fearful of atheists and atheism, I suspect we'd hear a lot more of their voices in our world and on our forum. Skepticism is empowering for women. I think Claus has a wee bit of trouble handling this.

Yeah, there are sure many examples from the bible, and it sure takes... something, I don't know what, not to see it.

And will Claus conclude that maybe he over-reacted and derailed a thread yet again to show his nasty side and demonize those whom he finds to be strident atheists or whatever... nah. Claus is in his own world. And he thinks you are the unclear one and everyone is following him.

Amazing.

It must be grand to have an ego like that.

I have absolutely no expectations that he would ever admit to anything like that, and I knew exactly what would happen when I started to comment. I haven't been surprised by a single thing he has said so far, it's like a weird sort of formula. And I knew he would tell me he thinks I am an idiot, and tell me to come back when I know better and all those things I even told my chat friend here what would come next But I won't go on now... It really is useless.

BTW, his comment to you further down:

Not so long now.

Is that some kind of threat? Or what's going on? Seriously, that is just creepy.

 

[articulett]

It is creepy...

If you touch me, Claus, I will have you arrested for battery and use this thread as evidence of your stalking behavior. You've imagined motives and intent on my part that exist only in YOUR head. I have you on ignore, but I have plenty of people apprising me of your "weirdness" on whatever it is you have planned for me at TAM. I will not let you ruin one of my favorite experiences of a lifetime, because you think I'm the anti-skeptic or whatever. I think you ought to think very carefully about whatever it is you "can't wait" for and inform someone who is a little clearer thinking than yourself. Certainly, there must be someone here whom you respect and can get along with. Please get a reality check from them.

And let me know if I need to prepare a restraining order.

 

[-Fran-]

It is creepy...

If you touch me, Claus, I will have you arrested for battery and use this thread as evidence of your stalking behavior. You've imagined motives and intent on my part that exist only in YOUR head. I have you on ignore, but I have plenty of people apprising me of your "weirdness" on whatever it is you have planned for me at TAM. I will not let you ruin one of my favorite experiences of a lifetime, because you think I'm the anti-skeptic or whatever. I think you ought to think very carefully about whatever it is you "can't wait" for and inform someone who is a little clearer thinking than yourself. Certainly, there must be someone here whom you respect and can get along with. Please get a reality check from them.

*shudder* I hope things will be OK, and I think, hearing this, it definitely ends my part in further interactions with him

 

[CFLarsen]

Then why keep commenting on it? You don't know anything about what purposes it serves to me. But I guess it's only your purposes that counts, eh? I don't think it's irrelevant at all what I believe, I think it does serve a purpose, and I don't agree that it poisons anything.

What purpose is that? Does it further the discussion, or is it only for your own personal amusement?

Ah, I see. A person can not say anything without a quote to support it? I'd ask you for evidence about how much your personal preferences influence your arguments then.

What do you think this forum is for? To state one's opinion, never to have it challenged or backed up with evidence?

If you want a Mrs. Pepperpot Tea Party, go elsewhere.

Compelling? Nah, was it suppose to be? You asked how I came to that thinking, and that was how. Never said it would be good or anything, or that it would convince you of anything, wasn't my purpose either. I know fully well nothing phases you in the least. I don't care either.

Then, you'll pardon me for ignoring your less-than-persuasive argument.

It is creepy...

If you touch me, Claus, I will have you arrested for battery and use this thread as evidence of your stalking behavior. You've imagined motives and intent on my part that exist only in YOUR head. I have you on ignore, but I have plenty of people apprising me of your "weirdness" on whatever it is you have planned for me at TAM. I will not let you ruin one of my favorite experiences of a lifetime, because you think I'm the anti-skeptic or whatever. I think you ought to think very carefully about whatever it is you "can't wait" for and inform someone who is a little clearer thinking than yourself. Certainly, there must be someone here whom you respect and can get along with. Please get a reality check from them.

Spare the drama. You are perfectly aware that the only thing that will happen at TAM is that you will be challenged to defend your own skeptical argument about skeptics, made here on this forum.

You have called me an apologist. Since you refuse to explain here what you base that on, I want to hear what you have to say at TAM6.

You have also called Shermer's approach "a bit wimpy". I also want to see if you have the guts to tell him to his face.

If you think that is a problem - if you think you can make that kind of remarks, without being challenged, then you have no idea what TAM or skepticism is all about.

You can't hide behind your computer at TAM.

 

[-Fran-]

What purpose is that? Does it further the discussion, or is it only for your own personal amusement?

I think it is very relevant for the discussion, yes, if your arguments are indeed colored by what you think of people. As I said above it seemed to me that your criticism of what Skeptigirl said was a whole lot about that. Not that I think that it is possible for a human being to always stay perfectly objective, and not that I would demand it, but since you did claim that your personal preferences never ever influences what you say...

What do you think this forum is for? To state one's opinion, never to have it challenged or backed up with evidence?

I note that you still avoid me asking for what your evidence are for your claim that your personal preferences never influence what you say. But I guess demanding that you back up what you say is a purely one way thing? At least I admitted that I couldn't back it up better than I did (which seems to disqualify a person from this place forever, yeah, well...)

And the things you are saying to articulett seems to show quite clearly that you just can't wait to get to put her against the wall (figuratively speaking I hope ) and just can't wait to get to humiliate her, by challenging her, and feel the pleasure of her not being able to defend her point, and make her look bad infront of the skeptics you admire... Are these the words, and the behaviour of a man that is purely objective and never lets what he thinks of someone influence his arguments? For goodness sake, you just can't wait to get to her! Don't you realize how that looks?

If you want a Mrs. Pepperpot Tea Party, go elsewhere.

No thanks, I don't drink tea

Then, you'll pardon me for ignoring your less-than-persuasive argument.

Of course!

 

[CFLarsen]

I think it is very relevant for the discussion, yes, if your arguments are indeed colored by what you think of people. As I said above it seemed to me that your criticism of what Skeptigirl said was a whole lot about that. Not that I think that it is possible for a human being to always stay perfectly objective, and not that I would demand it, but since you did claim that your personal preferences never ever influences what you say...

Then show your evidence.

I note that you still avoid me asking for what your evidence are for your claim that your personal preferences never influence what you say.

No, I don't avoid it at all. If you have it, let's see it. If you don't, shut up. Yep: Put up or shut up.

But I guess demanding that you back up what you say is a purely one way thing? At least I admitted that I couldn't back it up better than I did (which seems to disqualify a person from this place forever, yeah, well...)

Your claim is positive, mine is not: Present your evidence, or shut up.

And the things you are saying to articulett seems to show quite clearly that you just can't wait to get to put her against the wall (figuratively speaking I hope ) and just can't wait to get to humiliate her, by challenging her, and feel the pleasure of her not being able to defend her point, and make her look bad infront of the skeptics you admire... Are these the words, and the behaviour of a man that is purely objective and never lets what he thinks of someone influence his arguments? For goodness sake, you just can't wait to get to her! Don't you realize how that looks?

She has questioned the skepticism of some of the greatest skeptics we have: Shermer and Randi. I am aiming to challenge her to defend her own statements. What is the harm in that?

If Sylvia Browne showed up at TAM, should I back down from challenging what she has said?

 

[-Fran-]

Then show your evidence.



No, I don't avoid it at all. If you have it, let's see it. If you don't, shut up. Yep: Put up or shut up.



Your claim is positive, mine is not: Present your evidence, or shut up.

Yeah, when you're right, you're right. I don't have evidence!!

She has questioned the skepticism of some of the greatest skeptics we have: Shermer and Randi. I am aiming to challenge her to defend her own statements. What is the harm in that?

She percieves you as threatening (no wonder) and this doesn't bother you in the least?

If Sylvia Browne showed up at TAM, should I back down from challenging what she has said?

Nope, but I would say something if I think you actually threatened her!

 

[Michelle Lyon]

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

If people apply that definition to skepticism, it seems impossible to truthfully come to any true belief in any god(s) since doing that would violate what being a skeptic is, because if they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion that any god(s) exist.
DrZ

I'm often skeptical of skepticism. Not so much for the skeptics who hold to a spiritual practice, but because of just as many who don't and who are just as religious in their affirmation that they don't. Skepticism, true skepticism, is taking the null hypothesis - meaning you do not hold to one side or the other until there is good concrete, scientific evidence that suggests one is most likely to be true.

The trouble with holding religion to concrete evidence is that religion is not a concrete notion. It's abstract, based in ideas rather than in matter, and is therefore unobservable. Skeptics are often against belief in a higher power simply because it isn't concrete, not because it's been disproven.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, when you're right, you're right. I don't have evidence!!

Don't waste my time, then.

She percieves you as threatening (no wonder) and this doesn't bother you in the least?

No, it doesn't. Because this is nothing new. She has known for quite some time now what will happen:

Nobody is arguing that you calling people "apologists", Shermer "wimpy" and all the other things you have said is anything else than opinions.

But maybe you should have the courage to argue those opinions in front of the people you accuse of being "apologists", "wimpy" and all the other things. To their faces. Just so people won't think you are a wimp yourself.

You are cocky enough to do it on an Internet forum. But are you cocky enough to call Shermer wimpy to his face? To call Randi an apologist to his face? To call me, UnrepentantSinner and others, apologists, to our faces? When you can't duck and cower, under the pretense that you want your critics to ignore you, while you want to listen in on everything they say?

We'll know soon enough.

Oh, yeah.

In this very thread, she said this:

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.

She freely admits that she eggs people on, and enjoys "pissing off blowhards". And she is entitled to her opinions. And her methods.

But is she brave enough to defend those opinions, when she is not sitting behind her computer? In front of the people she accuses of being lesser skeptics than herself? The wimps, the apologists? Me, Shermer, Randi, and others?

We shall find out.

Nope

So why are you so opposed to articulett being questioned at TAM?

 

[-Fran-]

Don't waste my time, then.

Really? I thought one of the purposes of this forum was an educational one, and you just taught me something!

So why are you so opposed to articulett being questioned at TAM?

I am?