• 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.
Not having evidence that Lot's wife was punished for being a woman is a little bit like not having evidence that the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland suffers from the early stages of dementia: They're both characters in works of fiction, and an analysis of the text can reasonably lead one to those conclusions, but not exclusively.
 
Mobyseven said:
Not having evidence that Lot's wife was punished for being a woman is a little bit like not having evidence that the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland suffers from the early stages of dementia: They're both characters in works of fiction, and an analysis of the text can reasonably lead one to those conclusions, but not exclusively.
Click to expand...

You're right. I don't have evidence, obviously, but don't feel that what I said about Lot's wife is completely unlikely.
 
Michelle Lyon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you skeptical of psychics even though we haven't proven they're not real? How about of astrology? Demons? Scientology? Ghosts? Thetans? Fairies? Something doesn't need to be disproven for a skeptic to disbelieve-- it just needs to be proven for a skeptic to believe.

I don't believe that imaginary friends are true and I have no way to distinguish anyone's god or voices in their head from such. I see no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain. I strongly suspect that if it could, scientists would have refined and honed their knowledge on this subject for their benefit and the benefit of others and the MDC would won.

I'm skeptical of those claiming to be "skeptical of the skeptics". I find it's often a sign of a woo believe that someone is mad at the skeptics for not believing in.
 
-Fran- said:
Yeah, when you're right, you're right. I don't have evidence!!



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



Nope, but I would say something if I think you actually threatened her!
Click to expand...

He thinks I said something bad about Shermer or Randi--? Claus sees things that only Claus sees. I'd be proud for Shermer or Randi to read what I write about them or anything else... I sure don't need Claus' translation or interpretation. I adore them both. Claus--not so much. I don't think he's the "super skeptic" he imagines and I think is JREF vigilantism is creepy. See, that's what's weird... the more you try to explain what you mean to Claus, the more he goes off on a tangent and extrapolates your "true" (Claus filtered) meaning. He's doing that with you... he did that with skepticgirl.... he does this all the time. And in his head he is just being an "uber skeptic" or something. It's bad enough that he insults people at every turn--but the fact that he imagines insults that don't exist to anyone but him.... and doesn't listen to anyone when they point out that I or others aren't saying whatever his latest strawman is-- makes him creepy.

Why does he think he's going to embarrass me and not himself? I find Claus incredibly embarrassing. It sounds like he's going to be some sort of tattletale for something or other that he's extrapolated from something I said.

"Say Randi.... can you believe how crazy skepticgirl is... she thinks that god turned lot's wife into salt BECAUSE she was a woman!"

Claus... let people explain themselves... you aren't even very good at explaining yourself, much less me or anyone else. Go ask someone sane if they think I'm saying whatever it is you've imagined I said.

Or just print out all the objectionable dialogue and let them read and judge themselves if they don't find it incredibly trivial and boring. I am bugged by this idea of you annoying people I like in order to make some sort of case for an argument or version of me that exists entirely in your head. I mean, can you really not see how infantile, annoying, and unbalanced you are sounding? Show it to any and all skeptics who give a crap and let them tell me exactly what they think or whatever. I've already heard way too much of what you think, and I am unimpressed.
 
Tell Claus to cut and paste the pages in this thread with my most offensive dialogue where I "question the skepticism of some of the greatest skeptics we have".

Question the skepticism? Also, I agree that Shermer and Randi are great skeptics... but that's an opinion... and we don't "have" them... we "know" them.

I believe this stemmed from a quote where I pointed out that my preference for myself was Dawkins method. I'm an evolutionary biologist-- there's a reason for my preference. I actually like Randi's method of fooling people into learning how they fool themselves the "best", but I'm not a magician. I think Claus is one of the worst representative of "skeptics" we "have" frankly... it's his skepticism I (gasp) "question" and if he doesn't like that opinion, then I suggest he put me on ignore as I have done for him.
 
-Fran- said:
You're right. I don't have evidence, obviously, but don't feel that what I said about Lot's wife is completely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think it's unfair to note that women in the bible are judged much more harshly than men for much more minor "crimes".

Men can murder-- even upon order from god-- and they become heroes... (Lot has his daughters raped and commits drunken incest with them) --women indulge their curiosity and turn to salt and bring down mankind. Women don't commit anywhere near the horrors of the men in the bible.

I don't think any honest person can ignore the double standard in the bible nor most religions unless they have the same double standard themselves and are in denial about it.

As Marlo Thomas says, A man has to be Joe McCarthy to be called ruthless. All a woman has to do is put you on hold.


 
CFLarsen said:
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.
Click to expand...

This premonitory tone seems similar to the earlier TAM 5 period. How did this strategy work then?
 
articulett said:
He thinks I said something bad about Shermer or Randi--?
Click to expand...

Yes, apparently, and he can't wait to "nail" you about it in public. But he is not driven by any sorts of emotions in this, but only deals in objective hard facts... :rolleyes:

And he's WRONG by the way. I do not at all oppose to him or anyone else challenging or questioning you or anyone. I do oppose to his behaviour here, that I percieve as appalling! I criticises his behaviour toward you, and he asks why I oppose you being questioned... :boggled: He acts like a first class ******* and then he turns me criticising that, into me having said that you are beyond approach - nice one.

As shown, I can be oh so wrong, and I have no problems with admitting that, and learn - even from him, but I've yet to see him admit when he does these mistakes (which of course is not quite mistakes...)

CFLarsen said:
Claus sees things that only Claus sees. I'd be proud for Shermer or Randi to read what I write about them or anything else... I sure don't need Claus' translation or interpretation. I adore them both. Claus--not so much. I don't think he's the "super skeptic" he imagines and I think is JREF vigilantism is creepy.
Click to expand...

Creepy is still the word. I do regret discussing with him, not because I know it's useless, not because I know I won't "win", not because I sure will make mistakes and look foolish (I do that here and there anyway :o just a part of living) but because, yeah, he is creepy. I am really happy that I can hide behind a computer and don't have to meet him face to face.

CFLarsen said:
See, that's what's weird... the more you try to explain what you mean to Claus, the more he goes off on a tangent and extrapolates your "true" (Claus filtered) meaning. He's doing that with you... he did that with skepticgirl.... he does this all the time. And in his head he is just being an "uber skeptic" or something. It's bad enough that he insults people at every turn--but the fact that he imagines insults that don't exist to anyone but him.... and doesn't listen to anyone when they point out that I or others aren't saying whatever his latest strawman is-- makes him creepy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can only agree with all you are saying here!

CFLarsen said:
Why does he think he's going to embarrass me and not himself? I find Claus incredibly embarrassing. It sounds like he's going to be some sort of tattletale for something or other that he's extrapolated from something I said.
Click to expand...

You have to write all about it when it's all over :)
 
I didn't go to TAM 5.5.

I just saw him at 5.0, but I hadn't read as much of him, so I had no clue as to how bizarre he is. I didn't know that he was so "hard to like". I assumed better of him, I guess. He's just been threatening regarding TAM 6 where I will have to face the "true skeptics" and answer for my "crimes". I believe I called Shermer's approach wimpy, btw--not him. But yeah... I like Dawkins style of skepticism better. But I'm a Shermer fan-girl too. And a total Randi fan. I'm worried more about Claus embarrassing himself and annoying people I like because of his "issues" with me then I am worried about my "questioning of skepticism" or other crimes.

Gawd--can you imagine trying to answer Claus' questions face to face as he dashes from tangent to accusation to strawman to nothingness to imagined offense... and you can't even put him on ignore? I hope he's not planning to talk at me the whole time. Jeez and what the hell does he want from me anyhow? Does anyone know what the hell Claus wants. Am I supposed to say, "okay, I'm sorry I called you a vigilante apologist"? What if I'm not sorry? What if I still think he's a prig? What is the secret for making Claus go away if he begins getting creepy or invasive in person?

I have these visions of Claus running up to Shermer saying--"she called you a wimp"... it would be like my kid running up to people when he was a toddler screaming, "my mom doesn't have a penis!"

What does he imagine Shermer is going to say, "A wimp, huh? Well, I thought we were friends... and here I hear you think I'm a wimp!" (Claus's version)--(or mine,) "And...I'm supposed to care why?" .

(me)
"That's not what I said, and here's the actual dialog (pulling it out) in case you care... you'll have to excuse Claus, he's not "all there" if you know what I mean... he reads a stuff into things and feels protective of you... I apologize for this nuisance, Mr. Shermer... he thinks I think bad things about Randi too...it's really just HIM I think bad things about, but he's projecting because he thinks of himself as the Uber Skeptic--representative of what a good skeptic should be!"
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Here's the post he's referring to... If you think his Lot's wife turning to salt reaction was bizarre... wait till you see the post that has inspired his "wait till TAM" stalking:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99188&page=46 #1820

Now am I an the "anti-skeptic" or what?
Click to expand...

That was all? :eye-poppi Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised really... And I am sure Shermer can take such a "huge" amount of "harsh criticism" quite well :)

ETA:
If I had written that, I would not have been the least bit afraid to show that to Shermer!
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Why do you feel that way?
Click to expand...

Because (as she has already told you) the punishment dealt to Lot's wife seems out of propotion with the supposed wrong she committed, especially in comparison with her husband, who, if I recall correctly, committed incest and offered his daughters up to be raped, and not only was he not punished, he was glorified. It is perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusion that the punishment afforded to Lot's wife had to do with her gender, especially when compared to the treatment of women in other parts of the bible.
 
Mobyseven said:
Because (as she has already told you) the punishment dealt to Lot's wife seems out of propotion with the supposed wrong she committed, especially in comparison with her husband, who, if I recall correctly, committed incest and offered his daughters up to be raped, and not only was he not punished, he was glorified. It is perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusion that the punishment afforded to Lot's wife had to do with her gender, especially when compared to the treatment of women in other parts of the bible.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just didn't have the strength to repeat myself, again.
 
articulett said:
I'd be proud for Shermer or Randi to read what I write about them or anything else... I sure don't need Claus' translation or interpretation.
...
It sounds like he's going to be some sort of tattletale for something or other that he's extrapolated from something I said.
...
Claus... let people explain themselves... you aren't even very good at explaining yourself, much less me or anyone else. Go ask someone sane if they think I'm saying whatever it is you've imagined I said.

Or just print out all the objectionable dialogue and let them read and judge themselves if they don't find it incredibly trivial and boring.
Click to expand...

Bank on it.
 
I truly regret my not been able to attend Tam 6, sounds like a great time will be had by all. CFL I have to agree with the ladies. I can see a hint of misogyny in your posts.
The Lot episode cannot be defended in any way. How can his wife be turned to a pillar of salt for the mortal sin of just turning her neck in curiosity to Lot's offering his daughters to be pack raped, and even incest. And later it's claimed he was a just man.
In todays world he would be jailed for at least 20 years, and possibly have his head chopped off in some Muslim nations.
 
ambnp said:
I truly regret my not been able to attend Tam 6, sounds like a great time will be had by all. CFL I have to agree with the ladies. I can see a hint of misogyny in your posts.
The Lot episode cannot be defended in any way. How can his wife be turned to a pillar of salt for the mortal sin of just turning her neck in curiosity to Lot's offering his daughters to be pack raped, and even incest. And later it's claimed he was a just man.
In todays world he would be jailed for at least 20 years, and possibly have his head chopped off in some Muslim nations.
Click to expand...

Which would be pleasant compared to what would happen to a woman committing those crimes.

No doubt there'd be genital mutilation, lashing, and stoning to death-- and they'd turn part of her into salt and rub it in her wounds if they could too. Heck, Lot's drunkeness alone might incur stoning if a woman did it--under Sharia law.
 
Last edited:
ambnp said:
I truly regret my not been able to attend Tam 6, sounds like a great time will be had by all. CFL I have to agree with the ladies. I can see a hint of misogyny in your posts.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I don't attack articulett or skeptigirl because they are women. I attack their arguments when relevant.

It's a cheap card to play just to avoid scrutiny.

ambnp said:
The Lot episode cannot be defended in any way.
Click to expand...

Nobody is defending it.
 
CFLarsen said:
Bank on it.
Click to expand...

How about listening to the speakers and engage in discussion of scientific & skeptical topics? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time, rather than a petty internet vendetta?

If someone ignores you online, what do you suppose the odds are that they will ignore you in a face to face confrontation?

-Perhaps better than average.

Randi, Shermer, et al probably have to deal with their share of people who bring up trivial matters. I would hope you understand that and reconsider shoving internet transcripts in their faces.

If you insist on continuing on your current planned course of action at TAM, consider wearing some padded wrist wraps. The barrier may protect the skin and underlying structures from the metal restraints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom