What do you believe?

[caniswalensis]

doesn't look at all snarky to me - unless you read the 'you' as specifically personal rather than general, and the final imperative as an admonition - even then it seems a little over-sensitive. These forums commonly have far more robust exchanges that are intentionally 'snarky'.

Thanks for your input. You are not the only one to suggest to me that the 'you' was meant generally. It did not seem that way to me, because the message was a direct reply and anwser to a question I had posed. Also, since the final imperitive had a quoted phrase from my own post in it, I did take it as an admonition aimed directly at myself. However, if Skeptic Ginger cares to clarify, I would appreciate it. If the 'you' was meant in a general fashion, I would regret my terse reply and will apologize sincerely for it.

Either way, I don't care if this seems overly sensitive to other people. I don't care if it is not the worst example of personal remark that can be found in this forum. I have seen some really hurtful and terrible thingsa said in this forum. It is not any sort of standard of civil discourse.

My problem was this; I asked a question, and it was civil. I would have loved to discuss the pros and cons of my question with SK or anyone as long as it was friendly & civil. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with me or not. I enjoy discussion & learning. Instead, I got what appeared in every way to be a snarky, condescending directive that seemed designed to put an opponent in their place. I have no use for or patience with that kind of ill- treatment. I will call people on it every time I encounter it.

Regards, Canis

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Imagine if you believed and even dared to say so!

Just imagine. It's called believing in magic. As long as you one recognizes that and doesn't try to claim otherwise without evidence, there's no problem.

... However, if Skeptic Ginger cares to clarify, I would appreciate it. If the 'you' was meant in a general fashion, I would regret my terse reply and will apologize sincerely for it. ...
Regards, Canis

From post #23 as it appears to have been missed: If one looks at the evidence, cognition ceases at death. If one concludes it does not or might not, that would be based on magical thinking, not scientific evidence.

 

[roger]

I believe that the fact that someone can post their doubts about the existence of an external reality, and/or our ability to gain reliable information about that world, on a machine that performs billions of flawless operations a second, relying on very intricate laws we have deduced about that world, to be deliciously ironic.

(that's not addressed to anyone up thread, it's more a response to some crazy threads we have had in the past)

 

[caniswalensis]

From post #23 as it appears to have been missed: If one looks at the evidence, cognition ceases at death. If one concludes it does not or might not, that would be based on magical thinking, not scientific evidence.

I was refering to post #20, actually:

posted by Canis: Is that really an objectively proven fact, or is it just the belief that makes the most sense?

posted by Skeptic Ginger: Yep, we have plenty of objective evidence.

Since we know how cognition occurs, can see it is based on the biological brain, if the brain cells die, cognition ceases.

Now if you want to imagine a magical world, you can imagine any fictional outcome after death that you desire. Just don't confuse that with "objective proven fact".

The first two parts seem to be directed right at me as an answer to my question.

Who was the last part of this post directed at? Who were you warning not to confuse desire with 'objective proven fact'?

 

[I Ratant]

It's a combination of "ignorance is bliss" mixed with "if it aint broke don't fix it". Which I don't personally have a problem with.

My problem would come up if someone told me, "here .... have you ever wanted to go over a water fall with a bear in a barrel ? If you do, the only thing that will happen to you will be you spend 3 months in a coma because it's all that God will let happen to you. So I'm gonna put your foot in this trap against your will so you can see what I mean ... you'll love it ... "

.
Sewing some person in disfavor into a sack with aggressive animals like bears, and tossing them into a river was done in Europe. It was fatal for the occupants of the sack.

 

[caniswalensis]

.
Sewing some person in disfavor into a sack with aggressive animals like bears, and tossing them into a river was done in Europe. It was fatal for the occupants of the sack.

Was the sack ok?

 

[Trent Wray]

.
Sewing some person in disfavor into a sack with aggressive animals like bears, and tossing them into a river was done in Europe. It was fatal for the occupants of the sack.

Well yeah ... the odds were stacked against them there they would come out on the unharmed end

 

[I Ratant]

I suspect it might sink, both to the weight of the occupants and whatever damage it might receive while they negotiated.
.
The Romans had a name for it.... They had a name for everything!
The poena cullei originated as a Roman capital punishment imposed for parricide: the culprit was drowned in a leather sack together with a cock, a dog, a serpent, and a monkey. This punishment was last imposed in Germany during the 18th century. After its disappearance from written legislation, it continued to attract much scholarly attention. In the course of the 19th century thepoena cullei turned from a legal curiosity into a key issue in debates about the long-term development from ritual sacrifice to public punishment. This article investigates the apparent longevity of thepoena cullei tries to come to grips with the problem of the historical continuity of this bizarre phenomenon, and argues that the history and historiography of this ‘phantom punishment’ are inextricably intertwined.
Reply With Quote

 

[Trent Wray]

I suspect it might sink, both to the weight of the occupants and whatever damage it might receive while they negotiated.
.
The Romans had a name for it.... They had a name for everything!
The poena cullei originated as a Roman capital punishment imposed for parricide: the culprit was drowned in a leather sack together with a cock, a dog, a serpent, and a monkey. This punishment was last imposed in Germany during the 18th century. After its disappearance from written legislation, it continued to attract much scholarly attention. In the course of the 19th century thepoena cullei turned from a legal curiosity into a key issue in debates about the long-term development from ritual sacrifice to public punishment. This article investigates the apparent longevity of thepoena cullei tries to come to grips with the problem of the historical continuity of this bizarre phenomenon, and argues that the history and historiography of this ‘phantom punishment’ are inextricably intertwined.
Reply With Quote

My first reaction is speechlessness. My second one is, "well, I suppose they were advanced and bored enough to have their own versions of Steve-O running around."

 

[Soapy Sam]

I believe, for every drop of rain that falls, something gets wet.

 

[tsig]

Well yeah ... the odds were stacked against them there they would come out on the unharmed end

Oh ye of little faith, god can protect you from bears, it says so right in the Bible....oh wait.

(2 Kings 2:23-25)

 

[The True Scotsman]

Hey there, TS,

I think you did a great job summing up your beliefs, and mine.

I like the part about 'work in progress' particularly. I think we are all 'WIPs'.

Yes, I distinctly remember reading you're first post (among others) and finding it quite agreeable as well.

 

[Trent Wray]

Oh ye of little faith, god can protect you from bears, it says so right in the Bible....oh wait.

(2 Kings 2:23-25)

Happy Birthday !!!! Mine is in eleven days

And if anyone makes fun of me for it, she-bears will cut 'em down