Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Krikkiter]

This one?

I agree with most of what he says. He doesn't actually cast any doubt on what she said happened, only on how genuine her reaction to it was.


You're accusing her of flat-out lying, inventing incidents, not just exaggerating her reaction to them?

Correct. He's a lawyer. He knows better.

Absolutely. Do I have any substantial evidence? No. Not really. But does she for her claims? She is the one making the positive claim. She should show evidence otherwise all the rest means absolutely nothing.

I will, without reservation and with the rights that I have (such as they are on this forum), express my opinion that, considering her past in regards to her presence (mainly only on the interwebz), in the A/S community it would be most prudent of any who are interested to take a very proper skeptical view of her anecdotes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, anecdotes are evidence now? Hmmmm.... happy UFO hunting.

Now you appear to not only have not read the page in which you're posting, but not even the post that you're replying to.

Here's a clue - you've made a claim which has been explicitly refuted with hard evidence on this very page, and even in the post directly above yours. 4 different posters have discussed this on this page prior to your first making this claim, and now two separate posters have pointed your error out to you.

But, sure, you just keep pushing that "I'm the real sceptic" angle and berating others for not doing their homework. I'm sure it'll start to sound convincing if you say it often and belligerently enough.

 

[Krikkiter]

Now you appear to not only have not read the page in which you're posting, but not even the post that you're replying to.

Here's a clue - you've made a claim which has been explicitly refuted with hard evidence on this very page, and even in the post directly above yours. 4 different posters have discussed this on this page prior to your first making this claim, and now two separate posters have pointed your error out to you.

But, sure, you just keep pushing that "I'm the real sceptic" angle and berating others for not doing their homework. I'm sure it'll start to sound convincing if you say it often and belligerently enough.

Actually, I'm quite willing to back down from that one. She may well have a condition that inhibits her from remembering faces. And if that is in fact the case, I apologise profusely.

Thing is, I can't verify that and neither can anyone else apart from RW or her clinician. But, I'll give her all of that and she still wouldn't be able to prove her story to any degree of certainty.

Again, if RW has this condition, she has my empathy.


ETA: Notice that mine is an opinion. Stated explicitly as opinion.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, I'm quite willing to back down from that one. She may well have a condition that inhibits her from remembering faces. And if that is in fact the case, I apologise profusely.

Thing is, I can't verify that and neither can anyone else apart from RW or her clinician. But, I'll give her all of that and she still wouldn't be able to prove her story to any degree of certainty.

Again, if RW has this condition, she has my empathy.

Whether she has the condition or not is again not the main issue. Your statement:

bad memory because of some condition seems to be a cop out. Invented after the fact to bolster her claim.

was already shown to be incorrect in this thread, just before you made it.

I can imagine someone who meets as many people as she does finding an excuse to explain why she doesn't recognise someone she meets again at a conference. Regardless, it is not something she invented after the lift event, she had the foresight to mention it several years beforehand.

 

[Krikkiter]

Whether she has the condition or not is again not the main issue. Your statement:


was already shown to be incorrect in this thread, just before you made it.

I can imagine someone who meets as many people as she does finding an excuse to explain why she doesn't recognise someone she meets again at a conference. Regardless, it is not something she invented after the lift event, she had the foresight to mention it several years beforehand.

I see. Thank you. Many apologies. I really should read more sometimes.

It's late here and I've had a few big weekends at work.

So, I obviously jumped the gun but still, I'll stick to my opinion and that is that she made the whole thing up. Maybe it's convenient for her that she had told people about that condition that she says she has beforehand. Either way, I don't trust her story.

Apologies too SB.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Whether she has the condition or not is again not the main issue. Your statement:


was already shown to be incorrect in this thread, just before you made it.

...with the added irony of being made in a post that was full of admonishments to other people for not researching what they're talking about.

 

[Krikkiter]

...with the added irony of being made in a post that was full of admonishments to other people for not researching what they're talking about.

Well, thank you. I'm a huge fan of irony but there's no need to keep going is there?

My point was that her story, regardless of the condition that she supposedly has (supposedly because no-one can verify it apart from her and her clinician), is tenuous at best.

Accept it on face value if you like, but I'm gonna take the more skeptical rout thanks. If that is contrarian, so be it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I was still thinking of Richard Carrier's presentation on A+ and want to focus on the basic problem with it. His "if you are not with us, you are against us" position is the ultimate false dilemma^WP fallacy. He really presses points like, if you don't support the A+ movement, then you don't believe women are people. Or, if you don't believe the rape threats in the atheist community are serious, then you are part of the purported "rape culture."

My disagreement has to do with the tactics and lack of skepticism and critical thinking of A+, not the causes. I believe in social justice, but think many ardent social justice warriors are nuts. I'm a feminist, but think the reverse sexism of radical feminists is hypocritical. I hate trolling and sexual harassment but do not believe it's a significant problem in the atheist community. I believe the uncritical thinking of Aplussers is poisoning and embarrassing to atheist movement.

If they are right, then I want them to convince me they are right. They'd have a chance if they didn't insist on seeing me as the enemy of SJ causes. But, every time I read or listen to these people, I have the same reaction: "These people are nuts!" I think they spend too much time in their echo chamber (AKA safe space) and have lost touch with the real world.

 

[Krikkiter]

I was still thinking of Richard Carrier's presentation on A+ and want to focus on the basic problem with it. His "if you are not with us, you are against us" position is the ultimate false dilemma^WP fallacy. He really presses points like, if you don't support the A+ movement, then you don't believe women are people. Or, if you don't believe the rape threats in the atheist community are serious, then you are part of the purported "rape culture."

My disagreement has to do with the tactics and lack of skepticism and critical thinking of A+, not the causes. I believe in social justice, but think many ardent social justice warriors are nuts. I'm a feminist, but think the reverse sexism of radical feminists is hypocritical. I hate trolling and sexual harassment but do not believe it's a significant problem in the atheist community. I believe the uncritical thinking of Aplussers is poisoning and embarrassing to atheist movement.

If they are right, then I want them to convince me they are right. They'd have a chance if they didn't insist on seeing me as the enemy of SJ causes. But, every time I read or listen to these people, I have the same reaction: "These people are nuts!" I think they spend too much time in their echo chamber (AKA safe space) and have lost touch with the real world.

Yes, and he recently gave a speech at AA where he basically (and very clumsily IMO), re-iterated this point.

A+ has been almost wholly abandoned by FTB.

 

[s_pepys]

Yes, and he recently gave a speech at AA where he basically (and very clumsily IMO), re-iterated this point.

A+ has been almost wholly abandoned by FTB.

linked to and discussed upthread. do your research!

 

[Krikkiter]

linked to and discussed upthread. do your research!

There I go again. It's like wasn't here at the start

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, thank you. I'm a huge fan of irony but there's no need to keep going is there?

Posted at the same time as your last post, and then I left the house without checking the thread.

But if you really want to complain about how you've been treated, then perhaps you should consider who it was who came in to this thread with an aggressive tone.

Accept it on face value if you like, but I'm gonna take the more skeptical rout thanks. If that is contrarian, so be it.

I don't think that making up opinions and ascribing them to others really improves your sceptical credentials.

 

[s_pepys]

There I go again. It's like wasn't here at the start

i am surprised carriers speech hasnt been discussed more. the way he characterises atheism is crazy and his explanations of the original "call to arms" of his is, imo, hypocritical at best.

as an athiest, iv always argued that it is not a belief system, like religion is. it is a criticism that gets brought up by the religious all the time.

carrier is trying to add ideology to it and is undoing all the good work done over the past few years by real athiest activists.

atheism is just a non belief in god regardless of your politics or backround. i wish he would just become a mormon or **** right off!

 

[qwints]

atheism is just a non belief in god regardless of your politics or backround. i wish he would just become a mormon or **** right off!

Hence atheism plus other stuff. Is this a branding thing or do you have a problem with secular humanists?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hence atheism plus other stuff. Is this a branding thing or do you have a problem with secular humanists?

Not speaking for anyone other than myself, but I don't see the connection between them, personally (and, yes, I have an aversion to the term "humanism". 'tis a silly word). I think I'm a moral person (don't we all?), and I believe in equality. I'm also an atheist. I don't see what the one has to do with the other. I think my atheism has as much to do with my morality as does my liking science fiction. Or the fact that I'm 5'6".

It seems to me that the attempt to connect the two is nothing but an attempt to emulate some aspects of religion, and it bemuses me why anybody would want to do that.

 

[Krikkiter]

Posted at the same time as your last post, and then I left the house without checking the thread.

But if you really want to complain about how you've been treated, then perhaps you should consider who it was who came in to this thread with an aggressive tone.



I don't think that making up opinions and ascribing them to others really improves your sceptical credentials.

Apology accepted.

I've never complained about the way I've been treated in this thread. In fact, that's the last thing on my mind when I post here. And as far as being aggressive, I'll leave that to the viewers. Pretty sure I was just asserting an opinion. You're also welcome to yours which, of course, I will accept because that's the way these things are supposed to roll, ya' know?

I also reserve the right to make up whatever opinions I want. Subscribing them to others, well, that may be something you'll have to verify. As you've seen so far, I'm more than happy to back down when I'm wrong.

And back to the point. Did RW lie about this stupid internet meme that has now become Elevatorgate?^TM The pathetic drama that it has become and the pathetic excuse for her to get drunk at more conferences that it most certainly is?

 

[Krikkiter]

i am surprised carriers speech hasnt been discussed more. the way he characterises atheism is crazy and his explanations of the original "call to arms" of his is, imo, hypocritical at best.

as an athiest, iv always argued that it is not a belief system, like religion is. it is a criticism that gets brought up by the religious all the time.

carrier is trying to add ideology to it and is undoing all the good work done over the past few years by real athiest activists.

atheism is just a non belief in god regardless of your politics or backround. i wish he would just become a mormon or **** right off!

[ot]And you know, this is a conversation worth having.

I was discussing my atheism with my better half the other night and she insisted that my atheism was actually a belief and that it went at least a little bit beyond having no belief in a god.

I had to agree. I do have a belief that there are no gods and that this can only be a belief. But, a belief based on what evidence we have. Which is zero.[/ot]

 

[Krikkiter]

Hence atheism plus other stuff. Is this a branding thing or do you have a problem with secular humanists?

Is that just another rhetorical question? Why don't you just say what you think?

 

[StrangeCharm]

Not speaking for anyone other than myself, but I don't see the connection between them, personally (and, yes, I have an aversion to the term "humanism". 'tis a silly word). I think I'm a moral person (don't we all?), and I believe in equality. I'm also an atheist. I don't see what the one has to do with the other. I think my atheism has as much to do with my morality as does my liking science fiction. Or the fact that I'm 5'6".

It seems to me that the attempt to connect the two is nothing but an attempt to emulate some aspects of religion, and it bemuses me why anybody would want to do that.

I very much agree with this.

Also, I didn't like Carrier's "swell the ranks" language in his speech. For me, talking about atheism isn't with the preset goal of creating more atheists. Maybe to get people to use critical thinking, to educate, but never with the forgone conclusion that the person I am talking to will become "one of us". That sounds a little creepy to me.

 

[Krikkiter]

I very much agree with this.

Also, I didn't like Carrier's "swell the ranks" language in his speech. For me, talking about atheism isn't with the preset goal of creating more atheists. Maybe to get people to use critical thinking, to educate, but never with the forgone conclusion that the person I am talking to will become "one of us". That sounds a little creepy to me.

In a nutshell.