Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

[jj]

In this case, PseudoSkeptic, however, you are wrong when you persist in claiming that I am claiming to know the future. [/B]

Originally posted by jzs

You ignored the question, didn't you PseudoSkeptic? Are they claiming to know the future, Yes or No

Originally posted by jzs
Report me to the mods, j2 if you are so offended by "making fun". Better yet, write me a condescending haiku about it

Originally posted by jzs
j2, the dictionary definitions don't mention "claim" at all. How is that me "making up" my own definitions?

Originally posted by jzs
Your comments are in fact malicious since you are presenting your bs interpretation to make it look like I said what you claim I did. How about that j^2?

Just some fine examples of rational, civil debating from JZS, along with a nasty accusation and an attempt to obfuscate what he originally said or two.

JZS, I call on you one final time to retract all of your accusations, apologize for your kindergarden behaviors, and demonstrate that you can behave like the adult you claim to be.

What astonishes me more than anything else is that your web page suggests knowledge of statistics, but you somehow manage to avoid the difference between statistical and unqualified claims when you're arguing with NoDeity. I'm sure you're aware of the meaning of 50% chance, or "expect", or "probably", given your background. The fact that you used none of these words in your original prediction speaks for itself.

Having said this, I now wish for an "ignore thread" function.

 

[jj]

I've clarified myself after people asked questions.

[/B]

You have yet to explain why your original post reads a lot like "atheists are mean cheapskates" in attitude and tone.

If that's inadvertant, just say so.

Is that so hard?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Just some fine examples of rational, civil debating from JZS, along with a nasty accusation and an attempt to obfuscate what he originally said or two.

And anyone can go back and select out single posts to prove any point they wish. You know, the ones where he says "shut up", and asks if something came out of one's rectum. You know, those type of posts. That you don't do the same for Claus's is very revealing, at least to me.

JZS, I call on you one final time to retract all of your accusations,

If you could actuall name some of these things you believe are accusations, you might have a point.

I know it is hard to believe, but not people are agree with you. If you feel threatened, sickened, bored, etc.; you can ignore me, debate more, or report me to the mods.

apologize for your kindergarden behaviors, and demonstrate that you can behave like the adult you claim to be.

Just because you veil it in haiku doesn't make it better. You do know that, right? Not to mention, again, that you don't call Claus on the same behavior. I wonder why..

What astonishes me more than anything else is that your web page suggests knowledge of statistics, but you somehow manage to avoid the difference between statistical and unqualified claims when you're arguing with NoDeity.

But I did qualify my prediction. Numerous times, to show that it isn't in the same category as a psychic claiming to know the future.

Having said this, I now wish for an "ignore thread" function.

It is called the 'self control' function.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You have yet to explain why your original post reads a lot like "atheists are mean cheapskates" in attitude and tone.

Well, basically I cannot control your perception of my post, so there is not a lot I can say here.

Personally, I believe Dawkins's original comment reads a lot like 'religious people are to blame for the dead from the tsunami'. So what?

 

[jj]

Well, basically I cannot control your perception of my post, so there is not a lot I can say here.


Well, yes, you could have written what you said quite differently. What you actually say will, generally, quite affect my perception of what you say, unsprisingly.


Personally, I believe Dawkins's original comment reads a lot like 'religious people are to blame for the dead from the tsunami'. So what?

Do you think that justifys your name-calling, your insults, your accusations, and your other misbehaviors?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do you think that justifys your name-calling, your insults, your accusations, and your other misbehaviors?

Yawn.

I disagree with your silly opinion of the content of my posts. Get over it.

 

[jj]

Yawn.

I disagree with your silly opinion of the content of my posts. Get over it. [/B]

Nothing to disagree with, the evidence is clear, and captured in my post above. Perhaps we need a "questions for" thread after this last whopper of yours.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Nothing to disagree with, the evidence is clear,

I forgot. When you speak, no one can possibly disagree!

Perhaps we need a "questions for" thread after this last whopper of yours.

I could use another admirer. Go right ahead.

Oh, and a related thread. And I didn't start it either!

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
So what is my agenda? [...] Do share your theories please.

I have no theories. I am entirely clueless about what your agenda might be. Please tell me what it is. Thanks.

Or as NoDiety so eloquently put it,

jzs: I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.

NoDeity: Probably. So what?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I have no theories. I am entirely clueless about what your agenda might be. Please tell me what it is. Thanks.

You assume I have one. I don't.

I'll repeat what I said to jj:

So what is my agenda j^2? Am I out to get atheists? Nope, I am one. Am I out to get skeptics? Nope, I am one. Am I out to make people do my work? Nope, I just made a prediction. Am I out to get this board? Nope, a regular contributer in various threads and will donate $ to JREF once I get my hiring bonus. Do share your theories please.

Or as NoDiety so eloquently put it,

OK, what is your point?

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
You assume I have one [an agenda]. I don't.

OK, what is your point?

Well, yeah, "agenda" sounds sort of sinister, I guess. I didn't mean it that way.

My point is simply that no one here can figure out what your point was in making your prediction. Some have speculated that it was intended to be a veiled insult to atheists, which you deny, I think, but on the other hand, you haven't given any reason why you did make it.

So I wonder why you made it. That's all.

To be honest, this is not the only comment you've made that seems like a veiled insult, but for which you give no other reason. So it gets to be annoying after a while, and the impression is created that you are trying to be annoying.

If you are trying to be annoying, well done! Carry on!

If you are not trying to be annoying, and would like to convince people of that, it might help if you explained why you make comments that can easily be misinterpreted as insults. And it also might help if you tried to avoid making such comments in the future.

If you are not trying to be annoying, but don't mind that people think you are trying to be annoying, well, I don't know what to make of that, exactly! But I'm still curious about why you post the stuff you do. Would you mind telling me?

 

[T'ai Chi]

So I wonder why you made it. That's all.

The JREF board, of all places, is perfect for making predictions.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
The JREF board, of all places, is perfect for making predictions.

It is? I don't get it. Sorry.

Anyway, I think I've explained my point in much more detail than you've explained yours.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is? I don't get it. Sorry.

Well yeah, since people like examining predictions here and keeping a tally if they come true or not.

Mine isn't a psychic prediction however, since I don't claim to be psychic nor be able to see, or know the future, etc.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I do not "follow" Randi.

I guess you're not in Vegas then.

 

[Monera Man]

"Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety."

So why didn't science produce an early warning system in that geographical location? They exist in other locations.

The USA did just up their aid contribution to 350 million from 35 million dollars. If people consider the government "faith based" because Bush is leading it, then that is a pretty large contribution.

I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.

The amount of money or other resources
that a religious group has at its disposal
does not constitute evidence that God
exists or not. It simply indicates that
there is a larger pool of people to gather
resources from.

The number of people that hold a particular
belief is in itself not evidence that the belief
in question is true.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

The number of people that hold a particular
belief is in itself not evidence that the belief
in question is true.

Try telling that to Kumar....

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess you're not in Vegas then.

I guess you didn't read who else was coming to TAM3 then. Richard Dawkins, Richard Wiseman, Christopher Hitchens, etc. Also, a lot of very interesting skeptics from all over the world.

Now, did it ever occur to you that I might be interested in listening to those people? Or are those attending TAM3 simply "following Randi"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

The amount of money or other resources
that a religious group has at its disposal
does not constitute evidence that God
exists or not.

Yes, of course I agree.

It simply indicates that
there is a larger pool of people to gather
resources from.

Well, the donations amounts I'm talking about, that I'm ultimately interested in seeing, would, of course, have to be divided, somehow, by the population of donaters or donating groups, or something, so we could compare amounts donated by the religious and non-religious groups on an equal basic, instead of just the raw dollar amounts.

The number of people that hold a particular
belief is in itself not evidence that the belief
in question is true.

That is true.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I guess you didn't read who else was coming to TAM3 then. Richard Dawkins, Richard Wiseman, Christopher Hitchens, etc. Also, a lot of very interesting skeptics from all over the world.

Now, did it ever occur to you that I might be interested in listening to those people? Or are those attending TAM3 simply "following Randi"?

Glad to see you back!