I'm embarrased to be an Atheist / skeptic

[Akhenaten]

I'll take a punt on this being some kind of reply to me.

transubstantiation <- You seem to be addressing me like i am a catholic?

If that''s how it seems to you then all I can say is that your perception is faulty.

I was addressing you, in fact, as someone who had just made a bare assertion that I believe to be wrong.

I'm an Athiest.

So?

I wiki'd what you said and i have no idea what their views on that are.

How can you make the claim that the Catholic church does not contradict science without even understanding what it actually believes.

If they believe its a miracle is that really so bad.

I make no judgement at this point about whether it's good, bad or indifferent. Miracles, however, very much contradict science, and this is counter to your claim.

I thought the problem was denial of science, not that its daft if people believe in miracles.

Without all the sidestepping, mushy, does a belief in transubstantiation contradict science or not?

But why stop there. Maybe he will take a trip to Australia and tell aborigines why their belief system is flawed.

Who the devil are you talking about?

 

[mushy]

a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way

Sure. However my personal feelings are not up for debate. The thread has generated alot of other conversations so i don't see how this thread has been a waste if i don't change my personal opinions for you.

 

[Pixel42]

No, it wasn't. You made some idiotic point about it being ok to be abrasive to religious people because extremists bombed and killed.

No I did not. I know for sure I did not, because I do not consider it to be OK to be abrasive to religious people. You chose to interpret what I said in that way.

 

[Akhenaten]

His point was that their belief and teaching regarding transubstantiation is thoroughly anti-scientific.

Yep, miracles do fall outside the realm of science. Then again they don't contradict it.

The supernatural is perfectly natural then, is it?

 

[mushy]

I make no judgement at this point about whether it's good, bad or indifferent. Miracles, however, very much contradict science, and this is counter to your claim.

Science explains the natural world. I'd consider the idea of a miracle to be supernatural. Therefore it does not contradict science.

I'm not going to spend time going through every single one of your other quotes. I'll take you up on the bit about not understanding everything about the catholic religion. Thats true i don't but i don't have to. All i need to know is the problem Dawkins had with them, the point he brought up in a recent enough documentary with a catholic priest to make a comment on his views in regard to it.

 

[Akhenaten]

a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way

Sure. However my personal feelings are not up for debate. The thread has generated alot of other conversations so i don't see how this thread has been a waste if i don't change my personal opinions for you.

You're debating with the page heading now?

That's . . . interesting.

 

[Akhenaten]

Science explains the natural world.

<snip>

What do you reckon that button with "Quote" written on it is for?

 

[mushy]

You're debating with the page heading now?

That's . . . interesting.

No. Its actually a snippet of an post someone made earlier.

Edited for civility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Dunstan]

Are you really as stupid to ...

Please, continue to tell the rest of us how to be polite and civil. You have so much credibility on that front.

 

[mushy]

What do you reckon that button with "Quote" written on it is for?

You know what they say, if you can't beat them on logic resort to childish insults. lol.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Are you really as stupid to ...

Please, continue to tell the rest of us how to be polite and civil. You have so much credibility on that front.

Yes, the old pot/kettle thing comes to mind.

 

[shawmutt]

Isn't this one of those "there are two types of people in the world" arguments? I've had my dickish moments, and I've had my calmer moments.

I went to my freethinker's dinner one month, and a truther wackjob showed up, mistaking "freethinker" for "nothinker". I demolished him to the point I thought he was going to go out and get a weapon from his car (he was just getting his laptop to give us a "presentation").

Compare that to this week. I had Jehovah's witnesses knock on my door on Halloween. I politely but firmly engaged them on a few of their talking points, we shook hands and went our separate ways.

People aren't one-dimensional.

 

[mushy]

Please, continue to tell the rest of us how to be polite and civil. You have so much credibility on that front.

It comes down to levels. For example smashing someone who believes they have seen aliens isnt acceptable.

Calling someone an idiot because they accuse the catholic church of being responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa when they don't know what they are talking about is acceptable.

Do you understand that. There is a difference in the levels of the posts.

 

[Sledge]

It comes down to levels. For example smashing someone who believes they have seen aliens isnt acceptable.

Calling someone an idiot because they accuse the catholic church of being responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa when they don't know what they are talking about is acceptable.

Do you understand that. There is a difference in the levels of the posts.

I see the difference very clearly. One is something you think someone else said, one is something you said. The conclusion that can be drawn is that you think anything you say is fine, what other people say is only OK if you agree with it. As further evidence, I cite this thread.

Oh, where's that insult, by the way? I did ask earlier, but I understand you may have missed the post.

 

[Akhenaten]

No. Its actually a snippet of an post someone made earlier.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Quote edited for civility.

Have a go at my avatar, Einstein, and then hazard a guess about how much I'm likely to worry about looking like an idiot.

 

[mushy]

Sledge, i'm too busy to go digging up threads. I asked what science subject i should get a further education in. Because i wrote it badly someone said English. They only later tried to backtrack when i pointed out how pointless and unhelpful their remark was.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>?
Calling someone an idiot because they accuse the catholic church of being responsible for the spread of Aids in Africa when they don't know what they are talking about is acceptable.

<snip>

Want to bet?

Give it a burst and we'll see what happens.

 

[Uncayimmy]

One thing I agree on: some of the people here are more "playing the role" of a skeptic, always contesting even the littlest assertion, sometimes even metaphors, and never appling common sense.

Here are some things to consider: If an assertion cannot be supported, don't make it, even if it's just a "little" one. Better still, if you're basing your arguments on facts, provide citations up front. In my experience I've seen far more "little assertions" turn out to be wrong than I have seen turn out to be right.

As for metaphors, well, my advice is to stay away from them as much as possible when making an argument. They can be useful for explaining a topic. For example, when explaining to a client about the approach for designing software, I'll explain to them I can use bolts or nails. By that I mean nails are quicker, but it's a nightmare if you need to go back and change something (you end up ripping stuff apart and breaking things). If I use bolts, it takes a little longer to hook every thing together, but it allows me make changes and even replace entire sections much more easily.

What happens far too often is that people use metaphors because they can't articulate their argument. For example, VisionFromFeeling, a now banned member here, used to excuse her repeated failures to demonstrate her abilities by comparing it to a scientist mixing chemicals and not getting the expected result. The metaphor failed on many levels. The reason she made that argument was because she couldn't defend her actions with reason, so she compared it something we recognized as acceptable knowing that it couldn't be refuted. The metaphor deserved to be destroyed, and in the process we explained why science works like it does and how she wasn't following the scientific method.

An appeal to common sense is very similar. If it's truly common sense, then it should be easy to articulate. All too often the, "well, it's just common sense" argument is made in place of an actual argument. The person making the argument "feels" like it's right, so they assume that logic must be behind it.

One great thing about this board is that it forces you to defend your arguments. If you can't defend them with evidence and without resorting to metaphors and appeals to common sense, it's time to rethink your position rather than criticize others.

 

[Sledge]

Sledge, i'm too busy to go digging up threads. I asked what science subject i should get a further education in. Because i wrote it badly someone said English. They only later tried to backtrack when i pointed out how pointless and unhelpful their remark was.

1) It's a thread from today that is two pages long. No digging required.

More importantly, 2) Suggesting that someone who demonstrates a poor grasp of English should seek an education in English if they wish to debate others is not an insult.

Oh, and I don't recall anyone trying to backtrack. Care to support that assertion?

 

[John Jones]

Because SOMEONE needs to point out the contemptible narcissism, the despicable lies and dishonesty prattled relentlessly by the godless left.

And as soon as he does so, he is of course gang-tackled by the objects of his condemnation.

This mob-mentality is the cause of riots.
How few here are honest enough to acknowledge this and courageous enough to state the fact.

Yes. I remember you said that before. Did it ever occur to you that there are those of the godless right and godless center?