• 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.

quotes ridiculing skepticism

Nie Trink Wasser

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
1,317
"It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism." (ILN 5-4-07)

"Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making truth the test. The sceptic feels himself too large to measure life by the largest things; and ends by measuring it by the smallest thing of all." (The Common Man)

"It is the decisive people who have become civilised; it is the indecisive, otherwise called the higher sceptics, or the idealistic doubters, who have remained barbarians." (ILN 11-30-12)

"Latter-day scepticism is fond of calling itself progressive; but scepticism is really reactionary. Scepticism goes back; it attempts to unsettle what has already been settled. Instead of trying to break up new fields with its plough, it simply tries to break up the plough." (ILN 2-6-09)

"No sceptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon." (George Bernard Shaw)

"The sceptics, like bees, give their one sting and die." (Alarms and Discursions)

"It is ludicrous to suppose that the more sceptical we are the more we see good in everything. It is clear that the more we are certain what good is, the more we shall see good in everything." (Heretics)

"Liberty has produced scepticism, and scepticism has destroyed liberty. The lovers of liberty thought they were leaving it unlimited, when they were only leaving it undefined. They thought they were only leaving it undefined, when they were really leaving it undefended." (Eugenics and Other Evils)

"The sceptic ultimately undermines democracy (1) because he can see no significance in death and such things of a literal equality; (2) because he introduces different first principles, making debate impossible: and debate is the life of democracy; (3) because the fading of the sacred leaves a man too prone to be a respecter of earthly persons; (4) because there will be more, not less, respect for human rights if they can be treated as divine rights." (ILN 1-13-12)
 
"Skeptics are just a bunch of stupid doody heads"
- 5th Chronicle of Wesley the Younger
 
Wouldn't it be nice to know where these quotes come from. For example, "ILN 5-4-07". Who, what or where is that? International Literary Number? Internal List of Noobs? I Love Nie-trink-wasser? Is it a date of some sort? Even the Shaw one is unreferenced - was it a letter? A play? A letter to the editor of Gardening Monthly 1922?

Without decent references, we are left with a bunch of quotes that could be just made up by NTW. In fact, I'm guessing he has been doing the usual tricks that Kent Hovind and the other nutcase creationists do - quote-mining, and quoting out of context.
 
hey dipsh!t

Im not arguing against skepticism.....someone sent these quotes to me and I wanted to see what everyone thought of them...

now you can finish sucking your thumb...
 
G.K. Chesterton :

"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
 
Ok, lets just pretend that these are not all fallacious.

"It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism." (ILN 5-4-07)

And the credulous (anti-skeptic) have a very obvious bias in favor of their point of view. So what exactly has actually been said?

"Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making truth the test. The sceptic feels himself too large to measure life by the largest things; and ends by measuring it by the smallest thing of all." (The Common Man)

Of course, people who claim to know the truth are all very humble and meek. Humm, I tried hard but this is just a fallacy no matter how I read it. How ARROGANT is it to presume what someone else thinks or feels and then base an argument upon it?

"It is the decisive people who have become civilised; it is the indecisive, otherwise called the higher sceptics, or the idealistic doubters, who have remained barbarians." (ILN 11-30-12)

This sounds like it is advocating ‘Leap before you look’. Uh, ok.

"Latter-day scepticism is fond of calling itself progressive; but scepticism is really reactionary. Scepticism goes back; it attempts to unsettle what has already been settled. Instead of trying to break up new fields with its plough, it simply tries to break up the plough." (ILN 2-6-09)

The Skeptic intended to build a hydroponic garden utilizing new advanced soil-less methods, but was attacked by farmers afraid to lose their hold on the economy. (I love metaphors, and am very visual myself... but metaphors and stories have their limits).

"No sceptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon." (George Bernard Shaw)

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

"The sceptics, like bees, give their one sting and die." (Alarms and Discursions)

Skeptics are like the characters in the story of the tar baby. I am not sure yet if they are more like brier rabbit, the fox, or the tar baby, but I hope to know someday.
(btw - Africanized bees can sting many times, that's the kind of error made when people are not skeptical enough)

"It is ludicrous to suppose that the more sceptical we are the more we see good in everything. It is clear that the more we are certain what good is, the more we shall see good in everything." (Heretics)

This certainly explains how we can spin the torture of prisoners into actions of goodness.

"Liberty has produced scepticism, and scepticism has destroyed liberty. The lovers of liberty thought they were leaving it unlimited, when they were only leaving it undefined. They thought they were only leaving it undefined, when they were really leaving it undefended." (Eugenics and Other Evils)

Is not! Is not! Doody heads! (too much Liberty is self destructive?)

"The sceptic ultimately undermines democracy (1) because he can see no significance in death and such things of a literal equality; (2) because he introduces different first principles, making debate impossible: and debate is the life of democracy; (3) because the fading of the sacred leaves a man too prone to be a respecter of earthly persons; (4) because there will be more, not less, respect for human rights if they can be treated as divine rights." (ILN 1-13-12)

1: Are you claiming that the idea that all men are created equal is NOT self evident?

We see the reality of 'religious equality' by the pope's cannonization today. The mom with kids who chose death from cancer instead of getting an abortion. Now a saint, how cool and neat-o.

2: Aargh. What value are first principles if they are a lie? O, so we can have debate. But if the debate is over false first principles, what good it it? Oh, Debate is always good...

3: If the world were not filled with earthly persons who claimed to represent God I might agree. The people who get their rings kissed are WHO?

4: The blood of countless millions killed in the name of, or for the glory of God cry from the graves. There are to this very day, religious websites teaching that the inquisition was 'not all that bad'. Don’t make me laugh.
 
I have had to forgive the churches I was raised in, much as a person from a dysfunctional family forgives mistakes made by parents and siblings. An irrepressible optimist, G.K. Chesterton proved helpful in that process too. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried," he said. The real question is not "Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be so good?" but rather "Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?" <span style="background-color: #ffff99">Chesterton readily admitted that the church had badly failed the gospel. In fact, he said, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Christianity is the failure of Christians,</span> who thereby prove what the Bible teaches about the Fall and original sin. As the world goes wrong, it proves that the church is right in this basic doctrine. - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/4622.htm
And I happen to like Chesterton as a Christian apologist. But where's the beef? The church failed the gospel, and that's evidence that it's true? Sheesh, this is a Pastor's site!
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:
hey dipsh!t

Im not arguing against skepticism.....someone sent these quotes to me and I wanted to see what everyone thought of them...

now you can finish sucking your thumb...
I'm SO glad you continue to reinforce what a class act you are...

So someone sent you some quotes. I'll simplify it for you. Who? Where from? Why?
 
Zep said:
I'll simplify it for you. Who? Where from? Why?
I realize it would be asking too much for a skeptic like yourself to provide an actual, thoughtful, comment on the words and their meaning rather than on who wrote them.

Pretend NTW wrote them himself; what bearing would that have on discussing the thoughts presented? Most of us decided what we learned in 3rd grade Nit-picking class really doesn't do much to enhance learning or understanding.

I also admit we have a several posters here who excel at critical nit-picking. Does this mean you are also incapable of constructive thought and discourse?
 
Hammy, surely you don't expect sound-bite quotes to result in anything other than nit-picking? Are we to derive a rich philosophy from them?

For example:
It is ludicrous to suppose that the more sceptical we are the more we see good in everything. It is clear that the more we are certain what good is, the more we shall see good in everything.
It's not clear to me.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Hammy, surely you don't expect sound-bite quotes to result in anything other than nit-picking?

Pauly, I expect nothing but nit-picking from most who post here. Once in a while someone exceeds my expectations.


Are we to derive a rich philosophy from them?
In that personal philosophy is hopefully an ongoing work in progress -- I can't answer for you.



For example:

Pauly, I agree that doesn't make much sense to me either. What do you make of"

"1: Are you claiming that the idea that all men are created equal is NOT self evident?" per Kopji?

No answer expected, BTW.
 
With most of these quotes, you could substitute "believer" for "skeptic" and they would make exactly as much sense, since they're not specific. They basically say that skeptics are poopy-heads. For example:

"Liberty has produced gullibility, and gullibility has destroyed liberty. The lovers of liberty thought they were leaving it unlimited, when they were only leaving it undefined. They thought they were only leaving it undefined, when they were really leaving it undefended." (Eugenics and Other Evils)

It's meaningless either way. But this one:
"It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism."
is basically saying that we are biased in favor of having no bias. OK, I'll admit that. What's the problem?
 
Kopji said:


"No sceptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon." (George Bernard Shaw)

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw


That's an Andre Agassi-esque return of serve.
 
"No sceptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon." (George Bernard Shaw)

I think this says more about the healthy inquisitiveness and scepticism of children than any supposed deficiency of skeptics.

What happened to believers that made them give up that childlike sense of wonder and curiosity?
 
Huntsman said:


What happened to believers that made them give up that childlike sense of wonder and curiosity?
I think it's ironic Huntsman, that believers might often say the same thing about skeptics. :)
 
Hammy said:
Pauly, I agree that doesn't make much sense to me either. What do you make of"

"1: Are you claiming that the idea that all men are created equal is NOT self evident?" per Kopji?
I don't know, because I do not understand what this means:
(1) because he can see no significance in death and such things of a literal equality;


~~ Paul
 
I very strongly suspect that these quotes are not about the sort of scepticism we practice here, but rather are directed at the extreme Scepticism of a certain philosophical school - that is, the sort of stuff advocated by Descartes and Hume which questions the whole existence of an external reality blah blah.
 
Tez said:
I very strongly suspect that these quotes are not about the sort of scepticism we practice here, but rather are directed at the extreme Scepticism of a certain philosophical school - that is, the sort of stuff advocated by Descartes and Hume which questions the whole existence of an external reality blah blah.

Oh...so youmean they're directed towards Interesting Ian?

:D
 
The quotations all have a common theme that concludes something like this:

If a skeptic entered a museum they could not ever enjoy or appreciate art because all they would see is canvas, cut blocks of stone, gobs of paint splashed in patterns. What a dreary life they must have. Because I love and enjoy such things, I must oppose such people at every turn.

In characterizing skepticism, it goes as far as to encourage hatred against skeptics: concluding they are the enemies of democracy and liberty.

Garbage in garbage out. I take out the garbage, not debate it.

(The Shaw quote was my favorite too).
 
"The sceptic ultimately undermines democracy (1) because he can see no significance in death and such things of a literal equality; (2) because he introduces different first principles, making debate impossible: and debate is the life of democracy; (3) because the fading of the sacred leaves a man too prone to be a respecter of earthly persons; (4) because there will be more, not less, respect for human rights if they can be treated as divine rights." (ILN 1-13-12)"

Science and Democracy are inseperable - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World.

Since science and logic are the basis of medern skepticism (IMHO,) then this actually disproves the idea that skepticism is the enemy of liberty or democracy. Since religion and metaphysics are wholly artificial constructs, with no observable or verifiable facts, they are by nature rigid, non-debatable structures. This is by definition the antithesis of democracy, you either believe or do not, no in between. I do not see any problem with respecting human life, but apparently the authors of the quotes above support wholesale slaughter and horrible acts that accompany war. How many of you that support these statements have volunteered for Iraq or Afghanistan?
 

Back
Top Bottom