Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd be interested as to where most sceptics believe they draw the line.

Since clearly none of has the time or resources to check out everything, we rely on information from others for most of our facts which we then base our reasoning on. Science has a good peer review system that allows us confidence when appealling to such evidence and if we were writing a paper which we expected to have any credence we'd check out the sources as thoroughly as was practical, but can any of us claim that same stringency in our day to day lives or behind many of our beliefs or biases?

Anecdotal evidence from sources you've learned to trust from your own experiences might not stand up to any public sceptical analysis, but does that make it irrational to believe them? If a close, trusted friend says he saw a distinctive, rare bird in his garden which all the experts say should not be found within 300 miles of the area, is disbelief the rational approach if there's no apparent reason to doubt his sincerity or competence?

Should a "true" sceptic be the guy getting thrown out of the airport for demanding to see the passenger list, the crudentials of the mechanics and pilots and to be able to check the engine, runway etc, before he will board a plane?

I advocate critical thinking and the scientific method, but I'm quite prepared to admit that my theistic beliefs are largely based on subjective experiences and anecdotal evidence. There's probably some suspension of disbelief and perhaps arguably a null hypothesis thrown in there too, but should strong evidence show me to be mistaken, it's likely that I'd follow it. If that removes a "sceptic" label for me in many people's eyes, I can live with that and would continue to try to apply critical thinking in my approach to my arguments and to life. I'm not a great supporter of labels for people anyway.

Skeptigirl, this post isn't particularly aimed at you. Your quote just gave me a line to follow on from. I'm a little surprised to see "The God who wasn't there" cited by a sceptic as credible evidence though.

There is still a big difference here. You are still describing errors in the process. We don't have detailed research on everything we believe.

That has nothing to do with the point. Give me better research and I'll fix my misconceptions. To believe in the Biblical god you have to stop that critical analysis willfully at some arbitrary point.

Maybe that is the crux of why this point is being missed by some people here and understood by others. Maybe those who have arbitrarily stopped that critical analysis don't realize they have done so. Maybe they believe there is empirical evidence of a god. Or maybe they just don't recognize that god beliefs require ignoring the empirical evidence. That is something I have observed and the point I make when I discuss the two definitions of gods.

There is the science definition of a god outside of the realm of science that cannot be disproved.

Then there are all the rest of the god definitions on a continuum from some spiritual essence to the fundie literal interpretations.

On the one hand, a skeptic who is also a god believer has some definition in mind in the latter category, yet rationalizes the lack of empirical evidence and the evidence specific god beliefs are false such as Creation and Noah's flood do not suggest the skeptic's god belief is false because he/she then switches to the former definition of an untestable god belief.

If you only believe in the untestable god, what do you have left in that belief really? Nothing, it is a concept of nothing which is felt, touched, seen, etc anywhere but in one's mind. It is a fantasy of an afterlife. An imaginary friend.

Anything else and it would be testable. If god answers prayers, you could test that. If god punishes sinners, you could test that. If god wrote or inspired the Bible, it wouldn't be such an inconsistent book and it should have had information a god would have known, not information limited by human knowledge at the time. If god was [fill in the blank with your belief] then the text you believe your god beliefs came from should reflect that. And so on...

But skeptic/believers stop that critical thought process. They only carry it through to a point. When they think about the fact prayer answering should be testable they start defining their god differently. When they see the evidence doesn't support Bible stories they start calling the stories symbolic. When the Bible doesn't have evidence it was written or inspired by gods the skeptic who also believes in a god rationalizes men wrote the text, that's the reason.

Pretty soon you have only the definition of an untestable god. But that god doesn't do anything and certainly doesn't do anything the religious text said it did. If that is god then what is the Bible? An unrelated book? Written by the devil? Not intended to have been used?

The two definitions of god are not compatible. The god that science cannot test for allows the skeptic to believe in god, but only if the rest of the entire human concept of gods are discarded.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Skeptigirl, this post isn't particularly aimed at you. Your quote just gave me a line to follow on from. I'm a little surprised to see "The God who wasn't there" cited by a sceptic as credible evidence though.

I found the case presented in the movie to be very convincing. I didn't follow through verifying the evidence. What evidence do you think wasn't presented and/or was any of the evidence presented not factual?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... God beliefs have huge amounts of testimonial and personal subjective evidence. While such evidence doesn't pass muster for for those who insist on evidence of a scientific caliber, and they certainly doen't affect the truth of the belief, but the existance of that evidence means it's quite reasonable to respond to the two beliefs differently. ...
Yes, that seems an appropriate way to state it. But the scientific method does not yield a conclusion on the general question of the existance of god. So why do you find it hypocritical if some skeptics choose one conclusion but not if they choose the other? Atheists didn't arrive at their conclusion based on the scientific method either.

What's the point of believing in a god which doesn't interact with the Universe? The afterlife fantasy?

First, scientifically, there is a set of rules about evidence. That's why people's subjective thoughts are not evidence.

But the reason those thoughts are not evidence is we have evidence about how those subjective experiences occur and 'real gods' are not the best fit for the evidence.

The idea behind science and skepticism is to draw the best conclusions from the evidence. One very important key in that process is to follow the evidence, not find the evidence to fit your conclusions. You don't start with the conclusion those subjective experiences represent a god sending you alpha waves. You look at all the evidence and see where it leads. The very fact one starts with the assumption those experiences are god generated suspends the process of skeptical inquiry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Such evidence is accepted by believers in all of the above. It also accepted for far more mundane situations, such as in a court of law. I'm not arguing that such evidence makes the claim true. I'm arguing that it makes the claim more reasonable to believe in and thus, belief in such things is a very different situation from such constructs as an IPU or FSM.

So just what are the underlying principles of skepticism in your view?

 

[-Fran-]

There is still a big difference here. You are still describing errors in the process. We don't have detailed research on everything we believe.

That has nothing to do with the point. Give me better research and I'll fix my misconceptions. To believe in the Biblical god you have to stop that critical analysis willfully at some arbitrary point.

Maybe that is the crux of why this point is being missed by some people here and understood by others. Maybe those who have arbitrarily stopped that critical analysis don't realize they have done so. Maybe they believe there is empirical evidence of a god. Or maybe they just don't recognize that god beliefs require ignoring the empirical evidence. That is something I have observed and the point I make when I discuss the two definitions of gods.

I think you mention something important here. Beside the misunderstanding about that what we are discussing is in any way personal, out to exclude a certain group of skeptics, or an attempt to dictate how people should live their lives - the misunderstanding you mention above seems to have been the most common in this thread. And it's a bit weird to me that it has been explained so many times now, in a number of different ways, in different wording and with different clarifying (hopefully) analogies, by you, by Big Les, by me (I admit I haven't done it as well as you guys), by articulett... and still, we're not getting through.

Myself, I've given up, I think, at least for now. I feel a bit hindered by my English, I can't find further words now to explain things another round. Besides, I got some unexpected work with a short deadline (freelancing, ain't it typical) and I can't concentrate on this thread until those are done. But it will be exciting to look in here in a few days again, to see if something has happened.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again, I must stress, it's not religious claims that are being "given a pass" nor are religious beliefs being "given a pass" by those atheists who are accomodating to religious skeptics being part of JREF and organized skepticism - it's not hammering them because they aren't orthodox atheists like some people insist they should be. The BS straw man is equating not giving religious skeptics constant **** about their religion because we have more pressing issues like Creationism, mediums like Sylvia/van Fraud, etc. and Nigerian Spam Scams to worry about than whether a potential ally in fighting stuff like that goes to church, temple, mosque or synagoge....

You are using the 'feelings' argument. I understand the 'feelings' argument. I am certainly not saying anyone should harass a skeptic who chooses to believe in gods. But you appear to be advocating not bringing up the elephant in the room lest we hurt someone's feelings or because it could hurt the membership drive.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm painfully aware that I've been suckered into a never-ending point-by-point semantic argumentathon with the indomitable CFLarsen, and quite frankly, I've lost the will to live. I've said everything that's worth saying, and more besides. Despite what he says, I am not telling anybody what to think. I'm simply disagreeing with his hypothetical take on the issue.

I know what you mean, I feel the same. I don't feel there is much use in discussing with him already, and then I haven't done it nearly as much as you If me pulling out makes him feel like he's won something... then that's fine by me. I'm through with the "harry-potter-discussions".

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You are using the 'feelings' argument. I understand the 'feelings' argument. I am certainly not saying anyone should harass a skeptic who chooses to believe in gods. But you appear to be advocating not bringing up the elephant in the room lest we hurt someone's feelings or because it could hurt the membership drive.

I'm sorry but my irony meter blew up when I read this because Arti's screechy diatribes are all about feelings, "respect" and a bunch of other blather that just makes my mind numb due to it's lack of logic. What elephant in the room are you talking about? That religious skeptics aren't atheists and therefore need to be confronted and told they are woos at every turn? That isn't an elephant in the room, that's a political decision by militant atheists who want to nudge not only religious skeptics but non-militant skeptics out of the room.

I mean look at comments like this:

That's one of the things that bug me about faith-- the faithful (or maybe just the annoying)-- spout their opinions so freely--like you should be eager to hear them-- and then when you assert your opinions in return they have a tizzy fit! They sure don't give you the respect they seem to think their opinions deserve.

If this isn't an emotional response, I don't know what is. "Those people" are allowed to express their opinions and I don't like it {stamps feet}.

I can meet you half way - which I have done from the beginning back on '01 - that claims need to to be confronted, but giving persons, individuals, people we share jokes with in the humor forum, life moments in the community forum and woo smack downs in the other subforums with a break on their general beliefs will do a lot more to spread the Skeptic gospel than telling anyone who expresses any religious belief they are a woo.

It's not mollycoddling to be decent to your fellow human being and I'm disgusted to think my fellow atheists, who claim to be such humanists, would attack people who they agree in 29 of 30 points with so viciously and relentlessly just because they don't adhere to atheist orthodoxy in a forum of an organization that is not atheist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for the parade of strawmen.



You're missing my entire point -- it's not about what you personally think the worth of someone's beliefs may be. It's about making sure skepticism stays a method, not an ideology. That means talking about how one comes to conclusions, not making a laundry list of what a good skeptic should or should not believe.

But, if you want to confirm the common criticism out there of skeptics as being arrogant know-it-alls convinced of their moral superiority -- not to mention corrupting skepticism is general, IMHO -- then go right ahead with what you are doing now.

For someone so concerned about method, you sure seem eager to appease those who would choose a less rigorous scientific method as their means.

 

[-Fran-]

For those who care about Claus's digression, he's referring to this as my "diagnosis of mental illness"

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

So, folks (other than Claus) , am I the one with a problem as Claus asserts? Do I portray those who disagree with me as mentally ill? Do you think there is a good reason or point for Claus derailing this thread to chastise me? Or is Claus in his own reality on this one-- because I sure can't follow him.

I haven't read the other thread, but... that was all you said?

Well, I've never heard of Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome before, but I thought that was quite spot on!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Which theists are "polite" company on this board?

Other than KittyNH, Cleon, Hal, RemieV, etc.? Oh that's right, you consider all theists to be woo and mentally ill so they cannot be "polite."

I there are some of you who aren't familiar with Dr. Laura Schlesinger's divorce from The Skeptics Society, here's some Google results that might make for some interesting reading in what could be considered a bizarro version of this imbruglio.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=laura+schlesinger+skeptics+society

Anyone have any comments on the links in this search regarding Dr. Laura and the Skeptics Society? I actually remember when the divorce happened. Are any of you familiar with it?

It's only ridiculous if you don't quite understand it. I'm glad you're expressing your lack of comprehension now, so I know where you stand.

Such hubris. You've lived in Germany long enough - though not as long as I did - to know what Schadenfreude is. It's ironic that you think you're so clever with your insipid "I don't hate Zues" responses while not realizing I've been hearing the same stupid replies from believers since you were crapping in your diapers and don't get the rhetorical meaning behind "God-Hater." I'm used to that sort of arrogant ignorance from fundies who quote Hovind or reply with Bible verses but not from supposedly "logical" rational atheists.

So, let me get this straight...

...says the supposedly logical, intelligent rational atheist before he erects a straw man...

Because no one's claimed that IPU or FSM has cured them of an illness, therefore claiming that God did it gives God greater status in your mind?

Uh, makes sense, I guess.

No stupid. It gives the argument greater weight as a rhetorical device. But since you're clearly not intelligent enough to understand the use of rhetorical devices like "God-Hater", I wouldn't expect you to grasp the sophistication of the argument.

{snip one liners and blather rather than actual logical, ratinal arguments}And I'm sure you're the arbiter/expert as to what's "clever" or not. And I'm sure you'll wow me with your evidence that these atheists aren't logical.

Since I'm not part of the Amen chorus you wish to be part of, I don't expect you to comprehend where I'm coming from much less what I'm saying. I'll leave it at that and you to your befuddlement.

The IPU cured me from a virulent meme infection I refer to as "faith".

(Unrepentant Sinner occasionally confuses seniority for superiority).

Interesting since you always confuse long, hystrionic diatribes with "logic" and "rationality."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I still have my stuffed husky, named "Wolfy", from when I was a little boy. I don't sleep with it around anymore, but I still don't want to give it away.

Find it silly if you want to. If you giggle in front of me, and you're not a chick, I may have to hit you.

But do you pray to it and expect it to become animate in the afterlife?

 

[Lonewulf]

That's one of the things that bug me about faith-- the faithful (or maybe just the annoying)-- spout their opinions so freely--like you should be eager to hear them-- and then when you assert your opinions in return they have a tizzy fit! They sure don't give you the respect they seem to think their opinions deserve.

If this isn't an emotional response, I don't know what is. "Those people" are allowed to express their opinions and I don't like it {stamps feet}.

For someone that loathes strawmen, you're awfully quick at erecting your own.

I'll explain this slowly so you can understand:

This is Skeptigirl's claim. That the religious spout their opinions like you should be "eager to hear them" (I get this a lot, even from folks like Loss Leader*, who talk about how their great faith justifies such things as circumcision). And then, if she asserts an opinion that runs contrary to the religious claim, people get in a "tizzy fit".

You twisted that to mean, and I quote,

"Those people" are allowed to express their opinions and I don't like it!

You essentially strawmanned her response into being a "They shouldn't be able to express opinions!" statement. Which is pretty as dishonest as you can get; it's to the point of outright lying, boyo.

Which leaves me to ask:

Why are you worth talking to again? I don't make a habit of conversing with liars.



*Edited for mistakes; "Cleon" is not "Loss Leader". My bad.

 

[Lonewulf]

But do you pray to it and expect it to become animate in the afterlife?

When I was a kid, I felt that if I just thought and wished hard enough, "Wolfy" would come alive and become a real husky/wolf.

It never worked.

 

[Lonewulf]

Such hubris.

Why thank you! I learn from the best.

You've lived in Germany long enough - though not as long as I did - to know what Schadenfreude is. It's ironic that you think you're so clever with your insipid "I don't hate Zues" responses while not realizing I've been hearing the same stupid replies from believers since you were crapping in your diapers and don't get the rhetorical meaning behind "God-Hater."

And I would contend that "God-Hater" is just as dumb a rhetorical device to me as apparently FSM is to you.

But you can't quite comprehend that, can you?

Apparently, YOU can judge ME based on my dislike of the "God-Hater" rhetoric, but I can't judge YOU based on dislike of the FSM/IPU rhetoric.

And you dare accuse me of Hubris.

Why are you worth conversing with again?

I'm used to that sort of arrogant ignorance from fundies who quote Hovind or reply with Bible verses but not from supposedly "logical" rational atheists.

OOOOH, BURN! YOU GOTS ME NOW!

...says the supposedly logical, intelligent rational atheist before he erects a straw man...

So now you're apparently thinking that I'm not actually logical, intelligent, or rational, right?

So would that make me dumb, illogical, and irrational?

No stupid. It gives the argument greater weight as a rhetorical device. But since you're clearly not intelligent enough to understand the use of rhetorical devices like "God-Hater", I wouldn't expect you to grasp the sophistication of the argument.

OOOH, BURN! YOU GOTS ME NOW!

Since I'm not part of the Amen chorus you wish to be part of, I don't expect you to comprehend where I'm coming from much less what I'm saying. I'll leave it at that and you to your befuddlement.

Interesting since you always confuse long, hystrionic diatribes with "logic" and "rationality."

And I have yet to see a "logical" or "rational" argument that has ever supported religion.

EDIT: I just want to make a note: I mixed up "Cleon" with "Loss Leader" for some reason. The latter was the one that had his son circumcised. I apologize for this error.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm painfully aware that I've been suckered into a never-ending point-by-point semantic argumentathon with the indomitable CFLarsen, and quite frankly, I've lost the will to live. I've said everything that's worth saying, and more besides. Despite what he says, I am not telling anybody what to think. I'm simply disagreeing with his hypothetical take on the issue.

If belief in god really does amount to what he's laid out (i.e. imagination), I don't see it as a belief worth holding, whether it's genuinely held or not. There's nothing wrong with it per se - it's not doing anybody (including the believer) any harm, and it doesn't invalidate their scepticism as they apply it to the external world in any way. It's simply an interesting and difficult to understand (for an atheist) contradiction that somebody who otherwise strives to hold positions only where there is evidence, would persist in holding this one.

You might try ignoring the sidetracks and just pull out the essence of your most important point(s). If you focus real hard you can stay on track even if Claus doesn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
So, folks (other than Claus) , am I the one with a problem as Claus asserts? Do I portray those who disagree with me as mentally ill? Do you think there is a good reason or point for Claus derailing this thread to chastise me? Or is Claus in his own reality on this one-- because I sure can't follow him.
....

I would describe you as uninhibited when it comes to insulting people. But since I'm never on the receiving end, it doesn't affect me.

Now me, I tend to be socially challenged. I piss people off without really trying. I do get into those contests but I am aware it isn't any big deal to be in the wrong. As the sig says, to be wrong is to learn something new. When I'm right, however, politeness is not mandatory, but it does tend to make one look better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you mention something important here. Beside the misunderstanding about that what we are discussing is in any way personal, out to exclude a certain group of skeptics, or an attempt to dictate how people should live their lives - the misunderstanding you mention above seems to have been the most common in this thread. And it's a bit weird to me that it has been explained so many times now, in a number of different ways, in different wording and with different clarifying (hopefully) analogies, by you, by Big Les, by me (I admit I haven't done it as well as you guys), by articulett... and still, we're not getting through.

Myself, I've given up, I think, at least for now. I feel a bit hindered by my English, I can't find further words now to explain things another round. Besides, I got some unexpected work with a short deadline (freelancing, ain't it typical) and I can't concentrate on this thread until those are done. But it will be exciting to look in here in a few days again, to see if something has happened.

Try a little different way of looking at the problem.

Sometimes it isn't a knowledge deficit. When you provide the knowledge (and you're sure that it was clear) and the person either doesn't appear to recognize what you are saying (in this case), or isn't convinced or doesn't change their behavior (for example if you are teaching a class or promoting a work safety campaign), then instead of continuing to repeat the knowledge, reassess what the communication barrier is.

In this case the communication barrier is because some people in the discussion are concerned about fairness, rights to control the rule book, excluding and insulting people. Some, but not all of them have the added complication of being in denial that their god beliefs are woo. And those not wishing to be judgmental are in the habit of defending that denial, or they are of the position it isn't skeptical to be certain of something like god beliefs are woo. And while that latter position is valid, it ignores the problem certain god beliefs are in reality treated as true unless proven false while all other woo beliefs are false unless proven true.

Another group is concerned about the principles of skepticism. It's easier to see the special treatment afforded certain god beliefs if you aren't in the group affording those beliefs special treatment. And that special treatment includes skeptic atheists who are defending the special treatment claiming it is based on the principle of science not testing for designers and gods. I have always felt this was a cop out. It has taken discussions such as these for me to put my finger on exactly why I find it a cop out. And this thread has given me yet one more bit of clarity. That was in describing the two definitions of gods.

And then there is always a couple people, (who I won't name), that don't understand the principles of skepticism in the first place. Just what is and isn't evidence escapes them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry but my irony meter blew up when I read this because Arti's screechy diatribes are all about feelings, "respect" and a bunch of other blather that just makes my mind numb due to it's lack of logic. What elephant in the room are you talking about? That religious skeptics aren't atheists and therefore need to be confronted and told they are woos at every turn? That isn't an elephant in the room, that's a political decision by militant atheists who want to nudge not only religious skeptics but non-militant skeptics out of the room.

I mean look at comments like this:


If this isn't an emotional response, I don't know what is. "Those people" are allowed to express their opinions and I don't like it {stamps feet}.

I can meet you half way - which I have done from the beginning back on '01 - that claims need to to be confronted, but giving persons, individuals, people we share jokes with in the humor forum, life moments in the community forum and woo smack downs in the other subforums with a break on their general beliefs will do a lot more to spread the Skeptic gospel than telling anyone who expresses any religious belief they are a woo.

It's not mollycoddling to be decent to your fellow human being and I'm disgusted to think my fellow atheists, who claim to be such humanists, would attack people who they agree in 29 of 30 points with so viciously and relentlessly just because they don't adhere to atheist orthodoxy in a forum of an organization that is not atheist.

I can't speak for Articulett. It really hasn't been my argument here to claim skeptic/believers need to be confronted. And when I'm verbally attacked by proselytizers it has no impact so I don't have any suppressed anger issues in that respect. I hope we don't end up in WWIII over the new Crusaders' agendas and I'll fight against the religious right trying to take over the US government, but that's a different battle.

My problem is the special treatment issue. And the elephant in the room is walking on eggshells around the skeptic/believers as if confronting that woo is unacceptable. Could you speak about the evidence for astrology, for example, without evoking the wrath of skeptics? If I present the evidence for why all god beliefs are woo, is the consideration for my evidence really the same as consideration for other woo evidence? And maybe most importantly, have the JREF skeptics and others who frequently repeat the, "science doesn't test for gods", mantra really thought about the fact they are describing something in essence very different from the gods in actual god beliefs? It's been given the same name, but it isn't the same thing.

What bothers me is skeptics being unaware they are treating certain god beliefs differently. The two definitions is one aspect. The other is that approach of evidence for or evidence against. Skeptics fall into the trap of thinking we need to show gods don't exist, I think simply because so many people believe in gods it is hard to be confident enough in the skeptic and scientific process to go against that flow. We don't feel the need to consider invisible pink unicorns and make statements that science doesn't test for invisible unicorns. Someone may mouth the words, but it isn't treated the same in reality.

People believe in astrology. We examine the evidence and come to the conclusion it was made up at a time when people thought they were seeing associations between certain events. Later when better methods of observation were developed, one could see those associations really weren't there. We know that with the gods of Greek mythology. We don't even call that a religion anymore, we call them myths. Yet there we are claiming science cannot say the very same thing after looking at all the mythology in the Bible. After looking at all the evidence showing the Bible came about the very same way as Greek mythology came about, we still ignore that elephant in the room.

 

[articulett]

For someone that loathes strawmen, you're awfully quick at erecting your own.

I'll explain this slowly so you can understand:

This is Skeptigirl's claim. That the religious spout their opinions like you should be "eager to hear them" (I get this a lot, even from folks like Loss Leader*, who talk about how their great faith justifies such things as circumcision). And then, if she asserts an opinion that runs contrary to the religious claim, people get in a "tizzy fit".

You twisted that to mean, and I quote,



You essentially strawmanned her response into being a "They shouldn't be able to express opinions!" statement. Which is pretty as dishonest as you can get; it's to the point of outright lying, boyo.

Which leaves me to ask:

Why are you worth talking to again? I don't make a habit of conversing with liars.



*Edited for mistakes; "Cleon" is not "Loss Leader". My bad.

To clear up another mistake I'm the one who made this comment--not skeptic girl:

That's one of the things that bug me about faith-- the faithful (or maybe just the annoying)-- spout their opinions so freely--like you should be eager to hear them-- and then when you assert your opinions in return they have a tizzy fit! They sure don't give you the respect they seem to think their opinions deserve.

I want to clear that up because I am the "uninhibited one", and I want the credit for pissiong off Unrepentant Sinner who responded:

If this isn't an emotional response, I don't know what is. "Those people" are allowed to express their opinions and I don't like it {stamps feet}.

I'm proud to be in the company of those that piss Unrepentant Sinner and Claus off. They are blowhards ever asserting their seniority like it means something and being nasty to the posters I like a lot... while pretending they are the moderators or JREF vigilantes.

I have him on ignore so I nearly missed the pleasure of his snit.

Perhaps I'm misperceiving things, but they seem to leave a wake of people with the negative feelings they imagine others (me, you, lonewolf, skepticgirl, etc.) are generating. I see them as the instigators of the communication problems they imagine are coming from outside sources. Who is it they think they are sticking up for and what message do they think they are communicating other than they think they are experts on JREF policy, communication, definitions, and skepticism by virtue of the fact that they have "seniority" as forum members. So does T'ai. Big deal.