|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 21:33:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
Is it?
Isn't "rudeness" a matter of opinion?
What made you decide to single out any one person in a thread filled with people casting insults back and forth? Your opinion that I was more rude than the others? I probably threw out more profanity, but imo marfknox was by far the most rude (and the instigator of insults) in that thread. Her passive agressive taunts and sarcasm, imo, are far more rude than a bucketfull of "fuck you's". And there were several people engaging in the same behavior.
Whatver your reason it is an undeniable fact that the only person who recieved a warning was on the opposite side of the debate from you.
IMO you did not fairly moderate that thread.
Do this in PMs. These are clearly personal grievances you have. I PM you, and you blow me off and dismiss me, only to bring this crap up again here. This is obviously off topic and doesn't concern everyone else on this forum. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2007 : 22:02:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
IMO you did not fairly moderate that thread.
Noted. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 00:34:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Hey Half, thanks for the sweet factual relativism link!
Yer welcome, Marf! Neat little article, ain't it?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 00:40:13 [Permalink]
|
I think that the best sort of tone is set by Filthy, who is both tolerant and firm with his opinions, especially when compared to the likes of you lot, or to the likes of me.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 02:08:46 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
This is obviously off topic and doesn't concern everyone else on this forum.
If the unbiased application of logic and critical thinking is somehow "off topic", then why do we consider this place a skeptics forum?
We should apply the same standards to the politics folder as we do to this folder (religion).
Many internet fora either completely forbid talk of politics, or are so completely one sided that you will be banned if you are opposed to the political agenda of the site.
No claims of fact should be accepted without supporting evidence. No one gets to cloak unsupported claims of fact as opinions. No free passes on faulty logic.
In the previously mentioned thread no one started out insulting anyone else. A claim was stated, and it was met with a demand for evidence. Only when the claim was defended with a string of logical fallacy did it start to become heated. Then several people, who agreed with beskeptigal, decided it was ok for her to state a claim of fact and insist that it was an opinion, essentially granting her a free pass. Because you happen to agree with her claim. Not a single person who posted in that thread defending beskeptigal disagreed with her unsupportable claim.
Political matters are the most difficult things to think clearly about and to shed personal bias from. In a skeptics forum that allows politics to be discussed, we all need to exercise our critical thinking skills to the best of our ability.
And seriously.... when you ask some one for evidence and their response is "prove me wrong!", you should be hearing logical fallacy alarm bells going off all over the place! What shouldn't be occurring, especially in an alleged skeptics forum, is people defending faulty conclusions with a side order of shifting the burden of proof.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 03:02:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
beskeptigal said:
quote:
The issue here isn't in disagreeing with people or even stating you find a statement of fact to be in error, the issue is making the statement in such a hostile way.
There are only so many ways to tell people that they are wrong, and none of them are "polite".
Isn't it better to be straightforward and honest about it, rather than use some timid approach?
None of them are polite? Are you serious?
I tell people they are wrong everyday. If I wasn't polite about it I wouldn't have had my successful business for 16 years.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 03:54:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Cune wrote: quote:
But unlike Christianity, there is no mission or call to spread the 'Good News' of atheism
Um, yes there is. I can't read a Humanist/skeptic publications or go to local or national events of such organizations without stumbling on references to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and their united mission to make all kinds of religious faith taboo. Not only that, but this mission, these “New Atheists” (Wired Magazine dubbed them) are being mentioned in many mainstream publications (NPR, New York Times).
Sure, you could argue that most atheists are not united under this mission, but likewise, no majority of believers are united under any one religious mission.
Bah. I've never read one thing by Sam Harris, and besides The Blind Watchmaker, by Dawkins either. And even if I've heard through NPR and the like about their efforts, I am in no way compelled to do what Dawkins or any other atheist tells me to do in the name of atheism. It's not a religion. That's the point.
In contrast, Jesus Christ-- a god on earth whom people worship and die for-- told his followers to spread the word of his gospel. Other important leaders-- people given special status in the religion, e.g. Saint Paul-- similarly do so.
The difference is huge. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 04:01:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
There is no single Christian gospel either.
What? Let me know when you find a Christian who doesn't find Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to be Gospel, OK?
quote:
And while there may be several manifestos of nonbelievers (such as the three Humanist Manifestos and the most recent Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris), Harris's Atheist Manifesto has been getting some success in uniting nonbelievers in a crusade against faith: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
I don't find this compelling at all. I don't worship Sam Harris and couldn't care less what he says. My atheism doesn't depend on the words of Harris (versus Christians, who follow the word of Jesus as noted in the aforementioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Moreover, I certainly don't care about some manifesto floating around on the internet. It's irrelevant.
Again, the difference here is huge. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 05:24:44 [Permalink]
|
Cune wrote: quote:
In contrast, Jesus Christ-- a god on earth whom people worship and die for-- told his followers to spread the word of his gospel.
What does that even mean when huge groups of Christians supposedly do that by being hate mongers, others do it by doing really wonderful charitable and humanitarian work their whole lives, and the majority don't do jack shit to spread the word? I'm talking about real people, real life.
quote:
What? Let me know when you find a Christian who doesn't find Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to be Gospel, OK?
Yeah, the early dominant Christian group destroyed all the other Gospels. Although the Gospel of Thomas remains. However, there are also different versions of Mattew, Mark, Luke and John – they have been subtly altered over the years through both translations and blatent additions made by at least the Catholic Church. But probably most important are the radically diverse interpretations of the Gospels (and all Christian scripture). That is what I meant.
quote:
I don't find this compelling at all. I don't worship Sam Harris and couldn't care less what he says. My atheism doesn't depend on the words of Harris (versus Christians, who follow the word of Jesus as noted in the aforementioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Moreover, I certainly don't care about some manifesto floating around on the internet. It's irrelevant.
You are really missing my point. All this crap is said about Christians, but most of it is bullshit when we are talking about the majority of Christians. The majority of Christians haven't even read the Bible, so to say that they as individual “follow” the word of Jesus is not really accurate. They might say they are following the teachings of Christ, but in reality they are following some culturally or personally defined interpretation of some parts of what is in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. I think too much emphasis is put on the role of scripture in real Christians' everyday lives by both fundamentalists and harshly critical skeptics. The actions of most Christians reveals that scripture is almost as irrelevant to their lives as Sam Harris to atheists.
And incidentally, I wouldn't have responded to that portion of what you said if you hadn't used the word “manifesto”. But you did, so you opened that door.
quote:
It's not a religion. That's the point.
As a Humanist, I've signed the third incarnation of the Humanist Manifesto and I carry a summarized copy of it in my purse. (I do so not because I follow Humanism blindly, but because I found organized Humanism after I had already on my own come to that perspective) I go to regular meetings of my local group and am certified clergy. It is my religion. Some religions are atheistic (another example is various types of Buddhism). But even if you don't call it a “religion” and aren't part of a community and such, atheism is a category of worldviews. That is why many surveys which ask about “religion” offer “atheism” as an option. It's just religion in the broad, socio-political sense.
I countered your statement because whether you are part of it or not, atheists all over the world, and especially in the United States, are organizing, |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 05:30:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
If the unbiased application of logic and critical thinking is somehow "off topic", then why do we consider this place a skeptics forum?
We should apply the same standards to the politics folder as we do to this folder (religion).
Many internet fora either completely forbid talk of politics, or are so completely one sided that you will be banned if you are opposed to the political agenda of the site.
No claims of fact should be accepted without supporting evidence. No one gets to cloak unsupported claims of fact as opinions. No free passes on faulty logic.
In the previously mentioned thread no one started out insulting anyone else. A claim was stated, and it was met with a demand for evidence. Only when the claim was defended with a string of logical fallacy did it start to become heated. Then several people, who agreed with beskeptigal, decided it was ok for her to state a claim of fact and insist that it was an opinion, essentially granting her a free pass. Because you happen to agree with her claim. Not a single person who posted in that thread defending beskeptigal disagreed with her unsupportable claim.
Political matters are the most difficult things to think clearly about and to shed personal bias from. In a skeptics forum that allows politics to be discussed, we all need to exercise our critical thinking skills to the best of our ability.
And seriously.... when you ask some one for evidence and their response is "prove me wrong!", you should be hearing logical fallacy alarm bells going off all over the place! What shouldn't be occurring, especially in an alleged skeptics forum, is people defending faulty conclusions with a side order of shifting the burden of proof.
We think you are wrong. You think we are wrong. We've all explained our reasoning to support our stances. It's clear by now that we're not going to change each others minds. The next logical step is agreeing to disagree. Instead, you are dragging this disagreement into another thread and constantly attacking the honesty and integrity of those who disagree with you. This isn't about skepticism. This is about you having a personal problem. That's why it is off topic and that's why you either need to move this to PMs or better yet just let it go. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/22/2007 05:31:26 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 07:21:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What does that even mean when huge groups of Christians supposedly do that by being hate mongers, others do it by doing really wonderful charitable and humanitarian work their whole lives, and the majority don't do jack shit to spread the word? I'm talking about real people, real life.
Fine, fine, fine. My point is that part of Christian doctrine is to spread the word of Jesus. Some peopel do it, others don't. But it is impossible to dispute. There is no atheist doctrine, let alone one that compells atheists to spread 'the word' of atheism.
quote:
quote:
What? Let me know when you find a Christian who doesn't find Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John to be Gospel, OK?
Yeah, the early dominant Christian group destroyed all the other Gospels. Although the Gospel of Thomas remains. However, there are also different versions of Mattew, Mark, Luke and John – they have been subtly altered over the years through both translations and blatent additions made by at least the Catholic Church. But probably most important are the radically diverse interpretations of the Gospels (and all Christian scripture). That is what I meant.
Great. But does it change anything fundamental about the point at hand?
quote:
quote:
I don't find this compelling at all. I don't worship Sam Harris and couldn't care less what he says. My atheism doesn't depend on the words of Harris (versus Christians, who follow the word of Jesus as noted in the aforementioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Moreover, I certainly don't care about some manifesto floating around on the internet. It's irrelevant.
You are really missing my point. All this crap is said about Christians, but most of it is bullshit when we are talking about the majority of Christians. The majority of Christians haven't even read the Bible, so to say that they as individual “follow” the word of Jesus is not really accurate. They might say they are following the teachings of Christ, but in reality they are following some culturally or personally defined interpretation of some parts of what is in the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. I think too much emphasis is put on the role of scripture in real Christians' everyday lives by both fundamentalists and harshly critical skeptics. The actions of most Christians reveals that scripture is almost as irrelevant to their lives as Sam Harris to atheists.
Ugh. First off, I'd disagree about your assessment of Christians and the Bible. Few have read it through cover to cover, but most-- usually as kids in Sunday School-- have read parts, and during church services, they've been exposed to important passages. Hell, even at most weddings scripture is read. (At atheist weddings, do they read parts of Sam Harris' writings?)
In any case, the point is that there is a doctrine of the Christian religion that calls for its followers to spread the word. This manifests itself in various forms-- missions, televangalism, tent revivals, and even to a lesser extent, [url="http://www.habit |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/22/2007 07:22:04 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 12:07:49 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
None of them are polite? Are you serious?
I tell people they are wrong everyday. If I wasn't polite about it I wouldn't have had my successful business for 16 years.
Telling a person they are wrong is a confrontational act.
In your business people probably come to you (just guessing here, as I'm not sure what your business actually is). They may already suspect that they are wrong, and seek you out because of it. I'm sure you are as tactfull as possible also.
But there is probably a world of difference between your business and the kinds of discussions that occur on this forum. When you tell people who are convinced that they are right, that they are in fact wrong, there is no polite way to do it.
marfknox said:
quote:
We think you are wrong. You think we are wrong. We've all explained our reasoning to support our stances. It's clear by now that we're not going to change each others minds. The next logical step is agreeing to disagree. Instead, you are dragging this disagreement into another thread and constantly attacking the honesty and integrity of those who disagree with you. This isn't about skepticism. This is about you having a personal problem. That's why it is off topic and that's why you either need to move this to PMs or better yet just let it go.
It most certainly is about skepticism.
Its about people who claim to be skeptics handing out free passes on logical fallacies.
It is not logical to agree to disagree, because you are not entitled to your own set of facts, nor are you entitled to your own rules of logic.
This does not need to be moved to PMs, it needs to be hashed out openly.
As for your assertion that I am "attacking" the honesty and integrity of those who disagree with me.... whatever. You, in particular, do not posess either of those qualities, so it would be impossible for me to attack them.
What I am "attacking" is the capacity of self described skeptics to ignore multiple logical fallacies and accept (or make) a statement of fact as an opinion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 13:00:58 [Permalink]
|
This being only my second post, perhaps coming into this thread is not the smartest thing to do . . . then again, I've never been accused of sensible behavior (probably someone will post something about me equating intelligence with sensibility . . . oops . . . also intelligence with being smart).
It is my opinion that Indeterminancy posted something that is a contradiction. He stated he was a skeptic with faith (note: I'm equating faith to belief without proof - man, am I going to have to define everything I write?). Added some fancy sounding stuff about his faith not growing unless he questions it, and a few other vague and indefensible statements.
He should have been jumped on. He was. He failed to enter a proper debate other than to repeat his mantra. Having thus proven his "point", he departs with his erroneous belief intact . . . by that I mean the belief that he is a skeptic.
I think it was an inconsequential little event, but it served to reignite what appear to be ongoing contentions. Man, I can't wait to be dragged into these arguments.
And I'll start with a continuation of something that was briefly discussed in the Wednesday chat. I argued (calmly stated) that religion should be viewed as a sum total of its impact in the world, and that when viewed in such a manner I conclude it falls on the side of being a negative thing. Counter-arguments brought up all the good things religion has accomplished. Point taken. If we could somehow get rid of all those that do bad things in the name of religion, then we'd be left with a positive thing that helps to make the world a better place. But, since that is not likely to happen, I have to stick to my conclusion.
This little discussion was sparked by the mention of Sam Harris. Reading elsewhere on these boards, there are those who think his, and Dawkins ', call for the human race to put aside religion is a bit much. I applaud them for voicing that sentiment, especially in this day and age.
I say that knowing, as they do, that will never happen. Be nice if it would, but it will never happen. The best we can hope for is for religious influence in political and some social issues to be severely curtailed. We are not going to accomplish this by taking a middle of the road approach. Saying "Religion is responsible for countless deaths, but it does provide aid to the poor, and does give hope to some, and etc. etc" is tantamount to saying the bad and good balance out, and that we'll accept one with the other. In my opinion, they don't, and we shouldn't. Also in my opinion, the two are inseparable.
I've argued elsewhere (Skepticality) the reason established religions get a pass is because of longevity. If some new group came on the scene tomorrow holding up a book that, under the pain of death, called for absolute acceptance of the doctrine within, most rational people would take pause, and (hopefully) be highly critical of it. If that same group where to protest by saying "Hey, but we'll do charitable works!" it would hold little sway because, and rightly so, the rational person would focus on the death part. Somehow, those same rational persons compartmentalize aspects of established religion - something I cannot do - and in doing so accept, validate, and often legitimize the whole.
My view is that anyone defending religion by virtue of the good, must come to grip with the darker side of it. The two are not separable, and concentrating only on the good is a disservice to the discourse, and an affront to all that have died, and are dying, as a demonstrably direct result of religious belief and doctrines.
OK. Got a few more arguments in me, but I'll save them as replies to the inevitable assault. I promise, I will not leave the forum after what I expect to be well thought out, insightful, and articulate replies. I also won't leave if someone calls me an idiot . . . I've never run from the truth.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
| Edited by - ejdalise on 03/22/2007 13:03:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 16:30:27 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
This does not need to be moved to PMs, it needs to be hashed out openly.
It's already been hashed out openly. Anything more would be redundancy - not fair to others. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 16:45:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's already been hashed out openly. Anything more would be redundancy - not fair to others.
What isn't fair is your shifting standards of evidence, logic, and critical thinking... depending on who is speaking and what is being said.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to chew on....
