You've shown the exact same disrespect to what I am saying, but I didn't throw as much rude language at you. You seem to justify it with the belief that there is asymmetry between us because of levels of intelligence or expertise or something like that.
No, I've shown far more disrespect. What you've shown is an abject refusal to acknowledge your error, or accept any evidence which counters your own claims.
There's a key difference between us: I'm right and can prove it, while you're wrong and I can prove that, too. In that regards, disrespect is a far less serious offense, and one which has absolutely no bearing on the relative validity of our convictions.
For the record, there
is a serious asymmetry between us in terms of both knowledge and displayed intelligence.
QUOTE
That said, I believe the only point of argument between us, really, is that you are focussing on a perfect ideal of skepticism, which I would support and strive for personally, whereas I am looking at a less than ideal reality in which people are often applying skepticism selectively, and/or substitute it with a less-than-skeptical "realism" approach to evaluating relative plausibility.
Let's go back to my Christianity analogy then.
You're saying that perfect Christianity doesn't lead people to worship Satan, but a less than ideal reality in which people are often applying Christian tenets selectively and/or substituting them with a less-than-Christian 'religious' approach to morality and cosmology somehow does.
it's
nonsensical, just like your claim. In fact, the very word "realistic/realism" gives it away. If I told you a story about a man who was addicted to heroine, then found Jesus and suddenly his cravings went away without him suffering any withdrawals, that would be far more 'realistic' in your world view than if I told you I'd found the hammer of Thor and learned to use it to cause thunderclaps. Yet both possibilities are equally remote.
The judgement of what constitutes a 'realistic' claim itself is a subjective one. You think that Jesus being the son of God is a realistic claim. An Asatruman thinks that imminence of Ragnarök is a realistic claim. A Wiccan thinks that the existence of Gaea is a realistic claim. A fundamental Muslim thinks the inherent evil nature of Israelis is a realistic claim.
When you begin to deal with an atheist who purposefully adopts an outlook of critical thinking and skepticism, the dismissal of some claim as 'unrealistic' or the acceptance of another claim as 'realistic' takes on a new light, however. What such a person deems to be realistic is based on their own knowledge of the universe, which entails only those claims which can be verified to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Therefore, if any skeptic dismisses some claim as 'unrealistic', he or she is practicing the very principles which you claim to strive to. They deem it 'unrealistic' because all or most available evidence indicates it's unlikelihood.
The problem with your idiotic claim, you pigfucking son of an AIDS-ridden joyboy, is that you keep implying and claiming that 1. Skeptics are rejecting and accepting possibilities without consideration of the evidence, which is ridiculous beyond belief, and 2. That they are rejecting or accepting these possibilities outright, without considering the likelihood of their own judgement being wrong.
Get this through your head dipshit: What you are describing is not skepticism, but it's antithesis. Skepticism has absolutely no possibility of leading a person to engage in what you are describing, no more than Christianity has any possibility of leading a person to atheism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That said, I believe the only point of argument between us, really, is that you are focussing on a perfect ideal of skepticism, which I would support and strive for personally, whereas I am looking at a less than ideal reality in which people are often applying skepticism selectively, and/or substitute it with a less-than-skeptical "realism" approach to evaluating relative plausibility. |
Let's go back to my Christianity analogy then.
You're saying that perfect Christianity doesn't lead people to worship Satan, but a less than ideal reality in which people are often applying Christian tenets selectively and/or substituting them with a less-than-Christian 'religious' approach to morality and cosmology somehow does.
it's
nonsensical, just like your claim. In fact, the very word "realistic/realism" gives it away. If I told you a story about a man who was addicted to heroine, then found Jesus and suddenly his cravings went away without him suffering any withdrawals, that would be far more 'realistic' in your world view than if I told you I'd found the hammer of Thor and learned to use it to cause thunderclaps. Yet both possibilities are equally remote.
The judgement of what constitutes a 'realistic' claim itself is a subjective one. You think that Jesus being the son of God is a realistic claim. An Asatruman thinks that imminence of Ragnarök is a realistic claim. A Wiccan thinks that the existence of Gaea is a realistic claim. A fundamental Muslim thinks the inherent evil nature of Israelis is a realistic claim.
When you begin to deal with an atheist who purposefully adopts an outlook of critical thinking and skepticism, the dismissal of some claim as 'unrealistic' or the acceptance of another claim as 'realistic' takes on a new light, however. What such a person deems to be realistic is based on their own knowledge of the universe, which entails only those claims which can be verified to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Therefore, if any skeptic dismisses some claim as 'unrealistic', he or she is practicing the very principles which you claim to strive to. They deem it 'unrealistic' because all or most available evidence indicates it's unlikelihood.
The problem with your idiotic claim, you pigfucking son of an AIDS-ridden joyboy, is that you keep implying and claiming that 1. Skeptics are rejecting and accepting possibilities without consideration of the evidence, which is ridiculous beyond belief, and 2. That they are rejecting or accepting these possibilities outright, without considering the likelihood of their own judgement being wrong.
Get this through your head dipshit: What you are describing is not skepticism, but it's antithesis. Skepticism has absolutely no possibility of leading a person to engage in what you are describing, no more than Christianity has any possibility of leading a person to atheism.
So why can't you acknowledge that the undisciplined skepticism and reliance on realism in pragmatic everyday thought are more than a few isolated instances?
Why can't you acknowledge that undisciplined Christianity and reliance on religion in everyday thought leads people to Atheism in more than a few instances?
You're beyond stupid, you know that? You've had this explained to you several times over, yet you remain oblivious to the very contradictory nature of your claim.
Sure there are people in existence who reject anything supernatural or metaphysical as crap without giving it two thoughts. These people aren't skeptics or practitioners of critical thought any more than devil worshipers or atheists are Christians or practitioners of Christian beliefs. They're victims of the same dogmatic thinking that Christianity encourages among it's followers, the only difference is that they consider anything said by scientists or debunkers of the supernatural to be their scripture, instead of deriving it from a book.
light in the tunnel
27th October 2009 - 12:33 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 26 2009, 04:33 PM)
Your arguments are interesting to me, which is the only thing that keeps me bothering to wade through the cesspool of rude and insulting language you spew out. Do you talk like that around your relatives? Women?
QUOTE
No, I've shown far more disrespect. What you've shown is an abject refusal to acknowledge your error, or accept any evidence which counters your own claims.
I have tried several times to revise what I said to deal with your critiques. I tried paraphrasing your points about skepticism and affirming that I agreed with you that the ideal of skepticism was as you said. Still you go on obstinately insisting that I am obstinate. Then you insist that you are wiser and above showing common decency and respect. Still, I will give you that the respect issue is purely interpersonal and has no bearing on the validity of our arguments, as you said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I've shown far more disrespect. What you've shown is an abject refusal to acknowledge your error, or accept any evidence which counters your own claims. |
I have tried several times to revise what I said to deal with your critiques. I tried paraphrasing your points about skepticism and affirming that I agreed with you that the ideal of skepticism was as you said. Still you go on obstinately insisting that I am obstinate. Then you insist that you are wiser and above showing common decency and respect. Still, I will give you that the respect issue is purely interpersonal and has no bearing on the validity of our arguments, as you said.
Let's go back to my Christianity analogy then.
You're saying that perfect Christianity doesn't lead people to worship Satan, but a less than ideal reality in which people are often applying Christian tenets selectively and/or substituting them with a less-than-Christian 'religious' approach to morality and cosmology somehow does
This is from another thread, but fine. It is my opinion/observation that many "Christians" accept the salvation of Christ but avoid striving in the direction of learning the teachings that interfere with their secular lifestyles and interests. Is this Satan-worship? In a way it is because Satan rules the worldly kingdoms, as my booklet given to me by Jehovah's witnesses tells me. Does this mean that they aren't forgiven and that they won't see the error in their ways eventually through the light of Christ? No.
QUOTE
If I told you a story about a man who was addicted to heroine, then found Jesus and suddenly his cravings went away without him suffering any withdrawals, that would be far more 'realistic' in your world view than if I told you I'd found the hammer of Thor and learned to use it to cause thunderclaps. Yet both possibilities are equally remote.
My realism tells me the same thing yours does about the plausibility of these two stories. The difference is that I am aware of the subjective structuring of realism and the way it influences my subjective experience of plausibility. So I try to control for this effect and think about what I would have to do to empirically verify the claims. I would have to know this person addicted to heroin and study what happened to his drug behavior when he found Jesus. Until then I can't empirically test the claim one way or the other. As for the hammer of Thor causing thunder, I can quickly rely on my realism to avoid ending up on a wild goose chase searching for such a physical hammer. But I could study the mythology and arrive at an understanding of the meaning of Thor, the hammer, and why it causes thunder (if that's what it does - I'm not familiar with this mythology). The issue with realism is that if I stopped at my assumption that no such hammer physically exists, and that if it did it couldn't cause thunder, then I would never get to the positive, skeptical study of the mythology itself in order to gain deep understanding of it in its own context.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I told you a story about a man who was addicted to heroine, then found Jesus and suddenly his cravings went away without him suffering any withdrawals, that would be far more 'realistic' in your world view than if I told you I'd found the hammer of Thor and learned to use it to cause thunderclaps. Yet both possibilities are equally remote. |
My realism tells me the same thing yours does about the plausibility of these two stories. The difference is that I am aware of the subjective structuring of realism and the way it influences my subjective experience of plausibility. So I try to control for this effect and think about what I would have to do to empirically verify the claims. I would have to know this person addicted to heroin and study what happened to his drug behavior when he found Jesus. Until then I can't empirically test the claim one way or the other. As for the hammer of Thor causing thunder, I can quickly rely on my realism to avoid ending up on a wild goose chase searching for such a physical hammer. But I could study the mythology and arrive at an understanding of the meaning of Thor, the hammer, and why it causes thunder (if that's what it does - I'm not familiar with this mythology). The issue with realism is that if I stopped at my assumption that no such hammer physically exists, and that if it did it couldn't cause thunder, then I would never get to the positive, skeptical study of the mythology itself in order to gain deep understanding of it in its own context.
The judgement of what constitutes a 'realistic' claim itself is a subjective one. You think that Jesus being the son of God is a realistic claim. An Asatruman thinks that imminence of Ragnarök is a realistic claim. A Wiccan thinks that the existence of Gaea is a realistic claim. A fundamental Muslim thinks the inherent evil nature of Israelis is a realistic claim.
Thank you. That is my point; that realism is subjective. It is a subjective logic the emerges from scientific knowledge, but deviates from it by translating into plausibility as an aesthetic quality of a narrative. It is as varied as individual subjectivity is unique.
QUOTE
What such a person deems to be realistic is based on their own knowledge of the universe, which entails only those claims which can be verified to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The only detail I think you're leaving out here is a crucial one: the fact that what proportion of a person's knowledge is derived from textual sources, discourse, hearsay, media, or whatever you want to call it? Do people verify by empirical testing and critical reasoning every aspect of everything they learn from discourse? Hardly. People are trained to absorb knowledge and take tests to show that they have learned it. This style of learning promotes uncritical reproduction of received knowledge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What such a person deems to be realistic is based on their own knowledge of the universe, which entails only those claims which can be verified to a reasonable degree of accuracy. |
The only detail I think you're leaving out here is a crucial one: the fact that what proportion of a person's knowledge is derived from textual sources, discourse, hearsay, media, or whatever you want to call it? Do people verify by empirical testing and critical reasoning every aspect of everything they learn from discourse? Hardly. People are trained to absorb knowledge and take tests to show that they have learned it. This style of learning promotes uncritical reproduction of received knowledge.
Therefore, if any skeptic dismisses some claim as 'unrealistic', he or she is practicing the very principles which you claim to strive to. They deem it 'unrealistic' because all or most available evidence indicates it's unlikelihood.
You said yourself that skepticism is not rejection but tentative acceptance for the possibility of critical scrutiny. If you dismiss something as 'unrealistic,' then you have selectively chosen to save your skepticism for something you deem worth the trouble, not true?
QUOTE
you keep implying and claiming that 1. Skeptics are rejecting and accepting possibilities without consideration of the evidence, which is ridiculous beyond belief, and 2. That they are rejecting or accepting these possibilities outright, without considering the likelihood of their own judgement being wrong.
#1 as you said, people practicing true skepticism won't accept or reject superficially in this way, but will remain tentative until further evidence and reasoning is possible. It is when someone makes the shift from skepticism to realism that they reject or accept based on a subjective estimation of plausibility.
#2 Who says a skeptic can't be skeptical of their own realism? I know I am:)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you keep implying and claiming that 1. Skeptics are rejecting and accepting possibilities without consideration of the evidence, which is ridiculous beyond belief, and 2. That they are rejecting or accepting these possibilities outright, without considering the likelihood of their own judgement being wrong. |
#1 as you said, people practicing true skepticism won't accept or reject superficially in this way, but will remain tentative until further evidence and reasoning is possible. It is when someone makes the shift from skepticism to realism that they reject or accept based on a subjective estimation of plausibility.
#2 Who says a skeptic can't be skeptical of their own realism? I know I am:)
Why can't you acknowledge that undisciplined Christianity and reliance on religion in everyday thought leads people to Atheism in more than a few instances?
I think you're making a good and relevant point here, but it is tangentially related to skepticism. I think that atheism and devil worship are both direct reactions to frustration with the hypocrisy seen in many "Christians" combined with the feeling of "why should I strive to be holy when these other people who preach it fail at it anyway, and if it is true I'll be forgiven for what I do anyway, and I want to have fun in my life, and if that means sinning then why not, after all I'm a sinner anyway." Still, this is temptation into evil, which is the fault of the sinner and not the religion.
QUOTE
Sure there are people in existence who reject anything supernatural or metaphysical as crap without giving it two thoughts. These people aren't skeptics or practitioners of critical thought any more than devil worshipers or atheists are Christians or practitioners of Christian beliefs. They're victims of the same dogmatic thinking that Christianity encourages among it's followers, the only difference is that they consider anything said by scientists or debunkers of the supernatural to be their scripture, instead of deriving it from a book.
Here I agree with you again.
Thanks for the deep exploration of this topic. Now would it be too much to ask for a little consideration in your use of mean language in future posts?
MjolnirPants
27th October 2009 - 01:44 AM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 07:33 PM)
Your arguments are interesting to me, which is the only thing that keeps me bothering to wade through the cesspool of rude and insulting language you spew out. Do you talk like that around your relatives? Women?
I spent a few years in the Army, so yeah. In fact, I say much worse things in person you ѕhit pounding, boy banger. You should hear the language my fiancee used to describe her impression of you when she read this thread. I'll put it here, but hidden. Let's see if you can find it.
What kind of complete fuсking retard thinks that skepticism makes people un-skeptical? I really wish these stupid aѕѕ fundies would get their heads out of their aѕѕes and just get a fuсking clue about reality. If they're really as stupid as this jackass, they should stick to trying to cure their gay kids instead of pushing their stupid ѕhit off on the rest of us who actually have the fuсking intelligence to see through this crap.QUOTE
I have tried several times to revise what I said to deal with your critiques. I tried paraphrasing your points about skepticism and affirming that I agreed with you that the ideal of skepticism was as you said.
But you haven't acknowledge the fact that what you're describing is the antithesis of skepticism, despite me providing you with multiple sources demonstrating that my claims about skepticism are true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have tried several times to revise what I said to deal with your critiques. I tried paraphrasing your points about skepticism and affirming that I agreed with you that the ideal of skepticism was as you said. |
But you haven't acknowledge the fact that what you're describing is the antithesis of skepticism, despite me providing you with multiple sources demonstrating that my claims about skepticism are true.
Still you go on obstinately insisting that I am obstinate.
Try acknowledging your error and see if I continue to be "obstinate."
QUOTE
Then you insist that you are wiser and above showing common decency and respect.
Bullshit. I never said I was above it, I just said that I don't show you any respect. Don't preach to me about common decency, either. You're the one who showed up here full of insulting claims and not enough integrity to admit when you're wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you insist that you are wiser and above showing common decency and respect. |
Bullshit. I never said I was above it, I just said that I don't show you any respect. Don't preach to me about common decency, either. You're the one who showed up here full of insulting claims and not enough integrity to admit when you're wrong.
This is from another thread, but fine.
No, it isn't. If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I brought it up
a few posts back.QUOTE
It is my opinion/observation that many "Christians" accept the salvation of Christ but avoid striving in the direction of learning the teachings that interfere with their secular lifestyles and interests. Is this Satan-worship?
No. Look up the definition of "worship."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is my opinion/observation that many "Christians" accept the salvation of Christ but avoid striving in the direction of learning the teachings that interfere with their secular lifestyles and interests. Is this Satan-worship? |
No. Look up the definition of "worship."
In a way it is because Satan rules the worldly kingdoms, as my booklet given to me by Jehovah's witnesses tells me.
The Jehovah's Witnesses gave me a booklet, too. It claimed that listening to heavy metal would make me kill myself or someone else. 20 years later, I'm still here and innocent of murder, сoсkgoblin.
QUOTE
My realism tells me the same thing yours does about the plausibility of these two stories. The difference is that I am aware of the subjective structuring of realism and the way it influences my subjective experience of plausibility.
So I make a post illustrating the potential subjectivity of the concept of realism, then you respond by claiming I'm not aware of the potential subjectivity of realism? Dishonesty (hypocrisy and stupidity, too) strikes again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My realism tells me the same thing yours does about the plausibility of these two stories. The difference is that I am aware of the subjective structuring of realism and the way it influences my subjective experience of plausibility. |
So I make a post illustrating the potential subjectivity of the concept of realism, then you respond by claiming I'm not aware of the potential subjectivity of realism? Dishonesty (hypocrisy and stupidity, too) strikes again.
So I try to control for this effect and think about what I would have to do to empirically verify the claims. I would have to know this person addicted to heroin and study what happened to his drug behavior when he found Jesus. Until then I can't empirically test the claim one way or the other.
Yet you would judge it to be more likely than the latter claim. Don't pretend you wouldn't, as we both know you would. If it's any consolation, I would, too.
QUOTE
As for the hammer of Thor causing thunder, I can quickly rely on my realism to avoid ending up on a wild goose chase searching for such a physical hammer.
I thought you said that relying on your perception of what is realistic is a bad thing... Odd, how you continue to contradict anything you've said in order to keep arguing. It's almost as if you haven't got the decency to admit when you're wrong...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the hammer of Thor causing thunder, I can quickly rely on my realism to avoid ending up on a wild goose chase searching for such a physical hammer. |
I thought you said that relying on your perception of what is realistic is a bad thing... Odd, how you continue to contradict anything you've said in order to keep arguing. It's almost as if you haven't got the decency to admit when you're wrong...
But I could study the mythology and arrive at an understanding of the meaning of Thor, the hammer, and why it causes thunder (if that's what it does - I'm not familiar with this mythology). The issue with realism is that if I stopped at my assumption that no such hammer physically exists, and that if it did it couldn't cause thunder, then I would never get to the positive, skeptical study of the mythology itself in order to gain deep understanding of it in its own context.
Or, you could realize that the likelihood of this claim being true is so low that you make an attempt to debunk it for the sake of anyone who might not understand that it's nigh-impossible, and in the process you do the research. Either way, you'll end up at the same place.
QUOTE
Thank you. That is my point; that realism is subjective. It is a subjective logic the emerges from scientific knowledge, but deviates from it by translating into plausibility as an aesthetic quality of a narrative. It is as varied as individual subjectivity is unique.
You missed the point. All of those people eschew skeptical thinking in favor of blind faith in their religions, and thus have a strong bias interfering with their ability to make that judgement. The rational skeptic or even the irrational, pseudo-skeptical atheist doesn't hold such a bias, as they both base their beliefs off of that which can be known. The latter might do so for the wrong reasons, but the result is still the same.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thank you. That is my point; that realism is subjective. It is a subjective logic the emerges from scientific knowledge, but deviates from it by translating into plausibility as an aesthetic quality of a narrative. It is as varied as individual subjectivity is unique. |
You missed the point. All of those people eschew skeptical thinking in favor of blind faith in their religions, and thus have a strong bias interfering with their ability to make that judgement. The rational skeptic or even the irrational, pseudo-skeptical atheist doesn't hold such a bias, as they both base their beliefs off of that which can be known. The latter might do so for the wrong reasons, but the result is still the same.
The only detail I think you're leaving out here is a crucial one: the fact that what proportion of a person's knowledge is derived from textual sources, discourse, hearsay, media, or whatever you want to call it?
Ahhh, so you didn't miss the point, you just falsely took credit for making it, and tried to skew it to your own position.
QUOTE
Do people verify by empirical testing and critical reasoning every aspect of everything they learn from discourse? Hardly. People are trained to absorb knowledge and take tests to show that they have learned it. This style of learning promotes uncritical reproduction of received knowledge.
I do. I know a lot of other skeptics who do, too. Who are you to sit here and dictate to me how I think? Just because you were taught to think in a certain way and couldn't get over it doesn't mean the rest of us suffer from that same handicap.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do people verify by empirical testing and critical reasoning every aspect of everything they learn from discourse? Hardly. People are trained to absorb knowledge and take tests to show that they have learned it. This style of learning promotes uncritical reproduction of received knowledge. |
I do. I know a lot of other skeptics who do, too. Who are you to sit here and dictate to me how I think? Just because you were taught to think in a certain way and couldn't get over it doesn't mean the rest of us suffer from that same handicap.
You said yourself that skepticism is not rejection but tentative acceptance for the possibility of critical scrutiny. If you dismiss something as 'unrealistic,' then you have selectively chosen to save your skepticism for something you deem worth the trouble, not true?
Not at all true. Something is deemed to be 'unrealistic'
precisely because it fails to account for empirical observations.
Even if this were not so, the dismissal of something by a skeptic isn't that skeptic saying "This is absolutely false," but saying "This is almost assuredly false." Notice the difference between the two, butt bandit?
QUOTE
#1 as you said, people practicing true skepticism won't accept or reject superficially in this way, but will remain tentative until further evidence and reasoning is possible. It is when someone makes the shift from skepticism to realism that they reject or accept based on a subjective estimation of plausibility.
If a person makes any effort
whatsoever to be skeptical, then their estimation of what is realistic is going to be far, far more objective than that of someone who rejects the tenets of skepticism, such as an orthodox religious person. This means that their estimation of what is realistic is hardly an inappropriate tool for gauging the plausibility of some claim.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| #1 as you said, people practicing true skepticism won't accept or reject superficially in this way, but will remain tentative until further evidence and reasoning is possible. It is when someone makes the shift from skepticism to realism that they reject or accept based on a subjective estimation of plausibility. |
If a person makes any effort
whatsoever to be skeptical, then their estimation of what is realistic is going to be far, far more objective than that of someone who rejects the tenets of skepticism, such as an orthodox religious person. This means that their estimation of what is realistic is hardly an inappropriate tool for gauging the plausibility of some claim.
#2 Who says a skeptic can't be skeptical of their own realism? I know I am:)
1. Skeptics are
-by definition, dumbass- skeptical of their own sense of what is possible.
2. If you're so skeptical of your own world view, why is it that even though I've given you plenty of evidence and logical reasons why your claim is wrong, you still won't admit it? That's hardly the behavior of a skeptic, but rather the behavior of an idiot who claims to be skeptical.
QUOTE
I think you're making a good and relevant point here, but it is tangentially related to skepticism. I think that atheism and devil worship are both direct reactions to frustration with the hypocrisy seen in many "Christians" combined with the feeling of "why should I strive to be holy when these other people who preach it fail at it anyway, and if it is true I'll be forgiven for what I do anyway, and I want to have fun in my life, and if that means sinning then why not, after all I'm a sinner anyway." Still, this is temptation into evil, which is the fault of the sinner and not the religion.
Wow. You get it when I use an analogy, but you don't get it with regards to the main point. If someone claims to be a skeptic but considers some possibility to be impossible,
then that person is no more a skeptic than an atheist or devil worshiper is a Christian.It's
rejection of Christianity that leads people to atheism and devil worship, not pretenses to it, even if the person claims to be a Christian. By the same token, it is
rejection of skepticism which leads people to dismiss possibilities out of hand, not pretenses to it, even if the person claims to be a skeptic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you're making a good and relevant point here, but it is tangentially related to skepticism. I think that atheism and devil worship are both direct reactions to frustration with the hypocrisy seen in many "Christians" combined with the feeling of "why should I strive to be holy when these other people who preach it fail at it anyway, and if it is true I'll be forgiven for what I do anyway, and I want to have fun in my life, and if that means sinning then why not, after all I'm a sinner anyway." Still, this is temptation into evil, which is the fault of the sinner and not the religion. |
Wow. You get it when I use an analogy, but you don't get it with regards to the main point. If someone claims to be a skeptic but considers some possibility to be impossible,
then that person is no more a skeptic than an atheist or devil worshiper is a Christian.It's
rejection of Christianity that leads people to atheism and devil worship, not pretenses to it, even if the person claims to be a Christian. By the same token, it is
rejection of skepticism which leads people to dismiss possibilities out of hand, not pretenses to it, even if the person claims to be a skeptic.
Thanks for the deep exploration of this topic. Now would it be too much to ask for a little consideration in your use of mean language in future posts?
You want me to show you respect? You've got to give it to get it.
Next time some stupid thought like "skepticism makes people reject notions based on their faith that these notions are untrue," put it to us in the form of a question, and accept any well-evinced and well-thought-out answers, instead of making a claim out of it and refusing to listen when people who know more than you about the subject point out your errors, you chicken fuсking turd herder.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
