KC, you're a twit.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2012, 11:19 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 10:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have never seen such a statement, but you don't appear to be replying to a statement.
Here.

And, no, I am not replying to his statement; I am replying to his reply.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 11:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 10:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree that this is a private matter. KC publicly made an intellectually offensive and insupportable statement and I am calling him out on it. I'm sorry you can't see that.
That makes no sense, Chas.

To you, and every atheist here, EVERYTHING I say is intellectually offensive and insupportable. How many times have I said I have no empirical evidence for God? How many times have I admitted that Calvinism is arrogant and elitist?

My fundamental beliefs offend you... but, I thought you got past that a long time ago... as did most everyone else.

Picking out a random comment over the thousands and thousands of comments I've made on TTA to throw a complete 3 year old tantrum over is pathetic.
I'm not in the least surprised that you see it this way. Your lack of rational, critical thinking skills will generally lead you to false conclusions. You didn't understand why your statement was bat-shit, you didn't understand my objection to it, you don't understand my calling you out on it.

Your thinking skills are pathetic.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 11:32 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 10:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have never seen such a statement, but you don't appear to be replying to a statement.
Here.

And, no, I am not replying to his statement; I am replying to his reply.
And what about your original post, the title of this thread, or anything related to the rep points would ever cause anyone to realize you were replying to a reply?

Why not reply in that thread with, "KC, you're a twit"?

That comment is stupid that KC made and I disagree with it wholly. As Thomas Paine once said "To argue with a person who has renounced reason is like trying to administer medicine to the dead."

Having said that, I don't think anyone a twit for believing stuff like that. I once believed it too. Not because I was stupid, but because I prioritized my reality in such a way. Did that make me naive? Yes. Gullible? Yes. Ill informed of how science works? Yes. Would someone disagreeing with me have caused me to change? Fuck no. Would someone calling me a twit, stupid, or a dumbass have caused me to "see the light"? No way.

So, what the fuck is the point? You don't like him? Tell me again why ANYONE ELSE SHOULD FUCKING CARE?

I don't like Ken Ham or the Hovinds, or William Lane Craig. They are ignorant, ill-informed, imbeciles who perpetuate ignorance throughout their respective communities. Attacking them does absolutely no good though. It is a flawed tactic. Attack their arguments. If your point is to break down KC's arguments, then do that, but personally attacking him lends you no credence and doesn't take away from his in the slightest.

The comment he made assures me he is still a theist. That comment could be broken down. By why should you attempt to take the person along with it? That won't cause them to change, it will only cause them to put up their defenses and shrug you off as an asshole. Point out the flaw, they will either see it and respond or ignore you. If they respond, they will either concede it is flawed or make another flawed argument to defend it, which can also be pointed out. Etc.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-11-2012, 11:43 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
I'm a nice guy. I guess that's a flaw of mine.

I've always been respectful to you, Chas. Never resorted to ad hominems... even when you did.

The irony in this situation is that you're the one with flawed logic and rationale. Maybe you just had a enough of me... or my theism reached a boiling point towards you... I don't know.

But, you sure aren't acting like the mature, rationale person that you've portrayed over the past year. You're acting emotional.

I'm done here, Chas.

Insult away if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to keep feeding into it.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 11:46 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 11:04 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 10:51 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  So, you acting like a child has to do with a sudden limit to my religiosity and what you feel as if I should understand based on my tenure?

And I'm the one that can't see past my nose while you act like a bigot (admitting that you don't want me here because of my beliefs).

Grow up, Chas. Grow up, or harden up.
I think saying Chas has "reached a sudden limit" may be unfair. This looks more to me like a boiling point situation. The comment in question hasn't caused chas to form a new opinion. It is simply the proverbial straw.

Look, (this is for everyone but KC. If anyone should be forgiven an emotionally fueled response it should be KC) chas don't need my defense. He is, after all, terse and deadly. But don't take an automatically defensive position just because he said something you don't like about your friend. kC is my friend too, but if I don't actually put some thought into what Chas is saying, I may just miss out on a valid perspective that I previously overlooked.

Listen to all sides, not just the one you agree with. And don't disagree with someone because you dislike their delivery. If the topic was raised in a more politically correct, sensitive manner, the thread would look a lot different. Sure, I feel defensive too. KC is my friend. But so is Chas, so I wanna know what kind of bug crawled up his ass too. Gotta listen to figure that out, whether I like what I'm hearing or not.
The tipping point was the comment in/reason for his retaliatory neg rep of me.

I neg repped him for his statement of taking the Bible over reason/evidence/science while repeatedly holding himself up as a rational and critical thinker.

His comment in the rep was that I was objecting to him being a Christian making Christian statements.
No, I object to him making a mockery of rational and critical thinking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-11-2012, 11:48 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 11:43 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm a nice guy. I guess that's a flaw of mine.

I've always been respectful to you, Chas. Never resorted to ad hominems... even when you did.

The irony in this situation is that you're the one with flawed logic and rationale. Maybe you just had a enough of me... or my theism reached a boiling point towards you... I don't know.

But, you sure aren't acting like the mature, rationale person that you've portrayed over the past year. You're acting emotional.

I'm done here, Chas.

Insult away if it makes you feel better. I'm not going to keep feeding into it.
You don't get it. You make a mockery of critical thinking. That angers me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-11-2012, 12:10 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
I have to say, I am with Chas on this one. KC is intellectual dishonest, and it frankly gets on my nerves. The only reason I bother speaking to him is because has a good sense of humor. That does not pardon nor excuse his flaws, and I refuse to ignore them for such a reason. However, I have already vocalized my discontent with him, and tend to ignore him for the most part.

I do find it odd how people do seem to like him so much. There are plenty of fundamentalists, who I have met, would be just as good of company. Yet, without any mercy, you guys parade on their self-esteem and beliefs as though they were the worst people to tread the Earth.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
19-11-2012, 12:22 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
Would either of you care to name a theist you think IS intellectually honest then?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(19-11-2012 12:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Would either of you care to name a theist you think IS intellectually honest then?


I know many. They don't claim certainty, they don't claim Biblical inerrancy, they don't reject science or evidence if it conflicts with the Bible, they don't espouse predestination or election.

In short, they are rational but feel there is a some sort of god.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 12:48 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
So you believe their feeling of a god existing is intellectually honest?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: