Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-01-2017, 08:22 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(12-01-2017 06:41 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 03:22 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You shouldn't save civility for a specific place on the forum only going there on rare occasions, it should be something that is always with you.

In theory this sounds like good advice.

In practice, however, it is extremely uncivil. It is not cool to dictate others' reactions and words to them and essentially trying to shame them into not speaking their minds when dealing with the worst of the worst -- People who clearly do not respect us and our experiences, and expect us to trade all that we are for whatever they happen to be.
Yeah, I am coming around to the conclusion that faux civility is worse than no civility at all. The site I used to frequent was all about enforced civility, and eventually, theists used it as a cudgel to redefine "disagreement" and "inconvenient argument" and such like as "uncivil" or more particularly "rude", "nasty", "disrespectful" and "persecution". Then they used this as a cudgel to shut down dissent.

Besides it was tiresome to remember all the arbitrary rules such as it was okay to use the word 'crap' but not 'shit'. It was just downright silly after awhile.

And for the most part, mods defined their own kind of civility, which was basically that it was forbidden to question their decisions, or even to discuss them.

Yeah, you're right: universal civility is bullshit. Which, here, I don't have to abbreviate to BS in a contrived attempt at civility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
13-01-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(13-01-2017 02:12 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I would like to point out that just today I was doing some thinking and I realized that it's hard to argue logically with someone, when that someone has discounted logic from the topic. Reasonable people might not do this in any capacity except within the religious realm. So, it's not that they aren't logical or don't apply logic well, it's that they have discounted logic from the argument, and therefore their lack of applying logic is a direct cause of the attributes they assign to God.

Bottomline, telling these people that they need to get their head checked is just not productive. It doesn't advance a conversation.

Just talking to such people isn't productive. If one answer to everything is god then there is no reason for wasting time with conversation.

Quote:And by the way, the talk is that decent logical theists get respect here: I would say that we chase some theists away because of how we act toward them, which doesn't help them establish respect.

Respect is earned I would say. So if someone barges through the door and start with spouting shit like atheism is religion, we all worship something, first cause or creationism then he gets all respect that he earned. None.

Quote:You are asking people to deal with insults, and the bullying in order to maybe possibly get the respect they deserve.

They do not deserve any respect for simply appearing here, in my opinion at least. And you seem to not notice that not insignificant number of believers is here just to troll.

Quote:I'm not asking that we be their friends, or even that we like them at all, hell, I'm not asking for anything. I'm just pointing out what I have been seeing and making it known that it's not just Vosur that sees a problem with how SOME, I never meant to insinuate ALL, treat the theists that want to engage in open dialogue here.

I see no problem at all. Towards what I deem idiocy I won't be polite.

I bolded because the words you gave have connotations. No one is barging through the door. The door is open to everyone. See when it's coming from you, you make a good case towards being a dick to trolls.

No respect? Not even a basic respect or a basic decency is at least owed in the beginning. I understand earning respect, but I believe that some benefit of the doubt or respect should be given, at least enough to treat another civilly.

I think that people who hold stupid beliefs are frustrating, but just because they hold these beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary doesn't make them trolls. And if they were indeed trolls, why is stopping down to their levels and mocking them something that you advocate?

It's the age old question: Why are you feeding the trolls?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  99% of the posts made by Aliza about her religious beliefs, the vast majority of posts made by KC about his just to name two, well known, people. There are several theists on this forum that most certainly do not agree with the "popular opinion" who are held in good standing and who don't get "ganged up on at every turn".
I don't know much about Aliza's history, but KC is a really, really bad example for the point you're trying to make. I'm surprised that you don't know this since you've been on this forum since 2013, but KC has been mocked, ridiculed, insulted and attacked on this forum for years by a whole lot of people, myself included. It was so bad that he decided to leave the forum on more than one occasion. The reason why things are better now is because he stopped participating in religious debates and talking about his religious beliefs as much, not because people have become less rabid or more accepting since then.

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I can't think of a single way you could rationally get that from what I said. No Vosur, opinions don't become instantly labeled "demonstrably fucking stupid" just because they don't agree with what is popular here. They become positions that are demonstrably fucking stupid after they have been demonstrated to be fucking stupid.
First Cause
Flat Earth
Creationism

These are all examples of positions that have been proven with evidence or good argument to be demonstrably fucking stupid. Arguing these positions or beliefs will get you mocked and rightly so. If you join a forum full of free thinkers and skeptics and you present your case with nothing but long debunked nonsense you can expect to catch flak, I can't think of any forum where you wouldn't.
I would appreciate it if you could formulate an argument as to why these 'demonstrably fucking stupid' ideas should be mocked. I mean, I agree that the positions you mentioned have been shown to be false many times, but I don't understand why you think that we should mock the people who espouse them instead of sending them a link to a previous refutation that can serve as the basis for a new debate. You'll probably say that the two aren't mutually exclusive and while that's true, you should ask yourself what value mockery adds to a rebuttal. It certainly doesn't make it any more true, but it does diminish its persuasiveness significantly. If your goal is to persuade people to your side, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If your goal is to verbally beat people over the head and to make them feel like shit, then keep on going because you're doing well at that.

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Only? No. Though I will admit that this question is legitimate as I worded my post poorly. I should have said, people are not getting mocked just because they disagree with a popular opinion. There are lots of people here that mock people for a ton of reasons and I could care less what they are to be frank, though I'm not among the perpetually outraged that seem to infest the internet these days.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "I couldn't care less." That being said, if you don't care about the reasons why people are being mocked, then why are we even having this discussion?

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  They can mock her cause they don't like her name for all I care, as for me she hadn't done much of anything worth my claws so I kept them, for the most part, sheathed. I'm not anyones fucking parents so I could care less about their conduct at greeting the next in a long line of the same people with the same story and the same justifications, and the same utter and complete lack of evidence. But your implication that the only reason people get mocked is because they don't agree with what's popular is just ridiculous.
I don't think I implied that, but just for the record, I don't believe that that is the only reason why people get mocked. It is, however, a pretty common one.

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  And you are correct sir, I thought she had mentioned it in a subsequent post but on rereading her posts that was not the case. I apologize for my error. It doesn't affect the legitimacy of my post to her as she considered herself a critical thinker and was clearly and demonstrably not. Not an excuse for sloppy research though so you have my thanks.
I still think claiming to be a critical thinker while posting a whole bunch of examples where you very clearly didn't apply critical thinking is inviting mockery way more than the fact she is not an Athiest.
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Agreed. She still claimed to be a critical thinker and demonstrated the opposite however.
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You can save your outrage for someone else mate because as far as I'm concerned if you suspend your critical thinking to maintain your religious beliefs then you are not a critical thinker, you are cherry picking where you will apply it and where you won't. That doesn't mean you are not capable of critical thought, but you're not consistent with it and thus I don't consider the label of "critical thinker" as applying to you any more than I consider the label of "honourable man" to men who only hit their wives when they are angry.
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You can be educated and intelligent and not apply critical thinking consistently, and be thus not what I would call a critical thinker. If you are a theist and your successful, intelligent, and educated but you won't apply the same rules of critical evaluations to your religious beliefs that you do to your non-religious beliefs then no you are not a critical thinker in my book. Critical thinking and scepticism is just a hobby for you at that point, something you pick up and put down as it suits you.
The validity of these parts of your post rely on the use of your personal definition of the term "critical thinker" as someone who thinks critically about every aspect of reality without making any exceptions for anything. That definition might sound good to you on paper, but when you try to apply it to any of the historical figures I referred to in my post, it quickly becomes clear how absurdly restricted it is.

Isaac Newton was not a critical thinker.
Wilhelm Röntgen was not a critical thinker.
Lord Kelvin was not a critical thinker.
Gregor Mendel was not a critical thinker.
Max Planck was not a critical thinker.
Gottfried Leibniz was not a critical thinker.
Blaise Pascal was not a critical thinker.

If you said one, let alone all of these statements in public, I think you would be the one who would find himself the subject of intense ridicule and mockery. You have neatly defined that term for yourself so that it automatically excludes any and every religious person and only allows atheists (and even then not all of them) to be critical thinkers. Chances are that you consider yourself a critical thinker, unlike all of these brilliant minds from history who supposedly only took up critical thinking and skepticism 'as a hobby.'

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  In a couple of these, you seem to have mistaken criticism and asking questions for mockery.
You're probably right, but there are enough examples with much less, if any room for interpretation for the point of my post to remain unaffected.

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I honestly don't give a fuck if a post is civil in tone or not, I care about its content. Being civil while you post nonsense doesn't and shouldn't protect you from criticism or derision. If her post was civil and polite and the content was about how African-Americans aren't actually people, or how the world was clearly flat would she deserve to be mocked? I'd say so, though others might not.
She is a Christian who came to an Athiest forum to share her "conversion" from Atheism to Christianity, a story that she hasn't evaluated critically at all, that you could play fallacy bingo with, and the worst treatment you have on offer is someone called her full of shit and posted a cat fail meme? Really man? That is some translucently thin skin.
Not only did I cite far worse examples than a cat fail meme (e.g. Rahn127's post), I also explicitly asked you if you needed me to post more example to get you to the point where you would be willing to concede that the treatment she received was undeserved. It's not really fair for you to say that you don't care and then berate me for posting examples that aren't harsh enough.

(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  For fuck sake, I'm a vicious cunt to a lot of people and even I wasn't mocking her. She thought she was being mocked when Stevil asked her the most glaringly obvious questions that need to be asked.
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Can't handle the heat don't step into the fire. She is a big girl and if she's gonna come to a part of the freaking internet where the default position of people is not accepting religious claims without evidence and then provide a bunch of religious claims with no evidence and cry when people make fun of her for it when we deal with this shit on a near daily basis then she is either nieve or stupid and she wouldn't have lasted long here anyway. She considered asking legitimate questions a form of mockery for fuck sake.
Why do you think that it was a legitimate question? I already pointed out her choice of words in my previous post, namely that she said she "still" thinks she is a critical thinker, i.e. that she thinks she's a critical thinker in spite of her religious beliefs rather than because of them. Jesus Christ, she even said that coming to God requires people to abandon arguments in her third post. For you guys to act like she was citing her religious beliefs as an example of her critical thinking skills or that she denied that they didn't have the same rational basis as the STEM field she's studying is so absurd that it beggars belief. That's not even to mention that even if you consider the question to be legitimate, it certainly didn't seem to have been asked in good faith.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
13-01-2017, 08:30 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(12-01-2017 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  It seems that you think you should decide? Or maybe we should have a vote? What makes your opinion that someone shouldn't be mocked worth more than mine that they should?

*I* decide how I react to someone, not you, not anyone else.
I'm not sure why this response was directed at me considering that I never said even a single one of these things.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(12-01-2017 11:52 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  It seems that you think you should decide? Or maybe we should have a vote? What makes your opinion that someone shouldn't be mocked worth more than mine that they should?

*I* decide how I react to someone, not you, not anyone else.

Yes morondog, it is you who decides how you act towards others, so why do you choose a manner that is so unbecoming?
Is there a law somewhere that there has to be one like you on every site? There was an orthodox Jewish lady at my former debate home with the same unctuousness oozing from her as you, constantly arguing for (1) the notion that failure to make nice by her lights automatically trashes the merits of the actual argument (or put another way, making her uncomfortable means you don't have an argument), (2) demanding unearned deference and respect for any opinion expressed, just because it's an opinion from a theist about their beliefs, and (3) special pleading for ad hominem attacks against atheists about alleged ad hominem attacks against theists.

Why do YOU choose a manner so unbecoming??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
13-01-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(13-01-2017 08:25 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:45 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I can't think of a single way you could rationally get that from what I said. No Vosur, opinions don't become instantly labeled "demonstrably fucking stupid" just because they don't agree with what is popular here. They become positions that are demonstrably fucking stupid after they have been demonstrated to be fucking stupid.
First Cause
Flat Earth
Creationism

These are all examples of positions that have been proven with evidence or good argument to be demonstrably fucking stupid. Arguing these positions or beliefs will get you mocked and rightly so. If you join a forum full of free thinkers and skeptics and you present your case with nothing but long debunked nonsense you can expect to catch flak, I can't think of any forum where you wouldn't.
I would appreciate it if you could formulate an argument as to why these 'demonstrably fucking stupid' ideas should be mocked. I mean, I agree that the positions you mentioned have been shown to be false many times, but I don't understand why you think that we should mock the people who espouse them instead of sending them a link to a previous refutation that can serve as the basis for a new debate. You'll probably say that the two aren't mutually exclusive and while that's true, you should ask yourself what value mockery adds to a rebuttal. It certainly doesn't make it any more true, but it does diminish its persuasiveness significantly. If your goal is to persuade people to your side, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If your goal is to verbally beat people over the head and to make them feel like shit, then keep on going because you're doing well at that.
There was a time, not very long ago, when I would have had some sympathy for your line of reasoning. In fact it is why until a few days ago I did very little posting here. But I am now chastened because I have seen the logical conclusion of your argument. If you really believe in what you're saying, do what I did and go to City-Data.Com/forum and spend some time on their Religion & Spirituality forum. As it has been moderated since the first of the year, it should be Shangri-La for you. But after awhile you will see that it is lacking in substantive discussion or debate and therefore more boring than watching paint dry. Be careful what you ask for.

The problem is that theists live in a dream. Sure, mockery is a strategy, one that probably I am not predisposed to use as freely as some do here, but that doesn't make it invalid. The idea is to clap your hands and occasionally wake them up from their dream. If they don't wake up then they will go away. What you are left with are people at least making an honest attempt at honest argumentation and reasonable claims. The theists who hang out here and don't get savaged probably have in common the understanding that their beliefs are not based on reason and are not binding on anyone but themselves personally. I have zero issue with a theist arguing on that basis. In fact I usually have quite a bit of common cause with them, really.

I don't mind people who in some compartments of their lives, are irrational. None of us are 100% rational 100% of the time. What I mind are people who can't be reasoned with AT ALL on any topic relevant to these forums.
(13-01-2017 08:25 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Isaac Newton was not a critical thinker.
Wilhelm Röntgen was not a critical thinker.
Lord Kelvin was not a critical thinker.
Gregor Mendel was not a critical thinker.
Max Planck was not a critical thinker.
Gottfried Leibniz was not a critical thinker.
Blaise Pascal was not a critical thinker.

If you said one, let alone all of these statements in public, I think you would be the one who would find himself the subject of intense ridicule and mockery. You have neatly defined that term for yourself so that it automatically excludes any and every religious person and only allows atheists (and even then not all of them) to be critical thinkers. Chances are that you consider yourself a critical thinker, unlike all of these brilliant minds from history who supposedly only took up critical thinking and skepticism 'as a hobby.'
Except that there ARE theists here who are critical thinkers despite holding some magical beliefs that we don't agree with.

Newton was a very critical thinker for his day, and had a lot more excuse than a denizen of the 21st century to believe in and devote precious research efforts to alchemy for example. If he were alive today, and knew what we now know, he would not be espousing those positions.

I think Newton is actually a good contrast with the run of the mill theists here. Unlike them, he was curious and teachable and willing to change his positions. Unlike them, he did not robotically spout long-discredited trailing-edge arguments.

I cannot imagine Newton rejecting special or general relativity or quantum electrodynamics just because they corrected some issues with his own physics. If he had been immortal he might well have discovered them sooner himself. There is no comparing Newton to Sally Fundamentalist. Come on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
13-01-2017, 09:59 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(12-01-2017 11:47 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(12-01-2017 10:12 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'll just say that I managed to get CW to conceded the point, very painfully and after a lot of back and forth, in his first thread. Since then I haven't paid much attention to him, he's just been boring. But if I found out he was parroting the exact same line of bullshit a second time, then hell yes, I'd rip him a new asshole; and he'll have deserved it.

It is impossible to convince a man who is lying to himself and takes his anger out on others.
Still waiting for you to actually demonstrate or provide so much as a scrap of evidence for your little assertions there. I've demonstrated you are a lying, dishonest, evasive son of a bitch who won't answer simple questions or respond to basic arguments.
As long as all you have is accusations without support feel free to fire shots across peoples port side, all it does is make you look stupid.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
13-01-2017, 10:03 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(13-01-2017 12:23 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How others treat me I am indifferent about...

Don't lie about something so easy to check for fuck sake, there is a thread on this very forum where you spend the majority of your time crying about how I treat you instead of dealing with my arguments.

I'm not even annoyed that you lie anymore, I'm annoyed at how incompetent you are about it.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
13-01-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(13-01-2017 12:58 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 12:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  That's cause it's meaningless waffle designed to be an excuse for whining. He didn't have a purpose for the OP in the first place.

In my *humble* opinion.

Hey CW: check it out, no swear words. Totally civil post. A little belittling I have to admit. But I'm clearly trying to fall into line and do what you and all those other polite people want me to.

Silly fuck. Dodgy

I have no time for malarkey.
Your post history says otherwise. Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(13-01-2017 08:25 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I bolded because the words you gave have connotations. No one is barging through the door. The door is open to everyone. See when it's coming from you, you make a good case towards being a dick to trolls.

Doors may be wide open but sometimes they are quickly shut. Also I would say being dick to trolls is a good policy no matter who it advocates.

Quote:No respect? Not even a basic respect or a basic decency is at least owed in the beginning. I understand earning respect, but I believe that some benefit of the doubt or respect should be given, at least enough to treat another civilly.

No respect at all. If someone is starting by atheist believe just like other theists do then I see no reason for granting them even tiniest shred of respect as I held liars and people whose ignorance can be described only as colossal in contempt.

Quote:I think that people who hold stupid beliefs are frustrating, but just because they hold these beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary doesn't make them trolls.

I have wide definition of trolling. If one comes to atheists forum and claim that god exist cause Bible says so then it is trolling. If one claims absurdity of similar scope but unrelated to religion and prefer fantasy to facts then that person is trolling to by throwing waste on what should be preserve of critical thinking.

But it is irrelevant - what I deem foolish I mock and it matters not if person really is trolling or is just ignorant.

Quote:And if they were indeed trolls, why is stopping down to their levels and mocking them something that you advocate?

Stupidity warrants mockery and foolishness should be shamed. You may not cure fool this way but you make him show his true colors and maybe even chase away. If not it is still pretty funny, to me at least. You may think it petty or counterproductive, but I see no reason to be gentle with idiots and ignoring them can be risky as it allows them to spread disinformation and dangerous ideas.

Quote:It's the age old question: Why are you feeding the trolls?

It's funny. Also stupidity should be opposed even when it presents itself in form of primitive jesting.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: