Skeptics Have Nasty Disposition (science, purpose, experience, paranormal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP is about Skeptics having a nasty disposition. Refusing to accept evidence on someones say so is nothing to do with being nasty - it is just rational. What you are proving however is the last post before yours from Nozz where he states that if you disagree with someone they are likely to find you nasty even if you are not.
Moan all you like - the simple fact remains that from my perspective you tried to evidence a point with a link that goes nowhere. That is all I know and therefore that is all I can proceed in the conversation with.
So let us stick to the topic please. The topic is about whether skeptics have a nasty disposition or not and the fact is that - you said it yourself - all groups have such people and using a handful of examples from one group to tarnish that group as a whole is a bad approach and the OP was wrong to do so.
Millions, upon millions, upon millions, of Believers are willing to put it all on the line for their beliefs...but I don't see the Skeptics having that same conviction.
Probably because you simply do not look. You imagine millions doing it who have not and then ignore the ones on the other side who actually have. You have no idea how these "millions" would act if actually called upon to do so. If that is your approach then you are playing with little more than confirmation bias.
I get my own fair share of death threats for my work with Atheist Ireland but that aside without even trying I can instantly name many people who have put life and limb on the line for their skeptical beliefs.
Before he died Christopher Hitchens not only spoke out against Christianity and Islam but traveled openly and unarmed in countries where he could be killed for those beliefs.
Mrs. Saraswathi Gora created the Atheist Centre in India for which she suffered many attacks personal, physical, social and mental. She chose a life of poverty and shame in order to fight for what she believed was right. All with no promise of a reward in the after life for doing so.
Atheist Teenager Jessica Ahlquist is still getting threats of violence and death and rape from people for the "crime" of fighting for first amendment rights in her school.
Why even this very month Atheist Ireland of whom I am a founding member are hosting Sanal Edamaruku who can now not even return to his own country because he was brave enough to point out that the tears coming from a Jesus statue which innocent members of the public were drinking were actually coming out of leaking sewage pipes and were poisonous and dangerous.
I could go on listing these for a long long time but suffice to say if you do not "see" skeptics risking all to fight for what they think is right then you simply are not looking.
I linked a real post...it was subsequently deleted. But is was really there to begin with. That is the fact...I am telling the truth...and I bet you know I am.
The other evidence I linked would prove it to anyone not being intentionally disagreeable (read:nasty). You can keep claiming Ironman and I are lying...but that doesn't change that we are telling the truth. The link wasn't "broken" when I put it up...that was done by the mods...and that is the truth...I bet you understand that too. But then the "nasty" takes over...ANYTHING to try to slam a Believer.
I could cite several other posts where I discussed what was said...I found it so offensive I was taken aback by it, and brought it up often. But that obviously wouldn't fix the problem here...which is the "nasty disposition" illustrated by your inference that, basically, I'm a schemer and a liar...when I'm not.
Ya know...as respects the Atheist "nastiness"...I wonder if they would be so bold and brash to talk out like they do in a place like Afghanistan, where they risked the potential of having to put it all on the line for what they think? I bet not.
Millions, upon millions, upon millions, of Believers are willing to put it all on the line for their beliefs...but I don't see the Skeptics having that same conviction. They are good at spewing nasty stuff at Believers on internet forums and the like...and crying to the courts...but I don't see anything that resembles the dedication to their platform the Believers have always shown. Which speaks to that "No Guts--No Glory" saying.
It's all about the digs and it's like nailing jello to a wall, total waste of time.
Just let 'em be angry, life-long angry. They love it. Everyday same thing blaming someone else for all of the worlds ills while somehow declaring themselves are blemish free- it's childish, dishonest, anti-social etc. not worthy of a second glance.
Probably because you simply do not look. You imagine millions doing it who have not and then ignore the ones on the other side who actually have. You have no idea how these "millions" would act if actually called upon to do so. If that is your approach then you are playing with little more than confirmation bias.
I get my own fair share of death threats for my work with Atheist Ireland but that aside without even trying I can instantly name many people who have put life and limb on the line for their skeptical beliefs.
Before he died Christopher Hitchens not only spoke out against Christianity and Islam but traveled openly and unarmed in countries where he could be killed for those beliefs.
Mrs. Saraswathi Gora created the Atheist Centre in India for which she suffered many attacks personal, physical, social and mental. She chose a life of poverty and shame in order to fight for what she believed was right. All with no promise of a reward in the after life for doing so.
Atheist Teenager Jessica Ahlquist is still getting threats of violence and death and rape from people for the "crime" of fighting for first amendment rights in her school.
Why even this very month Atheist Ireland of whom I am a founding member are hosting Sanal Edamaruku who can now not even return to his own country because he was brave enough to point out that the tears coming from a Jesus statue which innocent members of the public were drinking were actually coming out of leaking sewage pipes and were poisonous and dangerous.
I could go on listing these for a long long time but suffice to say if you do not "see" skeptics risking all to fight for what they think is right then you simply are not looking.
I'm talking about...renounce your beliefs, right here, right now...or KNOW you WILL be crucified, thrown to hungry lions, etc. And accept that, rather than renounce your beliefs. Or the modern version...be willing to die as a martyr in a suicide bombing mission to defend your beliefs against people who are fighting you to get you to relinquish them.
I'm not talking about the risk of dying...I'm talking about dying FOR SURE, for your beliefs. MILLIONS of Believers have done it...some will do it this very day.
Moderator cut: delete
Last edited by Miss Blue; 12-10-2012 at 05:52 AM..
Reason: harrassment
I'm not talking about the risk of dying...I'm talking about dying FOR SURE, for your beliefs. MILLIONS of Believers have done it...some will do it this very day.
Citations please?
Also you are moving the goal posts now. Above you said they "are willing" as in present tense. That means they are alive and you IMAGINE that if they were forced they would stick with their beliefs. Now in this post you are talking about people who are already dead. Past Tense. And you are assuming to know their reasons and motivations all without even linking to who or what you are talking about.
In other words I countered your point and now you pretend to have been saying something else.
You simply imagine millions of believers today would do so. Then you simply imagine skeptics would not. Can you back this up with anything from the real world or are we just stuck with the world you imagine instead?
Everyday same thing blaming someone else for all of the worlds ills while somehow declaring themselves are blemish free- it's childish, dishonest, anti-social etc. not worthy of a second glance.
Not sure who you are describing here but it certainly is not me or any of the skeptics and atheists I know personally. I am sure there are some people like that out there but it would be a mistake to tarnish everyone with the same brush. Not saying you are of course... but I feel the cautionary note is justified all the same.
Many of us are under no illusions about the "worlds ills" for example. I know... even if I clicked a magic button tomorrow that deleted religion from the planet... I would still be living in a world with much crime, hatred, pain, suffering and more.
I do not attack religion on the basis of all the ills of the world. Just on the basis of the ones it itself causes, facilitates, fosters or supports. I am also an enemy of unsubstantiated and baseless claims as a whole and religions tend to fall more often than not under that umbrella.
Attacking public religion is not going to get us to some ideal utopia world but it is certainly a move in the right direction and one I am proud to be part of.
It's all about the digs and it's like nailing jello to a wall, total waste of time.
Just let 'em be angry, life-long angry. They love it. Everyday same thing blaming someone else for all of the worlds ills while somehow declaring themselves are blemish free- it's childish, dishonest, anti-social etc. not worthy of a second glance.
Wow, just Wow. I was going to jump into the fray earlier to aid GldnRule so he wouldn't be outnumbered here. It occurred to me that it would be a waste of time. I like your phrase, "nailing jello to a wall," I am flabbergasted that such intransigence has been exhibited over such a minor point. It would seem we are agreed that all sides have their nasties, so the OP would seem to be biased. Yet despite this agreement, GldnRule, and me by implication, are thought to be liars and apparently conspirators anyway???
Why anyone would believe that GldnRule or I conspired to provide evidence about a post that did not exist, is completely beyond my understanding. The royal topping on this absurd cake, is the idea that GldnRule would then pull out archived references to the nasty post. Arguing so strongly about that is incomprehensible. To believe it was a non-existent post would require a belief that a conspiracy was concocted years ago, before I ever joined the forum. It is so blatantly ridiculous, given the age of the archived post GldnRule subsequently posted and that I saw. I cannot believe the completely unbending argumentation that has been put forth here. What possible reason could either of us have for such a years long conspiracy to support the existence of one nasty post? What kind of people think this way? This forum is a baffling place.
You are over stretching the comments from people like me. All people like myself are saying is that in any argument we will only accept evidence that is actually shown to us that we can read and evaluate for ourselves. Since the link goes nowhere it does not contain evidence that we can see and evaluate for ourselves. We just have to take your word for it which we will not do.
It is not that we are outright accusing anyone of lying per se. However without being able to read the contents of such a post myself I can not know exactly what was in it. Who says this means you lied? It is possible you read and miscontrued the evidence to be what it was not. Simple error. Without reading it or seeing it for myself I can not evaluate this.
I said a few times in this thread that a lot of the reasons people judge others as "nasty" and "rude" is as a defense mechanism. People do not like to be disagreed with or debunked and when they are they get defensive and if they are unable to fight their corner they turn to ad hominem and name calling like "nasty" and "rude".
Similarly I think you are leaping to being over defensive here. I can not and will not accept evidence you can not show me or present to me. That is NOT akin to calling you a liar. At all. On any level. It is simply me saying that without reading this alleged post myself I can not evaluate it and see if it really does evidence the point it was meant to evidence. Perhaps the person linking to it simply read it wrong and misinterpreted it. Who knows? I certainly do not and I will not simply accept it as a given on someones say so. Especially given the (now moderator removed) personal campaign of lies and spurious accusations that same user then went on against me for no other reason than to attack my credibility. For the second time in the thread you have backed the wrong horse.
In this case I am perfectly happy for no one to take my word for it. It has nothing to do with the topic and it affects me not at all therefore if no one believes it. I want to stick to the topic and the topic only and since the topic lead us to comparing the behavior of the opposing groups on here that is what I am here to discuss. I have seen a link already supporting my case. Your link for your case magically went nowhere. 1-0 it seems if someone did bother to take a count. Not to mention the fact that only one of us has a post moderated on here for "harassment" so far.
At the end of the day though I think the vast consensus here overrides that petty point scoring. The fact is there is nastiness on all sides of every debate. It is a human trait, not a skeptic or theist one, to resort to ad hominem and such nonsense when they can not defend their point. The OP is therefore simply wrong to paint the entire skeptic community with this brush and attack all skeptics as having such a disposition... all off the back of nothing more than a single article and a few cherry picked comments from it.
Again however the point is not about questioning your honesty. The point is about my inability to evaluate evidence you simply have not provided and giving a link and saying "I swear it was there a moment ago" does not evidence make.
Sorry but my post is on topic. The topic is about skeptics and whether or not they have a "nasty disposition". The point I am making is that this is a poor generalization based on nothing but a single article and a few comments on the end of it by "rude" people (in the opinion of the OP). The point is there are such people in all groups and there have been examples given here (with real link not broken) of such from the non skeptic side.
This is the topic of the thread and if you want to make it about something else then you are on your own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
