On What Basis Does "Skeptics" Appear in the Forum Name?

[Leumas]

I am not saying those are not good questions, I am asking how is it in my interest even reading them, let alone answering.

Ultimately the forum is what we make it to be whatever its called. I do not find it particular sceptical to debate definitions. There are tons of real world issues to investigate and be skeptical about. To each her own still, show me the importance of definition. Or rather not

Well... there are a few questions in the previous post that illustrate why we do need a definition which can justify the S in ISF.

...
...
Can someone be called a skeptic who labels people as demented abused as children frothing at the mouth fundamentalist anti-theists because they use the Buybull as evidence against itself and the religions it espouses?

...
Can someone who derides people for not conforming to his tribe's standards be called a skeptic?

Can someone who lies and makes false claims to further an agenda be called a skeptic?

Can one be called a skeptic who punishes someone for exposing the lies and false claims?

Can one be called a skeptic who abuses and bullies someone who points out the fallacies and false claims and assertions?

...
Can someone be called a skeptic if he strives by any means in his power to silence any opposition to his opinions?

Can someone be called a skeptic when he applies subjectively and arbitrarily different and contradictory standards of judgement to the exact same words used in exactly the same situation with the only difference being the person who made the words?

Can someone be called a skeptic if he thinks he can read minds and accordingly decide what one really meant to say and then insist upon it as the truth despite the fact that the person whose mind was purportedly divined rejecting the mind reading claims?

...

Is someone a skeptic who maligns and bullies and abuses people who say truths in a way that shocks and prefer that these people be silent than say the truths in a shocking manner?

...

Is one a skeptic who hates the person who tells the truth and uses all means in his power to extirpate them out of his tribal club?

 

[Dr. Keith]

One is also expected to read the point that is made not refuse to read it because it is a few words longer than he'd like and then call it not an argument and bare assert that the point was not made well without having actually read the point.

Is it skeptical to judge a text without having read it?

Is it skeptical to consider a few questions not a point well made without having actually read the questions?

I wish I felt poorly for failing to meet your expectations.

Would bolding some of this post make me seem more sympathetic to your concerns?

ETA: Damn, I left out highlighting!

 

[Leumas]

Is one a skeptic who insists on using school cafeteria bully tactics against people every time they cause one to question one's cherished prejudices and biases and irrational beliefs?

Is it skepticism to bully and goad and topple the food trays of people who write things one won't read let alone want to think about?

 

[JJM 777]

Arab men disgust him and he would be very happy see them wiped from the face of the earth.

I responded that, quite frankly, I considered the poster to be an absolute raving maniac and was quickly yellow carded for being uncivil and attacking the arguer not the argument.

I have witnessed the same a few times, that posts similar to the one that you mention above remain untouched by moderators, even though incitement to violence against an ethnic group is a crime where I live (and moderators of Internet forums are here legally responsible for allowing such discussion). But mods are quick to clean up lesser chit-chat which is not a crime in any country on the planet.

 

[Leumas]

Is it skepticism to cry out "foul foul" every time one reads a text that challenges his beliefs and demand the text be removed and the writer castigated for daring to write it?

Is it skepticism to keep on obliging time and again the above hobbling and curtailment of skepticism while doing absolutely nothing about the school cafeteria style bullying tactics deployed against anyone who challenges the tribe?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is one a skeptic who insists on using school cafeteria bully tactics against people every time they cause one to question one's cherished prejudices and biases and irrational beliefs?

Is it skepticism to bully and goad and topple the food trays of people who write things one won't read let alone want to think about?

Irony meter explodes!

Can one be a skeptic who regularly uses the word "Buybull"?

 

[newyorkguy]

What is ironic is that on a forum purportedly for skeptics debating the justification for claiming that the forum is for skeptics, not a single so called skeptic so far has bothered to actually hazard a definition for the term that can be agreed upon by the supposed skeptics before they can start even justifying its usage. <snip>

I'm not sure I qualify as a so-called skeptic, but I did hazard a definition for the word. Or at least where to start looking for one. But not the general meaning of the word skeptic, mind you, but how and why it applies here as part of the sponsoring organization's name.

I think the original context for "skeptic" was James Randi's vetting of the paranormal, occult and supernatural. To follow in his footsteps so to speak. The forum was begun by the Randi organization, was it not?

The paranormal, occult and supernatural. That is apparently what Randi (or his staff) had in mind when they began this forum and chose the name. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Darat said pretty much the same thing a while back.

Where I think this message board gets skewed (and misled) is when people try to use "skepticism" to win a political or social debate. That was apparently never the intention of Randi or the founders of the board. From Randi's website:

James Randi has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

I don't find anything about abortion, tax policy, immigration, gun rights, etc. I thereby infer that the skeptic label is about the physical world.

 

[The Greater Fool]

"Skeptics" is part of "International Skeptics Forum" because that is what won the poll the membership voted on, and Icerat graciously bowed to the pleasure of the membership.

Now, as to why the membership chose "International" and "Skeptics" and "Forum" as constituent parts of "International Skeptics Forum", the reasons are varied and myriad, as the threads on the very topic illustrate.

Who knew an additional perk of the forum name would be the sweet tears shed by those members that feel abused by other members and choose to lash out at the word "skeptic" as the source of their pain.

 

[aleCcowaN]

yetanotherwebforum.com wasn't taken, but it didn't sound as grandiose.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But surely that's a "lay" definition of the word "sceptic" (allow me the UK spelling ), as a synonym for "one who has doubts about a certain belief".

No

But aren't we talking here about a more fundamental modern* definition of "sceptic": a person who only reaches conclusions after a rational, reasonable, logical and disinterested examination of all the available evidence, and who remains open to modifying or even abandoning a conclusion if new evidence materialises?

Excepting disinterested, Yes

By that definition, it's easy to conclude that such groups as (say) 9/11 Truthers, Bigfoot believers, believers in the pharmacological efficacy of homeopathy, and indeed dedicated followers of pretty much every religion in the World, are NOT sceptics.

Excepting your plug for atheism, yes.

* "Modern", since the original Sceptics of Ancient Greece took a metaphysical position that it is impossible to have real (let alone absolute) knowledge of anything.......

Not much has changed there.

 

[asydhouse]

Every now and then a noob will get something like the following in response to a post they made:

"This is a skeptics forum. We expect you to be able to back up what you say and not just expect us to take your word for it."

Regardless of what JR might have originally intended, this is the basis for which "skeptic" appears in the forum name. There is an expectation that any POV will be backed up with sound non-fallacious arguments and evidence where it exists. Anybody who does not meet this standard can expect their arguments to be torn to shreds.

That would be a good sentence to put at the top of the page alongside the name (between the name and the knocker balls up there).

It sums up what I want from this forum. It's also a sort of anti-definition of trolls, in that they persist in making posts that do not recognise the principle.

 

[rjh01]

That would be a good sentence to put at the top of the page alongside the name (between the name and the knocker balls up there).

It sums up what I want from this forum. It's also a sort of anti-definition of trolls, in that they persist in making posts that do not recognise the principle.

+1. However I can point to sites that would give me almost POV. I make the claim the world is flat? Here is a link that provides evidence for my POV http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki. If I can do that for that POV I can do it for almost any POV.

No, I do not actually believe the world is flat.

 

[psionl0]

I make the claim the world is flat? Here is a link that provides evidence for my POV http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki.

This is a skeptics forum.

Whilst providing links to back up your arguments is desirable, we expect you to make your own arguments and not have everybody make your arguments and research your material for you.

 

[aleCcowaN]

At the International Skeptics Forum nobody would agree what a sceptic is (not even how it is written). It must be the "international" aspect and its babel of languages ... no, wait, it's English!

 

[bluesjnr]

I have witnessed the same a few times, that posts similar to the one that you mention above remain untouched by moderators, even though incitement to violence against an ethnic group is a crime where I live (and moderators of Internet forums are here legally responsible for allowing such discussion). But mods are quick to clean up lesser chit-chat which is not a crime in any country on the planet.

The post referred to did not incite violence. Stop inciting moderation.

 

[Leumas]

Is one a skeptic who posts post after post after post to malign and abuse and deride atheists for calling the theists' imaginary father in heaven "sky daddy"?

Is one a skeptic who claims to be an atheist yet thinks that it is insulting to imaginary friends in outer space to be called "sky daddy"?

Is one a skeptic who thinks it is ok to insult a live flesh and blood poster on this forum with all sorts of personal abuses but yet gets offended because someone calls Kings in outer space "sky daddies"?

Is one a skeptic who reads post after post of utter illogic and lies and errors and attacks and abuse on other skeptics.... yet doesn't bother even once to speak against it... but then pops into the thread all of a sudden to call another skeptic a child for saying sky daddy and to command him to stop his vitriolic spittle and laughable arrogance?

 

[Leumas]

Is one a skeptic who considers presenting EVIDENCE is the same as an interpretation?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that presenting EVIDENCE is the same as giving an opinion?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that FACTS are not acceptable unless they are given by an authority?

 

[Leumas]

Consider this case

A theist comes along to this forum and makes all sorts of assertions and claims about his or other people's scriptures.​

Is one a skeptic who thinks that there is no point in using verses from those scriptures to show the theist how wrong he is?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that using such hyperlinked and referenced verses is pointless because the theist himself did not read them or does not care to read them?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that it is pointless to use those REFERENCES and HYPERLINKS because some people may not know how to read them in context and thus may form the wrong idea?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that giving quotes from those scriptures that are referenced and hyperlinked for all to read for themselves is the same thing as making an opinion and an interpretation of those verses?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that only people who are an authority on the scriptures are allowed to give quotes and links to verses from those scriptures?

 

[Leumas]

Is one a skeptic who thinks he knows all about Islam or Judaism or Christianity just because he listened to the opinion of some cleric without having ever read the Buybull or Quran?

Is one a skeptic who thinks there is no point in reading the Buybull because theists do not bother to do so and do not get their opinions about their scriptures from reading them?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that skeptics should not bother to quote the scriptures to show the falsities of the assertions of theists who claim that their assertions are right out of the word of their sky daddy which is their scriptures?

Is one a skeptic who thinks that it is laughable vitriolic spittle and arrogance to quote verses from the scriptures to prove the errors of theists’ assertions about their or other people’s scriptures ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is one a skeptic who posts post after post after post to malign and abuse and deride atheists for calling the theists' imaginary father in heaven "sky daddy"?
?

Put aside the whining about nonexistent abuse, the answer is: of course.

Just baffled why someone would whine about getting called out for terrible childish arguments when all one does is post insults.