• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

16.5 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Insults to whom?

Remember... we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?

This is a site for skeptics... no?

The S in ISF is supposed to be Skeptics... no?

Sky daddies are imaginary characters... IMAGINARY.... NOT REAL.... no?

One cannot insult fictive characters from fairy tales.... you know... FICTION!!

If I were to say Frodo Baggins is a stupid idiot would you be so concerned so as to keep hounding me from thread to thread calling me names and abusing me?

Remember I am a REAL PERSON... when you call me names and goad me from thread to thread with endless posts calling me names .... that is an insult... to a real person... who can be insulted on account of being real with real feelings.

Me calling imaginary fairy tale characters Sky Daddy because they are called Father In Heaven in the fairy tales is
  1. Factual
  2. Not an insult since it is factual
  3. Not an insult since there is no one to be insulted besides it being factual.

One cannot insult an imaginary character in a fairy tale by calling it exactly what the fairy tale says it is.

On a site for skeptics atheists are so indignant and insulted because another atheist calls fairy tale characters exactly what they are said to be in the fables?????
:confused::boggled::eye-poppi:eek::yikes:

And those atheists are so insulted as to go around using school cafeteria style bullying and harassment and hounding and goading while ganging up in teams from thread to thread toppling the food trays of atheists for daring to say the TRUTH about imaginary friends in outer space and deadbeat daddies in the sky and despotic monarchs in heavenly kingdoms.

This must be the strangest interpretation of atheism and skepticism ever.

REMEMBER.... they are FICTIVE CHARACTERS in fairy tales and fables and MYTHS... they cannot be insulted... less so if the terms used to describe them are in fact not insults on account of them being FACTUAL descriptions according to what the fairy tales describe them.

Remember you BULLYING and INSULTING me in defense of fairy tale characters while worried about them being insulted is .... hurtful to my feelings... and I am a real person whose feelings can be hurt... so remember that while you are INSULTING and BULLYING me and others because we dare call fairy tale characters what they are depicted to be in the myths and fables about them.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?
Click to expand...
No, it's an open forum for anyone to join. In fact it would be boring not to have any differently opinionated discussers along. Then we could change the name from "discussion forum" into "mutual agreement forum".

Leumas said:
This is a site for skeptics... no?
Click to expand...
For skeptics, and anyone else who wishes to join.

Leumas said:
Sky daddies are imaginary characters... IMAGINARY.... NOT REAL.... no?
Click to expand...
Probably, but this has not been proven scientifically. The question remains theoretically open.

Leumas said:
One cannot insult fictive characters from fairy tales.... you know... FICTION!!
Click to expand...
No, but religious people might get insulted. Insulting a religion becomes indirectly an insult at religious people. Of course they can get insulted by mere formal discussion too, but _that_ they will have to tolerate.

Leumas said:
Remember I am a REAL PERSON... (...) with real feelings.
Click to expand...
In a spirit of mutuality, it would be good for you to remember that also religious people are real persons with real feelings. And that some more or less religious people read and also participate in these discussions. (Their participation would be the 'E' in JREF... wait, what? Ah, never mind.)
 
Leumas said:
Insults to whom?

Remember... we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?.......
Click to expand...

Jeez, Leumas, do you have to use such stupid formatting? Why can't you just type your posts in the same way as everyone else? I'd love to engage with you, but your bizarre formatting repulses me to the point where I find your text unreadable. I don't think I have ever managed to read an entire post of yours, despite often being interested in what you might have to say.

Oh, and the answer to your question. No, we're not, otherwise who would we have to argue with?
 
Leumas said:
Insults to whom?

Remember... we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?
Click to expand...

Don't count me in such unevolved category nor in the even more unevolved one of theists.

Congratulations in making a fit in a thread which is probably to be read by visitors trying to figure out what this forum is about. You have made the answer patently clear by example.
 
Leumas said:
Insults to whom?

Remember... we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?
Click to expand...
No. Neither is a requirement to join the forum, and atheism is not the focus of the forum. It's not necessary to be an atheist to be a skeptic.
 
MikeG said:
Jeez, Leumas, do you have to use such stupid formatting? Why can't you just type your posts in the same way as everyone else? I'd love to engage with you, but your bizarre formatting repulses me to the point where I find your text unreadable. I don't think I have ever managed to read an entire post of yours, despite often being interested in what you might have to say.

Oh, and the answer to your question. No, we're not, otherwise who would we have to argue with?
Click to expand...

Me likee. :thumbsup: That formatting style is soooo off-putting.
 
Is one a skeptic if one derails every thread in 'religion and philosophy' (and now the 'welcome' forum) with the same claptrap?

Is one a skeptic if one is a fundamentalist atheist?

Is one a skeptic if one is only rails against everyone else for not toeing the fundamentalist atheist line?
 
Oh dear, it would seem that those who use vituperative language and intentionally derisive name calling would prefer that people refrain from questioning those statements.
 
I would think a true skeptic would be agnostic. As Bertrand Russell once said (and I realize this quote is used as a signature):
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Click to expand...


My sense of James Randi is that he thinks it is clearly impossible to bend a spoon using only the power of the mind. I agree, I don't think it's physically possible either. On the bigger questions -- religion, politics, social trends -- I think what is true and what is not is a lot harder to know. On those questions it seems to me that someone who has opinions of which they are absolutely certain, who will barely tolerate anyone with doubts (much less a different opinion) and uses mockery and ridicule to defend their belief is the opposite of a skeptic.
 
Leumas said:
Insults to whom?

Remember... we are all atheists and skeptics here... no?

This is a site for skeptics... no?
Click to expand...

I don't recall the College of Skeptical Cardinals convening and electing a Skeptical Pope or creating a dogma for skeptics, a skeptic is someone who is skeptical, I don't remember a specific requirement that they be skeptical on certain topics
 
There has been a slowly growing derail in the works that needs to stop. I've pulled a few of the most recent off-topic posts off to AAH; there are many earlier posts that could have been hauled off, too, but they seemed to have at least a glimmer of substance related to the actual thread topic despite their high whinge content.

Keep in mind the thread topic is the word skeptic/sceptic and how it relates to the forum name and such. Expositions about one member's belief he or she has been repeatedly wronged by other members or the moderators should be taken elsewhere.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
No, it's an open forum for anyone to join. In fact it would be boring not to have any differently opinionated discussers along.
Click to expand...
Precisely! There is a mistaken belief held by some that this is only a forum for "true" skeptics to post to.

The whole idea is that anybody may put an idea on this forum regardless of whether it is a skeptic POV or not but only in the realization that their arguments could come under severe skeptical scrutiny.
 
psionl0 said:
The whole idea is that anybody may put an idea on this forum regardless of whether it is a skeptic POV or not but only in the realization that their arguments could come under severe skeptical scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Do you think that would be understood by people looking in from the outside?

It might be that some see the skeptics tag and figure "I'm not a skeptic, so it isn't for me."
 
And yet we do seem to get a steady stream of people dropping by to explain to us how wrong we are to doubt astrology, Bigfoot, telepathy, homeopathy etc. Though most don't linger long, a few become regulars and a very few become sceptics.
 
theprestige said:
They'd kind of be right, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
Depends. I was always of the opinion that a skeptic really needs to be a critical thinker first. Skepticism without critical thinking skills and logic is nothing more than cynicism and not very productive in my POV.

Maybe that's just me though. Not sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom