I think it's interesting that people feel compelled to respond to insults..but the person who makes insulting comments is usually trying to bring a conversation to a close.
"I think it's interesting that people feel compelled to respond to insults..but the person who makes insulting comments is usually trying to bring a conversation to a close."
For the perfect example of this, I would refer you to your own insulting comments in the other thread.
For the last time "Honestly-I'm-Not-John". I copied, clicked and pasted your comments and changed all the terms which referred to Christians to terms which referred to McAtheists. And I did this to illustrate that your arguments are pointless, have no substance and are therefore impossible to refute. The point is - and this is not an insult, this is something that I think I have demonstrated - the point is that your "critique" of theism is little better than a chat-bot's. You simply quote something that a theist has said and add an insult: "I can't believe an intelligent, educated person could believe (x)"; or "You must be brainwashed to believe (y))" And this is how McAtheists tend to interact on blogs, forums etc. They are not engaged in dialogue - they are engaged in activism, attempting to demoralize and frustrate theists through ridicule. All this talk of rationalism and free-thought is merely a colossal bluff. You are not interested in thought or rationality. (A) You want a particular outcome in the culture wars (B) You have a strategy - target the CINO's ("Christians in name only") (C) You use ridicule to reduce the number of CINOs.
The "Reason-Rally" gave the game away. Atheism can't win in the academy. If it is to win at the ballot-box it must concentrate its efforts on popular culture.
(Of course, as an evangelical I don't mind losing at the ballot box so long as people are coming to saving faith...)
I'd say he was speaking more mechanically than anything else. I haven't seen any kind of substantive reply to mu comments. He talks about 'McAtheism', but what I see appears to be precisely the kind of behavior that he rails against. What a bunch of hypocrite bullshit. If he wants to raise the bar for discussion, perhaps he should drop the insults and namecalling himself.
Speaking of hypocritical bullshit ... are you going to keep acting like a turd while demanding that others don't? Or are you going to act like a grown up and conduct yourself in a way that deserves respect, thus earning the right to call others out? (Not that you'd know anything about receiving just desserts, you snotty little gen-Y brat.)
I'm Skeptical (And you sound so like John Loftus it's scary! Are you related?)
I get it. On this thread you're going to ignore my explanation and keep insisting that I insulted you and refused to offer evidence.
Of course, I could keep pointing out that I was copying your posts and changing all the terms that referred to theists to terms which refer to atheists
So,IF there is nothing more than name-calling and insults in those posts THEN I have successfully satirised you. The parody worked.
I just want to make that clear for anyone who is reading this thread without having read the "Boghossian" thread.
Now, what you will do is continue to cry foul. Which is even more tedious than shouting insults. And slightly less intelligent because you are simply highlighting the fact that you opened yourself up to parody.
Now, if you would like Saints and Sceptics to present evidence: we've written numerous articles and two books:
I was simply referring to the fact that Christian theism has undergone something of a revival in academic circles. Now, theism may not be fashionable, but it is a "live", intellectually responsible option for academics.
Quentin Smith's article "The Meta-philosophy of Naturalism" is worth reading; as is http://www.reasonablefaith.org/theistic-critiques-of-atheism
You have no idea who you're speaking to. SandS is a hypocrite, and I think you are too. I don't go around demanding any kind of behavior from anyone, but when they demand something from me that they don't abide by themselves, I have every right to call them out on it. That goes for you, too. You speak of respecting others' beliefs, but neither you nor SandS shows even a modicum of respect for mine. And frankly, I don't care. You can say anything you like about me, and call me names, and sling all the insults you please. But the hypocrisy stinks.
Have I been insulted? No. Are you and he both hypocrites? Absolutely.
Dan, the mark of a stalker is not a way to make friends. Either buy into the conversation or respectfully refrain from personal abuse and character smudging. It's not a good look.
This is a Christian site and protocols must be observed.
I've never disrespected your beliefs. Sure, I've argued against them, but I've never disrespected them. I disrespect you because you're the sort of person who gets indignant when he losses to his betters, instead of assaying to improve. You're a crybaby and a sore loser, so I have no respect for you.
Arguing against my beliefs is not disrespect. Defending the disrespectful actions of others here (including namecalling and other childish behavior), and even chiming in with them with your own abusive language, sends a message. I make very few demands, and as I said, I don't particularly care about childish behavior, but I do call them out when they are hypocritical.
This kind of reminds me of this exchange on Star Trek.
Nilz Baris: Captain Kirk, I consider your security measures a disgrace. In my opinion, you have taken this entire, very important project far too lightly. Capt. Kirk: On the contrary, sir. I think of this project as very important. It is YOU I take lightly.
I really don't understand how someone can think that he's entitled to be taken seriously when he displays no serious interest in the subject matter. I see this sort of attitude in the weight room all the time. Some bonehead will claim to be able to squat 400 lbs because he wants to be taken seriously by more experienced lifters. But then we he goes to perform the lift at half the weight, the experienced lifters will find all sorts of flaws with his technique. If the experienced lifters bring the flaws to the attention of the bonehead, the bonehead usually gets angry and defensive. Clearly the bonehead doesn't take strength sports seriously, otherwise he'd take the opportunity to learn from more experienced lifters. I see the exact same attitude with Skep. Every time someone beats him in a discussion about science or philosophy in the combox, he acts all indignant, like he is entitled to say that he's better at science and philosophy than Christians because he's an atheist. Yet, like the boneheaded lifter, he can't even properly demonstrate proper technique; he continuously shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He even tells the people who do know that we're wrong. It's no wonder that nobody around here takes him seriously; he doesn't show a serious interest in the subject matter, but yet he feels that he can correct the people who do. It's insulting, really, to the people who put the requisite work into understanding something, whether it's strength sports or philosophy, when some bratty novice thinks he's hot stuff.
And Gillson demonstrates the proper technique every time he starts swearing at me, just as SandS does with his namecalling. I sure don't need to take their advice on the matter. Hypoctite bullshit abounds.
Fair go, Dan. Just because you are the quintessential and technically perfect weightlifter, doesn't make you an expert on boneheads.
I'm concerned about the level of irascibility your comments exhibit. Are you sure there are no dietary or steroidal supplements administered as part of your body-building regime which might be contributing to your somewhat strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility towards Skep? There is a known connection between their ingestion and the display of such irritability and anger.
18 comments:
Thanks Vic.
I think it's interesting that people feel compelled to respond to insults..but the person who makes insulting comments is usually trying to bring a conversation to a close.
Graham
"I think it's interesting that people feel compelled to respond to insults..but the person who makes insulting comments is usually trying to bring a conversation to a close."
For the perfect example of this, I would refer you to your own insulting comments in the other thread.
Sigh...face&palm
For the last time "Honestly-I'm-Not-John".
I copied, clicked and pasted your comments and changed all the terms which referred to Christians to terms which referred to McAtheists. And I did this to illustrate that your arguments are pointless, have no substance and are therefore impossible to refute.
The point is - and this is not an insult, this is something that I think I have demonstrated - the point is that your "critique" of theism is little better than a chat-bot's. You simply quote something that a theist has said and add an insult: "I can't believe an intelligent, educated person could believe (x)"; or "You must be brainwashed to believe (y))"
And this is how McAtheists tend to interact on blogs, forums etc. They are not engaged in dialogue - they are engaged in activism, attempting to demoralize and frustrate theists through ridicule.
All this talk of rationalism and free-thought is merely a colossal bluff. You are not interested in thought or rationality.
(A) You want a particular outcome in the culture wars
(B) You have a strategy - target the CINO's ("Christians in name only")
(C) You use ridicule to reduce the number of CINOs.
The "Reason-Rally" gave the game away. Atheism can't win in the academy. If it is to win at the ballot-box it must concentrate its efforts on popular culture.
(Of course, as an evangelical I don't mind losing at the ballot box so long as people are coming to saving faith...)
GV
Atheism can't win in the academy.
Uh... aren't universities pretty much dominated by atheism, especially in philosophy?
Or were you speaking metaphorically, i.e. "atheism can't win in an intellectual debate"?
"Or were you speaking metaphorically"
I'd say he was speaking more mechanically than anything else. I haven't seen any kind of substantive reply to mu comments. He talks about 'McAtheism', but what I see appears to be precisely the kind of behavior that he rails against. What a bunch of hypocrite bullshit. If he wants to raise the bar for discussion, perhaps he should drop the insults and namecalling himself.
Skep,
Speaking of hypocritical bullshit ... are you going to keep acting like a turd while demanding that others don't? Or are you going to act like a grown up and conduct yourself in a way that deserves respect, thus earning the right to call others out? (Not that you'd know anything about receiving just desserts, you snotty little gen-Y brat.)
I'm Skeptical
(And you sound so like John Loftus it's scary! Are you related?)
I get it. On this thread you're going to ignore my explanation and keep insisting that I insulted you and refused to offer evidence.
Of course, I could keep pointing out that I was copying your posts and changing all the terms that referred to theists to terms which refer to atheists
So,IF there is nothing more than name-calling and insults in those posts THEN I have successfully satirised you. The parody worked.
I just want to make that clear for anyone who is reading this thread without having read the "Boghossian" thread.
Now, what you will do is continue to cry foul. Which is even more tedious than shouting insults. And slightly less intelligent because you are simply highlighting the fact that you opened yourself up to parody.
Now, if you would like Saints and Sceptics to present evidence: we've written numerous articles and two books:
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/articles/existence-of-god/
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/academic/saints-sceptics-and-scholars/
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/books/atheisms-new-clothes/
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/new-atheism-a-survival-guide/
So we have made substantial contributions to this debate. Go thou and do likewise; because I can't find any arguments in your posts to respond to.
GV
Amorbis
I was simply referring to the fact that Christian theism has undergone something of a revival in academic circles. Now, theism may not be fashionable, but it is a "live", intellectually responsible option for academics.
Quentin Smith's article "The Meta-philosophy of Naturalism" is worth reading; as is http://www.reasonablefaith.org/theistic-critiques-of-atheism
Gillson,
You have no idea who you're speaking to. SandS is a hypocrite, and I think you are too. I don't go around demanding any kind of behavior from anyone, but when they demand something from me that they don't abide by themselves, I have every right to call them out on it. That goes for you, too. You speak of respecting others' beliefs, but neither you nor SandS shows even a modicum of respect for mine. And frankly, I don't care. You can say anything you like about me, and call me names, and sling all the insults you please. But the hypocrisy stinks.
Have I been insulted? No. Are you and he both hypocrites? Absolutely.
yawn
Dan, the mark of a stalker is not a way to make friends. Either buy into the conversation or respectfully refrain from personal abuse and character smudging. It's not a good look.
This is a Christian site and protocols must be observed.
Skep,
I've never disrespected your beliefs. Sure, I've argued against them, but I've never disrespected them. I disrespect you because you're the sort of person who gets indignant when he losses to his betters, instead of assaying to improve. You're a crybaby and a sore loser, so I have no respect for you.
Arguing against my beliefs is not disrespect. Defending the disrespectful actions of others here (including namecalling and other childish behavior), and even chiming in with them with your own abusive language, sends a message. I make very few demands, and as I said, I don't particularly care about childish behavior, but I do call them out when they are hypocritical.
So say what you want, and I will do the same.
This kind of reminds me of this exchange on Star Trek.
Nilz Baris: Captain Kirk, I consider your security measures a disgrace. In my opinion, you have taken this entire, very important project far too lightly.
Capt. Kirk: On the contrary, sir. I think of this project as very important. It is YOU I take lightly.
I really don't understand how someone can think that he's entitled to be taken seriously when he displays no serious interest in the subject matter. I see this sort of attitude in the weight room all the time. Some bonehead will claim to be able to squat 400 lbs because he wants to be taken seriously by more experienced lifters. But then we he goes to perform the lift at half the weight, the experienced lifters will find all sorts of flaws with his technique. If the experienced lifters bring the flaws to the attention of the bonehead, the bonehead usually gets angry and defensive. Clearly the bonehead doesn't take strength sports seriously, otherwise he'd take the opportunity to learn from more experienced lifters. I see the exact same attitude with Skep. Every time someone beats him in a discussion about science or philosophy in the combox, he acts all indignant, like he is entitled to say that he's better at science and philosophy than Christians because he's an atheist. Yet, like the boneheaded lifter, he can't even properly demonstrate proper technique; he continuously shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He even tells the people who do know that we're wrong. It's no wonder that nobody around here takes him seriously; he doesn't show a serious interest in the subject matter, but yet he feels that he can correct the people who do. It's insulting, really, to the people who put the requisite work into understanding something, whether it's strength sports or philosophy, when some bratty novice thinks he's hot stuff.
And Gillson demonstrates the proper technique every time he starts swearing at me, just as SandS does with his namecalling. I sure don't need to take their advice on the matter. Hypoctite bullshit abounds.
Fair go, Dan. Just because you are the quintessential and technically perfect weightlifter, doesn't make you an expert on boneheads.
I'm concerned about the level of irascibility your comments exhibit. Are you sure there are no dietary or steroidal supplements administered as part of your body-building regime which might be contributing to your somewhat strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility towards Skep? There is a known connection between their ingestion and the display of such irritability and anger.
Please check them out.
Post a Comment