Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

#3001

welch wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Anyone who starts a physically violent fight, no matter whether it's a slap or punch, should expect that the other person will likely use stronger violence (in order to defeat their attacker). Escalation is natural when in a physical fight.
it's why you don't get physical unless you are prepared to get hospitalized or worse. It is extremely hard to predict someone else's reaction to physical assault. They may shrug it off, it may trip something they weren't really aware of and the don't stop until they can't move. It's why even a "measured" response to a physical attack, if running like hell isn't an option, is ensuring the other person is not able to attack you further.

How you get to that point is usually the tricky part. But once you hit someone, suddenly deciding their are rules on "how you hit back"? Well, maybe you should have thought of that before you hit someone.

Yes, if a person begins physical violence, they are in no position to decide that what they get in return must follow some sort of assumed set of rules.

#3002

Metalogic42 wrote:Badger3k:

Those kinds of deities are just "weaker" conceptions designed to circumvent premises in pro-atheism arguments (simple example: If god exists, then evil does not exist). If you allow this, you're admitting such premises are false, and you might as well be a theist.

Yeah, maybe there is some sort of being that doesn't give a shit and leaves absolutely no evidence, be it physical, logical, or otherwise. But not only do I reject such beings on the basis of their complete ad-hocness, they wouldn't be deities anyway.

I don't see it that way. If some theist wants to make the claim that they worship a deity that started it all but left no evidence for it's existence, I would ask what is the point, but I couldn't say that such a being doesn't exist. For all practical purposes it doesn't - for something to be said to exist I'd need evidence, but for myself, I couldn't say that it's existence is unprovable. I gave up such a belief in my conversion process when I realized the only reason I was believing in such a being is because I wanted to. Without evidence I couldn't believe in it.

I do find it interesting that you say that such a being wouldn't be a deity. What are your criteria? If someone wanted to worship the universe, as an unintelligent force, would that qualify as a deity to you?

#3003

Parody Accountant wrote:I feel like I can interpret the obvious stuff.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 00-407.jpg

Please explain the radio rentals picture thing. Immediately afterwards, Lsuoma deciphered meaning and simply asked who it was referring to. My guess: 'Radio rental' translates to calling somebody 'mental'?

Let me educate you in Scottish rhyming slang.

Jambos = Heart Of Midlothian Football Club.

Geddit?

#3004

ReneeHendricks wrote:
welch wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?
Which would be why I'd never do it to you or anyone else I actually respect.
Oh, I'm sure. I just saw it being used and had that urge :D

At least I'm an equal opportunity crotch kicker. I don't pander to any gender 'cuz it hurts no matter what :D

oh hell yeah it does. Women seem to react worse, probably because I would guess they don't get kicked in the crotch as much.

#3005

Metalogic42 wrote:
welch wrote:
Why? I don't believe in the tooth fairy. This isn't active, as "I believe there is no tooth fairy" implies. It's the most inactive thing ever. I don't believe there is such a thing as the tooth fairy. It's like being an only child. I have no siblings. It's not that I wanted them and lost them or had them and they disappeared. I've always lacked siblings. requires no active anything on my part. Same thing with lacking belief in gods. It's not intellectual cowardice, it's a lack of a particular philosophy.
I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.

what's the basis for that belief? What's the structure of it? It's clearly a thing, so what are the details of it?

#3006

welch wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
welch wrote:
Why? I don't believe in the tooth fairy. This isn't active, as "I believe there is no tooth fairy" implies. It's the most inactive thing ever. I don't believe there is such a thing as the tooth fairy. It's like being an only child. I have no siblings. It's not that I wanted them and lost them or had them and they disappeared. I've always lacked siblings. requires no active anything on my part. Same thing with lacking belief in gods. It's not intellectual cowardice, it's a lack of a particular philosophy.
I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.
what's the basis for that belief? What's the structure of it? It's clearly a thing, so what are the details of it?

Before I go full Wonderist, exactly how much information are you asking for here?

#3007

bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:I feel like I can interpret the obvious stuff.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 00-407.jpg

Please explain the radio rentals picture thing. Immediately afterwards, Lsuoma deciphered meaning and simply asked who it was referring to. My guess: 'Radio rental' translates to calling somebody 'mental'?
Let me educate you in Scottish rhyming slang.

Jambos = Heart Of Midlothian Football Club.

Geddit?

http://i.qkme.me/361tz0.jpg

#3008

Scented Nectar wrote:Yes, if a person begins physical violence, they are in no position to decide that what they get in return must follow some sort of assumed set of rules.

Presumably they remain aware of their rights and the law, even if they are an utter prat.

#3009

welch wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote: Oh, I'm sure. I just saw it being used and had that urge :D

At least I'm an equal opportunity crotch kicker. I don't pander to any gender 'cuz it hurts no matter what :D
oh hell yeah it does. Women seem to react worse, probably because I would guess they don't get kicked in the crotch as much.

I've slammed my crotch on the bar of a bicycle. That was enough for me to be unable to walk properly for *days* (amongst other things). At least I have a point of reference now when I think of the act.

#3010

Hmm. I'm getting a 403 you are not entitled to enter this site on SIN.

It's not me welch; I swear it's not me!

/runs and hides behind my dead mommy's ethereal skirts

#3011

"Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /dangeroustalk/2013/07/04/has-independence-day-lost-its-luster/ on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."

That's what I get now. Anyone have any idea what this is?

#3012

To me "belief" implies a certain amount of uncertainty. How much? I dunno.

I can say for example, "I believe the capital of Montana is Billings" when I am not quite sure about it. Or I can say, "the capital of Montana is Helena" when I am simply stating fact.

Anyway I used to say this to people although it's sort of coming out of left field here.

"It's not WHAT you believe, it's WHY you believe it."

#3013

Renee, it's different. Yeah I'm slammed my crotch on a bicycle bar. And then I've slammed my nuts too. The difference is about 9,000.

#3014

debaser71 wrote:To me "belief" implies a certain amount of uncertainty. How much? I dunno.

I can say for example, "I believe the capital of Montana is Billings" when I am not quite sure about it. Or I can say, "the capital of Montana is Helena" when I am simply stating fact.

Anyway I used to say this to people although it's sort of coming out of left field here.

"It's not WHAT you believe, it's WHY you believe it."

Don't forget "and what do you do based on your belief?"

I also forgot to add, I assume this 403 is a problem with their database. It can't be a ban or block somehow since I am not sure I ever commented over there, and got to the site from a newsreader. Too many comments kill the server?

#3015

Whoever is reponsible for keeping the Women Skeptics list tidy is doing a pretty good job, but clearly it is a daily requirement. Here are today's (and yesterday's) childish additions:

Luna C.: United States
Plenty O'Toole: United States
Amanda Hugandkiss: United States
Holden McGroin: United States
Seymour Butts: United States
Tara Dikoff: United States
Wayne King: United States

#3016

codelette wrote:So, yeah...I was perusing one of the Puertorican paper websites this morning and looky looky...the O.T. with the self-harm fetish is there!
http://www.vocero.com/se-hace-pierna-or ... ego-video/

That's the one who used to post sometimes on FfTB, sometimes calling herself ziztur on youtube. She's into self harm in a big way. She cut off her toes (by accident? on purpose?), and then more recently her whole lower leg. She hinted that she did these things because she strongly wanted to but that she had to be careful of her wording so that it would officially stay under the banner 'accident'. I'm guessing she'd get fired or disqualify for some benefit or something if they knew for sure that she did it all on purpose.

What does O.T. stand for?

#3017

Badger3k wrote:
debaser71 wrote:To me "belief" implies a certain amount of uncertainty. How much? I dunno.

I can say for example, "I believe the capital of Montana is Billings" when I am not quite sure about it. Or I can say, "the capital of Montana is Helena" when I am simply stating fact.

Anyway I used to say this to people although it's sort of coming out of left field here.

"It's not WHAT you believe, it's WHY you believe it."
Don't forget "and what do you do based on your belief?"

I also forgot to add, I assume this 403 is a problem with their database. It can't be a ban or block somehow since I am not sure I ever commented over there, and got to the site from a newsreader. Too many comments kill the server?

No it;s not a load problem.

403 is when your request is denied for permission reasons. It's usually an admin cock-up.

#3018

It's nothing personal. It went down according to 'Is It Down Right Now."

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/skeptickink.com.html

Website Name: Skeptickink

skeptickink.comURL Checked: skeptickink.com

no responseResponse Time: no response

unknownLast Down: unknown

Skeptickink.com is DOWN for everyone.
It is not just you. The server is not responding...

#3019

Metalogic42 wrote:I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.

I'm extremely confident that neither faeries nor gods exist.

I know banamine relieves colic.

I believe in practising table manners.

I think the world would be a better place if everyone were a skeptic .

I feel the DH makes baseball more interesting.

I suspect that Wonderist may be a Turing machine. :lol:

#3020

Tribble wrote:It's nothing personal. It went down according to 'Is It Down Right Now."

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/skeptickink.com.html

Website Name: Skeptickink

skeptickink.comURL Checked: skeptickink.com

no responseResponse Time: no response

unknownLast Down: unknown

Skeptickink.com is DOWN for everyone.
It is not just you. The server is not responding...

http://slymepit.com/staticimgs/vc.jpg

#3021

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.
I'm extremely confident that neither faeries nor gods exist.

I know banamine relieves colic.

I believe in practising table manners.

I think the world would be a better place if everyone were a skeptic .

I feel the DH makes baseball more interesting.

I suspect that Wonderist may be a Turing machine. :lol:

All of those are beliefs. Funny, that.

#3022

bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:I feel like I can interpret the obvious stuff.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 00-407.jpg

Please explain the radio rentals picture thing. Immediately afterwards, Lsuoma deciphered meaning and simply asked who it was referring to. My guess: 'Radio rental' translates to calling somebody 'mental'?
Let me educate you in Scottish rhyming slang.

Jambos = Heart Of Midlothian Football Club.

Geddit?

The Hearts -> The Jam Tarts -> Jambos

It seems less about 'rhyming' more about just making a nickname like Rob Schneider's character on SNL via 'making copies'.

I still don't get wtf you're saying though. I guess that was your point. It's obvious I don't have a scooby doo. :)

#3023

debaser71 wrote:Renee, it's different. Yeah I'm slammed my crotch on a bicycle bar. And then I've slammed my nuts too. The difference is about 9,000.

Accepted. I'm recalling a few years back when my guy just lightly grazed his nuts with the side of his hand. Seriously - looked like a "whisper touch". Within about 10 seconds he crumpled to the floor saying he felt like he was going to throw up. I *really* couldn't help myself and I started to giggle uncontrollably. I kept trying to tell him I was not laughing at him but rather at the sheer silliness of it all. He didn't buy that and still doesn't to this day :D

#3024

ReneeHendricks wrote:
debaser71 wrote:Renee, it's different. Yeah I'm slammed my crotch on a bicycle bar. And then I've slammed my nuts too. The difference is about 9,000.
Accepted. I'm recalling a few years back when my guy just lightly grazed his nuts with the side of his hand. Seriously - looked like a "whisper touch". Within about 10 seconds he crumpled to the floor saying he felt like he was going to throw up. I *really* couldn't help myself and I started to giggle uncontrollably. I kept trying to tell him I was not laughing at him but rather at the sheer silliness of it all. He didn't buy that and still doesn't to this day :D

Bollocks are proof that there is no benevolent god.

#3025

Meta,

2+2 = 4

Just a belief?

#3026

Parody Accountant wrote:Meta,

2+2 = 4

Just a belief?

A belief, yes. But not just a belief.

#3027

ReneeHendricks wrote: I've slammed my crotch on the bar of a bicycle. That was enough for me to be unable to walk properly for *days* (amongst other things). At least I have a point of reference now when I think of the act.

I told a teenage boy suffering thru riding lessons, "Your balls will stop hurting once you learn to post the trot". He quit soon after.

#3028

Dick Strawkins wrote:It is certainly true that ADD is overdiagnosed. Speaking to a psychiatrist friend, she was of the opinion that depression and anxiety attacks can cause a loss of the ability to concentrate, leading to people thinking they suffer from ADD. Genuine ADD is much more severe and doesn't suddenly develop during a short period within adulthood.

The data point toward under-treatment and under-diagnosis, with under-diagnosis being worse in the adult population. The 'myth' that there is a problem of over-diagnosis is largely due to a misunderstanding of how ADHD is treated. It *is* true that children who *do not* actually have ADHD are sometimes (fairly frequently) mis-diagnosed as having ADHD. This *mis*diagnosis problem is real, and varies from region to region.

However, when a child is mis-diagnosed, the medication will not work properly on them, because a non-ADHD person's brain reacts differently than an ADHD person's brain. For the ADHD person, the stimulant medication arouses areas of the brain which are *under*aroused. (And even then, different medications will arouse different areas/functions, so even ADHD patients need to experiment to find the right medication and dosage that works with the least side-effects.) But for a non-ADHD child, the meds will *over*stimulate those regions because they are already normally aroused, not under-aroused. Thus, the medications will case almost complete side-effects and the parents and child will quickly stop using them. (This unfortunate dynamic is also the sort that creates stories about the supposed harmfulness of the meds, and that parents found other 'natural' cures when their child reacted badly to the big-bad-pharma drug.)

So, if you only look strictly at "was the person ever diagnosed?" then you'll see that yes, there are more diagnoses than there should be. But if you look at the *treatment* statistics, they are much more in-line with the known range of prevalence in the population: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/medicated.html But even there, you'll see that large regions in the US (for example) clearly have under-treatment, because they are only treating 1-3% of children, but the estimated prevalence in children is about 6-7% (according to Wikipedia, which is reporting a fairly conservative estimate; I've seen other estimates ranging from 7-15%).

So, even with inflation due to mis-diagnosis, there is generally a problem with under-treatment, and so there are children who *could* be treated, but are not, and *they* are not diagnosed either. So, there is also an under-diagnosis problem, as well as a mis-diagnosis problem.

The situation is worse for adult ADHD, since most of us 'missed the boat' when we were young. There are an estimated 3-6% of adults with Adult ADHD, but only a small fraction of that number are diagnosed and being treated. Under-diagnosis here has quite large consequences for society as well, as it reduces national productivity in the workplace, and contributes to healthcare, welfare, and homelessness costs among other things.

#3029

Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

#3030

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

Dracula gets it.

#3031

Remember "The Atheism Tapes"? Look at the extended interview with Colin McGinn. When he talks about belief...yeah, that's what I think too.

#3032

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:Meta,

2+2 = 4

Just a belief?
A belief, yes. But not just a belief.

As long as you're consistent re: subsets like that, and you re-state your terms if people get confused, I don't see a problem with it. Carry on.

To me, I am agnostic and 'atheist' about tooth fairies and gods. I'd be a-tooth-fairyist, if there was such a word. I check more than one box.

Agnostic - without *knowledge* of an existing tooth fairy or god (gnosis - greek). Yep, that's me. You can't prove a negative, etc.

Atheist - without *belief* in gods or tooth fairies. Just like Christians disbelieve in Allah. I disbelieve in all hypothetical gods, until shown positive proof. Disbelief of a claim (god exists) is not a belief. But I understand your terms would insist that it is a belief.

#3033

beÂ·lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA

noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

#3034

Parody Accountant wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:Meta,

2+2 = 4

Just a belief?
A belief, yes. But not just a belief.
As long as you're consistent re: subsets like that, and you re-state your terms if people get confused, I don't see a problem with it. Carry on.

To me, I am agnostic and 'atheist' about tooth fairies and gods. I'd be a-tooth-fairyist, if there was such a word. I check more than one box.

Agnostic - without *knowledge* of an existing tooth fairy or god (gnosis - greek). Yep, that's me. You can't prove a negative, etc.

Atheist - without *belief* in gods or tooth fairies. Just like Christians disbelieve in Allah. I disbelieve in all hypothetical gods, until shown positive proof. Disbelief of a claim (god exists) is not a belief. But I understand your terms would insist that it is a belief.

http://www.rafed.net/en/images/stories/08/05/angry.jpg

#3035

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

I can't believe you went for the dictionary! FFS!!!!

#3036

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

Hey Justin, did you have a chance to talk to Nugent about the so-called "Rifts"? Did you talk to him at all? Did you take a picture of that famous irish lift? (you didn't I guess, otherwise you'd share it).

#3037

I thought I'd been IP banned from Skepticink, too, and I was about to write a mean letter to Loftus ... but if it's down for everyone, I stand corrected.

#3038

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
A belief, yes. But not just a belief.
As long as you're consistent re: subsets like that, and you re-state your terms if people get confused, I don't see a problem with it. Carry on.

To me, I am agnostic and 'atheist' about tooth fairies and gods. I'd be a-tooth-fairyist, if there was such a word. I check more than one box.

Agnostic - without *knowledge* of an existing tooth fairy or god (gnosis - greek). Yep, that's me. You can't prove a negative, etc.

Atheist - without *belief* in gods or tooth fairies. Just like Christians disbelieve in Allah. I disbelieve in all hypothetical gods, until shown positive proof. Disbelief of a claim (god exists) is not a belief. But I understand your terms would insist that it is a belief.
http://www.rafed.net/en/images/stories/08/05/angry.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7yAQdW1wD4E/T ... shpoll.gif

#3039

Parody Accountant wrote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7yAQdW1wD4E/T ... shpoll.gif

Sorry, but I'm really pissed about this. "You can't prove a negative" is the most egregiously bullshit statement to ever make rounds in the atheism community. I'm just gonna leave this here: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

#3040

Parody Accountant wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:I feel like I can interpret the obvious stuff.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 00-407.jpg

Please explain the radio rentals picture thing. Immediately afterwards, Lsuoma deciphered meaning and simply asked who it was referring to. My guess: 'Radio rental' translates to calling somebody 'mental'?
Let me educate you in Scottish rhyming slang.

Jambos = Heart Of Midlothian Football Club.

Geddit?
The Hearts -> The Jam Tarts -> Jambos

It seems less about 'rhyming' more about just making a nickname like Rob Schneider's character on SNL via 'making copies'.

I still don't get wtf you're saying though. I guess that was your point. It's obvious I don't have a scooby doo. :)

Evolution. It evolved step by step. Nobody just made up a nickname for Heart Of Midlothian one day.

#3041

IJLTH
http://gumbercules.com/yelling.jpg

#3042

Lsuoma wrote:IJLTH
http://gumbercules.com/yelling.jpg

I see a vase.

#3043

Metalogic42 wrote:All of those are beliefs. Funny, that.

Technically, yeah, i agree. Colloquially, people treat the things on my list differently (when it's just amatter of level of confidence.). So I like to reiterate to convey asense of confidence if folks seem confused.

My point: not everybody's working off the same definitions. Which is why the discussion is going in circles.

#3044

Lsuoma wrote:
Dave2 wrote: I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.
It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

I replied here: viewtopic.php?p=107562#p107562

#3045

Metalogic42 wrote:I see a vase.

I believe I just LMAO

#3046

The reason why men double over in pain is because when you get hit in the nuts it hurts in your lower abdomen. Like the pain is transferred or connected somehow. But I suppose YMMV.

#3047

Tribble wrote:It's nothing personal. It went down according to 'Is It Down Right Now."

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/skeptickink.com.html

Website Name: Skeptickink

skeptickink.comURL Checked: skeptickink.com

no responseResponse Time: no response

unknownLast Down: unknown

Skeptickink.com is DOWN for everyone.
It is not just you. The server is not responding...

http://i.imgur.com/jfG4X6E.jpg

? :think:

#3048

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7yAQdW1wD4E/T ... shpoll.gif
Sorry, but I'm really pissed about this. "You can't prove a negative" is the most egregiously bullshit statement to ever make rounds in the atheism community. I'm just gonna leave this here: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

Holy shit. Point conceded. That article was great!

http://i.imgur.com/uKYLpDe.png

I'm definitely going to be more specific. You most certainly can prove a negative, but you probably can't disprove every claim. That's where it's still convenient to stick with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof".

#3049

John Greg wrote:JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.
No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

I am aware of the distinction and never said atheism is a belief system. I am saying the complete opposite (although clearly I badly worded it) It is a positive claim of a negative on the basis that the positive is either unproven or not even considered. Therefore the negative is the default. The same issue comes up with TAG claims and trying to tell Theists that atheism is not a religion. Unfortunately PMZ claims the negative not as default but as a reaction to an absolute claim the positive is false (strong atheist) That makes him very vulnerable if he ever tries to argue theists.

#3050

Parody Accountant wrote: Holy shit. Point conceded. That article was great!

http://i.imgur.com/uKYLpDe.png

I'm definitely going to be more specific. You most certainly can prove a negative, but you probably can't disprove every claim. That's where it's still convenient to stick with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof".

Thank you. However, I'd argue that even Last Thursdayism can be disproven by reductio into something even epistemically weaker than solipsism (and LTism itself is a reductio of Omphalos). But I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

#3051

Also: please, please link to that PDF as often as you can.

#3052

Lsuoma wrote:Yeah, I was, but don't tell the wordy cunt that.

My reply: viewtopic.php?p=107571#p107571

#3053

John Greg wrote:JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.
No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

I agree, and for several reasons. One being burden of proof, another occam's razor, and yet another being that it's the broadest umbrella term possible, which is handy for dealing with people who insist on calling themselves agnostics.

#3054

mikelf wrote:
Wonderist wrote:
mikelf wrote: See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.
But where have I actually *done* that, Mikelf? I talk about what works *for me*. I don't say, "you do this, and you do that," I say, "I did this, here's how I do. If you're interested, great, if you're not, just skip or ignore me. If it works for you, great, if not, oh well." And I've said repeatedly that I would be interested in learning from others here too.
You cannot force a seed to grow, Grasshopper. You can only continue your life's journey and hope that someday, when you return, that it has borne fruit.

So, you don't have an example then?

#3055

welch wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
welch wrote:
Why? I don't believe in the tooth fairy. This isn't active, as "I believe there is no tooth fairy" implies. It's the most inactive thing ever. I don't believe there is such a thing as the tooth fairy. It's like being an only child. I have no siblings. It's not that I wanted them and lost them or had them and they disappeared. I've always lacked siblings. requires no active anything on my part. Same thing with lacking belief in gods. It's not intellectual cowardice, it's a lack of a particular philosophy.
I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.
what's the basis for that belief? What's the structure of it? It's clearly a thing, so what are the details of it?

Metalogic42, you are switching the burden of proof to yourself when there is not only no need but it will also open you up to easy attacks from a competent theist or apologist. It can be easy enough to disprove particular god claims (original sin associated with other concepts is an example) due to their logical failure but that is not true of the woolly beliefs many theists hold. Also switching this burden of proof will put you in a position of not being able to effectively deal with claims such as those by WLC with his TAG arguments.

#3056

Good discussions with Nugent.

#3057

Guest wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:If you can't handle simple humour after I have said that was the intent then tough luck. It was damn obvious to me it was humour after what I had said about vegetarians but I even clarified. I repeat, just like FtB bullies you won't bully me.
http://i.imgur.com/UR0aouA.jpg

hahaha!

#3058

ReneeHendricks wrote:Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

You can say "dear" in a respectful manner.

The GM of my guild on EQ2 tolerates it when it is said to her, but the context is that most of the men who say it to her are of our generation and/or from the south.

#3059

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

Where's the damn elevator pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3060

JackSkeptic wrote:
Metalogic42, you are switching the burden of proof to yourself when there is not only no need but it will also open you up to easy attacks from a competent theist or apologist. It can be easy enough to disprove particular god claims (original sin associated with other concepts is an example) due to their logical failure but that is not true of the woolly beliefs many theists hold. Also switching this burden of proof will put you in a position of not being able to effectively deal with claims such as those by WLC with his TAG arguments.

I *want* the burden of proof, thank you very much. Makes for a more strongly defended position (not that I don't respond to theistic arguments - I do. But I also make arguments for atheism).

Also, if by TAG you mean 'Transcendental Argument for God", I'm pretty sure WLC has never used that argument.