Who misses the days when conversation here was stimulating?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Kittamaru, Aug 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    Ah, I'm sure the old guard remembers... when claims were backed with evidence, links and citations were offered up front, and in general, people could rationally argue a topic without getting all salty. Anyone else miss those days?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I wasn't here back in the old days, but I miss them all the same.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Actually I remember the older days[1] - when nutters abounded but it was more or less ok to point out that a f*ckwit was a f*ckwit.
    If you posted bullshit you couldn't go screaming that you were being called names, you had to take responsibility for your own statements.

    1 No good looking at my join date - I used a different name back then.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,178
    Just as a suggestion - a great many threads degenerate into you and MR attacking each other. If you just didn't do that, then there would be less noise.

    I know, it's fun to wind up crackpots - I do it myself on occasion. But I probably shouldn't, and you seem to do it a lot. (I know, he often deserves it, but if you really want to bring back the days of rational discussion, ignoring people like MR would help.)
     
  8. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Maybe it's the implication that having subforums dedicated to woo-woo and other BS, somehow gives such things a semblance of credibility. Cranks think that because such rubbish is acceptable to discuss on a science forum, it's acceptable as science.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    What you permit you promote.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And many of the cranks - openly or otherwise - post their crap in the hopes that it will be seen as, accepted as, and approved by science.
     
  10. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    indeed - somewhere along the way we became more worried about not offending the trolls delicate sensibilities and less about any semblance of science

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    for a time I did - I tried to coax him into seeing the issues with his presentation and arguments - over months I just sort of gave up when it became obvious he did not wish to present a good argument - he just wanted unquestioned approval and acceptance of his claims - any less and he was "being kept down by the scientific illuminati"
     
  11. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    So, it is okay to believe in God but not Bigfoot, eh, Kittamaru?

    Why? Because it’s more socially acceptable?
     
    Yazata and Magical Realist like this.
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,112
    We don't even know if God is the loch ness monster, let alone Bigfoot.
     
  13. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    As I've iterated several times to a colleague who refuses to accept the truth - the content isn't the issue. One could argue for the existence of Baal or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care; the issue is one of method; specifically, dishonesty, deception, and fabrication, not to mention preaching.

    Arguing for or against something is one thing - the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I'm right, aliens exist, you are all a bunch of doodoo heads" should not be considered acceptable.
     
  14. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    I've already told you - God is Morgan Freeman
     
  15. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Really? Because when I tried to argue against a God, you insisted that I was preaching atheism. A logical argument in favor of a position is not preaching.

    All joking aside, do you believe in God, Kittamaru?
     
  16. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    That comes down, again, to method.

    As for my personal belief, I am a highly modified Christian, formerly UCC now UMC. My belief is also heavily influenced by what can be shown and proven, but I am not looking for a religious experience, I'm looking for a spiritual one.

    Thing is, I don't go around insisting that my personal held faith is the truth without concrete facts (and as there are no concrete facts available, I thusly do not proclaim my faith to somehow be better than others)
     
  17. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Well, you’re proclaiming that your faith in God is better than MR’s faith in Bigfoot. There’s no supportive data of any scientific value for Bigfoot or God. However, MR’s belief in Bigfoot is less harmful to society than your belief in a God.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,178
    I think you can believe whatever you like! In MR's case, Bigfoot is certainly OK but unicorns - well, that's ridiculous, there's no such thing. You can make a similar decision if you like.
     
    cluelusshusbund and Kristoffer like this.
  19. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    Not at all - as I said, the belief is not the problem. The problem is trying to pass a belief off as fact without evidence, then being dishonest and disingenuous in order to try and defend the position that it is a "fact".

    As I said - I don't claim my faith to be better than anyone else's, nor do I really talk about it unless asked... so I fail to see how that is even remotely comparable to what MR has been doing.
     
  20. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    What's the difference? What exactly is a spiritual experience, Kittamaru?

    A warm fuzzy feeling? Happiness? A hallucination? A little mild psychosis?
     
  21. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,885
    In this discussion, the difference is irrelevant as it is simply a personal belief of mine.
     
  22. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Kittamaru doesn't make thread after thread about how God is real and we should believe it because all these anecdotes, and blurry videos and suspect photos totally prove it. There's even been testing done by the (totally unbiased) Creation Museum that totally proves that God is real too, honest!
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    Yes that's the point. The Big Foot thread was insisting that there was objective scientific evidence for this creature and that science should take it seriously and study it.

    No sensible religious believer tries to ask science to substantiate religion. Religious belief is all to do with subjective personal experience and relates to ideals to use in living one's life. It is not remotely science.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page