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?
Who misses the days when conversation here was stimulating?
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.)
What you permit you promote.
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.Daecon said:
indeed - somewhere along the way we became more worried about not offending the trolls delicate sensibilities and less about any semblance of science
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"
Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
So, it is okay to believe in God but not Bigfoot, eh, Kittamaru?
Why? Because it’s more socially acceptable?
Why? Because it’s more socially acceptable?
We don't even know if God is the loch ness monster, let alone Bigfoot.
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.
I've already told you - God is Morgan Freeman
Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
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?
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)
Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
What's the difference? What exactly is a spiritual experience, Kittamaru?
A warm fuzzy feeling? Happiness? A hallucination? A little mild psychosis?
In this discussion, the difference is irrelevant as it is simply a personal belief of mine.
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!
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
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.
- Status