Who misses the days when conversation here was stimulating?

[Yazata]

As I've iterated several times to a colleague who refuses to accept the truth

That suggests that you believe that you already know what the truth is.

- the content isn't the issue.

If people busy themselves arguing with people who don't bend a knee to their version of the truth, then content would indeed seem to be 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.

It might help if people stopped hurling insults (dishonest! deceptive!) at those who are perceived as disagreeing with their favored version of The Truth.

As far as preaching goes, that happens both ways.

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 doo doo heads" should not be considered acceptable.

You're convinced that you are right. So what's wrong with other people thinking that they are right too? From their prespective it's you who is sticking his fingers in his ears while going "LA LA LA" and refusing to listen to what they say.

In my opinion, the religion, paranormal and ufology threads could be an excellent opportunity to examine no end of important and fascinating issues in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

But in order for that to happen, care has to be taken on both sides to avoid threads degenerating into personality-driven flame-battles.

 

[OnlyMe]

I've seen in other forums a software feature that essentially hides their posts from everyone but themselves. Eventually, they get frustrated that nobody is taking the bait and leave.

Adding a Moderator Ignore by All Button for a post or poster, does sound like it should be possible. It could even be made thread or sub forum specific.

 

[Yazata]

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

Without any evidence that you will accept.

In real life, there are probably thousands of eye-witness reports of cryptozoological hominids. Belief in their existence is traditional in many cultures around the world.

Much the same thing can be said about evidence for religious experiences and miracles.

The problem isn't so much that evidence doesn't exist, but rather how much credibility weight to place on the evidence that does exist.

then being dishonest and disingenuous in order to try and defend the position that it is a "fact".

I wish you wouldn't do that.

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.

So the problem as you see it is MR posting about UFO's, ghosts and monsters in what is ostensibly the "UFO's, ghosts and monsters" forum? If threads about those subjects aren't welcome in a forum supposedly devoted to them, then why does the forum exist?

Or is the forum only supposed to be for skeptics and debunkers? If that's so, then shouldn't theists like yourself be excluded from participating in the religion forum? Shouldn't that forum only be for posts by self-avowed atheists? Shouldn't its purpose be to attack and hopefully to discredit religion?

 

[timojin]

Is that science ?

 

[Yazata]

You make claims about science, claiming it is not and has never been beneficial to mankind.

It's ironic that you make that complaint, when you've said almost the exact same thing about philosophy, Paddoboy.

Yet you post about very little apart from philosophy, going on and on about the supposed "scientific method", about evidence and reason, the science/pseudoscience distinction and about the value of science.

You seem to have established yourself as one of the board's philosophers of science, while expressing pride in having never studied the subject and often expressing your opinion that there's nothing there worth learning.

In my opinion that threatens to make you a voice of willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

 

[billvon]

I've seen in other forums a software feature that essentially hides their posts from everyone but themselves. Eventually, they get frustrated that nobody is taking the bait and leave.

Yeah, a forum I moderate has that feature. It's useful, although perhaps not in this case, since the moderators can still see the posts (for obvious reasons.) In this case, Kitt would still see MR's posts and still reply, keeping the threads visible to everyone else.

 

[Kittamaru]

That suggests that you believe that you already know what the truth is.



If people busy themselves arguing with people who don't bend a knee to their version of the truth, then content would indeed seem to be the issue.



It might help if people stopped hurling insults (dishonest! deceptive!) at those who are perceived as disagreeing with their favored version of The Truth.

As far as preaching goes, that happens both ways.



You're convinced that you are right. So what's wrong with other people thinking that they are right too? From their prespective it's you who is sticking his fingers in his ears while going "LA LA LA" and refusing to listen to what they say.

In my opinion, the religion, paranormal and ufology threads could be an excellent opportunity to examine no end of important and fascinating issues in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

But in order for that to happen, care has to be taken on both sides to avoid threads degenerating into personality-driven flame-battles.

Simple - what I am stating is backed not only by observation and logic, but by the site rules by which each of us agreed to be bound upon signing up.

and I agree - the paranormal IS fascinating - trying to declare it as truth without the extraordinary evidence to back it up is foolish. Ignoring what others post entirely when said posts provide well documented evidence (such as studies regarding the fickle nature of human senses)... what would you describe that as, if not dishonest? A discussion on the subject should observe both sides of the coin

 

[Kittamaru]

That suggests that you believe that you already know what the truth is.



If people busy themselves arguing with people who don't bend a knee to their version of the truth, then content would indeed seem to be the issue.



It might help if people stopped hurling insults (dishonest! deceptive!) at those who are perceived as disagreeing with their favored version of The Truth.

As far as preaching goes, that happens both ways.



You're convinced that you are right. So what's wrong with other people thinking that they are right too? From their prespective it's you who is sticking his fingers in his ears while going "LA LA LA" and refusing to listen to what they say.

In my opinion, the religion, paranormal and ufology threads could be an excellent opportunity to examine no end of important and fascinating issues in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

But in order for that to happen, care has to be taken on both sides to avoid threads degenerating into personality-driven flame-battles.

Simple - what I am stating is backed not only by observation and logic, but by the site rules by which each of us agreed to be bound upon signing up.

and I agree - the paranormal IS fascinating - trying to declare it as truth without the extraordinary evidence to back it up is foolish. Ignoring what others post entirely when said posts provide well documented evidence (such as studies regarding the fickle nature of human senses)... what would you describe that as, if not dishonest? A discussion on the subject should observe both sides of the coin

 

[Secular Sanity]

The United Methodist Church is against abortion and homosexuality. Is that why you’re always picking on MR, because he’s gay?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh wow.

Great post

 

[Kittamaru]

Yeah, a forum I moderate has that feature. It's useful, although perhaps not in this case, since the moderators can still see the posts (for obvious reasons.) In this case, Kitt would still see MR's posts and still reply, keeping the threads visible to everyone else.

Actually, I don't think I'd care if I knew something like that had been implemented - I'd probably just ignore him myself at that point.

 

[Kittamaru]

The United Methodist Church is against abortion and homosexuality. Is that why you’re always picking on MR, because he’s gay?

Actually, our church has several gay/lesbian members, and a pastor who is, I believe, bisexual. Our pastors have helped several of our youth come out to their parents, especially in cases where they were afraid of their parents reaction.

Add to that the fact that I was not aware that MR was gay until several weeks ago (maybe a month or two now?), plus the fact that I have a close friend who is gay, the mother of my god daughter is bi, a friend who is pansexual, and my mother is a lesbian... yeah, I think I'm safe in saying that I don't care what a person's sexuality is. That's their business, and theirs alone.

Oh, also, it may be worth noting that I consider myself demisexual and sapiosexual... so, yeah. Make of that what you will.

 

[billvon]

You make claims about science, claiming it is not and has never been beneficial to mankind.

Support your claim with quotes then. I'll wait.

I'll help you remember what you posted:
"The vast majority of scientific information has no impact on my life."
"I don't think knowledge and understanding are inherently beneficial to us."

 

[billvon]

Actually, I don't think I'd care if I knew something like that had been implemented - I'd probably just ignore him myself at that point.

That would be a great idea, one that would greatly cut down on the noise here IMO.

 

[Yazata]

You think science is a belief system?

Yes.

I'd say that it's a very useful belief system practically speaking, whose component beliefs typically have a high probability of being true.

 

[krash661]

what the truth is.[...] their version of the truth[...]their favored version of The Truth.[...]

" truth is singular. its versions are mistruths. "
[david mitchell, cloud atlas]

 

[milkweed]

just a PSA - calling people fuckwits is pretty well frowned upon...

Seriously? LOL And I quote:

Dywyddyr said: ↑
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.

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

Kittamaru, Yesterday at 11:44 AM #7

you mean Selectively Frowned upon?

 

[Yazata]

You make claims about science, claiming it is not and has never been beneficial to mankind.

Support your claim with quotes then. I'll wait.

I'll help you remember what you posted:
"The vast majority of scientific information has no impact on my life."

That remark is entirely defensible and is likely true. (MR's talking about his own life.) It's probably true in my life too. Unless scientific information has useful engineering or medical applications, or changes my worldview somehow, it doesn't effect me very much.

"I don't think knowledge and understanding are inherently beneficial to us."

I'm less sure I'd agree with that. (I'm more of a gnostic than MR, I guess, and do tend to value knowedge for its own sake.) But the view that knowledge isn't always an inherent good is certainly defensible. Perhaps there are some things that it would be better for human health and welfare that we don't know. I'm imagining teenage biohackers with basement molecular biology kits brewing up real life analogues of computer viruses, launching unstoppable plagues and exterminating the human race.

More fundamentally, even when we point to engineering and medical applications of science, is it really the knowledge that's of direct benefit to us, or is the knowledge only indirectly beneficial since it enables us to achieve different and more desireable ends? Physical fluid dynamics might enable aeronautical engineers to design better aircraft, but is it simply knowledge of the physics that's benefiting the average person (most of them don't even share that knowledge) or is it the improved transportation options that the improved planes provide? Learning about how gene transcription is controlled might thrill molecular biologists, but it won't be of much relevance to everyday people unless it pays off in medical applications. In that case it would be the curing of disease that's benefiting people, not mere possession of the biological knowledge, which most laypeople wouldn't even have.

I should add that both of the remarks that Billvon attributed to MR, the idea that scientific knowledge hasn't really impacted MR's life all that much, and the idea that scientific knowledge isn't necessarily an inherent good, are NOT equivalent to the much stronger assertion that Paddoboy is attributing to him, namely that science is not and never has been beneficial to mankind.

 

[Yazata]

Delete accidental double posting.

 

[Secular Sanity]

Actually, our church has several gay/lesbian members, and a pastor who is, I believe, bisexual. Our pastors have helped several of our youth come out to their parents, especially in cases where they were afraid of their parents reaction.

Add to that the fact that I was not aware that MR was gay until several weeks ago (maybe a month or two now?), plus the fact that I have a close friend who is gay, the mother of my god daughter is bi, a friend who is pansexual, and my mother is a lesbian... yeah, I think I'm safe in saying that I don't care what a person's sexuality is. That's their business, and theirs alone.

Oh, also, it may be worth noting that I consider myself demisexual and sapiosexual... so, yeah. Make of that what you will.

You’re a corrupted dissenter then, eh? It’s against your church laws. So, you can understand why I feel that your beliefs are more harmful than MR's.

The Book of Discipline constitutes the law and doctrine of the United Methodist Church.

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/homosexuality-full-book-of-discipline-statements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Methodism

Sapiosexual….that’s fuckin’ hilarious. Is that why you go to church, for all that brain candy? Is that where allum smart ones hangout?