South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 20, 2019, 21:38:46 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Mighty Men Conference

 (Read 52471 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #105 on: September 06, 2014, 23:36:23 PM »

I am of opinion that everyone knows that God does exist and will hold them accountable for things they have done.
You are wrong.
Quote
They do not like the idea that they will be accountable for their actions and the fact that there are absolutes.
You are wrong.
Quote
You can only be free once you accept Jesus in your life, otherwise you'll be a slave to the world...
You are wrong.

That is a whole lot of wrong. That must suck big time?
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #106 on: September 08, 2014, 14:16:21 PM »

Yeah, sorry Joop, but I don't buy the sincerity of this post at all, I've seen these lines of attacks elsewhere on the internet and in the real world too.

I don't mind that it's your opinion, I respect that people can have opinions that are not the same as mine, it's when opinions are defended and treated as fact that peeves me off.

This type of trolling really only serves two main purposes, namely to witness and play the sanctimonious victim card when anyone responds with any criticism and not just nod ones head and say "amen"

I don't think religious people are at all ignorant or stupid for holding whatever beliefs they wish to hold, I think people hold beliefs for more reasons than just being convinced X god is real or B religion has all the answers.

Hate this dumb/ignorant/innocent-question type tactics believers employ to shove jesus down ones throat and come out looking like the nice guy or the innocent party or whatever hipocritical agenda they are trying to achieve
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #107 on: September 08, 2014, 14:32:02 PM »

*Nods head*... Amen.

But seriously, a guy lost his bananas at me a while ago, and hasn't spoken to me since, after doing exactly what you're describing Vulcan. He kept asking these "oh so clever" "innocent" questions (on a topic not relating to religion at all, fwiw) and got more and more upset every time I honestly and knowledgeably answered them with valid responses. What did he expect? Maybe he wanted me to just go "oh, yeah, I haven't thought about this at all, ever, n'yuk, you're so clever!".

Clearly that's not what happened. Every answer left him more frustrated... He started acting the victim and eventually left in a huff, hasn't spoken to me since. In spite of throwing profanity at me (not returned) and a couple of direct insults (not returned), he wants people to believe HE took the high road and I just wouldn't "get along".

I cannot count the number of ways this convinced me he isn't worth speaking to in future.
Logged
j00p
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #108 on: September 08, 2014, 14:44:04 PM »

All people are free to believe what they wish. Calling this trolling is somewhat biased... In my view, this was a statement made because of what was said on this forum. I do not shove Jesus down anyone's throat, if they chose Him, great, if they don't, well what can I say. But how could I not comment? One should be open minded, eat the meat, spit out the bones, that way you learn a little from everyone. My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #109 on: September 08, 2014, 14:51:00 PM »

… doing exactly what you're describing Vulcan. He kept asking these "oh so clever" "innocent" questions…
This tactic even has a name.  Very aptly, it’s called JAQing off.  Old Tellybanana is an accomplished master of this variety of unenviable artlessness.

My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
Oops, that’s logical fallacy No. 4.  We don’t flip a coin to decide between truth and fiction.

'Luthon64
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #110 on: September 08, 2014, 15:10:13 PM »

Boogie, that's exactly the sort of sitautions I'm complaining about - we have this veneer of having equal rights and respect for all, but the fact is that the non-religious are very much discriminated against in this supposedly great nation of ours - they just don't say it out loud.

@ joop - well it did come accross as a bit trolly didn't it? It wouldn't be the first tiime I read posts like these where users make a couple of posts and then runs away once they played their cards and not bother coming back when a new table is set.

Jeesh I don't even know where to start on your last part - could you clarify what you mean when you now refer to your prove/disprove statements?

I don't judge you for being religious at all, don't judge me because I believe in the Tokoloshi Smiley
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #111 on: September 08, 2014, 15:10:45 PM »

... if you don't know, don't judge.

But:

I am of opinion that everyone knows that God does exist and will hold them accountable for things they have done. They do not like the idea that they will be accountable for their actions and the fact that there are absolutes. You can only be free once you accept Jesus in your life, otherwise you'll be a slave to the world...

A bit hypocritical there joop: You've judged us to "not like being held accountable" and as "slaves to the world" right out the gate.
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 08, 2014, 15:20:50 PM »

… doing exactly what you're describing Vulcan. He kept asking these "oh so clever" "innocent" questions…
This tactic even has a name.  Very aptly, it’s called JAQing off.





This from Mef's wiki link:
Quote
JAQing off - 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of "just asking questions." 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers. "He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off."


Most brilliant quote/word of the week!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 15:40:57 PM by The Vulcan » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #113 on: September 08, 2014, 16:04:06 PM »

My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
I think it’s worth elaborating a little on a few important aspects of the above citation.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there’s a subtle and wholly unwarranted assumption implicit in the conditional “if you don't know”.  The implication is that atheists and atheism necessarily entail insufficient familiarity if not wholesale ignorance of the alleged nature and/or attributes of the skyfairy under consideration.  But most of the forum members here are well familiar with the Christian belief system and have rejected it for that reason more than any other.  It is therefore self-serving, even disingenuous, to imply that if one disagrees with others’ religious beliefs, such disagreement is automatically the result of unfamiliarity and therefore it disqualifies one from judging the factual validity of those beliefs.  Christians are always quick to judge anything they view as heresy or blasphemy or profanity or apostasy, which they will “substantiate” with all manner of mind magic, yet they will not readily extend the same courtesy to others who disagree with their worldview.

Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate, failing which reason dictates that the proposition must be rejected pending adequate proof.  Again, the above subterfuge means to suggest that somehow insufficient proof to decide the question one way or the other allows you to just go ahead and pick whichever “truth” you like.  It shouldn’t be hard to see the sorts of trouble into which this approach can get you.

Third, it seeks again to reverse the burden of proof, as pointed out before.

'Luthon64
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #114 on: September 08, 2014, 16:15:43 PM »

My point with the "prove/disprove" statements was that if you don't know, don't judge.
I think it’s worth elaborating a little on a few important aspects of the above citation.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there’s a subtle and wholly unwarranted assumption implicit in the conditional “if you don't know”.  The implication is that atheists and atheism necessarily entail insufficient familiarity if not wholesale ignorance of the alleged nature and/or attributes of the skyfairy under consideration.  But most of the forum members here are well familiar with the Christian belief system and have rejected it for that reason more than any other.  It is therefore self-serving, even disingenuous, to imply that if one disagrees with others’ religious beliefs, such disagreement is automatically the result of unfamiliarity and therefore it disqualifies one from judging the factual validity of those beliefs.  Christians are always quick to judge anything they view as heresy or blasphemy or profanity or apostasy, which they will “substantiate” with all manner of mind magic, yet they will not readily extend the same courtesy to others who disagree with their worldview.

Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate, failing which reason dictates that the proposition must be rejected pending adequate proof.  Again, the above subterfuge means to suggest that somehow insufficient proof to decide the question one way or the other means you can just go ahead and pick whichever “truth” you like.  It shouldn’t be hard to see the sorts of trouble into which this approach can get you.

Third, it seeks again to reverse the burden of proof, as pointed out before.

'Luthon64

+1 beautifully written statement, should've become an author!


Second, there’s the approach of the reasonable person, which demands that the evidence offered in support of a given proposition is adequate...

'Luthon64

I would just have added the words "sufficient" and "appropriate" the word adequate is a tad bit ambigious for my liking, apart from that, it's pure poetry
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #115 on: September 08, 2014, 16:22:41 PM »

Why, thank you, kind sir!  Kiss

'Luthon64
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #116 on: September 08, 2014, 16:50:23 PM »




.... hmmm now I'm stuffed... ate way too much copypasta for one day Smiley
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #117 on: September 08, 2014, 17:14:19 PM »

… doing exactly what you're describing Vulcan. He kept asking these "oh so clever" "innocent" questions…
This tactic even has a name.  Very aptly, it’s called JAQing off.  Old Tellybanana is an accomplished master of this variety of unenviable artlessness.


Sigh. Anyway, these people also fall into the Argument vs ARGUMENT! trap. They think just because I disagree with them I must therefore be angry. Emotions go flying everywhere... they start assuming you just hate them, personally. And the kicker is that they are the ones who keep asking questions and perpetuate the debate. You don't want to hear inconvenient truths from me? Stop asking questions. Are you getting upset by my answers? Stop asking questions. etc...

Alas, I had to hear that because I didn't just let them ask questions in a vacuum, I have "a problem with them" and that I just loved causing trouble. *bashes head against desk*
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #118 on: September 08, 2014, 17:45:30 PM »

Maybe it's not really as much as them feeling hurt over perceived anger toward them,  maybe a lot of the times it's more projection of their own insecurity issues as all faiths are riddled with internal inconsistencies and all sorts of nasties they try to argue/think (or ignore) away.

I think its got a helluva lot to do with people's expectations of what your answer is "supposed" to sound like - ie. you should affirm their beliefs, comforting them, quieting that small little voice that doubts, that asks questions and torment them at night - (you probably know this already) most religious people are like this they torment themselves about things that's obviously not very moral in the bible, they hate their own human nature (libido, masturbation, hate, anger temper, lust...)

Religion is like a drug, ever seen someone just after attending some sort church thing like a conference or a really good sermon? Their eyes are like glazed over and they're like totally on a high, right?

Here's the thing - I think deep down most people "know" (putting this in quotation marks, trying to use this word loosely and carefully to connote a sense, a feeling) that the beliefs they hold to are to a large extent (quite how large depends on how much they have considered things) is a bunch of BULL SHIT


So people go to church to take more of that drug, read the good verses over and over again to increase that dopamine levels and read the bad verses and explain/justify the problems away over and over again - as soon as someone comes and points out that the old emperror really is naked, well that's when the fears and psychological problems that religion creates comes out

I think religion is a lot like that what-you-call it?... battered wife syndrome, there's a better term that escapes me at the moment
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #119 on: September 08, 2014, 17:58:15 PM »

I think religion is a lot like that what-you-call it?... battered wife syndrome, there's a better term that escapes me at the moment

Stockholm syndrome?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.667 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 09, 2019, 15:36:28 PM
Privacy Policy