It’s not a bad rule of thumb to say that if **FinnAgain **is opposed to it, then it is probably worth giving a favorable look at. He hasn’t been right once yet, AFAIK. He’s the leader of one of the SD’s least admirable groups, Dopers Who Allow Debating Style To Determine Their Position. Atheists or Lefties who feel the need to blow **DT **out of the water just because his expressions are more extreme, or more provocative, or ruder, or whatever than their own–well, to use one of their favored devices about **DT **himself give themselves a bad name. The notion that attacking DT will somehow win friends from the “other side”–they’re the other side for a reason, and I don’t see the need to kiss up, and play all nicey-nice with people you fundamentally disagree with, whose positions (if accepted by enough people) would make your life difficult or perhaps impossible–I’m not in favor of gratuitous rudeness to such people, just because it’s unnecessary, but I won’t condemn it in others and I won’t allow that to determine what I think of others who employ it. And DT is very rarely rude–blunt, and unbending, but that’s fine with me.
And your Hasty Generalisation is obvious, considering that the “unbelievers are all psychopaths” argument seems to have been advanced this time by someone who probably barks at the moon. But then you HG quite a lot, don’t you? - such as when you argue that pro-choicers just want to chain women to beds and force them to give birth against their will, gloating all the more if they die in agony. And you’re not exactly slow in arguing that believers are all psychopaths, either; just as pseudotriton ruber ruber is on record as fearing that believers will suddenly decide to kill him for no reason at all.
Poor you, Der - just plain misunderstood. But it’s nice to see that when your Pitter is certifiable enough and the Pitting is going really badly, you can actually manage to break your usual rule and be bothered to show up.
It’ “anti-abortion”. And yes, I think that’s what most of them are like. And why ? Because the position itself is oppressive, and because those same people show no concern for the children they force to be born or then women they want to turn into brood animals, or for much of anything beyond hurting people.
They have a reason; they are believers. That’s motive enough for them to kill people. It’s been motive enough for thousands of years. And it doesn’t matter if they are “psychopaths” or not; religion is the best there is and impelling well meaning people to commit atrocities. Something I am hardly the first to point out.
I showed up because this was an actual conversation, not a thread full of people insulting me and making lightly veiled threats of violence and murder. If this turns into another one of those, I’ll leave it to the barbarians again.
And I think people understand me just fine; I’m an unapologetic liberal, an atheist, and not a patriot. In a near-fascist, rabidly religious nation. That’s why they hate me; I disagree with them, AND I don’t pretend to respect their beliefs.
I meant “pro-life”, and had to look at it a few times before I noticed the mistake. Obviously I’m not quite clear of cold yet. But I’ll run with “anti-abortion” if you’ll accept “pro-abortion” for the other side. As for the rest, your rant pretty much speaks for itself, and further comment by me would be superfluous, other than to offer you a bigger brush.
prr goes beyond that, though, arguing that because religious people entertain what he views as “irrational” beliefs, they are therefore likely to commit irrational actions up to and including flipping out and killing him spontanteously; a viewpoint I consider poorly supported by facts.
You mean, if it turns into a Pitting of you and not just a PALATR-fest at the idiot who started the thread. I understand that well enough.
That’s why everyone “hates” you, huh? - because they’re near-fascists and rabidly religious to boot. What meanies.
I’m sorry; Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
yup.
yup.
If you are going to mix-and-match what you really believe with tongue-in-cheek bullshit, the only conclusion people will eventually make is that everything you say is probably bullshit.
Not exactly. I believe that I stated that since they could decide to kill me for no reason at all, and blame their murderous impulses on (or ascribe them to) God’s will or the voices in their heads or the Bible or other such stuff and nonsense, and continue feeling as self-satisfied and smug as they do right now in their present irrational but strongly held beliefs, I’m concerned about getting very close to a believer or giving one a whole lot of rope. I like to remember that, at heart, their beliefs are irrational and often self-contradictory, whenever it’s handy to make decisions about someone’s character. That’s hardly stating that I spend my days quaking in my boots about being stabbed by a religious stranger, though I do travel the NYC subways frequently, where that is always a possibility.
Really? I certainly read it as meaning that since they had shown evidence of irrationality in one sense (by having religious beliefs), they might show it in any number of other ways (such as by killing you for no reason at all) - and this might include not just the random psychotic but the religiously-inclined dentist or surgeon.
Personally I’d want a whole lot more facts on my side before I started going around being concerned about getting close to someone or giving them a whole lot of rope. But then, if I were to say I felt uneasy about being alone on a subway train with a young black man - given the statistical fact that street violence is inflicted disproportionately by black men on white - I’d be called no end of a racist.
But hey, don’t let me discourage you from “what you like to remember”.
In my experience, they also markedly lack the ability to have perspective on their own behaviors. They absolutely cannot see themselves as others see them, nor understand the effect they have on others, especially emotionally. That’s why, when they do weird things and other people react negatively, they don’t get it, and thus have a hard time modulating those behaviors. I have a student right now who is in the process of learning how not to freak people out in public and to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. They have to learn it the way other people have to learn how to read-- it doesn’t come naturally. And I think this thread is an excellent example of that.
Saying that I wouldn’t patronize a deeply religious surgeon, given the choice, because I don’t respect someone who makes his own choices on an irrational basis offends you how, exactly? What the hell should you care why I approve of or disapprove of people?
And while we’re at it, how is noting that stabbings (and religious people) occur on the NYC subway system in any way a racist comment? Seems to me YOU’re the one introducing race into this discussion, and somehow managing to blame your racism on me. Of course, if that’s part of your religious doctrine (“Thou must behave like a racist Swine always, and blame it on the closest atheist”) I can’t have any quarrel with you over that.
Concerning the aura thing. What color is ridiculous?
Also , what might a brown aura indicate? 
Interesting. You can do something that scientists cannot observe, explain or do and yet you say it’s not paranormal?
Do you know what paranormal means?
What mockery? What ridicule? What lies?
He’s publically committed to paying you $1,000,000 if you can read auras.
And you don’t need a million dollars? :rolleyes:
How about taking the money to:
a) shut randi up
b) prove you are exceptional
c) give to charity
As a scientist, of course I know there is an alternative explanation why you won’t be tested. That you can’t read auras.
If you accept Science, why won’t you use it to see if your beliefs on spirits and auras are correct?
Fucking HELL!
**Der Trihs ** ia an ATHEIST!
Well he certainly kept that quiet!
You go too far sir.
This discussion is surely a jeremiad but there must be a limit.
No, I won’t. One side is pro-choice; the other anti-abortion. NOT pro-life; they care nothing for life. Let’s see them fund pre-natal and child care if they are so pro-life. But they won’t; the same people who oppose abortions are the ones who care nothing for the welfare of children, or of anyone but rich right wing Christians when you get right down to it.
Calling them anti-abortion is being polite. What they actually are is anti-woman.
Thousands of years of killing and oppressing unbelievers disagrees with you. Not to mention lying, or just doing stupid things because God demands it.
No, I mean if everyone starts screaming at mean and making Internet Tough guy comments about how they’d like to meet me and something unpleasant would happen. And I make a point of not going into Pit threads bashing other people either.
What’s this? Disinterest on my part in some way disqualifies me from remarking on the essential fatuity of your position? And in the Pit, what’s more? Most people would consider me on shakier ground if I had an axe to grind, I’d have thought, and in this venue I can point and laugh at you for any reason I like.
I’m not sure I can give you many marks for the second paragraph there. You don’t seem to understand the point I’m making - that, no matter what my statistical justification for fear of black people, I’d be called a racist for trumpeting it. And of course it is *not *good enough simply to note the colour of most street assailants before I can justify being suspicious of black people. I have to consider a little more carefully than that; and when I do, I find that in fact most black people do not intend me any harm whatsoever, and it behooves me to treat them accordingly. Go thou and do likewise, or be branded a bigot, just as surely as I would be for my (hypothetical) racism.
- Because, of course, you are a scientific rationalist, and you know that it is not enough merely to articulate a certain plausible behaviour mechanism on the part of your fellow man. You know that you must also demonstrate that the predicted behaviour does indeed occur - and you know that when you present your data, you must show that you have understood what other variables you must control for, and demonstrate that you have controlled for them, before you can argue that A causes B.
And as to your closing statement, if your personal philosophy dictates “Thou shalt make shit up, and pretend the theist said it”, get right to it, but I don’t think you’ll slip it past this audience unobserved.
@glee: May I suggest that if KGS doesn’t need the megabuck, he should claim it anyway for the pure joy of showing up Randi for the fraud he is, and give the money to me? 
Wow, somebody is taking this conversation waayyy too seriously…
James Randi’s existence is meaningless to me. He’s an old man, his time on this planet is nearly up. He’s already announced that he’s discontinuing the $1M prize, most likely because he’s reached an age where he’s aware of his mortality and is starting to worry about the condition of his soul, based on all the people he has knowingly and intentionally deceived and ridiculed. Getting old does that to people – they start to worry about whether it was a mistake to follow atheism, and maybe there really is a GOD out there (which of course there’s not, but billions of people do believe in GOD) who will Judge them and possibly send them to Hell based on their actions here on Earth.
Been there, done that.
There IS no million bucks. Randi’s contest is a SCAM. His so-called “contest” is designed to self-select people who don’t know their abilities, who are blinded by the illusion of free money, and Randi designs these tests specifically so they will FAIL and make the subject look ridiculous. Don’t you get it?? His so-called “contest” is a 419 Operation, that’s the bottom line. Please, stop enabling this jerk. He will die soon anyway.
You presume to much sir.
Whilst a lot of people do not like Der Trihs I don’t think many actually hate him. I certainly don’t, matter of fact I quite like the guy
FWIW: I find his arguments and his posts extremely intelligent and well thought out.
He seldom resorts to blind and outrageous insults unless he himself is first insulted