Arouet
Member
Small Dog wasn't a materialist.
I'm not sure why people keep saying that?
On Skeptiko, that's never seemed to be a requirement.
Small Dog wasn't a materialist.
I'm not sure why people keep saying that?
And you liked this Enrique? Haha I wish I could add GIFs here.
For goodness sake, lighten up. ;)
It seems ML ignored my remark I made in post 188. You canAnd you liked this Enrique? Haha I wish I could add GIFs here.
For goodness sake, lighten up. ;)
Of course I liked it. What's there not to like? Michael doesn't use foul language.
On Skeptiko, that's never seemed to be a requirement.
Diversity, man :) Michael doesn't use it, I do. I enjoy it. I was born in a Gypsy caravan.I spoke Romani mixed with Russian curses. Russian language is the richest in the world curse-wise.No. But you certainly do, big time. Surely you can see the irony?
I don't mind that, in fact, I enjoy the use of colourful language. I think you all take yourselves too seriously.
Yes, but it can be rigorously re-imposed if necessary!It does seem this ban has been relaxed.
Diversity, man :) Michael doesn't use it, I do. I enjoy it. I was born in a Gypsy caravan.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/bad-wor...tually-have-higher-verbal-intelligence-368852
It seems ML ignored my remark I made in post 188
Now - why don't we all get back to the subject in hand - Dr Long's podcast?
Yes - I think this is the difference. When you swear verbally, you know who is going to hear what you say, whereas written down it is different. Also, I find that the habit of swearing on internet forums seems to build up, and it undoubtedly puts some people off.Actually, I swear like a trooper, but only verbally. When I write stuff down, I try to be much more careful: it's a hostage to fortune. Just look at how indelicate tweets from politicians come across on Guido Fawkes' blog. 'Nuff said!:)
He got bashed to hell and back by his "own" flock, reverting to his default stance. A single synchronicity is enough to temporarily mystify someone, but not to break the chokehold. I had such experiences and it took several consecutive ones, plus witnesses, to finally acknowledge them.
I agree. these digressions make it hard to people to follow the thread.Yes, but it can be rigorously re-imposed if necessary!
Now - why don't we all get back to the subject in hand - Dr Long's podcast?
David
Let's be clear, I disapprove of banning people unless they're being complete jerks. However a forum like this operates in a context, and that is an openness to the possibility of non-local consciousness of various kinds. If the sum total of an individual's contribution is to say "that's impossible" in fifty different ways, they are not engaging but merely expressing an opinion, repeatedly. One can be suspicious of individual claims, and be uninterested in some subjects, but to deny the veracity of a testimony, especially when it matches others in all essentials based on a different metaphysical world view, fails to address the central issue.I think the thread has kind of deflated. Even if people thought Small Dog was making arbitrary points, it still was discussion. I personally did not want to seem him go, I do think he was open to contradictory evidence. He just had a hard time objectively looking at the evidence because of his medical training. Personally I don't like the comments questioning his credentials either. I understand people thought he had a self righteous attitude, but look he is on this forum. How many skeptics do you know that would come on here and debate the evidence? You think someone like Shermer or Krauss are even going to peek out from their dog house? I just don't understand what kind of discussion we will have now if the thread only consists of proponents.
But at the end of the day he did choose to leave himself - I may not agree with his views - but I had no problem with him. I am new to the forum, so maybe I am seeing things here from a different angle than the majority.
Organised scepticism is a real phenomenon. It takes on an evangelical aspect and individuals see it as their duty to save the world from superstition and woo by countering every claim with a physicalist explanation, no matter how irrelevant or inappropriate. Small Dog's approach suggested a zeal that was out of kilter with a spirit of genuine enquiry, and an unwillingness to take on board the legitimacy of the forum in asking the question.
Let's be clear, I disapprove of banning people unless they're being complete jerks. However a forum like this operates in a context, and that is an openness to the possibility of non-local consciousness of various kinds. If the sum total of an individual's contribution is to say "that's impossible" in fifty different ways, they are not engaging but merely expressing an opinion, repeatedly. One can be suspicious of individual claims, and be uninterested in some subjects, but to deny the veracity of a testimony, especially when it matches others in all essentials based on a different metaphysical world view, fails to address the central issue.
Organised scepticism is a real phenomenon. It takes on an evangelical aspect and individuals see it as their duty to save the world from superstition and woo by countering every claim with a physicalist explanation, no matter how irrelevant or inappropriate. Small Dog's approach suggested a zeal that was out of kilter with a spirit of genuine enquiry, and an unwillingness to take on board the legitimacy of the forum in asking the question.
Christopher Hitchens in common with other political skeptics, was an intellectual bully. His approach left no room for negotiation or demur, you were 100% with him, or against him. It was never about the evidence with Hitchens, it was about winning an argument by depicting his opponent as a fool. None of the so-called New Atheists are interested in the kind of discussions we have here. Their atheism is at the service of wider political goals of which removing God is just the beginning.That and fulfilling their own egos and thinking they are intellectuals by denying everything as woo and using "big" words. Kind of like Hitchens....IMO of average intelligence, but sounded intellectual cause he had a British accent.
Gabriel it's hard to disagree with anything you said. I just meant through Small Dogs statements, there were replies from other posters here that I found insightful. I was learning because of the replies, that is what I liked about it.
That's perfectly fair enough, Lincoln. I'd just reiterate the point that SD chose to take his leave -- things can get rough around here at times. Keep an eye on Arouet's posts: he's a bit like SD except that he has a thicker skin (he needs it because he regularly attracts criticism!), but he's not foul-mouthed. If you like insightful responses from which you can learn, I'd read the responses to his posts. I have him on ignore and only occasionally view his posts, so you might not see much from me, but you'll see responses from others.
Also, keep an eye on the differences between proponents: these are not insignificant, and you can learn a lot from those, too. This isn't an echo chamber!