An interesting game...

[scribble]

Who else remembers WarGames?

I don't know what made that (classic!) movie spring to mind, but I happened to be here on the forums as it did, and I realized why I haven't posted anything in R&P in so long.

I had a revelation. The same one WOPR has at the end of the movie. Regarding debating with the string of complete morons we get here, from the Undercover Elephant through Interesting Ian and straight on to Lifegazer.

[Ratman_tf]

O|X|O
-+-+-
X|X|O
-+-+-
X|O|X

"The only winning move is not to play."

There are times where I feel that way. But I feel there are people out there, maybe a teenager who's logging onto the internet to check up on Sci-Fi's latest UFO spiel, or looking into bigfoot, and maybe that person will google their way onto the JREF site and peruse these message boards and maybe that person will see these discussions and get more info on the skeptical side of the story, and just maybe that person will learn a bit of critical thinking and be that much better for it.

It's not the destination, but the journey.

[El Greco]

Idiocy is unbeatable, unshakeable, direful. It surmounts everything, it lives forever. You can fight it but you can't win.

Notwithstanding the above, as Cato said, "wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise".

[c4ts]

And seeing how it's a whole lot easier to get kicked off a believer message board, fools don't learn from the wise because the never give them a chance.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

I actually came to these boards as a believer and lurked quietly for a long while. What helped to persuade me and rethink my beliefs was reading some of these seemingly pointless threads; it was hard not to notice that the skeptics always had an answer for the believers. And, although the ones arguing against reason never seemed to grasp what was being said, I did.

Thus, there is a point in participating in those threads and victory was achieved, if only a quiet victory.

Granted, now I am to the point where I impatiently ignore the mindless believers and often can hardly stand to even glimpse through those threads. When I feel that way, I take a break and don't read or post to them; if it becomes tiresome, you can definitely take a break as there are plenty of others who are willing to patiently carry the burden.

[lifegazer]

Scribble, I don't appreciate being called a moron without reason. Kindly refute my philosophy or kindly explain existence so that your words have substance. Otherwise, shut up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
What helped to persuade me and rethink my beliefs was reading some of these seemingly pointless threads; it was hard not to notice that the skeptics always had an answer for the believers.
Really? Then get one of your cronies to explain the origin of existence.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
There are times where I feel that way. But I feel there are people out there, maybe a teenager who's logging onto the internet to check up on Sci-Fi's latest UFO spiel, or looking into bigfoot, and maybe that person will google their way onto the JREF site and peruse these message boards and maybe that person will see these discussions and get more info on the skeptical side of the story, and just maybe that person will learn a bit of critical thinking and be that much better for it.


In which case a way needs to be found to make this site appear higher in Google searches for "psychic" and "ufo" and so on.

Maybe everyone here with a website could link with similar keywords, and bump the JREF forums up Google?

Rich

[Ratman_tf]

I link to JREF from my homepage. It's not much, but It's something.
Every little bit helps.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really? Then get one of your cronies to explain the origin of existence. Quantum Fluctuation and Cosmic Inflation.







Does this make me A_Feeble_Mind's crony?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Quantum Fluctuation and Cosmic Inflation.

Of what, and how?

[Graham]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Of what, and how?

Proper definition of the terms will answer your question.

Graham

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Graham


Proper definition of the terms will answer your question. Cosmic inflation (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html)

Virtual particles (the result of quantum fluctuation) (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
[B]I actually came to these boards as a believer and lurked quietly for a long while. What helped to persuade me and rethink my beliefs was reading some of these seemingly pointless threads; it was hard not to notice that the skeptics always had an answer for the believers.



Huh?? :eek: Scarcely any skeptic has ever given me any answers. They do so on very rare occasions, but normally they just spout forth a load of irrelevant crap. Their responses reveal that they do not understand the underlying issues nor can they understand any of my arguments.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Thus, there is a point in participating in those threads and victory was achieved, if only a quiet victory.



I'll ask you what I've asked other skeptics. Point to anywhere where a skeptic has beaten me in an argument.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I link to JREF from my homepage. It's not much, but It's something.
Every little bit helps.

I'll do the same when I get my website up :)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Does this make me A_Feeble_Mind's crony?

Thank you, crony. ;)

Ian, you are missing the point. The skeptic doesn't need to provide answers in the manner of which you are thinking. In my post, I meant answer as meaning more of a logical, critical response to the absurdities spewed forth by the believers.

Regarding the "victories," the point was that you are never convinced about anything, but I was convinced while reading through threads similar to the one's you think you are winning.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


There are times where I feel that way. But I feel there are people out there, maybe a teenager who's logging onto the internet to check up on Sci-Fi's latest UFO spiel, or looking into bigfoot, and maybe that person will google their way onto the JREF site and peruse these message boards and maybe that person will see these discussions and get more info on the skeptical side of the story, and just maybe that person will learn a bit of critical thinking and be that much better for it.

It's not the destination, but the journey.

Sometimes the optimist does win out over the cynic; so if it is only once in a while, it is worth it to me..

El Greco's quote from Cato hits home also; but of course it's not so much of what we learn from the fool, but what we learn because of them.. So, for that I am grateful..

I will end with this wisdom from Sundog that I feel is relevant to the topic :

"The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Huh?? :eek: Scarcely any skeptic has ever given me any answers. They do so on very rare occasions, but normally they just spout forth a load of irrelevant crap. Their responses reveal that they do not understand the underlying issues nor can they understand any of my arguments. This has been Ian's single best piece of evidence that a person's perceptions are their reality. I'm nearly convinced.

:rub:

[TheERK]

Originally posted by scribble
Who else remembers WarGames?

I don't know what made that (classic!) movie spring to mind, but I happened to be here on the forums as it did, and I realized why I haven't posted anything in R&P in so long.

I had a revelation. The same one WOPR has at the end of the movie. Regarding debating with the string of complete morons we get here, from the Undercover Elephant through Interesting Ian and straight on to Lifegazer.

Not to imply anything about the other two, but what was wrong with UCE?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by TheERK


Not to imply anything about the other two, but what was wrong with UCE?


Thankyou Mr Erk! The Elephant still lurks. :cool:

I should also add that having encountered Lifegazer the denizens of the JREF should be able to see that InterestingIan is NOT in the same category at all. Ian is capable of meaningful debate and progress - he just happens to hold views considered contraversial here. Lifegazer manifestly isn't capable of learning anything at all, and his views are rejected everywhere.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? :eek: Scarcely any skeptic has ever given me any answers. They do so on very rare occasions, but normally they just spout forth a load of irrelevant crap. Their responses reveal that they do not understand the underlying issues nor can they understand any of my arguments.That means you're either not asking the right questions, or not reading the answers correctly.

Well, either that or your thinking process is so alien to normal humans that your arguments can't be understood.I'll ask you what I've asked other skeptics. Point to anywhere where a skeptic has beaten me in an argument.I see the problem already. You come here to win arguments, not to listen and learn. I'm reminded of a line from Kevin Costner in Waterworld, which went something like: "If you make too much noise, you'll never be able to hear the sounds of the world and learn something".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by exarch
That means you're either not asking the right questions, or not reading the answers correctly.

Well, either that or your thinking process is so alien to normal humans that your arguments can't be understood.I see the problem already. You come here to win arguments, not to listen and learn. I'm reminded of a line from Kevin Costner in Waterworld, which went something like: "If you make too much noise, you'll never be able to hear the sounds of the world and learn something".

I have nothing to learn from you lot. That much is abundantly clear. I find the stupidity of the majority of people on here quite breathtaking.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have nothing to learn from you lot. That much is abundantly clear. I find the stupidity of the majority of people on here quite breathtaking.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
The wisest mind has something yet to learn.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Much learning does not teach understanding.
Heraclitus (540 BC - 480 BC), On the Universe
:rub:

[UndercoverElephant]

Posted by Upchurch


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)


Since we are posting about Russell....

"Mind and matter were something like the lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown; the end of the battle is not the victory of one or the other, but the discovery that both are only heraldic inventions."

(Bertrand Russell 1872-1970)

NB : this does NOT mean that Russell was a materialist. No - he was a neutral monist. Perhaps if people accepted this and stopped trying to defend materialism, then all the idealists would go away...... ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have nothing to learn from you lot. That much is abundantly clear. I find the stupidity of the majority of people on here quite breathtaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wisest mind has something yet to learn.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much learning does not teach understanding.
Heraclitus (540 BC - 480 BC), On the Universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



:rub: [/B]

Upchurch,

I absolutely agree with all those statements. Especially Bertrand Russell's. Actually I was thinking about using that quote from Russell in my sig about a year ago or so. Now the question is, does one have much to learn from fools and fanatics? Because that's what most people on here are. Regretfully not so it seems.

[Upchurch]

Missed it entirely. :nope:

[c4ts]

Fools have much to teach the wise, Ian, such as how foolish you are for thinking you are wise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
Fools have much to teach the wise, Ian, such as how foolish you are for thinking you are wise.

Where have I stated that I think I am wise?

[c4ts]

The "you" was universal.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'll ask you what I've asked other skeptics. Point to anywhere where a skeptic has beaten me in an argument.

Please provide a definition of being beaten in an argument.

Or better yet, define “winning” an argument.

Does winning mean one person admits defeat?

Does winning mean one person changes their mind?

Does winning mean one person backing their claims with more reasonable evidence that can be replicated?

Maybe something else?

[c4ts]

Ian doesn't realize it's not about winning or losing so much as learning something from the experience.

[scribble]

I had to bump this. With the current ravings of Iacchus, lifegazer, Christian and others... it's as true now as ever.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Scribble, I don't appreciate being called a moron without reason. Kindly refute my philosophy or kindly explain existence so that your words have substance. Otherwise, shut up. :id:

[scribble]

Originally posted by TheERK


Not to imply anything about the other two, but what was wrong with UCE?

Geoff knows what crazy beliefs he holds; he just refuses to discuss them any longer. That's fine by me, my whole point in this thread is discussing them with people like him and lifegazer is pointless.

There's a thread by Geoff to lifegazer in Flame War in which I make a post outlining the top three absolutely insane things Geoff has claimed to believe and still will not deny, if you really want to know how nuts he is.

[lifegazer]

Scribble, I don't appreciate being called a moron without reason. Kindly refute my philosophy or kindly explain existence so that your words have substance. Otherwise, shut up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Quantum Fluctuation and Cosmic Inflation.

[lifegazer]

Sounds nastY upchurch. I wish you well.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Scribble, I don't appreciate being called a moron without reason. Kindly refute my philosophy or kindly explain existence so that your words have substance. Otherwise, shut up.

My point was: that action you suggest me taking would be pointless. It's an activity I refuse to engage in. Furthermore, should you respond to me with any more nonsense, you'll be ignored.

Edited to add: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Lifegazer gets off on being spoken of and/or to. He cannot stand that I am now ignoring him and will post even more nonsense (see his next post) to try to persuade me otherwise. Ain't gunna happen, the man is below my minimum level of worth. He seems to forget that we've all refuted his philosophy times over.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Graham

Proper definition of the terms will answer your question.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
My point was: that action you suggest me taking would be pointless. It's an activity I refuse to engage in.

You can neither refute my philosophy that God is existence nor completely explain existence without the need for a God.
So let's be honest here - for once. This is an activity which you cannot engage in. You're all bark. A common affliction around here. You have no brains scribble. You're an empty head.

Furthermore, should you respond to me with any more nonsense, you'll be ignored.
You bark and I'll muzzle. Them's the new rules.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You bark and I'll muzzle. Them's the new rules. You yip and we'll laugh. Them's the reality of the situation. ;):p

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You can neither refute my philosophy that God is existence nor completely explain existence without the need for a God.
So let's be honest here - for once. This is an activity which you cannot engage in. You're all bark. A common affliction around here. You have no brains scribble. You're an empty head.

You bark and I'll muzzle. Them's the new rules.
Perhaps it's an activity he won't engage in.
Hey, lifegazer,

I mostly only read the threads where you post, and not sure I've seen them all, but it seems you invariably engage in ontological arguments that cannot be refuted, not because they are rock solid, but because of the ambiguities of language, and the ever-changing nature of "your philosophy's" focus. The result is, there is really nothing to refute, and maybe folks are becoming tired of going in circles with you.

On the other side, I never see you refute the materialist's viewpoint without deploying anything other than same ambiguities.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
Perhaps it's an activity he won't engage in.
Hey, lifegazer,

Hey, I don't force anyone to engage in my philosophy. What I would ask - reasonably, imo - is that those who wish to debunk that philosophy, attempt to do so within the particular thread.

I mostly only read the threads where you post, and not sure I've seen them all, but it seems you invariably engage in ontological arguments that cannot be refuted, not because they are rock solid, but because of the ambiguities of language, and the ever-changing nature of "your philosophy's" focus.

My philosophy doesn't change. From the beginning, I have stated that God is existence and that nothing else exists.

The result is, there is really nothing to refute, and maybe folks are becoming tired of going in circles with you.

Perhaps there's nothing to refute because my philosophy is sound.
Regardless, if people are tired of discussing my philosophy, they should not find the energy to start new threads to insult me.

On the other side, I never see you refute the materialist's viewpoint without deploying anything other than same ambiguities.
Then you haven't read that many of my posts. I love exposing materialism for the religion that it is.

"You begin with an assumed premise and then build all your other beliefs upon that. You quote Hulme or Darwin or Nietzsche or Dennett or Dawkins or any such person as your icon and your psalms. You attack the folly of mankind as a proof of God's non-existence. Or else you denounce God for allowing "evil" in the world. You consider yourself ~saved~ (from the clutches of theism). And your beliefs affect a general trend towards materialistic-gain as the source of our endeavours and purpose.

In short, you are moulded to live a specific way, based upon a pure belief, citing established icons in your defence of those beliefs. You are not really any different than the religious people you spend most of your time mocking."

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then you haven't read that many of my posts. I love exposing materialism for the religion that it is.


And I love exposing you for the lazy poster you are. You cut and pasted a statement from another thread, within that thread, the statement was torn apart, without much of an attempt to salvage it by you. I suppose I could cut and paste the portion of that thread into this one, but it would be pointless.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Perhaps there's nothing to refute because my philosophy is sound.
Regardless, if people are tired of discussing my philosophy, they should not find the energy to start new threads to insult me.


hehehe, you philosophy and "proof" has been refuted for 2 and a half years now. Some boards have even decided that your philosophy is baseless enough, and you ignorant enough, that you weren't worth the electrons, and banned you.

[Phil]

You've demonstrated precisely the types of ambiguity I'm talking about. Perhaps I should have said your posted responses tend to lose focus.

I said scribble perhaps won't engage in attempting to refute your philosophy, and you came back with something unrelated:Hey, I don't force anyone to engage in my philosophy.
I was speculating about scribble, not talking about what you do or don't do.

I said your philosophy's focus tends to change, and you counter with:
My philosophy doesn't change. From the beginning, I have stated that God is existence and that nothing else exists.Again I commented on your focus, not the whole of your philosophy.

I only notice the trends in most threads in which you participate, and generally the ontological argument leads nowhere, or back to where you started (circular):. . . if people are tired of discussing my philosophy, they should not find the energy to start new threads to insult me.I am truly sorry that people are insulting you.

I said I haven't see you refute a materialist's viewpoint, and you replied with:Then you haven't read that many of my posts. I love exposing materialism for the religion that it is.

"You begin with an assumed premise and then build all your other beliefs upon that. You quote Hulme or Darwin or Nietzsche or Dennett or Dawkins or any such person as your icon and your psalms. You attack the folly of mankind as a proof of God's non-existence. Or else you denounce God for allowing "evil" in the world. You consider yourself ~saved~ (from the clutches of theism). And your beliefs affect a general trend towards materialistic-gain as the source of our endeavours and purpose.

In short, you are moulded to live a specific way, based upon a pure belief, citing established icons in your defence of those beliefs. You are not really any different than the religious people you spend most of your time mocking." I apologize for my ignorance, but I can't see how this should mean anything to me, nor do I see how it relates to refuting a materialist's viewpoint.

edit: quote tags

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Who else remembers WarGames?

I don't know what made that (classic!) movie spring to mind, but I happened to be here on the forums as it did, and I realized why I haven't posted anything in R&P in so long.

I had a revelation. The same one WOPR has at the end of the movie. Regarding debating with the string of complete morons we get here, from the Undercover Elephant through Interesting Ian and straight on to Lifegazer. And when you're dead, what difference will any of this made? Unless of course Karma really does exist. ;)

And so much for our temporal fleeting notions of existence, which only contend to the fact that our experience here "must" be an illusion. That is, if we assume we have the whole rest of Eternity "not" to think about it.

In other words, be careful about who you call a moron. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when you're dead, what difference will any of this made? Unless of course Karma really does exist. ;)

And so much for our temporal fleeting notions of existence, which only contend to the fact that our experience here "must" be an illusion. That is, if we assume we have the whole rest of Eternity "not" to think about it.

In other words, be careful about who you call a moron. ;)

believe in pink unicorns or they will kick you in the nads

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

believe in pink unicorns or they will kick you in the nads Actually I did see a Pegasus once, but this was in a dream. However it was just as real as I was. Or, was the whole thing just make believe?

I guess what I'm asking is who or what am I in relation to what I dream about? Am I dreaming about them? Or, are they dreaming about me? ... Or both?

Ever have a dream where it was that real? And you didn't know otherwise until you actually woke up?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually I did see a Pegasus once, but this was in a dream. However it was just as real as I was. Or, was the whole thing just make believe?


interesting that you missed the whole point of the statement.


I guess what I'm asking is who or what am I in relation to what I dream about? Am I dreaming about them? Or, are they dreaming about me? ... Or both?

Ever have a dream where it was that real? And you didn't know otherwise until you actually woke up?

Wow, you can quote the matrix. No, I have never had a dream that has been more coherent and longer lasting than the reality I have been experiencing for 24 years.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

interesting that you missed the whole point of the statement.And your point being?


Wow, you can quote the matrix. No, I have never had a dream that has been more coherent and longer lasting than the reality I have been experiencing for 24 years. Actually this is a quote from my book, which I had written long before The Matrix came out.

[Dorian Gray]

OKAY, I have an idea.

Lifegazer, please click on the link to Iacchus' online book (in his sig) and scan it a bit, then come back to this thread and evaluate what you have read. I am interested in your take on it. I am utterly serious when I say that I value your opinion on Iacchus' book, and on numerology as well.

I honestly believe that this could go far in redeeming your good name in the eyes of most JREF posters.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And your point being?His point being the "or else ..." statement.

We don't know whether pink unicorns exist, whether there's a barbiedoll on the moon, whether god exists, and they might, but we have no point in believing this just because someone says it might be so.

The "or else ..." part is where the threat comes in. Believe it, or else ...

... it might kick you in the nads. But you'll only find out if god really exists after you're gone, so no one will ever know anyway. The "or else ..." part is just another coercion technique.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I have nothing to learn from you lot. That much is abundantly clear. I find the stupidity of the majority of people on here quite breathtaking.
Then the reason you stick around must be to convert us. It ain't gonna happen.

~~ Paul

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy doesn't change. From the beginning, I have stated that God is existe

Hey, if we're throwing quotes around...

"In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation."
- Einstein, introduction to Relativity

"One is not superior merely because one sees the world as odious."
- Chateaubriand

"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete fool."
- Douglas Adams

"The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being but to remind him that he is already degraded."
- George Orwell

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

His point being the "or else ..." statement.

We don't know whether pink unicorns exist, whether there's a barbiedoll on the moon, whether god exists, and they might, but we have no point in believing this just because someone says it might be so.

The "or else ..." part is where the threat comes in. Believe it, or else ...

... it might kick you in the nads. But you'll only find out if god really exists after you're gone, so no one will ever know anyway. The "or else ..." part is just another coercion technique. We? ... What do you mean by "we?" ... And how can "you" be so sure?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
OKAY, I have an idea.

Lifegazer, please click on the link to Iacchus' online book (in his sig) and scan it a bit, then come back to this thread and evaluate what you have read. I am interested in your take on it. I am utterly serious when I say that I value your opinion on Iacchus' book, and on numerology as well.

I honestly believe that this could go far in redeeming your good name in the eyes of most JREF posters. I would love that! Though, my take on that idea is best expressed by the name of this (http://www.giftapolis.com/sopamacrfi.html) South Park episode.


http://store4.yimg.com/I/cupidshut_1773_57400027

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

His point being the "or else ..." statement.

We don't know whether pink unicorns exist, whether there's a barbiedoll on the moon, whether god exists, and they might, but we have no point in believing this just because someone says it might be so.

The "or else ..." part is where the threat comes in. Believe it, or else ...

... it might kick you in the nads. But you'll only find out if god really exists after you're gone, so no one will ever know anyway. The "or else ..." part is just another coercion technique. But in the meantime it's okay for you to call me a complete moron, and in that sense kick me in the nads. Are you sure pink unicorns don't exist? You could have fooled me!

So it would seem we need to establish who's trying to coerce who?

Yes, pink unicorns do exist, and what it says is "hypocrite!"

Maybe scribble was right? In that she shouldn't have started the whole thing by calling people complete morons in the first place? ... While in effect "winking" at everybody posting in my threads saying, "Well you know how the game is, you can't win, when playing with these complete morons."

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But in the meantime it's okay for you to call me a complete moron, and in that sense kick me in the nads. Are you sure pink unicorns don't exist? You could have fooled me!


so sorry, In the future, I shall respect your small minded childish arguments instead pointing them out as such.


So it would seem we need to establish who's trying to coerce who?


actually...I'm not sure you yet understand the nature of the argument. Do you think it would be silly to believe in pink unicorns just because someone tells you that if you don't, they'll kick you in the nads?


Maybe scribble was right? In that she shouldn't have started the whole thing by calling people complete morons in the first place? ... While in effect "winking" at everybody posting in my threads saying, "Well you know how the game is, you can't win, when playing with these complete morons."

the point is, that you can't win a debate with someone who isn't willing to debate, but rather just preach (like you)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We? ... What do you mean by "we?" ... And how can "you" be so sure?And how can "you" be so sure?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But in the meantime it's okay for you to call me a complete moron, and in that sense kick me in the nads. Are you sure pink unicorns don't exist? You could have fooled me!Please kindly point out to me in the following quote (which is in fact my entire post) where it is I called you "a complete moron". In fact, you can have Randi's million dollars if you can show me where I insulted you and called you "a complete moron", tell me where I called you names, please, go ahead, for a million dollars, ... :con2:Originally posted by exarch

His point being the "or else ..." statement.

We don't know whether pink unicorns exist, whether there's a barbiedoll on the moon, whether god exists, and they might, but we have no point in believing this just because someone says it might be so.

The "or else ..." part is where the threat comes in. Believe it, or else ...

... it might kick you in the nads. But you'll only find out if god really exists after you're gone, so no one will ever know anyway. The "or else ..." part is just another coercion technique.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch
Please kindly point out to me in the following quote (which is in fact my entire post) where it is I called you "a complete moron". In fact, you can have Randi's million dollars if you can show me where I insulted you and called you "a complete moron", tell me where I called you names, please, go ahead, for a million dollars, ... :con2: No, this was my response to RussDill's post, to which you replied. Whereas his reply was to my initial reply, which addressed the starter of the this thread for calling certain people complete morons.

And neither should I say, it wasn't long before others began to follow suit. ;)

Oh, and does this comment ring a bell? ...

Originally posted by exarch

Well, either that or your thinking process is so alien to normal humans that your arguments can't be understood.Or, what could you have possibly meant by "normal" here?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

so sorry, In the future, I shall respect your small minded childish arguments instead pointing them out as such.And there you go again!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And there you go again!

So sorry, you are right about everything. Now please, tell me more about how you can predict earthquakes with a sheep's bladder.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


So sorry, you are right about everything. Now please, tell me more about how you can predict earthquakes with a sheep's bladder. It's a mystery to me? And yet I don't doubt that it's not possible for some people to do such things.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's a mystery to me? And yet I don't doubt that it's not possible for some people to do such things.

amazing iacchus, amazing. I would like to patent such a process, can you get me in contact with these people?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, and does this comment ring a bell? ...

Originally posted by exarch

Well, either that or your thinking process is so alien to normal humans that your arguments can't be understood.
Or, what could you have possibly meant by "normal" here?You shouldn't quote out of context:
Originally posted by exarch
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? Scarcely any skeptic has ever given me any answers. They do so on very rare occasions, but normally they just spout forth a load of irrelevant crap. Their responses reveal that they do not understand the underlying issues nor can they understand any of my arguments.That means you're either not asking the right questions, or not reading the answers correctly.

Well, either that or your thinking process is so alien to normal humans that your arguments can't be understood.I don't think anyone whose thinking process is alien is going to be considered normal by any possible standards. I never called Ian alien, or not normal, I merely pointed out that if he wasn't asking the wrong questions, yet still not getting satisfying answers, his brain must be wired differently than ours, if we're uncapable of answering his questions successfully according to him.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

amazing iacchus, amazing. I would like to patent such a process, can you get me in contact with these people? Hey your'e the one who brought it up, in which case I would suggest you have just as much information on the matter as do I.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by exarch

You shouldn't quote out of context:

I don't think anyone whose thinking process is alien is going to be considered normal by any possible standards. I never called Ian alien, or not normal, I merely pointed out that if he wasn't asking the wrong questions, yet still not getting satisfying answers, his brain must be wired differently than ours, if we're uncapable of answering his questions successfully according to him. And yet the whole tone of this thread was set by making reference to certain people as complete morons. While I got the distinct impression that people were choosing sides. ;)

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet the whole tone of this thread was set by making reference to certain people as complete morons.Strangely enough though, the OP doesn't mention you by name, and yet you seem to feel it's addressed to you. Maybe you're subconsciously validating what's being said? Remember, no one on this thread actually called you a moron.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble
I had to bump this. With the current ravings of Iacchus, lifegazer, Christian and others... it's as true now as ever. Yes, and the inuendo was passed on in couple of threads I started when scribble posted regarding this "little game."

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's a mystery to me? And yet I don't doubt that it's not possible for some people to do such things [predict earthquakes with a sheep's bladder].Hmmm.....I couldn't have sworn that you wouldn't have said the complete opposite. :D

BillyJoe

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and the inuendo was passed on in couple of threads I started when scribble posted regarding this "little game."Ravings. I still insist that he didn't call you a moron.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's a mystery to me? And yet I don't doubt that it's not possible for some people to do such things.

Then why aren't you busy tracking down those people, and why aren't those people busy predicting earthquakes and saving lives. Really, I have never encountered a group of people more uncaring than the psychics or metaphysical, so many natural disasters, murders, abuses, and never doing anything to help.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Then why aren't you busy tracking down those people, and why aren't those people busy predicting earthquakes and saving lives. Really, I have never encountered a group of people more uncaring than the psychics or metaphysical, so many natural disasters, murders, abuses, and never doing anything to help. Yes, but in the first place we would have to ask ourselves who would listen? And in the second place we have to ask ourselves why God would allow for suffering?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but in the first place we would have to ask ourselves who would listen? And in the second place we have to ask ourselves why God would allow for suffering?

Because if they were real, they would be more accurate than a random educated guess, but they are not. If they were more accurate than a random, educated guess, I would listen.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but in the first place we would have to ask ourselves who would listen? And in the second place we have to ask ourselves why God would allow for suffering?Are we talking about psychics here?

I can tell you of one sure way to stop people suffering, and that is to get rid of those who pretend to be speaking with the dead. They cause more grief to the deceased's family all under the guise of television entertainment.

When at TAM2 they showed a tape of Van Praag doing his thing, torturing those poor parents with meaningless facts about the deaths of their children, my stomach just turned. You could just see the pain on their faces. The things he's doing should be illegal!! The guy is nothing more than a cruel, callous b*stard.

None of the psychics are helping anyone, they're just scamming people out of their money and sometimes causing even more pain and grief.

[scribble]

Bumped. Mainly because I needed a reminder of what a f-ing waste of time certain people can be.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Matabiri

"The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being but to remind him that he is already degraded."
- George Orwell [/B]

All of those are great quotes. Thanks.

[roger]

I didn't see this thread the first or second time around.

Skimming over it, I just sat here shaking my head at how quickly people started arguing with the people they feel are not worth arguing with.

I just don't get the attraction. Not complaining about it, everyone is free to enjoy themselves as they see fit, I just don't understand.

Oh well, carry on!

[scribble]

Originally posted by roger
Skimming over it, I just sat here shaking my head at how quickly people started arguing with the people they feel are not worth arguing with.


That's my point. I'm a horrible, weak human being. This is my reminder to be stronger and not be suckered in by people.

[scribble]

Warren Buffett once wrote that people seem to either understand the concept of value investing right away once it's explained to them, or they never seem to get it no matter how long they are taught.

From many years of debating with our friends in the tin foil hats, I think skepticism is similar. Admittedly all of us believe in silly ideas from time to time, but there are some people who appear absolutely driven to believe every fruitcake conjecture that comes down the turnpike, and no amount of facts or reasoning will change their minds.

Given this, the purpose of debating with such people is not to influence them, but to influence the audience listening in.


Found at:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101046&cid=8613847

[rachaella]

Thank you for this thread! I should have read it before I just had a conversation with a horrible horrible human being who has decided that all women are out to get him and most women who claim they were raped say they are raped because "they are pregnant and they don't want to deal with it". I had been trying to argue some sense into him before this, but that was the last straw. I don't plan on ever talking to him again, and this thread made me feel more confident in that decision.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by rachaella
Thank you for this thread! I should have read it before I just had a conversation with a horrible horrible human being who has decided that all women are out to get him and most women who claim they were raped say they are raped because "they are pregnant and they don't want to deal with it". I had been trying to argue some sense into him before this, but that was the last straw. I don't plan on ever talking to him again, and this thread made me feel more confident in that decision.

:clap:

[scribble]

Originally posted by rachaella
Thank you for this thread!

Thank you for letting me know someone benefitted from it!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Thankyou Mr Erk! The Elephant still lurks. :cool:

I should also add that having encountered Lifegazer the denizens of the JREF should be able to see that InterestingIan is NOT in the same category at all. Ian is capable of meaningful debate and progress - he just happens to hold views considered contraversial here. Lifegazer manifestly isn't capable of learning anything at all, and his views are rejected everywhere. Oh damn, I didn't get that Geoff was UCE. My appologies Geoff.

Statement #5. :D Glad I got the nic with the person.

[RandFan]

Thanks Scribble. I should have checked out this thread from the start.