The Foolosophy .................

Vs. The Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

I don't understand, what is the topic?

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't understand, what is the topic?

Your foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Your foolosophy.
My (i.e. Upchurch's) foolosophy or the board's foolosophy.

And what is "foolosophy"?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by S&S
Vs. The Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S Hi pillory! Are you going to do a "goodnight to pillory thread" today? Oh, wait...

[CWL]

Maybe it's the philosophy of that distinguished Australian member of this board, The Fool?

In such case, I am all for foolosophy!

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S


Your foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

What about your trollosophy?

Originally posted by Upchurch

My (i.e. Upchurch's) foolosophy or the board's foolosophy.

And what is "foolosophy"?

Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?

And yes , ALMOST all the replies of this Religion and Philosophy Forum are Foolosophy, mainly of those that are just a bunch of pseudo-skeptics.

Do skeptics have a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


What about your trollosophy?

Trollosophy and Troll are the favorite words of the foolosophers , when they don't have any argument to defend their Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Are words used like when the religious cults said : "you are the devil"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.
I see. Reading into this a bit, I'm guessing "foolosophy" is any thing that is presented as philosophy that you don't agree with?
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?
No, I'm fine. I just can't read your mind when you make up words.
And yes , ALMOST all the replies of this Religion and Philosophy Forum are Foolosophy, mainly of those that are just a bunch of pseudo-skeptics.
For example?
Do skeptics have a Philosophy?Meaning, do skeptics adhere to a philosophy? Well, being a skeptic and having a philosophy, I'd have to say, "yes."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL
Maybe it's the philosophy of that distinguished Australian member of this board, The Fool?

In such case, I am all for foolosophy! If that's the definition of foolosophy, then hear, hear!

Originally posted by Upchurch

I
Meaning, do skeptics adhere to a philosophy? Well, being a skeptic and having a philosophy, I'd have to say, "yes."

Show it.

Thanks,
S&S

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S


Trollosophy and Troll are the favorite words of the foolosophers , when they don't have any argument to defend their Foolosophy.



"Trollosophy" is a favorite word? That was quick! I just made it up a few minutes ago!

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S


Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.
Are you dizzy now?

Yep. Circular logic always does that to me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Show it. Well, I may have mis-spoken when I said a philosophy, but for example, I believe that there is very few things (given the limits of physicality) that are outside the realm of human knowledge and nothing that is outside the realm of human understanding.

Now, could you be so kind as to point out an example of "foolosophy"?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


"Trollosophy" is a favorite word? That was quick! I just made it up a few minutes ago! It's true. I just did a quick search and this thread has the only instance of the word. Perhaps he just meant "troll". I get the impression he's heard it a lot....

Originally posted by Upchurch


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes , ALMOST all the replies of this Religion and Philosophy Forum are Foolosophy, mainly of those that are just a bunch of pseudo-skeptics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For example?



If I put all the examples this thread will be more than 44 pages.

I only put you a few, and not those cryings about Franko.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17541
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I told Jesus I loved him once.

He smiled at me, stroked his hand though my hair, and looked into my eyes.

I wrapped my arms around him, and then we... we... we kissed.

One thing led to another and before I knew it we started having sex.

He was rough, for my first time. I told him to be gentle but he wouldn't! I bled for five days after that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or :http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17819

Or :http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18343

Or.........

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, I may have mis-spoken when I said a philosophy, but for example, I believe that there is very few things (given the limits of physicality) that are outside the realm of human knowledge and nothing that is outside the realm of human understanding.




You are posting what you beleive , true beleiver.

Now you are with regrets that sckepticism is not a Philosophy.

One of the characteristiques(...) of Foolosophy is the double speech.

And don't worry , you can use the words "troll" or "trollosophy" to defend your Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17541

[snip]

Or :http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17819

Or :http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18343

er... yes, well, this would be better described as "mockery" or " parody", don't you think? It's not really pretending to be philosophy at all, is it?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S

You are posting what you beleive , true beleiver.What, then, do you consider to be "philosophy" or "having philosophy"?

Incidently, I would hardly describe myself a "true believer". if someone were to show me that I am wrong, I have no problem abandoning any working theory.
Now you are with regrets that sckepticism is not a Philosophy.I never said skepticism was a philosophy. It's more of an outlook or discipline.
One of the characteristiques(...) of Foolosophy is the double speech.But what you posted was mostly just mockery.
And don't worry , you can use the words "troll" or "trollosophy" to defend your Foolosophy.I'm not sure you've shown that I, or anyone, actually has a "foolosophy"

Originally posted by Upchurch

er... yes, well, this would be better described as "mockery" or " parody", don't you think? It's not really pretending to be philosophy at all, is it?

That's your point of view under your Foolosophy , since you don't have a Philosophy.

Then you post me what do you think are threads about Philosophy .
And who are the authors.

And tell me if the average about mockery and Foolosophy in this forum are higher than real Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[hgc]

Upchurch, why do you talk to it? You could have a more honest and worthwhile conversation with a pet giraffe.

Originally posted by hgc
Upchurch, why do you talk to it? You could have a more honest and worthwhile conversation with a pet giraffe.

Another way how Foolosophy works with their followers.

The fear to debate . The "advice" to all the Foolosophy's members .

The second step is "use the ignore buttom." Bla, bla, bla.


Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


That's your point of view under your Foolosophy , since you don't have a Philosophy.I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Then you post me what do you think are threads about Philosophy .
And who are the authors.Well on the front page of R&P alone we have

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18879
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18893
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18997
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17056&perpage=40&pagenumber=3 ...after the first several pages.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18767
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18920
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18803
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17946

I think these are fairly representative of a wide variety of philosophical conversations, discussions, and out right arguments.
And tell me if the average about mockery and Foolosophy in this forum are higher than real Philosophy. I think the impetus to joke around is much higher here, but I don't think that detracts from some of the great ideas on this board.

Edited to add:

Do you agree that this constitutes philosophy or, if not, could you post a better example?

[hal bidlack]

Carlos,

It seems to me that all your recent posts have one underlying message, "you are all dumb and I am smart" with some not so subtle hints about your claim. I'm quite sure you will assert innocence here, but you really are not fooling anyone but yourself.

If you want to be a productive member of the forum, fine. But if you continue to merely harrass the forum, I will take the next step.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Upchurch, why do you talk to it? You could have a more honest and worthwhile conversation with a pet giraffe. Because if you can get past the hostility, sometimes people will calm down and actually discuss issues.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Because if you can get past the hostility, sometimes people will calm down and actually discuss issues.
Good luck.

[whitefork]

S&S - if you're serious about this, read these:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9247&highlight=fallacy+of+composition

and

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9364&highlight=introduction+logic

I'm not just saying that because I posted heavily to those 2 threads. There's a lot of interesting basic philosophy contained therein.

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Carlos,

It seems to me that all your recent posts have one underlying message, "you are all dumb and I am smart" with some not so subtle hints about your claim. I'm quite sure you will assert innocence here, but you really are not fooling anyone but yourself.

If you want to be a productive member of the forum, fine. But if you continue to merely harrass the forum, I will take the next step.

The next step ? Do you mean to put me in your ignore list?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

All these members are the one who pretend to be the smart ones , I am just writing about foolosophy and philosophy.
They have your support to call me troll.

Is skepticism based on a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Is skepticism based on a Philosophy? Well I would say "No", but I don't know what you mean by philosophy since you haven't given an example of what you consider it to be. Or agreed with my examples. Or, heck, given a definition.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by S&S
Is skepticism based on a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

I would say that any position that anyone takes on any subject is based on a philosophy, even if that philosophy is just that persons personal view of things.

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well I would say "No", but I don't know what you mean by philosophy since you haven't given an example of what you consider it to be. Or agreed with my examples. Or, heck, given a definition.

Until Now : A "No" and a "maybe".

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Who was the one who called Hal for your defence?
Now I am not able to post anything according to his special and dedicated interpretations.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I would say that any position that anyone takes on any subject is based on a philosophy, even if that philosophy is just that persons personal view of things. We all have a point of view and an opinion about the nature of things, but few of us articulate it in a coherent way. How many of us ask "what can we know for sure, and how can we know it?" or "what is the ultimate nature of the world and the mind?" You can live a fine moral, productive life without ever asking these questions, and you can be a moral monster and take them very seriously.

So, are you a sophomore or a morosopher? Which shall it be, O thou who plumbs the depths of meaning and truth? Who hath laid the foundations of thy mind and spirit?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S
Is skepticism based on a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

Not necessarily, but a few can be materialists or atheists.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


Until Now : A "No" and a "maybe".Mostly because you don't explain what you are asking.

Until Now:

Originally posted by c4ts


Not necessarily, but a few can be materialists or atheists.

????????????????????????????????????????

Thanks,
S&S

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by whitefork
We all have a point of view and an opinion about the nature of things, but few of us articulate it in a coherent way. How many of us ask "what can we know for sure, and how can we know it?" or "what is the ultimate nature of the world and the mind?" You can live a fine moral, productive life without ever asking these questions, and you can be a moral monster and take them very seriously.

So, are you a sophomore or a morosopher? Which shall it be, O thou who plumbs the depths of meaning and truth? Who hath laid the foundations of thy mind and spirit?

I suppose you could make a distinction between a philosphy and a mere personal point of view on the basis of the former being an organized, thought out system of looking at things. However the end result is the same, it decides how you view the world and therefore it colors what position you will take on any given issue. The only difference between the two is the ease of which one can explain WHY one takes their position.

As for the second part of your post. I tend to be the sort whose philosophy is personal. I have never formally studied philosophy beyond a single ethics class in college. I have however, thought a lot on my own about why I think the way I do. So I guess you could say the person who 'laid the foundations of my mind' is me.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


????????????????????????????????????????

Thanks,
S&S

What's the problem? Some of the skeptics on this board are atheists, and some are materialists. There are other skeptics who are dualists, Christians, Jews, Daoists, Buddhists (etc)...

Originally posted by c4ts


What's the problem? Some of the skeptics on this board are atheists, and some are materialists. There are other skeptics who are dualists, Christians, Jews, Daoists, Buddhists (etc)...

You mean : Are they all skeptics?
They are just beleivers.

Just return to your books .

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


You mean : Are they all skeptics? I believe he means that they all can be skeptics.

[Dancing David]

I am lost here S&S! I think that for some sceptisism is a philosphy, it is a way that some people tend to use to filter thier world.

As Americans we find parody and humor to be great insight into where our beliefs lie.

I believe that if you can't laugh at it you don't believe it!

Peace
dancing david

[A_Feeble_Mind]

S&S, what your justificating for acusatings? Are you a sckepticlas A-theist?

People, if you ignore the troll, it will get tired and go back under its bridge.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
S&S, what your justificating for acusatings? Are you a sckepticlas A-theist?

People, if you ignore the troll, it will get tired and go back under its bridge.

I'm posolute that it only works theoreticiously. Troll bating can be wonderifficly funtageous.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by c4ts


I'm posolute that it only works theoreticiously. Troll bating can be wonderifficly funtageous.

Are you mockers me?! ;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Are you mockers me?! ;)

Absotively not.

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe he means that they all can be skeptics.

You always sounds like a true beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am lost here S&S! I think that for some sceptisism is a philosphy, it is a way that some people tend to use to filter thier world.

As Americans we find parody and humor to be great insight into where our beliefs lie.

I believe that if you can't laugh at it you don't believe it!

Peace
dancing david

Then, you are still lost , since you think that only fore some scepticism is a philosopfhy.

You are not apporting examples.

Thanks,
S&S

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I suppose you could make a distinction between a philosphy and a mere personal point of view on the basis of the former being an organized, thought out system of looking at things. However the end result is the same, it decides how you view the world and therefore it colors what position you will take on any given issue. The only difference between the two is the ease of which one can explain WHY one takes their position.

As for the second part of your post. I tend to be the sort whose philosophy is personal. I have never formally studied philosophy beyond a single ethics class in college. I have however, thought a lot on my own about why I think the way I do. So I guess you could say the person who 'laid the foundations of my mind' is me. I was poking the S&S cage there. But you see my point. There's the guy with the calculator, and the theoretical mathematician. The first one may or may not use the work of the second - he can, if he wishes, study them. Everybody has a some philosophical position, whether articulated or not. Only a few nuts actively study it.

Originally posted by whitefork
I was poking the S&S cage there. But you see my point. There's the guy with the calculator, and the theoretical mathematician. The first one may or may not use the work of the second - he can, if he wishes, study them. Everybody has a some philosophical position, whether articulated or not. Only a few nuts actively study it.

And a lot of nuts actively join Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by S&S
Vs. The Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

One quick question?


The philosophy of what?


Do you have a saying in South America similar to this one from New England.....'You can't get there from here.'???

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


One quick question?


The philosophy of what?


Do you have a saying in South America similar to this one from New England.....'You can't get there from here.'???

I will assume that you don't know what Philosophy is , but you are sure what Foolosophy is.

"No puedes pedirle manzanas al olmo".

"You can not ask for apples to the olm (...) tree."

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by S&S


Then, you are still lost , since you think that only fore some scepticism is a philosopfhy.

You are not apporting examples.

Thanks,
S&S

There are some for whom sceptisism is just a pose, ie they are only sceptical when it suits thier purpose. In the US many conservatives and liberals are sceptical when it comes to the other view and then they are true believers when it comes to thier viewpoint.

S&S : What lost me was you, I know what I mean. I can't always follow what you are writing.

As someone who is dysphonetic I can't say it is funny to make phun of speeling errs, I wish that english was as easy as Italian.

Peace
dancing david

Originally posted by Dancing David


There are some for whom sceptisism is just a pose, ie they are only sceptical when it suits thier purpose. In the US many conservatives and liberals are sceptical when it comes to the other view and then they are true believers when it comes to thier viewpoint.

S&S : What lost me was you, I know what I mean. I can't always follow what you are writing.

As someone who is dysphonetic I can't say it is funny to make phun of speeling errs, I wish that english was as easy as Italian.

Peace
dancing david

Your example is a good one of the double speech of the Foolosophy.
I remember when I wrote "scepticism" once. Some skeptics "corrected" me : "Is skepticism" "Is skeptical".

Now: Is skepticism based in a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


Your example is a good one of the double speech of the Foolosophy.
I remember when I wrote "scepticism" once. Some skeptics "corrected" me : "Is skepticism" "Is skeptical".

Now: Is skepticism based in a Philosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

You can stop pretending your error was an attempt to redifine skepticism in an effort to call everybody but yourself an untrue skeptic, if that is the case.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by S&S


I will assume that you don't know what Philosophy is , but you are sure what Foolosophy is.

"No puedes pedirle manzanas al olmo".

"You can not ask for apples to the olm (...) tree."

Thanks,
S&S

And I will assume your mind is as empty as your assumption.

Originally posted by c4ts


You can stop pretending your error was an attempt to redifine skepticism in an effort to call everybody but yourself an untrue skeptic, if that is the case.

That's only an speculation based in a Foolosophy.
If you can not write in what philosophy is based the Skepticism, then you better use your other weapon: "Don't feed the trolls".

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


That's only an speculation based in a Foolosophy.
If you can not write in what philosophy is based the Skepticism, then you better use your other weapon: "Don't feed the trolls".

Thanks,
S&S

You are saying that a "sceptic" is in no way inferior to a skeptic?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by whitefork
I was poking the S&S cage there. But you see my point. There's the guy with the calculator, and the theoretical mathematician. The first one may or may not use the work of the second - he can, if he wishes, study them. Everybody has a some philosophical position, whether articulated or not. Only a few nuts actively study it.

Ah, sorry, I thought you wer poking my cage.

But you beautifully summed up exactly what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by c4ts


You are saying that a "sceptic" is in no way inferior to a skeptic?

Skepticism are organizations , like this one and others. They are officially stablished . They have their followers and donators. They edit books , magazines, T-shirts , repots, web pages , meetings , etc.,etc.

Now :in what philosophy is based the Skepticism?

Thanks,
S&S

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by S&S


Skepticism are organizations , like this one and others. They are officially stablished . They have their followers and donators. They edit books , magazines, T-shirts , repots, web pages , meetings , etc.,etc.

Now :in what philosophy is based the Skepticism?

Thanks,
S&S

In answer to the first part, so do groups of hobbyists, groups of certain professions, groups of people with spcific politcal agendas and dozens of other types of groups. None of them need necessarily be bound by any common philosophy, so what is your point?

As for the second part, skeptics come upon their skepticism for any of a variety of reasons, which have all kinds of philosophies attached. It is going to vary by the individual

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


Skepticism are organizations , like this one and others. They are officially stablished . They have their followers and donators. They edit books , magazines, T-shirts , repots, web pages , meetings , etc.,etc.

Now :in what philosophy is based the Skepticism?

Thanks,
S&S

So the real problem here is that you do not understand what skepticism is, since you seem to think that because skeptics have organizations, skepticism itself must be organized. Certain organizations do have a philosphy to them, but it one that applies to the organization, not necessarily skepticism itself.

The real problem is that "Skepticism" is not based in any Philosophy and pretends to attack and mockery about Philosophy and religion.

That's why Skepticism appears as a Foolosophy, when the members try to justify their acts.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S
The real problem is that "Skepticism" is not based in any Philosophy and pretends to attack and mockery about Philosophy and religion.

That's why Skepticism appears as a Foolosophy, when the members try to justify their acts.

Thanks,
S&S

Would you like to know what skepticism is, or would you like to go on thinking what you believe about skepticism is absolutely true?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S
The real problem is that "Skepticism" is not based in any Philosophy and pretends to attack and mockery about Philosophy and religion.

That's why Skepticism appears as a Foolosophy, when the members try to justify their acts.

Thanks,
S&S

S&S
I am 4 meters tall.
Do you believe me?
Are you sceptical of my claim, if you are, why are you?
Are you attacking and mocking me if you refuse to accept that I am 4 meters tall?
So If you do not believe I am 4 meters tall you are a sceptic. If you are a sceptic you must be practicing foolosophy.

Is this making things clearer S&S? I hope not.......I find the confusion amusing.

On a sadder note, I am going to miss you when you are gone.

Originally posted by c4ts


Would you like to know what skepticism is, or would you like to go on thinking what you believe about skepticism is absolutely true?

I just want to know: in what Philosophy is based the skeptic society.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


I just want to know: in what Philosophy is based the skeptic society.

Thanks,
S&S

The philosophy of JREF in particular can be found here:
http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html

Originally posted by c4ts


The philosophy of JREF in particular can be found here:
http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html

Those are Goals of the Foundation. There is not a Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Philosophy is the "Need Factor" and skeptic society must keep working on it.

Here is an example:
http://www.theness.com/articles/theneedfactor-nejs0101.html

The rest are marely Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S
Philosophy is the "Need Factor" and skeptic society must keep working on it.

Here is an example:
http://www.theness.com/articles/theneedfactor-nejs0101.html

The rest are marely Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

So all those other guys, Heigel, Kant, Lucretius, Aristotle (etc)... they all wrote "foolosophy?"

Originally posted by c4ts


So all those other guys, Heigel, Kant, Lucretius, Aristotle (etc)... they all wrote "foolosophy?"

What are you tying to justificate?

Your ignorance about Philosopfy?
Then go post in some other forum.

Thanks,

Originally posted by c4ts


What's the problem? Some of the skeptics on this board are atheists, and some are materialists. There are other skeptics who are dualists, Christians, Jews, Daoists, Buddhists (etc)...

Fine, now we can make a list of the members in all the categories of skeptics. I think you know all their names.

In which category are you?


P.S: Add me in the category of skeptical of skeptics.

Originally posted by The Fool


S&S
I am 4 meters tall.
Do you believe me?



I must beleive you or then you are going to cry your "Foolosophy".

Thanks,
S&S

[evildave]

So, does anyone else suspect SS is packing the rating ballot on these things to get the stars on them?

And now we have ex-latin wanting to make up "score cards", like Franko used to.

Ahh, the "good ol' days".

I need to get around to writing that Frankobot to post this random gibberish automatically, so humans don't have to ruin their brains trolling like this.

Autotroll 1.0. All it really needs to do is blurt junk out when keywords appear in posts, and watch for its name to auto-answer with misquoted drool.

Determinism: "You SKEP-DICKS think the coin only lands face up!"

Free will: "The car drives you"

As well as hundreds of other favorites.

Ah, yes.

Not to neglect the re-factoring of names to other words by letter substitution (i.e. ex-latin to ex-laxin'). I already have that word-translation code somewhere.

Remember: an absolutely lousy AI that makes grammatical errors and repeats its self (a little) is more believable. Pretending to speak a foreign language (i.e. 'pigin english' with limited vocabulary) saves the lazy programmer from having to write decent lexical parsing and formatting code that always produces valid-looking grammar.

Maybe I should just break down and make it "evildave's first Python applet", since it seems unavoidable that I'll have to work with this language soon to some degree, anyway. Then I can prove (once again) how pathetic a piece of code can be and still pass as "human" in this medium. Especially when there are "live" trolls to compare it to.

Of course, *MY* robot would be well-behaved enough to stay in the flames forum, unlike the (perhaps) human volunteers for this thankless, mind-numbing repetitive task who just sort of keep doing it for no apparent reason.

[thaiboxerken]

I am thinking S&S believes that calling the skeptics here "true believers" is so insulting that we'll not sleep at night. Why is it that god-believers call science "faith" and atheists religious? It's because they just don't understand reality. S&S is living in a world where a superpowered being controls the universe and demons fly out of smoking buildings, take his comments for what they are worth (less than a canadian penny).

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I am thinking S&S believes that calling the skeptics here "true believers" is so insulting that we'll not sleep at night. Why is it that god-believers call science "faith" and atheists religious? It's because they just don't understand reality. S&S is living in a world where a superpowered being controls the universe and demons fly out of smoking buildings, take his comments for what they are worth (less than a canadian penny).

Are you speculating with me?

Just tell me in what Philosophy is based your cult.

Until then , your words is a reflection of your Foolosophy.
Your next step steps : "Don't feed the trolls " "Use the ignore funtion , like me".

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by evildave
So, does anyone else suspect SS is packing the rating ballot on these things to get the stars on them?

And now we have ex-latin wanting to make up "score cards", like Franko used to.

Ahh, the "good ol' days".

I need to get around to writing that Frankobot to post this random gibberish automatically, so humans don't have to ruin their brains trolling like this.

Autotroll 1.0. All it really needs to do is blurt junk out when keywords appear in posts, and watch for its name to auto-answer with misquoted drool.

Determinism: "You SKEP-DICKS think the coin only lands face up!"

Free will: "The car drives you"

As well as hundreds of other favorites.

Ah, yes.

Not to neglect the re-factoring of names to other words by letter substitution (i.e. ex-latin to ex-laxin'). I already have that word-translation code somewhere.

Remember: an absolutely lousy AI that makes grammatical errors and repeats its self (a little) is more believable. Pretending to speak a foreign language (i.e. 'pigin english' with limited vocabulary) saves the lazy programmer from having to write decent lexical parsing and formatting code that always produces valid-looking grammar.

Maybe I should just break down and make it "evildave's first Python applet", since it seems unavoidable that I'll have to work with this language soon to some degree, anyway. Then I can prove (once again) how pathetic a piece of code can be and still pass as "human" in this medium. Especially when there are "live" trolls to compare it to.

Of course, *MY* robot would be well-behaved enough to stay in the flames forum, unlike the (perhaps) human volunteers for this thankless, mind-numbing repetitive task who just sort of keep doing it for no apparent reason.

Yes , I already know those bla , bla , bla that members of a cult use. Mainly when they don't have the answers.

If you can not write about your Philosophy , it is not my fault.
In what Philosophy is based the skepticism ?

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

I've got it! I've got it!

PHI-LOSE-OPHER

In the grand tradition of A-THEIST.....

(elaboration to follow.. collaboration welcome)

Originally posted by Diogenes
I've got it! I've got it!

PHI-LOSE-OPHER

In the grand tradition of A-THEIST.....

(elaboration to follow.. collaboration welcome)


Member of The Foolosophers.

Now go and ask for your prize : a T-shirt or a pen.

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S



Member of The Foolosophers.

Now go and ask for your prize : a T-shirt or a pen.

Thanks,
S&S

You honor me sir...

Originally posted by Diogenes


You honor me sir...

You are welcome.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

I'm wondering, S&S, what is your point?

You ask a question, but refuse to consider anyone's answer. We ask for clarification to try to present a better answer, and you refuse to clarify.

Are you truly seeking answers to your questions?

I looked up some of your old posts to try to get a handle on where you are coming from. I mean, this much hostility has to come from somewhere, right? Anyway, I read about your failed JREF Challenge attempt with the tape of a "paranormal" object at the World Trade Center attack. Is this where all the hostility towards skeptics comes from? Because skeptics didn't believe your one, unsubstantiated and unduplicatible, piece of evidence?

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm wondering, S&S, what is your point?

You ask a question, but refuse to consider anyone's answer. We ask for clarification to try to present a better answer, and you refuse to clarify.

Are you truly seeking answers to your questions?

I looked up some of your old posts to try to get a handle on where you are coming from. I mean, this much hostility has to come from somewhere, right? Anyway, I read about your failed JREF Challenge attempt with the tape of a "paranormal" object at the World Trade Center attack. Is this where all the hostility towards skeptics comes from? Because skeptics didn't believe your one, unsubstantiated and unduplicatible, piece of evidence?

Upchurch:

Don't try to appear like a naive or an inocent guy.
The point is simple :

In what Philosophy is based the Skepticism ?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

About of what you read , do you have an official document of any skeptical Foundation or Organization about it?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S

Don't try to appear like a naive or an inocent guy.
Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that is it, isn't it? You got burned and now you are bitter?
In what Philosophy is based the Skepticism ?Seven words: "Don't believe everything you see and hear."
About of what you read , do you have an official document of any skeptical Foundation or Organization about it? No, why would I? Besides, it's been so long that most of the links provided are dead now.

Originally posted by Upchurch

Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that is it, isn't it? You got burned and now you are bitter?


Since you are the one that try to appear like an inocent and naive , then I am just answering you. Don't worry , I am relax as you think you are.


Seven words: "Don't believe everything you see and hear."

Do you realize that all the cults say the same thing to their followers, is just a method , not a Philosophy.



No, why would I? Besides, it's been so long that most of the links provided are dead now.

Because you can bring a proof of your affirmation. You can ask on this Foundation.

Thanks,
S&S

[Pyrrho]

A brief article on the History of Skepticism, which throws some light on skeptic philosophy:

http://www.korrnet.org/reality/rc/1998_spring/history_skepticism_1.htm


If I am a fool, it is, at least, a doubting one; and I envy no one the certainty of self-approved wisdom - Lord Byron (1788-1824), English poet

Another reference:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/skepmod.htm

In short, there is no one, single philosophy that can be named skepticism. My own philosophy can be summed up in the state slogan of Missouri:

"Show Me"

http://www.sos.state.mo.us/archives/history/slogan.asp

The most widely known legend attributes the phrase to Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1897 to 1903. While a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he declared, "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

[Nyarlathotep]

Having followed this thread since yesterday, I have concluded that trying to explain our point to S&S is like reading poetry to your cat. You might get some enjoyment out of it, but he cat neither understands or appreciates your efforts.

Originally posted by Pyrrho


In short, there is no one, single philosophy that can be named skepticism. My own philosophy can be summed up in the state slogan of Missouri:

"Show Me"






I am showing you.
Skepticism is not a Philosophy and it is not based in a Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Is just another cult.

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


I am showing you.
Skepticism is not a Philosophy and it is not based in a Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Is just another cult.

Skeptisism is doubt in the absence of evidence. Full stop.

Only someone who fundamentally fails to comprehend the scientific method would call it a "cult". But, by all means, carry on preaching instead of learning if it makes you happy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S

Since you are the one that try to appear like an inocent and naive , then I am just answering you. Don't worry , I am relax as you think you are.
er....okay. when you get around to the "answering you" part, let me know.

Seven words: "Don't believe everything you see and hear."

Do you realize that all the cults say the same thing to their followers, is just a method , not a Philosophy.And, therefore, anyone who uses a method is a member of a cult? :rolleyes:

Why is my statement above a method rather than a philosophy?

No, why would I? Besides, it's been so long that most of the links provided are dead now.

Because you can bring a proof of your affirmation. You can ask on this Foundation.
Proof of my affirmation that you made an application for the JREF Challenge? Wouldn't this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041) do? That's what I based it on...

Look, S&S, I'm sorry you didn't get your million dollars, but people are skeptical for a reason. It's one of the many tools that allows us to distinguish between fact and fiction.

If you have a point to make, make it and state the reasons you think it is so. If someone disagrees with you and gives a reason why, address the reason. Don't attack the person. For example:

My point: I think you are upset with the JREF that your application was rejected and you are taking your frustration out on the members of this board.
My reason: Your hostility towards the majority opinions of this board (i.e. skepticism and atheism) is one sided, meaning that you don't present an opinion of your own, you merely attack those of others. This hostility must come from somewhere and the rejected application is the only source of frustration that I am aware of.

Now, if you disagree with me, attack my arguments above. Don't attack me personally, because it does not advance your argument.

edited to add:
I am showing you.
Skepticism is not a Philosophy and it is not based in a Philosophy.
I'm from Missouri, too. You aren't showing, you are stating.

[Samus]

Originally posted by S&S
Skepticism is not a Philosophy and it is not based in a Philosophy. Brace yourself: I agree. Skepticism is not directly a philosophy, however, I would submit that many true skeptics agree on some philosophical issues. Would you disagree?

Skepticism is more an attribute of someone's personality. It's a willingness to step back and think about something before considering it the "truth." It's about weighing the validity of different theories (and, I suppose, philosophies) and coming to a conclusion based on evidence and good judgement.

Did I say anything you disagree with? If so, what?

Originally posted by S&S
Is just another cult. What separates a group of like-minded people from being a cult? How are political parties not cults? Religions? IEEE is a cult? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not asking because I have the answer, I'm asking to see what people come up with.

Originally posted by CWL


Skeptisism is doubt in the absence of evidence. Full stop.

Only someone who fundamentally fails to comprehend the scientific method would call it a "cult". But, by all means, carry on preaching instead of learning if it makes you happy.

Scientific methods like Polls ?
You can put your vote, too


You are under the Myth of the scientific method as the base of skepticism.

Myths about Science and the Scientific Method.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html


Thanks,
S&S

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


Scientific methods like Polls ?
You can put your vote, too

You are under the Myth of the scientific method as the base of skepticism.

Myths about Science and the Scientific Method.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html

Thanks,
S&S
Did you actually read that article yourself?

Originally posted by Upchurch

er....okay. when you get around to the "answering you" part, let me know.
And, therefore, anyone who uses a method is a member of a cult? :rolleyes:

Why is my statement above a method rather than a philosophy?

Proof of my affirmation that you made an application for the JREF Challenge? Wouldn't this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041) do? That's what I based it on...

Look, S&S, I'm sorry you didn't get your million dollars, but people are skeptical for a reason. It's one of the many tools that allows us to distinguish between fact and fiction.

If you have a point to make, make it and state the reasons you think it is so. If someone disagrees with you and gives a reason why, address the reason. Don't attack the person. For example:

My point: I think you are upset with the JREF that your application was rejected and you are taking your frustration out on the members of this board.
My reason: Your hostility towards the majority opinions of this board (i.e. skepticism and atheism) is one sided, meaning that you don't present an opinion of your own, you merely attack those of others. This hostility must come from somewhere and the rejected application is the only source of frustration that I am aware of.

Now, if you disagree with me, attack my arguments above. Don't attack me personally, because it does not advance your argument.

edited to add:

I'm from Missouri, too. You aren't showing, you are stating.

Yes, I understand your frustration for not having an official document of any skeptical Foundation or Organization about your affirmation . What do you have ? Nothing .Just your speculations.

It seems that there are some dissagreements about your position: BWB: "Skepticism is not directly a philosophy, however, I would submit that many true skeptics agree on some philosophical issues."

If you have another regret , just show me.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by CWL

Did you actually read that article yourself?

Yes , and you must read it too; since you are the one who beleive in the scientific method.

----------------------------------------
Quote

"If, as skeptics, we invoke science to understand nature it is important that we understand the strengths and weaknesses of science"

----------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

I am torn between two options. Some part of me wants to respond to S&S's insanity by calmly talking to him like he was a rational adult. However, then I realize that he is either a troll or might as well be one since he refuses to put any effort or thought into making his point clear; it is at that point that I find it much more satisfying to "mockers" him.

¿S&S, por qué usted no mecanografía su mensaje en su lengua materna y no lo traduce aquí?
(S&S, why don't you type your message in your native language and translate it here?)

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Esa manera, allí no sería ninguna confusión sobre lo que usted significó y usted no necesitaría escribir en un idioma extranjero.
(That way, there would be no confusion about what you meant and you wouldn't need to write in a foreign language.)

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
I am torn between two options. Some part of me wants to respond to S&S's insanity by calmly talking to him like he was a rational adult. However, then I realize that he is either a troll or might as well be one since he refuses to put any effort or thought into making his point clear; it is at that point that I find it much more satisfying to "mockers" him.

¿S&S, por qué usted no mecanografía su mensaje en su lengua materna y no lo traduce aquí?
(S&S, why don't you type your message in your native language and translate it here?)

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Esa manera, allí no sería ninguna confusión sobre lo que usted significó y usted no necesitaría escribir en un idioma extranjero.
(That way, there would be no confusion about what you meant and you wouldn't need to write in a foreign language.)

Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Never use those virtual translators, your virtual spanish is worst than my english.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


Foolosophy.
...
P.S.
Never use those virtual translators, your virtual spanish is worst than my english.

Let me respond with a quote of my original message:


...might as well be one since he refuses to put any effort or thought into making his point clear


And, I somehow doubt that any translation could be worse than your english. At least we would have a chance at interpretting what you are talking about with a translator.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Myths about Science and the Scientific Method.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html
A few valid points and many, many strawmen.

Myth #1: Theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.

In this entire section, the author does not find fault with the above principle, only in the way it is carried out. He has not shown how the principle itself is a "myth"

Myth #2: Science is a self-correcting system.

In the author's own words, "this is not so much a myth, as warning against placing blind faith in peer review." In other words, a level skepticism is always essential to science, even in peer review.

Myth #3: The data speaks for itself.

"We decide what data to look for based on theory, we select our method of measurement based on theory, and we use theory to organize and present our data." This is so simplistic as to be laughable. While this is true with the confines of a single experiment, the author does nto take into account that multiple experiment from multiple scientists from a variety of angles are performed on a theory over a wide range of time. Sometimes even from unrelated fields. If any data comes up that is contrary to the theory, the theory is re-evaluated. The author has reduced all of this process down to a single experiment.

Myth #4: Extraordinary hypothesis require extraordinary evidence.

"If scientists do not study new theories, and if funding is not made available to run experiments, new theories would not be able to accumulate extraordinary evidence." Implying that new theories don't get funding. This is complete and utter BS. Quantum theory alone was about as new as it gets and it got tons of attention and funding, because the more it was investegated the more evidence it got in support of it.

Myth #5: There is one universal scientific method.

The author is, of course, refering to the scientific method taught in grade schools, which is simplified and watered down for easier consumption. No scientist actually believes that there is one and only one scientific method. Pure strawman.

Myth #6: Science is our best method of acquiring knowledge.

"skeptics dismiss claims based on personal experience, or from established norms or based on religious belief. ... My neighbor may believe she saw a ghost as a child. It is a personal, salient experience that has affected her life. I could present scientific arguments for what might have actually happened, perhaps to explain why despite her testimony I'm still skeptical of ghosts. But other than to explain the basis of my own belief (or non-belief) what would be the point? To people, personal experience can be very convincing, and serves as the empirical evidence use to justify beliefs."

Sounds like a plee to take anecdotal evidence at face value to me.

S&S, a ghost told me to tell you that I am The Lord Thy God. Do you believe in Me?

Myth #7: Scientist are more intelligent than average, and better than average problem solvers.

This isn't an attack on scepticisim. It's a statement that scientists are human too. Strawman

Myth #8: People may not be perfect with reasoning, but training in the use of formal methods of reasoning, and particularly knowledge of science improves that reasoning.

should add "in those fields of study." Otherwise it is another strawman.

Myth #9: Skepticism makes one less vulnerable to errors of reasoning or illogic.

Has anyone on this board ever made this claim? Randi has shown time and time again that scientists and skeptics can be fooled.

Myth #10: Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, childish, misguided and uninformed ways.

should at least add add "about paranormal subjects." The author accuses all skeptics of this attitude without evidence or reference.

Further the author states, "Personal, pre-scientific beliefs may be closer to folk-theories in that they make use of the rules of sympathetic magic, naive empiricism and folk-psychology, but the attitude expressed by this myths is simplistic, antagonistic and condescending." In other words, "skeptics may be right, but they're mean!" :rolleyes:

Myth #11: Believers in the paranormal don't want to give up their comfortable belief system. They are afraid to think independently and need the security blanket that all such belief systems provide.

followed by the author's corrilary, "Promoters of the paranormal are manipulative and un-ethical charlatans. These flimflam artists take advantage of people's ``need to believe'' to bilk them of their money and health." How in world is that a corrolary? They are two entirely different issues.

The author then goes on to ask the following questions

"What is so comforting about the belief in eternal damnation for unethical behavior?" To which, I would ask how many believers of such an idea think that they are the ones who are damned?

"What is comforting about a religion which encourages self-sacrifice for the benefit of others?" Other than being able to escape above damnation and receive eternal rewards after death? I have no idea why someone would find that comforting :rolleyes:

"How are ``New Age'' environmental beliefs a security blanket?" I have no idea where to start with this one. A feeling of belonging? Superiority?

Myth #12: Failure to accept the findings of science, or a general tendency to believe in paranormal or fringe claims is a sign of intellectual weakness, mental illness or sloppy thinking.

"As scientists, skeptics, humanists, and agnostics---who also at times reject traditional authorities---can we pause, and ask ourselves at which point rejection of authority becomes a pathology?" Accuse the accusors, anyone?

Regardless, the author doesn't even really support the above statement except for the mental illness angle.

Myth #13: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.

The author suggest that all data should be believed out of hand with no varification.

Myth #14: A skeptic should also be an atheist, or at least agnostic, since belief in a deity is incompatible with the truly skeptical mind.

In this very thread, wasn't it suggested that members of any religion can be a skeptic? This one certainly isn't representative of this board's beliefs.

Myth #15: Being a good skeptic means being a debunker.

Again, the author doesn't support the above, merely calls skeptics "mean".

Myth #16: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.

heh. The objection to this one is that irrationality is at the same level it has always been at, not that science and reson don't need defending.



Pretty sloppy overall.

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


Yes , and you must read it too; since you are the one who beleive in the scientific method.

I suggest you read it again, bearing in mind Upchurch's pertinent comments above (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1869896905#post1869896905).

Originally posted by CWL


I suggest you read it again, bearing in mind Upchurch's comments above (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1869896905#post1869896905[/url).

Yes read it. Are the myths you have with your skepticism.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
And you all need to read it, before calling yourself Skeptics and just write and post your own myths as facts and proofs
-------------------------------------------------
Quote of the same article

"In this article, I'm interested in how skeptics define themselves, and the accuracy of those definitions. Skeptics form a sub-culture in western society, and like all cultures they have their own core set of beliefs and mythology. It is those myths that interest me, as a skeptic."
-------------------------------------------------

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


Yes read it. Are the myths you have with your skepticism.


I have already thanks. How about a comment from you to Upchurch's analysis (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1869896905#post1869896905) instead?

[hgc]

Upchurch,

I ask you again, and I ask all the others...

Why do you engage in this tomfoolery? You will NEVER get what you desire (dialog) from this exchange. Please let the threads sink.

edited to add:

It's like the old sun rises in the east analogy: it has always behaved that way, and there is good reason to believe it will continue to.

Originally posted by hgc
Upchurch,

I ask you again, and I ask all the others...

Why do you engage in this tomfoolery? You will NEVER get what you desire (dialog) from this exchange. Please let the threads sink.

Double Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Why do you engage in this tomfoolery? You will NEVER get what you desire (dialog) from this exchange. Please let the threads sink.Call it "being thurough."

It's worked in the past, why shouldn't it work now?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Double Foolosophy. I'VE GOT IT!!!

Foolosophy = criticism!!

:D

Seriously, hgc's post wasn't even close to pretending to philosophy. How can you call it foolosophy when it doesn't meet the criteria given above?

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


Double Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Yea, yea Double-Schmouble.

Why don't you offer a rebuttal to Upchurch's comments (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1869896905#post1869896905) to your precious article instead?

A bright guy like yourself ought to be able to make mince meat out of his remarks, no?

Or is it more fun to spam the board with short and agressive pot-shot nonsense posts?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by CWL


I have already thanks. How about a comment from you to Upchurch's analysis (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1869896905#post1869896905) instead?

Like in all cults , he is angry because another skeptical is pointing Upcchurch myths about skepticism.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
What do you expect from a member that first said Yes, then No, and then maybe about the Philosophy of Skepticism ?
Is just his opinion, if you want to beleive in him , just do it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Call it "being thurough."

It's worked in the past, why shouldn't it work now?
If by that you mean it's worked with this particular poster, I can't imagine to what you refer. For the past [whatever timeframe] he's been posting here, I have never witnessed rational dialog -- only thorough appeals to reason and blathering idiot nonsense in reply.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you speculating with me?



That's impossible. Speculating WITH you would imply some sort of two-way communication. I believe he was speculating AT you.

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


That's impossible. Speculating WITH you would imply some sort of two-way communication. I believe he was speculating AT you.

Are you upset? Use the ignore funtion.

Thanks,
S&S

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


Like in all cults , he is angry because another skeptical is pointing Upcchurch myths about skepticism.

I don't believe you. I am a skeptic you see.

But you can easily prove what you are saying by rebutting the points that Upchurch has made.

Let's start off easy with Myth # 1:

originally posted by Upchurch
Myth #1: Theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.

In this entire section, the author does not find fault with the above principle, only in the way it is carried out. He has not shown how the principle itself is a "myth"

Indulge me Carlos. Why is Upchurch wrong?

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'VE GOT IT!!!

Foolosophy = criticism!!

:D

Seriously, hgc's post wasn't even close to pretending to philosophy. How can you call it foolosophy when it doesn't meet the criteria given above?

Not yet.
Foolosophy is like hgc posts. And many others who think they are smarts.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by CWL


I don't believe you. I am a skeptic you see.

But you can easily prove what you are saying by rebutting the points that Upchurch has made.

Let's start off easy with Myth # 1:



Indulge me Carlos. Why is Upchurch wrong?

You tell me: why do you think he is right? You brought the topic.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S

Like in all cults , he is angry because another skeptical is pointing Upcchurch myths about skepticism.
They're my myth's now? huh. I never knew I was so popular that people are writing whole papers about my beliefs... ;)

Seriously, do you disagree with my analysis?

What do you expect from a member that first said Yes, then No, and then maybe about the Philosophy of Skepticism ?
The problem is that I was trying to devine what you were refering to by "having philosophy". Can't blame me for being confused or confusing.
Is just his opinion, if you want to beleive in him , just do it. And heck, opinion is just as good as fact. Right, S&S?

[Dancing David]

I hope I get a direct answer because I do feel that you have valuable ideas and would like to read them.

Some philosphers are sceptics, some sceptics are philosophers, some sceptics make fun of everything, some try to understand where someone is coming from.

I believe in a previous post that you may have applied Foolsophy to me?

Philo-sophy; "love/friend of wisdom"
Foolosophy; "wisdom of fools"?

I think that some of us would like to dialouge with you, I have always been frustrated with the Socratic method.

Sceptisism in of itself is not recognised as a form of philosophy as maybe determinism is. I feel it can be a philosophy if one chooses to call it that.

(As an aside , when you made the My Friend Jesus Thread and then dark Cobra made thier response. Could thier comment have been a metaphorical expression of how religion rapes people? It was most like meant to offend you, I agree. )

Peace
dancing david

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


You tell me: why do you think he is right? You brought the topic.

Thanks,
S&S

I agree with his reasoning 100 %. Couldn't have said it better myself.

See, a debate is a bit like a tennis game. One debater serves, the other smashes.

You served up the article. Upchurch offered a smash.

Your turn, Sir.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
You tell me: why do you think he is right? You brought the topic.
What?

uh... S&S, You brought up the topic:Originally posted by S&S
You are under the Myth of the scientific method as the base of skepticism.

Myths about Science and the Scientific Method.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html

Originally posted by Dancing David
I hope I get a direct answer because I do feel that you have valuable ideas and would like to read them.

Some philosphers are sceptics, some sceptics are philosophers, some sceptics make fun of everything, some try to understand where someone is coming from.

I believe in a previous post that you may have applied Foolsophy to me?

Philo-sophy; "love/friend of wisdom"
Foolosophy; "wisdom of fools"?

I think that some of us would like to dialouge with you, I have always been frustrated with the Socratic method.

Sceptisism in of itself is not recognised as a form of philosophy as maybe determinism is. I feel it can be a philosophy if one chooses to call it that.

(As an aside , when you made the My Friend Jesus Thread and then dark Cobra made thier response. Could thier comment have been a metaphorical expression of how religion rapes people? It was most like meant to offend you, I agree. )

Peace
dancing david

Scepticism was born in the ancient Greek as a philosophy.

Skepticism is the title ,new organizations and Foundations adopted as a matter to be reunited as another cult $ociety.
Skepticism as you wrote is not a form of Philosophy.
Being sceptical as an human being is not bad.
Being Skeptical, like if you are defending a cult , is like a weapon that returned to you as a boomerang.


About Dark Cobra uncivil way to mockery about being raped and sodomized by Jesus , let me tell you that this forum has rules of how you can debate in .
If you don't beleive in Jesus or in any God of any culture of the world, at least you should have the common sense to debate in propper manners. This is supposed to be an Educational Foundation with administrators and moderators. But sometimes they are just focused (with their special and dedicated rules) in members that are trying just to debate and post evidences of how pseudo-skepticals use this forum to post just mockeries, insults , etc without a single proof of his affirmations.

Thanks,
S&S

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by S&S


What are you tying to justificate?

Your ignorance about Philosopfy?
Then go post in some other forum.

Thanks,

Justify
Philosophy

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


Justify
Philosophy

Thanks for your English corrections.

Justificate No , Is justify, justify , justify.

About Philosophy was a typewriting mistake.

Gracias mil;
Carlos (S&S)

[Dancing David]

I am afraid that they don't teach manners in the US schools and I have observed that there has been more rudeness in society over time. It was part of the culture shock I always experienced returning home, how rude we americans(US) are.

Maybe philosophy has different meaning for different culture, in US parlance it generally means 'speculative'.

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am afraid that they don't teach manners in the US schools and I have observed that there has been more rudeness in society over time. It was part of the culture shock I always experienced returning home, how rude we americans(US) are.

Maybe philosophy has different meaning for different culture, in US parlance it generally means 'speculative'.

Peace
dancing David

Maybe that rudeness is a concequence of their fears.
People that pretends to have the reason with weapons and rudeness must have their own problems.
Philosophy is a matter that can be apply to humanity without distintion of race , cultures , education and places.

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm wondering, S&S, what is your point?



May I speculate?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by S&S


Thanks for your English corrections.

Justificate No , Is justify, justify , justify.

About Philosophy was a typewriting mistake.

Gracias mil;
Carlos (S&S)



De Nada
Your english is far better than my spanish

Originally posted by Upchurch
What?

uh... S&S, You brought up the topic:

Yes and was my respond to CWL (Only someone who fundamentally fails to comprehend the scientific method would call it a "cult")

-------------------------------------------------
Quote of the same article

"In this article, I'm interested in how skeptics define themselves, and the accuracy of those definitions. Skeptics form a sub-culture in western society, and like all cultures they have their own core set of beliefs and mythology. It is those myths that interest me, as a skeptic."
-------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Quote

"If, as skeptics, we invoke science to understand nature it is important that we understand the strengths and weaknesses of science"

----------------------------------------

I read your opinions and interpretations of the link. And yes those are your opinions and interpretations. The same way the author (an skeptical) had his opinions and interpretations about skeptical myths.Like this opinions in this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18605

The only truth is : "You must understand the strengths and weaknesses of science"

Science , along History, is just evolutive and with the same mistakes as human being. One day you hear that science and scientists have a "real" discovery , next day you will find that was wrong and dangerous. They will never have the final word.
Because is a matter of humans like you and me.

If you think and beleive that I am insulting you , you are in your right to think that. I am just debating with proofs , no with my opinions.

Insults and mockery are the weapon of The Foolosophy .

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
And you are free to keep on mockering.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


insults and mockery are the weapon of The Foolosophy .

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
And you are free to keep on mockering.


Excuse me Mr Potato head but if you truly believe this, how do you justify this post which was your entire contributiuon to the thread discussing foreign language forums.


moron :The Central Scrutinizer
Universal Language.
Thanks,
S&S


Your entire contribution to that thread has been to jump in part way through with a brief insult for one of the Forum members. Do you understand the word "Hypocrite"...You cry like a child about people "mocking you". Try acting like an Adult and you may find people take you a bit more seriously....

Anyway, Its only a matter of time, i will miss you when you are gone.

[thaiboxerken]

S&S, it doesn't matter how much you insult the board members or science, you still will not get Randi's million with your picture. I bet that really kills you, eh?

You keep on believing that you saw a demon in the smoke of the WTC's. It only shows how foolish you are.

:D

Originally posted by The Fool



Excuse me Mr Potato head but if you truly believe this, how do you justify this post which was your entire contributiuon to the thread discussing foreign language forums.


moron :The Central Scrutinizer
Universal Language.
Thanks,
S&S


Your entire contribution to that thread has been to jump in part way through with a brief insult for one of the Forum members. Do you understand the word "Hypocrite"...You cry like a child about people "mocking you". Try acting like an Adult and you may find people take you a bit more seriously....

Anyway, Its only a matter of time, i will miss you when you are gone.

Foolosophy

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

If you are trying to excuse the brain of The Central Scrutinizer , who 's posts are just a Foolosophy like yours , then you have nothing.
And remember also the board that was my answer to this smart question:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
If you create alternate language threads, will you teach me how to say "moron" in several languages??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
S&S, it doesn't matter how much you insult the board members or science, you still will not get Randi's million with your picture. I bet that really kills you, eh?

You keep on believing that you saw a demon in the smoke of the WTC's. It only shows how foolish you are.

:D

Are you another one that try to justify your absence of arguments and proofs in a debate ?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Or are you also defending the brain of The Central Scrutinizer ?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you another one that try to justify your absence of arguments and proofs in a debate ?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Or are you also defending the brain of The Central Scrutinizer ?

Was there a debate intended to be provoked by this thread? No. You started this thread only to insult and draw aggro from the skeptic mob.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Was there a debate intended to be provoked by this thread? No. You started this thread only to insult and draw aggro from the skeptic mob.

Prove it.
Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Create your very own S&S......

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~ffowler/javahtml/potato/Potato.html

Originally posted by The Fool
Create your very own S&S.....no need to come here anymore.

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~ffowler/javahtml/potato/Potato.html

You are worried and arrogant because you beleive the term "The Foolosophy" is honoring or inspired in you.

No The Fool , is just a reference of the style of nonsense posts you also have. Maybe you need a little culture outside your cult .

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


You are worried and arrogant because you beleive the term "The Foolosophy" is honoring or inspired in you.

No The Fool , is just a reference of the style of nonsense posts you also have. Maybe you need a little culture outside your cult .

Thanks,
S&S

why are you angry S&S? Its not your fault you have a potato for a head:)

anyway....before Hal chastises me I am moving the S&S is a potato head issue to the "unconnected" forum.....maybe I'll see you there Carlos? Lol.....

Originally posted by The Fool


why are you angry S&S? Its not your fault you have a potato for a head:)

Relax , enjoy your Foolosophy. Nothing wrong in that. Relax.

Thanks,
S&S

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S
If, as skeptics, we invoke science to understand nature it is important that we understand the strengths and weaknesses of science

As a statment the above is fine. I agree. However, as Upchurch has pointed out, the purported analysis of the article from which the statment derives is to a great extent based upon loose speculation and strawmen.

Let me ask you this, Carlos.

Do you understand the statement "doubt in the absence of evidence"?

Do you understand why such an approach (i.e. a skeptical approach) might be considered important?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Maybe philosophy has different meaning for different culture, in US parlance it generally means 'speculative'.

Peace
dancing David

<off topic>One of my pet gripes is the way the media uses "philosophical" to mean "pragmatic".</off topic>

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S


Scepticism was born in the ancient Greek as a philosophy.



Which ancient Greek? There were so many of them!

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by The Fool
Create your very own S&S......

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~ffowler/javahtml/potato/Potato.html

Aw, shoot! I thought this was going to be a site that teaches you how to put together a poorly designed artificial intelligence that simulates broken English....


Sorry for the jab, S&S, I just couldn't pass that one up. :)

I realize English isn't your first language. I'm not laughing AT you, I'm laughing WITH you!

Unless, of course, you ARE just an AI program... :confused:

Originally posted by CWL


As a statment the above is fine. I agree. However, as Upchurch has pointed out, the purported analysis of the article from which the statment derives is to a great extent based upon loose speculation and strawmen.

Let me ask you this, Carlos.

Do you understand the statement "doubt in the absence of evidence"?

Do you understand why such an approach (i.e. a skeptical approach) might be considered important?

Hi Cwl :
I am glad you agree with the statement :"If, as skeptics, we invoke science to understand nature it is important that we understand the strengths and weaknesses of science."

Is the only truth , as I wrote , that should be consider. The rest are interpretations and personal opinions.

Yes , I understand the statement ""doubt in the absence of evidence" I apply it in my life.

But your doubts also can not make you sure of your affirmations; For example : there is not a God. Skepticals according to their doubts should be agnostics, not Atheists.
And the worst mistake : mockering about the beleifs of all the cultures.

Thanks,
S&S

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S
But your doubts also can not make you sure of your affirmations; For example : there is not a God. Skepticals according to their doubts should be agnostics, not Atheists.

I am personally a "soft atheist". I doubt the existence of God in the absence of evidence.

That is not the same as saying "there is not a God".

Originally posted by CWL


I am personally a "soft atheist". I doubt the existence of God in the absence of evidence.

That is not the same as saying "there is not a God".

That is a big difference .

And what about the mockeries about religions and beleifs from the pseudoskeptics atheists? This forum is full of those examples.

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S


And what about the mockeries about religions and beleifs from the pseudoskeptics atheists? This forum is full of those examples.

Thanks,
S&S

Looks like God may not be as bad as some people would make him out to be..

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


Which ancient Greek? There were so many of them!

- Pyrrhon of Elis, Greek philosopher, 360 to 272 BC. The word Pyrrhonism comes from his name. He is also described as the father of Scepticism.

Don't confuse him with our new moderator Pyrrho.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Investigate then , for your own. Maybe it will help you a little to increase the debate the way it should be.
And yes, English is not my first language.
You are free to laugh.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S

And the worst mistake : mockering about the beleifs of all the cultures.

Thanks,
S&S

Excellent point. What's with all those Christian missionaries, anyway?

Originally posted by Diogenes


Excellent point. What's with all those Christian missionaries, anyway?

All the mockeries about religions and beleifs of different cutures , no matter the origins or procedence, are just Foolosophy. This forum is full of those examples.

If you can control yourself in your beleifs and start just pointing your philosophy and/or religion , without mockering of the others', then you are a real missionarie. It doesn't matter your organization or religion.



Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S


All the mockeries about religions and beleifs of different cutures , no matter the origins or procedence, are just Foolosophy. This forum is full of those examples.

If you can control yourself in your beleifs and start just pointing your philosophy and/or religion , without mockering of the others', then you are a real missionarie. It doesn't matter your organization or religion.



Thanks,
S&S

I'm sure there are others.. I just grabbed an easy one. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know..;)

[Dancing David]

I agree that we should not make mockery of others beliefs! But what if I really do belive that Xianity is a repressive force in my culture and I really believe that as a religion it harms those I love. Can I say that without it being mockery?

My other point is still subject to debate, i feel that if you can't subject your beliefs to the laugyter test then they are very loosely held believes.

Is it okay for Xians to call me a baby killer and a devilworshipper just because I prefer my dieties to be female?(There is a Foolosophy for you, in a world that has two thousand visible stars we will assume that there is only one god and if you say otherwise they will tortue you to death in the name of the god of love)

Peace

Is not okey that you to started a thread in this forum of R&P about a subject related to a personal mockery.

You should did, it at other section where people like to express their frustrations. For example :Flame Wars.

And don't try to appear as a naive or inocent member to me.

About Xianity : I don't know about it.

But maybe you are trying to compare it with Jesus , Buda , Mahoma and similars representation figures of the main religions and cultures of the world.

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

I feel that there is nothing wrong with mocking superstition. After all, it IS nonsense that we are making fun of.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I feel that there is nothing wrong with mocking superstition. After all, it IS nonsense that we are making fun of.

If you are able to define superstition and separate it from Religion and Philosophy.
Under your perspective people can also has the right to mocker about your Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[marxist2]

Originally posted by S&S


That is a big difference .

And what about the mockeries about religions and beleifs from the pseudoskeptics atheists? This forum is full of those examples.

Thanks,
S&S


No, they are not mocking, they are exploding myths which have plaugued mankind for ages.

They are, however spreading their own brand of nonsense, which is why I think that they should all be arrested. Just look what happens when atheists take over!

Joseph Stalin is a prime example of what all atheists have in mind for the world. The triangle shirtwaist fire is another, a terrible fire in Boston in which 35% of all the american population was killed.

Also, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists with atheist backers, and is just the latest in the violence that atheists intend to visit on the globe.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by marxist2



No, they are not mocking, they are exploding myths which have plaugued mankind for ages.

They are, however spreading their own brand of nonsense, which is why I think that they should all be arrested. Just look what happens when atheists take over!

Joseph Stalin is a prime example of what all atheists have in mind for the world. The triangle shirtwaist fire is another, a terrible fire in Boston in which 35% of all the american population was killed.

Also, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists with atheist backers, and is just the latest in the violence that atheists intend to visit on the globe.

The Joseph Stalin thing has been done to death. Stalin was an atheist (though some would say only nominally, but that is neither here nor there), but he killed his victims in the name of politics, not religion. Can you theists come up with a new one please, your old routine is getting old.

About the triangle shirtwaist fire all I can say is Wow! That must have been a helluva thing to pack 35% of the american population (even the early 1900's US population) into a single factory and set it aflame. And atheists did it? All of my history books say it was a tragic accident, I guess they all are in a big Evil Atheist Conspiracytm to hide the truth.

9/11 was done by religious fanatics. accept it, deal with it, move on. Unless every news account in the world has been comprimised by that Evil Atheist Conspiracytm again.

You sir, are a dimwitted a**hole

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S

If you are able to define superstition and separate it from Religion and Philosophy.
S&S

Religion and superstition are the same. Philosophy has nothing to do with this conversation.

You are a superstitious fool. Go play with your god on a stick.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by marxist2

Joseph Stalin is a prime example of what all atheists have in mind for the world.

Stalin killed over politics AND he patterned his government using the Orthodox Christian church as a model.

The triangle shirtwaist fire is another, a terrible fire in Boston in which 35% of all the american population was killed.

An accident, not arson.


Also, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists with atheist backers, and is just the latest in the violence that atheists intend to visit on the globe.

Sorry, but Islam is not an atheist organization. Because they believe in a god, they cannot be atheist.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Religion and superstition are the same. Philosophy has nothing to do with this conversation.

You are a superstitious fool. Go play with your god on a stick.

Just because you say supertition and religion are the same , then it must be the same and a fact

Is like I could say that you and The Fool have the same empty brain for The Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


Just because you say supertition and religion are the same , then it must be the same and a fact.
Thanks,
S&S

I'm glad you agree.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I'm glad you agree.

I am glad you agree with this :"Is like I could say that you and The Fool have the same empty brain for The Foolosophy."

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


I am glad you agree with this :"Is like I could say that you and The Fool have the same empty brain for The Foolosophy."

Thanks,
S&S

Uhm..no, I didn't even address that statement. First of all, The Fool is an intelligent person. Secondly, so am I.

Now go be like Jesus and crucify yourself.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Uhm..no, I didn't even address that statement. First of all, The Fool is an intelligent person. Secondly, so am I.




Ha Ha Ha Ha .

Any proofs, True Beleiver?
Or just your "intelligent" Foolosophycal words ?

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Opinions need no "proof" when they are subjective, value judgements. If I say my favorite color is yellow, would you ask me to prove it?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Opinions need no "proof" when they are subjective, value judgements. If I say my favorite color is yellow, would you ask me to prove it?

I know it. You never made an objective post .

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


I know it. You never made an objective post .

Thanks,
S&S

How does one value judgement equate to "never made and objective post"?

You are insane, now that's objective.

[marxist2]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Opinions need no "proof" when they are subjective, value judgements. If I say my favorite color is yellow, would you ask me to prove it?

That is why science is false. It is all opinions that are packaged to look like real thinking, which it is not.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by marxist2


That is why science is false. It is all opinions that are packaged to look like real thinking, which it is not.

No, science is a method of learning and exploration. It is not opinion-based. Science is based on observations, evidence, measurements and experiments all aimed at learning about the universe.

If science is false, then why does it work so well? Your computer was designed with science. Heck, you cannot look anywhere without seeing a product of science in the modern world.

[ImpyTimpy]

Science isn't subjective though... Observations and measurements don't change from one person to another person. Sorry kook, try harder next time.

Originally posted by marxist2


That is why science is false. It is all opinions that are packaged to look like real thinking, which it is not.

[c4ts]

Marxist just has a sense of humor that hits a little too close to the woo woo home.

I'll bet he's a sock puppet, too.

[ImpyTimpy]

Could be.. Either he's someone's joke, or he is some kook's attempt at venting his anger at the "skeptic" community...

How dare they challenge extraordinary claims!!! Arrgggh!!! :p

Originally posted by c4ts
Marxist just has a sense of humor that hits a little too close to the woo woo home.

I'll bet he's a sock puppet, too.

Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[marxist2]

Originally posted by S&S
Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

How utterly meningful. I can just feel the meaning streaming out. Isn't that briliant poetry? Restate the thread title, and you're obviously right about everything.

oranges are made of spam, see? Anyone who disagrees isn't being objective.

Don't forget : is a matter of presenting proofs and evidences.

No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs . Not only for the theists also for these pseudo -skeptics Atheists.
They are not specials. They "think" they are specials.They are brainwa$hed.

That is what Philosophy is about.
The rest is Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S
Don't forget : is a matter of presenting proofs and evidences.

No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs . Not only for the theists also for these pseudo -skeptics Atheists.
They are not specials. They "think" they are specials.They are brainwa$hed.

That is what Philosophy is about.
The rest is Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Now look what you've done, Marxist! :D This is too funny for words...

[marxist2]

Originally posted by S&S
Don't forget : is a matter of presenting proofs and evidences.

No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs . Not only for the theists also for these pseudo -skeptics Atheists.
They are not specials. They "think" they are specials.They are brainwa$hed.

That is what Philosophy is about.
The rest is Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Dear S&S,


Do you know what we think of your repeated (and answered) requests for proofs and evidences?

What do you fear from us? Were a bunch of br4/\/\/\/z3d a-theists, we are frail and stupid, as has been shown up by your brilliance.

Do you think that you can posit these claims without me shoving them down your eye socket?

Go accelerate a qumquat.

Thanks,

m2

[thaiboxerken]

S&S should be locked up.

[marxist2]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
S&S should be locked up.

I prefer re-educated and forged into a useful member of society.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by marxist2


I prefer re-educated and forged into a useful member of society.

Too much effort for a lost cause.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Too much effort for a lost cause.

The Foolosophy is your way to find new intelligent friends.

Thanks,
S&S

[CWL]

Originally posted by S&S


That is a big difference .

And what about the mockeries about religions and beleifs from the pseudoskeptics atheists? This forum is full of those examples.

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos,

Irony, parodies and satire can be a powerful weapon to unmask and disarm ignorance, superstition and bigotry. I do however agree that it should be used with good judgement (i.e. not unless it is called for).

I do not agree that "mockery" as you say is a trademark of skeptics or atheists.

Since you mentioned that your wife is a Catholic, perhaps you should ask her how she feels about these tracts by Mr. Jack T. Chick: Are Roman Catholics Christians (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp) and Man in Black (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5023/5023_01.asp)?

Isn't that mockery of religion and belief? I can assure you that Mr. Chick is neither a skeptic, nor an atheist.

I personally find Mr. Chick's tracts abhorrent and welcome any parody (or "mockery") of his work. In other words, it is well deserved - he brings it on himself.

Originally posted by CWL


Carlos,

Irony, parodies and satire can be a powerful weapon to unmask and disarm ignorance, superstition and bigotry. I do however agree that it should be used with good judgement.

I do not however agree that "mockery" as you say is a trademark of skeptics or atheists.

Since you mentioned that your wife is a Catholic, perhaps you should ask her how she feels about this Tract by Mr. Jack T. Chick: Are Roman Catholics Christians? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp)

Isn't that mockery of Catholics by a "fellow Christian"?

I personally find it abhorrent and would personally welcome any parody (or "mockery") of Mr. Chick's work. It is well deserved.

Hi Cwl :

I agree with you also : as long mockery doesn't turn or become a trademark of skeptics and Atheists.

But try to look at the average of this forum. Is very sad.
I am not cataloging(...) all the members with that trademark.
It will be unfair from me.
But I am also here to show those pseudo-skeptics (as I call them) their mistakes.

About my wyfe: I know her better than you. She is so nice , gentle and happy in the way she see life , that her religion is not a problem to her. She is mature enough to condem all the mistakes that in name of her religion were made, are made and will be made. She has just faith. For her, the priests are just humans as she is. Her religion is inside her , in her soul . I s a sinonimous of morality, good behavior and help to the people who needs help. She doesn't care about religions conflicts, debates or points of views .
If she is happy the way she is , I am happy too. That 's the reason of my love to her.She listen to me but also cares about me. I listen to her and I care about her.
Is a matter of respect and love. The way the world should be.
People around the world have different beleifs and cultures, but they are still humans. Why we pretend them to be the way we "think" they should be? Why we mockery just because of their strange beleifs , color of skin, born place , strange language , education or culture?

I willl try to read yourarticle. It is not for my wyfe , she doesn't care about those things, but maybe I will chat with her some day about it.

Thanks,
S&S

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by S&S
Don't forget : is a matter of presenting proofs and evidences.



Thanks for the reminder.

I was beginning to think it was a matter of babbling about proofs and evidences while utterly disregarding the input of others.

But you've set me straight.

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


Thanks for the reminder.

I was beginning to think it was a matter of babbling about proofs and evidences while utterly disregarding the input of others.

But you've set me straight.

You are welcome, but also remind the complete chapter:
"No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs . Not only for the theists also for these pseudo -skeptics Atheists.
They are not specials. They "think" they are specials.They are brainwa$hed.

That is what Philosophy is about.
The rest is Foolosophy."

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S


You are welcome, but also remind the complete chapter:
"No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs .

You go first....

Originally posted by Diogenes


You go first....

Is that your subjective opinion?

Thanks,
S&S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S


Is that your subjective opinion?

Thanks,
S&S

It must be the language barrier...

It is not an opinion, it is a suggestion...

Originally posted by Diogenes


It must be the language barrier...

It is not an opinion, it is a suggestion...

Your suggestion? Why not you first?
Or you must always obey what your organization tell you to do ?

Mines are questions.

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

But what if I really do belive that Christianity is a repressive force in my culture and I really believe that as a religion it harms those I love. Can I say that without it being mockery?


Is it okay for Christians to call me a baby killer and a devilworshipper just because I prefer my dieties to be female?

(There is a Foolosophy for you, in a world that has two thousand visible stars we will assume that there is only one god and if you say otherwise they will tortue you to death in the name of the god of love)

Peace

Gee S&S I hope you anwer me, and not in some vauge way.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by S&S


Your suggestion? Why not you first?


Thanks,
S&S

[whining voice] Cause', I don't want to. You go first. I said it first..[/whining voice]

You are the one who seems satisfied with dismissing ideas that don't appeal to you as ' Foolosophy'...

[Akots]

S&S, stop trying to push your Foolosophy on others! It's wrong to try and force youre beliefs on another person.

Originally posted by Diogenes


[whining voice] Cause', I don't want to. You go first. I said it first..[/whining voice]

You are the one who seems satisfied with dismissing ideas that don't appeal to you as ' Foolosophy'...

Then you win according to your Foolosophy?

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Hey, all you Foolosophies!

Why don't we go foolosophy our foolosophies down to the foolosophing hole and foolosophy? Doesn't that sound foolosophy?

I sure foolosophy so!

Papa Foolosophy.

[Dancing David]

Foolosophy, foolsopha, foolsosophahaha

[Upchurch]

Hey, everybody! Let's do "Foolosophy"!

Foolosophy, Foolosophy,
bo-bolosophy,
banana-fana-fo-fulosophy,
me-mi-mo-mulosophy,
Foolosophy!

Wow, that was great, everone!

Now it's Buck's turn...

Originally posted by Upchurch
Hey, everybody! Let's do "Foolosophy"!

Foolosophy, Foolosophy,
bo-bolosophy,
banana-fana-fo-fulosophy,
me-mi-mo-mulosophy,
Foolosophy!

Wow, that was great, everone!

Now it's Buck's turn...

Nothing new in this forum : The same Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Dear S&S,

You are a f*ck-tard.

Take your Foolosophy and shove it up your Foolosophy.

Sincerely,

Grumpy Foolosophy

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
The same Foolosophy.
I beg your pardon! This is classic 'round-the-campfire foolosophy!

Now, who wants to tell a scary foolosophy story and pass the marshmellows?

Relax Foolosophers . Or don't relax, show us your Foolosophy again.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Foolosophy is getting boring.

Bring on the Funkosophy!

---Papa Funkosophy

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
---Papa Funkosophy
Many thanks to the lovely Ms. Linda for the title change.

Synergy is beautiful thing, sometimes.

[Dancing David]

I vote for Funkasophy! No longer will I be a foolosopher I will be a Funkasopher.

Priceless.

To laugh is divine!

Peace

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Many thanks to the lovely Ms. Linda for the title change.

Synergy is beautiful thing, sometimes.

YES! Go Funkosophy! I want to be a Funkosopher too!

Glory be da funk's on you, Upfunk. :cool:

Originally posted by S&S
Don't forget : is a matter of presenting proofs and evidences.

No opinions , no subjective opinions , just poofs . Not only for the theists also for these pseudo -skeptics Atheists.
They are not specials. They "think" they are specials.They are brainwa$hed.

That is what Philosophy is about.
The rest is Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

And what about the pseudoskpectics and deists???

Are they part of the foolosophy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL


YES! Go Funkosophy! I want to be a Funkosopher too!

Glory be da funk's on you, Upfunk. :cool: Funkadelic, my brother :cool:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


The Foolosophy is your way to find new intelligent friends.

Thanks,
S&S

Yes, I find many on this board (excluding yourself) as being intelligent.

[thaiboxerken]

I think S&S may be violating a copy-right with his "Foolosophy" term. He might want to check out www.fool.com and see.

Now those are the kinds of fools I strive to be, and I'm getting there. I am no longer in credit card debt this month!

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
He might want to check out www.fool.com and see.



Is this your favorite place?

Are you a speaker at this place?


Or you are only an example !!!!

[Upchurch]

I was just making a little segway over to Banter (something I rarely do these days, when I discovered a wonderful thing! S&S has been kind enough to post his very own example of foolosophy (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20108&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)! It did a lot to expand my understanding on the subject of foolosophy and I encourage others to check it out.

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was just making a little segway over to Banter (something I rarely do these days, when I discovered a wonderful thing! S&S has been kind enough to post his very own example of foolosophy (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20108&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)! It did a lot to expand my understanding on the subject of foolosophy and I encourage others to check it out.

You "only " forgot this :

I reported Dark Cobra's post of being sodomized by Jesus , in this thread (page1) and YOU Upchurch wrote about it :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I told Jesus I loved him once.

He smiled at me, stroked his hand though my hair, and looked into my eyes.

I wrapped my arms around him, and then we... we... we kissed.

One thing led to another and before I knew it we started having sex.

He was rough, for my first time. I told him to be gentle but he wouldn't! I bled for five days after that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upchurch

er... yes, well, this would be better described as "mockery" or " parody", don't you think? It's not really pretending to be philosophy at all, is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under your Foolosophy it was "only " a mockery or parody.

YOU NEVER considered Dark Cobra was only 15 years old , and NEVER considered his uncivil ways to post something real rude, and AGAINST and ilegal according to the rules of this EDUCATIONAL forum.

You and the administrators are just a bunch of HYPOCRITES.
And you Upchurch are just a pseudo skeptic ATHEIST fanatic of this CULT.
And the administrator Hal Bidlack also wrote in this thread and he kept in silence about the topic about Dark Cobra post.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19033&pagenumber=1


Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

whine, whine, whine.

So, you find this forum to be unfair? Why not go start one of your own where you get to decide what is appropriate and what isn't? If you don't like this board, then exercise your ultimate act of free will and don't participate. No one is forcing you to stay but you, S&S.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
whine, whine, whine.

So, you find this forum to be unfair? Why not go start one of your own where you get to decide what is appropriate and what isn't? If you don't like this board, then exercise your ultimate act of free will and don't participate. No one is forcing you to stay but you, S&S.

I must agree with Upchurch. I personally do not know of any more liberal discussion forum where the same level of intellectual discourse is maintained, but then again, I suppose that I'm part of the conspiracy...

Really S&S, it is very hard to understand what your agenda on this forum is. If you are trying to teach skeptics to be less skeptical, you could have picked an easier crowd. I am not saying that it is wrong to be "skeptical of skepticism" - critisism of any epistemology or methodology is nothing but healthy. Such critisism must however be based on more than mere lamentation and ad hominems...

Edited to add lost auxiliary verb

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CWL

I am not saying that it is wrong to "skeptical of skepticism" - critisism of any epistemology or methodology is nothing but healthy. Such critisism must however be based on more than mere lamentations and ad hominems... Well put, CWL. If anything, skepticism of skepticism should be encouraged as a self-correcting mechanism towards the goal of proper inquery. But criticism must be constructive or they are almost useless other than to, maybe, point to problem areas. Complants on the order of "life isn't fair!" isn't very useful since it is a universal problem, not a problem of skepticism (or specifically of this board)

Originally posted by Upchurch
whine, whine, whine.

So, you find this forum to be unfair? Why not go start one of your own where you get to decide what is appropriate and what isn't? If you don't like this board, then exercise your ultimate act of free will and don't participate. No one is forcing you to stay but you, S&S.

Well, I will write and I wrote about the unfairness and Hypocrite of this forum if I decided to do it. I have no fear, I am not a member of your cult.

The difference with your fanatism is that I put the EVIDENCES of the unfairness and hypocrite quotes.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


Well, I will write and I wrote about the unfairness and Hypocrite of this forum if I decided to do it. I have no fear, I am not a member of your cult. But why? You've already made up your mind that we're a cult. It's fairly obvious that no one is going to change your mind on this. Further, its fairly obvious that you aren't going to change anyone else's mind, especially if we are, as you believe, a cult. So, why bother?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But why? You've already made up your mind that we're a cult. It's fairly obvious that no one is going to change your mind on this. Further, its fairly obvious that you aren't going to change anyone else's mind, especially if we are, as you believe, a cult. So, why bother?

I was wondering the same thing about why people still bother with S&S. You can be as rational as you want, but it will likely be ignored and his response will simply be to "relax."

I have decided to no longer waste time on S&S, and have put him on my ignore list. I would recommend that everyone else do as well and spend time debating with others who will at least attempt to answer your arguements.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


I was wondering the same thing about why people still bother with S&S. You can be as rational as you want, but it will likely be ignored and his response will simply be to "relax."I still contend that he's compensating for low self-esteem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869916727#post1869916727), but you have a good point. Nevermind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Upchurch
But why? You've already made up your mind that we're a cult. It's fairly obvious that no one is going to change your mind on this. Further, its fairly obvious that you aren't going to change anyone else's mind, especially if we are, as you believe, a cult. So, why bother? [/QUOTE

Because you are the one who are upset with my evidences .

Because you always mockered about theists, deists and others cultures as a cult , and now I am here to show you with evidences your incappacity to have a real debate.

Relax or ignore me . Is your choise.

Thanks,
S&S

[Lord Emsworth]

Dear S&S

A poster has asked you something:
Originally posted by Dancing David
But what if I really do belive that Christianity is a repressive force in my culture and I really believe that as a religion it harms those I love. Can I say that without it being mockery?


Is it okay for Christians to call me a baby killer and a devilworshipper just because I prefer my dieties to be female?

(There is a Foolosophy for you, in a world that has two thousand visible stars we will assume that there is only one god and if you say otherwise they will tortue you to death in the name of the god of love)

Peace

Gee S&S I hope you anwer me, and not in some vauge way.

It`s almost two weeks ago when you were asked these questions.

Your admirers are waiting and want to hear some great words.

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Dear S&S

A poster has asked you something:


It`s almost two weeks ago when you were asked these questions.

Your admirers are waiting and want to hear some great words.

Dear Lord Emsworth:

I assume you have a list of my admires or do you consider yourself my admirer.

*It is not correct to any CULT to call someone a baby killer and a devilworshipper just because Dancing David prefer HIS dieties to be female.
I will likw to know which one are the dieties of Dancing David.
--------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dancing David
But what if I really do belive that Christianity is a repressive force in my culture and I really believe that as a religion it harms those I love. Can I say that without it being mockery?
--------------------------------------------

*Maybe Dancing David and you are assuming that I am a Christian . If it is so , I will like you to post your evidence about it.

Using uncivil mockery are "representative" of any cult : theists cults or Atheist cults. Is the way they show when they are upset to some points.
Using uncivil mockering is representative of the FOOLOSOPHY.

I hope my words satisfied you.
Now let me know your answers to my points.

Thanks,
S&S

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by S&S
Dear Lord Emsworth:

I assume you have a list of my admires or do you consider yourself my admirer.
I really admire people who defend their opinions against a lot of other people. Even more if you can't do it in your first language (like me, too).
And yet a little irony in my saying "your admirers" remains, because you often aswer unpleasant answers unsatifactorily. Do you fear mockery?*

Originally posted by S&S
*It is not correct to any CULT to call someone a baby killer and a devilworshipper just because Dancing David prefer HIS dieties to be female.
All right that has not been too hard. I agree.

Originally posted by S&S
I will likw to know which one are the dieties of Dancing David.
--------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dancing David
But what if I really do belive that Christianity is a repressive force in my culture and I really believe that as a religion it harms those I love. Can I say that without it being mockery?
--------------------------------------------
No comment from my side!

Originally posted by S&S
*Maybe Dancing David and you are assuming that I am a Christian . If it is so , I will like you to post your evidence about it.
I can' find any evidence that you are/are not Christian either way. But I really would like to know what you think about Christianity. You seem to like Jesus. Haven't you written "Yes, Jesus is my friend" (and got an uncivil reply)? Your friend as a philosopher or a friend you pray to?

Your wife, as I gather from several of your posts, is a Roman-Catholic. If you state so distincly that you wife is R-C, it may imply that you are not.

Originally posted by S&S
Using uncivil mockery are "representative" of any cult : theists cults or Atheist cults. Is the way they show when they are upset to some points.
Using uncivil mockering is representative of the FOOLOSOPHY. That's your definition of CULT.
But I don't agree with this. What if someone creates a cult that requires that no-one ever uses uncivil mockery and always is courteous? A cult, so to speak, of civil manners and being kind.

And what is it if someone does not really aswers to questions? I asked you in the BANTER, why he (in this case DC) should not argue with his mother. No reply yet.
But I ask this question, again, but I will generalize it:
Why shouldn't someone argue with his mother? Especially if he is a bright, 15 year old chap. I see nothing bad or evil if you defend your opinions, even against your mother.

Originally posted by S&S
I hope my words satisfied you.
Now let me know your answers to my points.

Thanks,
S&S


* If you feel mocked about by me, tell me. I will apologize then.

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

I really admire people who defend their opinions against a lot of other people. Even more if you can't do it in your first language (like me, too).
And yet a little irony in my saying "your admirers" remains, because you often aswer unpleasant answers unsatifactorily. Do you fear mockery?*


All right that has not been too hard. I agree.


No comment from my side!


I can' find any evidence that you are/are not Christian either way. But I really would like to know what you think about Christianity. You seem to like Jesus. Haven't you written "Yes, Jesus is my friend" (and got an uncivil reply)? Your friend as a philosopher or a friend you pray to?

Your wife, as I gather from several of your posts, is a Roman-Catholic. If you state so distincly that you wife is R-C, it may imply that you are not.

That's your definition of CULT.
But I don't agree with this. What if someone creates a cult that requires that no-one ever uses uncivil mockery and always is courteous? A cult, so to speak, of civil manners and being kind.

And what is it if someone does not really aswers to questions? I asked you in the BANTER, why he (in this case DC) should not argue with his mother. No reply yet.
But I ask this question, again, but I will generalize it:
Why shouldn't someone argue with his mother? Especially if he is a bright, 15 year old chap. I see nothing bad or evil if you defend your opinions, even against your mother.




* If you feel mocked about by me, tell me. I will apologize then.

Dear Lord Emsworth :

I do not feel mocked by you since you wrote you admired me., also because you just use a civil language and also because you are free to post the questions you want.

Christianity and Jesus are 2 different concepts.
Christianity is a religion based in the concept that Jesus was God or the Son of GOD .
JESUS was a man and philosopher (according to his atributed words). I am there.

If you read my opening post in the thread I started in the banter (it was not about religion ) , you will find the answer to your question. It was a metaphore (...) about how some atributed words or quotes of any author that can help you in my your life. That Jesus is my friend.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17541&highlight=jesus+my+friend

What the irony , the first reply is from Dark Cobra (15 years old) of being sodomized by Jesus (a rude and uncivil mockering and out of topic ). That reply had the support of many members. But also was read by the administrators of this forum , since they moved the thread to this section and also posted a reply (page 2). No warning from the administrators to that young inmature kid.
And now he was reported by the same administrator to the authorities (?)

I have myself 4 teenagers children , yes 4 (16 , 15 , 14 and 12).And I know how thay drive us crazy sometimes . But I and their mother LOVE them .We want the best for them. We listen to them and they must listen to us. I am 49 years old , I still listen to my mom and dad.

Teens like Dark Cobra are free to argue WITH their mothers .
In my particular case it is not the exception .
The big difference is that I also KNOW their mother point of view. I never listen and beleive to a single part , I must listen to the other part in order to make or try to make a fair desision or advice.
If you are in favor that a young kid like Dark Cobra came (last year) into this forum and write with hate, uncivil manners and against his own mother , without any warning or advice of the administrators of this Educational Forum and with supports of members , then you are part of the true beleivers or fanatics of this cult. I hope you don't.
-------------------------------------------
What if someone creates a cult that requires that no-one ever uses uncivil mockery and always is courteous? A cult, so to speak, of civil manners and being kind.
-------------------------------------------
It seems that , because of your own question , that type of cult is not created yet. You can start one and will be a good example to the others. Or maybe you know about some examples .

Remember that all cuts in the "fachade"or in the exterior pretend to be civil , morals and rational. They only reacts with uncivil manners or wars when they don't have arguments to debate the oposition(...).

Have a nice day ,

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Hello S&S: No I did not assume that you were a Christian, I was asking if it was okay for me to say that 'I feel Christianity is a repressive force in the culture that I grew up in.". Which I guess you have said is okay for me to do.

I was headed to the area that DC's post while wildly inappropriate was most likely an expression of how he felt treated by the culture of Christianity.

The other bit about pagnism was a straw man gambit, I was definitly trolling.

As far as for which female dieties I may choose to adore, (I find adoration a better word than worship): I am a neo-pagan and I assume there is little if any bearing between my imagination and the past. Freya, Ishtar, Ast(Isis), NU, Aphrodite, Inanna, MY WIFE!

Peace

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hello S&S: No I did not assume that you were a Christian, I was asking if it was okay for me to say that 'I feel Christianity is a repressive force in the culture that I grew up in.". Which I guess you have said is okay for me to do.

I was headed to the area that DC's post while wildly inappropriate was most likely an expression of how he felt treated by the culture of Christianity.

The other bit about pagnism was a straw man gambit, I was definitly trolling.

As far as for which female dieties I may choose to adore, (I find adoration a better word than worship): I am a neo-pagan and I assume there is little if any bearing between my imagination and the past. Freya, Ishtar, Ast(Isis), NU, Aphrodite, Inanna, MY WIFE!

Peace

You are responsable for the things you write or for the silence you make about the same thing.

If you thing that Dark Cobra' post (15 years old ) of being sodomized and injured his anus by Jesus , is a correct expression of how he "felt treated" by the Christianity, then you are also a little sick and /or confuse to express ideas and to debate in this R&P forum.

You can adore the dollar bill, you can adore Hal Bidlack , you can adore James Randi , you can adore the JREF. Is your choise.Not mine.

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by S&S


You are responsable for the things you write or for the silence you make about the same thing.

If you thing that Dark Cobra' post (15 years old ) of being sodomized and injured his anus by Jesus , is a correct expression of how he "felt treated" by the Christianity, then you are also a little sick and /or confuse to express ideas and to debate in this R&P forum.

You can adore the dollar bill, you can adore Hal Bidlack , you can adore James Randi , you can adore the JREF. Is your choise.Not mine.

Thanks,
S&S

I believe that I said wildly inappropriate. That would mean that I felt it was definitely not the 'correct' way to express his belief.

What is the last sentence? Does it have any relationship to what I wrote?

You have also repeatedly posted and repeated DC's comments should I assume you approve because you keep replicating them?

Peace

Originally posted by Dancing David


I believe that I said wildly inappropriate. That would mean that I felt it was definitely not the 'correct' way to express his belief.

What is the last sentence? Does it have any relationship to what I wrote?

You have also repeatedly posted and repeated DC's comments should I assume you approve because you keep replicating them?

Peace

Do you beleive or are you sure that you said it inappropiate about the use of a socratic method?

My last sentence is my assumption to other dietes you can adore too, if you want.

You wrote and justified a young 15 years old kid (Dark Cobra)for writing of being sodomized and injured his anus by Jesus.
This is your justification :"I was headed to the area that DC's post while wildly inappropriate was most likely an expression of how he felt treated by the culture of Christianity."

Remember that the young kid was reported to the police by the hypocrite administrators of this forum.
Also remember that the same administrators supported without any warning those kind of posts.
Remember that the young kid was posting since last year against his own hated religious mother without any warning.
Remember that this young kid was told to kill himself and to commit suicide , and the poster is still writing here. Dark Cobra is not here, was reported to the police.

Is just an example of how a Foolosophy works in this R&P forum.I am against of that kind of uncivil debates.

What part is not clear to you?

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

HuH, what kind of fool am I?

Peace

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
HuH, what kind of fool am I?
The kind that talks to people who are no longer there? ;)

Funk Out

[Dancing David]

Ah, the voices.... the voices... make them stop singing that song...

[uruk]

I remember when the movie "The last Temptation of Christ" came out. alot of christians were upset and tried to boycott the movie.

I asked my mother, who is a devout catholic and a decon in the
church, what she thought about the movie and the contraversy.

She told me something that might apply to S&S.

She said that she didn't like with the movie but did not feel offended by it. She said that if your faith is strong, thing like these didn't bother you. But if your faith is weak you tend to be bothered by anything that goes against your faith.

These people have a need to silence and squash anything that offends them. They are not happy untill people around them think the same way they do. The sound of conformed thought helps them to bolster thier own weak faith. It's these same people who have responsible for more human suffering that any other institution.

So if someone says something about Jesus sodomizing somebody,
Just plant your toung firmly in your cheek and get on with your life.