Does it matter?

I just don't see how they can expect us to believe that their scepticism is sincere, with the vast amount of data existing.
They don't, it's a game of last man standing because they know the moderators have been rendered toothless. They can poke and prod to their skeptical heart's content, safe in the knowledge they'll never be banned. The only solution is to call them on their BS the moment they deviate from topic, or when they post a new distraction from the subject of psi, and hope someone wipes a few pages of their nonsense away. That generally gets them citing the court of human rights, freedom of speech, and similar comedy moments.
 
Last edited:
Excellent. If you propose a pseudoskeptic-proponent non-interactive forum to the moderators, I'll back you 100%. Even better, make your section unreadable to proponents and you can play in peace all day.

I don't want you to back me. All I'm asking is whether you can honour a mod+ designation.

Linda
 
They don't, it's a game of last man standing because they know the moderators have been rendered toothless. They can poke and prod to their skeptical heart's content, safe in the knowledge they'll never be banned. The only solution is to call them on their BS the moment they deviate from topic, or when they post a new distraction from the subject of psi, and hope someone wipes a few pages of their nonsense away. That generally gets them citing the court of human rights, freedom of speech, and similar comedy moments.

".....or when they post a new distraction from the subject of psi, and hope someone wipes a few pages of their nonsense away. That generally gets them citing the court of human rights, freedom of speech, and similar comedy moments."

Very amusing, Gabriel :)
 
I don't want you to back me. All I'm asking is whether you can honour a mod+ designation.

Linda
Why would you want a pseudo-skeptical Trojan horse in a proponent board..? Report back to your masters and tell them to increase their offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
The only solution is to call them on their BS the moment they deviate from topic, or when they post a new distraction from the subject of psi.
There is another solution - What if proponents just stopped posting in the CD forum?

Personally, I have no desire to argue with skeptics. It didn't take me long to learn that it is a pointless activity. I think all the long-time posters know this quite well. So I have mostly quit posting in the CD forum, and even this (Other Stuff) forum. To me, posting a thread in CD implies that the poster wants to argue with skeptics. They want to keep banging their head against that wall, having that same argument over and over. And most of the time, the thread will turn into a simple re-enactment of previous arguments. Go back through the threads and look. We've all seen this repeatedly, for years. I guess it passes the time, but that's about it.
 
There is another solution - What if proponents just stopped posting in the CD forum?

Personally, I have no desire to argue with skeptics. It didn't take me long to learn that it is a pointless activity. I think all the long-time posters know this quite well. So I have mostly quit posting in the CD forum, and even this (Other Stuff) forum. To me, posting a thread in CD implies that the poster wants to argue with skeptics. They want to keep banging their head against that wall, having that same argument over and over. And most of the time, the thread will turn into a simple re-enactment of previous arguments. Go back through the threads and look. We've all seen this repeatedly, for years. I guess it passes the time, but that's about it.
That was my original hope for the CD forum. That people who have no desire to do so would not post in that forum. I (naively) did not realize that people like Iyace had an agenda to beat on skeptics. So I'm with you. Why let the relatively few people who want to frame this as animosity among enemies disrupt the rest of us who are interested in civil, reasonable discussion? And if you're not interested, there are plenty of other places to post here.

Linda
 
I don't like the idea of banning skeptics. I just wish that some of them would pick up the discussion a notch, be a little bit more motivated to defend their position in terms of physics. What I wouldn't give to get Neil deGrasse Tyson in the ring, I mean on the forum, for a discussion about consciousness. Or some of these dipsy-doodle neuro-scientists and physicists who relegate consciousness to an emergent property like "wetness". Or some of these "wet heads" who think that the universe is deterministic because quantum mechanics is deterministic, yet simultaneously random. Also, if consciousness is just complicated patterns of information, as the neuroscientists seem to think, then they need to prove that by showing that computers can love and fear God.

On the topic of trolls, there is a difference between intellectual losers with no skin in the game who say things just to amuse themselves versus the intellectual titans who can shake the tree hard enough to make some good ideas fall out.
 
There is another solution - What if proponents just stopped posting in the CD forum?
An excellent suggestion. Bear in mind skeptics make regular incursions into the rest of the board if they feel a subject is "theirs", particularly if there's not much doing in CD. It's generally followed by a few insincere apologies and an argument about why the ban exists at all. I'd very much like to see pseudoskeptics kept to their own patch, and bans for leaving it, but it isn't going to happen because they think they're involved in an ideological battle for hearts and minds.
 
An excellent suggestion. Bear in mind skeptics make regular incursions into the rest of the board if they feel a subject is "theirs", particularly if there's not much doing in CD. It's generally followed by a few insincere apologies and an argument about why the ban exists at all. I'd very much like to see pseudoskeptics kept to their own patch, and bans for leaving it, but it isn't going to happen because they think they're involved in an ideological battle for hearts and minds.
Are you saying that skeptics and atheists do not have their own perspective of why they believe what they believe, and the ability to articulate that in a thoughtful way? I thought that this website was a place where science and religion collide?
 
Are you saying that skeptics and atheists do not have their own perspective of why they believe what they believe, and the ability to articulate that in a thoughtful way? I thought that this website was a place where science and religion collide?
I'm saying people wear strange masks to hide their true intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
That was my original hope for the CD forum. That people who have no desire to do so would not post in that forum. I (naively) did not realize that people like Iyace had an agenda to beat on skeptics. So I'm with you. Why let the relatively few people who want to frame this as animosity among enemies disrupt the rest of us who are interested in civil, reasonable discussion? And if you're not interested, there are plenty of other places to post here.

Linda
To be read as: I'm tired of people exposing me for who I am and the tactics I use. I was hoping I could mislead people without interference. Damn!
 
I agree with the entirety of Gabriel's sentiment on this issue. Along with many others I was deeply disappointed when the "skeptics" were allowed to continue membership on the forum following the move to the new forum. For the most part "the lot" of you offer next to nothing.

I just didn't want silence to seem like consent to your post.

Thanks. :)
Hahahaha. Well hello there, my new best friend.
 
By the way, I'm still waiting for compliments from Malf and Steve001 for spotting blue mule and limbo as sock-puppets. They've been silent on the issue since those account have been banned.
 
That was my original hope for the CD forum. That people who have no desire to do so would not post in that forum. I (naively) did not realize that people like Iyace had an agenda to beat on skeptics. So I'm with you. Why let the relatively few people who want to frame this as animosity among enemies disrupt the rest of us who are interested in civil, reasonable discussion? And if you're not interested, there are plenty of other places to post here.

Linda
I think, per my words, that my agenda is to call you out on your inaccuracies. To show the world the inconsistencies and inanity of some of the things you guys say. This is, of course, the prime purpose of organized skepticism.

You're just upset because someone is doing it back to you. Gabriel made a great point about the whining that would ensue after this. Now you don't think it's fair that that mean ole' Iyace is throwing your own words back into your face.

Maybe you should just stop saying silly things?
 
I think, per my words, that my agenda is to call you out on your inaccuracies. To show the world the inconsistencies and inanity of some of the things you guys say. This is, of course, the prime purpose of organized skepticism.

You're just upset because someone is doing it back to you. Gabriel made a great point about the whining that would ensue after this. Now you don't think it's fair that that mean ole' Iyace is throwing your own words back into your face.

Maybe you should just stop saying silly things?

You may achieve more through love than hate; the skeptics are our brothers and sisters.
 
You may achieve more through love than hate; the skeptics are our brothers and sisters.
OK we can do that. But it probably means that open and candid discussions between proponents and skeptics cannot occur. I have tried over and over again to press skeptic-atheists to defend their world view built on pessimism, but they ignore me and won't discuss it. As for parapsychology, how can you prove that someone had a near death experience and met angels and beings of light when consciousness might be generated by a neural network made of quantum entanglements that is unmeasureable?

Since "neural network made of quantum entangements" is just too much to wrap ones head around, we just call it the spirit world or the astral plane or the aether.

If atheist-skeptics reject the idea because their philosophy is founded upon negative thinking and dour disposition, then we will accept them as brothers and sisters of the flesh who have not seen the light.
 
Last edited:
If atheist-skeptics reject the idea because their philosophy is founded upon negative thinking and dour disposition, then we will accept them as brothers and sisters of the flesh who have not seen the light.

This is correct. In the drudgery of our daily lives, are we not all functioning materialists? Yet some of us can, at times, transcend the mundane and experience something beyond that. If a greater truth does not at its foundation have love and compassion what is the point? If we engage on a forum and fail to spread joy and forgiveness, have not the atheists already triumphed?
 
This is correct. In the drudgery of our daily lives, are we not all functioning materialists? Yet some of us can, at times, transcend the mundane and experience something beyond that. If a greater truth does not at its foundation have love and compassion what is the point? If we engage on a forum and fail to spread joy and forgiveness, have not the atheists already triumphed?
I knew you'd be back!

Welcome back. =)
 
Okay, so while I admire Arouet's commitment to bringing everyone together, we shouldn't lose sight of the many people who already manage to get along. My idea is to have a place for reasonable discussion which skips over the Stuck-on-Stupid animosity, in much the same way that the mod+ designation skips over the prove-it-from-the-ground-up discussions in the rest of the forum.

I've put together a description of what this means which can be included (or linked to) in any mod+ discussions in CD, Other Stuff, and Guidelines (anywhere there is likely to be proponent/non-proponent interaction). Please note that I am not dictating anyone else's actions or the form that discussion must take on this forum. I simply wish to carve out a space where anyone who is willing can participate in relative peace. And other members may have better ideas to try out. And of course there will continue to be plenty of other places on the forum for people to exercise their animosity.

"Please do not join in the discussion if you are not interested in critical discussion, or if your intent is to attack "skeptics". Please address the actual issues raised and be civil, or you will be asked to leave."

"For anyone who isn't clear on online civility in discussions...

Name calling
Attack on a person (e.g., idiot, you’re dumb, Obamamama)

Aspersion
Attack on an idea (e.g., that policy is asinine, what a stupid idea)

Lying
Implying disingenuousness (e.g., liar, dishonest, not trustworthy)

Vulgarity
Use of vulgar terms (e.g., crap, hell, bitching)

Pejorative for speech
Disparaging the manner in which someone communicates (e.g., bellyache, blather, crying)

Hyperbole
Massive overstatement (e.g., makes pulling teeth with pliers look easy, like superman on cocaine)

Noncooperation
Discussion of a situation in terms of a stalemate (e.g., immovable, polarizing, rigid, gridlocked)

From:
http://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report/patterns-and-determinants-civility"

I've already run this past Andy, since he would be responsible for the "asked to leave" part for those who do not honour the mod+ tag, and he says it seems fair.

Thanks,
Linda
 
Back
Top