Victor Stenger

Excellent. Iyace's official word on the subject is no longer about ridiculing Stenger ("this made me face palm"), but about an expression of sympathy ("sad loss"). Steve's job is done here. :)

Linda
Come on Linda. That's three times in one day. If you had actually read the post, you would have seen that the face-palm came from an inane quote by DJ Grothe. I guess age must be getting to you as well? ;)
 
Iyace. I can understand why Steve001 made his comment. The initial lack of 'believer' response to ghost's post here (and other nonsense he posts) could give the impression of tacit acceptance/approval of his views. He also gets a lot of 'likes' ...

If that view needed reinforcing, even now you're going after Steve and Linda rather than the "troll". (Given that you appointed yourself "troll-finder general" on the 'blue mule' thread, I would've thought that was more up your street.)
' Initial lack of believer response '? Are you kidding me? More proponents called him out for it than ' skeptics ' did before Steve's post. I guess that gives the impression of tacit approval from skeptics? At least be consistent.

So now the argument is that not deriding Ghost is equal to rejoicing in Stenger's death? I'm just trying to pin this down here; help me out.

Of course I'm ' going after ' Steve and Linda. Steve said some stupid shit and Linda's back to backpeddling into oblivion. It's sort of everyone's forum duty to call them out on those shenanigans when they happen.
 
Iyace. I can understand why Steve001 made his comment. The initial lack of 'believer' response to ghost's post here (and other nonsense he posts) could give the impression of tacit acceptance/approval of his views. He also gets a lot of 'likes' ...
What other nonsense? Most of what I post is very serious stuff from the heart and is well thought out. What are you talking about?
 
' Initial lack of believer response '? Are you kidding me? More proponents called him out for it than ' skeptics ' did before Steve's post. I guess that gives the impression of tacit approval from skeptics? At least be consistent.

So now the argument is that not deriding Ghost is equal to rejoicing in Stenger's death? I'm just trying to pin this down here; help me out.

Of course I'm ' going after ' Steve and Linda. Steve said some stupid shit and Linda's back to backpeddling into oblivion. It's sort of everyone's forum duty to call them out on those shenanigans when they happen.
Gab gave him a pass. Tim supported. I suppose it depends if you call sciborg and radicalpolitik 'believers'... ;)

I'm sure you've identified the real villains of this thread.
 
Right. My comment was the first on this thread. I'll go ahead and quote the first two words for you.



Come on Linda, you aren't usually this blatantly wrong in two posts on the same page. You're losing a step.
Are you aware how simple your argument is? All because you didn't like how a 3 letter word was used. I imagine your persistence (as usual) in doing so, is so you can show everyone how stupid you think I am.
I like the truth Malf speaks.

P.S. You're the only one on this forum that repeatedly has to express himself by cussing. Is that necessary?
 
Last edited:
Gab gave him a pass. Tim supported. I suppose it depends if you call sciborg and radicalpolitik 'believers'... ;)

I'm sure you've identified the real villains of this thread.
Right, here's Tim's ' support':

A man with a very good intellect with many academic achievements but I've come across wiser "nobodies".
I hope Victor has had a pleasant entry into the next world and is eating lots of humble pie.
And to that effect, shouldn't we also be calling out Arouet for not speaking up about it? He created the thread, and he's been as silent as Gabriel about this issue. Like I said, you need to maintain consistency.

Also, bear in mind that ' believers ' is your word usage. Here's what radicalpolitk said:

I hope I can second myself to that. I consider myself a severe agnostic, but a proponent all the same.
If you really want to try to argue a point, I recommend doing the necessary research behind it.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware how simple your argument is? All because you didn't like how a 3 letter word was used. I imagine your persistence (as usual) in doing so, is so you can show everyone how stupid you think I am.
I like the truth Malf speaks.

P.S. You're the only one on this forum that repeatedly has to express himself by cussing. Is that necessary?
Steve, you were wrong. You got confused and disoriented, and thought that multiple people were ganging up and rejoicing over the death of Stenger. That wasn't the case, as was pointed out to you.
Instead of admitting you were wrong and made a mistake, you chose to call me out over my identification of Ghost as a troll ( how's that for tacit approval, Malf? ). Once again, you were wrong here.
There's no harm in admitting it. I'm here to help! ;):)
 
Why does it always have to the the poor, persecuted and downtrodden, (and stupid), who like religion? Did you ever think that some people in middle class America with a good job, a mortgage, a happy relationship and a good work ethic might choose to live a spiritual life, a religion life? I find religion to be pleasurable and satisfying; does that make me persecuted, poor or isolated? Does it make me dumb by the standards of atheists? I work at a high tech company and many of the engineers and technicians there also believe in God.

So let me adjust your bias. Normal successful Americans can be among the faithful because they choose to be, because it makes them happy.
Who said always? Of course anyone can be religious - by the way poor people way outnumber "successful average Americans" - whatever the hell that means. Of course it doesn't mean you're dumb - where on earth did you get that I implied that? I was very religious myself - I have a degree, professional qualifications and run my own business. I fell for it hook line and sinker - twice.

Normal successful Americans can be among the faithful because they choose to be, because it makes them happy

You've missed the point really ghost. I am not going to explain the logical error in understanding you're demonstrating because it will divert the thread, and, frankly I can't be bothered.

Ok sod it I will. "Often poor/isolated etc people are religious" does not imply "all are" or that "no one who is religious is wealthy/not isolated etc". It doesn't even imply "most are".
 
Last edited:
The appropriate response to the death of someone you don't know is not to care too much. Anything else is hypocrisy. I don't hate Stenger, though I believe his conclusions were deeply misguided. When Hitchens died I felt he'd be missed. He was a ranting middle class blowhard, but the world needs people like that. He too was wrong, but more sympathetic.
 
The appropriate response to the death of someone you don't know is not to care too much. Anything else is hypocrisy. I don't hate Stenger, though I believe his conclusions were deeply misguided. When Hitchens died I felt he'd be missed. He was a ranting middle class blowhard, but the world needs people like that. He too was wrong, but more sympathetic.
I don't know about that ?

People have genuine feelings of sympathy and sadness beyond logic (and hypocrisy) when some people pass on. What about Robin Williams and though I really couldn't understand it, the amazing outburst of emotion when Princess Di was killed ?

I suppose it depends what you call 'knowing' someone ? I and many others feel sadness at the death of kids in war zones or just seeing some poor unfortunate on the news, I didn't know the man that was beheaded recently but I felt real sorrow for him. Maybe the sadness I feel is for mankind in general ?

Is this another example of telling people how they should react or behave, I feel it is ? You might think it is hypocrisy, but that doesn't make it so or make you right. It sounds like preaching !
 
I was speaking personally. I only knew Stenger from his writing, and that mainly in precis form. He doesn't appear to have had a particularly difficult life by global standards, or a lingering and painful death. He was outspoken on topics that may have offended others, but did so anyway. His family will miss him, certainly, but he does not register on my personal pantheon well enough to have strong feelings either way, he was certainly no saint as far as one can tell. There is little rejoicing at his demise among serious proponents, because his public position was something of a caricature, and it's difficult to care either way about two-dimensional representations. For his supporters he is certainly gone, permanently and completely. If that elicits feelings of sadness, they might ponder where those emotions come from, and why they're having them.
 
For his supporters he is certainly gone, permanently and completely. If that elicits feelings of sadness, they might ponder where those emotions come from, and why they're having them.
Right on.

I'm genuinely interested in asking if you feel sadness at the examples I gave in the post above ?

I may not like someone but it doesn't go too deep, I would just avoid them if I could and do my best to ignore them if I couldn't ? I'm pretty sure that I'd feel some sorrow for them if they died. In my case the equivalent of a hardline sceptic would be some business people I've known. My pet 'thing' is managers blindly caring for 'the business' and money rather than the people working in the business ?

I'm pretty sure that aspect of my character led me to having a stroke, so I held onto the frustration rather than letting it go ?
 
I'm genuinely interested in asking if you feel sadness at the examples I gave in the post above ?
I don't listen to the news, and haven't done for about fifteen years. Your examples sound fairly typical of what I remember the news to consist of. My ignorance of it, or what it purports to represent is not lack of caring, quite the opposite. I believe rolling news induces a state of impotence in which every bit of information resembles every other more than it resembles reality. I don't believe human beings are equipped to care about every event in detail, the most I can muster is a generalised empathy for humanity, and I don't need 24 hour bulletins to update me on that condition. More than that, I believe one of the cardinal sins in the modern world is an assumption of ignorance of the newsworthy. Sadly my idea of news is not reflected in the broadcasting product of the same name. Stenger's death represents part of the same continuum, with a little more emphasis because I disagree with his conclusions. Nothing to inspire vitriol or eulogies either way. If I were to take on board every child shot up in an ideological cause, and balance his/her life against the possibilities of stopping it happening again, I'd go nuts. I believe the world to be a wicked place, although not exclusively so, and being reminded of the depth of its depravity is not something I require. I accept it without a moment's hesitation.
 
Come on Linda. That's three times in one day. If you had actually read the post, you would have seen that the face-palm came from an inane quote by DJ Grothe. I guess age must be getting to you as well? ;)
Right, it was a statement made about Stenger by D. J. Grothe and you responded to it with a gesture of ridicule. Truncating your sentence gave the impression that you hadn't said something negative.

Linda
 
Steve, you were wrong. You got confused and disoriented, and thought that multiple people were ganging up and rejoicing over the death of Stenger. That wasn't the case, as was pointed out to you.
The idea that Steve thought multiple or many people were rejoicing over Stenger's death came from you, when you misread "lot" to mean "a lot of" instead of "a collection of people". At that point, one poster was overtly rejoicing, one thought Stenger was getting his comeuppance, and several had made negative characterizations. There isn't really anything wrong with characterizing that as "some". Technically, as long as there is one, "some" is correct, although I think Steve was referring to more than one (he clarified later who/what he was including).

I don't know if Steve expected more to come, if he didn't say something. But regardless, it's nice to see that not only are you bending over backwards to give the impression that you didn't say anything negative, but others are doing so as well. And a point is being made by proponents of calling out ghost - a nice change from unrelenting skeptic-bashing.

Linda
 
The idea that Steve thought multiple or many people were rejoicing over Stenger's death came from you, when you misread "lot" to mean "a lot of" instead of "a collection of people". At that point, one poster was overtly rejoicing, one thought Stenger was getting his comeuppance, and several had made negative characterizations. There isn't really anything wrong with characterizing that as "some". Technically, as long as there is one, "some" is correct, although I think Steve was referring to more than one (he clarified later who/what he was including).

I don't know if Steve expected more to come, if he didn't say something. But regardless, it's nice to see that not only are you bending over backwards to give the impression that you didn't say anything negative, but others are doing so as well. And a point is being made by proponents of calling out ghost - a nice change from unrelenting skeptic-bashing.

Linda
Quite right Linda. It's interesting how a persons words can be distorted to fit a perception of their truth. No matter how much you point out he's mistaken, he won't be moved to think he's mistaken. His attacking motives for some reason are personal and likely to remain personal.

What I expected was not a blowup over a three letter word. Actually what I expected was to be ignored. Iyace's puerile fixation for me is curious.
 
I don't know what the big deal is here, frankly. Some people (sceptics) need to lighten up and move on, it's boring. It doesn't matter what I say, what he said or what anyone said on an internet forum, does it ? I don't see it splashed across the front pages ....Breaking news ...."Tim" horrible/grumpy git from Skeptiko accuses diseased Academic of being unwise !!! Obama calls urgent meeting !!

Where's Juicy fruit Jackson junior ?? He can change the mood
 
I don't know what the big deal is here, frankly. Some people (sceptics) need to lighten up and move on, it's boring. It doesn't matter what I say, what he said or what anyone said on an internet forum, does it ? I don't see it splashed across the front pages ....Breaking news ...."Tim" horrible/grumpy git from Skeptiko accuses diseased Academic of being unwise !!! Obama calls urgent meeting !!

Where's Juicy fruit Jackson junior ?? He can change the mood
 
Top