spendius
 
  1  
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 05:21 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
They put their "spiritual" thoughts into one category, a category of "off limits" to investigation or scrutiny.


No they don't. B.F. Skinner had no off limits. You're picking one category of people and extending their actions to all categories. And you choose your category for that very reason.

It's called narrow-minded provincialism.
FBM
 
  1  
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 07:22 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

FBM wrote:

As long as faith is the foundation of religious thinking, there will never be a way to cross-check the object of faith with reality. Ultimately, it's just an emotional preference, probably stemming from cultural indoctrination. Unskilled mental response to social stimuli. But that's not limited to the religious. Look at politics, for example.


That is why I think a small amount of skepticism with every thing is healthy. Doesn't matter the topic I don't think anyone should just blindly accept something because a large group believes it or that there is some negative labels placed on those who challenge the information.


I blindly agree with you! Wink

Seriously, though, I like my skepticism with a little more bite to it. Pyrrho of Elis is my hero among the Greek philosophers. Refused to believe ****, even whether or not it was best to refuse to believe ****.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:07 pm
@FBM,
Well stated in one short paragraph. Nutshell comes to mind. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:34 pm
*takes a bow*


Wink
Krumple
 
  0  
Tue 14 Aug, 2012 10:00 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
No they don't. B.F. Skinner had no off limits.


I guess I am SO wrong. One person doesn't do what I claimed was done. **** I guess since one person doesn't fit the generalization then I must be completely wrong. Thanks for pointing out the one exception.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:31 am
@Krumple,
B.F. Skinner Krumpie!! He was more than one person. Followers of behaviourism are legion. They generally smile indulgently at your simple, self-flattering noddle notions. The less compassionate smirk.
Krumple
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:39 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

B.F. Skinner Krumpie!! He was more than one person. Followers of behaviourism are legion. They generally smile indulgently at your simple, self-flattering noddle notions. The less compassionate smirk.


Oh let me clear it up a little bit more for you since you couldn't understand what I was implying in my last post.

Just because there is a large group of people who believe something is true, doesn't necessarily make what they believe, true. Following the ideas or concepts of a person that is wrong, would make all of them wrong. Truth doesn't all of a sudden appear in large groups just because they are a large group.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:45 am
@FBM,
Pyrrho left no records. What is known of him was mediated by others who may, or may not, have been faithful to him.

Tramps don't organise the sort of life you lead old chap. Cynical theologians are what you need.

It's an important method of social control to allow the awkward squad to entertain the delusion that they think for themselves. It's quite harmless.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:51 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Just because there is a large group of people who believe something is true, doesn't necessarily make what they believe, true.


Thanks for clearing that up. Whodathowtit?

I'm sorry I couldn't understand what you were implying. I foolishly assumed it was some lame sophistry to justify disreputable and deplorably common pantsdown positions. Perhaps I ought to consider reorienting my thinking.
Krumple
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:52 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I'm sorry I couldn't understand what you were implying. I foolishly assumed it was some lame sophistry to justify disreputable and deplorably common pantsdown positions. Perhaps I ought to consider reorienting my thinking.


You are the one who brought the idea up and this is your only way out? Not surprised.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:55 am
@spendius,
What is the atheist position on those skimpy breech cloths all the ladies in the Olympic Games were wearing. Men need them to prevent flapping about.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 05:02 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
You are the one who brought the idea up and this is your only way out? Not surprised.


It's not my idea. It is the obvious conclusion derived from studying atheists a bit. One has to be scientific about these things.
Krumple
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 05:06 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It's not my idea. It is the obvious conclusion derived from studying atheists a bit. One has to be scientific about these things.


You... scientific? Wow. So how much medication are you on for your psychosis?
spendius
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 05:19 am
@Krumple,
Now you have lost the argument when you need to stoop to that sort of shite.
Krumple
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:05 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Now you have lost the argument when you need to stoop to that sort of shite.


Lost the argument? Really? You bate and have never responded in such a way? I like your ego thinking that you are brilliant but na, hate to break it to you but you have a long way to go.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:19 am
@FBM,
Krumple and spendi must be having an interesting exchange that only they can understand. Mr. Green Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
Krumple
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Krumple and spendi must be having an interesting exchange that only they can understand. Mr. Green Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk


I love this. He is so bent that he can't seem to let it go. He wants to pretend that he is done with it but it is obvious that he can't get over me. Just goes to show that has nothing to do with what I talk about or the content of what is said. It has everything to do with not liking someone because they bring up a position that is not popular.

I am not part of his tribe so he wants to exterminate me from it. He doesn't want anyone else to accept me into their tribes either but can't accept the fact that everyone hasn't abandoned me. He doesn't seem to realize it doesn't matter who decides to take such a reaction. Another method of group mentality to impose his will onto others which is the very core to what I am discussing.
spendius
 
  0  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:27 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I like your ego thinking that you are brilliant but na, hate to break it to you but you have a long way to


Where have I ever claimed any such thing? I am very well aware that I have a long way to go.
Krumple
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:28 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Where have I ever claimed any such thing? I am very well aware that I have a long way to go.


It's good to see that we can agree on something.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:57 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I love this. He is so bent that he can't seem to let it go. He wants to pretend that he is done with it but it is obvious that he can't get over me. Just goes to show that has nothing to do with what I talk about or the content of what is said. It has everything to do with not liking someone because they bring up a position that is not popular.

I am not part of his tribe so he wants to exterminate me from it. He doesn't want anyone else to accept me into their tribes either but can't accept the fact that everyone hasn't abandoned me. He doesn't seem to realize it doesn't matter who decides to take such a reaction. Another method of group mentality to impose his will onto others which is the very core to what I am discussing.


That's all empty drivel Krumpie.

It is my will that the skimpy breech cloths on female athletes should be no longer mandatory. What is your position and why?

An interesting side note on the Olympic Games---I didn't see it myself but two friends of mine did and independently of each other.

When the gold medallists in the ladies' double something or other crossed the line one of them fell back, either exhausted or in a delirium of joy, and her skimpy breech cloth became unaligned just as the camera had her in close up. A full beaver was displayed.

Now one of the things it is impossible not to notice is that highlights of the proceedings always feechewer interesting or dramatic events from the day, or the week. Often many times if they are especially interesting or dramatic. A racing car piling into the cushions for example. Or a crash on one bend in a 200 km cycle race involving the stragglers.

So, with that in mind, I took the trouble to watch as many highlight feechewers as I could to see the very interesting and dramatic accident in the ladies' rowing.

Nothing doing. What is the atheist position on such censorship. I'm all in favour of it being shown many times and in slo-mo. But I'm a real atheist. I'm not one for inventing a load of confusing sophistries to try to justify the idiocy of the Church in trying to render disreputable any perfectly respectable pantsdown positions.

It is quite natural for that lady to fall backwards in such transports of emotion and exhaustion that she lost concentration on where her breech cloth was positioned. One might see normal concentration on the matter in the famous photograph of Marilyn Monroe.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marilyn-Monroe-Dress-Blowing-10x8-Photo-/320443558245?pt=UK_DV

 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 311
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/06/2025 at 10:34:21