0
   

How sick are the, so called,skeptics?

 
 
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2015 02:54 am
How sick are the skeptics?

Like the idiot shermer. the narcissit Dawkins, etc


Very sick it seems!


They have what can be called a form of "“PATHOLOGICAL DISBELIEF”

They distort paranormal and other 'strange phenomena" to suit their agenda's

and many times they distort and misrepresent etc.
(called LIE's by nnormal people!)


In short, they are not to be trusted.



Quote:
“While informed skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, professional debunkers — often called ‘kneejerk skeptics’ — tend to be skeptics in name only, and to speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionately skeptical.”
– Dan Drasin
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,005 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2015 03:06 am
You don't understand apostrophes, do you?
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2015 03:13 am
@Tes yeux noirs,
o wow content less postings! lol

What else is new? Wink
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 08:17 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Skepticism isn't pathological unless it's so extreme that it incapacitates a person. For instance, if one can't walk for lacking confidence that the earth will be there to meet the feet.

Skepticism about miracles is something St Augustine taught, so that's not anti-religious, although I would agree that a gnostic attitude is more in keeping with religion than with science. Even science starts from some basic assumptions (but not much more than what's needed to walk to the lab.)

What paranormal phenomena do you think is beyond the ability of science to explain?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 09:21 am
@Quehoniaomath,
How "very sick" are you, Queho?

You have a pathological disbelief when it comes to evolution. You distort strange phenomena to suit your agenda. You distort and misrepresent when you claim that micro evolution is a different process than macro evolution. You distort and misrepresent when you claim there is no evidence of transitional fossils in spite of the multiple posts showing evidence.

We should consider your posts as lies, it seems. In short, you should not be trusted.


With this post from you, Q, I wonder if you have posted after a heavy bout of drinking. It is filled with grammatical and spelling errors you don't normally make. When applied to your arguments on the evolution threads it clearly points to you being a knee jerk skeptic without facts.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 12:20 pm
@parados,
Quote:
How "very sick" are you, Queho?

You have a pathological disbelief when it comes to evolution. You distort strange phenomena to suit your agenda. You distort and misrepresent when you claim that micro evolution is a different process than macro evolution. You distort and misrepresent when you claim there is no evidence of transitional fossils in spite of the multiple posts showing evidence.

We should consider your posts as lies, it seems. In short, you should not be trusted.


With this post from you, Q, I wonder if you have posted after a heavy bout of drinking. It is filled with grammatical and spelling errors you don't normally make. When applied to your arguments on the evolution threads it clearly points to you being a knee jerk skeptic without facts.



called an ad hominem attack, hence not worth anything.


next!
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 12:22 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
What paranormal phenomena do you think is beyond the ability of science to explain?



duh?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 12:42 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Calling you a knee jerk skeptic is an ad hominem?

I guess your first post is nothing but an ad hominem then.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 01:20 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Calling you a knee jerk skeptic is an ad hominem?

I guess your first post is nothing but an ad hominem then.


Nice, but idiotic, try.

No, but you won't get it.

It can be easily proven that these people lie a lot, or say a lot about things they don't understand

so they are rather stupid or liers in my book.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2015 04:28 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
So prove it then since it is easy to do so.


I won't hold my breath waiting for evidence from you. You tend to resort to ipse dixit arguments feeling you have to provide no evidence. Such an act is precisely what is predicted by the definition of a "knee jerk skeptic."
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 12:53 am
@parados,
ad hominems seems to be your speciailtiy, right?

parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 09:17 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:

ad hominems seems to be your speciailtiy, right?




Asking you to provide evidence is now an ad hominem?



You stated this:
Quote:
It can be easily proven that these people lie a lot, or say a lot about things they don't understand

I asked you for evidence for something you said could be easily proven. Can you easily prove it or not?

I don't see any ad hominem in my statement. I did say you wouldn't provide any evidence because you resort to ipse dixit arguments. You are proving my statement correct. I predict you will continue to prove my statement correct in that you will again not provide any evidence to support your claim.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 09:37 am
@parados,
Quote:
I don't see any ad hominem in my statement.


Then read your own postings better, mate!




where is this one coming from?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 09:46 am
@Quehoniaomath,
So no evidence of me using an ad hominem? You are proving my statement was a statement of fact which means it couldn't be an ad hominem.

So now we have you claiming something was easy to prove and then not providing any evidence in support of that statement when questioned. Then we have you accusing me of an ad hominem but then not pointing to the specifics of the ad hominem which is easy to do when someone resorts to ad hominems. One only need to point to the personal attack and show how it was used to defeat an argument.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 09:49 am
@parados,
Quote:
So no evidence of me using an ad hominem?


I asked you to read your own postings!

why didn't you do that?

Now, go back and start reading again.





ok, time to put her, again, on ignore.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 11:07 am
@Quehoniaomath,
I have read my postings. Let's examine them.

This is the start of your first post....
Quehoniaomath wrote:
How sick are the skeptics?

Like the idiot shermer. the narcissit Dawkins, etc


Very sick it seems!

Note - you used the terms - sick, idiot and narcissit[sic] to describe others.

This is my response

Quote:
How "very sick" are you, Queho?

http://able2know.org/topic/300244-1#post-6064816


I then went on to describe how your actions fit the definition you were using to attack others which led to the conclusion that if we follow your logic and definition it would mean you fit all the other characteristics such as being a liar. I wasn't disagreeing with your argument but pointing out how you fit the definition you used for others.

You claimed your post was not an ad hominem after calling my post an ad hominem.
Quehoniaomath wrote:
Nice, but idiotic, try.


I wonder how you can call people sick, idiot and narcissit[sick] and it is not an ad hominem but if I don't specifically call you sick but instead ask you how sick you are it is an ad hominem. Why is that, Q?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 11:37 am
@parados,
I told you it is too difficlt for you!


Bye
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 11:45 am
@Quehoniaomath,
It seems my prediction is still true so it can't be an ad hominem but is instead a statement of fact. You simply claim something is true and provide no evidence or explanation.

Quehoniaomath has presented no evidence or argument to support his claim. I predict he will continue to act in that fashion. He will provide no explanation of what an ad hominem is and will point to no specifics where I met that definition. He will simply continue with his ipse dixit statements.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 11:58 am
@parados,
Just out of curiosity, isn't Q the skeptic here? Doesn't believe in science, mathematics, history, etc.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 12:07 pm
@engineer,
I pointed that out and he claimed to call him that was an ad hominem.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How sick are the, so called,skeptics?
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/05/2023 at 02:08:31