You know Spider..
I've actually gained more respect for you.

Simply because I've now officially seen worse.

Now I hold more respect for your opinions.
Even if I don't entirely understand, or believe them.

He has neither.
Proves nothing but my own point.
And swears he was right about.. idk what?

So, for and to that.

Props good sir.



As for this debate between you two.

I stayed out of it, because it actually confused me.
I mean, I was grasping some of it..
..but in the end, I figured it best to stay quiet.
Cause I didn't want to interfere.

But, thank you both for teaching me some knew ideals.

Like new-agers?

*sigh*

Listen.

Tell me where I said I was mature? PLEASE POINT THAT OUT TO ME!
I was talking to someone else, who called me immature, whilst referring to himself as mature.

Thus, your comment, was the ideal definition of idiocy.

Second.

I was stating that you shouldn't resort to using the bible for references to prove your point when the bible can be taken anyway the reader so chooses, and thus I put up examples.

To object this idea, you put that 'the bible is lie because of those who wrote it' as a comment to counter my claim. Where do you see a counter? That's the best you have?

When, in turn, all I was truly asking is how can you believe in God when all that is truly known about 'Him' revolves around book which is the center of controversy.

Again. You made no point.

So, shall we try this one more time? Hm.

Because I've not met one person agreeing with you 'buddy'.
Only you, yourself, and your ego that won't admit its a----

Ahem.

Yes, you did quote me. You called me a hypocrite as well. However, there was nothing and I mean NOTHING hypocritical about it for a few reasons, but I'll let that oh so smart brain of yours figure that out.

I'm hoping, fingers crossed, you can come up with something that doesn't make it look like your brain is filled with sewer water and pot smoke. Cause that is what you are portraying.

A, as I put it so elaborately, dee-dee-dee.

And further more..

If you have ammo..
Someone should teach you how to shoot.

I just want an answer.
Not an idiotic argument.

And as for it being towards others..
Not true.

It's towards you.
Simple.

So again...

Have a good night.

If you mean an 'emotionally invested, negative leaning' form of doubt and incredulity - this is a common use of the word skeptic, but not the only. There are a whole mess of distinct uses of the word 'skeptic', including approaches to skepticism inspired by plato and pyrrho - which is very unlike an emotionally invested, negative leaning form of doubt or incredulity. Many self-defined skeptics would say that defaulting to neutrality, and 'not committing to a position without evidence' are both at the heart of skepticism.

So how does one become less skeptical? If you are neutral, and don't believe one or the other, what will or would it take to turn that from neutral into a 'to' or 'for' assessment?

Or does that than make the person a non-skeptic if they pick a side in one issue, but not another?

Ugh, see, I'm so confused. :/

Well there are different uses of the word. I'm guessing Bushido may agree with what I say, but others may not, but to me a skeptic starts choosing a side as they become aware of evidence and reasons for choosing a side - but they maintain a willingness to change their position as they are exposed to new evidence or new lines of thought.

We've discussed the 'default' position of a skeptic being one of neutrality - it doesn't mean that a skeptic has allegiance to neutrality. You can take a skeptical approach, and also take a definite position on something, as long as you have good cause for your position, and are willing to change your position.

... someone once told me that "Jesus rode a dinosaur"...

..that is something no one would have actually seen, if true.

..for got to add, but it would have been a sight to see.

See MT you and I am in a whole other league from these guys. No offense guys . . not that I care after being called an idiot and having so much grief spewed my way.

Instead of trying to bat down anything that comes across, you seek out a deeper definition to better understand.
You added words like emotionally invested, negative leaning as adjectives in order to isolate the concepts you wanted.

Doubt is not a negative word. Think a moment about the term "without a doubt". When I say without a doubt, everyone knows I mean I am certain about something.
Doubt really just means you are uncertain, not how you came across that uncertainty. Nor how deep that doubt runs.
Incredulous just means without credibility, not why/how you came to that belief.
The methods for investigation are what make skepticism proper, fair, and valid vs an emotional knee jerk reaction skepticism, or even a logically flawed yet proactive skepticism.

The best brightest and most well meaning people can get things wrong. They can be skeptical of something that is actually true, and still pursue an honest investigation.

New data can overturn old beliefs.

Spider is just mad, he himself is emotionally invested in the concept of god, and he is lashing out at me becuase he perceives my non-belief as an insult. Anything that could lead a person to non-belief in his assessment is flawed because of that confirmed bias.


The word Skepticism like many words has many meanings, however like many philosophical positions the word takes on a much deeper meaning when it is applied to a set of methods for gleaning truth.

Scientific Skepticism and Philosophical Skepticism are the topic of this thread and what I am defending. Not any old dictionary word, but a proper set of methods to explore reality and gather knowledge.

Clearly deeper than any word definition. Just as the word knowledge takes on a deeper meaning when we explore the philosophical and scientific concerns of our culture.

Sequence of events... You should ask bushido how memory recall works, perhaps he can shed some light on your situation...

You stayed "nuetral" for several pages then just popped back in on page 11 to "stir the pot" (maybe smoked a little too)
It was you who started with the ad-homs when you said:

"He just results to childish antics.
Calls others 'immature'."


I shall now illustrate the hypocrisy for our viewing audience.

"He just results to childish antics" == your statement about spider's actions(posts).
"Calls others 'immature'." == reason you claim as justification for labeling spider's "antics". (actually a STRAWMAN!)

Soooo, where exactly did spider call you "immature"???


Calling someone's actions/person/posts "childish" is the same as calling them "immature"


Here's an example so you will understand. (pls don't try to call me a hypocrite for this...)(it'll help if you pretend I'm directing this towards youself)

(example #2) "He's a dufus because he calls people stupid."







Ummmm, sorry that I flustered you... This is from a different thread...





From the Wiki:
"The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to accuse a person guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another. This may or may not be hypocritical or a contradiction."

(example #2) "Your posts are idiotic because you call people's minds feeble."







Haven't you figured out yet that your weak attempts at insults don't affect me?


Seriously, think before you reply to this.

Thinking process took two seconds because you are stuck here, now.

I've noticed you keep pursuing me.

Your stalking is kinda homo and shows how pathetically simple you are.

I've no need, no desire, and certainly no purpose in proving you wrong, nor your stupidity any further.

You know what? I have gotten banned from posting for a hell of a lot less than what you two testosterone jocks are doing here. You probably better give it up.

I'm trying..

..but he just won't leave me alone. D:

But, now, I'm done. :D

Wow, not sure what category the green words would fall under at this point as you obviously are not addressing the topic. (have you ever?)


1. Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

2. Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

3. Verbal abuse (also known as reviling or bullying) is best described as a negative defining statement told to you or about you;





I'm pretty sure the correct phrase would be that you have no capability...

*yawn*

Kill da banana!