Comments for PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, and atheistic skeptic organizations at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 428 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Thu, 23 May 2013 08:53:53 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-20102 "My oh my you blokes are still here commiserating over my leaving this blog" ...says the clown who returned to the thread quite a long time after "leaving" it - clearly to see if anyone was still talking about him. What an egotistical little fuckpot you are. For the record: you're still wrong, still completely ignorant of what a false dichotomy is and still too much of a fucking idiot to see WHY you're wrong and ignorant - perhaps you should stick to your favourites hobbies: hiking and telling people where you've hiked. Merry motherfucking Christmas, everyone! :D :D :D - mandrellian Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:34:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-19188 Great job to madrellian, latsot, DataJack, Skeptigirl and Skeptic Ginger. This thread was a fascinating read. You presented your arguments exceptionally well and I read this whole thread with great interest and learned much about intelligent arguing. It certainly reminds one that you should never feed trolls. Looking at wdunlap's last post (which certainly won't be his last), it shows you the maturity level and thickness of cranium you were fighting to get facts through. Very nice try though - there should be logic meadls of bravery to you all. - Mr. Excitement! Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:43:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18923 My oh my you blokes are still here commiserating over my leaving this blog. Meanwhile, I was hiking in the Dolomites of Italy, i.e., unlike you guys, I have a life. Sorry, but there is no point in my staying because I would only waste my time since you both, Mandrellian & latsot, obviously have closed minds and wear blinders on your thinking process. How very sad. But, if it makes you feel better to delude yourself into thinking your answer is the only correct one, then, by all means, knock yourself out. This is my final post. - wdunlap Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:06:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18866 Spot on, mandrellian. - latsot Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:28:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18860 Since wdnulap is unable to comprehend either the concept of a false dichotomy [b][i]or[/i][/b] the tactic of me using Hogwarts & unicorns as an [i]example[/i] to [i]illustrate a point about unproven supernatural explanations that has been explained to him over and over and fucking over again by myself and many other people[/i], I shall bequeath to him the [i]entire board[/i] with my best wishes and this final statement: [b]wdunlap, you are so fucking thick it defies my imagination how you're able to get up and dress yourself in the morning without being strangled by your own underpants - if indeed you are permitted to wear clothes by whomever it is that supervises you.[/b] Hey latsot - was that too kind? - mandrellian Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:46:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18796 Mandrellian (bit late, sorry): > mandrellian replied that no one was putting down believers. I was just offering the proof. > Thank you, latsot, for proving mandrellian wrong. I don't think I claimed to prove you wrong. I'm vaguely sorry for being hijacked by gibbering idiots. On which topic: I disagree with you that people who consistently say idiotic things might not be idiots. It seems very unlikely that non idiots would continue to spout idiotic things. I'm a reasonably imaginative chap but I admit I'm finding it somewhat difficult to reconcile this whole idiocy-spouting vibe with people not actually in point of fact idiots. You're far too kind, Mandrellian, even when you wring these mindless idiots out and leave them to dry. - latsot Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:46:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18782 Here's our argument: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-02/world/hawking.god.universe_1_universe-abrahamic-faiths-divine-creator?_s=PM:WORLD You HAVE to read to the end. No further comment necessary, I already know what you are going to say. You have already said it. - William Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:11:21 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18683 Response to Mandrellian: I find it amusing that you are going to leave the whole board to me, but without me the board was pretty much dead, so you gave in and decided to rehash the same old same old even though I had suggested to leave it there on a friendly note because we were simply beating a dead horse. I decided to try once more, silly me, to see if I could get my point across that a creator was possible and that you nor any scientist, though you think they do, have no evidence one way or another that a creator could be possible and that they have no evidence of a natural cause. Though you speak out of one side of your mouth that a creator could be possible since you don't know, you persist in throwing in other possible variables that add nothing to my speculation of a possible need for a creator. Who the fuck cares if you are into Hogwarts. There are only two possible causes of the expansion of the universe from a compact unit of mass. Either it came about by some unknown natural occurrence or by a supernatural occurrence. And whether or not you want to face it, science as of yet has no evidence to show it was due to natural causes. And your throwing in in Hogwarts and unicorns is nothing more than a distraction. BTW, I love how you just blew off my strange possible psychic experiences as hearsay. It did happen and it would serve no purpose for me to make it up. But I'm obviously dealing with someone who has no imagination. How sad!! I'm done. I should have realized that I would be wasting my time. - wdunlap Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:02:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18674 [quote]I'll tell you what is wrong with the universe always being here. Your scientific evidence which you are so fond of hanging your hat on has shown evidence that the universe is expanding from a compact mass of something like a mile cube. Don't hold me to the number, but it is very small. Sorry, but the rest of your suggestions is simply a regurgatation of your usual silliness so I wont get into that again.[/quote] Man, that was funny: "MY usual silliness". This from a guy who can't even tell the difference between an [i]example[/i] and an [i]accusation[/i]! From someone who can't tell the difference between "possible" and "likely". From someone who thinks "you can't provide evidence against it" means "you should believe it". [b]For the last fucking time[/b], the use of Hogwarts and the "other nonsense" has been explained to you. Repeatedly. Once you open the door to ONE possibility without evidence, i.e. your maybe-god, you open the door to as many other evidence-less possibilities as can be invented. My nonsense (ever-lasting universe included) was [b]INTENDED to be nonsense[/b] - it was to be seen as EXAMPLES of other possibilities for which there is no evidence, NOT what I actually thought could be. I was saying "if you choose to believe X without evidence, why not Y?" But again, you chose to miss the point. By several miles. Most people under 12 would be able to grasp that I was using examples, and NOT putting those ideas out there as my own beliefs. You clearly can not, so I'll waste no more time responding to you. If you can't be bothered spending any time comprehending anything that's been said to you, with great patience and restraint, I might add, then there's absolutely no point being civil anymore. So, to avoid simply insulting you (as you have insulted the intelligence of every skeptic in this thread, repeatedly), you can have the thread to yourself. I've wasted enough time being fucked with by you and your ridiculous (and now dishonest!) behaviour. If you actually wanted to learn something by coming here with your ideas (as opposed to embarking on an epic trolling campaign), take the lesson that people tend to get really pissed off if you do the following: repeatedly ignore their reasoning, repeatedly view examples and hypotheticals as their actual beliefs, try that ridiculous old [i]hypocritical[/i] religionist tactic of accusing skeptics and atheists of having "closed minds" or that they "think science has ALL the answers", ignore whatever you don't understand or whatever would invalidate your reasoning (if you actually understood it!) and, especially, if you misrepresent peoples' words and lie about their intent. Disagreements, ignorance, even flat-out stupidity are things I can tolerate in these arguments (for a time, anyway). Dishonesty is not. - mandrellian Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:23:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18673 Wdunlap said[quote]You even went so far as to accuse Williams of belief in astrology.[/quote] Oh, fuck me, that is an out-and-out lie. I did no such things. What I did by raising the [i]example[/i] of astrology was to illustrate that you can attack an idea & call it stupid, silly, whatever [i]without[/i] that attack being personal. Are you really that thick? I hope not; if so I fear for your children. You've misrepresented me and my intent - on purpose, it would seem, unless you have some kind of severe comprehension problem. DO try a little harder to understand what people are saying to you (and to each other) before accusing them of things. Again, I raised astrology as an EXAMPLE of how you can attack a belief without attacking a PERSON. Every time examples or hypotheticals have been raised here, you've completely misunderstood them or you've taken them literally. That's what creationists and fundamentalists do. Earlier you said [quote]I've addressed all your points a dozen times. But you are hung up on skepticism with a lack of imagination.[/quote]You've addressed nothing. You've mouthed a bunch of vague bullshit. You've avoided the questions. You've repeatedly NOT UNDERSTOOD the concepts of evidence. You've hung on to some vague possibility of some vague god-thing despite endless attempts to show there's no point in considering it. At every turn you've shown dogmatic, wishful thinking and a complete unwillingness to look logic in the face and accept it, because you'd rather believe some remnant of the god you grew up with might still be there. Then you've had the nerve to accuse me being "hung up on skepticism"! Are you kidding me? The rest of your little mystical story I couldn't give a shit about. Something interesting happened to you. Great. Has noone told you personal revelation is worthless? Has noone told you that anecdotes don't equal evidence? Has noone told you about hearsay? Has noone told you "it's true FOR ME" is ridiculous? [quote]Yes, but it isn't what you think it is. The real truth is that many atheists get caught up into thinking that science has all the answers even though science is not capable of determining whether or not the supernatural exists. They cannot show evidence one way or the other. So all that they have left is to try to make the creation argument look ridiculous by throwing silly nonsense about "bloody hogwarts. [/quote] Dead wrong. Again!! Atheists and skeptics are the FIRST people to say "we don't know everything, we don't have all the answers and we probably won't, ever". Ironically, it's religious people and other people ignorant of science and skepticism that have this idea that "scientists think they know EVERYTHING". Scientistis certainly do not think they know everything. Science is about finding answers; if we had all the answers (or thought we did) we'd stop looking and science would no longer exist. Again, a simply concept you've failed to understand over the course of this thread. Your ignorance of common concepts and the realities of the world should be an embarrassment to you. - mandrellian Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:06:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18672 Response to Mandrellian part 2 of 2 ( the reason we keep going around in circles - the reason you seem to be getting frustrated - is because you stubbornly refuse to accept the logical, reasonable answers being put to you. (What's wrong with other possibilites, e.g. the universe was always here and needs no explanation, the universe is a gigantic spaceship or an science experiment for hyper-advanced aliens, it's all a dream, it's the turtles again? There's as much evidence for aliens, never-ending universes and dreams as there is for a god. ) I'll tell you what is wrong with the universe always being here. Your scientific evidence which you are so fond of hanging your hat on has shown evidence that the universe is expanding from a compact mass of something like a mile cube. Don't hold me to the number, but it is very small. Sorry, but the rest of your suggestions is simply a regurgatation of your usual silliness so I wont get into that again. (you've presented one which has lots of supporting evidence (a natural cause) and one with no evidence whatsoever (some supernatural "being") Once again, I repeat, there is no evidence that the universe was started by a creator, but you are wrong when you state that there is all sorts evidence for a first cause when there is no evidence for that at all. In order for you to ignore the fact that a creator might be necessary and may be more likely than everything coming about by chance, you have to shut your brain off. That, unfortunately happens when you are a skeptic with a closed mind. You get caught up into thinking your answer could only be the correct one. (There's a reason 'so many atheists' present obvious nonsense ) Yes, but it isn't what you think it is. The real truth is that many atheists get caught up into thinking that science has all the answers even though science is not capable of determining whether or not the supernatural exists. They cannot show evidence one way or the other. So all that they have left is to try to make the creation argument look ridiculous by throwing silly nonsense about "bloody hogwarts. You even went so far as to accuse Williams of belief in astrology. I also get amused at Randi's demonstration of the absurdity of Horoscopes. I agree with him, but how do you explain experiences I have had in the past? I have had experiences where a stranger is describing themselves and they sound like me to a T. I then ask their birthday and it is like 3 days after mine. I have had this happen several times without a miss over a period of time. - wdunlap Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:19:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18671 Response to Mandrellian: Part 1 of 2 (after basically ignoring every single response made to it.) so say you, but I disagree. I've addressed all your points a dozen times. But you are hung up on skepticism with a lack of imagination. I had around 2 or 3 occurrences where a stranger would be describing himself and it would sound exactly like me. I would ask that person their birthday and it would turn out to be 3 days after mine. I once dated a girl whose birthday was 3 days after mine. She turned out to be so much like me that more often than not, I would start to say something and she would be trying to say the very same thing. OK, Ms Skeptic I know you are going to simply close your mind and say it was pure coincidence, but it is something that should be considered before you simply write it off as coincidence. Ok, one more. There was a period of time when some simple thing would pop into my head and it would then happen afterwards. Randi test people, but, unfortunately, if a person does have the ability to look into the future, they may not be able to turn it on at will. I know I couldn't. It just simply happened. I can hear you smirking, but this phenomenon does to appear to occur. I had it happen to me. Simple stuff like looking at the watch bill at work and knowing we are about to have a fire drill, and no sooner did that thought occur to me when the alarm bell went off for a fire drill. I had a woman come out for a bike club ride who told me that she had a biking accident sometime ago where she fell and broke her collar bone. She was also a syncronized swimmer and had just gotten back to it after her collar bone healed. Then she came out with "I wish I had remembered to wear my helmet". The hairs on the back of my neck stood up and I just knew she wasn't going to make it through this bike ride without a bad accident. Half way through the ride she came barreling down a hill, hit some gravel fell off her bike and was knocked unconscious and broke her collar bone again. I was telling someone else about this feeling I got, and he told me she had told him the same thing and that he got the same feeling of dread. Another. I'm walking home from getting off the bus from college. I am in deep thought. I know that in the past occassionally some one would ask what school you went to since there was competition between Catholic school and public school. I chuckled to my self because I could answer neither one since I had just started college. I no sooner got out that thought when someone asked me what school I go to. I guess if you are a skeptic and have no imagination, you would completely write off the possible answer that I had some slight psychic abilities and not just that all these things were simply coincidences. These and maybe one more are all the experiences I had. I had none where I had a thought of something about to happen and it did not. I can't be tested because I haven't had any more experiences like this. It only happened for a short period. - wdunlap Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:18:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18662 WD:[quote]I will try once more. there are two possibilities how everything started: 1. By some sort of natural cause. 2. By some sort of supernatural being. I cannot see why anyone would suggest other possibilities unless you allow yourself to be distracted by obvious nonsense which so many atheists are so fond of doing.[/quote] You've tried nothing; all you've done is put forward the same unsupported idea you did dozens of posts ago, after basically ignoring every single response made to it. All anyone has asked are these very simple questions: 1. Why are there [i]ONLY TWO[/i] possibilites? 2. Why must those possibilities be the ones you've chosen? That you "cannot see why anyone would suggest other possibilities" is not a valid reason. Your personal incredulity, lack of imagination, ignorance, whatever is not a valid reason to keep the options to "god" or "not god". What's wrong with other possibilites, e.g. the universe was always here and needs no explanation, the universe is a gigantic spaceship or an science experiment for hyper-advanced aliens, it's all a dream, it's the turtles again? There's as much evidence for aliens, never-ending universes and dreams as there is for a god. The trouble is, you haven't even presented two equally valid possibilities - you've presented one which has lots of supporting evidence (a natural cause) and one with no evidence whatsoever (some supernatural "being" that you haven't even bothered to define but which is probably a shadow of Yahweh, kept in your mind by pure habit). This is why people are using the term 'false dichotomy': you're placing two options against each other as if they were the ONLY options. Worse than that, you won't even explain WHY those two are the only two. The further trouble is, when you start invoking possibilities which have no evidence to support them, you open the door to any number of other possibilities that also have no evidence. There's a reason 'so many atheists' present obvious nonsense like unicorns and bloody Hogwarts when people bring up supernatural creators - they're trying to point out that there is as much reason to believe in unicorns and other acknowledged mythical creatures as there is to think your god-thing created the universe: NONE. Yet you're still attempting to present "a supernatural creator for which there is no evidence" as a valid possibility in the creation of the universe. The evidence indicates no such thing yet you hang on to the idea as dogmatically as Ken Ham does to Genesis. Something tells me your "theistic leanings" are more than simple leanings. Perhaps you need to contemplate exactly what it is you believe about these matters & settle on a point of view you can actually define before putting forward & defending half-baked, noncommittal, vague ideas about some god-being. Wdunlap, the reason we keep going around in circles - the reason you seem to be getting frustrated - is because you stubbornly refuse to accept the logical, reasonable answers being put to you. No, for the last time, I can't disprove your god-being. All I can do is point to there being NO evidence for it and therefore NO reason to believe in it; by default the natural explanations are all we have left! If you still refuse to accept that and still insist on wishing thinkfully for a celestial finger-snapper, fine. Conversation over. - mandrellian Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:55:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18660 William:[quote]Saying that I do something that is silly or stupid is a put down.[/quote] What a silly thing to say. Silly, not because I think [i]you're[/i] silly, but because it's completely, demonstrably [i]wrong[/i]. There is a difference between attacking an action and attacking the person who performed the action; this much should be obvious. Calling someone an idiot would be a put-down; a personal attack. Calling an action or statement or belief or idea of theirs idiotic is not. That is attacking the idea, not the person holding it. People hold idiotic beliefs and do idiotic things all the time; it does not hold that such people are idiots; anyone who makes that link is being dishonest & unfair. But people who take offense at having their [i]ideas & actions[/i] attacked perhaps shouldn't take them out in public! I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of holding an opinion or making a judgement about someone's beliefs or actions that is independent of my opinion or judgement of them as a person. Performing an act like voting up your own commentary, for example, makes me think you've done one stupid, narcissistic thing - it does [i]not[/i] make me think [i]you[/i] are a stupid narcissist. It simply isn't fair to judge a [i]person[/i] by the few things you've seen them say and do. It is fair, however, to judge [i]what they say and do[/i]. Not only is it fair, it's really your only option online, when words and actions are all there is. We do each other no favours by pussy-footing around when it comes to criticising or even ridiculing ideas. People should be able to vigorously promote and defend their ideas without taking personal offense if people don't agree or even if their ideas are attacked. If you can't separate an attack on [i]what you say[/i] from an attack on [i]who you are[/i], perhaps you should reconsider getting involved in debates. This is the internet - I don't know who you are or what you're like; all I have to go on are your words and actions, so that's what I evaluate & criticise. Again, if you choose to take offense at that, maybe you're in the wrong arena. - mandrellian Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:48:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18630 Saying that I do something that is silly or stupid is a put down. And just so you know, I do not accept nor believe in astrology. For that, there is plenty of evidence that it does NOT work. (Counter-proof.) - William Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:31:10 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18628 Gosh I'm just a serial wrongster, by the looks. I'll have to be clearer when talking about "proving a negative" in future. What I was getting at was the unreasonable demand of proof of a thing's non-existence in order to rule it out as a plausible explanation. Of course you can't prove gods don't exist, but without evidence that they do, the reasonable position is to not believe that they exist. To believe they [i]do[/i] exist (or even that they're plausible explanations) without [i]any[/i] supporting evidence is unreasonable. People don't believe in gods because there's no evidence [i]for[/i] them; [i]they do not have to prove the non-existence of gods for disbelief to be reasonable[/i] and they do not have to furnish [i]evidence of non-existence[/i]. This has been explained numerous times; it has been ignored or talked around ad nauseam. Oh, and kudos to wdunlap for visiting the Skeptical Wiki. Long may he visit and absorb, that he might one day be able to understand why nearly everyone in this thread has become utterly fed up with his thinly-veiled, dogmatic adherence to his "necessary" theism. - mandrellian Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:57:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18627 William said: [quote]I'll admit that I vote up my own comments[/quote] Now, that [i]is[/i] stupid. A stupid [i]act[/i] - because it's pointless and somewhat childish - not an act by a person who I consider stupid (quite the contrary). Not that anyone puts much stock in the "Vote Up/Down" system, but the fact that you post anything at all implies you agree with yourself. Patting yourself on the back gives a false impression of assent and is just plain narcissistic. OK, a followup on this one: [quote]mandrellian replied that no one was putting down believers. I was just offering the proof. Thank you, latsot, for proving mandrellian wrong.[/quote] Well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Clearly I haven't read everything that latsot has. It's always nice when people show their evidence though! - mandrellian Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:44:05 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18626 William said: [quote] "I find god beliefs to be even sillier than Hogwarts" And you wonder why I feel that you seem to put down believers? [/quote] This is a poor example. Ridiculing a belief is not the same as putting down a believer. Saying "believing in god is silly" is simply not the same as saying "believers in god are silly". The fact is, some beliefs are in fact stupid. The belief that stars billions of miles away affect you in highly specific, personal ways because of the day, month and year you were born, for example, is really stupid. It's not supported, it's based on prescientific superstition and to base your life on it - or even put any stock in it whatsoever - is a stupid waste of time. Many people still do just that, but to consider them stupid based on a single data point is unfair, uncharitable and not exactly skeptical. There are plenty of clear examples of personal attacks on believers ([i]not[/i] their beliefs); the one you used is no such thing. If you want to convince people you're right you'll need to do better. - mandrellian Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:34:37 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18488 First off, I don't vote down. I vote up what I agree with, but I don't vote down that which I don't. Second, Yes, I'll admit that I vote up my own comments and most of wdunlap's comments. I can't confirm what wdunlap is doing as far as voting up or down. But, assuming he is voting up his own comments and mine, there is still a third up vote being applied to quite a few of our comments. Third, I had noted earlier that believers are put down. mandrellian replied that no one was putting down believers. I was just offering the proof. Thank you, latsot, for proving mandrellian wrong. Fourth, I have answered every question put to me. If I missed one, forgive me. Please ask it again so I may have the chance to answer it. I am still watching this thread. - William Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:24:17 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1023-pz-myers-pamela-gay-and-atheistic-skeptic-organizations.html#comment-18486 Datajack: [quote]I think skeptic is a title one assigns to oneself.[/quote] Well the problem is that it's not. You either have a skeptical attitude or you don't. You either apply that attitude to everything, or you are bewilderingly selective about what you're skeptical about and what you aren't, which is by definition NOT A SKEPTICAL ATTITUDE. I know, I know, it isn't quite as simple as that. I've argued above that it's not that simple. I'm happy to consider people as skeptical in some areas so long as they admit that they are unskeptical in others (Gay, etc.) However, if they have such a glaring hole in their skepticism, I think I ought to be forgiven for casting extra doubt on everything they say. How am I to know whether they are using their bizarre random selective unskepticism to get out of jail free? Gay and others can be skeptical about all sorts of stuff and they surely are. However, on reflection it doesn't seem very helpful to call such people skeptics. Skepticism is a way of thinking and behaving. Turning one's skepticism off seems to me to be something a skeptic couldn't possibly do. They could be wrong, they could be biassed, they could be stupid deluded or confused. But they couldn't decide that their skepticism didn't apply to some huge area of reality (or, more likely, unreality). I'd say that anyone who did such a thing is sometimes skeptical, but isn't a skeptic. It seems a bit like people who don't believe in god but go to weddings in churches saying that they're religious or creationists claiming that they're scientists. It's pointless, pathetic, pouting rhetoric and I wish people would stop it. Let me say again though that Gay has perfectly good skeptical credentials in a bunch of areas. She is to be trusted, as far as I know, on a range of topics. But we know she deliberately compromises her skepticism when it comes to religion. I think that means she has to work harder at being taken seriously than anyone else who applies their skepticism without caveat. I don't think I can understand anyone who disagrees. I'm being as kind as I can here. She's great, but she's not a great skeptic. Why are we arguing over a random label anyway? - latsot Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:52:48 +0100