4 ms·

I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions

by berntb 18y ago

I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)

anamax 18y ago
> What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". You know yourself. I know lots of other people who have made exactly the same claims. Maybe you're a unicorn. > If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? > I've already discounted ideologies I read "I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post." as a claim that you didn't follow some "stupid ideology". Are you now now saying that you do follow some stupid ideology but that it's off limits or doubling-down on the original claim?
- berntb 18y ago
  I DO call you troll, now. Good bye. >>What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? The full quote was of what I wrote can hardly be asking for names of people. If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Quote of me, which was "answered" above: If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion".
  - anamax 18y ago
    > If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Links to conversations that I had in person, most "pre-web"? Some of us have off-line lives, don't blog/tweet everything, and are amused by the assumption that everything worthwhile is on-line. Feel free to do otherwise. > If you want credibility here You certainly do think highly of yourself. (What color is your horn?) However, it's no skin off of my nose of you don't believe me. I will note that you've moved the goal posts. We started from "we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true." with me writing that we should because (my claim) everyone has such positions. At best your "test" isn't the only way to address that claim.
    - berntb 18y ago
      Three obvious bad arguments in so few lines! I don't have time for trolls that aren't even fun, bye. 1) You are claiming to be more insightful than e.g. most every atheist, then claim I think highly of myself. (And demonstrated your great mind by failing to do correct quoting twice...) 2) You've had two chances to give examples of the deep insights you claim, but nothing. You misquoted me first time and ignored the second time. 3) You wrote that I changed the goal post -- with a second bad quote that changed the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote a question, not a statement of position (and followed with an irony in the next paragraph). My full paragraph: "... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true?"
      - anamax 18y ago
        > 1) You are claiming to be more insightful than e.g. most every atheist, It's a two-fer - two mistakes in one sentence. I'm not claiming anything about atheists. I'm just claiming that everyone has some belief that they accept without evidence and are unwilling to question. (Note that different people can have different such beliefs.) That claim got nothing to do with religion or lack thereof. (Note my use of scare quotes when I use "religion" to refer to such beliefs.) I never suggested that it takes "great insight" to expose such beliefs. However, it is amusing that you're so threatened by the suggestion that you might have one. > we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true?" Leaving that out didn't change things because my answer addressed that point. Yes, we should respect such people, absent some other reason, because everyone has such beliefs and they often don't matter. "Taking the piss" as our Austrialian friends say, is like shooting ducks in a barrel. You seem to believe that exposing such beliefs is necessarily a good thing. Why? (I note that whether or not it is a good thing to expose such beliefs is actually independent of whether everyone has them.)

by berntb 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". You know yourself. I know lots of other people who have made exactly the same claims. Maybe you're a unicorn. > If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? > I've already discounted ideologies I read "I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post." as a claim that you didn't follow some "stupid ideology". Are you now now saying that you do follow some stupid ideology but that it's off limits or doubling-down on the original claim?

berntb 18y ago
I DO call you troll, now. Good bye. >>What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? The full quote was of what I wrote can hardly be asking for names of people. If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Quote of me, which was "answered" above: If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion".
- anamax 18y ago
  > If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Links to conversations that I had in person, most "pre-web"? Some of us have off-line lives, don't blog/tweet everything, and are amused by the assumption that everything worthwhile is on-line. Feel free to do otherwise. > If you want credibility here You certainly do think highly of yourself. (What color is your horn?) However, it's no skin off of my nose of you don't believe me. I will note that you've moved the goal posts. We started from "we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true." with me writing that we should because (my claim) everyone has such positions. At best your "test" isn't the only way to address that claim.
  - berntb 18y ago
    Three obvious bad arguments in so few lines! I don't have time for trolls that aren't even fun, bye. 1) You are claiming to be more insightful than e.g. most every atheist, then claim I think highly of myself. (And demonstrated your great mind by failing to do correct quoting twice...) 2) You've had two chances to give examples of the deep insights you claim, but nothing. You misquoted me first time and ignored the second time. 3) You wrote that I changed the goal post -- with a second bad quote that changed the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote a question, not a statement of position (and followed with an irony in the next paragraph). My full paragraph: "... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true?"
    - anamax 18y ago
      > 1) You are claiming to be more insightful than e.g. most every atheist, It's a two-fer - two mistakes in one sentence. I'm not claiming anything about atheists. I'm just claiming that everyone has some belief that they accept without evidence and are unwilling to question. (Note that different people can have different such beliefs.) That claim got nothing to do with religion or lack thereof. (Note my use of scare quotes when I use "religion" to refer to such beliefs.) I never suggested that it takes "great insight" to expose such beliefs. However, it is amusing that you're so threatened by the suggestion that you might have one. > we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true?" Leaving that out didn't change things because my answer addressed that point. Yes, we should respect such people, absent some other reason, because everyone has such beliefs and they often don't matter. "Taking the piss" as our Austrialian friends say, is like shooting ducks in a barrel. You seem to believe that exposing such beliefs is necessarily a good thing. Why? (I note that whether or not it is a good thing to expose such beliefs is actually independent of whether everyone has them.)