3 ms·

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 o

by 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.)
    - berntb 18y ago
      To comment what I quoted as if it was new is the third misquote! You're at least "consistent"... (I take it back; you might be a bad troll, but I did get some fun out of laughing at that.)
      - anamax 18y ago
        >> Leaving that out > To comment what I quoted as if it was new is the third misquote Leaving that out makes it clear that it wasn't new. The other "misquotes" were both fair and accurate even if they didn't work to your advantage. When you write dumb things, that happens. Even if you are a unicorn.
        berntb 18y ago
        Hmm, the dishonesty and non-serious arguing was a good, if boring, attempt to troll me personally. Was it luck or do you often troll people discussing religion? Never mind. I've got a life.

by berntb 18y ago

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.)
  - berntb 18y ago
    To comment what I quoted as if it was new is the third misquote! You're at least "consistent"... (I take it back; you might be a bad troll, but I did get some fun out of laughing at that.)
    - anamax 18y ago
      >> Leaving that out > To comment what I quoted as if it was new is the third misquote Leaving that out makes it clear that it wasn't new. The other "misquotes" were both fair and accurate even if they didn't work to your advantage. When you write dumb things, that happens. Even if you are a unicorn.
      - berntb 18y ago
        Hmm, the dishonesty and non-serious arguing was a good, if boring, attempt to troll me personally. Was it luck or do you often troll people discussing religion? Never mind. I've got a life.