Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-07-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Exactly.

He has his EARS blocked, his EYES close and his LIPS are open! What a fantastic Picture.

Reality Check

ApostateAbe is that you?

Everything you say about HJ comes from your IMAGINATION?

mountainman · 07-07-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You think that you represent some sort of mainstream thinking, when you have actually swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning.

To tell an avowed skeptic like Abe on a board like this one that he has "swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning" is a blatant ad hom.

Not if it's true.

Quote:

Not only does it have status on this board as an ad hom in itself, it also carries the sneaky implication that Abe's avowal of skepticism is mere prevarication, which is also against the rules here.

Are you aware that posters who continually regurgitate "Christian apologetic reasoning" are not really engaging in two way discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

There; that's better. -- And yes, this is relevant to the discussion.
Chaucer

Wrong again.

Toto · 07-07-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You think that you represent some sort of mainstream thinking, when you have actually swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning.

To tell an avowed skeptic like Abe on a board like this one that he has "swallowed Christian apologetic reasoning" is a blatant ad hom.

No it's not. You don't seem to know the meaning of the term.

In the first place, Abe does not describe himself as a skeptic, and mocks people that he disagrees with as hyperskeptics. He admits that his reasoning follows some Christian apologetics.

In the second place, I am not arguing that Abe is wrong because he is who he is. I am arguing that Abe's arguments are wrong, and are wrong whoever makes them.

Quote:

Not only does it have status on this board as an ad hom in itself, it also carries the sneaky implication that Abe's avowal of skepticism is mere prevarication, which is also against the rules here.

Where has Abe claimed to be a skeptic?

I'm not trying to make this about Abe personally. I don't know him. All I know are the bad arguments that he posts on this board.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 11:25 AM

Toto is correct, mostly. The label of "skeptic" is something I used to prefer, but I now generally avoid it, because I prefer to think of myself as more like an empiricist--or someone who accepts probabilistic conclusions and rejects improbable conclusions. I am NOT someone who believes that the central goal and the end game is to doubt, which I think tends to be too often the mentality of self-described skeptics. Such "skeptics" may tend to doubt certain conclusions even when they are probable, just because the "skeptics" have a hostile bent against them. I think "skepticism" may be appropriate as a starting point, but it is really only a means to an end, and the end is to find and accept the most probable model of reality.

Chaucer · 07-07-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto is correct, mostly. The label of "skeptic" is something I used to prefer, but I now generally avoid it, because I prefer to think of myself as more like an empiricist--or someone who accepts probabilistic conclusions and rejects improbable conclusions. I am NOT someone who believes that the central goal and the end game is to doubt, which I think tends to be too often the mentality of self-described skeptics. Such "skeptics" may tend to doubt certain conclusions even when they are probable, just because the "skeptics" have a hostile bent against them. I think "skepticism" may be appropriate as a starting point, but it is really only a means to an end, and the end is to find and accept the most probable model of reality.

Then whatever you now term yourself, it truly strikes me as something that lies very far off indeed from being a Christian, apologetic or otherwise. Consequently, any inflamatory suggestion that Christian apologetics is what you're somehow doing in this thread still bears the stigma of imputed prevarication with it. On your profile, it clearly says "infotheist". I fail to see that that has anything to do with Christian apologetics.

And BTW, I will take correction on this point only from you, Abe, since clearly it would be the height of arrogance for anyone else to speak for you on a matter this personal.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Toto · 07-07-2011, 11:55 AM

Chaucer - Abe admits that he has adopted some arguments used by Christian apologists. You can ask him to explain why he has done this.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Chaucer - Abe admits that he has adopted some arguments used by Christian apologists. You can ask him to explain why he has done this.

I don't know that I have "adopted" apologist arguments, though it is certainly true that I share some conclusions and arguments with apologists (we all share some of them). Some conclusions and arguments used by Christian apologists are actually reasonable, as hard as that may be to believe. I have actually heard some of them claim that the Earth isn't really flat.

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto is correct, mostly. The label of "skeptic" is something I used to prefer, but I now generally avoid it, because I prefer to think of myself as more like an empiricist--or someone who accepts probabilistic conclusions and rejects improbable conclusions. I am NOT someone who believes that the central goal and the end game is to doubt, which I think tends to be too often the mentality of self-described skeptics. Such "skeptics" may tend to doubt certain conclusions even when they are probable, just because the "skeptics" have a hostile bent against them. I think "skepticism" may be appropriate as a starting point, but it is really only a means to an end, and the end is to find and accept the most probable model of reality.

Then whatever you now term yourself, it truly strikes me as something that lies very far off indeed from being a Christian, apologetic or otherwise. Consequently, any inflamatory suggestion that Christian apologetics is what you're somehow doing in this thread still bears the stigma of imputed prevarication with it. On your profile, it clearly says "infotheist". I fail to see that that has anything to do with Christian apologetics.

And BTW, I will take correction on this point only from you, Abe, since clearly it would be the height of arrogance for anyone else to speak for you on a matter this personal.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Cool, thanks for defending me.

Chaucer · 07-07-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Chaucer - Abe admits that he has adopted some arguments used by Christian apologists.

He "admits" no such thing. He has stated now that he "shares" some conclusions in the same way that one can "share" the conclusion as to the current time of day with a stopped clock, even though one can only do so twice a day. Consequently, both the word "swallow" and the word "adopt" are blatant ad homs in this context. You will withdraw both terms, or I will lodge a formal complaint to all the moderators on this board, not just the Religion section.

Your move.

Chaucer

ApostateAbe · 07-07-2011, 12:34 PM

Chaucer, whenever Toto or anyone else accuses me of being in bed with the Christian apologists, I really don't mind at all. It helps me, not hurts me, because it reinforces my long-time position that mythicists very much tend to have an overblown us-vs.-Christians mentality that corrupts their ability to think reasonably. I don't want to discourage that kind of honesty.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2011, 11:25 AM	#14
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Toto is correct, mostly. The label of "skeptic" is something I used to prefer, but I now generally avoid it, because I prefer to think of myself as more like an empiricist--or someone who accepts probabilistic conclusions and rejects improbable conclusions. I am NOT someone who believes that the central goal and the end game is to doubt, which I think tends to be too often the mentality of self-described skeptics. Such "skeptics" may tend to doubt certain conclusions even when they are probable, just because the "skeptics" have a hostile bent against them. I think "skepticism" may be appropriate as a starting point, but it is really only a means to an end, and the end is to find and accept the most probable model of reality.

07-07-2011, 11:55 AM	#16
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Chaucer - Abe admits that he has adopted some arguments used by Christian apologists. You can ask him to explain why he has done this.

07-07-2011, 12:34 PM	#20
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Chaucer, whenever Toto or anyone else accuses me of being in bed with the Christian apologists, I really don't mind at all. It helps me, not hurts me, because it reinforces my long-time position that mythicists very much tend to have an overblown us-vs.-Christians mentality that corrupts their ability to think reasonably. I don't want to discourage that kind of honesty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.