Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGreat role modeling. Be as cynical as possible, use intimidation tactics, and humiliate those who aren't as smart as you. Awesome. I'm so surprised you dont convert more people this way...
There would be no use in denying it. That would be like a Catholic denying that he thinks most Jews go to hell.
The purpose of the Wolfpack is to squash the subversive movement against logic and reason, which we carry out primarily through intimidation and humilliation of the Sheeppack, and secondarily through role modeling.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou wouldn't need much revision if you just read it over to check for mistakes the first time. If you still need to add something to your original post, make another post. Editing 10 times only makes you lose credibility. Who knows what you could be changing from the first post to the last edit--- by the time it's re-edited THAT many times, you could've written something completely different from your original idea.
I think I see. Rather than making multiple edits on a single post, you propose making a new post for each revision.
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankPerhaps you misread my post. The role modeling complements the cynicism, intimidation and humiliation. It does not consist of those techniques, but instead, manifests itself in the form of critical thinking, which is awesome.
Great role modeling. Be as cynical as possible, use intimidation tactics, and humiliate those who aren't as smart as you. Awesome. I'm so surprised you dont convert more people this way...
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankWhat nonsense. You are claiming that if I edit behind the scenes where you can't observe which or how many revisions I've made, I maintain more credibility than if I make those edits in public, where you can track them in progess, or at least have a record of how many revisions I've made? How so?
Editing 10 times only makes you lose credibility.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEither way, do you think it is effective? Since using this method, how many "people of faith" have you converted to the "wolfpack"?
Perhaps you misread my post. The role modeling complements the cynicism, intimidation and humiliation. It does not consist of those techniques, but instead, manifests itself in the form of critical thinking, which is awesome.
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankThe Wolfpack operates under the principle that conversion is an intransitive verb. Our mission is not to convert anybody, and it is common knowledge that there are prominent people of faith among our ranks. The Wolfpack-Sheeppack battle lines are not religious boundaries.
Either way, do you think it is effective? Since using this method, how many "people of faith" have you converted to the "wolfpack"?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell don't leave me hanging. You know, me being dense and all, I don't know what these "boundaries" are, if they are not religious. I also don't know who these members are, who happen to be "prominent people of faith". I always thought that all of you were athiests or agnostics.
The Wolfpack operates under the principle that conversion is an intransitive verb. Our mission is not to convert anybody, and it is common knowledge that there are prominent people of faith among our ranks. The Wolfpack-Sheeppack battle lines are not religious boundaries.
Originally posted by lioyankThe battle lines are drawn between those that wish to subvert logic and reason in forum discussion, and those that wish to combat that subversion, as I've stated above.
The battle lines are not religious boundaries, according to your own statement. So what ARE the boundaries?
Also, what kind of "religion" does the Reverend preach?
The Reverend preaches the real stuff. I'm sure he'd be glad to elaborate.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm a strong atheist precisely because I have engaged in the necessary reflection.
Would it be your contention that bbarr hasn't engaged in the necessary bit of reflection to ascertain the epistemological criteria in question, hence his lingering weak atheism based on false criteria?
If not, how else could you explain his weak atheism, for if he has engaged in the necessary bit of reflection then he would have ascertained the proper criteria.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA weak atheist, by definition, is one who does not believe in the existence of God because he thinks there is insufficient evidence to back that position; however, he does not think there is sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God. If he did, and believed that God did not exist, then he would be a strong atheist. (I'm paraphrasing a distinction that weak atheists such as Rwingett have often made on this forum.)
I recall seeing this demonstrated only for cases that have the form of the lottery paradox, in which the subject of potential belief is such that the possible states of affairs are logically partitioned into classes each of which the weak atheist must deny due to a probability being less than .5.
The existence of God is not such a problem. The ...[text shortened]... ng as the weak atheist avoids assessing his beliefs about lottery problems, your claim is false.
In bbarr's case, I think he is a strong atheist, not a weak atheist. Now, is it the case that bbarr has not engaged in the reflection necessary to determine the criteria or is it the case that he has reflected, knows the sufficient criteria but has rejected them anyway (perhaps due to socio-psychological factors)? I have no idea - I am not his judge.
In summary, as long as the weak atheist avoids assessing his beliefs about lottery problems, your claim is false.
I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify?
In any case, the lottery class of problems is not a small issue in human lives. We take chances often (if not every day) - outweighing the potential benefits of low probability events against the high probability ones. We do it when we ask a person out, or sit for a job interview.
EDIT: Just saw bbarr's post - he is, indeed, a strong atheist.