Some rational thought with Mike Shermer

[Creepy Green Light]

I can hardly wait. I've never seen condescension as an avoidance response to my pointing out serious flaws in what we were told about 9/11 and the VERY OBVIOUS FACT WTC 7 was a 'victim' of a controlled demolition, and am sitting on the edge of my seat, eagerly awaiting. This will be such a new thing you are doing here. Never seen it before when trying to talk about this subject. Blown away by your creativity and originality, bro.

That's me being sarcastic.

Shermer denies OBVIOUS facts in front of his face, like WTC 7 being an OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE controlled demolition. I assume your attempt at humor to mean you deny such obvious and observable facts, too. I guess you think non-pilots can make jumbo-jets do things that are boderline, if not entirely, physically and aerodynamically impossible for said particular plane, like with the Pentagon plane, etc.

But I ain't a mind reader and am just guessing at your thoughts on all of that and at your intent with that post.



Nah, no need to get so fancy with all of that, Creepy. They have most people so well conditioned and trained to just nod their head and accept piles of bullshit as fact, like the three WTC buildings impossibly imploding upon themselves into their own footprint because of fire. They also have the good little boys and yes men trained to automatically make sure to completely avoid any logical and rational discussion concerning brought up pointing out of major flaws with what we see and were told about that day, and trained to try to pile on heaps of sarcastic ridicule as a means of argument and debate, or, rather, as a means avoiding argument and debate, and as a means to try to shut people up, and as a means to avoid having to face the fact they have been wrong about this and got sucked in by a bunch 'o bullshit for going on two decades about it all ...

Thank you for pointing out that you were being sarcastic. I thought you were serious. Not.

 

[Cat Jockey]

Thank you for pointing out that you were being sarcastic. I thought you were serious. Not.

No worries, dude. From your response, it looks to me like you miss completely obvious things right in front of your face, like the controlled, intentional demolition of the three WTC buildings, or possibly my sarcasm, so I thought I'd be a cool cat and help you out and help get you up to speed on some things. It was no trouble at all ...

 

[Cat Jockey]

Yea, 'ol Shermer is a real admirable guy:

“The first atheist event I ever went to, I was by myself, I didn’t know anyone,” said Ashley Miller, a South Carolinian who serves on the board of the Secular Student Alliance. “It was the Orange County Freethought Alliance, in May 2010.” She was 25 years old, and she wanted to meet PZ Myers, whose blog she admired. During a break, she approached a table where Shermer was selling his books.

“I went to his table, and he started hitting on me,” said Miller, who had never heard of Shermer before that day. “It was mildly creepy, but it happens. But then he started playing with his crotch while he was talking with me. Basically trying to get my eye to look at his penis through his jeans, just rubbing himself for three or four minutes until I finally extricated myself.”

...

“Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that,” Randi told me. “I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference.

“His reply,” Randi continued, “is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember. I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing … I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”

Full article here: Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

That is James Randi talking about Shermer. Look at Randi just blow it off and say, "which I guess is what men do when they are drunk." If he is violent , he gets tossed. If he sexually harasses women, well, no biggie, according to Randi. What a sexist d-bag Randi is, just like Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Yea, these guys are some beacon of critical thought in the darkness of the non-atheists, like Shermer supposedly is, lol. Fellow Atheists (I love how Atheists seem to not get the fact that Atheism is indeed, a RELIGION - a chosen set of beliefs with NO PROOF) Richard Dawkins also has is misogynistic side, too.

That is pretty much the top three Skeptics/Atheists - Shermer, Randi, and Dawkins. All three of them sexist d-bags ...

I find it interesting how skeptics/atheists and being complete d-bags to women, up to and including being accused of RAPE in the case of Michael Shermer (plenty of women have complained about him), seems to go hand-in-hand ...

 

[Ron Away]

Yea, 'ol Shermer is a real admirable guy:

“The first atheist event I ever went to, I was by myself, I didn’t know anyone,” said Ashley Miller, a South Carolinian who serves on the board of the Secular Student Alliance. “It was the Orange County Freethought Alliance, in May 2010.” She was 25 years old, and she wanted to meet PZ Myers, whose blog she admired. During a break, she approached a table where Shermer was selling his books.

“I went to his table, and he started hitting on me,” said Miller, who had never heard of Shermer before that day. “It was mildly creepy, but it happens. But then he started playing with his crotch while he was talking with me. Basically trying to get my eye to look at his penis through his jeans, just rubbing himself for three or four minutes until I finally extricated myself.”

...

“Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that,” Randi told me. “I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference.

“His reply,” Randi continued, “is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember. I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing … I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”

Full article here: Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

That is James Randi talking about Shermer. Look at Randi just blow it off and say, "which I guess is what men do when they are drunk." If he is violent , he gets tossed. If he sexually harasses women, well, no biggie, according to Randi. What a sexist d-bag Randi is, just like Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Yea, these guys are some beacon of critical thought in the darkness of the non-atheists, like Shermer supposedly is, lol. Fellow Atheists (I love how Atheists seem to not get the fact that Atheism is indeed, a RELIGION - a chosen set of beliefs with NO PROOF) Richard Dawkins also has is misogynistic side, too.

I find it interesting how skeptics/atheists and being complete d-bags to women, up to and including being accused of RAPE in the case of Michael Shermer (plenty of women have complained about him), seems to go hand-in-hand ...

Way to go,condemn a whole group because of one man and a second hand account.Atheism is not a belief system,it merely rejects a claim.
Person A. "There is a god"
Person B "Can you prove that?"
Person A "No"
Person B. " I don't believe you"

 

[Decker]

Yea, 'ol Shermer is a real admirable guy:

“The first atheist event I ever went to, I was by myself, I didn’t know anyone,” said Ashley Miller, a South Carolinian who serves on the board of the Secular Student Alliance. “It was the Orange County Freethought Alliance, in May 2010.” She was 25 years old, and she wanted to meet PZ Myers, whose blog she admired. During a break, she approached a table where Shermer was selling his books.

“I went to his table, and he started hitting on me,” said Miller, who had never heard of Shermer before that day. “It was mildly creepy, but it happens. But then he started playing with his crotch while he was talking with me. Basically trying to get my eye to look at his penis through his jeans, just rubbing himself for three or four minutes until I finally extricated myself.”..

Allow me to give you Kudos Cat Jockey, this is the first that I have heard anything like this about Michael Shermer. As I had mentioned earlier I do know Shermer but this information puts a whole new spin on him for me. I read the article you referenced and I must admit it did surprise me. Thanks again.

Decker

 

[Creepy Green Light]

No worries, dude. From your response, it looks to me like you miss completely obvious things right in front of your face, like the controlled, intentional demolition of the three WTC buildings, or possibly my sarcasm, so I thought I'd be a cool cat and help you out and help get you up to speed on some things. It was no trouble at all ...

"A cool cat"

 

[Cat Jockey]

... this is the first that I have heard anything like this about Michael Shermer. As I had mentioned earlier I do know Shermer but this information puts a whole new spin on him for me. I read the article you referenced and I must admit it did surprise me.

I'm all about sharing info - the more the better. It is an easy thing to insult someone you don't know, or make judgements about them from an 'incident' or two, and to end up being wrong, but with Shermer, there definitely seems to be an established pattern of douche baggery, especially towards women. And then, the Wall of Silence goes up from fellow Skeptics/Atheists, because he is one of the Front Men for the 'movement', and people don't want his behavior attached to their 'movement'. But, he is too entrenched, at this point, and is still a valuable mouth piece, so this kind of info isn't talked about all that much.

I give props to the women with the balls to stand up and speak out about his actions on the record - not the easiest thing to do because of his brand he has built for himself.

 

[Sand]

Full article here: Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

An enlightening article. Thanks for posting.

In addition to the discussion of misogyny in the Skeptical movement, the article quotes skeptic PZ Myers saying:

“But according to PZ Myers, atheists and skeptics may be uniquely unable to recognize their own flaws. ‘You’ll find the atheists who say, ‘I’m rational, therefore I’m better than everybody else,’” Myers said. ‘They take it for granted that all of their beliefs and positions are founded on rational thinking.’”

Well said. Too often “skeptics” views are simply unfounded beliefs based on faith.

 

[Cat Jockey]

I somehow missed this post, but want to respond, for this is a subject that has been a large occupation of my thoughts since I was 13 and called a meeting with a Jesuit named Father Lawless (that was his real name, lol - couldn't be more appropriate for a Jesse) at school and told him that he needed to prove to me that the Bible was the word of God, and not just the Word of Man. He couldn't, Best I got was, "Ya just gotta trust me, kid."

Not good enough, old man.

Way to go,condemn a whole group because of one man and a second hand account.

It isn't just one man, it is the LEADERSHIP of the movement. You know who Richard Dawkins is, right? He has a little sexism problem, as does Randi, as does Shermer.

And this Wall of Silence the Movement has put up is obvious - Shermer should have been banned, and people like Fox news should have been WARNED by the atheist/skeptics movement, so as to not associate themselves with such a d-bag. So, I took some liberty in the entirety of that condemnation, yes, but you are not giving full credit to the Movement's issues in leadership and the Movements Wall of Silence erected around their charismatic mouth pieces that have access to things like Fox News and put asses in seats at conferences and sell books. I understand your point, and consider it fair to an extent, but the Movement has a little Guilt by Association & Silence thing going on, too, so I stand my point to an extent, as well.

That is why I gave the women with the balls to speak up props - for the Movement is NOT and has failed them, setting those innocent women up to interact with d-bags like Shermer ...

Atheism is not a belief system,it merely rejects a claim.
Person A. "There is a god"
Person B "Can you prove that?"
Person A "No"
Person B. " I don't believe you"

You are confusing Agnosticism with Atheism. Richard Dawkins does the same damn thing, and it sounds like you are in his, and other Atheists, semantical trap. I bought his book The God Delusion when it came out. I never finished reading it. I didn't even get very far in it. Not because I am close minded or have an aversion to reading, but because he immediately began changing the definition of the two and trying to equate being an Agnostic as an Atheist, which is what you are doing, so it became impossible to take him seriously on the subject, for he didn't even seem to understand the basic differences between the two concepts. Or he did understand, but was trying to meld them together into one.

You are describing Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

According to the philosopher William Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."

Now, type 'atheism' into Google, and that little Knowledge Box provides you with the definition from the American Atheists organization:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

They are saying the same incorrect thing you are. Note the 'older dictionaries' part. Lol. The Movement has CHANGED the definition of Atheism to include Agnostics. Why? Why are Atheists like Dawkins trying to lure you Agnostics into their folds by manipulating the definitions of words that have distinct philosophical importance? Easier to put your ass in a convention seat or sell a book? Because people like Dawkins and Shermer aren't as smart or logical as they think and tell everyone they are? Or ?...?

Atheism, Ron Away, is MOST DEFINITELY REJECTS any existence of a God, and is subsequently accurately defined as a BELIEF SYSTEM. I am quite accurate on that, despite you saying otherwise. However, as of the last few decades, people have been changing that definition. And the thing is, you MOST DEFINITELY have many, many people today who call themselves Atheists that believe there is NO God. And because they have NO PROOF or even a MODICUM OF EVIDENCE to support that CHOSEN belief about the Præternatural, it is indeed a Religion.

So, Ron, are you really an Atheist, or are you more accurately described as an Agnostic? I used to be FULLY Agnostic, and was when I read Dawkins book, so I was looking forward to reading it. I accepted that either case could be true; that there may or may not be a God, and in the end, I was just too damn stupid/would never have enough evidence to figure it out. Who the hell knows. Nobody does or will. But, I am no longer Agnostic, for I believe there is 'Something' going on in that vein of a higher power that has some responsibility for what is going on down here and with us.

I call it the Spirit Realm, and I believe it interacts with our material world, including Evil coming through. Physicists call them other dimensions. I call it my Soul. New Agers call it Energy. And though the biochemical energy of my body may come to an end, I don't think that is the only Energy going on inside of me. Eastern Traditions have similar type notions with Chi, Qi Gong, etc. The people who believe the bullshit the Jesuits handed their Sionist buddy Sitchin call them the Annunaki. I call it a Higher Power.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I heard for this next election everyone's going to have to answer a question on a form that asks if you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy/planned on purpose. If you check the box marked "YES" - then you are kicked out of the building, not allowed to vote, nor never allowed to cast a vote again.

 

[Ron Away]

I somehow missed this post, but want to respond, for this is a subject that has been a large occupation of my thoughts since I was 13 and called a meeting with a Jesuit named Father Lawless (that was his real name, lol - couldn't be more appropriate for a Jesse) at school and told him that he needed to prove to me that the Bible was the word of God, and not just the Word of Man. He couldn't, Best I got was, "Ya just gotta trust me, kid."

Not good enough, old man.



It isn't just one man, it is the LEADERSHIP of the movement. You know who Richard Dawkins is, right? He has a little sexism problem, as does Randi, as does Shermer.

And this Wall of Silence the Movement has put up is obvious - Shermer should have been banned, and people like Fox news should have been WARNED by the atheist/skeptics movement, so as to not associate themselves with such a d-bag. So, I took some liberty in the entirety of that condemnation, yes, but you are not giving full credit to the Movement's issues in leadership and the Movements Wall of Silence erected around their charismatic mouth pieces that have access to things like Fox News and put asses in seats at conferences and sell books. I understand your point, and consider it fair to an extent, but the Movement has a little Guilt by Association & Silence thing going on, too, so I stand my point to an extent, as well.

That is why I gave the women with the balls to speak up props - for the Movement is NOT and has failed them, setting those innocent women up to interact with d-bags like Shermer ...



You are confusing Agnosticism with Atheism. Richard Dawkins does the same damn thing, and it sounds like you are in his, and other Atheists, semantical trap. I bought his book The God Delusion when it came out. I never finished reading it. I didn't even get very far in it. Not because I am close minded or have an aversion to reading, but because he immediately began changing the definition of the two and trying to equate being an Agnostic as an Atheist, which is what you are doing, so it became impossible to take him seriously on the subject, for he didn't even seem to understand the basic differences between the two concepts. Or he did understand, but was trying to meld them together into one.

You are describing Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

According to the philosopher William Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."

Now, type 'atheism' into Google, and that little Knowledge Box provides you with the definition from the American Atheists organization:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

They are saying the same incorrect thing you are. Note the 'older dictionaries' part. Lol. The Movement has CHANGED the definition of Atheism to include Agnostics. Why? Why are Atheists like Dawkins trying to lure you Agnostics into their folds by manipulating the definitions of words that have distinct philosophical importance? Easier to put your ass in a convention seat or sell a book? Because people like Dawkins and Shermer aren't as smart or logical as they think and tell everyone they are? Or ?...?

Atheism, Ron Away, is MOST DEFINITELY REJECTS any existence of a God, and is subsequently accurately defined as a BELIEF SYSTEM. I am quite accurate on that, despite you saying otherwise. However, as of the last few decades, people have been changing that definition. And the thing is, you MOST DEFINITELY have many, many people today who call themselves Atheists that believe there is NO God. And because they have NO PROOF or even a MODICUM OF EVIDENCE to support that CHOSEN belief about the Præternatural, it is indeed a Religion.

So, Ron, are you really an Atheist, or are you more accurately described as an Agnostic? I used to be FULLY Agnostic, and was when I read Dawkins book, so I was looking forward to reading it. I accepted that either case could be true; that there may or may not be a God, and in the end, I was just too damn stupid/would never have enough evidence to figure it out. Who the hell knows. Nobody does or will. But, I am no longer Agnostic, for I believe there is 'Something' going on in that vein of a higher power that has some responsibility for what is going on down here and with us.

I call it the Spirit Realm, and I believe it interacts with our material world, including Evil coming through. Physicists call them other dimensions. I call it my Soul. New Agers call it Energy. And though the biochemical energy of my body may come to an end, I don't think that is the only Energy going on inside of me. Eastern Traditions have similar type notions with Chi, Qi Gong, etc. The people who believe the bullshit the Jesuits handed their Sionist buddy Sitchin call them the Annunaki. I call it a Higher Power.

I'm always interested in what you have to say,you seem to be a smart person.I have never bought or will ever feel the need to buy any atheists books,the way my mind works is that I need evidence for any claim.As to wether atheism is a belief system I will borrow the following quote.

 

[Ron Away]

 

[Cat Jockey]

Well, I dunno who Ricky Gervais is, but he is wrong as hell, too, lol. There are ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS of those words, and you, Dawkins, and this Gervais dude are using them wrong. An Agnostic does not equal an Atheist, and an Atheist has a BELIEF SYSTEM that no God or Higher Power exists. An Agnostic has the belief system, or rather the 'view and thoughts on the issue' as you do with no belief system attached, like you laid out in your post ...

Atheists, BY DEFINITION, BELIEVE there is no God/Higher Power/etc. Guys like Dawkins, the LEADERS of the Atheist movement, have changed the definition of terms to include Agnostics under the umbrella of Atheists, further encouraging those Agnostics to start inaccurately calling themselves Atheists. So, Ron, if an Atheist is what you are inaccurately saying it is, what do you call a person who absolutely believes there is no God/Higher Power, a person with a BELIEF that there is no God/Higher Power, for those people are out there?

Are you to make up a new word for those people, people who have a definitely distinct and different view on the matter of the Præternatural than you express as yours? And why would you do that? For a perfectly good word already exists - Atheists.

Can't say it anymore clearly than that, and quoting somebody in a quippy picture who doesn't understand the definition, both literally and philosophically, of the concept of Atheism doesn't change the philosophical definitions of those words, or make me incorrect, for I am not.

You and I will obviously have to agree to disagree on this. Last word is your on the issue ...

Remind me to not let you borrow my dictionary, for you might start scratching things out and writing new things in on me, lol. I kid, of course ...

EDIT: Just to be clear, Ron, I am not attacking your thoughts on the issue of God/Higher Power stuff, or criticizing those, I am speaking merely of proper terminology and what I have witnessed guys like Dawkins do with that terminology to try to include people in Atheists, that by their own words, like yours, are not Atheists, but Agnostic, and how it has filtered down throughout the 'movement', and the implications ...

 

[Cat Jockey]

I heard for this next election everyone's going to have to answer a question on a form that asks if you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy/planned on purpose. If you check the box marked "YES" - then you are kicked out of the building, not allowed to vote, nor never allowed to cast a vote again.

Awesome. My first Peanut Gallery Fan Boy at the Paracast forum. Follow me around a bit here and pay attention, Creepy, ya might learn sumpin' ...

 

[Ron Away]

Well, I dunno who Ricky Gervais is, but he is wrong as hell, too, lol. There are ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS of those words, and you, Dawkins, and this Gervais dude are using them wrong. An Agnostic does not equal an Atheist, and an Atheist has a BELIEF SYSTEM that no God or Higher Power exists. An Agnostic has the belief system, or rather the 'view and thoughts on the issue' as you do with no belief system attached, like you laid out in your post ...

Atheists, BY DEFINITION, BELIEVE there is no God/Higher Power/etc. Guys like Dawkins, the LEADERS of the Atheist movement, have changed the definition of terms to include Agnostics under the umbrella of Atheists, further encouraging those Agnostics to start inaccurately calling themselves Atheists. So, Ron, if an Atheist is what you are inaccurately saying it is, what do you call a person who absolutely believes there is no God/Higher Power, a person with a BELIEF that there is no God/Higher Power, for those people are out there?

Are you to make up a new word for those people, people who have a definitely distinct and different view on the matter of the Præternatural than you express as yours? And why would you do that? For a perfectly good word already exists - Atheists.

Can't say it anymore clearly than that, and quoting somebody in a quippy picture who doesn't understand the definition, both literally and philosophically, of the concept of Atheism doesn't change the philosophical definitions of those words, or make me incorrect, for I am not.

You and I will obviously have to agree to disagree on this. Last word is your on the issue ...

Remind me to not let you borrow my dictionary, for you might start scratching things out and writing new things in on me, lol. I kid, of course ...

Not believing in the tooth fairy isn't a belief system.Dawkins et al are high profile atheists,they are not my or anybody else's leader.For the record I find Dawkins a bore who loves the sound of his own voice.As you say we will never agree as I BELIEVE (why do you emphasise in capitals?,I'm not deaf,Lol) we are on different paths.

 

[Cat Jockey]

(why do you emphasise in capitals?,I'm not deaf,Lol)

And I am not yelling. Why, when engaged in normal conversation, do you emphasize words with your voice and body language? I assure you, my motivations for such emphasis are the same as yours ...

Again, my intent has not been to be confrontational, just talkin' with folks I have never met and live nowhere near me (pretty cool what this Net thing can do for us), emphasizing an all ...

we are on different paths

Lol. The Path I am on is pretty damn lonely, I don't even see any damn footprints, let alone other people, and few people can hear the Drummer I March to, but he lays down a real good groove and all ya'll are missin' out...

 

[Ron Away]

And I am not yelling. Why, when engaged in normal conversation, do you emphasize words with your voice and body language? I assure you, my motivations for such emphasis are the same as yours ...

Again, my intent has not been to be confrontational, just talkin' with folks I have never met and live nowhere near me (pretty cool what this Net thing can do for us), emphasizing an all ...



Lol. The Path I am on is pretty damn lonely, I don't even see any damn footprints, let alone other people, and few people can hear the Drummer I March to, but he lays down a real good groove and all ya'll are missin' out...

If you see no footprints, then you are making your own way,which can't be a bad thing.Good luck on your journey.