| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Dog" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2008 05:24:12 AM |
| Object: |
A final hello, two explanations, and a permanent goodbye |
Hi all,
I am returning for one last post before permanently giving up the
name "Bob Dog".
I haven't written here in months for a variety of reasons, mostly
due to a lack of time (business and personal, among others). I'm
also returning for one final post only because "Beyond Belief" was
recently mentioned in the news and I was reminded of something that
happened a while back.
About three years ago, in one of his "Swift" postings, James Randi
derided Arthur C. Clarke's involvement in the renewed interest into
cold fusion. The "Swift" contained no information on the research,
so I looked up news on the topic myself.
http://www.randi.org/jr/102204the.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
As it turned out, some scientific reports in 2004 said that cold
fusion still worked at a microscopic level and might be able to
produce energy for nanotechnology. There has been further research
on the topic and some results suggest it works. I don't believe it
works, but I'm not closed minded to investigation as long as it's
properly done.
Back to the point: I wrote to Randi with a link to a news article on
the topic (long gone from news sites) and said, "Maybe this is what
Clarke was talking about". I don't recall my exact words, but that
was the tone and content of them, neutral and without comment.
The response from Randi? Profanity, and words along the lines of,
"You think you know more than me?" It was for that reason I never
made comment on Randi for about three years. Searching Google
Groups will verify that.
I said nothing about it, reasoning that "Who are the majority of
people going to believe?" The godbots generally lie and practice
character assassination against those who take the wind out of their
sails, but I've seen first hand that they were right about one thing:
Randi is intolerant of those who don't blindly agree with his views.
Some may call *this* post character assassination and running away.
So be it. But three years of keeping a lid on it is long enough,
and my words on this are as honest as my words on any other post I
ever made in nearly a decade.
---
Will I return to alt.atheism? At this point, probably not due to my
own time constraints, and if I were, it won't be under this name.
To those who remain, keep up the fight against religious ignorance.
I still am, I'm just doing it in different ways and places.
Gone only in pseudonym,
Bob Dog,
atheist # 153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
PS to Michelle Malkin (the intelligent one, not the belligerent one):
Feel free to reassign the number 153 on the list. I won't be posting
under that name and number anymore, and it wouldn't be proper to have
two numbers for the same real person.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A final hello, two explanations, and a permanent goodbye |
04 Feb 2008 08:21:42 AM |
|
|
Bob Dog <bg12...@apexmail.com> wrote:
The response from Randi? =A0Profanity, and words along
the lines of, "You think you know more than me?" =A0It
was for that reason I never made comment on Randi
for about three years. =A0Searching Google Groups will
verify that.
I said nothing about it, reasoning that "Who are the
majority of people going to believe?" =A0The godbots
generally lie and practice character assassination
against those who take the wind out of their sails, but
I've seen first hand that they were right about one thing:
Randi is intolerant of those who don't blindly agree with
his views.
I don't know about Randi, but I do know that his fans are
generally below average in intelligence, and highly
intolerant.
I once pointed out a horribly idiotic exchange someone
at Randi's organization had with someone who had
applied to the retarded "Challenge."
Later, one of the "True Believers" showed up in a newsgroup,
telling everyone that I myself had applied for Randi's million
dollar challenge. That, and that I had spent time on Randi's
forum "screaming abuses" at anyone who disagreed with
me.
Oh. Both of these things I did using fake handles in order
to hide my real identity, according to the nut job. And it
went on for years, according to the nut job. Yup. They
claimed they spent years defeating me in their wars of
words on the JREF forums.
(Psst. I never once posted ANYTHING to Randi's forum. I
only visited the JREF page to #1 get exact quotes
demonstrating what I was talking about and #2 the URLs
to the exact pages.)
Ironically, nothing I ever said was the least bit controversial.
Fact is, Randi's "Prize" DOES compare to Hovind's "prize."
The results are the same for both. Which is to say, stupid
and/or lazy people use them as an excuse to not think.
Seriously. If you require success or failure at winning a
prize to tell you whether a claim is legitimate, you're a
frigging idiot. I mean it. A normal person should be able
to figure it out on their own. Yet I've seen dozens -- if not
hundreds of people over the years -- respond to anything
that sounded the least bit supernatural with "Oh, yeah?
Then how come you didn't win the prize? Go get da
million! Yeah!"
Besides, the talk.origins website correctly points out that,
under Florida law (which covers Randi as well), they don't
even have to pay out the prize! They can legally withdraw
the offer at any time prior to satisfying all criteria for
winning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D8" |
|
| Title: Re: A final hello, two explanations, and a permanent goodbye |
04 Feb 2008 11:30:54 AM |
|
|
Bob Dog <bg12345@apexmail.com> said:
<...>
Back to the point: I wrote to Randi with a link to a news article on
the topic (long gone from news sites) and said, "Maybe this is what
Clarke was talking about". I don't recall my exact words, but that
was the tone and content of them, neutral and without comment.
The response from Randi? Profanity, and words along the lines of,
"You think you know more than me?" It was for that reason I never
made comment on Randi for about three years. Searching Google
Groups will verify that.
I said nothing about it, reasoning that "Who are the majority of
people going to believe?" The godbots generally lie and practice
character assassination against those who take the wind out of their
sails, but I've seen first hand that they were right about one thing:
Randi is intolerant of those who don't blindly agree with his views.
<...>
You know what? I've found that time and again, the people who get
themselves associated in the public eye with particular ideas, and end
up staking their identity and often, income, on that idea, can
gradually become more dogmatic and less capable of dealing with
rational inquiry about it. We get hints of this in Lakoff,
Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and Gould, for example.
Maybe they get one after another simplistic anti-rational opponent,
masquerading as a rational arguer, and gradually come to believe that
nobody who opposes them can be reached rationally or is worth the
trouble. Maybe on a less rational level, their dependence on their
idea for their identity and possibly, income, takes over their ability
to be objective and cordial about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
