Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Angel]

Internet Skepticism by Rodin​

 

[JustHanging]

Internet Skepticism by Rodin​

Christians:

Give these people credit, at least they follow the bible. You sound like you fervently believe in the bible. Are you Westboro Baptist?

 

[Angel]

Yes, indeed, Internet Skepticism constitutes Rodin's answer to The Thinker -- the anguish of bad faith standing in stark contradistinction to and contradiction of human rationality and good faith. It's an allegory in bronze. A cautionary sculpture aimed at modern man. At the hubristic narcissism of modernity if you will.

 

[Angel]

Christians:
Give these people credit, at least they follow the bible. You sound like you fervently believe in the bible. Are you Westboro Baptist?

And you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Are you an Internet Skeptic?

 

[Angel]

The body language and facial expression of cognitive dissonance. Rodin might have called this work The Soul of Bad Faith.

 

[Angel]

The Two Attitudes

of Humanity

as captured by artistic genius

The Thinker

Internet Skepticism

​

 

[Angel]

That's gotta suck. Try getting a bigger man-bra.

Thus Spake Internet Skepticism.

 

[Angel]

When do you plan to comprehend that you have turned the idea of skepticism on its head when you claim that atheists don't exist but somehow god does? The core concept of skepticism is that God doesn't exist because there is nothing to support that claim. You cannot possibly be a skeptic and believe in god.

There are no such people as internet skeptics.

Atheists don't exist but God does -- I luv it, Lisa! Absolutely luv it! That's a wonderful campaign slogan. That would make a great "Signature" for a philosophical DP member, wouldn't it? I'm married to my Signature or I'd adopt this one in a heartbeat. Brava, Internet Skeptic. Brava, Internet Atheist!

 

[Angel]

"Anonymous Creepism"

There's science on it.

Who Is That? The Study of Anonymity and Behavior

In 1969, APS Fellow Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University dressed female students in lab coats, some plain with identity-concealing hoods, and some with name tags and no hoods. He told the students to give an electric shock to a confederate. The hooded participants were twice as likely to comply.

Zimbardo’s study was a formative piece of a rich body of research showing a link between anonymity and abusive behavior. Scientists have found a tendency for many people to act rudely, aggressively, or illegally when their faces and names are hidden.

Who Is That? The Study of Anonymity and Behavior – Association for Psychological Science – APS

 

[Angel]

More on "Anonymous Creepism":

Anonymity opens up split personality zone

Between out-of-control customers, vituperative online posters and road-raging drivers, it’s hard to find an individual who hasn’t succumbed to the siren song of faceless, consequence-free communication. Online boards are clogged with insults hurled by readers hiding behind deceptively mild screen names — (“I hope you rot in hell!” signed Kittyface) — and customer service reps endure blistering tirades from disembodied voices week in and week out.

These days there are a dozen ways to communicate without actually having to look somebody in the eye. As a result, not only have we developed an abrupt, abbreviated way to chat (IMHO), but our technological advances have spawned new psychological terms such as “online disinhibition effect” to explain our tendency to open up — in both good ways and bad — when we’re sitting in front of a screen.

Anonymity can turn nice people nasty - Health - Behavior | NBC News

The Role of Anonymity in Deindividuated Behavior

This literature review discusses the role of anonymity in deindividuation, the state of inner restraint on usual behavior that is experienced by individuals in a group. It will analyze two different models, deindividuation theory and Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), with regard to the role of anonymity within group contexts. After reviewing the current research from these two perspectives, the article demonstrates how the two models together present the most complete picture of anonymity and its relationship with deindividuation.

https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=77099

 

[Angel]

Another word on "Anonymous Creepism":

Rude Technology
Where have all the manners gone? Technology and rudeness.

Sitting in front of a computer, smartphone or tablet allows us to ignore social etiquette without being held accountable. Rudeness and meanness can be accomplished anywhere, anytime and to anyone -- whether family, friends, co-workers or total strangers -- with the help of modern technology. There are some who take pride in expressing bad behavior. They think cyberspace gives them the freedom to say whatever they want when, in reality, it just offers protection for a coward's attack. After all in the real world if you verbally attacked someone face to face the way many do online, you’d be looking at a confrontation at best; perhaps even a fight.

Rude Technology | Psychology Today

 

[vegas giants]

This is perhaps the worst attempt at an in advance victory lap by using your OP as a means to demean and disparage everyone who disagrees with you. Ironically, the worst display of religious principles in these forums in recent memory.

There have been people who have tried to engage in the discussion without resorting to anything in your list, no matter if you are unwilling to admit that.

The op is a concession of defeat

 

[Angel]

The op is a concession of defeat

You definitely get a call back, addressee. We are type-casting today.

 

[vegas giants]

You definitely get a call back, addressee. We are type-casting today.

That's nice. You conceded before you started

 

[Angel]

That's nice. You conceded before you started

You've demonstrated in just a handful of posts 7 out of 10 of the OP profile points. Kudos. And of course thank you.

 

[vegas giants]

You've demonstrated in just a handful of posts 7 out of 10 of the OP profile points. Kudos. And of course thank you.

How rude.


Why are Christian's so angry?

 

[Angel]

How rude.


Why are Christian's so angry?

Because of the Fall of Man.

 

[Angel]

Not believing something you claim but can't prove isn't some kind of sickness, you know. It's perfectly rational for me to not believe your fantastical claims until there is evidence to support them.

The evidence is all around you and within you, my good fellow. Open your eyes. Open your mind.
Now cue the Beatles song.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The evidence is all around you and within you, my good fellow. Open your eyes. Open your mind.
Now cue the Beatles song.

Ah I see, now you're making excuses as to why you can't provide any evidence. You're making a subjective argument, as if every human on earth will come to the exact same conclusion as you magically. That's not evidence.

I searched my soul and all around me and came to the conclusion there almost certainly is no god. If you honestly did the same you'd come to the same conclusion. Sound convincing? Not really.

Because of the Fall of Man.

And now you're pushing Christian dogma, despite the fact that there are hundreds of religions that contradict Christianity and its conclusions.

 

[Angel]

Ah I see, now you're making excuses as to why you can't provide any evidence. You're making a subjective argument, as if every human on earth will come to the exact same conclusion as you magically. That's not evidence.

I searched my soul and all around me and came to the conclusion there almost certainly is no god. If you honestly did the same you'd come to the same conclusion. Sound convincing? Not really.

And now you're pushing Christian dogma, despite the fact that there are hundreds of religions that contradict Christianity and its conclusions.

I say the evidence is all around you, and you say I'm making excuses for lack of evidence. If that makes sense to you, more power to you.

You say I'm "pushing Christian dogma" whereas I haven't said a word about Christianity. If that makes sense to you, more power to you.

The "power" of Internet Skepticism. It's awesome in its senselessness.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I say the evidence is all around you, and you say I'm making excuses for lack of evidence. If that makes sense to you, more power to you.
You say I'm "pushing Christian dogma" whereas I haven't said a word about Christianity. If that makes sense to you, more power to you.
The "power" of Internet Skepticism. It's awesome in its senselessness.

The fall of man is a Christian concept.

And you can't use your subjective interpretation of your surroundings as proof as every human being will come to a different conclusion, as 7 billion other people don't really agree with you and your conclusions. This is why people don't really engage with you, because you don't debate or address anything anybody says, you just insult and preach what you're going to preach.

 

[Angel]

The fall of man is a Christian concept.

And you can't use your subjective interpretation of your surroundings as proof as every human being will come to a different conclusion, as 7 billion other people don't really agree with you and your conclusions. This is why people don't really engage with you, because you don't debate or address anything anybody says, you just insult and preach what you're going to preach.

And "the Fall of Man" was an answer to a question: "Why are Christians so angry?" Where's the "pushing" you alleged?

The 7 million you refer to do agree with me -- unless you are inflating atheist stats here.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And "the Fall of Man" was an answer to a question: "Why are Christians so angry?" Where's the "pushing" you alleged?
The 7 million you refer to do agree with me -- unless you are inflating atheist stats here.

7 billion, and no, you don't get to round up all the religions, which all have conflicting beliefs, many with multiple gods or no gods, and file them under your umbrella. The nuttery you specifically believe is not shared by any significant number of people.

 

[Angel]

7 billion, and no, you don't get to round up all the religions, which all have conflicting beliefs, many with multiple gods or no gods, and file them under your umbrella. The nuttery you specifically believe is not shared by any significant number of people.

You are failing to make an important distinction -- the distinction between the existence of God and the nature of God. My arguments are all about the existence of God. The nature of God is the province of religion, and 1001 religions have 1001 different stories to tell about that, so yes, in this sense I can lump them all together.
See here:
The God Question

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You are failing to make an important distinction -- the distinction between the existence of God and the nature of God. My arguments are all about the existence of God. The nature of God is the province of religion, and 1001 religions have 1001 different stories to tell about that, so yes, in this sense I can lump them all together.
See here:
The God Question

What you're doing is trying to increase your likelihood of being right by pretending all religions are right. As if there were 5 religions on earth, each with a 20% chance of being right, and so you declare all of them right so that you can get a combined 100% chance of being right, despite each of those religions dramatically contradicting each other on basically everything. This is not proof, it's just you being pathetic on the internet.