It's so funny when you see swearing "out of context" like that. It's the reason why I don't use it on the internet, it has a lot more punch when I do.

Wrong again.

Why can't I find the like button at the top of your post?

Calilasseia wrote:Time for a spot of history.

<snip>
It simply remains for me to say, that having now enjoyed over two years of my tenure here at RatSkep, a big word of thanks is due not only to LIFE for providing a new ship, and to the many disparate individuals who make up the community here, whose contributions are valuable whether they're of a scientific or social nature, but also to the people over on the other vessel over at Rationalia, sailing a sometimes parallel course, sometimes engaging in zig-zagging of their own about the discoursive oceans, and whom I am not going to abandon in their own hour of need, as they find themselves subject to undeserved, and lately, wholly gratuitous shellfire.

Although I disagree with you as regards the on-going validity of mythology---but not, I hasten to add---as a substitute for either science or history, I thought this was a beautiful statement of appreciation of RatSkep, and in particular, of the community, which RD et al. tossed aside without a thought.

I, too, would like to thank all those who preserved bits of the old forum (chiefly Nineberry ). Not because I've gone back to that stuff, but rather because I know what a labour of love that kind of archiving can require (although maybe not so much for someone as tech-saavy as Neun?)

And to Nora for finding me and bringing me here.

Agrippina wrote:And to Nora for finding me and bringing me here.

How did I find you? I don't remember that. I do remember going to look for several of my pals...

Where did I find you? Was it Ratz?

I do remember telling Simon about this place and then he beat me over here! Kind of pissed cause I saw it first!

I don't remember. All I remember is that you called me over, and I was all excited about setting up lots of familiar threads.

I was searching for links to "Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics" (2nd ed.) by Thomas A. Sebeok (2001). I am a Christian and seriously entertain the fundamentalist and/or evangelical worldview(s). No hostility intended. No paraleipsis intended either. Was looking for more info about semiotics and structuralism. Maybe something good about semiotics which I can download onto a Kobo reader. If I were to suggest that theories in science are underdetermined by the facts (see 'underdeterminism' in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy) and therefore that for any particular set of facts the theories (yes, plural) can be fairly diverse and that diversity of theories in science could be a good thing -- would I be trashed as a result of being a Christian and arguing this point? Why must there be no diversity arguments about scientific theory?

As for skepticism: how do I entertain the idea that I have been lobotomized? Well, I do not remember being lobotomized, but my memory could be faulty or I could have repressed traumatic events around the time of the event. Perhaps nothing exists and solipsism is wrong. Pyrrhonists (sorry if this is wrong spelling) aside, skepticism is a good thing.

Are skepticism and credulity both on a single dimension? Mill's "On Liberty" is a good guide for people posting on sites. There are other accessible materials too. Hopefully there are not too many people on this lifeboat.

Anyway, the question about What is "representation"? was so interesting that I "save as"ed it and sent it to philosopher and scientist types. Thanks.

Welcome Lobotomy

I followed the breadcrumbs.

Lobotomy wrote:I was searching for links to "Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics" (2nd ed.) by Thomas A. Sebeok (2001). I am a Christian and seriously entertain the fundamentalist and/or evangelical worldview(s). No hostility intended. No paraleipsis intended either. Was looking for more info about semiotics and structuralism. Maybe something good about semiotics which I can download onto a Kobo reader. If I were to suggest that theories in science are underdetermined by the facts (see 'underdeterminism' in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy) and therefore that for any particular set of facts the theories (yes, plural) can be fairly diverse and that diversity of theories in science could be a good thing -- would I be trashed as a result of being a Christian and arguing this point? Why must there be no diversity arguments about scientific theory?

As for skepticism: how do I entertain the idea that I have been lobotomized? Well, I do not remember being lobotomized, but my memory could be faulty or I could have repressed traumatic events around the time of the event. Perhaps nothing exists and solipsism is wrong. Pyrrhonists (sorry if this is wrong spelling) aside, skepticism is a good thing.

Are skepticism and credulity both on a single dimension? Mill's "On Liberty" is a good guide for people posting on sites. There are other accessible materials too. Hopefully there are not too many people on this lifeboat.

Anyway, the question about What is "representation"? was so interesting that I "save as"ed it and sent it to philosopher and scientist types. Thanks.

Hello and Welcome You might want to start a separate thread in the "Welcome" forum, introducing yourself. (That's what most people do). If you do so, you will get a special welcome package full of goodies, jokes etc. from Durro.

Invitation posted at Theorama.org to play Old Testament mafia.

OK, how do I upload an avatar to this site?

Click UCP right under Board Index, then click on the Profile tab, then Edit avatar.

Nice to see you, Liz. Game starts in an hour. Best of luck, you'll need it!

I new and relatively fresh to the site. And a fresh person ought to have a fresh beginning. Good to be here.

Hi Ambient, nice to see you here. Please stop by the New Members forum and say hi there too.

Hi,

I found this site through a Google search on the question: "What is God?".
(A strange place to look for an answer to that question!)

Lol! Do you know what God is?

God means different things to different people. A mystical force, a sentient, powerful being who demands worship, coincidence given a name. To me, God means nothing. Just an idea people came up with to explain the world around them. An idea that should be scrapped, as we have better explanations now.

Googled in search of a thorough debunking of AiG/Mike Riddle's attempts to bolster nonsensical "new earth" assertions with additional idiocy - and found hackenslash's 3/2/2010 rebuttal of the bull. I was sold.

hackenslash is funny.

Welcome, Factgasmic!