Jan 17, 2010 -- 9:05PM, 2bme wrote:

Now it became clear.  Simone was not referring to doubt but rather to emotionally colored doubt: negative pre-conception that indeed is a psychological poison.

This is what I read in atheism and what I've experienced on the Internet.  The positive atheist exudes negative emotion that ruins the inner psychological benefit of doubt.

No, that is not what you've experienced on the internet. When you have expressed yourself in vague and pompous abstractions, you have been asked what they mean. When you have made unsupported assertions, you have been asked to support them. When you have made statements that appear to be untrue, you have been confronted with objections to them. This is what you must expect in a debate forum. You should be prepared to define your terms, support your assertions, and counter any objections - and if you aren't prepared (and you clearly haven't been) you should blame yourself, not those of us who have exposed your inadequacies. We are not psychological poisoners. We are not exuding negative emotions. When a debater resorts to such absurd and insulting accusations simply because he is disappointed by the reception he has received, it is time he stopped making excuses and took a good, hard look at himself.   

And let's start out with a REAL definition of skepticism, not some wafty bs:

'Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Skepticism is what drives knowledge forward.

Blind acceptance of dogma and 'received wisdom' has been tried in the past.  When it happened in Europe we now refer to that time period as the Dark Ages, because the light of inquiry and intelligence was smothered out by the Christian church.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:12AM, 2bme wrote:

It is curious how no one recognizes this idea of the corrupting influence of negative emotion on doubt.  Everyone wants to defend the  necessity of doubt but no one recognizes the influence of negative emotion on the quality of doubt.

What the stoics came appreciate from experience, the atheists are still unwilling and prefer basking in the poison of negative emotion justifying their doubt.

I think skepticism is a good thing. I'm comfortable with uncertainty and questioning.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:12AM, 2bme wrote:

It is curious how no one recognizes this idea of the corrupting influence of negative emotion on doubt.  Everyone wants to defend the  necessity of doubt but no one recognizes the influence of negative emotion on the quality of doubt.

That's because no one has been experiencing any negative emotion.

What the stoics came to appreciate from experience, the atheists are still unwilling and prefer basking in the poison of negative emotion justifying their doubt.

Nonsense. This is a debate board and the atheists here have been debating you. "Negative emotion" has nothing to do with it. It seems to me that all the bad feeling is on your side.

Human nature is fascinating!