Re: Re: Atheism
Originally posted by Digi
This:Not pretending. But if you truly (TRULY) believed God was real, you'd be ultra-religious 24/7. Most people never investigate their beliefs fully, are happy enough calling themselves Christian and paying lip service to their religion without ever really getting into. Christian in name only.
Perhaps 'guise' was the wrong word. Hopefully that gets my point across though. It's not most theists I have an issue with, it's headline theists that either create a society where the nonreligious feel ostracized, those who try to force their beliefs upon others, or those who create suffering in the world as a result of their beliefs.
Which relates back to this:
Outside of privately owned compounds and tiny towns in the middle of nowhere, where would Atheists feel "ostracized" in America? College campuses and big cities are pretty secular-friendly. Especially colleges and universities where "Christian" is a bad word.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Have you seen any debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'souza? It is not even close.
I've seen one; it was a moderated debate at some university. And there was no one-sided domination, it was more of a tennis match. Hitchens did better when it came to scientific topics like Intelligent Design, missing links and other arguments from design. And D'souza was better at debating human-specific abstract concepts like morality, conciousness and the self.
Have you seen the tv special The Four Horsemen? Its a documentary where Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris sit down and discuss religion. Well in it, Hitchens calls D'souza "one of the more well-versed of our detractors". So Hitchens admits that Dinesh D'souza isn't some Bible-thumping idiot from the Smokey Mountains or any other of the ignorant people he talks about when he says "the rantings of the godly" in God Is Not Great. He also apparently has a grudging respect for him.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you seen the tv special The Four Horsemen? Its a documentary where Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris sit down and discuss religion. Well in it, Hitchens calls D'souza "one of the more well-versed of our detractors". So Hitchens admits that Dinesh D'souza isn't some Bible-thumping idiot from the Smokey Mountains or any other of the ignorant people he talks about when he says "the rantings of the godly" in God Is Not Great. He also apparently has a grudging respect for him.
Sam Harris and I have this weird psychic connection on almost all issues...
Dawkins is overrated as a philosopher, Dennett as a scientist. I love Hitchens in general, though I tend to think he does outperform D'souza, if as an orator at the very least. His style appeals to me like that anyways.
for a program that had 4 people debating about things we shared the same opinions on, it was interesting, better than "the atheist tapes". I would have loved to see Hitchens defend his position on Iraq in that room a little more thouroughly.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Did you like Hitchens before or only after God Is Not Great?He's a writer for a pop-culture magazine, and it wasn't until that book was released that he started appearing on all the talkshows.
I might have seen him trounce George Galloway...
but ya, I definatly did. He has lots of debates on youtube and such, and his Vanity Fair stuff is always good.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Personally, I am unconvinced by atheists just as much as I am by theists.
I would say the samething myself but there are people with a scientific background who have done research and experiments that believe in the paranormal due to their research. There are scientists that believe scienitific experiments have proven that the paranormal exists.
I'm not entirely sure that James Randi and other people have disproven its existance. You will notice that there is always flaw in the experiement, the person is lying, or mad. So all people that believe in the paranormal are all lying, mad or just dumb. Sorry something wrong with that scenerio.
*waits for Symmetric Choas to turn up* Let the flame war begin! 😬
Originally posted by Deadline
I would say the samething myself but there are people with a scientific background who have done research and experiments that believe in the paranormal due to their research. There are scientists that believe scienitific experiments have proven that the paranormal exists.I'm not entirely sure that James Randi and other people have disproven its existance. You will notice that there is always flaw in the experiement, the person is lying, or mad. So all people that believe in the paranormal are all lying, mad or just dumb. Sorry something wrong with that scenerio.
*waits for Symmetric Choas to turn up* Let the flame war begin! 😬
They don't have to be lying, mad or dumb. Even the most intelligent people can be deceived in certain circumstances. James Randi is not necessarily out to disprove the paranormal either, he is out to disprove the many, many frauds preying on people, many of them emotionally vulnerable. He himself says he would be most excited to pay out the money for the million dollar challenge for a genuine paranormal discovery. The breakthrough for science in such a case would be immense. Most people claiming paranormal powers however are not taking the challenge, and the few who did could not replicate their claimed powers in an objective set up.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't have to be lying, mad or dumb. Even the most intelligent people can be deceived in certain circumstances.
Yes and theres that excuse as well. There is always an excuse and I'm sorry you can't be right 100% of the time.
Originally posted by Bardock42
James Randi is not necessarily out to disprove the paranormal either, he is out to disprove the many, many frauds preying on people, many of them emotionally vulnerable. He himself says he would be most excited to pay out the money for the million dollar challenge for a genuine paranormal discovery.
According to who? There are alot of people that have complained about Randi and some of these people are scientists. I've tried to look at both sides and sometimes its hard to tell whos telling the truth, but if this is true this seems pretty biased to me.
http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm
Originally posted by Bardock42
The breakthrough for science in such a case would be immense. Most people claiming paranormal powers however are not taking the challenge, and the few who did could not replicate their claimed powers in an objective set up.
Yes but scientific experiments have already proven that psi exists. The question is are people trying to deliberately debunk people with paranormal abilities? Also other scientists have stated that there is prejuidice towards the paranormal in the scientific community.
edit: Oh yeah people have taken up the challenge and I think at least one person is trying to sue him. Is Randi biased or was the paranormal person just butt hurt?
Originally posted by Deadline
Yes and theres that excuse as well. There is always an excuse and I'm sorry you can't be right 100% of the time.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Originally posted by Deadline
According to who? There are alot of people that have complained about Randi and some of these people are scientists. I've tried to look at both sides and sometimes its hard to tell whos telling the truth, but if this is true this seems pretty biased to me.
According to himself mostly. I read the article you stated, which is quite biased, but I personally do agree that they should be more open about their processes, however I can somewhat understand the rejection of the breatharian's claim, as the only possible outcome to disprove it seems to be that person's death of starvation, and of course no one wants to have a part in that.
Originally posted by Deadline
Yes but scientific experiments have already proven that psi exists. The question is are people trying to deliberately debunk people with paranormal abilities? Also other scientists have stated that there is prejuidice towards the paranormal in the scientific community.
Where have scientific experiments proven "psi" to exist. Are there peer-reviewed studies actually doing so? Are the findings repeatable?
Additionally, I do think we both can agree that one opinion piece on an actually somewhat questionable website has little more bearing than our opinions on the matter here.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Not every single person who claims to have experienced psi or paranormal can be lying, dumb or decieved that simpossible. It's like saying all muslims are terrorists. The reason why people always have an excuse is because there has to be some bias.
Originally posted by Bardock42
According to himself mostly. I read the article you stated, which is quite biased, but I personally do agree that they should be more open about their processes, however I can somewhat understand the rejection of the breatharian's claim,
I disagree with you 100%. Whats more plausible talking to dead people or being able to survive without food? 😬
Whats more plausible being able to teleport or being able to existance without food? You want to test extradinary claims but you want to reject it when people make these claims. No I'm sorry you can't have your cake and eat it, thats hypocrisy.
Hell I even think randi stated that Doctors had conducted experiements but he still wasn't interested you're just making excuses for him.
Originally posted by Bardock42
as the only possible outcome to disprove it seems to be that person's death of starvation, and of course no one wants to have a part in that.
I dunno that sounds like an excuse to me and I think you're putting words into Randi's mouth. There are safeguards that you can undertake to make sure he doesn't starve himself to death.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where have scientific experiments proven "psi" to exist. Are there peer-reviewed studies actually doing so? Are the findings repeatable?
First of all James Randi hasn't performed any experiements that were peer reviewed as far as I know but you seem to believe everything he pretty much says.
Theres the ganzfield experiement (of course people claimed that there were flaws in all the experiments) and theres this.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
However the person writing the article disagreed with her. Whos right and whos wrong?
Also other scientists have stated that psi has been proven.
Originally posted by Bardock42Additionally, I do think we both can agree that one opinion piece on an actually somewhat questionable website has little more bearing than our opinions on the matter here.
Yes and we can both agree you haven't proven anything either and we can also see how you're bending over backwards to defend him.
edit: Oh dear didn't see the rest of the site, Ugh lets forget that link.
Just to add heres the quote from jessica Utts from another site just in case you don't like that one.
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html#6.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.
A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.
It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.
Originally posted by Bardock42Additionally, I do think we both can agree that one opinion piece on an actually somewhat questionable website has little more bearing than our opinions on the matter here.
That site does actually look dodgey but I did some digging and he refers to part of what was discussed on that link here from Randi's site.
It won't stop. At www.alternativescience.com there's a chap named Kolodzey who wants to apply for the JREF prize because he claims that he can survive on nothing but water. I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but he's still carrying on about this nonsense. A critic writes to me:
Although I VERY MUCH DOUBT that he can do any such thing, I do not think that you did yourself any favors by, in effect, telling him to go jump in a lake. YOU are the guy who puts up the proud $1 Million challenge to all comers. Should have tested him out Randi.
I couldn't resist trying to explain a few basic facts to this man. I thought that perhaps I could introduce him to a factor that he may have heard of, but has never considered: reality. I listed for him a few claims, asking that he read and consider them carefully:
1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with video.
2. I am God.
3. I can survive for weeks without any nourishment besides water.
4. I can soften stone just by looking at it.
5. I can cure any disease, without exception, just by knowing the name of the patient.
6. I can make a meteorite hit any spot on Earth, on demand.
7. I can make it rain anywhere in the world, at any given time and date.
I added this:
Okay? Do you seriously think that we at the JREF should or would spend our valuable time and facilities investigating ANY of these juvenile notions? These claims are made by people who need and crave attention; we have no time to feed their egos. Often, they are only looking for their names to appear somewhere, and have no intention of ever doing what they have claimed. And, they will not agree to just do the stunt; they insist upon press and publicity to be brought in to glorify them. For example, when he was asked to have a meteorite hit my backyard the following Sunday as a simple indication of his powers, the claimant for #6, above, wanted us to issue a press release in advance, and take an ad in the paper. We of course refused, and he went away.
We are often criticized for going after only the silly people, the "easy" targets: dowsers, homeopaths, "applied kinesiology" practitioners, magnet gurus, etc. But these claims cost lives and tax dollars, so must be dealt with. How much more would we be criticized for going after the seven claims listed above? Yes, we've had all of those claims made, some many times over. We must ignore them, because they're just so juvenile. Testing any of them would take much time and labor, and at the end, we have exactly what we knew all along: the claim is an empty one. There's no satisfaction or reward in doing this.
We're a serious organization, not a circus, and we won't be drawn into stupid confrontations. Let them go to Gary Schwartz, at the University of Arizona, who will undoubtedly find them to be the real thing no matter what their claim is, simply because he doesn't know how to design and conduct a test.
A: Hey I can talk to the dead.
B: Really? Let me test that claim.
A: Also I can survive on nothing but water.
B: AWWW HELL NO!! YOU CAN SURVIVE ON NOTHING BUT WATER HOLY SHIT THATS JUST CRAZY TALK!!!!
Originally posted by Deadline
That site does actually look dodgey but I did some digging and he refers to part of what was discussed on that link here from Randi's site.It won't stop. At www.alternativescience.com there's a chap named Kolodzey who wants to apply for the JREF prize because he claims that he can survive on nothing but water. I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but he's still carrying on about this nonsense. A critic writes to me:
Although I VERY MUCH DOUBT that he can do any such thing, I do not think that you did yourself any favors by, in effect, telling him to go jump in a lake. YOU are the guy who puts up the proud $1 Million challenge to all comers. Should have tested him out Randi.
I couldn't resist trying to explain a few basic facts to this man. I thought that perhaps I could introduce him to a factor that he may have heard of, but has never considered: reality. I listed for him a few claims, asking that he read and consider them carefully:1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or observing or recording with video.
2. I am God.3. I can survive for weeks without any nourishment besides water.
4. I can soften stone just by looking at it.
5. I can cure any disease, without exception, just by knowing the name of the patient.
6. I can make a meteorite hit any spot on Earth, on demand.
7. I can make it rain anywhere in the world, at any given time and date.
I added this:
Okay? Do you seriously think that we at the JREF should or would spend our valuable time and facilities investigating ANY of these juvenile notions? These claims are made by people who need and crave attention; we have no time to feed their egos. Often, they are only looking for their names to appear somewhere, and have no intention of ever doing what they have claimed. And, they will not agree to just do the stunt; they insist upon press and publicity to be brought in to glorify them. For example, when he was asked to have a meteorite hit my backyard the following Sunday as a simple indication of his powers, the claimant for #6, above, wanted us to issue a press release in advance, and take an ad in the paper. We of course refused, and he went away.
We are often criticized for going after only the silly people, the "easy" targets: dowsers, homeopaths, "applied kinesiology" practitioners, magnet gurus, etc. But these claims cost lives and tax dollars, so must be dealt with. How much more would we be criticized for going after the seven claims listed above? Yes, we've had all of those claims made, some many times over. We must ignore them, because they're just so juvenile. Testing any of them would take much time and labor, and at the end, we have exactly what we knew all along: the claim is an empty one. There's no satisfaction or reward in doing this.We're a serious organization, not a circus, and we won't be drawn into stupid confrontations. Let them go to Gary Schwartz, at the University of Arizona, who will undoubtedly find them to be the real thing no matter what their claim is, simply because he doesn't know how to design and conduct a test.
A: Hey I can talk to the dead.
B: Really? Let me test that claim.
A: Also I can survive on nothing but water.
B: AWWW HELL NO!! YOU CAN SURVIVE ON NOTHING BUT WATER HOLY SHIT THATS JUST CRAZY TALK!!!!
I can understand where he is coming from though. It is not supposed to be free publicity for wackos. especially some claims so outlandish that they could be so easily proven and would receive huge publicity very easily if they chose to. The people this is aimed at is more people who already receive attention and are actually considered real by a considerable chunk of people and media. The fact is that any real paranormal skill could easily draw a lot of media attention, like the many, many fake ones already do. So perhaps the phrasing of the JREF is misleading as it should be "We will test you if you claim is plausible and supported by a decent amount of information (like newspapers and TV, etc.) rather than "We'll test you if you have the ability to make shit up", since that would be incredibly expensive.
Additionally, like I said, the breatharian test is problematic. As it should likely consist of the guy being locked in a room for 6 months with nothing but water and air, if he's alive in the end his claim may have some credence, though I think that might be quite illegal in most developed countries.
Originally posted by Deadline
Not every single person who claims to have experienced psi or paranormal can be lying, dumb or decieved that simpossible. It's like saying all muslims are terrorists. The reason why people always have an excuse is because there has to be some bias.
That's hardly scientific, and it is quite possible, really. And it's nothing like saying all muslims are terrorists.
Originally posted by Deadline
I disagree with you 100%. Whats more plausible talking to dead people or being able to survive without food? 😬
To me neither is plausible at all. However if you reread what I said, my claim wasn't based on plausibility at all.
Originally posted by Deadline
Whats more plausible being able to teleport or being able to existance without food? You want to test extradinary claims but you want to reject it when people make these claims. No I'm sorry you can't have your cake and eat it, thats hypocrisy.
I elaborated my view on that in the last post. So I will leave that from this one.
Originally posted by Deadline
Hell I even think randi stated that Doctors had conducted experiements but he still wasn't interested you're just making excuses for him.
I have no inherent bias towards James Randi. I can understand why he doesn't do it, I personally might even test one or two of those claims.
Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno that sounds like an excuse to me and I think you're putting words into Randi's mouth. There are safeguards that you can undertake to make sure he doesn't starve himself to death.
I am not putting words into Randi's mouth. Again I am not a spokesperson for him. I don't even know much about him, I have my own opinion, and what you quoted there is just that, I don't know whether that is part of the reason why Randi doesn't do it, or not, but that's something I'd consider.
Originally posted by Deadline
First of all James Randi hasn't performed any experiements that were peer reviewed as far as I know but you seem to believe everything he pretty much says.
I don't know where you get that from. You seem to have built up a view of me as some sort of James Randi zealot. I'd ask that we limit our discussion to what has actually been said rather than what we think the other might think.
Originally posted by Deadline
Theres the ganzfield experiement (of course people claimed that there were flaws in all the experiments) and theres this.http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
However the person writing the article disagreed with her. Whos right and whos wrong?
Also other scientists have stated that psi has been proven.
Scientific studies have to be repeatable. Do you know if anyone ever tried to repeat them. Or even change the methodology to be more unbiased with the same results. One paper, or a couple of scientists saying something means absolutely nothing. If significant "Psi" powers were real, they could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That has surely never happened so far.
Originally posted by Deadline
Yes and we can both agree you haven't proven anything either and we can also see how you're bending over backwards to defend him.edit: Oh dear didn't see the rest of the site, Ugh lets forget that link.
Good to see we are somewhat on the same page.
Originally posted by Deadline
I would say the samething myself but there are people with a scientific background who have done research and experiments that believe in the paranormal due to their research. There are scientists that believe scienitific experiments have proven that the paranormal exists.
no, they haven't