!Xx+-Rational-+xX!'s Skeptical Statements!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I'm not supposed to spam other peoples threads so I'm going to post my intelligent skeptical statements that you all love here! Feel free to post your own, spam, and discuss crab people!

Irrational woo-woos crumble when faced with the critical observation of intellectually superior skeptics!

Its unfortunate how dumb woo-woos can still cling to their delusional views with all of the elite skeptical inquiry out there!

It’s only those with critical observation and a skeptical approach who have a monopoly on “right thinking”!

"We can only dream of a perfect world where popular kids in the "in crowd" will be those with a skeptical approach and a materialistic world view, the rest will be stupid outcasts! The outcasts will be rejected and occasionally dry humped by crazy people!

The only problem with this is dreaming is irrational for intellectually superior minds such as myself and most skeptics who happen to have a monopoly on "right thinking"!"

Science always tells us that skeptics are right, to think otherwise would be illogical and unscientific!

Skeptics are the great defenders of science so to question their objectiveness is to make a direct attack on science itself!

To understand the mind of a skeptic would be to understand the nature of reality and the great scientific method in its purest most objective form!

It should be evident that the essence of science lies within skeptical criticism this is something not even the deluded quacks can take away!

To choose the unjustified path of the believer is to exist in total ignorance of prevailing rational views scientifically made indisputable by exceedingly intelligent skeptics!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The day kooks learn to present arguments for their ludicrous position absent of flawed logical fallacies unlike their superior skeptic opposition will be a day that the righteous critical thinkers shall never bear witness to.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I'm on a roll here!

Only bright individuals have been ingenious enough to rightfully conclude that science denies the paranormal and the paranormal denies science since its trying to substitute the sum of what has been accomplished with the scientific method in place of rubbish claims and nonsensical quackery!

[Zep]

Why is your avatar a towel with eyes? Does this mean anything?

You see, the main difference between skeptics and woo-woos is that we skeptics ask questions and the woo-woos don't. In fact, it seems to be forbidden in a lot of woo-woo cases.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Zep
Why is your avatar a towel with eyes? Does this mean anything?

You see, the main difference between skeptics and woo-woos is that we skeptics ask questions and the woo-woos don't. In fact, it seems to be forbidden in a lot of woo-woo cases.

My avatar is just our good friend towlie! Don't forget to bring a towel!

This is true of skeptics and woo-woos but the woo-wooists are far worse then just that they are attempting to destroy the scientific establishment!

[Zep]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
My avatar is just our good friend towlie! Don't forget to bring a towel!

Have you ever read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

This is true of skeptics and woo-woos but the woo-wooists are far worse then just that they are attempting to destroy the scientific establishment!

Actually, most woo-woos are in it for the money and the notariety. In fact, just the money.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Have you ever read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Nope, this troll never heard of that!

Actually, most woo-woos are in it for the money and the notariety. In fact, just the money.

Woo-woos also want to destroy science and force their delusions on everyone but it will never shake the true rational thinkers!

http://southparkstudios.com/down/download.html?file=/media/sounds/508/HOTELTOWEL.wav

http://southparkstudios.com/down/download.html?file=/media/sounds/508/FUNKYTOWN.wav

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/508/img_02.gif

[Zep]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Zep
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/)

Looks good!


I'm on a rational statement making rampage!

[hgc]

Cartman: Rational, you're the worst skeptic ever.

Rational: Yup.

;)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by hgc
Cartman: Rational, you're the worst skeptic ever.

Rational: Yup.

;)

Yes, I'm the worst skeptic ever at being irrational I just can't seem to do say anything that isn't rational!

:book:

The quacks can take our lives but they will never take our critical thinking!!!!!!!!!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Dreams are a woo-woo belief! Sure it would be nice if we could magically go to some dream world every time we sleep but that doesn’t mean we should get irrational and believe in fairy tales!

- All accounts of dreaming are anecdotes making it unscientific!
- Dreaming can be explained by the placebo effect! People hear of others have so-called dreams so they delude themselves into thinking that they had one because of wishful thinking!
- If we are going to believe in dreams we might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns!
- Occam’s razor tells us that dreams don’t exist!
- The memory is fallible so it can’t be trusted when people think they have these magical experiences!
- They can also be caused by false memories! Nobody actually dreams they just fool themselves into thinking they did by implanting their own false memories and clear delusions!
- People don’t dream but they may delude themselves into thinking that they did because of a combination of wishful thinking, the placebo effect, false memories, and due to the fallibility of memory!
- Dreams can’t be seen by science which is the most reliable method which discredits dreams!
- There are no experiments showing evidence for dreams and if there ever are it must be flawed and it can never be replicated enough to the satisfaction of rational skeptics!
- Believing in dreams is irrational and there is no reason for us skeptics to believe this woo-woo idea when there is no evidence unless if you want to be a kook that believes anecdotes!

Debunked!

[Tricky]

Is it possible to set a whole thread on ignore?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is it possible to set a whole thread on ignore?

No! Face it your illogical belief of dreams has been debunked!

[Aoidoi]

Can't read most of the thread due to a small issue with ignore, but I have a suggestion.

Can we send this guy to Afghanistan? I'm really just looking for a Towlie ban.

(Apologies to South Park, I saw that episode recently and couldn't believe they sank to bad puns. Er, actually, I believed it perfectly well, was just pained by it)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Can't read most of the thread due to a small issue with ignore, but I have a suggestion.

Can we send this guy to Afghanistan? I'm really just looking for a Towlie ban.

(Apologies to South Park, I saw that episode recently and couldn't believe they sank to bad puns. Er, actually, I believed it perfectly well, was just pained by it)

You could try that is if you hate science and critical thinking!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Yes!~

I swear I will start posting here drunk

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Dreaming does not exist so prove me wrong f**king kooks!~

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

If something like telekinesis were ever proven then we will just hire someone who can actually do telekinesis to do it under laboratory conditions several times then later they will claim that it was from trickery! Then people won't believe in TK anymore and our beleifs will be safe again! We don't have to worry about this happening though because the paranormal is irrational and science disproves it and science says "you can't be f**ing real"! Kooks you can't deny that science says this!

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
...so prove me wrong f**king kooks!~

"Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there!"
- Red Rider

:nope:

Barkhorn.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


"Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there!"
- Red Rider

:nope:

Barkhorn.

Dreaming isn’t real and I have debunked it! Face it even though our wishful thinking may lead us to get irrational but we must rise above that type of fallacious woo-woo thinking! The only rational conclusion that we can come to is that dreaming is just unscientific delusions! If anyone can show dreaming to be real then there is a man named Mr. James Randi who has a million dollars just waiting for you!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Critical thinking rules! Just look at this!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

People you have to understand that these videos show the true origin of woo-wooism!

http://homepage.mac.com/howheels/rubpics/woowoo.wmv
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ccattie/woo/woo.swf

Randi has a lot of work to do if he wants to compete with the woo-woos to save science because this guy is certainly much more charismatic and less grumpy!

[wayrad]

Could somebody please ask the Starving Troll Rescue Society to schedule a pickup?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by wayrad
Could somebody please ask the Starving Troll Rescue Society to schedule a pickup?

This rational troll is needed in order to save science because most of you skeptics are wimps and are going easy on the quacks! Somebody has to speak out we are fighting a holy war (under great materialism) against woo-wooism and irrational thinking and too many mother f**ers are going soft on these kooks but I won't!

[Aussie Thinker]

What sort of dementia do you have to have to make 377 posts.. all trolls !

That is hilarious in its inanity..

Even a troll gets bored after a while…

You know the irony… if Rational is typical of the anti-sceptic.. no wonder we start to get the superiority complexes he endows us with !

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
What sort of dementia do you have to have to make 377 posts.. all trolls !

That is hilarious in its inanity..

Even a troll gets bored after a while…

You know the irony… if Rational is typical of the anti-sceptic.. no wonder we start to get the superiority complexes he endows us with !

!Xx+-Rational-+xX! is pro-skeptic and anti-woowoo not the other way around! I will never get bored with standing up for the materialistic principles made undeniable by science! Do you want to let the quacks win? I for one will not go soft on the kooks and let them rape our science! Yes, skeptics are superior but that is because we are smarter and live in reality (materialism) and don't believe far-out fairy tales!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

To all true skeptics on this board if science means anything to you then!...

1. Do as I say!
2. Go door to door promoting atheism!
3. Be harder and more dissmissive towards the kooks and their arguments!
4. Don't believe in irrational things like ghosts or dreaming!

[Stereolab]

Rational! I am wondering if you have tried to take your skepticism one step further, and disprove not just dreaming, but also disprove all thinking entirely? I look around this board, and sometimes I fool myself into believing there is evidence of thinking, but then I realize that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that people are not thinking at all. As my skeptical powers are no match for yours, I seek your wisdom!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Critical thinking rules! Just look at this!
(picture)

Ok, not to encourage you, but I thought that strawman was pretty funny. :)

I think a skeptic, based on the evidence of people having accidents and needing 911 and the non-extraordinaryness of that claim, would investigate and summon help.

[plindboe]

Rational, keep up the good fight. Science is threatened and needs us to instill rationality in the kooks before it's too late. Their gods, dreams and magic is all illogical wishful thinking, and doesn't belong in a world where reality rules. Humanity will be far better off without all this lunacy.

[jj]

Rational is clearly one of those people who doesn't see why various false claims of the supernatural (I'm not saying there are no true claims, I'm just saying that I haven't met any, and neither have a lot of other people I trust to evaluate them) matter, and he's mocking us for actually giving a (**n.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by jj
he's mocking us for actually giving a (**n.

Give me a (**n!

(**n!

LOUDER!

LOUDER!

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by jj
Rational is clearly one of those people who doesn't see why various false claims of the supernatural (I'm not saying there are no true claims, I'm just saying that I haven't met any, and neither have a lot of other people I trust to evaluate them) matter, and he's mocking us for actually giving a (**n.

Hmm, you've apparently been around here a lot more than I have, but that's not how I interpret Rational at all.

Rational and Tai Chi are my two favorite posters here so far:

Tai Chi: skeptical in the truest sense--questioning, trying to understand--is comfortable not "knowing"

Rational: very humorously satirizes the sizable "pseudo-skeptic" community on here--those who simply won't accept that there may be things that they will never understand, and seemingly post on these forums solely to attack anyone who may believe in something they cannot "prove"

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Rational! I am wondering if you have tried to take your skepticism one step further, and disprove not just dreaming, but also disprove all thinking entirely? I look around this board, and sometimes I fool myself into believing there is evidence of thinking, but then I realize that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that people are not thinking at all. As my skeptical powers are no match for yours, I seek your wisdom!

It is very tempting to debunk something like that since it has no evidence but I can't because I put so much wait into rational thinking! Dreams are the worst woo-woo belief because a lot of normally rational skeptics have fallen for this one!

Rational is clearly one of those people who doesn't see why various false claims of the supernatural (I'm not saying there are no true claims, I'm just saying that I haven't met any, and neither have a lot of other people I trust to evaluate them) matter, and he's mocking us for actually giving a (**n.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! I'm with the skeptics this may look like a parody but I'm so frickin hardcore because what is at stake is no joke!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by plindboe
Rational, keep up the good fight. Science is threatened and needs us to instill rationality in the kooks before it's too late. Their gods, dreams and magic is all illogical wishful thinking, and doesn't belong in a world where reality rules. Humanity will be far better off without all this lunacy.

Exactly we must crush all of this nonsense in the name of nothing other than science!



Believers it’s not too late to repent and give up your old illogical ways and walk the righteous path of a materialist critical thinker! This will do much to help ensure the survival of humanity!

[jj]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


Give me a (**n!

(**n!

LOUDER!

LOUDER!


What's it spell?

:D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Skeptics rest assured that we are the best there is! So maybe a lot of you were picked on in school because you got good grades and the teachers liked you but you always knew that you were smarter then all of them didn’t you?! We can live in comfort knowing that science tells us that there is no foolish afterlife or aliens! What does this mean?!~ This means that we can live without worry knowing that we are the most intelligent beings in existence riding on the very top of the always changing process of evolution! There is no one and nothing out there that can match our high level of brilliance! In light of all of this we as skeptics must conclude that we were put here to be smarter then everyone and with the purpose of upholding the great method of science!

[Stereolab]

Help! I thought I was a skeptic, but now I am beginning to believe that Rational is a God!! I'm so confused.

[jj]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Help! I thought I was a skeptic, but now I am beginning to believe that Rational is a God!! I'm so confused.

So, stereolab, where did you come by your name?

I know at least a few businesses named that, you belong to any of them I might know about?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Feel free to post your own, spam, and discuss crab people!



Who are these mysterious crab people (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crab+people) ?

:confused:

the urban dictionary sheds little light on this

http://www.geocities.com/jonny_clydesdale/zoidbergbio.gif

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Who are these mysterious crab people (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crab+people) ?

:confused:

the urban dictionary sheds little light on this

http://www.geocities.com/jonny_clydesdale/zoidbergbio.gif

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/708/708_image_09.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Science makes it no secret that everything in existence is reducible to matter and the paranormal is reducible to people’s delusions and wishful thinking!

Help! I thought I was a skeptic, but now I am beginning to believe that Rational is a God!! I'm so confused.

This is understandable! If you look at Mr. James Randi with the James Randi Educational Foundation that seeks to provide reliable information on rubbish claims, I at first thought he was some kind of atheist God! Though it was hard to imagine God being so grumpy! The thing is there is no paranormal, God, and afterlife which is made clear by science but us hardcore rational skeptics are as close to being Gods as possible under materialism!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Stereolab

Rational and Tai Chi are my two favorite posters here so far:

Tai Chi: skeptical in the truest sense--questioning, trying to understand--is comfortable not "knowing"

Rational: very humorously satirizes the sizable "pseudo-skeptic" community on here--those who simply won't accept that there may be things that they will never understand, and seemingly post on these forums solely to attack anyone who may believe in something they cannot "prove"


Thanks for the kind comments Stereolab!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

So, stereolab, where did you come by your name?

I know at least a few businesses named that, you belong to any of them I might know about?

Hi jj,

The only Stereolab I know is a band that goes by that name. My guess is it is one of stereolab's favorite bands (mine too!).

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I went too far and threw together my rational skeptics page in 10 minutes! It will be updated soon for everyone wanting to joint this rational movement that will save science!

http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
My guess is it is one of stereolab's favorite bands (mine too!).

Bingo. I don't know anything about stereos or anything :)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

It is important that us debunkers only get our information from a skeptical source and not take any believer sources into consideration because they all lie and we don't want to get sucked into the appealing aspect of wishful thinking from woo-woo beliefs! I'm not saying that we shouldn't respond to kooks because they need to be debunked but when doing any research only look into the skeptical side since it is the only side that contains truth!

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Stereolab


Rational: very humorously satirizes the sizable "pseudo-skeptic" community on here--those who simply won't accept that there may be things that they will never understand, and seemingly post on these forums solely to attack anyone who may believe in something they cannot "prove"

It would appear - from your ESP Thread posts - that you have had 15 experiences that you don't understand, and yet you lean toward a paranormal explanation of these events.

Your post above and the fact that you put the word "skeptic" in quotes in your OP on the ESP thread I find interesting. Do you consider yourself to have some insight that all of us "pseudo-skeptics" are missing?

Let me tell you that despite what posters like Steve Garrand, Lunaciarchy (sp?) or Towel Troll would have you believe most of the community here require something more than anecdotes before we begin to believe in SUPERnatural phenomenon. VERY many of us have looked at the evidence to date - and found nothing there.

What does your pre-cognitive transmission of the answer to a round of Wheel of Fortune add up to really? The answer is - exactly nothing. Why is it that these phenomenons are so hit and miss? Or yield the most mundane results?

It seems to me that that unless the evidence is unequivocal – and REPLICABLE – you and the others can whine all you want about “closed-minded skeptics”. The rules are clear = prove it and then do it again. That’s rational thought, that’s science (please no comments from you, Towel Twit). Your “feelings”, your “intuition”, your “beliefs” don’t advance human understanding in the least – they retard it.

Barkhorn.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

Do you consider yourself to have some insight that all of us "pseudo-skeptics" are missing?

Yes. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

I do believe Randi is an example of the ideal type of skeptic--he debunks the claims of charlatans that take advantage of naive targets, but at the same time his million-dollar prize is an indicator of his desire to find something paranormal--if anything happens to be out there--and he has said many times that he doesn't "know" with certainty that religion, etc. isn't real.

I think that kind of skepticism is healthy.

However, I don't have much respect for these people that just hang out on this message board to slam people, such as myself, that are inquisitive about things that may not have a simple explanation. Why would anyone try to put me down? I'm not hurting anyone. What should you care what I do or don't believe?

I don't know you, so I don't know whether or not you fit into this category.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Yes. I don't pretend to have all the answers.I think the majority of people here do not claim to have all the answers. It may come across that way sometimes, but I think that's more a question of the format of a bulletin board than anything else... generally people don't bother to post if they have no idea. It's when you think you have an idea that you tend to bring it up.

Or maybe I'm wrong and lots of people here do think they have all the answers. :)

However, I don't have much respect for these people that just hang out on this message board to slam people, such as myself, that are inquisitive about things that may not have a simple explanation. Why would anyone try to put me down? I'm not hurting anyone. What should you care what I do or don't believe?Why does anyone ever put down those that they disagree with? There are a whole host of possibilities and I won't bother with the pop psych explanations.

Personally, I only tend to "slam" people who are being obnoxious one way or anotherr. People like rouser2 or huzington who never seem to change their tune regardless of what others say, and insist on shoving their own beliefs into the spotlight while insulting those who disagree. I fully realize that doing so is pointless, which is why I try to simply have fun with it. Because at some level I start to wonder if they're actually delusional... when lightpiercingdarkness starts threatening violence on the demons be believes are surrounding him I stop even trying to have fun with him and just hope he gets some psychiatric help.

Rational here I just put on ignore because the first few messages of his I saw seemed like C&P trolling in a bunch of threads and I was worried he'd resort to posting the sort of thing that got GP banned. Perhaps I misjudged him, but it seems from the comments I can read here that the jury is still out. :)

edit: got lucianarchy and lpd mixed up. No comment on why. ;)

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I think the majority of people here do not claim to have all the answers...Or maybe I'm wrong and lots of people here do think they have all the answers. :)

I was wondering about this, so I made a post with a poll that asked something like, "If you were offered a million dollars, with the stipulation that if you took the money, and if any kind of afterlife existed, your soul would burn in hell forever...would you take the money?"

Not only did the overwhelming majority of people vote "yes," but plenty of people made it clear that they'd do it for ten bucks or whatever.

That's not "skepticism" to me...that's pure, 100% convinced atheism. And I have no problem whatsoever with that. But people that are so convinced that God or ESP or UFOs don't exist...I don't understand what they're doing on here! Let other people believe whatever they believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone!

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Not only did the overwhelming majority of people vote "yes," but plenty of people made it clear that they'd do it for ten bucks or whatever.In the weekly commentary and a thread in here somewhere there was a guy who tried to sell his soul on ebay... starting bid 25 cents. At some point they came to the conclusion that the soul does not exist. Whether or not this is correct, given that conclusion the rational stance is that if someone is willing to pay you for something that is nonexistant then there is no reason not to.

That's not "skepticism" to me...that's pure, 100% convinced atheism. And I have no problem whatsoever with that. But people that are so convinced that God or ESP or UFOs don't exist...I don't understand what they're doing on here!Well, we get people who are 100% convinced the other way, too. They are often asked what they hope to accomplish here, and there are many different answers given.

If your argument is that we can never be completely sure of anything then I tend to agree. However, at some point we need to act on the best information we have at the time. Just because someone else claims the danger is too great does not mean that we cannot act, if that were the case we could never accomplish anything.

Let other people believe whatever they believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone! There have been lots of threads and comments debating this. Many posters are "live and let live" on many subjects, it's just that the most militant will often become the most vocal on any subject, and the most often responded to. There does seem to be fairly wide sentiment around here than certain misconceptions can certainly cause harm (rouser has replaced bigwig as the anti-vaccination crusader, for an example of potentially dangerous viewpoints).

Many other have argued this better than I can manage, but Randi in "Flim-Flam" had a wonderful intro as to why he was writing the book and exposing the frauds. Briefly paraphrased, he was doing it for all the people hurt by the frauds, their hopes shattered by flim-flam artists, as illustrated by a little girl on crutches outside a "faith healing" meeting. Beliefs can certainly be dangerous, and there is something of a societal responsibility to try to help people those whose beliefs could harm themselves or others (even if that's not how it comes across much of the time).

There are a few people here who will attack anyone with even the most unoffensive religious leanings (a number of people slammed Hal for being a Deist, for instance). I like to think they are the vocal minority, and that most people here are more accepting of personal choices when they are presented as such. There is, after all, a decided difference in "I believe there is something out there somewhere" and "I believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that I can fly by flapping my arms." Open-minded but not so much that your brain falls out, and all that. The rest just becomes a matter of degree. :)

[Aussie Thinker]

Stereolab…

Geez you have some sooky nerve..

However, I don't have much respect for these people that just hang out on this message board to slam people, such as myself, that are inquisitive about things that may not have a simple explanation. Why would anyone try to put me down? I'm not hurting anyone. What should you care what I do or don't believe?

I don't know you, so I don't know whether or not you fit into this category.

In your query about your ESP experience this was the general trend of the thread.

I don’t think anyone got too abrasive here anyway.

Summary of thread..

1. Stereo posted a calm query about possible precognition
2. Several posters posted very good calm responses with explanations for the possible precognition.
3. Stereo calmly rejected most of the suggestions on the basis of “he KNEW he wasn’t wrong”
4. It was pointed out by a few posters that the very memory of KNOWING could be what was wrong.
5. Tai Chi lobbed in with inanities about inability to prove ESP doesn’t discount it.
6. Stereo got a little peeved at what he perceived was posters telling him it was a problem with his memory
7. Some posters basically told Stereo he had his advice but did not really take any heed of it.
8. We started arguing amongst ourselves about how civilly we address queries of this nature.

In a nutshell I think all parties behaved quite well.

You got treated EXCELLENTLY until you started to ignore GOOD advice about what may have happened.. you only wanted to hear about PARANORMAL excuses for your experience.. anything else was rejected by you out of hand.

You showed CLEARLY you had an agenda and had already made up your mind..

When the thread got too tough for you, you sooked about “bullies” and ran away.. only to emerge in this thread praising Rational for his inanities !

At least you praise T’ai Chi .. he at least hangs around and takes his medicine.. makes “some” rational comments and admits when he might be wrong.. if you want to be a woo woo sympathiser.. take a leaf out of his book.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hi jj,

The only Stereolab I know is a band that goes by that name. My guess is it is one of stereolab's favorite bands (mine too!).

Ahh, the perils of being old.

I'll have to look them up. I know the original "stereolab" stereo stroe has closed and the proprietor has moved on.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Stereolab…You got treated EXCELLENTLY until you started to ignore GOOD advice about what may have happened.. you only wanted to hear about PARANORMAL excuses for your experience.. anything else was rejected by you out of hand.

You showed CLEARLY you had an agenda and had already made up your mind..

When the thread got too tough for you, you sooked about “bullies” and ran away.. only to emerge in this thread praising Rational for his inanities !

I didn't ignore the advice. I dismissed it because it doesn't apply to what I experienced. Nothing I can say will convince you of that...and I do understand that. So, I have better things to do than sit around and wage a pointless debate.

I have no agenda other than attempting to figure out what happened to me. I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything. I have not made up my mind. For you and others to repeatedly try to tell me what I believe, and why I'm wrong, and why I'm not a skeptic...this is what makes Rational's points very well taken.

I have no idea what "sooking" is, but I am not doing it. I don't think so, anyway. Some of the people in the "ESP" thread seemed genuinely interested, and if I find more information that may be helpful, I will return to that thread and share it. Otherwise, I really do have better things to do than defend myself against people who seem 100% confident they understand my life better than I do.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Stereolab

Otherwise, I really do have better things to do than defend myself against people who seem 100% confident they understand my life better than I do.

What is really amusing is that I've had people call me a believer, say I have a god, and attribute all sorts of interesting attributes to me, despite what I've said otherwise (like duh, I think I'd know about it if I believed in Jesus, etc.) . I think it is a classic case of projection; them projecting on me what they wish they could be/do. :)

My second guess is that is just makes their psuedo-debate style much easier. If you attach a label to your enemy it makes logic much easier because you can be lazy with it. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I was wondering about this, so I made a post with a poll that asked something like, "If you were offered a million dollars, with the stipulation that if you took the money, and if any kind of afterlife existed, your soul would burn in hell forever...would you take the money?"

Not only did the overwhelming majority of people vote "yes," but plenty of people made it clear that they'd do it for ten bucks or whatever.


Huh?? Now that is seriously bad! This is what perplexes me. How can they be so certain?? Is there something they know or understand that I don't? Even if I agreed the correlations between brain and mental events was very powerfully suggestive that the brain generates the mind, one cannot know this for certain!! :eek: Gobsmacking!

Not that I know what the soul burning forever in h*ll could possibly mean :confused: How can a non-physical thing burn? And would the soul experience pain? Hmmmmm.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I was wondering about this, so I made a post with a poll that asked something like, "If you were offered a million dollars, with the stipulation that if you took the money, and if any kind of afterlife existed, your soul would burn in hell forever...would you take the money?"

Not only did the overwhelming majority of people vote "yes," but plenty of people made it clear that they'd do it for ten bucks or whatever.

That's not "skepticism" to me...that's pure, 100% convinced atheism. And I have no problem whatsoever with that. But people that are so convinced that God or ESP or UFOs don't exist...I don't understand what they're doing on here! Let other people believe whatever they believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone!

Well now, Stereolab, keep in mind that Skepticism always maintains a neutral position on most any claim until a guy like Randi can demonstrate how the claim is faceious.

I was the first one to vote "take the million, let my soul burn". Why? Because I'm not convinced of an afterlife, however the reasoning that there is no afterlife seems more than its share of plausible. I cant know whether this is any afterlife, but at the same time I have no evidence to convince myself that anyone else around me is alive and self-aware. For all I know, they could all be p_zombies, figments of my imagination, or quite aware of their own existence. There is always the universal doubt in every claim, and if you believe you can never say "I believe this" or "I believe that" without knowing with absolute 100% certainty, the safest road to take is Solipsism.

I'd consider myself very much atheistic, a bright educated young fella also, I'm not satisfied with "you'll know when you die". I wouldnt know what makes a bright educated fella like myself any different from a bright educated fella like Interesting Ian (by the way, welcome back Ian). I've read Ian's source on Immaterialism (I actually have it bookmarked, unfortunately I have years worth of bookmarks completely disorganized, and I cant find it... I remember the first paragraph begins with "Are scientists deluded" or something like that...). Of course, in the end, it'll all come down to those naughty inner convictions. While I, myself, have squished as much faith out of my reasoning as I can, I'm not sure how many people who believe things such as religions, afterlives, ESP, etc. etc. etc. can say the same. Unless I'm being naive or have a few unresolved inner convictions of my own, I'm not sure how easy it is to say to yourself "I know with 99% certainty, with demonstratable evidence, coherent straightforward logical proof, and mounds of data that paranormal/supernatural events can and do occur"...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not that I know what the soul burning forever in h*ll could possibly mean :confused: How can a non-physical thing burn? And would the soul experience pain? Hmmmmm.
Christians go about this in a few different ways...

They suggest the soul is actually why you experience sensations of pain, moral judgements, compassion, emotions, etc. The believe the burning is a sensation that can be induced into to the soul, thereby no physical body is necessary for the pain to be felt.

I'm making a speculation, but I wouldnt be amazed if some of them distinguished between Physical/Material Physics and Non-Physical/Immaterial Physics. (i.e. Souls are burned by immaterial fire...)

[geni]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I was the first one to vote "take the million, let my soul burn". Why? Because I'm not convinced of an afterlife, however the reasoning that there is no afterlife seems more than its share of plausible.

You forgot something. The question was giving you an extra bit of information. There was someone preparded to offer you a million. Now why would they do that.....

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

As skeptics we don't have to back up our claims because we are backed up by science that tells us that materialism is a fact so anything outside of that is false no matter what the believers come up with! Every experiment claiming to provide evidence for the paranormal which goes against the skeptical world view must be either fraud or the results must have come through flawed controls! There is no denying this unless if you are stupid!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

If dreams are real then show evidence or else this belief must be discarded in the name of critical thinking!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by geni
You forgot something. The question was giving you an extra bit of information. There was someone preparded to offer you a million. Now why would they do that.....
To tempt my soul away from the glory of god... but who cares! WOOHOO! THATS A LOT OF CASH!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The supernatural and all its pseudoscientific areas is the most serious plague humanity has ever faced which is being manifested through gullible minds that lack the righteous ways of critical thinking present in the elite group of individuals called skeptics!

[fishbob]

Rational: very humorously satirizes the sizable "pseudo-skeptic" community on here--those who simply won't accept that there may be things that they will never understand, and seemingly post on these forums solely to attack anyone who may believe in something they cannot "prove" NO NO NO. Rational is truly absorbient and uses exclamation marks to show that he is serious.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]

Well now, Stereolab, keep in mind that Skepticism always maintains a neutral position on most any claim until a guy like Randi can demonstrate how the claim is faceious.



Ummmm . . .now you're really taking the p*ss. A neutral position? What planet do you come from? And I'm sure that facetious is the wrong word!

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummmm . . .now you're really taking the p*ss. A neutral position? What planet do you come from? And I'm sure that facetious is the wrong word!
Taking the puss? What does that mean?
Obviously, it's Planet X.
And the word is probably "fallacious" or "phallacious" if you want to dick around with it.

[Folly]

Interesting Ian said
Huh?? Now that is seriously bad! This is what perplexes me. How can they be so certain?? Is there something they know or understand that I don't? Even if I agreed the correlations between brain and mental events was very powerfully suggestive that the brain generates the mind, one cannot know this for certain!! Gobsmacking!

And you're doing any better? Seems to me you're selling out for a lot less than a million dollars. You don't know with 100% certainty that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for your position on materialism ("I mean God made this world, and now you are disputing the existance of his creation, you puny worm, you?") and all you're getting from this possible transgression is one more post. Absolutely gobsmacking!

[Rolfe]

Hey, Folly, are you the Folly who chipped in at H'pathy Forums in that thread where they were getting all contradictory about provings?Does this mean that a 30C preparation won't work on its own? I thought you could just go ahead and use that potency. Won't I see an effect?Nice one, I thought. I see you didn't get an answer, though. They're very good at ignoring questions they find uncomfortable.

Rolfe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Folly
Interesting Ian said


And you're doing any better? Seems to me you're selling out for a lot less than a million dollars. You don't know with 100% certainty that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for your position on materialism ("I mean God made this world, and now you are disputing the existance of his creation, you puny worm, you?") and all you're getting from this possible transgression is one more post. Absolutely gobsmacking!

Ummmm . . .sorry . . .unable to make any sense of your post.

[Folly]

Rolfe,

Yes, that's me. I've been following all the homeopathy threads here fairly closely, if quietly. I practice kung fu (wing chun, for those who're interested in that sort of thing) and while the class isn't full of chi and mystical forces, two of the most senior students are a homeopath/naturopath and an accupuncturist in training, respectively. They're both good instructors, and good to work with individually, but it's always mildly distressing when they offer advice to people about the occasional mild stretch or stiffness. Since I'm also one of the more senior students, I at least have the opportunity to occasionally also point people to the open sports clinic on site (the group meets at a University campus.)

I'm surprised Vijay and DoctorLeela hung around as long as they did. Although maybe now a mild believer will still wander through and wonder the same thing :)

[Folly]

I said, to Ian
And you're doing any better? Seems to me you're selling out for a lot less than a million dollars. You don't know with 100% certainty that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for your position on materialism ("I mean God made this world, and now you are disputing the existance of his creation, you puny worm, you?") and all you're getting from this possible transgression is one more post. Absolutely gobsmacking!

and Ian replied
Ummmm . . .sorry . . .unable to make any sense of your post.

You were astonished that people would take a million dollars when someone told them they would suffer eternal torment after they died if they took the money. I just pointed out that you can not be 100% certain that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for posting on this board, and yet you continue to do so even though the reward is much smaller than a million dollars.

[geni]

Originally posted by Folly
You were astonished that people would take a million dollars when someone told them they would suffer eternal torment after they died if they took the money. I just pointed out that you can not be 100% certain that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for posting on this board, and yet you continue to do so even though the reward is much smaller than a million dollars.

Standard risk analysis still applies. He cannot be certian he is going to hell if there is one. Tanking an action that means that it is certian that he is going to hell if there is one is illogical.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Folly
I said, to Ian


and Ian replied


You were astonished that people would take a million dollars when someone told them they would suffer eternal torment after they died if they took the money. I just pointed out that you can not be 100% certain that you're not going to suffer eternal torment for posting on this board, and yet you continue to do so even though the reward is much smaller than a million dollars.

Why on ea*th should I suffer eternal torment for posting on this board?

[geni]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why on ea*th should I suffer eternal torment for posting on this board?

Well for a starr there is you avanta some relgions forbid the depiction of the human form. I sure you have posted on both Fridays and Sundays. Given time I'm sure we can come up with plenty more.:)

[Folly]

geni said
Standard risk analysis still applies. He cannot be certian he is going to hell if there is one. Tanking an action that means that it is certian that he is going to hell if there is one is illogical.

True. But it's not certain! Someone telling you that you'll suffer eternal torment doesn't mean you will. If somehow I magically know that this person is correct, then it's a really stupid question: of course you don't take the money. But you don't know that. In fact, I could say to you right now, you're going to suffer forever in the afterlife if you post again on this board except in answer to this thread. If I did this, would you post again?

(please note the mild weasel language like "I could say" is an attempt to make it clear that I'm not trying to condemn someone this way, believe it will happen, or even wish that it happens. I'd phrase it more directly, but I don't wish to be misintepreted in that fashion. Feel free to substitute "you're gonna burn if you post again!" if you're not offended)


Ian said
Why on ea*th should I suffer eternal torment for posting on this board?

Why on earth should I suffer eternal torment for taking a million dollars? One is no more ridiculous than the other. Besides, I thought I did give a potential explanation: you're denying the creation of god by criticising materialism. :D

[geni]

Originally posted by Folly
geni said


True. But it's not certain! Someone telling you that you'll suffer eternal torment doesn't mean you will. If somehow I magically know that this person is correct, then it's a really stupid question: of course you don't take the money. But you don't know that. In fact, I could say to you right now, you're going to suffer forever in the afterlife if you post again on this board except in answer to this thread. If I did this, would you post again?


But the question said that you would burn in hell if it existed so you do know that the person is correct. If we use you interpritation of the question the whole point of the question is lost.

Btw good luck with the homeopathy forums

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by geni


Well for a starr there is you avanta some relgions forbid the depiction of the human form. I sure you have posted on both Fridays and Sundays. Given time I'm sure we can come up with plenty more.:)

There is no good reason though which is the pertinent point.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is no good reason though which is the pertinent point. Why is there a good reason to believe that receiving a million dollars for your soul to burn in hell would work? This postulates that both the soul exists and that there is some sort of mechanism by which it can be purchased. Somehow I doubt "eternal souls" are really transferable in any meaningful sense. I mean, if we can't measure it how could you even tell you got your purchase? These are the sort of things would be soul-burners need to consider. ;)

I realize that the poll was predicated on absolute knowledge that your soul would burn, but my guess is that it was answered in the affirmative by people who believed either the soul was nonexistant or nontransferable/punishable, either of which case would invalidate the poll's premise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Folly

Why on earth should I suffer eternal torment for taking a million dollars?



Obviously no reason at all. But then why accept the premises of the question and say you would take $10? In order to answer the question we must assume that what it stipulates is true, even if it doesn't make sense.





One is no more ridiculous than the other. Besides, I thought I did give a potential explanation: you're denying the creation of god by criticising materialism. :D

If you mean criticising the existence of a material world, then not at all. Remember God is omnipotent. Given that, why does he need to work through a material world? He could simply give us all our sense impressions/qualia directly without having to work through a putative material world; a bit like a virtual reality as in the Matrix. Of course it would be God rather than a computer providing you with all your sensory sensations, but the principle is the same.

But materialism simply means that the totality of reality is wholly material or physical. There is nothing else to reality whatsoever. So in criticising materialism one may still believe in a material world, but also other existents which are not physical eg a non-physical self (dualism).

[Folly]

I said to Geni
True. But it's not certain! Someone telling you that you'll suffer eternal torment doesn't mean you will. If somehow I magically know that this person is correct, then it's a really stupid question: of course you don't take the money. But you don't know that. In fact, I could say to you right now, you're going to suffer forever in the afterlife if you post again on this board except in answer to this thread. If I did this, would you post again?

Geni said
But the question said that you would burn in hell if it existed so you do know that the person is correct. If we use you interpritation of the question the whole point of the question is lost.

Fair enough, it's not exactly the same, although I submit that it's close enough. I'll fix it up, for clarity (and in case I'm wrong :D)

There is a special place of eternal torment that all JREF forum posters go to after they die if they post more than 6000 times (you can be forgiven only so often, after all!) For no reason in particular, lets call it RR. By construction, if RR exists, you'll suffer eternally if you post again. So there you have it: if RR exists, you will suffer eternally if you make your 6000th post. It's even a logical certainty! Are any of you who aren't already lost going to make that 6000th post?


Ian said
There is no good reason though which is the pertinent point.

Yup. It's absolutely true. There's no good reason. There's no good reason in my new hypothetical situation either. And there's no good reason in StereoLab's original situation: that Hell isn't any more likely than my RR, just because lots of Christians believe in something with that name. It's hardly gobsmacking that lots of people would take the money.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
[B]Why is there a good reason to believe that receiving a million dollars for your soul to burn in hell would work?



There isn't.



I realize that the poll was predicated on absolute knowledge that your soul would burn, but my guess is that it was answered in the affirmative by people who believed either the soul was nonexistant or nontransferable/punishable, either of which case would invalidate the poll's premise.

If they do not accept the questions premise, then no purpose is served in answering it.

[geni]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If they do not accept the questions premise, then no purpose is served in answering it.

But they are serving its premise. They are admitting that part of their system is based on belief.

[Folly]

Ian said
Why on ea*th should I suffer eternal torment for posting on this board?

I said, in response to Ian
Why on earth should I suffer eternal torment for taking a million dollars?

to which Ian said
Obviously no reason at all. But then why accept the premises of the question and say you would take $10? In order to answer the question we must assume that what it stipulates is true, even if it doesn't make sense.

Sorry - that was just me imitating your question. You said there's no good reason why you should suffer eternal torment for posting on this board. True, but there's no good reason why I should suffer eternal torment for taking a million dollars either. As you told me to do in your response, you must do yourself.

Just like there's a hypothetical place called hell where sinners (and people who take that one million dollars) suffer eternally, there is a hypothetical place of eternal torment that all JREF posters with more than 6000 posts go to when they die. I call that place RR, and if it exists, you will suffer eternally in a few hundred more posts. While you may think that RR is sillier than the Christian hell (and how!) you can't be 100% certain that RR doesn't exist any more than I'm sure that hell doesn't exist. The payoff is infinitely bad, so the same "risk analysis" says that you have to not post anymore.

The point is that there's another equally (un)likely place where JREF posters who make more than 1000 posts go, and they suffer eternally there. Call it RR'. This is still the same wager as StereoLab's wager, even if RR' isn't as well known as hell, and the prize is a bunch smaller. And the fantastic thing is, you've lived this wager! You have actually been given that choice: make that 1000th post and go to RR' if it exists, or stop posting. You've already taken the "million dollars," and probably didn't even think twice. You probably didn't even think once! Gobsmacking!

In case you complain about not knowing about RR', making it unfair, I wager you make that 6000th post. And I'll take the million dollars.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Folly
I'm surprised Vijay and DoctorLeela hung around as long as they did. Although maybe now a mild believer will still wander through and wonder the same thing :) We had Vijay over here, posting as Kumar. He got a bit chewed up, and pretty much left a week or two ago (though he did surface with one short post earlier this week).

If you don't need to get a life any time soon, there are about half a dozen threads in the science and medicine forum which are essentially Kumar v. the rest of the world, you might find some of it amusing.

Rolfe.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

400 f*cking posts! To celebrate I will write a sentence with a period.


!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummmm . . .now you're really taking the p*ss. A neutral position? What planet do you come from? And I'm sure that facetious is the wrong word!
I come from a planet WHERE EVERYBODY EATS WITH EYES AND MANIPULATES SPOON WITH THEIR MINDS!

Unless I'm mistaken, I would say skepticism is neutral (i.e. the "I dont know" position) until evidence one way or the other demonstrates that claim X is either legitimate, inaccurate, impossible, or fraudulent.

Hey, but its up to the skeptic to have preconcieved "most likely going to be the scenario" ideas in his head before the evidence is presented (for instance: I can reasonably predict a product which sells music CDs with "special music" that is designed to cure AIDS is most likely a fraudulent product before I know anything about how product actually works... Note: That isnt enough to justify a belief, but observation and various accepted scientific knowledge can help you make a judgements of such a product).

(I dont really care if my bizarre use of bizarre adjectives isnt up to par with words like "crap" or "bulls**t"...)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I confess that sometimes even I get mad at the great process of natural selection because it created minds that are capable of believing in such nonsense and being so gulible!

[Clancie]

!Xx+Rational+xX!

I think your quotes and sig are pretty funny! :D

Shakespeare also has given us a good model for skepticism. Remember his play about that crazy woo-woo, Hamlet (the dreams...the ghosts...the spirit communication...:rolleyes: ). "Hamlet" only's only gotten so popular because most of the population are stupid woo woos. They love that stuff!

Hamlet showed he was a woo woo when he said this: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

But Hamlet was wrong! Horatio was a skeptic! He already did know everything--and there was obviously nothing more to learn about how things really are....EVER!!!

Like any good skeptic, Horatio already knew it all.

As for Hamlet, poor guy. He was just another cargo cultist woo.:)

[bignickel]

Actually, Hamlet wasn't referring to Horatio's personal philosophy at all: the 'your' is not used in a sense of ownership.

Rather, it is used in the general sense. IE "Take your basic movie star; what does he or she know about real acting." The 'your' does not imply ownership by the person you're talking to.

So what Hamlet is saying is that there are many, many things that are now known by current philosophy. And you know what? He's exactly right, with the discovery of the theories of Relativity, Evolution, Electro-Magnetism, etc, years away.

'The King died a normal death'. 'Oh, he did, did he?' asks Hamlet. He may have received his hints that all may not be as they first appear from an unlikely source, but he goes about it the right way: he devises a test to try and determine if his uncle murdered his father.

So, Clancie, it's Hamlet who's the skeptic here. It's the people in the play who accept explanations & hypothesis uncritically, without trying to determine if there's any truth to them, that are the 'believers'.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Clancie

Like any good skeptic, Horatio already knew it all.


My respect for your powers of observation and ability to think rationally has just sunk lower- as if that were possible.

You really need something here - what would it be - oh I don't know - how about a MIRROR?!?!

It is you that accepts uncritically the so-called "abilities" of a charlatan like JE, yet you have the temerity to accuse skeptics of knowing it all.

It is true that there are MANY things in this Universe that I do not understand. The - KEY - difference between me and a person like you is that I don't immediately assume that SUPERnatural forces are at work here, as that would totally contradict the things that I do understand.

I don't expect a response - you've never bothered in the past - and I know that you have no real rebuttal to my argument anyway.

Barkhorn.
:nope:

[Clancie]

Posted by BarkhornTx

It is you that accepts uncritically the so-called "abilities" of a charlatan like JE
That sentence surely proves my point about self-proclaimed skeptics like you, Barkhorn.

My actual position (not only based on JE, either, fyi) is that "there might be something to this". Imo, that is a position of doubt, not belief. And, imo, it is a skeptical position which, I dare say, is based on much more research into the topic--pro and con--than what you have done.
Posted by BarkhornTx

The - KEY - difference between me and a person like you is that I don't immediately assume that SUPERnatural forces are at work here
It's remarks like this that make me think, "The arrogance. The nerve."

Yes, I'm thinking that you have a lot of nerve, BarkhornTx, to imply that I am so stupid that I "immediately assume that supernatural forces are at work." That's just plain ignorant, Barkhorn. And arrogant. And uninformed.

I don't have the patience for this kind of ignorant condescending attitude today. Maybe tomorrow. Or not.

[Clancie]

Posted by BigNickel

Actually, Hamlet wasn't referring to Horatio's personal philosophy at all: the 'your' is not used in a sense of ownership.
BigNickel,

It was only meant as an ironic comment and opportunity to use the quote itself, "There are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

It wasn't an interpretation of Shakespeare, Hamlet, or the play (obviously, right?). It was a :rolleyes: at some of the "skeptics" here who repeatedly post with such pompous certainty that they already have all the answers and explanations for everything--and that anyone who still speculates on things that have -not- been adequately explained by science-as-we-currently-know-it is merely a creduloid, a woowoo, a gullible idiots.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
It was a :rolleyes: at some of the "skeptics" here who repeatedly post with such pompous certainty that they already have all the answers and explanations for everything--and that anyone who still speculates on things that have -not- been adequately explained by science-as-we-currently-know-it is merely a creduloid, a woowoo, a gullible idiots.

You like the fallacy of arguing from ignorance? Why doesn't this surprise?

[Clancie]

So, Bill, is it true that you think everything scientifically "knowable" is already known? Or, to put it another way, as you survey the natural world, what phenomena do you find that scientists have insufficient explanations for--or, even, perhaps, no explanations at all? Are there any, do you think?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
So, Bill, is it true that you think everything scientifically "knowable" is already known? Or, to put it another way, as you survey the natural world as you know it, what phenomena do you find that scientists have insufficient explanations for--or, so far, none at all? Are there any, do you think?
I never said that. I never implied that. I never insinuated that. You have inferred that as part of an unexamined assumption about what science is and what skepticism is. What I am saying here is that the argument from ignorance is fallacious. You cannot fill in the gaps in knowledge with whatever suits you. The inference you should draw from that is that speculations that violate the fundamentals have to marshall incredible amounts of evidence. Understanding this is fundamental.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Clancie

It was only meant as an ironic comment and opportunity to use the quote itself, "There are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

It wasn't an interpretation of Shakespeare, Hamlet, or the play (obviously, right?). It was a :rolleyes: at some of the "skeptics" here who repeatedly post with such pompous certainty that they already have all the answers and explanations for everything--and that anyone who still speculates on things that have -not- been adequately explained by science-as-we-currently-know-it is merely a creduloid, a woowoo, a gullible idiots.

What I was doing was pointing out how the quote is frequently mis-used by people to refer to one thing, when actually it refers to another. I don't know anyone here who actually attacks those who merely speculate on the borders-of-science (at least, not to my knowledge).

But past that, I think I'm gonna duck out of this thread, since it's getting (gotten) a bit heated. Still, always nice to put those Shakespeare classes to good use.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I never said that. I never implied that. I never insinuated that. You have inferred that
Um....Bill. You can distinguish between a question and a statement, right?

***

And, Big Nickel...yes, in terms of Shakespeare you made a good point. (....In terms of your statement about skeptics here not attacking those who speculate on things at the borders of science, however, I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree.....)

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Clancie

It's remarks like this that make me think, "The arrogance. The nerve."


Right back atcha babe!;)

Barkhorn One Ex.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
My actual position (not only based on JE, either, fyi) is that "there might be something to this". Imo, that is a position of doubt, not belief. And, imo, it is a skeptical position which, I dare say, is based on much more research into the topic--pro and con--than what you have done.

Do you consider medium Robert Brown to be really able to communicate with dead people?

Are there any other mediums that you consider to be really able to communicate with dead people, and if so, who?

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I'm thinking that you have a lot of nerve, BarkhornTx, to imply that I am so stupid that I "immediately assume that supernatural forces are at work." That's just plain ignorant, Barkhorn. And arrogant. And uninformed.

I don't have the patience for this kind of ignorant condescending attitude today. Maybe tomorrow. Or not.

Perhaps you could explain why this is so "ignorant", "arrogant" and "uninformed", instead of just saying that it is?

Originally posted by Clancie
It wasn't an interpretation of Shakespeare, Hamlet, or the play (obviously, right?). It was a :rolleyes: at some of the "skeptics" here who repeatedly post with such pompous certainty that they already have all the answers and explanations for everything--and that anyone who still speculates on things that have -not- been adequately explained by science-as-we-currently-know-it is merely a creduloid, a woowoo, a gullible idiots.

Oh, when your interpretation of Shakespeare, Hamlet or the play is shown to be wrong, it is suddenly not an interpretation at all.

Who are these skeptics that you talk about all the time? You don't want to name them, you just want to smear them.

As usual, you have nothing else to contribute but personal attacks.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There has never been a case where an anecdote has been anything but a lie!

[bignickel]

(Scientific_theory) There will never be a thread where xx_rational_xx will have anything worthwhile to contribute (/Scientific_theory)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by bignickel
(Scientific_theory) There will never be a thread where xx_rational_xx will have anything worthwhile to contribute (/Scientific_theory)

You hate science you frickin woo-woo!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bignickel

So what Hamlet is saying is that there are many, many things that are now known by current philosophy. And you know what? He's exactly right, with the discovery of the theories of Relativity, Evolution, Electro-Magnetism, etc, years away.



You think the situation is different now?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


My respect for your powers of observation and ability to think rationally has just sunk lower- as if that were possible.



Nope, Clancie is quite definitely highly intelligent.


It is true that there are MANY things in this Universe that I do not understand. The - KEY - difference between me and a person like you is that I don't immediately assume that SUPERnatural forces are at work here, as that would totally contradict the things that I do understand.



It's not just that though is it? You assume that natural laws must completely describe the Universe. B*llocks to free will :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I never said that. I never implied that. I never insinuated that. You have inferred that as part of an unexamined assumption about what science is and what skepticism is. What I am saying here is that the argument from ignorance is fallacious. You cannot fill in the gaps in knowledge with whatever suits you. The inference you should draw from that is that speculations that violate the fundamentals have to marshall incredible amounts of evidence. Understanding this is fundamental.

What are you saying that violates the fundamantals? The survival hypothesis? Care to argue for that?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Do you consider medium Robert Brown to be really able to communicate with dead people?

Are there any other mediums that you consider to be really able to communicate with dead people, and if so, who?



Perhaps you could explain why this is so "ignorant", "arrogant" and "uninformed", instead of just saying that it is?



Oh, when your interpretation of Shakespeare, Hamlet or the play is shown to be wrong, it is suddenly not an interpretation at all.

Who are these skeptics that you talk about all the time? You don't want to name them, you just want to smear them.

As usual, you have nothing else to contribute but personal attacks.

Oh G*d! Do you follow Clancie around everywhere?? :eek:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

Um....Bill. You can distinguish between a question and a statement, right?

Yes, I can, Clancie. Can you not remember your past posts? The ones in which you've made it abundantly clear you think skeptics think in exactly the manner you questioned me?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What are you saying that violates the fundamantals? The survival hypothesis? Care to argue for that?
Do you need remedial reading classes, Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

What are you saying that violates the fundamantals? The survival hypothesis? Care to argue for that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you need remedial reading classes, Ian?

If not the survival hypothesis then what?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You think the situation is different now?

Actually, I just realized that I misspelled it: it should have read "NOT known" instead of "now known".

So it should have been:
"So what Hamlet is saying is that there are many, many things that are not known by (then) current philosophy."

Don't really want to push this thread back to the top, but I can't edit my original post.

And x_rational_x, you're a cowardly dumba$$; at least Ian and Clancie have the guts to discuss what they believe on this board, even while others strongly disagree with them.

[Aussie Thinker]

Bignickel,

And x_rational_x, you're a cowardly dumba$$; at least Ian and Clancie have the guts to discuss what they believe on this board, even while others strongly disagree with them.

Not cowardly.. just dumb.. he only has one Joke.. you know how idiots hammer one lame method to death don’t you ???

Ian and Clancie are not complete idiots like Rational though.. in fact at times they exhibit flashes of normal intelligence.. then sadly they let the little (in their case the slighter larger) woo woo inside take over because the rational part of them starts to tear down their fantasy world…

I don’t feel bad for them though.. they are not alone.. in fact MOST of the world lets their little internal woo woo have FAR too much of a say in their lives !

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by bignickel

And x_rational_x, you're a cowardly dumba$$; at least Ian and Clancie have the guts to discuss what they believe on this board, even while others strongly disagree with them.

Bitch please! Go somewhere else if you can't stand your woo-woo beliefs being attacked!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Aussie Thinker, you got another frickin response but stop being such a retarded c**k smoker! If you care about science then you should know that woo-wooism must be destroyed and rational trolling is helping to make that possible!

[Aussie Thinker]

Rational…

I love it…

You do sound like you are getting angry though..

You better be careful.. when you start swearing etc.. they will take away your internet privileges at the Institute..

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There is no rational trolling institute and I'm too smart, sane, and rational for a mental institute where all the believers belong!

:cry:

[Aussie Thinker]

Rational,

I'm too smart, sane, and rational for a mental institute

LOL.. bwahaha.. you definitely are getting funnier… keep it up !

BTW Do you do your best stuff before aor after taking your meds ?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Meds are not needed and are irrational!

:cry:

Science!@

[bignickel]

x_rational_x, you're a cowardly dumba$$

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by bignickel
x_rational_x, you're a cowardly dumba$$

bignickel, you are a retarded peice of sh*t! You don't have to get all stupid and irrational just because I'm attacking your woo-woo belief of dreams!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/ohthedrama.jpg

[Clancie]

moved..