A Definition of Woo-Woos..... [Archive]

Clancie

29th December 2003, 01:51 PM

Posted by Dragonrock

It's a generic and derogatory term for people who believe in any paranormal ideas. Any belief that posters feel doesn't have a firm scientific backing is usually labeled "woo woo".
Yes, except for mainstream -religious- beliefs. Although Christiantiy, for example, is also based on the "paranormal", people here can hold -religious beliefs- that are totally without evidence or scientific backing without being called "woowoos" In fact, if one's paranormal beliefs are "religious" their posts on all topics are generally regarded as being posts from "fellow skeptics", without any apparent stigma of "woowooism" applying to them at all.
Posted by Dragonrock

ps. Welcome to the Forum!
Indeed. :)

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, except for mainstream -religious- beliefs. Although quite arguably "paranormal", people here can hold religious beliefs that are totally without evidence or scientific backing yet their adherents are seldom, if ever, derided as "woowoos".

Indeed. :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but even though I try to avoid the term woo-woo, if I did, I would use it for "mainstream religious beliefs". To me there is not a shred more evidence for the existance of God than there is for, say, the Loch Ness Monster. Belief in one is no more or less silly than belief in the other so I would see no problem with using the same terminolgy for both.

Clancie

29th December 2003, 02:00 PM

I agree with you, Nyarlathop. But I don't find that position is generally true here. Christians are widely considered "fellow skeptics" while someone who even considers "there might be something to mediumship" is (not by all, but many) labelled and marginalized as a "woowoo" (and this isn't only limited to posts on the particular paranormal topic, either).

I agree with you, Nyarlathop, that there should be consistency...one way or the other. But, generally speaking, I don't think there is.

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree with you, Nyarlathop. But I don't find that position is generally true here. Christians are widely considered "fellow skeptics" while someone who even considers "there might be something to mediumship" is (not by all, but many) labelled and marginalized as a "woowoo" (and this isn't only limited to posts on the particular paranormal topic, either).

I agree with you, Nyarlathop, that there should be consistency...one way or the other. But, generally speaking, I don't think there is.

I think you don't spend a lot of time on the R&P forum. I don't think someone who proclaims themself a Christian would get a better reception over there than a believer in mediumship would over here.

It seems to me that atheists and skeptics are groups with a great deal of overlap. Sure you might find the occasional Christian skeptic or the occasional atheist who firmly believes in something like alien abductions, but I think both are in the minority. That's my experience anyway. Atheism and scepticism may be two different things but the same thought processes lead to both, so they tend to attract the same people.

Dragonrock

29th December 2003, 02:13 PM

Clancie

29th December 2003, 02:16 PM

Posted by Nyarlathop

I think you don't spend a lot of time on the R&P forum. I don't think someone who proclaims themself a Christian would get a better reception over there than a believer in mediumship would over here.
Maybe. But from what I've seen they can post on other topics, in Community, etc. with no stigma of being a woowoo at all.
It seems to me that atheists and skeptics are groups with a great deal of overlap.
Well, perhaps, its because as an atheist myself and, imo, life-long skeptic, the double-standard here regarding "religion/paranormal belief/"woowooism" particularly stands out to me.

Dragonrock

29th December 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe. But from what I've seen they can post on other topics, in Community, etc. with no stigma of being a woowoo at all.

Well, perhaps, its because as an atheist myself and, imo, life-long skeptic, the double-standard here regarding "religion/paranormal belief/"woowooism" particularly stands out to me.

Sorry Clancie, that hound don' hunt. Posters are only called woowoo when their woowoo beliefs come up. When people post on things that don't mention their pet woowoo ideas then they are talked to with the same respect they give. Now, the exceptions to this are Lucianarchy and some poster whom I forgot but who's name sounds somewhat like the author of the Jack Ryan novels. But that is only because those two have a habit of avoiding direct questions.

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe. But from what I've seen they can post on other topics, in Community, etc. with no stigma of being a woowoo at all.

Well, perhaps, its because as an atheist myself and, imo, life-long skeptic, the double-standard here regarding "religion/paranormal belief/"woowooism" particularly stands out to me.

I don't think so. Yes there are certain posters who have religious beliefs who never see their beliefs brought up if they don't do it themselves (Hal is the best example I can think of). There are also others who, I think, would be nailed to the wall the minute they popped up their heads (Billiefan2000 springs to mind). The same goes for people whose beliefs are in other areas. I think it has a lot more to with the particular posters past behavior than anything else.

BTW it is Nyarlathotep not Nyarlathop

Clancie

29th December 2003, 02:56 PM

Posted by Nyarlathotep

There are also others who, I think, would be nailed to the wall the minute they popped up their heads (Billiefan2000 springs to mind). The same goes for people whose beliefs are in other areas. I think it has a lot more to with the particular posters past behavior than anything else
Well, just for the record, I disagree.
Posted by Dragonrock

Sorry Clancie, that hound don' hunt. Posters are only called woowoo when their woowoo beliefs come up. When people post on things that don't mention their pet woowoo ideas then they are talked to with the same respect they give. Now, the exceptions to this are Lucianarchy and some poster whom I forgot but who's name sounds somewhat like the author of the Jack Ryan novels. But that is only because those two have a habit of avoiding direct questions.
And disagreeing with you as well, Dragonrock. Aside from the misleading and inaccurate Larsen list, what -philosophical question- (i.e. not "personal antagonism questions", which I admit I ignore as much as possible) do you have personal knowledge of that I've avoided in the way you describe? Any of your own, for example?

Claus--and his out-of-context "lists"--are on "ignore". And I try not to take the bait when people insult me. Other than that, I think I do a pretty good job of responding to comments and questions that are addressed to me, despite being greatly outnumbered by those here who apparently think "there can't possibly be anything to mediumship...and it's ridiculous to even consider otherwise." (Since that is my one and only paranormal topic).

Dragonrock

29th December 2003, 03:07 PM

the Larsen list was what I was primarily refering to. Now, how can you be an atheist and believe in an afterlife?

Clancie

29th December 2003, 03:13 PM

Posted by Dragonrock

Now, how can you be an atheist and believe in an afterlife?
I -don't- "believe in an afterlife". I think that "there -might- be something to it."

As for atheism, if there -is- an afterlife of some sort, I don't see why it would -necessitate- belief in a god of any kind.

Dragonrock

29th December 2003, 03:34 PM

Okay, so what does "There might be something to it" mean? I understand the phrase, I just don't know why you give it greater meaning with mediums than anything else.

I think there might be something to psychics, unicorns, the JFK conspriacy, and the belief that Elvis is still alive. However, I don't believe there is any proof of any of these things so I choose to disbelieve them until someone provides proof that might change my mind.

In my opinion, alot of the flack you get is because you try to show how comfortable the fence you sit on is. It reeks of indecision and one thing that quickly upsets people is someone who can't make a choice.

kookbreaker

29th December 2003, 03:40 PM

There is a distinct line drawn where the term 'woowoo' applies.

Going to a special building once a week and listening to fictional stories about being nice to your fellow man is not woowoo. I don't agree with it much, but it isn't woowoo.

Claiming to speak for the protagonist of the stories is woowoo.

Performing a harmless drinking and eating ceremony around the protagonist of the stories is not woowoo.

Cutting your sick child from modern medication because you think the protagonist of those stories is going to heal him is dangerous woowoo.

Thinking that there is possibly something to alien spaceships being behind UFO's is not woowoo. Not very skeptical, but not woowoo.

Claiming that the evidence for alien spaceship while pointing to fuzzy photos from 30-year old cases is "overwhelming" is woowooo.

Claiming to speak for the aliens and telling those who believe you do to eat "special applesauce" is dangerous woowoo.

Trying a homepathic cold remedy once to see if it helps is not woowoo. A waste of money, most likely, but not woowooo.

Ingesting colloidial silver until your skin turns blue simply because ou don't trust them "Far-mee-Suit-i-cull Comp'nees" is woowoo.

Taking peach pits, shark cartilage, 'zappers' and other things to cure cancer is dangerously woowoo.

Listening to Art Bell because you like ghost stories or need radio to sleep by is not woowoo.

Being convinced there's Nazi howitzer's on the Moon, Chemtrials a' falling from the sky, Comet companions and being convinced that the effects from y2K are gonna be felt any day now is woowoo.

Running a show like Art Bell and beleiving what you say is dangerously woowoo.

Its a matter of degrees, but just because someone is not being skeptical does not make it woowoo, and vice-versa.

Interesting Ian

29th December 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
......which, BTW, I think is one of the most wonderful uses of the English language I have ever heard.

Still, I wonder if there is an agreed upon definition of what is a "woo-woo". Does someone who maintains an unscientific POV qualify? Or must the person as well as the thought be considered well out of the mainstream? Or is it all in the eye of the beholder, we here being the beholders?

Just a newbie being curious....somehow lumping Flat Earth Creationistists and St. Thomas Acqunis (sic) in the same definition seems a wee bit to broad to me.

Hi Hutch,

A "woo woo" is just simply someone who doesn't entirely embrace all of the ideas of the world currently held by the pseudo-skeptics. Thus it is anyone who questions the idea that the world is wholly physical, or who questions the idea that we are robots living out our predetermined purposeless lives in a purposeles Universe, or who questions the idea that no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. Anyway, you get the idea. It's basically anyone who expresses any doubt on any aspect of current scientific "wisdom". The problem is that current scientific "wisdom" is certainly not justified by either science or a rational appraisal. But that's pseudo-skeptics for ya!

Interesting Ian

29th December 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
To me there is not a shred more evidence for the existance of God than there is for, say, the Loch Ness Monster. Belief in one is no more or less silly than belief in the other so I would see no problem with using the same terminolgy for both. [/B]

Yes, for the atheistic conception of God ie the god of the gaps, or even an old man in the sky! LOL I'd like you to see you argue that my conception of God is as silly as the Loch Ness Monster :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

29th December 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Atheism and scepticism may be two different things but the same thought processes lead to both, so they tend to attract the same people. [/B]

Yes of course. That's because these beliefs derive from a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality. Moreover one with no evidence or reasons to support it.

Interesting Ian

29th December 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Dragonrock
the Larsen list was what I was primarily refering to. Now, how can you be an atheist and believe in an afterlife?

Huh?? Of course you can quite easily! LOL

slimshady2357

29th December 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Now, how can you be an atheist and believe in an afterlife?

I'm pretty sure max is someone who doesn't believe in God and believes in an afterlife... perhaps he will comment.

I think with a little imagination you could come up with some possibilities on your own :)

Adam

slimshady2357

29th December 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes, for the atheistic conception of God ie the god of the gaps, or even an old man in the sky! LOL I'd like you to see you argue that my conception of God is as silly as the Loch Ness Monster :rolleyes:

I have to agree with Ian's general sentiment. I don't agree with the 'it's exactly the same as the invisible pink unicorn' stuff.

There is a difference I believe. Certain concepts of God are designed to answer questions that the invisible pink unicorn cannot, perhaps just the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" even.

I'm not saying that those God-concepts are going to satisfy you as to the question of why there is anything at all, but they might for some people. And frankly, there is one piece of evidence that needs to be explained, existence. IPUs do not address this issue, some God-concepts do, some in a satisfactory way for some people. I'm not sure I'm getting at the basic difference I feel between various God concepts and IPUs, but I feel there is one and it has to do with existence needing to be explained (for some people).

Of course there are some God-concepts I feel are very much like IPUs, as Ian suggested, they are rather niave concepts and fall victim to specifics, I feel. But they aren't really worth talking about either :D

Spinoza's idea of God would be an example of a God concept I would consider to be different than an IPU.

I don't believe peolpe should be labelled woo-woo for believing in such a God.

Save if for the people who believe in things which have been thoroughly de-bunked*.

*Thorough debunking is not garunteed beyond the eye of the beholder :D

Adam

T'ai Chi

29th December 2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Now, how can you be an atheist and believe in an afterlife?

Atheism entails the idea/belief/worldview/notion/philosophy/etc. that there is no god(s).

One can not believe there is god(s) yet still believe in an afterlife. That is, belief in an afterlife doesn't necessarily mean one beliefs in god(s).

T'ai Chi

29th December 2003, 06:30 PM

First, those who throw around "woo-woo" shouldn't be shocked when they get "pseudoskeptic" thrown back at them.

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I have to agree with Ian's general sentiment. I don't agree with the 'it's exactly the same as the invisible pink unicorn' stuff.

I agree. Some people tend to say that if there is the same level of evidence, then the claims have the same reality level. What they don't understand is that that belief is itself incorrect. :)

Heck, things like IPU's, invisible blue Smurfs, green cheese on the moon, and others, are things we know the exact history of, who, what, where, when, and why, about all of these things. They are notions no adult has ever seriously considered to exist in reality in the first place, whereas adults have and do seriously consider concepts like heaven, god, etc., to exist in reality. These skeptics still cannot name one single adult who has ever seriously considered these things to exist in reality. It seems they are arguing a strawman such as the likes they accuse others of.

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes, for the atheistic conception of God ie the god of the gaps, or even an old man in the sky! LOL I'd like you to see you argue that my conception of God is as silly as the Loch Ness Monster :rolleyes:

You'd have to explain to me your conception of God before I could tell you if I find it to be as silly as the Loch Ness Monster.

And like it or not, the concept a "God of the Gaps" is not strictly an atheist one. It is very prevalent. If you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods I'll pick a handful of churches at random out of the phonebook and pop in on them. I will bet you that their concept of God is much closer to a "God of the Gaps" than whatever your concept of god is.

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
First, those who throw around "woo-woo" shouldn't be shocked when they get "pseudoskeptic" thrown back at them.

I agree. Some people tend to say that if there is the same level of evidence, then the claims have the same reality level. What they don't understand is that that belief is itself incorrect. :)

Heck, things like IPU's, invisible blue Smurfs, green cheese on the moon, and others, are things we know the exact history of, who, what, where, when, and why, about all of these things. They are notions no adult has ever seriously considered to exist in reality in the first place, whereas adults have and do seriously consider concepts like heaven, god, etc., to exist in reality. These skeptics still cannot name one single adult who has ever seriously considered these things to exist in reality. It seems they are arguing a strawman such as the likes they accuse others of. [/B]

I think, though, that you misunderstand the point of IPU arguments. No adult (and likely darn few children) believes in IPUs, that is the point, that makes it common ground, something that both sides can pretty much agree to be a ridiculous notion. If there is no more evidence for God (or UFO's or whatever) as there is for this ridiculous thing that both sides can agree likely does not exist, why should one accept God's existance. the fact that X number of people beleive in God means nothing beyond an appeal to popularity. Lots of people believe lots of things, that doesn't make them right.

Nyarlathotep

29th December 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes of course. That's because these beliefs derive from a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality. Moreover one with no evidence or reasons to support it.

And the reasons and evidence to support your "particular metaphysical interpretation of reality", would be...?

Mona

29th December 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I don't think so. Yes there are certain posters who have religious beliefs who never see their beliefs brought up if they don't do it themselves (Hal is the best example I can think of).
op

I'm a newbie to this board -- but not to skepticism, the 'net, or discussions of this sort. From what I have gleaned perusing Randi's SWIFT online thingie (which I enoy), Hal is a deist.

Why in the world would deism inspire charges of woo-wooism? I myself teeter between weak atheism and deism, and if I'm a woo woo, well, that is an idea I and others will find takes some getting used to.

Mona

29th December 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes of course. That's because these beliefs [atheism and skepticism] derive from a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality. Moreover one with no evidence or reasons to support it.

Huh? My non-theism and skepticism derive from a requirement of evidence before I believe fact claims. What "metaphysical interpretation of reality" has reasons and evidence to support it, such as to render non-theism or skepticism unreasonable?

Correa Neto

30th December 2003, 03:02 AM

As the above discussion shows, its all about shades of grey, just it.

Suppose white is completely skeptical/atheist and black is completely religious/paranormal beliver (terms that carry a lot of different meanings and shades by themselves). There is a complete continuous series of shades of grey between these endmembers. What range of greys will be called woo-woo will depend on the observer´s particular beliefs, tolerance, etc. And its not logical!

Crystal power is woo-woo, the vast majority (again, a dubious term) of posters in this forum will agree, but some concepts of god are not (in some cases just for the sake of being PC IMHO- another example of how illogical the whole thing is).

For example- I am agnostic. Some would say its woo-woo. Some people here belive that "there has to be a meaning, a purpose". This is woo-woo belief for some other people.

Just for the record,
-I am completely confortable with a completely non-designed, purposeless and meaningless universe.
-I think that phylosophically, the inexistence of a god and some afterlife concepts are not mutually exclusive (but it does not mean I belive in them- the fact is that there are so many far-fetched beliefs that such concept would not be the hardest hard to swallow). And following the same logic, the existence of a god does not necessarily imply on the existance of an afterlife of some kind.

Yahweh

30th December 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
BTW it is Nyarlathotep not Nyarlathop

How do you pronounce your username?

CFLarsen

30th December 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
...while someone who even considers "there might be something to mediumship" is (not by all, but many) labelled and marginalized as a "woowoo" (and this isn't only limited to posts on the particular paranormal topic, either).

Who are these "many" people, Clancie? Please name them, and give examples.

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree with you, Nyarlathop, that there should be consistency...one way or the other. But, generally speaking, I don't think there is.

Now is your chance to prove you are right: Let's see some examples, please.

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe. But from what I've seen they can post on other topics, in Community, etc. with no stigma of being a woowoo at all.

What exactly have you seen? Examples, please?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, perhaps, its because as an atheist myself and, imo, life-long skeptic, the double-standard here regarding "religion/paranormal belief/"woowooism" particularly stands out to me.

Clancie, you are not a skeptic. You are a believer in mediumship. You believe that certain people can communicate with the dead.

Originally posted by Clancie
Aside from the misleading and inaccurate Larsen list

Please point out where the list of questions you refuse to answer is misleading and inaccurate.

Originally posted by Clancie
what -philosophical question- (i.e. not "personal antagonism questions", which I admit I ignore as much as possible) do you have personal knowledge of that I've avoided in the way you describe? Any of your own, for example?

Moving the goalposts. Now, it has to be philosophical questions.

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus--and his out-of-context "lists"--are on "ignore".

That is a bald-faced lie. You claim to have me on ignore, but address my posts (without them even being reposted by others, an action you abhore, since you have to admit to reading them)

Originally posted by Clancie
And I try not to take the bait when people insult me.

Male bovine manure. You have spent the past months whining about all those people here insulting you.

Originally posted by Clancie
Other than that, I think I do a pretty good job of responding to comments and questions that are addressed to me, despite being greatly outnumbered by those here who apparently think "there can't possibly be anything to mediumship...and it's ridiculous to even consider otherwise." (Since that is my one and only paranormal topic).

No, you do not. You keep evading all the tough questions, you move the goalposts, you change the subjects, you cannot keep focused on the subject at hand (if it is problematic for you to answer it). You misrepresent and even lie.

Originally posted by Clancie
I -don't- "believe in an afterlife". I think that "there -might- be something to it."

That is a bald-faced lie. You believe that e.g. medium Robert Brown can talk to dead people.

Originally posted by Clancie
As for atheism, if there -is- an afterlife of some sort, I don't see why it would -necessitate- belief in a god of any kind.

John Edward claims it has to. No, wait, he contradicts himself on that issue.

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
BTW it is Nyarlathotep not Nyarlathop

It is not the first time Clancie misspells another poster's nick. She usually does it with people who she disagrees with. Could be coincidence, of course. Clancie happens to disagree with a lot of people...

CFLarsen

30th December 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
what -philosophical question- (i.e. not "personal antagonism questions", which I admit I ignore as much as possible) do you have personal knowledge of that I've avoided in the way you describe? Any of your own, for example?

I got one of yours right here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24435)

T'ai Chi

30th December 2003, 05:46 AM

BillHoyt

30th December 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Again, I don't really think so.

All the IPU arguements amount to saying 'haha, your god belief is exactly like someone beliving in a 100ft tall orange flea from Neptune who has hairy armpits and eats 10tons of bran for breakfast!!!!'

People have always believed in god(s). Their "evidence" is the same evidence that scientists have for the natural universe; they just interpret it differently.

Comparing their god(s) belief to things that no one ever considered real to begin with is dishonest IMO.
Of course, tr'olldini, your highly suspect flinging of the word "dishonest" has been a hallmark of creduloid complaints here at JREF. This is part and parcel of the broader "a word means whatever I say it means; nothing more; nothing less" game woos seemingly adore.

The problem is, words have meaning. And, as with your previous abuses of "dishonest," this one agains contorts the word. Constructing examples that parallel the issue being debated is called argument by analogy. And, as nyarlathotep correctly pointed out, it often attempts to create common ground from which reason can be renewed. This is necessary often because of emotionally-charged blind spots. There is nothing dishonest about it. It is argument by analogy. I note, for the record, your fallacious appeal to popularity.

Your last sentence is characteristically laughable. The "natural universe" evidence is more than abundant. Every problem we have yet encountered in science has yielded to the scientific process and has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Every one, tr'olldini.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

30th December 2003, 06:28 AM

Skepticdic's ability to conclusively debunk anything in great detail is nothing short of f*cking amazing just like you can see here!

http://skepdic.com/xenoglossy.html

Disprove that superb line of reasoning woo-woos or be quiet!

Nyarlathotep

30th December 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

How do you pronounce your username?

Nye (rhymes with rye)

Ar (rhymes with star)

Lath (rhymes with path)

O (long O)

Tep (rhymes with step)

Nyarlathotep

30th December 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Again, I don't really think so.

All the IPU arguements amount to saying 'haha, your god belief is exactly like someone beliving in a 100ft tall orange flea from Neptune who has hairy armpits and eats 10tons of bran for breakfast!!!!'

If anyone uses it that way, then theya re misusing the argument. If you try to claim that only atheists and skeptics misuse arguments, I will call you a liar in advance.

People have always believed in god(s). Their "evidence" is the same evidence that scientists have for the natural universe; they just interpret it differently.

Comparing their god(s) belief to things that no one ever considered real to begin with is dishonest IMO.

Things in the natural world can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or otherwise shown to exist through their interaction with something else (which can in turn be seen heard, etc.). Not so for God. When God can be shown to exist in such a way, THEN you can claim that there is the same evidence for God as for the natural universe. Until then faith is all you have to go on and that's not enough for me.

Clancie

30th December 2003, 08:07 AM

Posted by Dragonrock

Okay, so what does "There might be something to it" mean?
It means that based on mediumship studies I've read, combined with (some, not all) readings I've had and have seen...I don't think the phenomena of mediumship has been adequately explained away as fraud, lucky guesses, and cold reading.

Maybe someday it will be. So far, imo, it seems "there might be something to it".
Posted by Dragonrock
I think there might be something to psychics, unicorns, the JFK conspriacy, and the belief that Elvis is still alive.
Do you really, Dragonrock?

Personally, I think there are a lot of interesting things about psychic abilities to look at....and quite a bit of evidence to make one question the Warren Commission report on JFK's assassination...but nothing at all to make one look any further for unicorns or Elvis.

However, I don't dismiss anecdotes as others here do. And if many otherwise credible people, in varied circumstances that were well observed and documented, in widespread numbers around the world were reporting unicorn sightings...well, I'd certainly look closer at the phenomena to try to find a rational explanation, not just assume I knew the reason already.

Dragonrock

30th December 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Do you really, Dragonrock?

Yes, but the sentence that follows what you quoted is the important one. What you quoted was a bit of hyperbole.

Originally posted by Clancie
However, I don't dismiss anecdotes as others here do. And if many otherwise credible people, in varied circumstances that were well observed and documented, in widespread numbers around the world were reporting unicorn sightings...well, I'd certainly look closer at the phenomena to try to find a rational explanation, not just assume I knew the reason already.

The question is, who are the credible people, in varied circumstances that were well observed and documented, support a belief in mediums? The studies I've read about are filled with errors and lack basic controls to prevent cheating.

In my intro to psych class we did a few weeks on human memory. In controlled studies, the ordinary people with the best memories were still only correct about 40% of the time. What that means is that less than half the time what they remembered is what actually happened. This makes me very skeptical of anecdotes and is why I required more than "There might be something to it" before I move from my position of "it doesn't exist". However, if many people in independent studies show that something does exist then I will happily accept whatever it is as real.

CFLarsen

30th December 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
It means that based on mediumship studies I've read, combined with (some, not all) readings I've had and have seen...I don't think the phenomena of mediumship has been adequately explained away as fraud, lucky guesses, and cold reading.

This is the same argument from those who believe that UFOs are alien spaceships. Not all sightings have been adequately explained away as fraud, planes and weather balloons. Ergo, there might be something to alien spaceships.

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe someday it will be. So far, imo, it seems "there might be something to it".

To mediumship? If, as you say, you are a skeptic, you would not have decided already that it was mediumship. Since you have no positive evidence that it is mediumship, it could also be aliens or the gubmint messing with our heads via huge green lasers from the Vatican.

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I think there are a lot of interesting things about psychic abilities to look at....and quite a bit of evidence to make one question the Warren Commission report on JFK's assassination...but nothing at all to make one look any further for unicorns or Elvis.

Why not? Don't just brush it off, explain why you don't look for unicorns anymore. Is it the sheer volume of anecdotes?

Originally posted by Clancie
However, I don't dismiss anecdotes as others here do. And if many otherwise credible people, in varied circumstances that were well observed and documented, in widespread numbers around the world were reporting unicorn sightings...well, I'd certainly look closer at the phenomena to try to find a rational explanation, not just assume I knew the reason already.

"Many otherwise credible people". That's where you are mistaken. Because people seem credible in other aspects of life, you also assume that they are credible when it comes to mediumship. We know they are not: Steve Grenard is (probably) truthful, when he writes about snakes, but we know for a fact that he is a notorious liar and deceiver, when it comes to mediumship.

Anecdotes are not data, Clancie. You understand it well enough, I know that. But, when it comes to mediumship, you throw out all presense of being a skeptic and dive straight in.

Don't claim that you do not believe in mediumship. Because you do. Your actions speak louder than words.

BillHoyt

30th December 2003, 09:40 AM

Interesting Ian

30th December 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

You'd have to explain to me your conception of God before I could tell you if I find it to be as silly as the Loch Ness Monster.

And like it or not, the concept a "God of the Gaps" is not strictly an atheist one. It is very prevalent. If you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods I'll pick a handful of churches at random out of the phonebook and pop in on them. I will bet you that their concept of God is much closer to a "God of the Gaps" than whatever your concept of god is.

Yes it will be since my conception of God could scarcely be further from such a concetualisation of God. I find the "God of the gaps" utterly absurd. God is not a thing in the world, rather the world is a thing in God.

BillHoyt

30th December 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes it will be since my conception of God could scarcely be further from such a concetualisation of God. I find the "God of the gaps" utterly absurd. God is not a thing in the world, rather the world is a thing in God.
It is not "god IN the gaps," it is "god OF the gaps."

Interesting Ian

30th December 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I think, though, that you misunderstand the point of IPU arguments. No adult (and likely darn few children) believes in IPUs, that is the point, that makes it common ground, something that both sides can pretty much agree to be a ridiculous notion. If there is no more evidence for God (or UFO's or whatever) as there is for this ridiculous thing that both sides can agree likely does not exist, why should one accept God's existance. the fact that X number of people beleive in God means nothing beyond an appeal to popularity. Lots of people believe lots of things, that doesn't make them right.

You have an utterly preposterous conceptualisation of "God". That is why. Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink unicorns etc is unfortunately a false analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with evidence for "X". But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality to be in the normal course of events.

Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3 criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person who is asserting the existence of "X" to

a) directly point at "X"

b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions

c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of "X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though there is no evidence for such galaxies).

Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a differing way from any putative physical existent "X". Many people in referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within the world. Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.

Nyarlathotep

30th December 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes it will be since my conception of God could scarcely be further from such a concetualisation of God. I find the "God of the gaps" utterly absurd. God is not a thing in the world, rather the world is a thing in God.

If you agree that any random church would worship something like a "God of the Gaps", why then do you call it an "atheist conception"?

Interesting Ian

30th December 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

If anyone uses it that way, then theya re misusing the argument. If you try to claim that only atheists and skeptics misuse arguments, I will call you a liar in advance.

[B]

Things in the natural world can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or otherwise shown to exist through their interaction with something else (which can in turn be seen heard, etc.). Not so for God.

Indeed, and not so for us either. Or do you believe you can see minds? God is not part of the natural world, and neither are we.

Nyarlathotep

30th December 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with evidence for "X". But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality to be in the normal course of events.

Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3 criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person who is asserting the existence of "X" to

a) directly point at "X"

b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions

c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of "X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though there is no evidence for such galaxies).

No argument from me up to this point.

Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a differing way from any putative physical existent "X". Many people in referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within the world. Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.

This is where I begin to disagree with you. For one thing, if we take your concept of God as a given, you have only explained why you cannot prove the existence of God using option a. You still have two more methods by your own logic and I see no reason, from what you have said, that if God existed you could not prove his existence by either b or c.

Further I will accept that materialism may well be a "particular metaphysical interpretation of reality", however I don't see you giving any good reasons why your view of reality has any more support. A materialistic view of the universe has at least one thing going for it: It is simply the way the universe appears to be, either there exists an external material reality or there exists such a convincing illusion of one that it makes no practical difference. What does your view have in its favor?

Nyarlathotep

30th December 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Indeed, and not so for us either. Or do you believe you can see minds? God is not part of the natural world, and neither are we.

Of course I can't see minds but I can infer their existance through watching the way something that has a mind (i.e. a human) interacts differently with the world than something that doesn't (i.e. a plant). It COULD all be a clever illusion but then I have to ask myself "what is more likely; other minds besides my own exist or is it all an illusion?" The existance of other minds seems much more likely especially since I know my own mind exists and there is nothing to suppose that I am so special as to have the only one.

T'ai Chi

30th December 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Things in the natural world can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or otherwise shown to exist through their interaction with something else (which can in turn be seen heard, etc.). Not so for God.

Some people say that the natural world is god(s), etc., so, as I said, the same evidence is being interpreted; it is just the interpretation that differs.

T'ai Chi

30th December 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Of course, tr'olldini, your highly suspect flinging of the word "dishonest" has been a hallmark of creduloid complaints here at JREF.

The wimpy whisperings of the words "troll" and "creduloid" have been a mainstay of pseudo-skeptical wannabe scientistic armchair warmers for decades. What's your point? ;)

The problem is, words have meaning.

Sure. And some words have many meanings. Meaning depends on context. Meaning depends on people. Meaning changes over time. There is no universal "meaning" floating around out there.

Constructing examples that parallel the issue being debated is called argument by analogy.

Yeah, that is just the name of the argument type. If the argument type is dishonest, such as a strawman, then the whole shebang is dishonest.

If not, again, PLEASE show us one adult who ever seriously considered IPU's or green cheese on the moon to exist in reality. It should be easy if it wasn't a total strawman.

I note, for the record, your fallacious appeal to popularity.

You do that. I'll note, for the record (what the heck is a record??? ;) ) your inability to realize that improper analogies are in fact strawmen, and are therefore dishonest methods.

Your last sentence is characteristically laughable. The "natural universe" evidence is more than abundant. Every problem we have yet encountered in science has yielded to the scientific process and has yielded a naturalistic explanation.

I agree that the natural universe is abundant (understatement of the century). Show me where I said otherwise. I said: the evidence is the same; the interpretation is different.

Every problem we have yet encountered in science has yielded to the scientific process and has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Every one, tr'olldini.

Except the multitude of pesky problems no one can solve.
And except what came before the big bang.
And except TONS of problems that are not in the domain of science.
And except problems that are not only in the domain of science.
And except things that are difficult or impossible to forecast accurately.
And except when science (technology from it) creates larger problems.
And except...

Jeff Corey

30th December 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

If not, again, PLEASE show us one adult who ever seriously considered IPU's or green cheese on the moon to exist in reality. It should be easy if it wasn't a total strawman.[/b]
[/B]
Well my uncle Bucky did believe the moon was made of green cheese.
I think it was Wensleydale which had gone off.

BillHoyt

31st December 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sure. And some words have many meanings. Meaning depends on context. Meaning depends on people. Meaning changes over time. There is no universal "meaning" floating around out there.
I'm sure it must warm the cockles of men's hearts to know your philosophy is so foot-loose and fancy-free with regard to meaning. It doesn't serve communication much, though, when one of the communicators feels free to redefine words on a whim. Or as an evasion.

Yeah, that is just the name of the argument type. If the argument type is dishonest, such as a strawman, then the whole shebang is dishonest.

If not, again, PLEASE show us one adult who ever seriously considered IPU's or green cheese on the moon to exist in reality. It should be easy if it wasn't a total strawman.
One of the most fun words in the English language is "obtuse." Unfortunately, the fun stops when one realizes that it applies to them. Here, for instance, you unfortunately are being quite obtuse. You are also demonstrating quite clearly your earlier philosophy of not caring about what words mean.

A strawman is an argument that argues against "X" as if the opponent had said "X", even though the opponent had clearly said "Y". This is most clearly not what is happening in this argument. Nobody is saying "X" was said.

You do that. I'll note, for the record (what the heck is a record??? ;) ) your inability to realize that improper analogies are in fact strawmen, and are therefore dishonest methods.
May I recommend you buy a book (you do know what a book is?) on logical fallacies and hire someone to read it to you?

I agree that the natural universe is abundant (understatement of the century). Show me where I said otherwise. I said: the evidence is the same; the interpretation is different.
Also pay that person to read you my post.

Except the multitude of pesky problems no one can solve.
And except what came before the big bang.
And except TONS of problems that are not in the domain of science.
And except problems that are not only in the domain of science.
And except things that are difficult or impossible to forecast accurately.
And except when science (technology from it) creates larger problems.
And except...
Argumentum ad ignorantium again.

T'ai Chi

31st December 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'm sure it must warm the cockles of men's hearts to know your philosophy is so foot-loose and fancy-free with regard to meaning. It doesn't serve communication much, though, when one of the communicators feels free to redefine words on a whim. Or as an evasion.

So you deny that meanings aren't as concrete as you believe?

A strawman is an argument that argues against "X" as if the opponent had said "X", even though the opponent had clearly said "Y". This is most clearly not what is happening in this argument. Nobody is saying "X" was said.

Yes, they are if they are comparing God belief to belief in IPU's when NO ONE has ever believed in IPU's! I'll ask it again since you missed it:

PLEASE show us one adult who ever seriously considered IPU's or green cheese on the moon to exist in reality. It should be easy if it wasn't a total strawman.

May I recommend you buy a book (you do know what a book is?) on logical fallacies and hire someone to read it to you?

Evasion noted. When will you answer my questions? LOL.

Argumentum ad ignorantium again.

Uh NO. I just refuted your silly statement of Every problem we have yet encountered in science has yielded to the scientific process and has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Every one, tr'olldini. by listing some things which science has not solved, cannot solve, partially solved, or has solved but created larger problems in the process.

There ain't no magic bullet Bill.

BillHoyt

31st December 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you deny that meanings aren't as concrete as you believe?

Frackus bacchus im naga zilch. Breat nona cum quarto? Erh?

BillHoyt

31st December 2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh NO. I just refuted your silly statement of Every problem we have yet encountered in science has yielded to the scientific process and has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Every one, tr'olldini. by listing some things which science has not solved, cannot solve, partially solved, or has solved but created larger problems in the process.

There ain't no magic bullet Bill.
No, you named problems that are incompletely solved. You also invoked once again, problems outside science's magisterium. Apparently, you have yet to understand the meaning of scientistic, or the scope of the magisterium, or both.

Magic bullet, tr'olldini? What would you do with a magic bullet when you can't even handle your cap gun properly? Get a better shtick, tr'oll.

Interesting Ian

31st December 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]

No argument from me up to this point.

[B]

This is where I begin to disagree with you. For one thing, if we take your concept of God as a given, you have only explained why you cannot prove the existence of God using option a. You still have two more methods by your own logic and I see no reason, from what you have said, that if God existed you could not prove his existence by either b or c.

Well becauce God is not physical. And BTW neither are we. This is why no consciousnesses whatsoever are scientifically explicable. God's mind is not unusual in this respect.

Sorry, need to go drinking soon. Haven't time to address the rest of your post.

Suezoled

31st December 2003, 08:16 AM

Don't see how Ian can go drinking if he doesn't exist.

Oh, pardon, if he's not physical.

Interesting Ian

31st December 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Of course I can't see minds but I can infer their existance through watching the way something that has a mind (i.e. a human) interacts differently with the world than something that doesn't (i.e. a plant). It COULD all be a clever illusion but then I have to ask myself "what is more likely; other minds besides my own exist or is it all an illusion?" The existance of other minds seems much more likely especially since I know my own mind exists and there is nothing to suppose that I am so special as to have the only one.

Remember that according to the materialist everything that happens in the world, including our behaviour, unfolds according to physical laws. To put it in simplistic terms, you might suppose that peoples behaviour can be completely understood with reference to processes within the brain only. A materialist could not then infer a mind because then there is no need for a mind to explain your behaviour.

Nyarlathotep

31st December 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Remember that according to the materialist everything that happens in the world, including our behaviour, unfolds according to physical laws. To put it in simplistic terms, you might suppose that peoples behaviour can be completely understood with reference to processes within the brain only. A materialist could not then infer a mind because then there is no need for a mind to explain your behaviour.

Philosophy is not my strong suit so I can't think of a non-awkward way of phrasing this.

What you say is true only if you think of a mind as a thing in the same way that a rock or a tree is a thing. I would say that a mind isn't a thing so much as it is the effect of a thing. Just as Gravity is an effect of mass or movement is the effect of a cars engine, so too is a mind the effect of a brain. The brain is the thing, the mind is just the effect.

voidx

31st December 2003, 09:24 AM

Hey Ian, hows that webpage for describing your worldview in detail coming along? :D. Started it yet?

As for the rest of this reoccuring debate over "Woo Woo" I say blargh! I don't personally use the term myself for the simple reason that it has no concrete definition, it depends on personal opinions and biases as to which point someone can be labelled a woo-woo. Like all generic, stereotypical names its woefully inadequate at specifically defining anything useful.

Now as for Clancies gripe about the religious here not getting nailed with the term too I say meh. I also do not frequent the R&P section of the forum and I imagine that the more simplistic notions of God would be considered "Woo Woo" and people espousing them taken to task for it. You also have to seperate religion and your notion of God in my opinion. If your talking strictly religion, well many religions have enough ridiculous tenents in them to be taken to task for most anything, but peoples notions of God is harder to do the same with. While I generally find most notions of God unlikely, there are some that I must admit I cannot 100% dismiss as possibilities. However, an interesting thing I've noted is in these particular cases what God is becomes more and more vague. To specifically define what God is, is to have him picked apart. Which is why most peoples arguements for God nowadays extend to the metaphysical, because neither side has enough knowledge to say one way of the other what might be possible in the realms of knowledge that currently evade us.

As for skeptics/pseudo-skeptics, I see it as the "Woo Woo's" equivalent of...well..."Woo Woo". Its definition also seems to change depending on whose using the term. So for the most part I find these discussions pretty pointless. If we're talking about flying potatoes, I won't counter your arguement with, "Well you believe God is made out of Fruit Loops so there!", unless you specifically bring your Fruit Loop God into the flying potato arguement yourself.

Clancie

31st December 2003, 09:46 AM

Hi voidx,

I understand your point. Let me put mine a little differently. I think there is a double-standard at work. Adherents to American mainstream religions (e.g. Christianity) are seldom if ever called "woowoos" here, reminded about their religious foolishness when they post on unrelated topics and forums, or attrack people who repeatedly follow and post to them on everything simply to discredit them because of their views on religion. Christians, deists....they are well respected, even can become JREF moderators. (I have no criticism of this btw, I just think some "skeptics" here practice an intellectual double standard when it comes to non-religious paranormal beliefs. (And, adhere to it or not, Christianity -is- paranormal; there's no way around that.)

Here's another way to make my point:

For some people spiritualism is an atheistic religion. Why aren't skeptics expected to be consistent in the level of respect they show to adherents of this religion as well as Christianity?

Or does being a "majority viewpoint" really hold such a decisive intellectual sway?

CFLarsen

31st December 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
For some people spiritualism is an atheistic religion. Why aren't skeptics expected to be consistent in the level of respect they show to adherents of this religion as well as Christianity?

Or does being a "majority viewpoint" really hold such a decisive intellectual sway?

An "atheistic religion" is the biggest oxymoron ever.

slimshady2357

31st December 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi voidx,

I understand your point. Let me put mine a little differently. I think there is a double-standard at work. Adherents to American mainstream religions (e.g. Christianity) are seldom if ever called "woowoos" here, reminded about their religious foolishness when they post on unrelated topics and forums, or attrack people who repeatedly follow and post to them on everything simply to discredit them because of their views on religion. Christians, deists....they are well respected, even can become JREF moderators.

Can you give some examples please? And just so you know, Deism is not an 'American mainstream religion'.

So, ya, can you give me 5 examples of this double standard you see so much of?

Who are 5 people called 'woo-woo' that are "...called "woowoos" here, reminded about their [particular] foolishness when they post on unrelated topics and forums, or attrack people who repeatedly follow and post to them on everything simply to discredit them because of their views on religion."?

And who are 5 people who are vocal about their 'American mainstream religion' however they are not "...called "woowoos" here, reminded about their religious foolishness when they post on unrelated topics and forums, or attrack people who repeatedly follow and post to them on everything simply to discredit them because of their views on religion."?

I frequent these boards fairly regularily and I don't see what you're talking about. I see both sides not listening to each other fairly often. I both sides make claims and then not back them up regulaily.

Just out of curiosity, would you say all people are treated equally as fairly on TVTalk by the regulars? If not, have you ever complained about that?

Adam

Clancie

31st December 2003, 10:08 AM

Posted by Slimshady2357
Can you give some examples please? And just so you know, Deism is not an 'American mainstream religion'.

Hi Slimshady,

Yes, I was referring to Christianity as the mainstream religion I had in mind. There -are- Christians at this board, as well, not only deists.

I will only give you one example to support my point...my own experience here. Perhaps you think the pattern Claus has of critically posting to me, everywhere, is because I have ideas that need to be attacked everywhere, and is totally unrelated to his view that I am a "woowoo".

If that's what you feel his reason for hounding me on every subject is (even my advice to someone about learning Chinese), then we profoundly disagree. And, frankly, I think a Christian here who was posting about, say, Rumsfeld in the Politics forum, and saw a snide references to Jesus suddenly and irrelevantly interjected in response to the post (as a reference to John Edward was from someone else, not CFL, in a Politics thread I was in), a bit...puzzling....to say the least.

Interesting Ian

31st December 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by voidx
[B]Hey Ian, hows that web page for describing your worldview in detail coming along? :D. Started it yet?

I'm going to concentrate on the content first. At the moment I'm concentrating on critisizing this essay here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html). I'm about half way through it. What's the situation in quoting him and critisizing it? I mean copyright issue wise am I allowed to do that? I could ask him, but he might not be pleased about me doing so and refuse to give me permission! LOL Anyway, that will go into one of my web pages.

Basically Web pages will be:

A critique of Keith Augustine's essay "The case against immortality".
A philosophical appraisal of the mind/body problem and its implication for survival (life after death),
Materialism, dualism and Idealism
NDE's and deathbed visions and various forms of apparitions (eg crisis apparitions etc) and the implications for survival.
The philosophy of science.
An argument about God
Links

Interesting Ian

31st December 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Philosophy is not my strong suit so I can't think of a non-awkward way of phrasing this.

What you say is true only if you think of a mind as a thing in the same way that a rock or a tree is a thing. I would say that a mind isn't a thing so much as it is the effect of a thing. Just as Gravity is an effect of mass or movement is the effect of a cars engine, so too is a mind the effect of a brain. The brain is the thing, the mind is just the effect.

Damn, haven't got time to answer you. Going out in an hour for my drinking session. Will answer tomorrow :)

slimshady2357

31st December 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Slimshady,

Yes, I was referring to Christianity as the mainstream religion I had in mind. There -are- Christians at this board, as well, not only deists.

I will only give you one example to support my point...my own experience here. Perhaps you think the pattern Claus has of critically posting to me, everywhere, is because I have ideas that need to be attacked everywhere, unrelated to his view that I am a "woowoo".

If that's what you feel the reason for hounding me on every subject (even my advice to someone about learning Chinese), then we profoundly disagree. I think people would find the phenomena of posting about, say, Politics, and having references to Jesus suddenly and irrelevantly interjected (as John Edward was from someone else, not CFL, in a Politics thread I was in), a bit...puzzling....to say the least.

I asked for 5 examples because I was afraid your only example would be yourself.

I don't think the way Claus hounds you is acceptable, but he chooses to do it, and I choose to think poorly of him often because of it.

Now, that in the clear, can you offer any examples besides yourself? Or are you condemning the entire board on one example? And you still have not given me examples from the other side (Christians who are vocal about their beliefs getting a free pass).

If this is the kind of reasoning you use to make such claims, it's hard to fault Claus for pointing it out.

And you never answered my questions about the TVTalk regulars either.

You see, I have a suspicion that -you- are indulging a double standard of your own. You can show me wrong by providing further examples besides yourself.

Or, you could show me how you have complained about this same phenomenon at TVTalk about how the regulars treat opposing view points (this assumes of course that they do treat them differently, I certainly wouldn't ask for evidence of something you don't even believe happens!)

I can understand how you feel about the way you are treated by some people on these boards, but that is hardly even close to evidence that in general 'skeptics' get a pass on religion and 'non-skeptics' get badgered about their beliefs everywhere they go.

If you want to retract your statements and say that they only apply to you and any examples you can find of Christians (non so far) that are given free passes, I would be fine with that too. But your blanket statements require much more than one example of one part of the claims.

Adam

Clancie

31st December 2003, 10:44 AM

Posted by Slimshady 2357

I don't think the way Claus hounds you is acceptable, but he chooses to do it, and I choose to think poorly of him often because of it.
Well, thank you for saying it, at least. I guess if more skeptics here -would- comment publicly, it would not be such a sore point with me.
Or are you condemning the entire board on one example?
I'm not condemning the board at all. But I admit that I do think there is a stigma toward views expressed on other subjects when one is known for posts supportive of something paranormal. Can I prove it?

No. But I think if I had never posted in support of the idea "there may be something to mediumship" that my -other- posts at this board would be seen differently. But...maybe you're right and that's -not- the case at all.
And you still have not given me examples from the other side (Christians who are vocal about their beliefs getting a free pass).
Well, LukeT's a Christian, well accepted and respected, never has his religious views thrown back to discredit him as woowooism, and is a moderator. (Again, just to repeat, I don't have an issue with that at all. I just think some people have a double standard in their acceptance level of Christians vs. other paranormal "afterlife" beliefs).
And you never answered my questions about the TVTalk regulars either.
There aren't a lot of regulars there (and many also post here). I think people would agree that, (with the exception of some of the old threads with Claus), the disagreements there are usually quite civil, even quite friendly.

You see, I have a suspicion that -you- are indulging a double standard of your own. You can show me wrong by providing further examples besides yourself.
I don't see myself practicing a double standard and I don't see why other examples are needed. (There aren't a lot of people to draw from posting in support of the paranormal here, either...you've noticed that, right?) However, it seems to me that I've seen Steve's posts in the other forums where he's been attacked for paranormal views unrelated to his posts.
I can understand how you feel about the way you are treated by some people on these boards, but that is hardly even close to evidence that in general 'skeptics' get a pass on religion and 'non-skeptics' get badgered about their beliefs everywhere they go.
Well, Claus and Bill can say what they want to me, and seemingly their tactics receive very little criticism at all. But I don't see any "woowoos" of other religious beliefs treated that same way (nor do I think most people here would find it acceptable to badger Christians in this way--but, as you say, that's just a guess, since we have no examples to look at of it happening).

Clancie

31st December 2003, 10:54 AM

Posted by slimshady 2357

that is hardly even close to evidence that in general 'skeptics' get a pass on religion and 'non-skeptics' get badgered about their beliefs everywhere they go.
Adam,

That statement shows exactly the bias I'm referring to.

Your sentence makes the clear supposition that Christians (with paranormal beliefs in .... God/afterlife/soul/etc) are accepted as "skeptics" while someone who thinks there may be an afterlife/communication but -isn't- a Christian is necessarily pigeonholed as automatically a "non-skeptic" (woowoo, etc.)

Nyarlathotep

31st December 2003, 10:54 AM

slimshady2357

31st December 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, LukeT's a Christian, well accepted and respected, never has his religious views thrown back to discredit him as woowooism, and is a moderator. (Again, just to repeat, I don't have an issue with that at all. I just think some people have a double standard in their acceptance level of Christians vs. other paranormal "afterlife" beliefs).

Are you sure about that? I seem to remember him being clear that he believed in a 'higher power' or God due to personal experience, but that he ascribed no attributes to that God, as he had evidence for none.

That doesn't sound like a Christian to me.

There aren't a lot of regulars there (and many also post here). I think people would agree that, (with the exception of some of the old threads with Claus), the disagreements there are usually quite civil, even quite friendly.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

I don't see myself practicing a double standard and I don't see why other examples are needed. (There aren't a lot of people to draw from posting in support of the paranormal here, either...you've noticed that, right?)

Well, one example is hardly enough to be making general claims with, wouldn't you say? I have a math degree, does that mean that in general people from University of Waterloo have a math degree? Like I said, if you were to change your claim to say that it is you that is treated like that, I could hardly disagree. but you didn't say that, you made a much stronger claim, one that I don't see the evidence for.

However, it seems to me that I've seen Steve's posts in the other forums where he's been attacked for paranormal views unrelated to his posts.

Thank you for bringing someone else up, it helps your case. However, it's a bad example in my view, I want to stress that. I want to give you credit for bringing up someone else, but I do think Steve deserves much of what he gets. I don't want to go into details as to why I think that here, but it's just my opinion anyway.

Well, Claus and Bill can say what they want to me, and seemingly their tactics receive very little criticism at all. But I don't see any "woowoos" of other religious beliefs treated that same way (nor do I think most people here would find it acceptable to badger Christians in this way--but, as you say, that's just a guess, since we have no examples to look at of it happening).

There are people that complain about the actions of Claus, Bill and others, I'm one of them. I don't feel like I'm alone. If you look for the thread started by Ian about Claus making a mistake about him (Ian) joking around, you'll see that quite a few people voiced their opinion in that thread.

It's not as many or as often as you would like, well I guess you'll have to live with that. There are other people who believe in the paranormal that are not treated as you are, why do you think that is?

Anyway, I'm outta here for some celebration time! :) Have a great night/weekend/time and I'll see you in the new year!

Adam

!Xx-Credulous-xX!

31st December 2003, 05:12 PM

Woo-woo is a term these meanies use to refer to those of us who are Spiritually Awakened. They are just jealous.

I'm off to go see if I can hear spirit voices through my microwave oven.

Peace and tranquility to you!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

31st December 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!
Woo-woo is a term these meanies use to refer to those of us who are Spiritually Awakened. They are just jealous.

I'm off to go see if I can hear spirit voices through my microwave oven.

Peace and tranquility to you!

This is irrational you must convert and I won't stop until I have converted all the believers in the name of materialism! You alreadly have the !Xx- in your name right so join skeptiscientisuperioristism!

!Xx-Credulous-xX!

31st December 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

This is irrational you must convert and I won't stop until I have converted all the believers in the name of materialism! You alreadly have the !Xx- in your name right so join skeptiscientisuperioristism!

No

It's not irrational it's alternative! All the alternative beliefs are true! What's true is what's true for you, true wisdom from the enlightened master L. Ron Hubbard! Just believe and it will be so!

P.S. I talked to my plants about you today and they say youre a sad lonley person with only your atheist materialist coffee to console you
How sad! I'll pray for you and meditate on your enlightenment!

T'ai Chi

31st December 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

An "atheistic religion" is the biggest oxymoron ever.

Nope.

Religion isn't necessarily about god(s).

T'ai Chi

31st December 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, you named problems that are incompletely solved. You also invoked once again, problems outside science's magisterium. Apparently, you have yet to understand the meaning of scientistic, or the scope of the magisterium, or both.

Magic bullet, tr'olldini? What would you do with a magic bullet when you can't even handle your cap gun properly? Get a better shtick, tr'oll.

You believe that science will solve all.

Belief. Belief. Belief.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

31st December 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!

No

It's not irrational it's alternative! All the alternative beliefs are true! What's true is what's true for you, true wisdom from the enlightened master L. Ron Hubbard! Just believe and it will be so!

P.S. I talked to my plants about you today and they say youre a sad lonley person with only your atheist materialist coffee to console you
How sad! I'll pray for you and meditate on your enlightenment!

But the alternative contradicts the great scientific method which is the only way to know things! There is nothing other than science that we can trust! Praise science!

CFLarsen

1st January 2004, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nope.

Religion isn't necessarily about god(s).

Did I say there has to be a god? Want to compare religion and atheism? Sure:

Religion

Webster:
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Encyclopedia Britannica:
"the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the nature of religion and religious belief, including such specific questions as the existence and nature of God and the presence of evil and suffering in the world."

Columbia Encyclopedia:
"a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it."
More here (http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/religion.html)

Encarta:
"sacred engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Cambridge Dictionary:
"the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

Atheism

Webster:
1.a Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1.b The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Britannica:
"in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings."

Columbia Encyclopedia:
"denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved."

Encarta:
"the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."

Cambridge Dictionary:
"someone who believes that God or gods do not exist"

Please explain how an atheist can hold a belief in a supernatural being.

No hedging, please. No stalling. No circumventing. No sidetracking.

!Xx-Credulous-xX!

1st January 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

But the alternative contradicts the great scientific method which is the only way to know things! There is nothing other than science that we can trust! Praise science!

Silly scientists think they know everything when they know NOTHING! Their materialistic religion will bear no emotional fruit truly the only way to be happy is to believe in the infinite possibilites of the supernatural!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

1st January 2004, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!

Silly scientists think they know everything when they know NOTHING! Their materialistic religion will bear no emotional fruit truly the only way to be happy is to believe in the infinite possibilites of the supernatural!

The problem is nothing has ever been learned without science making it the only reliable method! It's a wonder how people can put any kind of faith in that thing they call experience because you can't learn anything from it and you can't trust it because the memory is malleable and people delude themselves so often! If there is something that science does not know then that something does not exist!

Kerberos

1st January 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Some people say that the natural world is god(s), etc., so, as I said, the same evidence is being interpreted; it is just the interpretation that differs.

"Some people" aren't making any sense. I'll acknowledge that there can be different definitions of god, but unless the definition has at least some similarity with the way the word is commonly used it's meaningless. Saying god is the natural world, doesn't magically turn evidence for the natural world into evidence for god - it just creates a different, and very confusing, word for the natural world. I could just as easily prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns by defining them as visible black cats.

CFLarsen

1st January 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
"Some people" aren't making any sense. I'll acknowledge that there can be different definitions of god, but unless the definition has at least some similarity with the way the word is commonly used it's meaningless. Saying god is the natural world, doesn't magically turn evidence for the natural world into evidence for god - it just creates a different, and very confusing, word for the natural world. I could just as easily prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns by defining them as visible black cats.

I agree. I think we need to acknowledge that we can't just invent new meaning for words. "Atheism" is not how I define it, but how it is generally accepted. For that, we need to refer to dictionaries and encyclopedias. We can't rely on what "some people" think.

You are not an atheist, just because you say so. You are an atheist, if you fit the description of an atheist.

voidx

2nd January 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi voidx,

I understand your point. Let me put mine a little differently. I think there is a double-standard at work. Adherents to American mainstream religions (e.g. Christianity) are seldom if ever called "woowoos" here, reminded about their religious foolishness when they post on unrelated topics and forums, or attrack people who repeatedly follow and post to them on everything simply to discredit them because of their views on religion. Christians, deists....they are well respected, even can become JREF moderators. (I have no criticism of this btw, I just think some "skeptics" here practice an intellectual double standard when it comes to non-religious paranormal beliefs. (And, adhere to it or not, Christianity -is- paranormal; there's no way around that.)

Here's another way to make my point:

For some people spiritualism is an atheistic religion. Why aren't skeptics expected to be consistent in the level of respect they show to adherents of this religion as well as Christianity?

Or does being a "majority viewpoint" really hold such a decisive intellectual sway?
Ahhh the double-standard arguement. SlimShady has done a very effective job of picking this apart and I basically agree with everything he says. You say this as though it applies generally, but its abundantly clear that it is a thinly vieled reference to how you're treated by Claus, Bill and company. You've not shown that there is an obvious double-standard, you merely think there is, and from what I've seen so far, I have to seriously question where you garnerned this thought from. Pointing out yourself and one other person as a potential example on a whole board of people does not an over-riding double standard make I'm sorry. I'm merely tired of this charge of a double-standard being leveled against us as an entire forum, but that when pressed only the same small group of people are brought up as examples, and almost always in reference to yourself.

Clancie

2nd January 2004, 07:47 AM

Well, voidx, I hardly expected to change your mind.

I -did- think of posting for you Hal's recent comment about the level of nastiness shown by some to newcomers posting here with paranormal ideas--and his recommendation to try to keep discussion more civil.

Unfortunately, that announcement seems to have been deleted (or else somehow I'm just not seeing it).

Hopefully you know the post I'm referring to from him. I think he made a good point (and it wasn't about me--or anyone in particular whose ideas about the paranormal differ from the majority's).

voidx

2nd January 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, voidx, I hardly expected to change your mind.

But you could change my mind. On the surface your double-standard arguement seems quite possible. Religion being the biggest of all sacred cows, that even skeptics aren't willing to denounce others who share the majority of their skeptical thinking, with the exception of their religion. However, you still have to show that this is the case the majority of the time. If you showed or had several examples with a wide array of posters doing this, I would instantly agree with you that the board had a slight double-standard. But you haven't shown that.

I -did- think of posting for you Hal's recent comment about the level of nastiness shown by some to newcomers posting here with paranormal ideas--and his recommendation to try to keep discussion more civil.

Unfortunately, that announcement seems to have been deleted (or else somehow I'm just not seeing it).

Hopefully you know the post I'm referring to from him. I think he made a good point (and it wasn't about me--or anyone in particular whose ideas about the paranormal differ from the majority's).
I do know the one your talking about and I agree with the sentiment. We are sometimes rather harsh with newcomers for varying reasons, some people more than others, and at times unjustly so. However, his announcement that we're rather nasty to newbie's who are espousing paranormal views doesn't seem to tie in with those believing in religion getting a free ride. If someone came in spouting off their unsupported religious views, I have no doubts they would be challenged on them.