Theology Web poster's attack on Randi...

[the_ignored]

At least one person there put the smack down on him:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=160956#post160956
The religious person's quote is in green:
Today @ 01:14 AM post located here
Jinx72:
For the most part, I like James Randi. He's intelligent, witty and entertaining, and I thoroughly enjoy seeing him giving charlatans and con-artists whatfor. However, his comments about religion in this week's column fall far short of his typical standards. Just see for yourself:



translation:

I like James Randi when he's debunking all the false beliefs I agree are false, I just don't like him when he's debunking my cherished beliefs...<~~You'll notice that that seems to be the attitude of the other people who criticize Randi later on...

everyone see the hypocrisy? Good. Let's move on.


Everyone see the holes? Good. Let's move on.


Everyone see Jinx avoiding addressing any of Randi's points? Good. Lets move on.


If only Mr. Randi was as knowledgable about Christian theology as he is about the charlatans and conmen he normally lambastes.


everyone see Jinx's ad hominem, instead of demonstrating his own indepth knowledge of Christian theology to refute anything in Mr. Randi's article? Good. Lets move on.

He does attempt to save himself from further embarrassment, though:


everyone see Jinx's attempt at patronizing humor? Good. Let's move on.

Yet he does go on, and fails miserably to construct anything other than a huge strawman argument.

Not very "bright" after all, I guess.


anyone see Jinx refute any of Randi's alleged strawman arguments anywhere in this post? Good. Let's move on.

(Mods, feel free to delete this if you so choose, I just thought it'd be interesting to see that there are skeptics in the religious boards as well...)

[the_ignored]

Cool, actually there are a few people there who bust them up...

That thread goes to 11 pages, and the good guys have the last word, so far (fighting against "Socrates")

[arcticpenguin]

Interesting. I got through about 5 pages of it.

[Yahweh]

I say invite those people to these boards, what we need is to <s>suck the souls out of those puny Christians to appease the Dark Lord Satan bwahahaha</s> have an intelligible conversation with them.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I say invite those people to these boards, what we need is to <s>suck the souls out of those puny Christians to appease the Dark Lord Satan bwahahaha</s> have an intelligible conversation with them.

That's a great idea!

[reprise]

The International Survivalist Society (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm) has also taken a potshot at Randi this week.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by reprise
The International Survivalist Society (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm) has also taken a potshot at Randi this week.

Aside from the usual crap the creduloids throw up (double entendre) about Randi, his methods and the Challenge, I see we have "documented" cases of paranormal activity. Setting aside for a moment that the Challenge is performance based, I noticed something about those listed.

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916.

16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J. G. 1910.

Forgive me for reverse argument ad antiquatum, but should we really be trusting of publications from 70-110 years ago? Further, I notice there's only 4 from the last 25 years. If such events/abilities were occuring with the frequency the paranormalists suggest, why haven't there been more.

I realize I'm attacking the source of the data, not the data itself, but it just astounds me how what - to me - is a stunning lack of evidence can be considered evidence.

[reprise]

Hmmmm.

It looks like Randi's critics aren't above reviving ugly, unsubstantiated, rumours (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=207597) either. I might alert Linda about that thread and see whether she wants to make a comment on the SDMB record on behalf of Randi.