You are not skeptics, you are pseudo skeptics.

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 05:54 PM

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

thaiboxerken · 21st September 2004, 05:57 PM

Yea, whatever. When you have something to say yourself, instead of just posting links, let us know.

thaiboxerken · 21st September 2004, 06:00 PM

That website is just another believer sie trying to fool people into thinking that is it scientific and skeptical. You have been fooled.

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
That website is just another believer sie trying to fool people into thinking that is it scientific and skeptical. You have been fooled.

They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate.

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:16 PM

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cchallenge.htm

On Randi's 1 million dollar challenge.

cbish · 21st September 2004, 06:18 PM

1inChrist wrote:

Quote:

People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims,

yes, and if they can, what does that tell you?

Quote:

They have made up their mind before they investigate.

Perhaps, based on the same unfounded claims year after year.

Remember how the game is played. It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove the validity of the claim. It must be under controlled, repeatable conditions. No shooting from the hip.

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cbish
[b]yes, and if they can, what does that tell you?

It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists.

Ratman_tf · 21st September 2004, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate.

I love how every paranormal claim is supposed to be treated as if it's fresh and new, when most of them have been around, and debunked over and over again for CENTURIES.

It's not like we don't have some track record going here...

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:32 PM

Another good article on Randi:

http://rense.com/general50/james.htm

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:37 PM

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

and

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh?

epepke · 21st September 2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists.

Are you sure they aren't percolating wombats?

I don't expect that you will understand this at all, but with repect to skeptical investigation, it does not matter in the slightest who you are, so long as you can function well enough to perform a skeptical investigation. What matters is what you can demonstrate. If a "debunking" is successful, it doesn't matter at all whether the person who came up with it made up his mind or kept an open mind or rode around on a unicycle playing Dixie on a nose flute. If a "debunking" is unsuccessful, it doesn't matter either. Results are what matter. That's what we care about.

Again, I don't expect you to understand this at all, because your worldview is authority-based (with "scripture" just being a written proxy authority).

DangerousBeliefs · 21st September 2004, 07:35 PM

I prefer the term "Militant Skeptic"

By the way, my wife wants to know when you're going to link to pictures of human foot prints next to dinosaurs.

EdipisReks · 21st September 2004, 07:56 PM

*yawn*. this thread, and 1inchrist, remind me of the song Idiot Wind.

1inChrist · 21st September 2004, 08:22 PM

What's wrong? Can't DEBUNK the charges made against you? Admit it, all of you pseudo skeptics here have made up your mind before the investigation. You start with the conclusion and find facts to back it up. Sound similar? It should. It's the same thing Creationists do.

Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

Simple as that.

Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific?

Mercutio · 21st September 2004, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist

Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

...and when you find good solid evidence that you are wrong, hide it, distort it, fabricate some alternative evidence. Whatever you do, don't let that evidence see the light of day!

Quote:

Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

...and when you find good solid evidence that you are wrong... well, actually, any way to finish that sentence would be speculation. You may be right, 1in, it could be that some would hide or distort it, in which case, sure, call them pseudoskeptics. But we kinda need good solid evidence first, and that is where your analogy breaks down. It's just not there.

thaiboxerken · 21st September 2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate.

Hardly a good point at all. Randi and CSICOP may have opinions about such things, however, they are willing to be proven wrong. Randi is so willing, in fact, that he will congratulate and award a person that does prove him wrong. No, it's a believer site filled with bunk evidence and bunk reasoning. Nothing new there, just a different package. Try again, chump.

thaiboxerken · 21st September 2004, 09:02 PM

Pseudoskeptics might do what you say, 1christianscum, however, real skeptics may or may not have a conclusion. Here is my actual position. I don't believe in psychics, supernatural, god or anything else simply because I haven't seen or heard of any valid scientific evidence to support those phenomenon. For some reason, no one else hasn't been able to provide that scientific reason.

So, I'm not saying that there are no psychics in an absolute sense, I'm simply stating a strong disbelief in such nonsense because of the lack of evidence. It is upon the claimants to provide evidence and show what they claim is real, not for the doubter to give evidence that the claimant is wrong.

Creationists are nothing like skeptics, they are merely cynics and religious zealots that lie, twist facts and attack all things (including reality) that challenge their beliefs.

epepke · 21st September 2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific?

Again, I don't expect you to understand.

Science is a process of testing ideas against reality. It doesn't matter whether you firmly believe in the ideas or not, except inasmuch as it is more ego-risk if you do.

What matters is that you go through the process. If you believe so strongly that you can't do it, then this is a problem. But what matters is doing it. If you can manage it, that's all that counts.

Ratman_tf · 21st September 2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist

Quote:

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh?

*Sigh*

I'd respond, but I think you're just trolling now.

Vikram · 21st September 2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists.

I love it when people spin words senselessly.

The very fact that the claims can be debunked means that they don't have any veracity to them. And it doesn't matter how much you want to convince yourself that they do.

1inChrist · 22nd September 2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

*Sigh*

I'd respond, but I think you're just trolling now.

You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place!

1inChrist · 22nd September 2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

I love it when people spin words senselessly.

The very fact that the claims can be debunked means that they don't have any veracity to them. And it doesn't matter how much you want to convince yourself that they do.

Anything can be explained if you use naturalistic circular logic.

Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.''

If a psychic case was documented like that, that would be your explaination, would it not?

steenkh · 22nd September 2004, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place!

There are certain tests that Randi do not do - at least not any more. The hunger con men have proven to take too many ressources and they also put their health at risk which could become a PR fiasco for Randi, not to mention the lawsuits that might result.

This has all been treated on this forum before.

It is only a pity that Randi dismisses the claims using emotional arguments instead of the practical/legal arguments.

The challenge rules have been modified to specify which claims JREF do not accept:

Quote:

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices

Vikram · 22nd September 2004, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Anything can be explained if you use naturalistic circular logic.

Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.''

If a psychic case was documented like that, that would be your explaination, would it not?

Please quote a documented case.

Vikram · 22nd September 2004, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist

You don't believe he should of tested him?

The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.

It should be "should HAVE" and "must HAVE".

Gee... Maybe I'm a grammatical fundamentalist...

Quasi · 22nd September 2004, 04:35 AM

1inChrist

First, you are greatly misinformed about science, and scientific research. Further, you have obviously not even bothered to read the Randi challenge conditions. It boggles the mind that people like you can make such strong statements without being even mildly familiar with the material you comment on.
The Randi challenge states that no judging is needed, the results will be obvious, and mutually agreed upon before the trial. Can Uri Geller bend a spanner again? Why not? Can he even bend a spoon again? So here, a spoon will be provided by a third party vendor, and under video surveillance to prevent cheating, Uri can bend the spoon only with his mind. Sounds easy. Makes me wonder why he will not do so for one million USD.
Academia is as it always has been, driven by results. Paranormal advocates have yet, in centuries of research, to produce anything which has helped anyone in any way, except for themselves. Tax dollars should not be spent on projects which will not produce any useful results. Any questions?

Ashles · 22nd September 2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.''

It's hard to say really - this has never happened.

Unintelligent non-logic: Someone takes a hypothetical example of an event which hasn't happened then ascribes opinions and judgments to all parties who have encountered the imaginary event.

Wow - great thinking. Keep up the good work 1inchrist. All you're doing is damaging the cause of the believers and making yourself look rather silly.

Ipecac · 22nd September 2004, 06:39 AM

Don't worry, quite soon 1inChrist will disappear from this thread, never to return. He fills himself with passion and spews it into the forum without thinking. Once he realizes he's in over his head, he'll run away until he thinks up another topic about which he feels passionate but knows nothing.

Dr Adequate · 22nd September 2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist

Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it.

Simple as that.

Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific?

So. You applaud Creationists AND you say that we do exactly the same thing as they do. This is, by the way, a ridiculous lie, but suppose it were true? Should you not applaud us as vigorously as the Creationists?

You still haven't said what's wrong with evolution. Give me your best shot.

Flaherty · 22nd September 2004, 08:18 AM

Don't feed the damn troll.

Nyarlathotep · 22nd September 2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh?

Let me put it this way. If I calimed that I could leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, flap my arms and fly around San Francisco, would it be a responsible thing to do for Mr. Randi to take me up on my claim? I don't think so.

The 'no food' calim is pretty much the same thing, but slower

Bandersnatch · 22nd September 2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Let me put it this way. If I calimed that I could leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, flap my arms and fly around San Francisco, would it be a responsible thing to do for Mr. Randi to take me up on my claim? I don't think so.

"Nyarlathotep, The Amazing Bird Man of Alcatraz"

Cleon · 22nd September 2004, 09:32 AM

LOL...Funny site. I especially liked the bit about CSICOP proclaiming that "In 1981, CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research." I think Joe Nickell, who makes his living as CSICOP's chief researcher, would be very interested to hear that...

Cleon · 22nd September 2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place!

I know listening to viewpoints other than your own is not exactly your strong suit, but if you read some of the past SWIFT newsletters Randi puts on his website, he has explained--at length and in detail--exactly why he doesn't bother with the "breatharians" anymore.

You may disagree with his reasoning, but don't treat it as though this is some massive betrayal of the JREF prize concept.

kookbreaker · 22nd September 2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
LOL...Funny site. I especially liked the bit about CSICOP proclaiming that "In 1981, CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research." I think Joe Nickell, who makes his living as CSICOP's chief researcher, would be very interested to hear that...

Sorta. Nickel is their primary investigator who checks out various odd things that crop up throughout the world. Weeping madonnas and the like. CSICOP itself has said it will do not formal lab work or statistical studies. Folks try to claim this was over certain incidents, but the fact is that it was a royal hangover to begin with. CSICOP had to waste years and pages of work over claims that were really non-starters.

kookbreaker · 22nd September 2004, 10:15 AM

Anyone notice what a Rogue's gallery this so-called "SI" is made up of?

Sheldrake, Schwartz, Radin, Playfair, Keen. Mostly a bunch of sloppy investigators who have felt the sting of criticism on their clusmy, inept work and have decided to strike back with cheap shots and innuendo.

Even Truzzi is listed, isn't Truzzi dead?

Sheesh.

Cleon · 22nd September 2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Sorta. Nickel is their primary investigator who checks out various odd things that crop up throughout the world. Weeping madonnas and the like. CSICOP itself has said it will do not formal lab work or statistical studies. Folks try to claim this was over certain incidents, but the fact is that it was a royal hangover to begin with. CSICOP had to waste years and pages of work over claims that were really non-starters.

I sit corrected.

Dogwood · 22nd September 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Anyone notice what a Rogue's gallery this so-called "SI" is made up of?

Sheldrake, Schwartz, Radin, Playfair, Keen. Mostly a bunch of sloppy investigators who have felt the sting of criticism on their clusmy, inept work and have decided to strike back with cheap shots and innuendo.

Even Truzzi is listed, isn't Truzzi dead?

Sheesh.

Yup, so is Keen.

hgc · 22nd September 2004, 01:15 PM

Pseudo Christian calls people pseudo skeptics. I think he be genuine stupid.

21st September 2004, 05:54 PM	#1
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	You are not skeptics, you are pseudo skeptics. http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

21st September 2004, 05:57 PM	#2
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	Yea, whatever. When you have something to say yourself, instead of just posting links, let us know.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st September 2004, 06:00 PM	#3
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	That website is just another believer sie trying to fool people into thinking that is it scientific and skeptical. You have been fooled.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st September 2004, 06:18 PM	#6
cbish Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Nevada City, CA Posts: 1,229	1inChrist wrote: Quote: People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, yes, and if they can, what does that tell you? Quote: They have made up their mind before they investigate. Perhaps, based on the same unfounded claims year after year. Remember how the game is played. It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove the validity of the claim. It must be under controlled, repeatable conditions. No shooting from the hip.
	__________________ You have to live it to believe it! If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you!

21st September 2004, 06:23 PM	#8
Ratman_tf Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,002	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate. I love how every paranormal claim is supposed to be treated as if it's fresh and new, when most of them have been around, and debunked over and over again for CENTURIES. It's not like we don't have some track record going here...
	__________________ "In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!" -Ruby --- "God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man." -Nanrei Kobori

21st September 2004, 06:07 PM	#4
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Quote: Originally posted by thaiboxerken That website is just another believer sie trying to fool people into thinking that is it scientific and skeptical. You have been fooled. They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate.

21st September 2004, 06:16 PM	#5
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...cchallenge.htm On Randi's 1 million dollar challenge.

21st September 2004, 06:22 PM	#7
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Quote: Originally posted by cbish [b]yes, and if they can, what does that tell you? It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists.

21st September 2004, 06:32 PM	#9
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Another good article on Randi: http://rense.com/general50/james.htm

21st September 2004, 06:37 PM	#10
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm and http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

21st September 2004, 06:38 PM	#11
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Quote: Mr. Kolodzey: Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter. Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh?

21st September 2004, 06:43 PM	#12
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists. Are you sure they aren't percolating wombats? I don't expect that you will understand this at all, but with repect to skeptical investigation, it does not matter in the slightest who you are, so long as you can function well enough to perform a skeptical investigation. What matters is what you can demonstrate. If a "debunking" is successful, it doesn't matter at all whether the person who came up with it made up his mind or kept an open mind or rode around on a unicycle playing Dixie on a nose flute. If a "debunking" is unsuccessful, it doesn't matter either. Results are what matter. That's what we care about. Again, I don't expect you to understand this at all, because your worldview is authority-based (with "scripture" just being a written proxy authority).
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

21st September 2004, 07:35 PM	#13
DangerousBeliefs Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,304	I prefer the term "Militant Skeptic" By the way, my wife wants to know when you're going to link to pictures of human foot prints next to dinosaurs.

21st September 2004, 07:56 PM	#14
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	yawn. this thread, and 1inchrist, remind me of the song Idiot Wind.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

21st September 2004, 08:22 PM	#15
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	What's wrong? Can't DEBUNK the charges made against you? Admit it, all of you pseudo skeptics here have made up your mind before the investigation. You start with the conclusion and find facts to back it up. Sound similar? It should. It's the same thing Creationists do. Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. Simple as that. Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific?

21st September 2004, 08:35 PM	#16
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. ...and when you find good solid evidence that you are wrong, hide it, distort it, fabricate some alternative evidence. Whatever you do, don't let that evidence see the light of day! Quote: Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. ...and when you find good solid evidence that you are wrong... well, actually, any way to finish that sentence would be speculation. You may be right, 1in, it could be that some would hide or distort it, in which case, sure, call them pseudoskeptics. But we kinda need good solid evidence first, and that is where your analogy breaks down. It's just not there.
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

21st September 2004, 08:56 PM	#17
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist They have GOOD points! People like Randi and the people at CSICOP set out to DEBUNK all claims, not investigate them! They have made up their mind before they investigate. Hardly a good point at all. Randi and CSICOP may have opinions about such things, however, they are willing to be proven wrong. Randi is so willing, in fact, that he will congratulate and award a person that does prove him wrong. No, it's a believer site filled with bunk evidence and bunk reasoning. Nothing new there, just a different package. Try again, chump.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st September 2004, 09:02 PM	#18
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	Pseudoskeptics might do what you say, 1christianscum, however, real skeptics may or may not have a conclusion. Here is my actual position. I don't believe in psychics, supernatural, god or anything else simply because I haven't seen or heard of any valid scientific evidence to support those phenomenon. For some reason, no one else hasn't been able to provide that scientific reason. So, I'm not saying that there are no psychics in an absolute sense, I'm simply stating a strong disbelief in such nonsense because of the lack of evidence. It is upon the claimants to provide evidence and show what they claim is real, not for the doubter to give evidence that the claimant is wrong. Creationists are nothing like skeptics, they are merely cynics and religious zealots that lie, twist facts and attack all things (including reality) that challenge their beliefs.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st September 2004, 09:18 PM	#19
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific? Again, I don't expect you to understand. Science is a process of testing ideas against reality. It doesn't matter whether you firmly believe in the ideas or not, except inasmuch as it is more ego-risk if you do. What matters is that you go through the process. If you believe so strongly that you can't do it, then this is a problem. But what matters is doing it. If you can manage it, that's all that counts.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

21st September 2004, 09:33 PM	#20
Ratman_tf Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,002	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Quote: Mr. Kolodzey: Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter. Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh? Sigh I'd respond, but I think you're just trolling now.
	__________________ "In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!" -Ruby --- "God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man." -Nanrei Kobori

21st September 2004, 10:11 PM	#21
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist It tells me they are naturalistic fundamentalists. I love it when people spin words senselessly. The very fact that the claims can be debunked means that they don't have any veracity to them. And it doesn't matter how much you want to convince yourself that they do.
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	__________________ "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

22nd September 2004, 02:21 AM	#22
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Quote: Sigh I'd respond, but I think you're just trolling now. You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place!

22nd September 2004, 02:26 AM	#23
1inChrist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,362	Quote: I love it when people spin words senselessly. The very fact that the claims can be debunked means that they don't have any veracity to them. And it doesn't matter how much you want to convince yourself that they do. Anything can be explained if you use naturalistic circular logic. Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.'' If a psychic case was documented like that, that would be your explaination, would it not?

22nd September 2004, 02:52 AM	#24
steenkh Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,463	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place! There are certain tests that Randi do not do - at least not any more. The hunger con men have proven to take too many ressources and they also put their health at risk which could become a PR fiasco for Randi, not to mention the lawsuits that might result. This has all been treated on this forum before. It is only a pity that Randi dismisses the claims using emotional arguments instead of the practical/legal arguments. The challenge rules have been modified to specify which claims JREF do not accept: Quote: IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

22nd September 2004, 03:10 AM	#25
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Anything can be explained if you use naturalistic circular logic. Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.'' If a psychic case was documented like that, that would be your explaination, would it not? Please quote a documented case.
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	__________________ "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

22nd September 2004, 03:20 AM	#26
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist You don't believe he should of tested him? The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information. It should be "should HAVE" and "must HAVE". Gee... Maybe I'm a grammatical fundamentalist...
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	__________________ "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

22nd September 2004, 04:35 AM	#27
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424	1inChrist First, you are greatly misinformed about science, and scientific research. Further, you have obviously not even bothered to read the Randi challenge conditions. It boggles the mind that people like you can make such strong statements without being even mildly familiar with the material you comment on. The Randi challenge states that no judging is needed, the results will be obvious, and mutually agreed upon before the trial. Can Uri Geller bend a spanner again? Why not? Can he even bend a spoon again? So here, a spoon will be provided by a third party vendor, and under video surveillance to prevent cheating, Uri can bend the spoon only with his mind. Sounds easy. Makes me wonder why he will not do so for one million USD. Academia is as it always has been, driven by results. Paranormal advocates have yet, in centuries of research, to produce anything which has helped anyone in any way, except for themselves. Tax dollars should not be spent on projects which will not produce any useful results. Any questions?
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424

22nd September 2004, 05:41 AM	#28
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Quote: Pseudo skeptic logic: A psychic gives facts of murder case and it leads to an arrest and conviction. What does the pseudo skeptic say? ''The psychic must of been involved in the murder to know all that information.'' It's hard to say really - this has never happened. Unintelligent non-logic: Someone takes a hypothetical example of an event which hasn't happened then ascribes opinions and judgments to all parties who have encountered the imaginary event. Wow - great thinking. Keep up the good work 1inchrist. All you're doing is damaging the cause of the believers and making yourself look rather silly.
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

22nd September 2004, 06:39 AM	#29
Ipecac Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,852	Don't worry, quite soon 1inChrist will disappear from this thread, never to return. He fills himself with passion and spews it into the forum without thinking. Once he realizes he's in over his head, he'll run away until he thinks up another topic about which he feels passionate but knows nothing.
Ipecac Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,852

22nd September 2004, 07:15 AM	#30
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Creationists - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. Pseudo skeptic - Start with the conclusion and find facts to support it. Simple as that. Although I applaud the work Creationists do for combating evolution, I find it funny you use the same technique Creationists do and yet claim they are ''unscientific''. Does this imply that you admit that your skepticism is not scientific? So. You applaud Creationists AND you say that we do exactly the same thing as they do. This is, by the way, a ridiculous lie, but suppose it were true? Should you not applaud us as vigorously as the Creationists? You still haven't said what's wrong with evolution. Give me your best shot.

22nd September 2004, 08:18 AM	#31
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	Don't feed the damn troll.
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	__________________ "After all, who of us in our lives hasn't set fire to some great public building?" -- Graham Chapman

22nd September 2004, 08:37 AM	#32
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist Yeah, lol, Randi sure is interested in finding the truth in claims, eh? Let me put it this way. If I calimed that I could leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, flap my arms and fly around San Francisco, would it be a responsible thing to do for Mr. Randi to take me up on my claim? I don't think so. The 'no food' calim is pretty much the same thing, but slower
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

22nd September 2004, 09:23 AM	#33
Bandersnatch Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 411	Quote: Let me put it this way. If I calimed that I could leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, flap my arms and fly around San Francisco, would it be a responsible thing to do for Mr. Randi to take me up on my claim? I don't think so. "Nyarlathotep, The Amazing Bird Man of Alcatraz"

22nd September 2004, 09:32 AM	#34
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,513	LOL...Funny site. I especially liked the bit about CSICOP proclaiming that "In 1981, CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research." I think Joe Nickell, who makes his living as CSICOP's chief researcher, would be very interested to hear that...
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

22nd September 2004, 09:36 AM	#35
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,513	Quote: Originally posted by 1inChrist You agree with Randi's actions? You don't believe he should of tested him? I mean, lol, how can you skeptics ask ''How come no one has passed the test'' if Randi doesn't even let them take it in the first place! I know listening to viewpoints other than your own is not exactly your strong suit, but if you read some of the past SWIFT newsletters Randi puts on his website, he has explained--at length and in detail--exactly why he doesn't bother with the "breatharians" anymore. You may disagree with his reasoning, but don't treat it as though this is some massive betrayal of the JREF prize concept.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich