Is there a Larsen List in your name?

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Yes, of course it is plausible. But there is no evidence for it. TLN said that "evidence rules" here. That is not always the case.

Don't forget: The onus is on the claimant. Always.

E.g., it is not up to the skeptics to prove that JE is not talking to dead people. It is up to JE and those who claim that he can, that he in fact can do it.

It doesn't start with the claim that JE is fake. It starts with the claim that JE is real. Then, we investigate what evidence people come up with.

It's very simple.

[Thanz]

Claus -

There is a difference between examining whatever evidence that people come up with and actually positing your own theories. In the "No General seating" thread, you posited the idea that JE may have some sort of mole at the credit card company or ticketing agency who feeds info to JE, who then researches the individual, and remembers where they are sitting in each seminar. This goes beyond simply examining evidence offered by others. And it is just a theory that is backed up with no actual evidence itself.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

When we investigate a claim from a skeptical POV, we look at mundane explanations. Fraud is absolutely one of the possibilities we have to look at.

Did we find it in the case you mention? No. Does that stop further investigation? No.

Did we (or rather: Dateline) find evidence of fraud, when they looked at JE? Yes. Does that stop further investigation? No.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, there could very well be a mole somewhere, who - just occasionally - fed JE with information.

Even Clancie - after much evasion - had to accept the possibility. It is, however, telling how long it takes for a believer to accept such a possibility.

Very telling.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

When we investigate a claim from a skeptical POV, we look at mundane explanations. Fraud is absolutely one of the possibilities we have to look at.

Of course it is. But there is no evidence of it. No evidence of a mole, or hidden mics, or plants in the audience. I agree that we need to raise these as possibilities. But TLN said on this board, evidence rules. There is no evidence of these. Yet, they are still discussed. I have no problem with that.

However, if TLN believes what he wrote, HE should have a problem with it. There is no evidence of any of this stuff. Where are the calls on you by TLN and other skeptics to produce your evidence or "bugger off"?

Quote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, there could very well be a mole somewhere, who - just occasionally - fed JE with information.

Possible? yes. Likely? no. It seems to me, unless you have any evidence at all to back this up other than "its possible", it is a fantastical theory and should be given almost zero weight.

Quote:

Even Clancie - after much evasion - had to accept the possibility. It is, however, telling how long it takes for a believer to accept such a possibility.

Perhaps because, without evidence, it must be seen as a very remote possibility? Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
However, if TLN believes what he wrote, HE should have a problem with it. There is no evidence of any of this stuff. Where are the calls on you by TLN and other skeptics to produce your evidence or "bugger off"?

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Possible? yes. Likely? no. It seems to me, unless you have any evidence at all to back this up other than "its possible", it is a fantastical theory and should be given almost zero weight.

Disagree completely.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Perhaps because, without evidence, it must be seen as a very remote possibility? Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

I don't "hound" people, I merely ask them questions that arise from their claims.

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz

Of course it is. But there is no evidence of it. No evidence of a mole, or hidden mics, or plants in the audience. I agree that we need to raise these as possibilities. But TLN said on this board, evidence rules. There is no evidence of these. Yet, they are still discussed. I have no problem with that.

Maybe we do not have evidence that JE's methods are questionable but we happen to know how such mediums work since antiquity .
I am ready to accept that JE is the exception regarding the methods he is using but as long as he doesn't provide evidence about his claims, as a skeptic I have the duty to bring to other people's attention how mediums of this sort work.

Quote:

Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

As we have discussed in another thread, I believe that people have the right to be deceived, I do not believe though that people have the right to deceive others.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. You can't expect not to be asked questions about evidence just because you say "its possible" rather than "it is". For crying out loud, doesnn't Clancie say, ad nauseum, "there MAY be something to mediumship"? Does that somehow stop you from asking for evidence? And then attaching the appropriate weight when no convincing evidence is forthcoming?

Quote:

Disagree completely.

Based on what? We have no evidence of these things. Without evidence, why attach any weight at all? The only reason I said "almost zero" as opposed to "zero" is that of course these things ARE possible. But without a shred of actual evidence, we should not think them probable at all. Occam's razor commands us to discount this theory until more mundane explanations (cold reading) have been ruled out. And I do not think that you have ruled out that JE may be simply cold reading.

Quote:

I don't "hound" people, I merely ask them questions that arise from their claims.

Sure. Keep on believing that. You DO hound people. In the politics forum you attacked Clancie for asking about whether rumours surrounding Arnie may hurt him, by complaining that she shouldn't post rumours without back up. You then proceeded to confirm two of the three rumours (I think) yourself!

[Starrman]

Quote:

According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not.

As a skeptic, I would say that it certainly is possible that she is a real medium.

Quote:

Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not.

As a skeptic, I would say that is certainly possible that he gets his information from a mole at a credit card company.

I agree that there is really no evidence for either, the reason I would give more credence to the second theory is that it doesn't require talking to dead people.

So there is no more evidence for the second theory than the first. So I think I agree with you in the fact that, taken literally, it is not ALWAYS about evidence. Sometimes it is about Occam's Razor.

(and I don't think Edward needs a mole to do what he does, there are even more mundane explanations out there)

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. You can't expect not to be asked questions about evidence just because you say "its possible" rather than "it is". For crying out loud, doesnn't Clancie say, ad nauseum, "there MAY be something to mediumship"? Does that somehow stop you from asking for evidence? And then attaching the appropriate weight when no convincing evidence is forthcoming?

Raising the possibility is not "claiming evidence".

Does Clancie claim proof? Yes. She claims she is no believer, so she must be arguing from evidence. She rarely uses the word "possibility", when she argues. I have to drag that out of her, remember?

However, she is constantly moving the goal posts, shifting the focus and avoids the hard questions on a regular basis, so I don't blame you for being a bit confused where Clancie stands. You are not alone.

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

(2nd time you are asked this....)

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Based on what? We have no evidence of these things. Without evidence, why attach any weight at all? The only reason I said "almost zero" as opposed to "zero" is that of course these things ARE possible. But without a shred of actual evidence, we should not think them probable at all. Occam's razor commands us to discount this theory until more mundane explanations (cold reading) have been ruled out. And I do not think that you have ruled out that JE may be simply cold reading.

Given the history of previous mediums, we should most definitely think them probable. Why discard any previously attained knowledge? It sounds as if you want to start all over again, each time a medium comes along.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Sure. Keep on believing that. You DO hound people. In the politics forum you attacked Clancie for asking about whether rumours surrounding Arnie may hurt him, by complaining that she shouldn't post rumours without back up. You then proceeded to confirm two of the three rumours (I think) yourself!

I did not "attack" Clancie, I pointed out that she was posting rumors - she said so herself. I then did what Clancie should have done: Found the evidence behind two of the stories. The third could not be verified. Ergo, it must be dismissed.

Why don't you point out that Clancie posted rumors, without bothering to provide evidence? You seem only to see the criticism of the flaw, not the flaw itself.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Starrman
I agree that there is really no evidence for either, the reason I would give more credence to the second theory is that it doesn't require talking to dead people.

As would I. I said that I would give the mole "almost zero weight". I would give talking to the dead "zero weight" as there is no evidence. This is despite the fact that I personally believe in an afterlife. I also know that there is no evidence for it, but I am comfortable believing it on faith. If I have to examine something rationally, however, I have to accept that there is no evidence of the afterlife and certainly no evidence that we can talk to dead people even if there is an afterlife.

Quote:

So there is no more evidence for the second theory than the first.

Only in that we know it is physically and logically possible. Hence, "ALMOST zero weight".

Quote:

So I think I agree with you in the fact that, taken literally, it is not ALWAYS about evidence. Sometimes it is about Occam's Razor.

(and I don't think Edward needs a mole to do what he does, there are even more mundane explanations out there)

I agree. So, using Occam's Razor, we should not assume the existence of the mole until cold reading has been ruled out, which I don't think it has.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Raising the possibility is not "claiming evidence".

By raising the possibility, you open yourself up to questions about evidence. If you say, "I think it is possible that there is a mole at the credit card company", it is perfectly legitimate for other to ask if you have any evidence to back that up.

Quote:

Does Clancie claim proof? Yes.

Proof of what? Where? All I can remeber her saying, again and again, is that she thinks that there may be something to mediumship. If you have a quote where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, I'd like to see it.

Quote:

However, she is constantly moving the goal posts, shifting the focus and avoids the hard questions on a regular basis, so I don't blame you for being a bit confused where Clancie stands. You are not alone.

Forgive me if I do not accept your interpretations of Clancie's posts. Please show me where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, or clarify what you allege she claims proof of.

Quote:

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

By raising it as a possibility, you have for the purpose of answering questions about evidence. For hidden mics and plants, see O'Neill, and through him, Shermer and Randi.

Quote:

(2nd time you are asked this....)

2nd time I have answered it...............

Quote:

Given the history of previous mediums, we should most definitely think them probable. Why discard any previously attained knowledge? It sounds as if you want to start all over again, each time a medium comes along.

No, no, no. It is one thing to say that mediums in the past have cheated, hot read or whatever. It is quite another to say that the ticketing set up for JE specifically allows for a specific way for him to cheat. I agree that we cannot rule out that he is cheating or hot reading in some manner. But until we determine that cold reading alone cannot explain his performance, why assume that more elaborate cheating schemes are probable? Of course they are possible. But why probable? Evidence of what A has done is not evidence that B is doing the same.

Quote:

I did not "attack" Clancie, I pointed out that she was posting rumors - she said so herself. I then did what Clancie should have done: Found the evidence behind two of the stories. The third could not be verified. Ergo, it must be dismissed.

Why don't you point out that Clancie posted rumors, without bothering to provide evidence? You seem only to see the criticism of the flaw, not the flaw itself.

She wasn't claiming that the rumours were true, she was asking "I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?"

In essence, this is a hypothetical question. She never claimed to have the truth to any of them - just that they were rumours. She posted rumours, clearly labelled them rumours, and asked what people would think IF they were true. It was not about whether they were in fact true.

[Sundog]

The parent in me finds this all very familiar and very boring. "He said this... She said that... Yes you did... No I didn't... I can prove it..." Yawn.

This isn't communication, this is bickering. This isn't searching for truth, it's single-minded obsession bordering on the unhealthy.

When my kids used to do this I'd separate them for a while, because they weren't going to break out of the pattern on their own. Unfortunately there's no analogue in the adult world.

Or is there? Whoever's being pursued with lists of questions can simply use the ignore option. In my mind that wouldn't be a refusal to debate, just a refusal to acknowledge an individual's tactics.

I don't mind debating anyone, but when they get into the over-aggressive pestering mode I bail. I think that's a reasonable response, because I do NOT think hounding people with ridiculously long lists of questions serves any intellectual purpose whatsoever.

So while I applaud the spirit of the original post, I definitely do NOT agree that Claus is proceeding in a manner that exemplifies this lofty goal.

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

Science has a role to play but obviously not an all-embracing exclusive role. I mean the overwhelming scientific evidence for anomalous cogitation and perturbation is just ignored by the skeptics for a kick off. This might be argued to be justified, but it shows there are other factors to consider in addition to scientific evidence (reasoning for a kick off).

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]
The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?

Skepticism can and does. But scepticism shouldn't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz



I'm not playing by another set of rules, except maybe rules of civility. IMO Claus is a "prick" in ways that have nothing to do with science, and more to do with pulling down believers.

Claus is just rather an intense guy and overzealous in his skepticism. You get believers like that as well

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
[b]

Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.

OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL

No, because that's not a claim, it's a denial of the positive claim "reincarnation occurs". The claim "reincarnation doesn't occur" would not exist without the initial claim of "reincarnation occurs".

What's so freaking hard about this concept? Why do believers insist that they be proved wrong?

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.

No, skepticism is all about a particular interpretation of reality. A particular interpretation which should be examined and discussed just as much as any other interpretation.

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Skepticism can and does. But scepticism shouldn't.

Why shouldn't it?

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, because that's not a claim, it's a denial of the positive claim "reincarnation occurs". The claim "reincarnation doesn't occur" would not exist without the initial claim of "reincarnation occurs".

What's so freaking hard about this concept? Why do believers insist that they be proved wrong?

Ah I see, so the word claim comes to mean just what a skeptic chooses it to mean.

Why is the hypothesis that at some time in the near future we will cease forevermore to have conscious experiences not a positive claim?

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
By raising the possibility, you open yourself up to questions about evidence. If you say, "I think it is possible that there is a mole at the credit card company", it is perfectly legitimate for other to ask if you have any evidence to back that up.

If it is a possibility, then we investigate if there could be something about it.

If it is a claim, then evidence is sought.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Proof of what? Where? All I can remeber her saying, again and again, is that she thinks that there may be something to mediumship. If you have a quote where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, I'd like to see it.

We have to work with what people say: If Clancie argues for something, without saying specifically that it is a possibility, then we have to assume that she is arguing from evidence.

We cannot allow people to go back and say "Hey, btw, I meant it as a possibility". That would render any discussion meaningless.

If we can't rely on what people say, then what?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
By raising it as a possibility, you have for the purpose of answering questions about evidence. For hidden mics and plants, see O'Neill, and through him, Shermer and Randi.

No, no....now you are moving the goal posts. Your complaint was about people here, on this board.

O'Neill, Shermer and Randi (hardly) don't post here, so they cannot possibly be "bound" by the rules of this board.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
2nd time I have answered it...............

No. You have not answered it. You have named some people OUTSIDE this board. Please name those people who - "here" - have claimed that hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
No, no, no. It is one thing to say that mediums in the past have cheated, hot read or whatever. It is quite another to say that the ticketing set up for JE specifically allows for a specific way for him to cheat. I agree that we cannot rule out that he is cheating or hot reading in some manner. But until we determine that cold reading alone cannot explain his performance, why assume that more elaborate cheating schemes are probable? Of course they are possible. But why probable? Evidence of what A has done is not evidence that B is doing the same.

We should definitely compare the possibilities. Why is it not "probable" that JE has a mole at a ticket seller?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
She wasn't claiming that the rumours were true, she was asking "I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?"

In essence, this is a hypothetical question. She never claimed to have the truth to any of them - just that they were rumours. She posted rumours, clearly labelled them rumours, and asked what people would think IF they were true. It was not about whether they were in fact true.

She was spreading rumors about a person. Of course she has to ask IF they are true - otherwise they wouldn't be rumors...

Now please answer the question:

Who here - because that was your claim - claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

[thaiboxerken]

Ah I see, so the word claim comes to mean just what a skeptic chooses it to mean.

It's the rules of logic, a skeptic's tools. We already know that you really don't like logic.


Why is the hypothesis that at some time in the near future we will cease forevermore to have conscious experiences not a positive claim?

That is a negative claim for the "everlasting soul" claim.

[neofight]

"I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- neo

Actually, I'm totally with just about everything you said in this thread, Thanz. Others have made some good points as well, but I generally disagree with those who have said that unless one is able to show scientific evidence for everything they discuss, they should go elsewhere to discuss it.

Quote:

originally posted by thaiboxerken:
Why can't a skeptic be an authority, is there something in the definition of "skeptic" that I'm missing?

LOL I think that rather says it all. tbk is an interesting kind of guy. rofl

Quote:

originally posted by TLN:
Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

Quote:

originally posted by Thanz:
Why don't I count?

Perhaps not, Thanz. It may be something akin to the way that some blacks feel when it is pointed out to them that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have such high positions in the Bush Administration, and they respond in such a way as to indicate that somehow those two are just not quite "black" (read: liberal) enough, to count. It's regrettable, don't you think?

Also, the painfully obvious double standard that exists here with regard to "claims" that believers make, VS "claims" that skeptics make, is rather amusing and mind-boggling at the same time.

I would also point out to TLN, just as an aside, that even though he believes that people like myself should go elsewhere to discuss these subjects, since we have no scientific evidence to offer, Claus himself has hounded and harassed all of the believers over at TVTalkShows for well over a year, and I think if we all left here, it would not be too long before he arrived there again in hot pursuit. LOL ....neo

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

"Questions for neo"

Please either:

• address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If it is a possibility, then we investigate if there could be something about it.

If it is a claim, then evidence is sought.

Whatever Claus. If you want to draw such a fine line between "investigate" and "seeking evidence", go right ahead. I think that you are being silly.

Quote:

We have to work with what people say: If Clancie argues for something, without saying specifically that it is a possibility, then we have to assume that she is arguing from evidence.

We cannot allow people to go back and say "Hey, btw, I meant it as a possibility". That would render any discussion meaningless.

If we can't rely on what people say, then what?

Let's work with what YOU said: "Does Clancie claim proof? Yes." You have now backed off that. What is you pet phrase here? Oh yeah - you are moving the goalposts. If she has actually claimed proof, show it. Don't assume that she is claiming proof, as she has said consistently that her position is that there MAY be something to mediumship. Not that she could prove anyone is talking to the dead.

Quote:

No, no....now you are moving the goal posts. Your complaint was about people here, on this board.

O'Neill, Shermer and Randi (hardly) don't post here, so they cannot possibly be "bound" by the rules of this board.

No. You have not answered it. You have named some people OUTSIDE this board. Please name those people who - "here" - have claimed that hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience.

How about this - you seem fond of the tit-for-tat thing. How about you asnwer Lurkers questions that have been pending for close to 2 months and I'll answer this.

Quote:

We should definitely compare the possibilities. Why is it not "probable" that JE has a mole at a ticket seller?

Well, because we have no evidence that he does have one. And the policies of ticket sellers is to NOT divulge personal credit card information. We cannot say that anything is "probable" when it has zero evidence to back it up. How is this not getting through?

[voidx]

Quote:

Posted by Thanz:
As would I. I said that I would give the mole "almost zero weight". I would give talking to the dead "zero weight" as there is no evidence. This is despite the fact that I personally believe in an afterlife. I also know that there is no evidence for it, but I am comfortable believing it on faith. If I have to examine something rationally, however, I have to accept that there is no evidence of the afterlife and certainly no evidence that we can talk to dead people even if there is an afterlife.

People flip flop, and that's what causes many of the problems here. I agree Thanz you can have you're belief in the afterlife, so long as you acknowledge its based completely on faith, and not on any scientific evidence. But not everyone does this, nor do they do it consistently. On seperate occasions, through persistence we've had both Clancie and Neo admit that there is no scientific proof for their belief in mediumship, that they debate it because they find it interesting or fun, and that their belief is based, in their opinion, on a gap in our current mundane explanations to find one that fits JE, or mediumship in general. They take JE performances and transcripts and other mediumship examples as "suggestive" evidence for mediumship, but when pressed (and yes very persistently) they will admit that there seems to be no real or actual proof for their belief. The problem I believe comes in here. If they were to state their opinion of belief, followed by a disclaimer that its based completely on faith as there is no specific evidence for it, I think they'd have an easier time here. But at other times they want to get much more specific in their analysis of mediumship, and JE, and this often comes with a call for proof or clear demonstration of something mundane that is similiar. So to be clear, they want evidence or proofs against something that has no scientific, or even at times a logical basis of support in the first place. They forget that we have proven examples of the frauds and fakes, but that we do not have a definitively proven case of an authentic medium. So logically, skeptically, we should start from these mundane roots in our explanation. Any other tact is merely assuming the spirit connection because you want to believe it, or rather, taking advantage of something a little mysterious to insert and posit you're believe in the afterlife, which you should acknowledge at the outset.

As for the tactics in the threads I admit they often devolve into pointless bickering. There's an inordinate amount of time wasting in these threads playing combat de quotes, of which I'll admit to having engaged in myself to a degree. The problem seems to be keeping people on topic. You can argue intentional or not, but both sides miscontrue peoples comments, and then run with them, and this then devolves into pages and pages of "You said this." "No I said this", "No see :quote: you said this", "yah but I meant this", "I think you're changing your mind, I think you meant that". Pretty pointless. I think its perfectly logical to take people to task when they don't acknowledge their contradicting themselves, or if they've changed their mind without likewise acknowledging it. But its used to a ridiculous degree here.

I'm also in the middle regarding the science angle. Yes I'm in full support of it and agree that if you're here to put forth a theory and don't want to seem perhaps foolish, its in you're best interest to have done some homework and have somethings to back it up. You don't have to do this, and yes people can just discuss things and theorize, but when you're theorsizing about something most people on the board don't believe in, be prepared to be asked in the course of that discussion for some solid backing off it. I mean mediumship for example is tough because there is no solid scientific support for it, in fact it seems to hide in all the convinient grey areas that science cannot definately disprove yet or doesn't fully understand, so its hard to invoke science against it persay. And this is what people do, they put forth something, want to debate it in detail, and then when things don't go their way or their theory is inconsistent, pull back to the safe, well that's just my opinion level. It can be frustrating. So sure, you can debate opinions and personal theories, but since both sides can fall back on not always having definitive proof one way or the other, such as with mediumship, its as TLN says, pretty pointless.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by neofight
I would also point out to TLN, just as an aside, that even though he believes that people like myself should go elsewhere to discuss these subjects, since we have no scientific evidence to offer, Claus himself has hounded and harassed all of the believers over at TVTalkShows for well over a year, and I think if we all left here, it would not be too long before he arrived there again in hot pursuit.

I think Claus going to TVTalkShows and expecting folks to speak science is as absurd as believers showing up here and expecting us to swallow anecdotes.

Neo, could you answer my central question please?

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL

Ian, you're constantly asking others to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way and you know it. I have never claimed there is no life after death. You claim there is.

Prove it.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Whatever Claus. If you want to draw such a fine line between "investigate" and "seeking evidence", go right ahead. I think that you are being silly.

And I think you have just backed down.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's work with what YOU said: "Does Clancie claim proof? Yes." You have now backed off that. What is you pet phrase here? Oh yeah - you are moving the goalposts. If she has actually claimed proof, show it. Don't assume that she is claiming proof, as she has said consistently that her position is that there MAY be something to mediumship. Not that she could prove anyone is talking to the dead.

Why not? Is that impossible?

I have not backed off anything. I am saying that if Clancie does not specifically say that she is talking about possibilities, and that she is not arguing from a believer's POV, what does that leave us with?

Argument from evidence, right?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
How about this - you seem fond of the tit-for-tat thing. How about you asnwer Lurkers questions that have been pending for close to 2 months and I'll answer this.

Which I have answered. And stop pulling a "Clancie" here: Don't make your answer dependent on something irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Answer the question:

Who here claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Please either:

• address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
• state that you refuse to answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, because we have no evidence that he does have one. And the policies of ticket sellers is to NOT divulge personal credit card information. We cannot say that anything is "probable" when it has zero evidence to back it up. How is this not getting through?

How is "fraud" not getting through? It is not "probable" because it is against policies?

[voidx]

Quote:

Posted by neofight:
Also, the painfully obvious double standard that exists here with regard to "claims" that believers make, VS "claims" that skeptics make, is rather amusing and mind-boggling at the same time.

You can argue this is a problem you've experienced with specific people neo, you cannot make a blanket statement applying it to all skeptics. The ongoing discussion over the statistics in the process of John Edward thread is a fine example of skeptics disagreeing with skeptics. If this applies in you're mind to specific people then just come out and mention them. To lump us all together is as bad as when you complain about believers getting lumped together. And to get specific, the question often put to you ends up being...what convincing reasons do we have to so quickly abandon our mundane explanations and accept paranormal ones. I've so far seen nothing to this degree. Mundane ones we understand, paranormal ones are vague and grey area's, no one seems to truly understand, again, which one is a more solid basis for a viewpoint? That is perhaps why you're claims are scrutinized more closely than skeptics in some instances.

Quote:

Originally posted by voidx
[b]
People flip flop, and that's what causes many of the problems here. I agree Thanz you can have you're belief in the afterlife, so long as you acknowledge its based completely on faith, and not on any scientific evidence.

Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?

[thaiboxerken]

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of not believing the claims that there is an afterlife.

[TLN]

Ian, please go derail someone else's thread.

[voidx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

Where do you get it from? Show me and I'll read.

Quote:

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?

Nope, not completely faith. I cannot disprove that they perhaps do not cease to exist, but its what our current understanding of science would seem to suggest. I know you disagree with what you would term my materialistic perception of the world and the science we use for this purpose, but within the framework of how science works now it seems to make sense. The paranormal does not.

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Ian, you're constantly asking others to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way and you know it. I have never claimed there is no life after death. You claim there is.

Prove it.

I have not claimed that, I have said I subscribe to that hypothesis. And it is not clear to me that stating that the brain generates consciousness and therefore that consciousness will cease to exist forevermore once the brain is dead, is not a positive assertion.

You don't get away by saying that your belief system doesn't make any positive assertions therefore it is more likely to be correct. It doesn't impress me and it is not rational. Indeed it is sheer stupidity.

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
Ian, please go derail someone else's thread.

Nobody ever seems to want me!

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't get away by saying that your belief system doesn't make any positive assertions therefore it is more likely to be correct. It doesn't impress me and it is not rational. Indeed it is sheer stupidity.

I have no belief systems. We may go on after we die and we may not.

Now shut the hell up.

Quote:

Originally posted by voidx
Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where do you get it from? Show me and I'll read.

You have made the claim. I demand you back your statement up.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope, not completely faith. I cannot disprove that they perhaps do not cease to exist, but its what our current understanding of science would seem to suggest.

Tell me what aspect of science seems to suggest this.

[TLN]

Ian, we're not discussing the survival hypothesis here. Please, go insult folks elsewhere.

[voidx]

Quote:

Posted by Interesting Ian:
You have made the claim. I demand you back your statement up.

So you want me to prove the non-existence of scientific proof of the afterlife? Heh care to rephrase that? You can disagree with me, and you can prove me wrong by providing evidence, therefore making me retract my statement. But I can't prove that there is no evidence for it. What do you want me to do, read every article ever written and definatively say, "nope, no proof ever". Come on.

Quote:

Posted by Interesting Ian:Tell me what aspect of science seems to suggest this.

We are biological organisms, consciousness is a function of the brain. When we achieve brain death, we're dead, that's it. I know you disagree that consciousness is a function of the brain, but you have nothing objective aside from pure theory that the consciouness is not part of brain function, whereas science seems to suggest it is. And yes i'm not an expert here so I cannot specifically state how this is explained scientifically, or what the current theory on it is, congratulations! But I'm sure I could go do some reading and find out. You're simply trying to out-science debate me as a way of invalidating my comments. And you'd probably win cuz you know more big words than me.