31 Oct 2009, 04:12
31 Oct 2009, 04:16
NinjaPuppy wrote:I do!
31 Oct 2009, 04:28
31 Oct 2009, 04:32
NinjaPuppy wrote:Don't you worry ProfWag, you're safe.
31 Oct 2009, 04:40
accidentsinspace wrote:NinjaPuppy wrote:Don't you worry ProfWag, you're safe.
I wonder why?
01 Nov 2009, 14:26
03 Nov 2009, 11:44
03 Nov 2009, 11:58
03 Nov 2009, 14:30
03 Nov 2009, 15:30
brett wrote:- the skeptics seem to be on some sort of a mission to get every one "uniformly " thinking , and thinking that ANYTHING that is outside the realms of known science , perceived wisdom , their own dogma , etc is simply not possible and it is some how sinful to think in this way or believe in the "possibility."
03 Nov 2009, 16:05
wjbeaty wrote:And what drives it? Well, first you have to be so certain that your own side is righteous and superior, that you can freely employ ugly methods in attacking your inferior adversaries.
03 Nov 2009, 19:11
WhiteTiger wrote:wjbeaty wrote:And what drives it? Well, first you have to be so certain that your own side is righteous and superior, that you can freely employ ugly methods in attacking your inferior adversaries.
Or so fearful that you aren't righteous and superior that you must prosecute a pogrom simply to present a self deceiving face of certainty. Such action generally will serve to attract a herd of acolytes whose presence and supporting activities then bolster the insecure self image.
03 Nov 2009, 20:07
I like you, you seem like a decent person.
As far as homeopathy goes i am actually somewhat outspoken against it. Now i think there may be cases where homeopathic "medicine" is indeed better than what Conglomodrug may be pushing (I am a proud medical marijuana advocate) but from personal experience i do not think it is legitimate medicine in the same sense as Therapeutic Chiropractic Medcine has become legitimate ( Don't get me wrong i am not saying spinal subluxations cause AIDS just that there is an acknowledged legitimacy too it). Myself i am a believer, i believe aliens are real, i believe in god, i believe in bigfoot and i even believe that maybe there was a 9/11 conspiracy plot. I even believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a scapegoat for the JFK assassination. But i am very skeptical of the beliefs that i hold. I guess you could say i am a realist. Even though i believe in god it could just be stemmed purely out of social indoctrination and personal ignorance as well as mental malfunctions. The thing is that i guess i have been at the recieving end of the negative spectrum of religion and things of that nature. I was once kicked out of a youth group for defending Atheists, and i guess the thing that turned me against most atheists and other "non-believer" groups, if you will, was how they just kinda spat on me for defending them in the first place. I mean it really upset me that here i was defending their right to not believe, and even conceding some of their points, yet i was still being mocked and made fun of. It is maddening and no doubt has etched itself into my personality, i mean i feel as if i am on constant defense mode whenever i enter into ANY situation that concerns the Paranormal, god, conspiracies, what have you. It just seems rare to come across people who actually care about what is most sacred; and that sanctity is the general well being of people of all walks,genders, races ,faiths and preferences of human life. Too many "skeptics" are concerned with debunking as opposed to actually examining the validity of one side. Too many of them hide behind "science" when in reality science by its very nature is supposed to be neutral in all claims.
I guess what i am trying to say here is that it is good to see people on "your side" of things who display a genuine interest in protecting people rather than polarizing them for whatever purposes they claim to be noble.
03 Nov 2009, 23:37
brett wrote:my herd of acolytes must be on strike then
03 Nov 2009, 23:44
WhiteTiger wrote:brett wrote:my herd of acolytes must be on strike then
You must not be conducting a proper pogrom then. Try a couple of public lynchings, with press coverage if you can arrange it... those are always quite popular. Just make sure you can't be caught out fudging the evidence at the mock trial. Demanding the right to define what is and is not evidence seems to work nicely for the CYA aspect