View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Proof of the money

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Proof of the money

Postby Dave » 20 Oct 2010, 00:11

Dave
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 00:09






Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 20 Oct 2010, 00:56

of course he was telling the truth
:D

but im guessing that doesnt prove anything to some guys here that dont like to be challenged on their supernatural beliefs.
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Proof of the money

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Oct 2010, 04:23

Nah... I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn and some Florida Real Estate that I'd be willing to sell you too.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 20 Oct 2010, 06:04

see?
i knew it
non skeptics need the money to be non existant
since nobody has come forward and beat the challenge
they started the theory it doesnt exists

but hey believers are known because of their vivid imagination
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Proof of the money

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Oct 2010, 23:08

derrida wrote:see?
i knew it
non skeptics need the money to be non existant
since nobody has come forward and beat the challenge
they started the theory it doesnt exists

but hey believers are known because of their vivid imagination


I don't "need" the money to be "non-existent" I merely understand the gaping loop-hole and legal speak... I also know that Randi is a conman, plain and simple; the leader of a new cult and he probably laughs frequently at how well he and L. Ron Hubbard have done with their bet...
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Proof of the money

Postby Arouet » 20 Oct 2010, 23:48

Craig Browning wrote:I don't "need" the money to be "non-existent" I merely understand the gaping loop-hole and legal speak... I also know that Randi is a conman, plain and simple; the leader of a new cult and he probably laughs frequently at how well he and L. Ron Hubbard have done with their bet...


Well, since nothing else seems to be going on in this thread, I guess we can get into this. What's Randi's con? the million dollar challenge? Or skepticism in general? His investigations in the paranormal?

How do you find cult? What do you find cultish about Randi's organization?

I don't think Randi is an angel, and maybe not even that nice a guy, but the way people villanize him seems to go overboard.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 21 Oct 2010, 01:48

the conmen are the ones perpetuating this kind of supernatural beliefs without any base for them

just one guy needs to beat the challenge.. just one
but none of those gurus, ninjitsu masters, psychics, ghosthunters, witch doctors, chi masters, tarot readers, energy cleaners and whatever have done it
not all of them are conmen, mosst of that is just self delussion

but what do they have in common
is that they dont like an 80 year old magician challenging their beliefs and asking for proof.
their proof is their ¨experience¨ and their stories..
nothing that can be done under proper condicions.
so the challenge will keep being unchalleged.. which is kind of sad
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Proof of the money

Postby Craig Browning » 21 Oct 2010, 22:28

Sorry guys, I don't play this game... it's caused me to get far too many grey hairs already and it's simply not worth it. BUT, look at how quickly you defend your Pope -- one of the biggest indicator of a cult-mind is how much glory and protectiveness the followers give to their founders/leadership.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Proof of the money

Postby Arouet » 21 Oct 2010, 22:50

Craig Browning wrote:Sorry guys, I don't play this game... it's caused me to get far too many grey hairs already and it's simply not worth it. BUT, look at how quickly you defend your Pope -- one of the biggest indicator of a cult-mind is how much glory and protectiveness the followers give to their founders/leadership.


Get into it or not, but I play it straight with Randi. I don't like everything he does or says though i greatly appreciate the movement he has played an integral part in building. I thnk Randi can be quite nasty at times, and I'm not crazy about his attitude. So I'll criticize him for that: I don't blindly agree with him on anything he says though I do share his general mindset from what I've read of him. However, the attacks on Randi go so far beyond the pale, he's basically a demonic figure to many proponents - the embodiment of evil with every action of nefarious means. What that does is take attention away from legitimate critques and puts the focus back on the villifier.

If critiques on Randi were more measured, you'd see less adamant defendings. Not that I see so much blind defending, I've seen Randi criticised by skeptics in the JREF forums.

You probably know Randi somewhat and perhaps you have some insider knowledge. You've called him a conman, maybe he is, but on skepticism? Thing is, skeptical arguments speak for themselves. They rise and fall on their merits. Where does the con fit in? Maybe you think its the fact that no-one has one the MDC. Well, give an example of someone who should have, and we can discuss it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Proof of the money

Postby caniswalensis » 22 Oct 2010, 00:28

Craig Browning wrote:
derrida wrote:see?
i knew it
non skeptics need the money to be non existant
since nobody has come forward and beat the challenge
they started the theory it doesnt exists

but hey believers are known because of their vivid imagination


I don't "need" the money to be "non-existent" I merely understand the gaping loop-hole and legal speak... I also know that Randi is a conman, plain and simple; the leader of a new cult and he probably laughs frequently at how well he and L. Ron Hubbard have done with their bet...

Hi Craig,

I do not begrudge you your opinion of Randi. Honestly, though, do you really think it is fair to compare skeptisim and scientology? Don't you think there are some subatantial differences between the two?

If you really believe they are alike, and are not just spouting off, please explain what they have in common that would justify calling skepticsm a "cult."

regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 22 Oct 2010, 03:00

see craig?
you cant debate

you started with the name calling
now skepticism has a ¨pope¨ and is a ¨cult¨
really?

i guess
you just need it to be that way
cause you cant stand the fact that you only have stories and no proof at all for your dellusions
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Proof of the money

Postby caniswalensis » 22 Oct 2010, 04:59

derrida wrote:see craig?
you cant debate

you started with the name calling
now skepticism has a ¨pope¨ and is a ¨cult¨
really?

i guess
you just need it to be that way
cause you cant stand the fact that you only have stories and no proof at all for your dellusions


UGH! iIdon't really want to debate anyone, either. Why not just have a civil disscussion about these issues? It's not like we are going to change anyone's mind.

This post is definately not what i would call civil. I may not agree with all of craig's opinions, but he's a decent, intelligent guy and is almost certainly not delusional.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 22 Oct 2010, 07:35

im sorry.. it wasnt intended to be
i just cant stand when somebody starts with the name calling like craig does.
it isnt fair to start calling skeptics a cult and not expect to start a discussion

and dellusional?.. well..
calling randi a pope and skepticism a cult
qualifies as a dellusion
those are lies he tells himself to avoid reality
not one guy has ever stood up to the challenge and beat it..

nevermind randi´s challenge there´s like 30 other challenges around the globe.. not 1 of those has been beaten..
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Proof of the money

Postby caniswalensis » 22 Oct 2010, 08:14

derrida wrote:im sorry.. it wasnt intended to be
i just cant stand when somebody starts with the name calling like craig does.
it isnt fair to start calling skeptics a cult and not expect to start a discussion

and dellusional?.. well..
calling randi a pope and skepticism a cult
qualifies as a dellusion
those are lies he tells himself to avoid reality
not one guy has ever stood up to the challenge and beat it..

nevermind randi´s challenge there´s like 30 other challenge around the globe.. not 1 of those has been beaten..
the reason rhymes with illusion.


I think it is nice that you apologized. many people will not do that. :)

I agree with you that calling randi a pope and skepticism a cult is going a bit far. It might not be a fair assesment, but he has a right to think it and say it. How will someone calling him delusional get him rethink his position?

It is simply his opinion, not a delusion. If it is wrong, it may be because it is based on personal bias or a lack of knowledge, but it does not qualify as a delusion. Calling it such is mere retoric and is not worthy of someone that styles themselves a sceptic. Using words like lies, delusion, and similar talk does not convey any meaning other than disagreement, and we already know we disagree. It's little better than name-calling. Why not tell him why you disagree?


If you prize logic, critical thinking and skepticism, take the high road and actually use them. When we stoop to calling names or making arguments that are not logical, we actually do make skeptisim look like a cult.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Proof of the money

Postby derrida » 22 Oct 2010, 13:58

im gonna said it again that
i am sorry that it was interpreted in that way
and i am really happy to find another rational thinker in this forum
actually..
a real rational thinker which i am not
i am a cynic
i cant control when people start with the name calling
i wish i could be like you

but when people start calling an 80 year old NOBODY a pope
that gets me mad.. cause i know that they are doing it because they need that lie to be true to keep their fantasies
but well ... ill try to compose myself
as long as nobody else starts attacking the real world
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Next

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron