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

Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

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

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Jul 2013, 21:17

really? wrote:Never implied justintime might get banned either. You read it incorrectly.

Then mia culpa.

really? wrote:To get the full story on justintime click the link provided previously. Then it will make sense to you.

I've been there, done that and I'm considering buying the t-shirt. It's not that I don't understand what JT is doing here, it's that I don't give a rat's patooty what JT does on some other forum. As long as he stays within the SCEPCOP rules, he can post whatever floats his boat.

really? wrote:I like speculation also as along as the speculation has substance. In this case it's just a temper tantrum against skeptics, the same as it was on the jref forum.

Gee, I guess it's no fun when you can't wait in giddy anticipation for someone to get hammered by a Mod for having an alternate view of things. Granted, JT has more than tippy toed over the edge of a slippery slope here more than once and he's been officially warned. I guess that I'm the only one who gets to have all the fun here. :shock:

As for his content being nothing more than a temper tantrum against skeptics, JT's rants seem (at least to me) more directed at certain skeptics and/or men of science and in a few cases non-believers of religion. Heck, he seems to have a major problem with Carl Sagan smoking weed and looking for little green men. How can you not find THAT interesting? :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 07 Jul 2013, 23:56

really? wrote:Never implied justintime might get banned either. You read it incorrectly.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Then mia culpa.


really? wrote:To get the full story on justintime click the link provided previously. Then it will make sense to you.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I've been there, done that and I'm considering buying the t-shirt. It's not that I don't understand what JT is doing here, it's that I don't give a rat's patooty what JT does on some other forum. As long as he stays within the SCEPCOP rules, he can post whatever floats his boat.

I wasn't concerned one bit what happened to justintime on some other forum nor am I here. I was merely pointing out by linking how difficult it is to converse with someone that won't take a moments time and listen with careful consideration what other people are trying to get through to him. People like that seem much more interested in telling why everyone else is wrong rather than keeping their pie holes shut once in awhile an reflecting on the weaknesses of their own position.

really? wrote:I like speculation also as along as the speculation has substance. In this case it's just a temper tantrum against skeptics, the same as it was on the jref forum.


NinjaPuppy wrote:.Gee, I guess it's no fun when you can't wait in giddy anticipation for someone to get hammered by a Mod for having an alternate view of things. Granted, JT has more than tippy toed over the edge of a slippery slope here more than once and he's been officially warned. I guess that I'm the only one who gets to have all the fun here. :shock:

You have noticed I've never pm'd you to complain about anyone and I'm unlikely ever to do such a thing. It's your responsibility to remain on top of things and to police.


NinjaPuppy wrote:As for his content being nothing more than a temper tantrum against skeptics, JT's rants seem (at least to me) more directed at certain skeptics and/or men of science and in a few cases non-believers of religion. Heck, he seems to have a major problem with Carl Sagan smoking weed and looking for little green men. How can you not find THAT interesting? :lol:

Yes, he does seem to have a problem with Sagan, but who knows why? And who cares? I did suggest to him to see a proctologist and have that skeptical bug removed. That might put him to a better mood, but I have my reservations. :)
Last edited by really? on 10 Jul 2013, 04:42, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 07 Jul 2013, 23:58

justintime wrote:Some noise has been made about me getting banned from JREF. The thread that they are pointing to is now at 127,212 views in just about 6 months..


No, one here cares.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Jul 2013, 01:16

justintime wrote:NinjaPuppy being the exception. This lady is not for turning and quite possibly the one to fear most. Even my Neanderthal instincts warns I tread gently and pile on the charms.

Yup, that would be piling it on REAL good. :lol: The "monkeys" comment, not so much. One might take that as name calling.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 08 Jul 2013, 05:49

justintime wrote:Some noise has been made about me getting banned from JREF. The thread that they are pointing to is now at 127,212 views in just about 6 months..


really? wrote:No, one here cares.

justintime wrote:Then why are you pointing to what transpired at JREF.

Are you really that dense or can't you follow a train of thought or read. Go back and read again what I said. No one here cares why you were banned at jref.

really? wrote:To get the full story on justintime click the link provided previously. Then it will make sense to you.


really? wrote: Deja vue all over again. And clearly you still don't understand. So it's no use beating the same dead horse again. All the rest is pure speculation on your part. As I recall you got your arse kicked on the JREF forum for not understanding Sagan's position. I don't think you'd want that again.


justintime wrote:You were so deep into my postings at JREF you even managed to recall specifics from a 72 page thread with over 2,800 replies. Sounds like you are obsessed with my intellectual prowess. .

You can thank yourself for jogging my memory on the Sagan specific by ranting about him again, here. If you had kept your mouth shut I likely would not have remembered.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby really? » 08 Jul 2013, 08:38

justintime wrote:
really? wrote:
justintime wrote:Some noise has been made about me getting banned from JREF. The thread that they are pointing to is now at 127,212 views in just about 6 months..


really? wrote:No, one here cares.

justintime wrote:Then why are you pointing to what transpired at JREF.

Are you really that dense or can't you follow a train of thought or read. Go back and read again what I said. No one here cares why you were banned at jref.

really? wrote:To get the full story on justintime click the link provided previously. Then it will make sense to you.


really? wrote: Deja vue all over again. And clearly you still don't understand. So it's no use beating the same dead horse again. All the rest is pure speculation on your part. As I recall you got your arse kicked on the JREF forum for not understanding Sagan's position. I don't think you'd want that again.


justintime wrote:You were so deep into my postings at JREF you even managed to recall specifics from a 72 page thread with over 2,800 replies. Sounds like you are obsessed with my intellectual prowess. .

You can thank yourself for jogging my memory on the Sagan specific by ranting about him again, here. If you had kept your mouth shut I likely would not have remembered.

I did not jog your memory. You tried to jog everyone's memory by drawing attention to my thread on another forum(JREF)

really? wrote: For those that might want to take a look you can see the exchange here starting with post #20 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... justintime


Here you are again pointing to what I was doing on another forum(JREF)

really? wrote: In this case it's just a temper tantrum against skeptics, the same as it was on the jref forum.


You are the same person who believes to offend people you 'open mouth, insert foot'. I am sure you had you foot in your mouth when you said:
" I did suggest to him to see a proctologist and have that skeptical bug removed."

That would be misleading to skeptics who suffer from skepticism.

How would you explain your statement. "I like speculation also as along as the speculation has substance." Is it your speculation skepticism is caused by a bug and that skepticism can be cured by removing that skeptical bug and the person skeptics should visit for treatment is a proctologist?

Is it possible when you thought you were having your brains probed, you were actually visiting your proctologist and that is how you got the two confused?

I'll broaden what I said before. No one cares what you have to say.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 10 Jul 2013, 01:29

justintime wrote:You either fail to grasp the significance of Dr Persinger's experiments or you are contradicting yourself unwittingly.


Neither - with all due respect I don't think you've understood either the experiment or me. I'll explain:

You first agree.
1. Ok: yes, we can say the experiment affirms that the spiritual experiences reported by people are real


By this I meant that they are having a real experience: ie: real feelings, real qualia - they are experiencing something that they identify as spiritual.

Then you say:
2. But having an experience does not mean, of course, that one is correctly interpreting it.


Right - having an experience in no way indicates that one has correctly interpreted the cause of it. Ie: one might think the cause is a deity, but really it is reactions in the brain.

Dr Persinger's experiment confirms people are interpreting their experiences correctly. They are having spiritual experiences and that is what his test reveals.


The experiment does no such thing and in fact IIRC Persinger says this explicitly - I'll try and remember to look up a quote on this later. The experiment does not conclude they interpret the experience correctly. I guess I could be mistaken though - how about we both look up quotes- I'll try and find the quote I wrote about and you try and find a quote where Persinger says the experiment concludes what you think it doesn.

When religious people pray, meditate, listen to a sermon or witness some 'miracle'. They report what they are going through as a spiritual experience. That is what they are experiencing (spiritual experience) and that is the appropriate experience they should be having under those circumstances. Skeptics sitting behind their computers raging on the internet cannot be expected to report spiritual/religious experiences.


Of course skeptics can have spiritual experiences - many have and do.



I'll listen to the link later and give my interpretation of it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 10 Jul 2013, 08:40

I'm trying to find an online copy of persinger's paper - haven't found one not behind a pay wall - anyone have it?

Justin: do you think it possible to have a sensation of a feeling of a presence without there being an actual presence? Should we always assume that our feeling about the original of an experience is correct?

An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNdM9JhTPJw
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 11 Jul 2013, 01:32

justintime wrote:There is a neural, cognitive and biological basis of religious experiences and beliefs.
Just as we respond to colors, smells and sounds so too do we experience fear, jubilation and spiritual presence depending on the surrounding that influences our mental state. Belief in god is innate in humans. We are wired to believe in god and it is logical we reinforce that belief by seeing gods handiwork everywhere and in some cases gods presences as well.


But does any of that suggest that there must be an actual deity behind it all?



Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgment, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind.


So presumably one could have these experiences without there being an actual deity.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 11 Jul 2013, 06:20

You didn't answer my question: do you believe a person could perceive having a religious experience involving a deity without the deity actually existing? (to be clear- the concept of the deity exists, but not an actual deity).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 11 Jul 2013, 06:40

Forget about eye-witnesses and proof - we're talking hypothetically here: could the experience of a deity exist without an extant deity?

Or let's put it more directly in the context of the God-helmet: could people have the experience that persinger describes without there being an actual spirit or deity behind it (ie: without there being any cause other than electromagnetic waves pumped into the brain).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Jul 2013, 01:07

justintime wrote:Having established, skeptics are just a disparate group of insecure individuals suffering from low dopamine levels which causes extreme skepticism in skeptics. Research is being done on the pathology of disbelief now that it has been established that belief in god is innate in humans and that believers are conferred and evolutionary advantage over skeptics.

It is society's responsibility to care for this group of inept chemically imbalanced skeptics and institutionalized them in a humane way and give them a more purpose driven life than allowing them to go raging on the internet aimlessly.

OK, now you're getting very near to the edge of the proverbial 'slippery slope' there JT.

Besides, wasn't the internet invented as a place to keep all the skeptics in one place so we know who they are? :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Jul 2013, 22:58

Arouet: Justin: do you think it possible to have a sensation of a feeling of a presence without there being an actual presence? Should we always assume that our feeling about the original of an experience is correct?

Justintime: You have to be a lot more clearer about the eye-witness. If Moses said he saw a deity and spent the next 40 years fulfilling a promise he would certainly be a good witness.
Even in a court of law eyewitness accounts are considered more credible than hearsay. Unless you have reasons to doubt the credibility of the eyewitness there is no reason to doubt the persons recollection. Is it something that can be proven? What is outside the realm of science to examine is also outside the methods of science to prove.

Arouet: Forget about eye-witnesses and proof - we're talking hypothetically here: could the experience of a deity exist without an extant deity?


Talk about confusing! I'd like to see how the eyewitness consideration gets explained away with JTs particular comparison. Forget about eye-witnesses and proof? :shock: Isn't that what you guys are all about?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby Arouet » 16 Jul 2013, 00:31

NinjaPuppy wrote:Talk about confusing! I'd like to see how the eyewitness consideration gets explained away with JTs particular comparison. Forget about eye-witnesses and proof? :shock: Isn't that what you guys are all about?


His example had nothing to do with my questions. I wasn't asking about recollection of the experience. I was asking if it was possible for someone to believe the experience was caused by one thing (ie: a deity) when in fact no-such deity exists. If you want, you could ask it also as: Is it possible for someone to believe an experience was caused by a particular deity who does exist, but in this case actually had nothing to do with the experience?

The question is not about memory, it's about our capacity to understand the root causes of an experience just by having the experience itself.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Randi, CSICOP, Skeptics are contradictions

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Jul 2013, 01:55

Arouet wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Talk about confusing! I'd like to see how the eyewitness consideration gets explained away with JTs particular comparison. Forget about eye-witnesses and proof? :shock: Isn't that what you guys are all about?


His example had nothing to do with my questions. I wasn't asking about recollection of the experience.

But isn't the recollection of the experience all you have? It's not like you get a post card from the deity when the helmet is removed. There is no caller ID to trace the source of the experience.

Arouet wrote:I was asking if it was possible for someone to believe the experience was caused by one thing (ie: a deity) when in fact no-such deity exists.

It obviously does exist, at least in regard to the experience of the victim of this experiment. You even ask this: do you think it possible to have a sensation of a feeling of a presence without there being an actual presence? It's kind of hard to try and explain this to give an answer to this question as the deity in question does not necessarily have any actual presence. At least not from any teaching that I've known. We have artist renderings and many different interpretations but no physical proof. We do have plenty of unexplained things that humans attribute to assorted deities and of course those not so qualifying personal experiences.

Arouet wrote:If you want, you could ask it also as: Is it possible for someone to believe an experience was caused by a particular deity who does exist, but in this case actually had nothing to do with the experience?

You mean like a placebo effect?

Arouet wrote:The question is not about memory, it's about our capacity to understand the root causes of an experience just by having the experience itself.

Since the actual experiment has nothing more than personal memory as it's outcome, it has EVERYTHING to do about memory. Without further study and experimentation we can never expect to find or understand the root cause. I mean you have to start somewhere.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests