Doonesbury 9/6
Don Del Grande
Speaking of "things that can't be verified", what about the
considerable number of people that believe in a religion?
Does reasonism = atheism?
-- Don
Carl Fink
I'd say it includes atheism.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Paul Ciszek
In article <slrnha7q5r...@panix2.panix.com>,
Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 2009-09-06, Don Del Grande <del_gra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/db/2009/09/06/
>>
>> Speaking of "things that can't be verified", what about the
>> considerable number of people that believe in a religion?
>>
>> Does reasonism = atheism?
>
>I'd say it includes atheism.
There are atheists who believe in woo, such as alien abductions,
accupuncture, organically grown food...
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Invid Fan
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnha7q5r...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> >On 2009-09-06, Don Del Grande <del_gra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/db/2009/09/06/
> >>
> >> Speaking of "things that can't be verified", what about the
> >> considerable number of people that believe in a religion?
> >>
> >> Does reasonism = atheism?
> >
> >I'd say it includes atheism.
>
> There are atheists who believe in woo, such as alien abductions,
> accupuncture, organically grown food...
Yup. The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of beliefs in
any gods. Apart from that, they can be as silly as anyone else, and
naturally their atheism can be based on faith/ignorance as much as
someone's religious beliefs can be.
You could probably try and link "reasonism" with Humanists or the
skeptic movement, but someone who is "reasonable" in one area (like
science) may veer off into woo in another.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Mike Peterson
> In article <h80rj7$rg...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek
>
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnha7q5r.m7k.ca...@panix2.panix.com>,
> > Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >On 2009-09-06, Don Del Grande <del_grande_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/db/2009/09/06/
>
> > >> Speaking of "things that can't be verified", what about the
> > >> considerable number of people that believe in a religion?
>
> > >> Does reasonism = atheism?
>
> > >I'd say it includes atheism.
>
> > There are atheists who believe in woo, such as alien abductions,
> > accupuncture, organically grown food...
>
> Yup. The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of beliefs in
> any gods. Apart from that, they can be as silly as anyone else, and
> naturally their atheism can be based on faith/ignorance as much as
> someone's religious beliefs can be.
>
> You could probably try and link "reasonism" with Humanists or the
> skeptic movement, but someone who is "reasonable" in one area (like
> science) may veer off into woo in another.
My experience with skeptics is that they are extremely dogmatic.
Anything that happens can be explained, anything that can't be
explained didn't happen -- either you didn't see what really happened
or you are lying.
Apparently, utter ignorance of the history of science is necessary to
become a skeptic, or at least a fanatical belief that all that exists
has been discovered and adequately explained.
Honestly, I don't know who is more foolish -- those who believe in the
ridiculous, or those who refuse to believe that what appears
ridiculous may simply represent that which we cannot yet explain.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
www.weeklystorybook.com
www.weeklystorybook.com/dana
Carl Fink
> My experience with skeptics is that they are extremely dogmatic.
> Anything that happens can be explained, anything that can't be
> explained didn't happen -- either you didn't see what really happened
> or you are lying.
>
> Apparently, utter ignorance of the history of science is necessary to
> become a skeptic, or at least a fanatical belief that all that exists
> has been discovered and adequately explained.
I request that you clarify this, in that it's utterly unlike any of the
actual skeptics I know ... or am, for that matter. I don't think that
eminent scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss and the late
Stephen Gould and PZ Myers and [long list deleted] are somehow more ignorant
of the history of science than you are.
Gould and famed skeptic Carl Sagan in particular wrote extensively about the
history of science, as has the still-living Krauss.
Odds are high that as a one-time science teacher I might have a passing
familiarity with that history myself.
> Honestly, I don't know who is more foolish -- those who believe in the
> ridiculous, or those who refuse to believe that what appears
> ridiculous may simply represent that which we cannot yet explain.
Sounds profound, contains no content. Please add content.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Member, Skeptics Society (www.skeptic.com)
Member, James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org)
Jym Dyer
>>> I'd say it includes atheism.
=v= Atheism is a belief, a point of faith. In my experience,
agnostics tend to be far more reasonable than atheists.
> The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of beliefs
> in any gods. Apart from that, they can be as silly as anyone
> else, and naturally their atheism can be based on faith/
> ignorance as much as someone's religious beliefs can be.
=v= Yeah, really. I know some atheists who go out of their way
to attribute every ill of the world to religion. It's fine to
point it out where it's applicable, but to ferret out some sort
of connection, no matter how many backflips it takes, isn't what
I'd call "reasonism."
=v= Bill Maher's film /Religulous/ had funny moments, though for
the most part this involved taking pokes at easy targets. His
summing-up, though, blamed religions (the Abrahamic ones) for
the world's major problems, which are nearly-apocalyptic. Does
Maher not remember the Cold War, which handily showed that it's
quite possible for secular entities to get to a near-apocalyptic
situation as well?
<_Jym_>
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> >>>> Does reasonism = atheism?
> >>> I'd say it includes atheism.
>
> =v= Atheism is a belief, a point of faith. In my experience,
> agnostics tend to be far more reasonable than atheists.
I find it interesting when people claim that "atheism is
just a faith or religion." I think it is, just the same as
"not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
Most atheists would be happy to believe in a god or gods,
given sufficient evidence. It's just that "it says so
in this book" isn't anywhere near good enough evidence,
especially when there are N+1 competing and mutually
exclusive books. Or does that make us agnostics?
Mike Beede
Freezer
> I find it interesting when people claim that "atheism is
> just a faith or religion." I think it is, just the same as
> "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
If one makes a point of telling anyone who will listen that they don't
collect stamps and that collecting stamps is a horrible waste of time (and
your stupid for doing it)... that's a hobby in all but name.
Needless to say, I am of the "Atheism {note the captial "A"} is a
religion" camp.
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
http://mst3kfreezer.livejournal.com/
Mike Peterson
I was about to say that I didn't mean rational scientists who might
ponder an inexplicable event and say, "Well, look, it isn't 'magic'
and it isn't 'mindreading' --there has to be an explanation for it,
but I have no idea what that might be." Then I scrolled down and saw
your James Randi sig file and, well, that's exactly who I mean when I
sneer at "skeptics" -- people who are irrationally attracted to
rationalism.
They're like Mensa members. Yes, you have to be smart to be in Mensa.
But you have to be kind of a dope to want (need) to be in Mensa.
Similarly, it's all well and good to be a rationalist but you should
be able to hold that belief without becoming obsessive and nutty about
it.
As someone with a rational outlook, I once came across an event that
really defied explanation. I was there, I was very skeptical, I
approached it with an extremely suspicious attitude, but I was
completely puzzled by what happened. I described it to James Randi and
his response was that I was lying and that it hadn't happened.
My response? He's a freaking twit. Good magician, great at spotting
cons, but he's got his limits as a scientist, beginning with no formal
background in science.
After that, I began to look at the Skeptical Inquirer (I was a
subscriber for several years) and similar stuff and realized they
simply dismiss what can't be explained. This is the kind of childish
attitude that I expect from the supporters of spontaneous generation,
phlogiston and the geocentric universe, not from modern scientists.
There are things we can't explain. My belief is that we will one day
figure them out. Example: Who knew, 20 years ago, that elephants could
communicate over long distances with subsonic sound? We didn't. That
didn't mean we should have believed that elephants could read each
others minds or were astral projecting and viewing each other's
activities. It just meant they had something going on that we didn't
understand.
I've run into too many "skeptics" who would simply insist that,
because they couldn't explain the phenomenon, the elephants weren't
communicating over those distances and that anybody who believed they
were was simply stupid, superstitious and mistaken.
That's an intellectual cheat.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article <Jym.07Sep2009.4aa53...@econet.org>,
I think that makes you an agnostic- one who believes that the
existence of God(s) cannot be proven.
Atheism, FWIU, is a denial of the possibility of the existence of God
(s).
Invid Fan
<be...@thunderlobster.com> wrote:
Well, "there are no gods" is something of a statement of faith, as it
can't really be proven. However, "the god of religion X isn't real" is
probably a statement of reason. It might be wrong, but if it is based
on what you know of the evidence you can come to a conclusion the same
way you might about the existence of a historical King Arthur.
Carl Fink
> I was about to say that I didn't mean rational scientists who might
> ponder an inexplicable event and say, "Well, look, it isn't 'magic'
> and it isn't 'mindreading' --there has to be an explanation for it,
> but I have no idea what that might be." Then I scrolled down and saw
> your James Randi sig file and, well, that's exactly who I mean when I
> sneer at "skeptics" -- people who are irrationally attracted to
> rationalism.
>
> They're like Mensa members. Yes, you have to be smart to be in Mensa.
> But you have to be kind of a dope to want (need) to be in Mensa.
> Similarly, it's all well and good to be a rationalist but you should
> be able to hold that belief without becoming obsessive and nutty about
> it.
By "they" you of course mean me. Let me merely say that you are being
dismissive without bothering to actually understand, because what you write
is not in correspondence with reality.
> As someone with a rational outlook, I once came across an event that
> really defied explanation. I was there, I was very skeptical, I
> approached it with an extremely suspicious attitude, but I was
> completely puzzled by what happened. I described it to James Randi and
> his response was that I was lying and that it hadn't happened.
>
> My response? He's a freaking twit. Good magician, great at spotting
> cons, but he's got his limits as a scientist, beginning with no formal
> background in science.
I will bet you $5000 of actual money that this did not happen.
I've just been let go from my job, and nonetheless I will wager $5000 of US
currency.
I would bet that instead he said that you were WRONG about what happened, or
that you are otherwise not describing the events accurately now in
retrospect.
Human perception and memory are fallible and malleable, which is something a
stage magician like Randi knows.
As for Randi's scientific qualifications, he makes no claim to knowledge of
field theory or physical chemistry. He does claim to understand logic and
human psychology--and backs up that claim. Hey, have YOU been published in
NATURE? He has.
> After that, I began to look at the Skeptical Inquirer (I was a
> subscriber for several years) and similar stuff and realized they
> simply dismiss what can't be explained ...
Show me an example. Or retract. (I don't read or like SI, but the above
strikes me as ludicrously unlikely.)
George W Harris
<free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>If I don't reply to this Mike Beede post, the terroists win.
>
>> I find it interesting when people claim that "atheism is
>> just a faith or religion." I think it is, just the same as
>> "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
>
>If one makes a point of telling anyone who will listen that they don't
>collect stamps and that collecting stamps is a horrible waste of time (and
>your stupid for doing it)... that's a hobby in all but name.
And if atheism required that one tell anyone
who will listen that one is an atheist and believing in a
god is a horrible waste of time (and you're stupid for
doing it)...then you would have a point.
>Needless to say, I am of the "Atheism {note the captial "A"} is a
>religion" camp.
Which takes you out of the reasonist camp.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Heather Kendrick
<c7e32d6c-76a8-49db...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that makes you an agnostic- one who believes that the
> existence of God(s) cannot be proven.
>
> Atheism, FWIU, is a denial of the possibility of the existence of God
> (s).
No, it's not. It's the denial of the existence of God. But for some
reason, believers frequently want to reclassify almost everyone as
agnostics.
I deny that dragons exist. I don't deny "the possibility of the
existence of dragons." I'm a philosopher; I don't deny the possibility
of the existence of anything except things that are logically
impossible. That doesn't make me an "agnostic about dragons" or about
most of the other things I believe do not exist.
Heather
Ron Bauerle
> My response? [James Randi]'s a freaking twit.
Who appears to be dying of colon cancer:
http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/1644188
Guess he'll find out the Truth one way or the other...
Ron
Jym Dyer
> that one is an atheist and believing in a god is a horrible
> waste of time (and you're stupid for doing it)...then you
> would have a point.
=v= My point was that atheism doesn't require reason, either;
that there are those who are quite emotional and unreasonable
about it. I have no doubts that there are reasonable atheists,
but calling atheism "reasonist" simply isn't accurate. The two
are not equivalent.
<_Jym_>
Freezer
> And if atheism required that one tell anyone
> who will listen that one is an atheist and believing in a
> god is a horrible waste of time (and you're stupid for
> doing it)...then you would have a point.
Look me in the (metaphorical) eye and tell me people like Christopher
Hitchens and Richard Dawkins don't do just that, and I'll cede the
argument.
Mike Marshall
He's an entertainer, like Rush Limbaugh.
He was entertaining me and a bunch of people at a Usenix a few years ago.
I quit being entertained when he bragged about having had access to a
bunch of school children and had used the opportunity to do his best
to break their faith in Jesus... not many people left the room other than
me, I guess they continued to be entertained...
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Though I wish the man the best of luck, I can't help but note the
irony of his statement (regarding his battle with intestinal cancer):
""We'll fight it and we'll beat this." A rational examination of the
facts would suggest otherwise.
Peter B. Steiger
> I quit being entertained when he bragged about having had access to a
> bunch of school children and had used the opportunity to do his best to
> break their faith in Jesus.
Wow. He used to keep his hands off religion, back in the day when I read
Skeptical Inquirer on a regular basis.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
parto the p
Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's post
that it does to rebut it.
Invid Fan
<ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> > After that, I began to look at the Skeptical Inquirer (I was a
> > subscriber for several years) and similar stuff and realized they
> > simply dismiss what can't be explained ...
>
> Show me an example. Or retract. (I don't read or like SI, but the above
> strikes me as ludicrously unlikely.)
To be fair, there HAVE been shitty articles in there that did just
that, and letters flowed in the next month bitching about it. Neither
Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic are refereed science magazines.
Carl Fink
[elided]
> Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's post
> that it does to rebut it.
Yeah, being offended when Mike insults me and a man I respect a lot surely
shows that skeptics and James Randi in particular are twits.
If you insist.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Carl Fink
However it's hard to be a rationalist *and* a Believer. Martin Gardner is
about the only exception I can think of and he CONCEDES that his religious
beliefs aren't rational.
Dann
news:8f099638-98d2-4c76...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.
Not necessarily. I don't know much about James Randi. But I do know
that a positive, fighting, attitude in a cancer patient is an invaluable
asset for beating cancer. The few that beat the hardest cancers to cure
are the ones with the most positive attitudes towards beating it.
Assuming that other statements in this thread about Mr. Randi's knowledge
regarding human nature are correct, then I can't imagine him not taking a
"we'll fight it and we'll beat this" attitude.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Now also on Facebook in case you just can't get enough of me!
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On 08 Sep 2009, Blinky the Wonder Wombat said the following innews:8f099638-98d2-4c76...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 12:41 am, Ron Bauerle <ron.baue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mike Peterson wrote:
> >> > My response? [James Randi]'s a freaking twit.
>
> >> Who appears to be dying of colon
> >> cancer:http://www.sfweekly.com/content/p
> > rintVersion/1644188
>
> >> Guess he'll find out the Truth one way or the other...
>
> >> Ron
>
> > Though I wish the man the best of luck, I can't help but note the
> > irony of his statement (regarding his battle with intestinal cancer):
> > ""We'll fight it and we'll beat this." A rational examination of the
> > facts would suggest otherwise.
>
> Not necessarily. I don't know much about James Randi. But I do know
> that a positive, fighting, attitude in a cancer patient is an invaluable
> asset for beating cancer. The few that beat the hardest cancers to cure
> are the ones with the most positive attitudes towards beating it.
>
> Assuming that other statements in this thread about Mr. Randi's knowledge
> regarding human nature are correct, then I can't imagine him not taking a
> "we'll fight it and we'll beat this" attitude.
>
Not denying that faith in prevailing against the odds is a positive
and even desireable trait when battling a major illness; I was
snarking at the fact that Randi was not publically taking a rational
approach to his prospects (although later in the article, he seemed
more resigned to the facts at hand.)
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On 2009-09-08, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >> And if atheism required that one tell anyone who will listen
> >> that one is an atheist and believing in a god is a horrible
> >> waste of time (and you're stupid for doing it)...then you
> >> would have a point.
>
> >=v= My point was that atheism doesn't require reason, either;
> > that there are those who are quite emotional and unreasonable
> > about it. I have no doubts that there are reasonable atheists,
> > but calling atheism "reasonist" simply isn't accurate. The two
> > are not equivalent.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> However it's hard to be a rationalist *and* a Believer. Martin Gardner is
> about the only exception I can think of and he CONCEDES that his religious
> beliefs aren't rational.
I think you will find that many religious types acknowldge that faith
is irrational-- starting with St. Paul.
Nick Theodorakis
> But I do know
> that a positive, fighting, attitude in a cancer patient is an invaluable
> asset for beating cancer. The few that beat the hardest cancers to cure
> are the ones with the most positive attitudes towards beating it.
>
Well, no, not really:
<http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071022/positive-attitude-doesnt-
whip-cancer>
<http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/
MBC_4x_Attittudes_and_Cancer.asp>
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_the...@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Mike Marshall
>On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:18:45 +0000, Mike Marshall sez:
>> I quit being entertained when he bragged about having had access to a
>> bunch of school children and had used the opportunity to do his best to
>> break their faith in Jesus.
"Peter B. Steiger" <see...@for.email.address> writes:
>Wow. He used to keep his hands off religion, back in the day when I read
>Skeptical Inquirer on a regular basis.
New Orleans, 98...
James Randi's keynote talk kicked the 1998 Technical Conference into life.
His talk zipped by, and we walked out at the end having seen several
examples of his work, his magic, and his mission to expose the quacks
and charlatans who often employ technology to fool us, the gullible public.
James's roving, debunking eye has been aimed in many directions,
from harmless mentalists to the somewhat more serious faith healers in
both the US and the Philippines whose activities not only net them huge
sums of money, but also give false hope to people whom medical care
cannot cure. He looked at homeopathic cures which are now sold in many
drugstores. These cures are simply water because the original chemical
has been diluted 102500 times.
His talk ended on some serious notes:
* We need to teach our children to think critically so they stop being
fooled
* We need to stand up and expose fraudulent use of science and technology.
It was the same USEnix where they got pornographer Dan Klein to talk about
how to manage busy webservers.
-Mike
Carl Fink
>
>>On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:18:45 +0000, Mike Marshall sez:
>>> I quit being entertained when he bragged about having had access to a
>>> bunch of school children and had used the opportunity to do his best to
>>> break their faith in Jesus.
>
> "Peter B. Steiger" <see...@for.email.address> writes:
>>Wow. He used to keep his hands off religion, back in the day when I read
>>Skeptical Inquirer on a regular basis.
Missed this on the first go-round, sorry.
Randi himself is highly critical of religion. When writing for SI he
respected their policy to avoid the subject unless paranormal claims were
made (e.g. bleeding statues).
Mike Peterson
Here's the retraction: I'm sorry I assumed we were having an
intelligent conversation. And here's another: I'm sorry I didn't
realize you were a f*cking idiot.
And that's no lie. Betcha $5000. I'm not a liar, I'm not an
incompetent reporter and I'm not interested in debating this further.
You worship at the altar of Randi. As I said, it's just another
dogmatic belief system and dogmatic belief systems are not, by their
nature, rational.
Mike Peterson
Jym Dyer
> = Carl Fink
>> Honestly, I don't know who is more foolish -- those who
>> believe in the ridiculous, or those who refuse to believe
>> that what appears ridiculous may simply represent that
>> which we cannot yet explain.
> Sounds profound, contains no content. Please add content.
=v= If you can't figure out the content in that, you're not
reading for comprehension. Or maybe you're one of those
people who needs to have these things explained with Venn
diagrams?
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's
> post that it does to rebut it.
=v= You got that right.
<_Jym_>
(Or do you? I'll bet you $5000 that never happened.)
Carl Fink
> Here's the retraction: I'm sorry I assumed we were having an
> intelligent conversation. And here's another: I'm sorry I didn't
> realize you were a f*cking idiot.
Well, I didn't insult you. But exploding into irrational fury because I
called you fallible--not an insult, merely a statement that you are
human--is somewhat startling at the list.
> And that's no lie. Betcha $5000. I'm not a liar, I'm not an
> incompetent reporter and I'm not interested in debating this further.
> You worship at the altar of Randi. As I said, it's just another
> dogmatic belief system and dogmatic belief systems are not, by their
> nature, rational.
Um, never called you a liar--in fact said the opposite. Never called you an
incompetent reporter. Don't believe that you are.
And didn't descend into weird, antilogical fits of fury and personal insult
when challenged, either. Frankly this outburst is the first thing you've
ever posted that DOES make me question your reportorial objectivity.
Here's my dogmatic belief: Randi is very very smart and highly knowledgeable
in certain areas, notably conjuring and the arts of deception. I know from
years of personal interaction with him (via email and the GEnie network back
in the day) that while he's sometimes strident and confrontational, he has
never been irrational. I therefore provisionally assume that he wouldn't
behave like a jackass, as you described. Because of what you slam as
religious faith? No. Because there are no documented cases of his doing
so, and MANY cases of people accusing him of it, and it not actually being
true.
What "dogma" do you accuse me or Randi of following? I don't even know what
you're claiming happened. This is because you REFUSE TO EXPLAIN. I don't
dogmatically disbelieve in, say, Bigfoot. It's just that there is zero
compelling evidence that it exists. If someone finds a series of hominid
fossils in California tomorrow and a piece of hair is found that has the DNA
of an unknown primate, closely related to H. sapiens but not chimp, gorilla,
or orangutan, I'll provisionally accept that Bigfoot is real after all. No
dogma--it's known as "critical thinking".
But something about my conversational style seems to cause you to experience
frankly out-of-proportion fits of rage whenever I communicate with you--this
is not the first time. I don't even know if you are reacting to the content
of what I wrote at all.
Carl Fink
Or maybe you're looking for a chance to make an argument more hostile?
Perhaps instead I should have asked for an example.
George W Harris
<free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>
>> And if atheism required that one tell anyone
>> who will listen that one is an atheist and believing in a
>> god is a horrible waste of time (and you're stupid for
>> doing it)...then you would have a point.
>
>Look me in the (metaphorical) eye and tell me people like Christopher
>Hitchens and Richard Dawkins don't do just that, and I'll cede the
>argument.
Just because atheists *can* do that doesn't mean
atheists *must* do that. I don't. I arrived at atheism
through empiricism and Occam's razor, no faith required,
and don't prosletyze at all. Look *me* in the eye and tell
me my atheism is a religion.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> What "dogma" do you accuse me or Randi of following? I don't even know what
> you're claiming happened. This is because you REFUSE TO EXPLAIN. I don't
> dogmatically disbelieve in, say, Bigfoot. It's just that there is zero
> compelling evidence that it exists. If someone finds a series of hominid
> fossils in California tomorrow and a piece of hair is found that has the DNA
> of an unknown primate, closely related to H. sapiens but not chimp, gorilla,
> or orangutan, I'll provisionally accept that Bigfoot is real after all. No
> dogma--it's known as "critical thinking".
>
the same problem as we confront attempting to figure out if a Loch
Ness Monster can exist. You need not only enough foodstuffs, but a
BREEDING population large enough to keep genetic anomalies in check.
I own about a dozen books on the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon. The
ones that sold briskly didn't ask the right scientific questions, and
reading the extensive "scientific" analysis of the famed "Surgeon's
Photo" of 1934 after the instigators finally confessed to the hoax is
utterly fascinating. The ones that did ask serious scientific
questions--and thus basically disproved the possible existence of a
reptilian or amphibian "monster"--sold rather poorly.
Carl Fink
>
>>
>> What "dogma" do you accuse me or Randi of following? =A0I don't even know=
> what
>> you're claiming happened. =A0This is because you REFUSE TO EXPLAIN. =A0I =
> don't
>> dogmatically disbelieve in, say, Bigfoot. =A0It's just that there is zero
>> compelling evidence that it exists. =A0If someone finds a series of homin=
> id
>> fossils in California tomorrow and a piece of hair is found that has the =
> DNA
>> of an unknown primate, closely related to H. sapiens but not chimp, goril=
> la,
>> or orangutan, I'll provisionally accept that Bigfoot is real after all. =
>=A0No
>> dogma--it's known as "critical thinking".
>>
> Actually, no. You would need to come up with SEVERAL examples.
"Provisionally".
aemeijers
Where do the Believers put the 'don't know, don't care' crowd?
aem sends, indifferently....
Beefies
think and worry about the struggle between reason and irrationality--or, as
I see it, between the Enlightenment and Dark Ages--a lot. Based on how I
framed that intro, you may conclude I fall heavily on the side of reason.
Some thoughts:
1. Agreed that atheism doesn't equal rationalism. As was pointed out,
atheists can be very thoughtless in their unbelief, and can believe in
plenty of irrational things besides religion. Indeed, it sometimes seems
that *some* people without religion in their lives take great pains to
satisfy a spiritual hunger with all the ghosts, aliens, crystals, astrology,
and Tarot cards they can cram in.
2. I also agree that a person can be dedicated to reason, science, etc., and
still be religious. For some, Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria"
works: loosely, science tells us about the world, religion tells us how to
live in the world. Many simply acknowledge that faith is by definition
irrational--the moment you have evidence, you don't need faith--and have no
problem reconciling the two.
3. I've never understood the argument that atheism is a religion--or to put
it more baldly, that lack of belief is itself a belief. I don't believe in
the existence of Thor or Zeus or any of the thousands of other gods
worshipped by thousands of other cultures over time. I don't think about
them, I don't worry about them, I don't spend one second a year pondering,
"But what if the ancient Greeks were right and Zeus really is watching me
from Mt. Olympus? Maybe I should sacrifice a goat just in case!" I don't see
how that game changes if someone were to add Jesus or Yahweh to the list of
the thousands of gods they see no reason to think about.
4. Sorry, Mike, but I'm a big fan of Randi and what he does. I think he's
been an enormous force for good, often fighting alone against overwhelming
ignorance and occasional evil. In the battle between James Randi and John
Edward, Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller, Randi's on the side of the angels (so
to speak).
5. However, it also wouldn't surprise me to learn he can be a cranky,
prickly, abrupt SOB who has blind spots he doesn't see himself (he'd be the
first to tell you we all have such) and that your conversation went exactly
as you described. Having read Randi's work for quite a while, I suspect he
was aiming for something like "That may be what you thought you saw but
that's not what it really was." Still, I trust your reporting. And I'd
really like to know what supernatural event you witnessed.
6. Re: Randi and religion, I believe he's hinted recently that his thinking
is evolving. For years, through his writing and his work with the James
Randi Educational Foundation, my recollection is that he took no formal
position. His own atheism was always clear enough, but he only tackled
religion when it was used (abused) to directly defraud, cheat, steal, etc.
My sense is that in recent years he's gotten more aggressive, and perhaps
sees religion itself as fundamentally fraudulent. I can't read his mind and
don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's what I've noticed.
7. I'm a skeptic. But I strongly dislike what I see as a current of
arrogance and condescension running through skeptics and, as a subset,
atheists--so certain they're right, looking down on the benighted believers
as dupes and rubes. Sometimes I see it in Randi, too. I think that current
does more harm than good, and turns off people who might otherwise be swayed
by a rational perspective. A little compassion and respect for the fact that
other intelligent people of good will can believe otherwise would go a long
way. (I think my view on this is colored by a powerful experience I had as a
child that, had my mind been just a little differently attuned, would have
convinced me absolutely in the supernatural.) As Cromwell famously pleaded,
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
mistaken." That goes for everyone.
8. So I'm with Mike enough to agree that some skeptics can be very dogmatic
about it. Or just real jerks. But that's not the ideal, and the best
skeptics aren't. I would say the ideal skeptical position regarding the
supernatural would be similar to that seen in response to once-outlandish
ideas such as quantum mechanics, evolution, or plate tectonics: "That's a
mighty odd notion, let's see what you've got." In short, "prove it." The
retort that reason and science are closed-minded has no traction with me.
Scientists change their minds all the time. They *want* to change their
minds. They get Nobel Prizes and stuff like equations and particles and
species named after them for it.
9. I'm reminded of a comedian I recently saw on YouTube (don't remember the
performer and can't provide a link) who said, "People always say 'well,
science doesn't know everything.' But science knows that! Otherwise, it
would stop!"
10. I subscribed to "Skeptical Enquirer" for a while but let it lapse after
a couple of years for a few reasons, including thta tone of cocky arrogance
I dislike so much, repetitive arguments about the same few subjects
(rebeating dead horses), and general dissatisfaction with their editorial
standards.
11. Don't argue with Heather Kendrick or she will mess you up good.
Brian F.
brianfies.blogspot.com
Mike Peterson
>
> 5. However, it also wouldn't surprise me to learn he can be a cranky,
> prickly, abrupt SOB who has blind spots he doesn't see himself (he'd be the
> first to tell you we all have such) and that your conversation went exactly
> as you described. Having read Randi's work for quite a while, I suspect he
> was aiming for something like "That may be what you thought you saw but
> that's not what it really was." Still, I trust your reporting. And I'd
> really like to know what supernatural event you witnessed.
>
I think I've described this before, but maybe not and if so, it was
quite awhile ago. Here's the story:
I had a talk show on a radio station in Colorado Springs in the early
1980s. One of the salespeople approached me and said she had a friend
who would make a great guest. Uh-oh. You don't want to alienate the
folks you work with, and she was very nice, but ... uh-oh. And then
she told me why her friend would make a great guest: She was a
psychic. Double uh-oh. There was some delay, a repeated request and
finally I said, well, okay, sure, give me the contact information. (I
did my own booking. This was not big-time radio.)
My plan was that, if she was a nice psychic -- basically a "magician"
who did parlor tricks -- we'd chat a little and I'd try to get her out
of there quickly, and if she was rubbing me the wrong way, I'd bust
her -- nicely, so as not to offend the woman I had to work with.
"Rubbing me the wrong way" would include making inflated claims or
suggesting things that made me think she was separating people from
their money. And as far as psychics go, "inflated claims" are pretty
much any claims at all.
She suggested that I bring a couple of metal objects and she'd do a
reading. Good. So I brought a large iron key that had been the key to
the elevator in the mineshaft where my grandfather worked in Ironwood,
Michigan, in the 1910s.
She had car trouble and showed up about 10 minutes into the show,
which of course meant that I got to ask her why she didn't tell me she
was going to be late. Ha ha. But it becomes significant later,
because, had she been on time, she might have seen me arrive. She did
not -- I was on the air when she got to the studio.
I expected some of those probing, half-question/half-statement things
in which she would slyly elicit information from me, leading me to
feed her enough data to make it seem she was "reading" the key. But it
didn't go like that.
She said the key was from back East and I said, well, kind of.
Midwest, really. And she seemed puzzled and said, "I think further
east than that," and I said, no, Michigan. She kind of shrugged and
went on, and said it was from someplace very cold. And I said, yes,
because the mineshaft would be cool. She went on to describe my
grandfather, including the fact that he had short legs which he was
very self-conscious about, which was absolutely true and nothing she
could have guessed from holding a key. And she certainly never saw my
grandfather, who was not only dead but hadn't been in Colorado since
he scouted a molybdenum mine in Leadville a half century before.
So we did the segment and a few days later, I told my parents about
it, how I had used the key from the mine elevator, and they
interrupted me: It was the key to the ice house in Pennsylvania. Yes,
some place cold on the East Coast. So, far from prying information out
of me, she was telling me things I didn't know -- or at least, didn't
remember.
Pretty cool, but that's not the end of the story. About two weeks
later, my wife lost her keys, which was not unusual except that they
usually turned up in a day or two, often after she offered our boys a
reward for finding them. It had been a week and she really needed to
find them. So I said, "I should call Phyllis."
Phyllis came on the phone and I asked her for a freebie and she
laughed and agreed. And it only took a moment: "They're in the pocket
of her green coat," she said.
Now, this woman was about 30 miles away, had never met my wife, had
never seen my house. My wife went and got her green anorak and looked
one more time in the pockets. Nothing. "Not there," I said.
"Yes, they are," she said. "It's hanging by the back door." I looked
and saw the green down jacket hanging by the back door. "Those are my
keys," I said.
"But it's her coat," Phyllis said.
"Well, it was her coat," I said. "But she never wore it, so I've been
wearing it for the last five years or so."
There was a pause on the line. "Okay," she said, "They're in the couch
cushions."
The boys had been through the couch several times, but they ran to the
livingroom couch and went through it again, even pulling out the
sleeper mattress and checking all those odd nooks in a sleeper sofa.
Nothing.
"Yes, they are," she insisted. "At the end by the closet."
There was no closet in our livingroom.
But then my son (about 11 at the time) yelled and ran out of the house
-- to the 1971 Volkswagen camper that Phyllis didn't know I owned. He
found that my wife's keys had fallen out of her pocket while she was
sitting in the back, on the bench seat, on a trip to Estes Park two
weeks ago, and had slid down between the cushion of the "couch" and
the little closet.
Now, I have no explanation for either of these events. In the first,
she actually told me things I did not know. In the second, she located
a set of keys -- actually, she located two sets of keys -- from 30
miles away, having never seen my house, met my family or seen either
my jacket or my car. And, while she had a chance to set up the first
event, the second was absolutely out of the blue.
I would have been happy to have Randi say, "That's an old carny
trick ..." and I did expect that he would ask, "Are you sure you
didn't ..."
I didn't expect to be curtly told that it hadn't happened.
It happened, and it happened as I described it, in front of witnesses
-- a radio audience in the first case, my family in the second. I
would love to hear a rational explanation because I'm absolutely sure
there is one.
But "It never happened" is not a rational explanation. And throwing
out the pieces that don't fit is not scientific or rational.
By the way, I am 100 percent in favor of busting those who take
advantage of people. Parlor tricks are fun -- I don't care if David
Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear and I don't see a
point in busting common card tricks -- you should sit back, smile and
watch to see how the magician does his thing. But if he's pulling
chicken livers out of people's guts or giving them lucky numbers, and
emptying their wallets in the process, bust him. And if, like Uri
Geller, he is making outrageous claims that help perpetuate ignorance,
bust him.
However, there ARE things we don't understand. When confronted with
one, the response should be curiosity, not dismissal.
(Sorry for the length but I thought I'd better tell the whole thing
rather than try to outline it.)
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
www.weeklystorybook.com
www.weeklystorybook.com/dana
Freezer
> Just because atheists *can* do that doesn't mean
> atheists *must* do that. I don't. I arrived at atheism
> through empiricism and Occam's razor, no faith required,
> and don't prosletyze at all. Look *me* in the eye and tell
> me my atheism is a religion.
I never said they must, or even that the majority do. I said there are
Atheists (again, note the capital A) who are just as passionate - and
obnoxiously self-righteous - as any evangelist.
Or to put it bluntly:
atheists: I don't believe in a "Higher Power"
Atheists*: I don't believe in a "Higher Power", here's why.
Hitchens-style Aethists: I don't believe in a "Higher Power" and you're
stupid if you do. Here's why.
Again, that's not all or even most atheists. But unfortunately,
intellectual snobs like Hitchens and smug assholes like Bill Maher are the
face of that (lack of) belief system.
--
(* With the Young And Rebellious variant: I don't believe in a "higher
power" because that makes me cool and edgy)
Carl Fink
Mike doesn't want to read anything else from me, so I hope he has me
killfiled.
My reaction as an ESP skeptic: Mike is probably not remembering every detail
perfectly--because no one does or can, that isn't an insult. The brain
isn't a videotape recorder.
I'd love to hear a tape of the show, because my reaction is that Phyllis
made a couple of good guesses. Guessing lucky is not that surprising. I'm
wondering how many other guesses she made and how many were accurate.
I'm also curious how much information about Mike was available to an
investigator at this time. This was a classic opportunity for what carnie
palmists call a "hot reading"--a chance to research the target in advance.
I'm also suspicious of the arriving late thing. If I were a "psychic" I
might stake out the parking lot in advance so I'd have a chance to examine
the host's car, for instance. Kreskin for one is known to do that (or was
in the 1990s).
My reaction: she guessed wrong once, guessed wrong again, and got lucky
because Mike has a smart son who was able to come up with a creative
interpretation of her wrong guess. Any cold reader is likely to have "her
pocket" and "the couch cushions" among her top three guesses for keys. I
wouldn't be surprised if her third guess wasn't "the car".
> By the way, I am 100 percent in favor of busting those who take
> advantage of people. Parlor tricks are fun -- I don't care if David
> Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear and I don't see a
> point in busting common card tricks -- you should sit back, smile and
> watch to see how the magician does his thing. But if he's pulling
> chicken livers out of people's guts or giving them lucky numbers, and
> emptying their wallets in the process, bust him. And if, like Uri
> Geller, he is making outrageous claims that help perpetuate ignorance,
> bust him.
>
> However, there ARE things we don't understand. When confronted with
> one, the response should be curiosity, not dismissal.
Sure. I'd love to know exactly what words Randi used. Based on Mike's
paroxysm of fury when I dared to call him fallible, I wonder if Randi said
something innocuous like "I suspect you aren't remembering that right" and
Mike blew up.
If Randi were in a bad mood he might even say "I'm certain that isn't what
happened." If Mike got angry before Randi could explain, that could explain
the whole thing.
> (Sorry for the length but I thought I'd better tell the whole thing
> rather than try to outline it.)
That was surely the right decision.
Mike Peterson
>
> Sure. I'd love to know exactly what words Randi used. Based on Mike's
> paroxysm of fury when I dared to call him fallible, I wonder if Randi said
> something innocuous like "I suspect you aren't remembering that right" and
> Mike blew up.
>
> If Randi were in a bad mood he might even say "I'm certain that isn't what
> happened." If Mike got angry before Randi could explain, that could explain
> the whole thing.
>
Randi gets paid to explain the unusual.
I get paid to observe and report.
I did my job.
He copped out.
And you weren't there, so you have no idea what he said or how the
conversation went.
As for Phyllis investigating me ahead of time, I think it's great that
she was able to suss out the fact that my grandfather had a key to an
icehouse, that I had it in my possession and that it was what I would
bring to the studio that day. Even better that she took the time to
dig up his grave and measure his legs to ascertain that they were
short relative to his body, and to interview his friends to find out
how he felt about it. Or maybe she used a Ouija board to pry the
information out of him.
However, she was particularly bright to come to the studio, figure out
which of the 25 or so cars in the lot was mine and then go through it
and find the keys under the cushion in the back seat, knowing that I
would be calling her at home on a Saturday afternoon in two weeks to
ask where they were. Or do you suppose she went through ALL the cars
in the lot and made notes about the things she found under the
cushions? And I'm sure she interviewed my wife's friends from college,
who would be the only people who could tell her that, five years
later, the green ski jacket I usually worn had actually belonged to
her. And she'd have to interview our current friends to find out that
Kathy also had a green anorak, and that it wasn't hanging by the back
door but that the ski jacket was.
I'm so glad you were able to come up with a rational explanation.
Got to run -- I've got an old board soaking in salt water out back and
I think the barnacle geese are about to hatch ...
George W Harris
<free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>
>> Just because atheists *can* do that doesn't mean
>> atheists *must* do that. I don't. I arrived at atheism
>> through empiricism and Occam's razor, no faith required,
>> and don't prosletyze at all. Look *me* in the eye and tell
>> me my atheism is a religion.
>
>I never said they must, or even that the majority do. I said there are
>Atheists (again, note the capital A) who are just as passionate - and
>obnoxiously self-righteous - as any evangelist.
No, you didn't. You said
>
>Needless to say, I am of the "Atheism {note the captial "A"} is a
>religion" camp.
Dann
news:63b0f030-fead-4edb...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.
> On Sep 8, 11:18�am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But I do know
>> that a positive, fighting, attitude in a cancer patient is an
>> invaluable asset for beating cancer. �The few that beat the hardest
>> cancers to cure
>> are the ones with the most positive attitudes towards beating it.
>>
>
> Well, no, not really:
> <http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071022/positive-attitude-doesnt-
> whip-cancer>
> <http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MBC/content/
> MBC_4x_Attittudes_and_Cancer.asp>
>
You learn something new every day. I fully expected there to be some
modest benefit from having a positive attitude if only because it caused
one to be a bit more fastidious in receiving scheduled treatments.
Freezer
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Freezer
> <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>>
>>> Just because atheists *can* do that doesn't mean
>>> atheists *must* do that. I don't. I arrived at atheism
>>> through empiricism and Occam's razor, no faith required,
>>> and don't prosletyze at all. Look *me* in the eye and tell
>>> me my atheism is a religion.
>>
>>I never said they must, or even that the majority do. I said there
>>are Atheists (again, note the capital A) who are just as passionate -
>>and obnoxiously self-righteous - as any evangelist.
>
> No, you didn't. You said
>
>>
>>Needless to say, I am of the "Atheism {note the captial "A"} is a
>>religion" camp.
And I believe I just clarified same.
--
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think that makes you an agnostic- one who believes that the
> >> existence of God(s) cannot be proven.
>
> >> Atheism, FWIU, is a denial of the possibility of the existence of God
> >> (s).
>
> > No, it's not. It's the denial of the existence of God. But for some
> > reason, believers frequently want to reclassify almost everyone as
> > agnostics.
>
> > I deny that dragons exist. I don't deny "the possibility of the
> > existence of dragons." I'm a philosopher; I don't deny the possibility
> > of the existence of anything except things that are logically
> > impossible. That doesn't make me an "agnostic about dragons" or about
> > most of the other things I believe do not exist.
>
> > Heather
>
> Where do the Believers put the 'don't know, don't care' crowd?
>
Unitarians?
LNER...@juno.com
I know two professional magicians who have had professional dealings
with Randi and the duo of Penn & Teller. They both tend to share the
sentiment of "thank goodness for what they do as skeptics, but do they
have to be such jerks about it?"
My guess is that your story marked something like the 1,793rd or
4,725th time someone has related such a story to Randi. Randi and his
ilk have demonstrated, time and time again, that people's memories of
professed "psychic" actions, when compared against rigorous films or
tapes of the actual incidents in question, are incredibly selective.
They tend, for example, to forget the ten or fifteen wrong names
thrown out/mumbled and only remember the names that worked by whatever
means.
Seeing as we don't have tapes of the event in question, we have no way
to neutrally and objectively consider the anecdote in question. I
can't excuse Randi's alleged rudeness, but anyone can either a) have a
bad day or b) be sick and tired of stories such as these after legions
of inadequate/insufficient/faulty evidence. Odds tend to suggest the
latter.
"Aha!" moments work the other way, too. One time I stood on a river
bridge as a powerboat and water-skiier did a swishing u-turn. About a
minute later, I watched the wakes cross each other, and there, before
me, perfectly photo-ready, was "the Loch Ness Monster"--four perfect
"humps" "cutting" a vee-shaped "wake" through the water. It was
entirely a trick of perfect wake and wave dynamics, but what I saw
would have fooled almost anyone that either didn't see the boat a
minute earlier or didn't know the river was all of ten feet deep at
that point behind an inflatable dam.
George W Harris
<free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Freezer
>> <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>>>
>>>> Just because atheists *can* do that doesn't mean
>>>> atheists *must* do that. I don't. I arrived at atheism
>>>> through empiricism and Occam's razor, no faith required,
>>>> and don't prosletyze at all. Look *me* in the eye and tell
>>>> me my atheism is a religion.
>>>
>>>I never said they must, or even that the majority do. I said there
>>>are Atheists (again, note the capital A) who are just as passionate -
>>>and obnoxiously self-righteous - as any evangelist.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You said
>>
>>>
>>>Needless to say, I am of the "Atheism {note the captial "A"} is a
>>>religion" camp.
>
>And I believe I just clarified same.
Okay, so now you're not saying that atheism is a
religion, but rather that some atheists are assholes. I've
no quarrel with that ("There is no cause so just that no
fools follow it").
cryptoguy
> On 2009-09-08, parto the p <brokenpencilpo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [elided]
>
> > Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's post
> > that it does to rebut it.
>
> shows that skeptics and James Randi in particular are twits.
>
> If you insist.
We must.
Mike reported that Randi, when Mike described an event that (current)
science can't explain, basically said that Mike was lying, or mis-
reporting.
You, presented with an event that you can't explain under your
(current) impressions of Randi , say that Mike must be lying.
Is either of these a scientific mindset?
pt
Freezer
> Okay, so now you're not saying that atheism is a
> religion, but rather that some atheists are assholes. I've
> no quarrel with that ("There is no cause so just that no
> fools follow it").
Alright, I see where the disconnect is. I should've been more specific from
the start.
My take is that Atheism as a religion to arsehelms like Hitchens nad
Madeline Murry O'Hare. Only they worship reason and logic as their God.
Carl Fink
> And you weren't there, so you have no idea what he said or how the
> conversation went.
This is certainly true. And in fact I said so.
> As for Phyllis investigating me ahead of time, I think it's great that
> she was able to suss out the fact that my grandfather had a key to an
> icehouse, that I had it in my possession and that it was what I would
> bring to the studio that day. Even better that she took the time to
> dig up his grave and measure his legs to ascertain that they were
> short relative to his body, and to interview his friends to find out
> how he felt about it. Or maybe she used a Ouija board to pry the
> information out of him.
Again, I'm thinking there were some lucky guesses. That's why I'd love to
hear the tape, to see if they were perhaps mixed in with many BAD guesses
(as with most psychics, e.g. Sylvia Browne).
> However, she was particularly bright to come to the studio, figure out
> which of the 25 or so cars in the lot was mine and then go through it
> and find the keys under the cushion in the back seat, knowing that I
> would be calling her at home on a Saturday afternoon in two weeks to
> ask where they were. Or do you suppose she went through ALL the cars
> in the lot and made notes about the things she found under the
> cushions? And I'm sure she interviewed my wife's friends from college,
> who would be the only people who could tell her that, five years
> later, the green ski jacket I usually worn had actually belonged to
> her. And she'd have to interview our current friends to find out that
> Kathy also had a green anorak, and that it wasn't hanging by the back
> door but that the ski jacket was.
No, I have no doubt that this straw man is made of straw.
Like I said, it was a bad guess that was rescued by your son's creativity.
A few good guesses doesn't prove much. I'd want to see a record of all her
predictions over a year or more to even have a firm opinion other than
"proves not much."
Carl Fink
><long psychic anecdote snipped>
>
> I know two professional magicians who have had professional dealings
> with Randi and the duo of Penn & Teller. They both tend to share the
> sentiment of "thank goodness for what they do as skeptics, but do they
> have to be such jerks about it?"
How do they feel about Mark Edward (a Randi protege and Skeptologist)?
Carl Fink
> On Sep 8, 11:50=A0am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-08, parto the p <brokenpencilpo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [elided]
>>
>> > Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's post
>> > that it does to rebut it.
>>
> y
>> shows that skeptics and James Randi in particular are twits.
>>
>> If you insist.
>
> We must.
>
> Mike reported that Randi, when Mike described an event that (current)
> science can't explain, basically said that Mike was lying, or mis-
> reporting.
Yes.
> You, presented with an event that you can't explain under your
> (current) impressions of Randi , say that Mike must be lying.
No. I said that it seemed more likely that Mike was remembering wrong. You
and Mike are both conflating "nobody has a perfect memory" with "Mike is a
big fat liar." THis is, well, weird. Mike in particular is a professional
writer and surely knows the difference.
If Randi was really a jerk about it, I won't defend him, but again I've
known him for years and known others who know him better, and he generally
is not.
If Mike had posted that Penn Jillette called him an idiot I'd have an easier
time believing it--not that I think this is likely, but Penn literally gets
paid to call people names these days.
> Is either of these a scientific mindset?
Why, no. Now put away the man of straw.
Beefies
> with Randi and the duo of Penn & Teller. They both tend to share the
> sentiment of "thank goodness for what they do as skeptics, but do they
> have to be such jerks about it?"
I've got to say a word on behalf of Penn & Teller. An acquaintance of mine
(the father of one of my daughters' friends) was a completely obscure
semi-pro magician who knew P&T. The family didn't have a lot of money,
struggled to get by, and when the man suddenly and unexpectedly died, his
survivors were in bad shape. Penn and Teller very quietly gave his widow a
generous chunk of money--I don't recall, it may have been $10,000--out of
friendship, respect, and a desire to help the family out. It made a real
difference in their lives. I'm afraid it's impossible for me to ever think
ill of them after that.
Brian F.
Sherwood Harrington
I don't know about Penn, but Ray Teller sat next to me in freshman English
in college, and was an astounding revelation to my teen-aged self. He was
shy, almost to the point of grinding painfulness, but expressed himself on
paper in ways none of his classmates could match, ever. His artistry with
words was evident from the get-go, as was his gentleness.
I can never think of Ray as a "jerk", under any circumstances, and what
I've seen of him in his professional personna doesn't do anything to shake
that conviction.
Penn, on the other hand...
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Mike Peterson
> On 2009-09-09, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 11:50=A0am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-08, parto the p <brokenpencilpo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [elided]
>
> >> > Wow. That response does a lot more to bolster Mike Peterson's post
> >> > that it does to rebut it.
>
> >> Yeah, being offended when Mike insults me and a man I respect a lot surel=
> > y
> >> shows that skeptics and James Randi in particular are twits.
>
> >> If you insist.
>
> > We must.
>
> > Mike reported that Randi, when Mike described an event that (current)
> > science can't explain, basically said that Mike was lying, or mis-
> > reporting.
>
> Yes.
>
> > You, presented with an event that you can't explain under your
> > (current) impressions of Randi , say that Mike must be lying.
>
> No. I said that it seemed more likely that Mike was remembering wrong. You
> and Mike are both conflating "nobody has a perfect memory" with "Mike is a
> big fat liar." THis is, well, weird. Mike in particular is a professional
> writer and surely knows the difference.
Yes. I know the difference. Incidentally, it was an email exchange
(several years ago, another account long deleted) and so I got to
examine it at my leisure -- rather than a verbal conversation that I
might have misinterpreted at the moment.
I also have seen a number of cases of "psychic phenomena" that, upon
further review, were autosuggestion or con jobs or lucky guesses or a
combination -- palmistry, tarot, astrology, etc. I didn't just wander
into this interview with Phyllis, I was paying strict attention and if
she was conning me, she sure didn't show any of the normal "tells."
It might also be of some interest to realize that it occurred in 1981
or 82, so she didn't look me up on the web. And, as I made clear, she
never knew what kind of car I drove or what kind of jacket I wore
because, by the time she arrived at the studio, I was on the air, my
car was mixed in with the rest in the parkinglot and my jacket was one
of many on a rack. And she certainly could not have known that I was
presenting her with the key to an icehouse in Pennsylvania because I
thought I was handing her the key to a mine shaft elevator in
Michigan, but her "reading" was far more accurate for what the key
really was.
And, no, she didn't flail around with a lot of bad guesses that I then
helped steer into the right areas because I was watching very
specifically for that. As said, I didn't just wander into this
encounter and I approached the interview, not with prosecutorial zeal
(because she was a friend of a coworker) but with a very skeptical
mindset and eyes wide open.
Which is why the two events made such an impression. Having them
dismissed as either "You're wrong. It didn't happen." or "Sure, sure,
she did. Sucker." is pretty insulting. But it's a bit like saying,
"How did Noah get two of every animal on the ark?" and being countered
with "You're Satan's pawn!" or "Where is your faith?" I've come to
realize that there is no point in trying to reason with those whose
belief does not rely on reason.
Carl Fink
> Which is why the two events made such an impression. Having them
> dismissed as either "You're wrong. It didn't happen." or "Sure, sure,
> she did. Sucker." is pretty insulting. But it's a bit like saying,
> "How did Noah get two of every animal on the ark?" and being countered
> with "You're Satan's pawn!" or "Where is your faith?" I've come to
> realize that there is no point in trying to reason with those whose
> belief does not rely on reason.
You're a reporter. One of the conversations was on the air. Do you have
your notes? Do you have a recording?
No one--not a reporter, not a scholar, not a cop, certainly not me--has a
reliable memory of something that happened over 35 years ago. That's just a
fact about how our brains work.
Mike Peterson
> On 2009-09-09, Mike Peterson <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which is why the two events made such an impression. Having them
> > dismissed as either "You're wrong. It didn't happen." or "Sure, sure,
> > she did. Sucker." is pretty insulting. But it's a bit like saying,
> > "How did Noah get two of every animal on the ark?" and being countered
> > with "You're Satan's pawn!" or "Where is your faith?" I've come to
> > realize that there is no point in trying to reason with those whose
> > belief does not rely on reason.
>
> You're a reporter. One of the conversations was on the air. Do you have
> your notes? Do you have a recording?
>
> No one--not a reporter, not a scholar, not a cop, certainly not me--has a
> reliable memory of something that happened over 35 years ago. That's just a
> fact about how our brains work.
>
I haven't had a grandfather in over 35 years. If I had one, he
probably never lived in Michigan and maybe he had long, long legs and
I forgot. That's how our brains work.
Another example: I learned subtraction over 35 years ago. I've
forgotten the part in which (2009 minus 1981) is greater than 35.
Funny old brain.
Mike Peterson
Carl Fink
>> On 2009-09-09, Mike Peterson <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Which is why the two events made such an impression. Having them
>> > dismissed as either "You're wrong. It didn't happen." or "Sure, sure,
>> > she did. Sucker." is pretty insulting. But it's a bit like saying,
>> > "How did Noah get two of every animal on the ark?" and being countered
>> > with "You're Satan's pawn!" or "Where is your faith?" I've come to
>> > realize that there is no point in trying to reason with those whose
>> > belief does not rely on reason.
>>
> have
>> your notes? Do you have a recording?
>>
>> No one--not a reporter, not a scholar, not a cop, certainly not me--has a
> ust a
>> fact about how our brains work.
>>
>
> I haven't had a grandfather in over 35 years. If I had one, he
> probably never lived in Michigan and maybe he had long, long legs and
> I forgot. That's how our brains work.
>
> Another example: I learned subtraction over 35 years ago. I've
> forgotten the part in which (2009 minus 1981) is greater than 35.
>
> Funny old brain.
That's a remarkably petty and silly straw man you've got there.
Mike Peterson
is not.
Carl Fink
>> On 2009-09-09, Mike Peterson <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 9, 9:53=3DA0am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2009-09-09, Mike Peterson <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Which is why the two events made such an impression. Having them
> ,
>> >> > she did. Sucker." is pretty insulting. But it's a bit like saying,
> ed
>> >> > with "You're Satan's pawn!" or "Where is your faith?" I've come to
>> >> > realize that there is no point in trying to reason with those whose
>> >> > belief does not rely on reason.
>>
> Do you =3D
>> > have
>> >> your notes? Do you have a recording?
>>
> s a
>> >> reliable memory of something that happened over 35 years ago. =3DA0Tha=
> t's j=3D
>> > ust a
>> >> fact about how our brains work.
>>
>> > I haven't had a grandfather in over 35 years. If I had one, he
>> > probably never lived in Michigan and maybe he had long, long legs and
>> > I forgot. That's how our brains work.
>>
>> > Another example: I learned subtraction over 35 years ago. I've
>> > forgotten the part in which (2009 minus 1981) is greater than 35.
>>
>> > Funny old brain.
>>
>> That's a remarkably petty and silly straw man you've got there.
>
> is not.
Me: Human memory is not perfect.
You: Well, I remember something. That proves my memory is perfect.
Mike Peterson
You: Memory is not perfect.
Me: Well, I certainly remembered this because it made an impression on
me and I was paying particular attention.
You: It conflicts with my dogmatic beliefs and, besides, you can't
possibly remember something after more than 35 years.
Me: Well, I remember this and, anyway, it hasn't been 35 years yet. If
you're going to claim to be a rationalist, at least do the damn math.
You: Stop picking on me! I didn't say you couldn't remember anything.
I just said you couldn't remember everything. For instance, you can't
remember the things I don't think happened.
Me: When something unexpected happens, you tend to remember it. It's
memorable. Sticks in the mind. I might not know what I had for lunch
on a particular day 20 years ago, but I would remember if I ran my car
into a tree and totaled it that day. This event was memorable, and I
remember it in great detail. She wore blue. The Germans wore gray. She
put that dress away under the sofa cushions at the end near the
closet, saying she would wear it again when the Germans marched out.
Mostly I remember the wild finish. A guy standing on a station
platform in the rain with a comical look in his face because his
insides have been kicked out.
You: There is no Hell, but you're going there for blasphemy against
half-understood scientific principles!
<cut to Argument Clinic sketch, then fade to black>
aemeijers
--
aem sends...
Carl Fink
>> Me: Human memory is not perfect.
>>
>> You: =A0Well, I remember something. =A0That proves my memory is perfect.
>
> You: Memory is not perfect.
>
> Me: Well, I certainly remembered this because it made an impression on
> me and I was paying particular attention.
That doesn't make your memory ACCURATE. Which it cannot be--it has been
demonstrated that human memory is simply not reliable. Really.
> You: It conflicts with my dogmatic beliefs and, besides, you can't
> possibly remember something after more than 35 years.
Thanks for the Inaccurate Telepathy, also known as The Straw Man Incarnation
4 in this conversation.
> Me: Well, I remember this and, anyway, it hasn't been 35 years yet. If
> you're going to claim to be a rationalist, at least do the damn math.
I never claimed to be an arithmetician. I never claimed to flawless in any
way--in fact I repeatedly said the opposite.
> You: Stop picking on me! I didn't say you couldn't remember anything.
> I just said you couldn't remember everything. For instance, you can't
> remember the things I don't think happened.
Wow, that's ... what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said:
that without at the very least your notes, and at best the recording, THERE
IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. This is what is known as "the truth".
> Me: When something unexpected happens, you tend to remember it. It's
> memorable. Sticks in the mind. I might not know what I had for lunch
> on a particular day 20 years ago, but I would remember if I ran my car
> into a tree and totaled it that day.
How many experimental proofs would you like that your memory of the details
would be totally wrong in many respects? I can dig up hundreds, if you're
really interested.
I mean, this stuff isn't even controversial. Nobody in psychology or
neuroscience would even hesitate to confirm what I just typed.
> You: There is no Hell, but you're going there for blasphemy against
> half-understood scientific principles!
Wow, you're really angry even though all I said is "Human memory is
unreliable, and there are non-paranormal explanations for what you remember,
consisting of lucky guesses and forgotten details."
LNER...@juno.com
Go back and get that "psychic." Let's take the $5,000 offered
earlier.
Let us create a situation where her professed psychic abilities could
be demonstrated. An experiment, if you will. "Reading objects," for
example--let's come up with stuff that has absolute, positively
irrevocable "credentials" or history--say, for example, a murder
weapon, or something that belonged to George Washington or Houdini, or
a pen used by Leo Tolstoy to write his novels. The experiment will be
designed around her professed abilities or powers.
Let's see if she can do it again.
The hell with $5,000; the James Randi Educational Foundation
(supposedly) has $1 million waiting with her name on it if she
succeeds.
Personally? The bench seat of a VW camper and the box underneath do
NOT equal "couch cushions" and "closet." But that's just me.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Darn it, Mike. You almost said "Nazi" and we could have invoked
Godwin's Law and put this thread out of its misery.
Mike Peterson
>
> Personally? The bench seat of a VW camper and the box underneath do
> NOT equal "couch cushions" and "closet." But that's just me.
I don't know what box you mean, or where you got the word
"underneath." Do you consider a closet to be a small, windowless room
with a door that opens and has a mirror on the back? Inside the small
room is a rod for hangers? I'd call that a closet. (I seem to remember
calling it "the closet" but maybe we called it "the throatwarbler
mangrove." After all, memory is a tricky thing.) And a long padded
seat next to it might not be called a couch, but what is a couch other
than a long, padded seat?
Anyway, making sense and being consistent have never entered into this
conversation. What I said was that I feel people who call themselves
"skeptics" are as invested in their belief system as people who are
"religious" and are willing to bend or ignore the facts that tend to
challenge their beliefs. That is not a statement against rationalism
or religion, but against blind allegiance.
And I think that has been adequately demonstrated.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> And I think that has been adequately demonstrated.
>
experiment...........
Charles Whitney
news:027e41af-8fca-4aaa...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>Anyway, making sense and being consistent have never entered into this
>conversation. What I said was that I feel people who call themselves
>"skeptics" are as invested in their belief system as people who are
>"religious" and are willing to bend or ignore the facts that tend to
>challenge their beliefs. That is not a statement against rationalism
>or religion, but against blind allegiance.
I do also think that this discussion is an interesting example of how one
carelessly made remark can have such a far-reaching, negative impact on a
person's impression of another.
I'm reminded of one time when Joe Biden visited my school for a general
assembly (his kids attended my PK-12 school prior to high school, so he was
often coming for talks and assemblies). When he was having a
question/answer session, one guy, who was as left-wing as it came, asked a
very, VERY leading question about legalizing recreational drugs. Biden,
without skipping a beat, responded:
"I assume the Grateful Dead shirt you're wearing has nothing to do with this
question."
And everyone, including teachers and administrators, laughed uproariously.
I don't even remember what his answer was after that, although I know that
for a major politician in the 80s, advocating the legalization of pot or
cocaine would have been political suicide, and Biden especially wasn't going
to be sympathetic either way.
Anyway, the kid, who, as I noted, was very left wing, (although not so much
as to support obscure politicians over Democrats) still hated Biden YEARS
later, such that I wouldn't doubt that he voted for McCain last year.
C
Jym Dyer
> Or maybe you're looking for a chance to make an argument
> more hostile?
=v= Um, no. Your claim that there was no content in Mike's
words was hostile. I found the content pretty easily and
don't actually understand why you couldn't.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> ... for some reason, believers frequently want to reclassify
> almost everyone as agnostics.
=v= I'm not sure how "believers" got dragged into this. As I
understand the meaning of the word, agnosticism is more about
doubt than belief.
<_Jym_>
Carl Fink
As defined by its coiner, Thomas Henry Huxley, it means the refusal to take
anything on faith, specifically supernatural things. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Definition_of_the_term_according_to_Thomas_Henry_Huxley
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> "Mike Peterson" <racss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Brandywine School District?
Charles Whitney
"Blinky the Wonder Wombat" <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15e83fdf-c80d-45da...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>Brandywine School District?
Nah, Wilmington Friends. Biden's kids went to Archmere for high school.
C
Heather Kendrick
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
It is the believers, in my experience, who frequently want to classify
nonbelievers as agnostics. Perhaps it's because it seems to make them
more salvageable.
Heather
George W Harris
<free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>If I don't reply to this George W Harris post, the terroists win.
>
>> Okay, so now you're not saying that atheism is a
>> religion, but rather that some atheists are assholes. I've
>> no quarrel with that ("There is no cause so just that no
>> fools follow it").
>
>Alright, I see where the disconnect is. I should've been more specific from
>the start.
>
>My take is that Atheism as a religion to arsehelms like Hitchens nad
>Madeline Murry O'Hare. Only they worship reason and logic as their God.
I consider that a restatement of what I said.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Mike Peterson
Irrelevant.
Also impractical at this stage. I remember what happened, but I have
no idea what has happened to her since. She's apparently no longer in
Colorado under the name she had in 1981. And I'm not a psychic.
But, in any case, my point was that those who call themselves
"skeptics" refuse to admit that there are things that happen but for
which we don't have an explanation, even if, as I would prefer, the
word "yet" is attached.
QED in spades.
Carl Fink
> But, in any case, my point was that those who call themselves
> "skeptics" refuse to admit that there are things that happen but for
> which we don't have an explanation, even if, as I would prefer, the
> word "yet" is attached.
>
> QED in spades.
Sure, in the sense of "here's a counterexample that disproves your rule."
What I actually did was provide a possible explanation. (I did not provide
"the" explanation and don't assign my guesses very high probability--they're
just guesses.)
Mike Peterson
>
> I do also think that this discussion is an interesting example of how one
> carelessly made remark can have such a far-reaching, negative impact on a
> person's impression of another.
Oh, certainly, and I'm not dismissing the idea that Randi tagged my
story as bogus simply because he probably is flooded with such
stories. I say that as someone who has worked not only in a few
newsrooms, but who worked in one near Lake Champlain and had to hear
about Champy on a regular basis.
And editors contribute to the nonsense. One of the few stories I had
spiked as a reporter came when I wrote about a Satanic Panic preacher
who was in town making idiotic claims about his life as a witch and
about Satanic cults, his turn to God and his need for you to
contribute to his ongoing battle. I pointed out that he had been shown
to be a phony by a reporter in California and the editor spiked it as
"not local" despite the buckets of money (literally -- KFC buckets) he
was hauling out of our community. I think she considered me a
spoilsport or something.
The same paper (same editor) published a story about someone who had
taken a mysterious picture in a haunted house that, when it was
developed, showed a "noose" by someone's head. It was obviously the
string pull from an overhead lamp.
I had someone come in who was very excited, having just taken pictures
of Champy. I told them to get their film developed and come back.
Never saw them again. (I have, however, seen photos of Champy that are
clearly cormorants).
So I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the sense of "Here we go again."
But an open-minded person listens. His curt dismissal certainly, as
you say, struck the wrong note. Since then, I've looked at skeptics
with that in mind and found more examples of "it can't be explained,
therefore it didn't happen." And that's not being skeptical -- that's
being certain, which is quite a different thing.
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Irrelevant.
*No. Absolutely not. If she's claiming to be a psychic, her results
should be able to be checked or tested. All the professionally
trained skeptics--especially the ones trained highly in the fine arts
of deception, like Randi, Penn & Teller, and other performing
illusionists--can figure out what her techniques may be, ranging from
the "shotgun approach" (spew out data until someone reacts, as Kreskin
did) to high-tech stuff like radio earpieces and accomplices doing
internet searches by two-way radios.
>
> Also impractical at this stage. I remember what happened, but I have
> no idea what has happened to her since. She's apparently no longer in
> Colorado under the name she had in 1981. And I'm not a psychic.
*You remember what you believe happened.
Just last night, I went over well-buried notes and a hard-copy
published travelogue story I wrote up on a train trip to and from
Montreal fourteen years ago, during which I experienced an incident
that spurned a wonderful anecdote I've been telling for years. Once I
went back over my notes and the story I wrote, I was flabbergasted at
how my "anecdote" had mutated, one little detail at a time, in spite
of what I thought was my best effort to stay consistent.
Don't think it can't happen to you. Reporter or not.
>
> But, in any case, my point was that those who call themselves
> "skeptics" refuse to admit that there are things that happen but for
> which we don't have an explanation, even if, as I would prefer, the
> word "yet" is attached.
>
Some are just asshats. I know a couple--the kind that have to have a
"HIQ" Mensa association license plate. It's just like if you go to a
baseball or football game, there may be 100 people sitting in your
section, but the three you'll remember are the drunken louts with
their chests and faces painted, all kinds of noisemakers, etc.
A true skeptic--like Randi, based on his writings in my case as I've
not met the chap--will acknowledge fallibility and the fact that the
world presents stuff that we can't explain. The moon, for example,
just doesn't match the earthly models for seismic energy. If deep
explosions are set off, the seismic waves recorded act like the moon
is hollow--it's said to "ring like a bell." What's up with that?
The debate becomes, do we ascribe the unusual or unexplained to the
"supernatural," the yet-to-be-explained/discovered, coincidence, or
trickery? The fact is that the pay for debunking the Loch Ness
Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, psychics, palmreaders, the Shroud
of Turin, phrenologists, Stonehenge, etc. is notoriously bad; whereas
the potential lucre for selling selective-omission books on the same
kind of topics ascribing the "mysteries" to aliens, supernatural
forces, etc., is almost endless, as a trip through the shops of
Sedona, Arizona will show you. (Of the fifteen or twenty books I have
on Nessie, only one, maybe two, can be called hard-nosed, skeptical
looks at the syndrome, and copies of those books are hard to come by;
I run/ran into the books "exploring the mysteries" quite often by
comparison.) I stand to gain nothing but smug self-satisfaction if I
were to successfully prove your "psychic" was indeed using trickery;
by promoting the *possibility* that she is indeed psychic, she stands
(well, stood) to gain many customers, and you gain(ed) radio ratings,
newspaper readers, etc.
James Nicoll
Mike Peterson <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>And editors contribute to the nonsense. One of the few stories I had
>spiked as a reporter came when I wrote about a Satanic Panic preacher
>who was in town making idiotic claims about his life as a witch and
>about Satanic cults, his turn to God and his need for you to
>contribute to his ongoing battle. I pointed out that he had been shown
>to be a phony by a reporter in California and the editor spiked it as
>"not local" despite the buckets of money (literally -- KFC buckets) he
>was hauling out of our community. I think she considered me a
>spoilsport or something.
I got the BBC to revise an article promoting the Moller Aircar
by sending them this link.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17987.htm
And although they'd done previous pieces on the Mollar aircar
I don't think they've done one since I sent that link.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
nickelshrink
And then there are us non-evangelical dyslexic believers.
I don't have a god in this fight.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> "Blinky the Wonder Wombat" <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:15e83fdf-c80d-45da...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Brandywine School District?
>
> Nah, Wilmington Friends. Biden's kids went to Archmere for high school.
>
> C
I knew they want to Archemere; I wasn't sure if they did the public
school thing whenthey were younger. The Brandywine School District at
the time was pretty good and Joe would have picked up some brownie
points with the teacher's union-- not that he really needed any.
Sen. Carper's sons, for instance, went to the math & science charter
high school in Wilmington. Still an elite school and tough to get
into, but Tom can say he sent his kids to public school.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >>> = Heather Kendrick
> >>> ... for some reason, believers frequently want to reclassify
> >>> almost everyone as agnostics.
> >> =v= I'm not sure how "believers" got dragged into this. As I
> >> understand the meaning of the word, agnosticism is more about
> >> doubt than belief.
>
> > It is the believers, in my experience, who frequently want to classify
> > nonbelievers as agnostics. Perhaps it's because it seems to make them
> > more salvageable.
>
> > Heather
>
> And then there are us non-evangelical dyslexic believers.
> I don't have a god in this fight.
>
POTD nominee.
Jym Dyer
> It is the believers, in my experience, who frequently want
> to classify nonbelievers as agnostics. Perhaps it's because
> it seems to make them more salvageable.
=v= We must run in different circles. My circle would seem to
be more polarized, because in my experience "believers" [in one
particular Abrahamic God-based religion] see both atheists and
agnostics as unsalvageable and headed straight to Hell. And
most of the atheists I know are of the obnoxious variety that
devotes a lot of time and energy towards belittling anyone
who isn't an atheist, and attributing all the problems of the
world to them.
=v= I didn't mean to deflect from your main point, comparing
belief in {G|g}od/s with belief in dragons. For many of the
agnostics of my acquaintance, it's not so clear-cut. The thing
they're not sure about isn't especially the God of Abraham, but
rather the philosophic concept of a Prime Mover. While one can
certainly argue that the former is as mythological as dragons,
the latter is a tougher nut to crack.
<_Jym_>
(Besides, there really are dragons. Douglas Adams has photos!)
Jym Dyer
>> But, in any case, my point was that those who call themselves
>> "skeptics" refuse to admit that there are things that happen
>> but for which we don't have an explanation, even if, as I would
>> prefer, the word "yet" is attached.
=v= You did write "yet" earlier, and aptly, in the paragraph that
Carl Fink then maligned as having no content.
> = Carl Fink
> What I actually did was provide a possible explanation.
=v= Mike wrote a narrative that had some interesting parts and
some mundane parts, as is typical for realistic narratives.
Your "possible explanation" leaned heavily on the more mundane
parts but glossed over the more inexplicable parts of the story.
=v= Mike continues to bring up those parts and you continue to
posture as if you've explained them, but you haven't. (I would
have ended that last sentence with "yet" but so far I see no
indications that a "yet" is merited, what with the refusal to
admit thing going on here.)
<_Jym_>
Paul
@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.co
m:
You mean, the increase in religious disputes may be because of some
dyslexics misunderstanding the old Ken-L-Ration jingle, "My god's
bigger than your god ..."?
--
Paul
Carl Fink
Be more specific. I sincerely don't know what you refer to.
I haven't explained anything. I've asked for more information and been
screamed at. I've pointed out that we're relying on decades-old memories
with no documentary or electronic backup, and been screamed at.
Stephen Graham
> I haven't explained anything. I've asked for more information and been
> screamed at. I've pointed out that we're relying on decades-old memories
> with no documentary or electronic backup, and been screamed at.
Given that your impression of how you've come across doesn't match
others, you might reconsider whether or not accepting Mike's statements
at face value would be the better course.
The even better alternative would be to simply drop this entire
conversation, because it isn't doing anyone any favors.
aemeijers
> Heather Kendrick wrote:
>> In article <Jym.09Sep20...@econet.org>,
>> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> = Heather Kendrick
>>>> ... for some reason, believers frequently want to reclassify
>>>> almost everyone as agnostics.
>>> =v= I'm not sure how "believers" got dragged into this. As I
>>> understand the meaning of the word, agnosticism is more about
>>> doubt than belief.
>>
>> It is the believers, in my experience, who frequently want to classify
>> nonbelievers as agnostics. Perhaps it's because it seems to make them
>> more salvageable.
>>
>> Heather
>
>
> And then there are us non-evangelical dyslexic believers.
> I don't have a god in this fight.
>
--
aem sends...
Carl Fink
> Carl Fink wrote:
>
>> I haven't explained anything. I've asked for more information and been
>> screamed at. I've pointed out that we're relying on decades-old memories
>> with no documentary or electronic backup, and been screamed at.
>
> Given that your impression of how you've come across doesn't match
> others, you might reconsider whether or not accepting Mike's statements
> at face value would be the better course.
This makes very little sense to me. "You misunderstand, so clearly well
known facts[people cannot remember accurately over decades] must be false."
> The even better alternative would be to simply drop this entire
> conversation, because it isn't doing anyone any favors.
Go for it. I am committed to the truth.
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >> James Randi...
>
> He's an entertainer, like Rush Limbaugh.
>
> He was entertaining me and a bunch of people at a Usenix a few years ago.
> I quit being entertained when he bragged about having had access to a
> bunch of school children and had used the opportunity to do his best
> to break their faith in Jesus... not many people left the room other than
> me, I guess they continued to be entertained...
I assume you walked out of church when you found out how Sunday School
works?
Mike Beede
Heather Kendrick
> =v= I didn't mean to deflect from your main point, comparing
> belief in {G|g}od/s with belief in dragons.
That's too broad. I was only comparing using the comparison to
illustrate what I mean when I insist I am an atheist and not an
agnostic. My point was about the nature of disbelief, not really about
God being like dragons.
And yes, I do find that believers (Christians, as far as I can remember,
and possibly some deist types) like trying to insist I'm an agnostic and
not an atheist. I think they think it means they have some foot in the
door and can claim some little victory, or something. It's annoying.
Heather
Carl Fink
> And yes, I do find that believers (Christians, as far as I can remember,
> and possibly some deist types) like trying to insist I'm an agnostic and
> not an atheist. I think they think it means they have some foot in the
> door and can claim some little victory, or something. It's annoying.
Semirelevant factoid: that's a reversal. Originally "atheist" meant "not a
Christian." The idea of being godless just didn't exist in the language.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 2009-09-11, Heather Kendrick <bunny...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>> And yes, I do find that believers (Christians, as far as I can remember,
>> and possibly some deist types) like trying to insist I'm an agnostic and
>> not an atheist. I think they think it means they have some foot in the
>> door and can claim some little victory, or something. It's annoying.
>
>Semirelevant factoid: that's a reversal. Originally "atheist" meant "not a
>Christian." The idea of being godless just didn't exist in the language.
>--
>Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
That sounds pretty unlikely to me given
a) The greek meaning of the term
b) The fact that the English language predates Christianity coming to England
c) The fact that the word you use, "godless" is an English word.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Invid Fan
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnhajmac...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> >On 2009-09-11, Heather Kendrick <bunny...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >> And yes, I do find that believers (Christians, as far as I can remember,
> >> and possibly some deist types) like trying to insist I'm an agnostic and
> >> not an atheist. I think they think it means they have some foot in the
> >> door and can claim some little victory, or something. It's annoying.
> >
> >Semirelevant factoid: that's a reversal. Originally "atheist" meant "not a
> >Christian." The idea of being godless just didn't exist in the language.
> >--
> >Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
>
> That sounds pretty unlikely to me given
>
> a) The greek meaning of the term
> b) The fact that the English language predates Christianity coming to England
For various uses of the term "English language", given how much it
likes to change and the various invasions of England over the years.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Steven
> > The even better alternative would be to simply drop this entire
> > conversation, because it isn't doing anyone any favors.
>
> Go for it. I am committed to the truth
now that's comedy!
sr