If sceppies were to worship an individual,such as oh I don't know Randi.(which in part many do) Isn't this group especially the ardent ones,behaving like a fanatical religious order? Dismissing all other beliefs,scoffing and making derogatory remarks,even going out of there way just like Catholicism and other main stream religions did all those years ago inclduing witch hunts (taking place on a regular basis on some sites) to ensure there opinion and belief is the right one
But no ..surely I am wrong ....Some sceppies believing so ardently in something they will dismiss anything that doesn't follow there belief..hmm what do you guys think?
No. In fact if Randi was doing anything fraudulently, the sceppies would be the ones to expose him.
And anyway if we need a sceptical leader, then how about "The Uk's Most Famous Internet Sceptic"
would they?Has anyone actually investigated Mr Randi?Any sceppie actually doubted him and tried to find out if this guy could be wrong,even on some things/anything...anyone?
No if anyone tries to challenge him he SHOUTS VERY LOUD. But you could be on to something Kendra.
It is at great personal risk that this reporter from the paranormal times had managed to infiltrate this group of sceptics. Here is my report. They meet every Sunday morning. Thats the only time their mothers and wives will let them out,once the chores are done. They all wear the uniform,lab coats as they adore science. Most don't have a degree in any subject but they love to pretend. They open the meeting,not a service,that is religious then and they are way to clever to be fooled by that. The open the service with the chant. " We are here to open the eyes of the believers,to cast the sin of illogical thoughts from their minds,we are the chosen ones,the sceptics,we are strong,Andi domminairti" This is followed by a cup of weak coffee,they don't want to cloud their razor minds with caffeine,then a short bout of back slapping to congratulate themselves on how clever they are. The next bit is hard for them,they all try to talk to each other but the problem is they all think that their voice is the only one worth hearing so things do get confused. Finally they take off their lab coats,don there normal day wear,anoraks,so we don't know their identity so we cannot send the psychic mafia in and try to get away before the big boys pick on them. So may it be. Amen,oh no sorry.
All of course with my tongue firmly wedged in my cheek.
No if anyone tries to challenge him he SHOUTS VERY LOUD. But you could be on to something Kendra.
It is at great personal risk that this reporter from the paranormal times had managed to infiltrate this group of sceptics. Here is my report. They meet every Sunday morning. Thats the only time their mothers and wives will let them out,once the chores are done. They all wear the uniform,lab coats as they adore science. Most don't have a degree in any subject but they love to pretend. They open the meeting,not a service,that is religious then and they are way to clever to be fooled by that. The open the service with the chant. " We are here to open the eyes of the believers,to cast the sin of illogical thoughts from their minds,we are the chosen ones,the sceptics,we are strong,Andi domminairti" This is followed by a cup of weak coffee,they don't want to cloud their razor minds with caffeine,then a short bout of back slapping to congratulate themselves on how clever they are. The next bit is hard for them,they all try to talk to each other but the problem is they all think that their voice is the only one worth hearing so things do get confused. Finally they take off their lab coats,don there normal day wear,anoraks,so we don't know their identity so we cannot send the psychic mafia in and try to get away before the big boys pick on them. So may it be. Amen,oh no sorry.
All of course with my tongue firmly wedged in my cheek.
If sceppies were to worship an individual,such as oh I don't know Randi.(which in part many do) Isn't this group especially the ardent ones,behaving like a fanatical religious order? Dismissing all other beliefs,scoffing and making derogatory remarks,even going out of there way just like Catholicism and other main stream religions did all those years ago inclduing witch hunts (taking place on a regular basis on some sites) to ensure there opinion and belief is the right one
But no ..surely I am wrong ....Some sceppies believing so ardently in something they will dismiss anything that doesn't follow there belief..hmm what do you guys think?
Principal difference: sceptics tend to believe in what can be proven with evidence. They don't need irrational and often highly illogical beliefs. And they certainly don't kill each other over whether Einstein was better than Newton...
And scientists don't "hero worship" individuals in the same way religious people do. Example - Isaac Newton was a phenomenally intelligent man to come up with the idea of gravity and the principles of motion. However, by the age of 13, I knew more about the universe than Newton did in his entire lifetime. As do most schoolkids today. The important thing is that science learns. Religions are still mostly based on information from centuries (even millenia) ago.
Maybe what scientists are doing (in some circumstances) is a "witch hunt". Illogical beliefs are going to kill off the human race. We're already standing on the brink of oblivion, and we've only been on the earth for around 100,000 years - a tiny amount of time in comparison to the majority of other species.
For instance, there is a worryingly large percentage of Americans who actually want war in the middle east, because they think that a Biblical prophecy will come true and that it will cause the second coming of Jesus Christ, who will come down to Earth to save the righteous and condemn the rest of us to hell. These people actually believe this based on a 2000 year old book that has been translated and selectively edited. This is a highly irrational belief with no evidence save for what's written down on a bit of paper, and an extremely dangerous one too.
That's why I stand firmly on the side of the sceptics and the scientists. I can see what's happening to the world today, and ok, while not all of mankind's evils are caused by religion, religion does give a reason behind a significant proportion.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
If sceppies were to worship an individual,such as oh I don't know Randi.(which in part many do) Isn't this group especially the ardent ones,behaving like a fanatical religious order? Dismissing all other beliefs,scoffing and making derogatory remarks,even going out of there way just like Catholicism and other main stream religions did all those years ago inclduing witch hunts (taking place on a regular basis on some sites) to ensure there opinion and belief is the right one
But no ..surely I am wrong ....Some sceppies believing so ardently in something they will dismiss anything that doesn't follow there belief..hmm what do you guys think?
Principal difference: sceptics tend to believe in what can be proven with evidence. They don't need irrational and often highly illogical beliefs. And they certainly don't kill each other over whether Einstein was better than Newton...
And scientists don't "hero worship" individuals in the same way religious people do. Example - Isaac Newton was a phenomenally intelligent man to come up with the idea of gravity and the principles of motion. However, by the age of 13, I knew more about the universe than Newton did in his entire lifetime. As do most schoolkids today. The important thing is that science learns. Religions are still mostly based on information from centuries (even millenia) ago.
Maybe what scientists are doing (in some circumstances) is a "witch hunt". Illogical beliefs are going to kill off the human race. We're already standing on the brink of oblivion, and we've only been on the earth for around 100,000 years - a tiny amount of time in comparison to the majority of other species.
For instance, there is a worryingly large percentage of Americans who actually want war in the middle east, because they think that a Biblical prophecy will come true and that it will cause the second coming of Jesus Christ, who will come down to Earth to save the righteous and condemn the rest of us to hell. These people actually believe this based on a 2000 year old book that has been translated and selectively edited. This is a highly irrational belief with no evidence save for what's written down on a bit of paper, and an extremely dangerous one too.
That's why I stand firmly on the side of the sceptics and the scientists. I can see what's happening to the world today, and ok, while not all of mankind's evils are caused by religion, religion does give a reason behind a significant proportion.
Are you suggesting all sceptics are scientists or of a scientific mind?
Are you suggesting all sceptics are scientists or of a scientific mind?
Most of them are either scientists or rational skeptics: often both.
I'm sure you'll be able to point to the closed-minded naysayers on here and elsewhere but they are not skeptics (even though they believe they are and call themselves such).
The big problem people have is that they think that 'skeptic' means 'disbeliever'. This is not the case. Disbelieving in ghosts, for example, does not make a person a skeptic. People simply, and wrongly, refer to them as skeptics as they don't know what skepticism is.
I'll post this again as it's important to define what one's position is: What is Skepticism?
You can avoid reading it or dismiss it, but if you're not arguing against that definition of modern, rational skepticism then you're only arguing against your own prejudices of what you think skepticism is. Which is pointless.
Skepticism is a method of inquiry that bases its conclusions on logic, reason, and above all, evidence. That certainly is not the definition of a religion.
Again, this is the common tactic used by believers to turn a factual system into a belief system so that they can argue against it on equal terms.
You see, there is no 'faith' in skepticism; but if believers can convince people there is, then they can claim that skepticism is just as unlikely a system of finding truth as any other faith-based system.
But you can't make it stick - we skeptics learn the logical fallacies rather than laugh at their Latin names.
But it is often said,well by at least Jon and working from memory yourself, that educated people are often the ones that are easiest to trick. Ergo scientist are educated people and i assume those you understand critical thinking are too, why is it not possible that they can be easily fooled. Duped into believing fake paranormal events or accepting evidence that de bunks the same but that is without foundation.
Are you suggesting all sceptics are scientists or of a scientific mind?
Most of them are either scientists or rational skeptics: often both.
I'm sure you'll be able to point to the closed-minded naysayers on here and elsewhere but they are not skeptics (even though they believe they are and call themselves such).
The big problem people have is that they think that 'skeptic' means 'disbeliever'. This is not the case. Disbelieving in ghosts, for example, does not make a person a skeptic. People simply, and wrongly, refer to them as skeptics as they don't know what skepticism is.
I'll post this again as it's important to define what one's position is: What is Skepticism?
You can avoid reading it or dismiss it, but if you're not arguing against that definition of modern, rational skepticism then you're only arguing against your own prejudices of what you think skepticism is. Which is pointless.
Skepticism is a method of inquiry that bases its conclusions on logic, reason, and above all, evidence. That certainly is not the definition of a religion.
Again, this is the common tactic used by believers to turn a factual system into a belief system so that they can argue against it on equal terms.
You see, there is no 'faith' in skepticism; but if believers can convince people there is, then they can claim that skepticism is just as unlikely a system of finding truth as any other faith-based system.
But you can't make it stick - we skeptics learn the logical fallacies rather than laugh at their Latin names.
So we can spot the faulty logic in the argument.
You know,maybe some so called sceppies should read that! Maybe then they would understand what the hell they are.Also true sceppies by this articles definition,should clamp down on people acting in an adverse way...far more cynical blah blah blah because these are the types that shout the loudest and cause most harm to any sceptical group!
Are you suggesting all sceptics are scientists or of a scientific mind?
Most of them are either scientists or rational skeptics: often both.
I'm sure you'll be able to point to the closed-minded naysayers on here and elsewhere but they are not skeptics (even though they believe they are and call themselves such).
The big problem people have is that they think that 'skeptic' means 'disbeliever'. This is not the case. Disbelieving in ghosts, for example, does not make a person a skeptic. People simply, and wrongly, refer to them as skeptics as they don't know what skepticism is.
I'll post this again as it's important to define what one's position is: What is Skepticism?
You can avoid reading it or dismiss it, but if you're not arguing against that definition of modern, rational skepticism then you're only arguing against your own prejudices of what you think skepticism is. Which is pointless.
Skepticism is a method of inquiry that bases its conclusions on logic, reason, and above all, evidence. That certainly is not the definition of a religion.
Again, this is the common tactic used by believers to turn a factual system into a belief system so that they can argue against it on equal terms.
You see, there is no 'faith' in skepticism; but if believers can convince people there is, then they can claim that skepticism is just as unlikely a system of finding truth as any other faith-based system.
But you can't make it stick - we skeptics learn the logical fallacies rather than laugh at their Latin names.
So we can spot the faulty logic in the argument.
Going by this article.....to all sceppies..true sceppies....
I claim that Randi cheats.
Now,what you going to do? You gonna sit there and simply call me a liar or that I havent the foggiest idea what I am talking about. Or prove me wrong on my claim! Taking in all the stuff written my Randites???Or are you actually going to get off your backsides and do what sceppies supposedly do!
Now,what you going to do? You gonna sit there and simply call me a liar or that I havent the foggiest idea what I am talking about. Or prove me wrong on my claim! Taking in all the stuff written my Randites???Or are you actually going to get off your backsides and do what sceppies supposedly do!
You're falling into that trap again. If you say that Randi cheats, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not on us to prove you wrong.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Now,what you going to do? You gonna sit there and simply call me a liar or that I haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about. Or prove me wrong on my claim! Taking in all the stuff written my Randites???Or are you actually going to get off your backsides and do what sceppies supposedly do!
You're falling into that trap again. If you say that Randi cheats, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not on us to prove you wrong.
Thanks for reminding me Oh how silly it was of me to stupidly presume any sceppie would get off there backside and prove their belief in ala Randi by trying to find something to disprove him and hopefully failing.How easy it is to stay in that safety zone!...isnt it guys? ;D
No Kendra, how silly of you to forget that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claiment.
Ok, Kendra is a fraud, she doesnt speak to spirit, she has no psychic abilities.
Now go one Kendra, prove me wrong
At the same time it is up to you to state what you base your statement on. What facts do you have to support your claim in this specific case only? Are you assuming kendra is a fraud because of others being frauds? the sceptic/believer arguement cannot be one sided, It is time that those on the sceptic/cynic/non believer /whatever else you want to call it side of the fence back up their claims with proof as well.
i147.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/r281/PILLSBURY069/avatar_3247DOUGHBOY.gif[/IMG]
No Kendra, how silly of you to forget that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claiment.
Ok, Kendra is a fraud, she doesnt speak to spirit, she has no psychic abilities.
Now go one Kendra, prove me wrong
At the same time it is up to you to state what you base your statement on. What facts do you have to support your claim in this specific case only? Are you assuming kendra is a fraud because of others being frauds? the sceptic/believer arguement cannot be one sided, It is time that those on the sceptic/cynic/non believer /whatever else you want to call it side of the fence back up their claims with proof as well.
But that is something that would be expected to be claimed by a sceppie..somoene who claims to be a medium is a fraud..oh thats original.. Come on sceppies,be daring..go for it...actually get off your backsides and back up your statements,your belief in Randi.Mediums/believers majority is based upon experiences they personally have had...your basing your belief in Randi and such like on what exactly?
How many times do sceppies go on and on and on at believers..look into things more,investigate,take on other possibilities...blah blah blah
All I am suggesting is a possible turn around...why dont you sceppies do just that! what have you got to loose?Far less than anyone who has a strong belief in the spirit world...
And its not just one case or inidvidual where the back up is needed....and overal surely needs to come into the equation...
All I am doing is suggesting just one sceppie..just one tip toe forward looking for flawed cases with Randi..thats it. That is all! I have no doubt this thread will now turn around on mediums/believers...whenever it is suggested Randi etc could be wrong,not even completely wrong but possibly decietful in some way regarding his beliefs or his tests etc etc and asked for a sceppie to go digging..it will always be turned on the believers..always! Not one sceppie has the guts to do it...do they?Yet those same people will constantly bash down belivers to do just that with their belief and what they base it on.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 14, 2007 23:21:20 GMT
So you cant prve me wrong Kendra? That must mean i am right by your own admission then?
pillsbury0 said:
At the same time it is up to you to state what you base your statement on. What facts do you have to support your claim in this specific case only?
Well going by Kendras logic i dont need to state anything. But the fact I have witnessed Kendra work, and have had numerous readings from her, I have come to the above conclusions, for the sake of this point
Are you assuming kendra is a fraud because of others being frauds?
I am not assuming anything, i am stating that kendra IS a fraud, and out of everyone on this forum i am most qualified to state that, due to the time i spent with her, the readings i have received, and also my knowledge of the subject.
the sceptic/believer arguement cannot be one sided, It is time that those on the sceptic/cynic/non believer /whatever else you want to call it side of the fence back up their claims with proof as well.
I have made a claim, it is now up to Kendra or anyone else to prove me wrong. Going by Kendras logic, i do not need to prove I am right, and the fact kendra cannot prove me wrong, therefore means that my statement is true, without me providing any proof whatsoever.
Wow that was easy.
Hell why dont all the sceptics start using this believer logic! it would make our lives so much easier.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
..surely I am wrong 
....Some sceppies believing so ardently in something they will dismiss anything that doesn't follow there belief..hmm what do you guys think? 
..surely I am wrong 
....Some sceppies believing so ardently in something they will dismiss anything that doesn't follow there belief..hmm what do you guys think? 
