Eye for an Eye

You haven't argued why I'm wrong, so I assume you have no answer. Using words like 'immaterialist' assumes materialism is beyond reproach, and things can only be described in opposition to it, which is nonsense. I know of no proponents who describe themselves as immaterialists. Materialism is an ideological approach to a method of investigation, there is nothing empirical about it. It's political, not scientific.
You should occasionally ask yourself am I wrong?
 
You should occasionally ask yourself am I wrong?
Am I wrong should be a continual dialogue with that voice in your head you don't believe in, not an occasional question. Materialism is wrong because the voice is there, and has no right to be.
 
OK, Arouet, so you are not a materialist, you are not here to defend or promote any point of view, you don't think that psychics, NDE experiencers or mediums are liars nor deluded, and you approach every case on merit, without preconceptions. From now on, I will indeed avoid accusing you of any of those things if your posts reflect those qualities. I only hope that I can be so open-minded too.

Kamarling: When you accuse me of using tactics to disperse doubt with the purpose of then dismissing the whole claim you are saying that my otherwise stated reasons for posting were disingenuous. You are effectively accusing me of pretending to have a doubt, providing an argument I know with BS, all with the goal of making a subsequent BS argument that we should dismiss the entire claim based on my first BS argument. When you accuse me of only posting here to promote some alleged agenda, you are saying that I'm lying about the reasons I've actually given for posting. You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty/deception on this forums. I don't know why I should be expected to tolerate that if you're not going to even bother to substantiate them.
 
Skepticism is stuck in materialism. The more intelligent skeptics realise materialism is hokum, but can't bring themselves to leave behind the security and certainty it represents. It's as though they're attached by elastic, they move towards its limits, only to spring back because they can't break the bond. It's the reason why the same argument takes place over and over again. Because they're not debating the evidence but their own assumptions, skeptics adopt disingenuous tactics to trick themselves into believing the insupportable.

Are you presenting this in the spirit of trying to express how you think the skeptic sees themselves?
 
No. It's a practical summary based on continuing proximity to skeptical perspectives and debates.

That's a bit off topic for this thread. I'd really like to try and keep this thread on focus, given what I'm trying to accomplish here. Could you take that discussion to a different thread?
 
Are you presenting this in the spirit of trying to express how you think the skeptic sees themselves?

I suspect evangelical skeptics have a variety of rationalizations about the dangers of "irrational thinking", but after seeing Randi try to explain how identity theft is a victimless crime I think they are going to have to broaden or just alter what counts as "irrational".

Basically, as I asked earlier in this thread what is the point of organized skepticism?
 
That's a bit off topic for this thread. I'd really like to try and keep this thread on focus, given what I'm trying to accomplish here. Could you take that discussion to a different thread?
It's fine where it is, thanks, and on topic with the posts preceding it. Yesterday you threw a hissy because a reply to another poster didn't include your point. That isn't the way threads on internet forums operate. What you're 'trying to accomplish' isn't my priority TBH, I was contributing in the spirit of the overall trajectory it has taken on with different people adding their thoughts.
 
I suspect evangelical skeptics have a variety of rationalizations about the dangers of "irrational thinking", but after seeing Randi try to explain how identity theft is a victimless crime I think they are going to have to broaden or just alter what counts as "irrational".

Sciborg, if you want, give my WCB exercise but with Randi. Remember, I don't mean to use this as an oppotunity to do some kind of satire or take shots but to really try and present how you think Randi really feels about his own views and actions. You could do the identity theft thing if you want but there's not really that much meat to that one, but it would be easier and require less research so might be good. Or pick any of the subjects that Randi deals with!

I'd love for you to join in. And anyone else for that manner.
 
What you're doing now Arouet, is confirming something Kamarling alluded to earlier. You are narrowing the focus of the debate until it only includes arguments that show your point of view in a favourable light, and rejecting any that indicate it's erroneous. Randi has shown himself to be unreliable in various ways, admitting he always has an out. Given that, it would be a grave mistake for proponents to take him seriously on subjects he is openly prejudiced against.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Again, I think you need to read what I write a bit more carefully. I have never said that I don't trust anyone's story. There are plenty of scenarios where I evaluate a persons story as reliable enough to draw conclusions on. I guess I won't bother elaborating further since you've said you're not interested but this is a very context dependent question.
Has anyone ever told you a story relating to psi that you deemed reliable enough to come to the conclusion that it likely exists?

Cheers,
Bill
 
Has anyone ever told you a story relating to psi that you deemed reliable enough to come to the conclusion that it likely exists?

Cheers,
Bill
I think his argument is that stories are innately unreliable. So there wouldn't be a story that was very convincing.
 
I think his argument is that stories are innately unreliable. So there wouldn't be a story that was very convincing.
Yeah, people get things wrong now and then. Apparently some people are of the opinion that people are completely incapable of conveying anything accurately when it relates to psi. Makes it easy to say "there is no evidence." If the faulty recall argument doesn't fly, you can just declare that they must be "stark raving mad."

Cheers,
Bill
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Are you presenting this in the spirit of trying to express how you think the skeptic sees themselves?
I imagine that many of them earnestly see themselves as what they argue skepticism is meant to be: a watch at the gates of science determined to promote the scientific method and to keep out superstition out. I imagine many of them sincerely fear a slide back into pre-Enlightenment attitudes towards investigating the world (even if many of the assumptions they, and the rest of the world, have about the so-called Dark Ages and what the Enlightenment did are completely wrong).

I commend you for encouraging others to see things through their opponents' eyes; empathy is a virtue, an extremely important one. But while I think understanding intentions, and the intentions themselves, do matter, what actions people choose to take and the results count much more in the long run.
 
Sciborg, if you want, give my WCB exercise but with Randi. Remember, I don't mean to use this as an oppotunity to do some kind of satire or take shots but to really try and present how you think Randi really feels about his own views and actions. You could do the identity theft thing if you want but there's not really that much meat to that one, but it would be easier and require less research so might be good. Or pick any of the subjects that Randi deals with!

I'd love for you to join in. And anyone else for that manner.

It wasn't until Braude noted Randi being a fraud that I looked into the matter. Randi didn't seem particularly concerned about the man his partner victimized - of primary importance was Randi getting what he wanted.

Here's another article, "The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi" that, if accurate, does suggest JREF is about maintaining Randi's celebrity status rather than finding out the truth of the world.

Of course opportunism and fanaticism isn't limited to Randi. An atheist critique of Humanism as Faith makes note of Coyne's attempts to silence dissent as well:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...s-of-the-new-atheist-movement.605/#post-14947
 
What you're doing now Arouet, is confirming something Kamarling alluded to earlier. You are narrowing the focus of the debate until it only includes arguments that show your point of view in a favourable light, and rejecting any that indicate it's erroneous. Randi has shown himself to be unreliable in various ways, admitting he always has an out. Given that, it would be a grave mistake for proponents to take him seriously on subjects he is openly prejudiced against.

I'm not sure you've quite understood the purpose of this thread. This object of this thread is to go through an exercise where you try to imagine how a person whose views you find repugnant views themselves, not how you see them. I did the exercise with the Westboro Baptist Church who would be openly prejudiced against me under many headings!

It's not really important who the person is. I threw out Randi for Sciborg based solely on the fact that he brought Randi up and I presumed he finds Randi to be undesirable.. I don't care who he - or anyone else - picks so long as they are someone they find repugnant.
 
Has anyone ever told you a story relating to psi that you deemed reliable enough to come to the conclusion that it likely exists?

Cheers,
Bill

I have not come to the conclusion that psi likely exists so by extension no story or anything else has yet convinced me. However, there are certainly stories that have made me go Hmmmm (90s reference yo!) They, along with other things such as some parapsychological studies, keep me intruigued. I would like those things that make me go hmmm to take place under more reliable conditions.
 
Back
Top