Most (probably "all") of us have stated specifically that we aren't disbelievers. It's not Banned of Seven Disbelievers. It's more like Banned of Seven Doubters, under conditions where doubt is portrayed as obstinacy. I still belong.
Linda
Some of the posts are very clever, I'll grant that, but genuinely interested in considering the validity of the claims of those who have experienced psi? Personally I don't think so.
Hm. Well one can state what one likes, however actions speak louder than words don't they?
I can't honestly say I know what any of the so-called band of seven really think but I don't get the impression any of them post because they are genuinely seeking to understand what psi is but rather from a conviction that psi phenomena do not occur.
Some of the posts are very clever, I'll grant that, but genuinely interested in considering the validity of the claims of those who have experienced psi? Personally I don't think so.
Ahh yes, this old one. And how do you go about determining our "genuine" interests? Many on this forum seem to believe not believing in psi alone is proof of non-genuiness because a genuine person would be convinced of psi!
Otherwise, I'm not convinced there is anything I or any of the other banned of seven could ever say to convince you of our genuine interest.
That is the excuse various people here use to ignore what we say in order to paint us as entirely different creatures from what we are. I haven't seen any indication that proponents are depending upon anything but their own distorted prejudices in that regard. Sorry to be so blunt, but when I take the trouble to explain my non-materialist metaphysic perspective in great detail, on numerous occasions, and the first words out of people like gabriel's mouth every time the topic is mentioned is "your materialist metaphysic", maybe you can begin to understand why I don't take your 'insight' at all seriously.
That is the excuse various people here use to ignore what we say in order to paint us as entirely different creatures from what we are. I haven't seen any indication that proponents are depending upon anything but their own distorted prejudices in that regard. Sorry to be so blunt, but when I take the trouble to explain my non-materialist metaphysic perspective in great detail, on numerous occasions, and the first words out of people like gabriel's mouth every time the topic is mentioned is "your materialist metaphysic", maybe you can begin to understand why I don't take your 'insight' at all seriously.
Despite the fact that almost all of our preferred area of discussion is about how to tease out a genuine understanding of psi phenomena. It's pretty clear that Steve is right - it's Damned of Seven".
And I'm not interested in your ill-considered opinion. Sorry.
Linda
Despite the fact that almost all of our preferred area of discussion is about how to tease out a genuine understanding of psi phenomena. It's pretty clear that Steve is right - it's Damned of Seven".
That's just silly. Materialists do not recognise the metaphysical nature of their pursuit. They believe their project cuts across philosophy and appeals to a goal in which metaphysics has no place. The desire for multiple-blind experimentation and statistical absolutes underlines their faith in materialist dogma. In thousands of posts you have never diverted from the skeptical toolkit as a way of examining reality.Sorry to be so blunt, but when I take the trouble to explain my non-materialist metaphysic perspective in great detail, on numerous occasions, and the first words out of people like gabriel's mouth every time the topic is mentioned is "your materialist metaphysic", maybe you can begin to understand why I don't take your 'insight' at all seriously.
Well you don't need to convince me unless my opinion matters to you. I don't see any reason why it should, as my opinion is only really important to people who know me. I determine whether a person is genuine or not based on the nature and content of their interaction. It's purely subjective.
But is it important to you that your assessment of others' genuineness be accurate? How does it affect how you evaluate their posts? Does your assessment of someone else's argument change depending on whether you think they are genuine or not?
If you were genuinely interested I'd have thought you'd have asked why I have formed that view. But no.
It depends what I am intending to do next. One can look at a person's argument and consider it without having to accept they are genuine, I agree. If I think a person is disingenuous eventually I may tire of the discussion or engaging with them and their opinions I suppose. It also depends on their behaviour in other discussions I guess.
Be consistent, when I asked you that your response was to blow me off and suggest that I shouldn't care what your opinion is.
And the fact is this is still the best forum to really get into discussing these topics amongst varied views. There really isn't another choice right now for someone who wants to expose themselves to multiple views and discuss them. If you know of a better forum for that let me know. Otherwise maybe stop asking why we're here.
but when I take the trouble to explain my non-materialist metaphysic perspective in great detail
You're putting the focus where it should be now: their arguments. The arguments speak for themselves. Be careful not to confuse bias with lack of genuineness.
I tend to give most posters the benefit of the doubt for genuineness.
You may be as blunt as you like. I don't mind what you think of my opinion. I find others' opinions useful to assess my own view of the world and how people see me but there's no obligation on you to take the same approach.
I don't mind whether you take my 'insight' or opinion seriously or not. I am simply telling you how you (and a few others) look to me. Of course I don't know you or claim to know what you think. I did point that out in my post. If you aren't interested in hearing how you look to others that's your own business.
Yet here you still are, posting hundreds of comments. If it's all so awful and unproductive, one does wonder why you bother.
See this is where you show something of your true colours isn't it? "ill-considered" - you may not like my opinion but you have invited it by claiming to be what you don't appear to be to me (or some others). I can assure you it is a considered opinion. Whether you agree or not is immaterial to me. If you were genuinely interested I'd have thought you'd have asked why I have formed that view. But no.
Also, why say "sorry" when you're clearly not and aren't bothered what I think?
It is your motivation that is suspect. That can only be based on other members' view of your comments and contribution. Obviously that view will be coloured by their own prejudices and preconceptions - as all conversations with strangers are. At the end of the day this is simply a discussion board. If you really don't think people are listening to what you are saying what exactly is the point in posting? I don't get it.
Be consistent, when I asked you that your response was to blow me off and suggest that I shouldn't care what your opinion is.
And the fact is this is still the best forum to really get into discussing these topics amongst varied views. There really isn't another choice right now for someone who wants to expose themselves to multiple views and discuss them. If you know of a better forum for that let me know. Otherwise maybe stop asking why we're here.
I told you how I personally would go about determining a person's interest. If you needed a more complete answer why not ask instead of getting all huffy?
I can't see why asking what a person's motivation for posting when they say they so unhappy is a problem. Why would that be? Perhaps you could post a list of questions people can ask?
Yes but that's only part of my answer isn't it? You skipped the bit about disingenuity.
Forming a view as to a person's genuineness take time. It is wiser to give the benefit of the doubt I agree.
You suggested fls' not asking you was evidence of her being disingenous. Other the other hand, you didn't consider my asking you as evidence of my genuiness, and instead chidded me for caring! As steve pointed out: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
C'mon: do you know how many times we get asked that question? And how many times we answer it only to have it come up again? Can you imagine that that might be frustrating? Maybe we should just post an FAQ.
As for getting huffy, you shouldn't be surprised when people get their backs up when you accuse them of being dishonest.
I was clear that the term "disbelief" serves the purpose of allowing materialists to continue the delusions that their perspective is less based on beliefs. Stating "disbelief in psi" suggests that one has no beliefs in the area. "belief in materialism" is a more accurate statement.Brooke was pretty clear he was talking about disbelief in psi, not disbelief in general.
Linda