Victor Stenger

What a pathetic lot some of you are. Perhaps there should be rejoicing when Sheldrake et al. die. I'm certain some will, but it won't be from me.
One person, a known troll, seems to be happy about the death. I hardly believe that qualifies as a ' lot '.
 
One person, a known troll, seems to be happy about the death. I hardly believe that qualifies as a ' lot '.
I welcome the death of atheism, the philosophy of cynicism. I rejoice that nihilism should wither and die! As hard as human beings around the world have worked for a better world, we deserve lives of joy and happiness. So what if an atheist, a bringer of misery should keel over croak! So what!
 
One person, a known troll, seems to be happy about the death. I hardly believe that qualifies as a ' lot '.

I guess the fact that ghost appears to enjoy overt and tacit approval from 'proponents' might confuse a reader. Well done for being the first 'psi believer' to call ghost out for what he is...
 
So what if an atheist, a bringer of misery should keel over croak! So what!

Even if this is a joke it's in poor taste. It is juvenile and to be frank very sad to rejoice over the death of another person simply because of their ideas. I can think of a great many believers who have caused enormous physical and mental suffering, far more than this man's ideas.

As an aside, there is nothing to stop proponents of psi being atheists as far as I can see either.
 
Last edited:
I guess the fact that ghost appears to enjoy overt and tacit approval from 'proponents' might confuse a reader. Well done for being the first 'psi believer' to call ghost out for what he is...

Maybe you're right. Maybe deep down, I have somehow mistaken atheism for science or for reality. To correct this misunderstanding, I shall repeat the following affirmation:

Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific...
 
Maybe you're right. Maybe deep down, I have somehow mistaken atheism for science or for reality. To correct this misunderstanding, I shall repeat the following affirmation:

Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific. Atheism is disconnected from reality and is unscientific...

And believing in a personal god with no evidence is scientific?
 
Last edited:
One person, a known troll, seems to be happy about the death. I hardly believe that qualifies as a ' lot '.
Up to your old tactics I see befitting someone your age. There's subdued implicit jubilation over the his death by two other members. That constitutes a lot.
How do you recognize a troll? By recognizing it on yourself.
 
I guess the fact that ghost appears to enjoy overt and tacit approval from 'proponents' might confuse a reader. Well done for being the first 'psi believer' to call ghost out for what he is...

Malf,
I had no idea that you think "ghost" is a troll. What he said about atheist Victor Stenger, in one post, was fair comment. "Kings of Academia" like Victor have taken away simple faith from people that benefitted from it.
 
Malf,
I had no idea that you think "ghost" is a troll. What he said about atheist Victor Stenger, in one post, was fair comment. "Kings of Academia" like Victor have taken away simple faith from people that benefitted from it.

Is that true though? Simple faith in what? I would think most people have never heard of him (I hadn't). Is the suggestion that people with a strong, simple faith read these people and abandon it? I can't see that myself, unless there is some doubt in which case surely it is sensible to explore it. When I was a believer, no amount of atheistic arguments would budge me because I simply knew it was true. I wanted to be convinced.

Is it a positive thing to believe something but be unable to defend the beliefs?
 
Is that true though? Simple faith in what? I would think most people have never heard of him (I hadn't). Is the suggestion that people with a strong, simple faith read these people and abandon it? I can't see that myself, unless there is some doubt in which case surely it is sensible to explore it. When I was a believer, no amount of atheistic arguments would budge me because I simply knew it was true. I wanted to be convinced.

Is it a positive thing to believe something but be unable to defend the beliefs?
I thought I was defending my beliefs. I am well versed in the basics of physics which is considered the cornerstone of reality. That is where I have taken the fight, or more accurately, attempted to pick a fight with atheists and materialists. Curiously, materialists/atheists/skeptics all find themselves unable to gain traction in support of their beliefs once they are confronted with deep physics. The result is that a spirit world is the best explanation for "everything", even if it is the least welcome explanation by the physics community.
 
I thought I was defending my beliefs. I am well versed in the basics of physics which is considered the cornerstone of reality. That is where I have taken the fight, or more accurately, attempted to pick a fight with atheists and materialists. Curiously, materialists/atheists/skeptics all find themselves unable to gain traction in support of their beliefs once they are confronted with deep physics.
Not directed at you ghost. General observation - in response to tim's observation.

I do think that if you know physics well it is perfectly reasonable to raise the argument. The problem might be that others who want to challenge it don't or can't respond. This is usually evidenced by:

1) changing the subject;
2) quoting other people and their opinion;
3) Tumbleweeds.

Although I have a reasonable understanding of physics for instance I wouldn't feel comfortable arguing with a physicist about quantum mechanics.
 
Is that true though? Simple faith in what? I would think most people have never heard of him (I hadn't). Is the suggestion that people with a strong, simple faith read these people and abandon it? I can't see that myself, unless there is some doubt in which case surely it is sensible to explore it. When I was a believer, no amount of atheistic arguments would budge me because I simply knew it was true. I wanted to be convinced.

Is it a positive thing to believe something but be unable to defend the beliefs?

There are hundreds of Victor Stengers in the UK, Obiwan

Belief in life after death for a great many ordinary inhabitants was methodically destroyed by "clever scientists" such as Stenger, for no good reason.

Was it beneficial to have a faith , Yes, without a doubt
 
Last edited:
Malf,
I had no idea that you think "ghost" is a troll. What he said about atheist Victor Stenger, in one post, was fair comment. "Kings of Academia" like Victor have taken away simple faith from people that benefitted from it.
I've not really been convinced by any definition of a "troll". Ghost has a tendency to rant and repeat himself without really engaging. As far as I can see he is a waste of ectoplasm.
 
There are hundreds of Victor Stengers in the UK, Obiwan

Belief in life after death for a great many ordinary inhabitants was methodically destroyed by "clever scientists" such as Stenger, for no good reason.
What is the benefit of simple belief in this situation? In fact I would say it is a danger.

I get that having a simple belief is a comfort. Simple belief is far from universally beneficial.

In fact, as a formerly religious person I would say beliefs which are not properly researched or understood are a positive harm and leave the believer open to all sorts of exploitation.

I agree though that cruel demolition which relies on misuse of information and 'clever argumentation' is wrong.
 
Last edited:
What is the benefit of simple belief in this situation? In fact I would say it is a danger.

I get that having a simple belief is a comfort. Simple belief is far from universally beneficial.

In fact, as a formerly religious person I would say beliefs which are not properly researched or understood are a positive harm and leave the believer open to all sorts of exploitation.

I agree though that cruel demolition which relies on misuse of information and 'clever argumentation' is wrong.
Proof of the afterlife is not going to possible until either we pass on, or technology of detection improves significantly. All you have available now is faith. By like I've said, the skeptics are mistaken.

Also, some of the smartest most shrude people I know are believers.
 
Back
Top