4/12/2012 12:23pm, #11
4/12/2012 2:33pm, #12
On the other hand, when I explained to my kids (probably aged 10 and 11 at the time) what homeopathy was about, they were astounded that any adult would believe such stuff worked.
4/12/2012 2:43pm, #13
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Vancouver, BC
But we cannot definitely prove that there are no real psychics and more than we can prove that there are no real gods. Religious people always find gaps in knowledge, however pathetic, and say: Ah, but my god is actually there. Life evolved rather than being created? Ah, but my god directed evolution. Similarly, a believer in psychics can always claim that ah, the psychics you have tested failed under your test conditions, but under different conditions, or perhaps with that genuine psychic Cf. Carl Sagans invisible dragon, or its predecessor, Russells teapot, &c.
The reason we should laugh at both psychics and religions is that both lack positive evidence, and both fail on every instance where testable claims have been made and checked. Neither form of belief is held for good reasons, and belief that is not held for good reasons is not knowledge.
4/12/2012 4:21pm, #14
Fucking hell, idiot, re read what I wrote. You assume I am talking about paranormal activity because you WANT me to be wrong so you can point and go, pfft, this guy believes in the woo woo. TO REITERATE I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE FUCKING WOO WOO. Of course my experiences are anecdotal, they're my fucking experiences. And yes, they could be massively coincidental. But you assume I am referring to having seen ghosts, which I never said I had, in fact, I stated that I deduced the spirits "identity" from reason. I know now that it is just attuning to my own senses, my own [biological] intuition and reading the signs around me.
I actively stated that I am talking about energies that tie in with science, not the paranormal. I believe in science, because it is providing proof all the time that we do not know everything there is to know in this existence. And while there have been smarter people than you or I say things like, "I don't want to believe, I want to know", which is a great sentiment if we were close to unlocking ALL life's mysteries, but we're not, and having faith in a universe's energy, whatever it is, may seem stupid to someone who is 99.9% certain of their beliefs that there is nothing to believe in, but if Richard Dawkins holds 0.1% uncertainty, well, my 0.1% of doubt that my faith is wrong is fine by me. PS, his showing in the debate against Cardinal Pell the other night was **** house, how fucking hard is it to smash a Creationist in a debate in this day and age? And the fucking questions from the viewing audience, Dear God, please provide some innovative and intelligence into a debate, not, "if there is a God why do bad things happen?" It's fucking retarded high school level questioning attempting to cheap shot the priest.
Hell, maybe I shouldn't have used "certain" in the previous post. I should've use "arrogant enough". As in I am not arrogant enough to believe that my conscious is the highest plane of existence. I'll be happy to be humble to whatever it is that is greater than me, if it turns out to be an interlocking system of a flow of fucking energies within atoms, then Hallelujah, praise be to the interlocking system of a flow of fucking energies within atoms.
You also instantly assume that I am talking about some mystical thing when I say marvels. Get off your high horse, I think a hot woman is a marvel to behold, commercial flight is a marvel to behold, a fucking dog is a marvel to behold. All have scientific reasons for existence, doesn't mean they aren't a marvel. **** me, some atheists are so caught up in proving everyone who has a little faith in the universe's unknowns is WRONG WRONG WRONG that you seem to shoot yourself in the face trying to look intelligent.GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
4/12/2012 7:14pm, #15
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Because of that, Battlefieldīs observation cannot be used for anyone, but him - since he knows heīs not lying and can - hopefully - be sure of his sanity. So thereīs no reason for you (Battlefield) to disregard your experience as rubbish without clarifying it by testing.
You could just try to repeat this situation and use scientific methods.
I did the same with a student of mine a few months ago. He was kind of an occultist and swore that he could read minds and that tarot was useful in forseeing the near future.
So I did the old card-guessing game and - with a bit of mathematics - it was obvious that his mind-reading-powers were just as good as random guessing.
Same with tarot - did that by letting him say which cards would best describe the present moment, picking one, and doing the calculations (much more complex here because of varying number of correct cards) - itīs pending but looks surprisingly good for the tarot-works-theory.
Bottom line: anecdotal evidence is only useless if you were no witness of the phenomenon and if itīs not repeatable. Otherwise, you can put it to the test.
"I'm certain that human conscious is not the highest form of conscious in the universe and I do believe in a power greater than myself, whatever it is it is not for me to define. Define it as God or the fucking God particle, we're all just energy clashing and flowing."
No, you are not certain, it is impossible to be certain. And yes, before you come back with the all too used argument, I can never be certain you are wrong. However, as the far more intelligent than us Richard Dawkins said, I CAN be 99.9% certain.
Secondly, most common definitions (phenomenal, computational) would not lead to any results in this issue, since phenomenal consciousness can not be compared to that of other individuals (see Thomas Nagel, "whatīs it like to be a bat" for explaining this obvious fact) and computational power of such a complex analogue system is not possible at the moment - and most certainly was not what Battlefield meant.
The truly scientific answer to this question would be "donīt know, donīt care".
Btw.: Dawkins is nice, but should not be regarded as the overlord of science he seems to be seen as in the US. In fact, heīs just trying to bring fanatic nutjobs out of the dark ages.
Thatīs good, but it can not make him the sole spokesperson of the scientific community.
4/12/2012 9:44pm, #16
The evidence for the existence of psychic energies of any sort amount, to my knowledge, to exactly zero. The evidence against consists of numerous debunkings of self-proclaimed psychics attempting to reproduce phenomena under controlled circumstances. The reasonable person would take this to mean that it is unlikely that psychic phenomena exist. That is not the position you are taking. You know what's more annoying than religion? The zeal of a new convert, of which your post reeks.
Edit: I see in further posts you've backtracked on some of your certainty. Oddly enough, that only seems to increase the "zealot" feeling I get from your posts.
4/13/2012 12:33am, #17
4/13/2012 12:36am, #18
4/13/2012 12:42am, #19
This thread turned funny real quick. Did someone actually whip out the "Ivory Soap ingredient" defense to prove someone wrong? Yes, some of you will not get this reference.
Good lord April Fool's is one day not the entire month.
4/13/2012 12:49am, #20