betsy Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497 I am wondering if 380 studies is enough? Granted that there is no clear evidence, does it mean there is no possibility at all? True, there's no one who'd come forward to prove and claim the million dollar reward, that I too actually think that no one, so far, have that ability. Maybe there is no such thing, but then again who knows....perhaps the "right conditions" have yet to be met for someone to be able to do such feat. We know of people who'd exhibited almost super-human physical strength under certain circumstances...why can't the mind? Not all paranormal activities are likely to be fact, nor can all be proved or disproved by science....but then, who am I to say. The mind still holds a lot of mystery....for it still remains largely untapped. We cannot give a definite conclusion about something we don't fully understand. One such example that holds promise is the use of positive thinking in self-healing. Edited April 8, 2011 by betsy Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 I am wondering if 380 studies is enough? Granted that there is no clear evidence, does it mean there is no possibility at all? True, there's no one who'd come forward to prove and claim the million dollar reward, that I too actually think that no one, so far, have that ability. Maybe there is no such thing, and then perhaps who knows. Not all paranormal activities are likely to be fact, nor can all be proved or disproved by science....but then, who am I to say. The mind still holds a lot of mystery....for it still remains largely untapped. We cannot give a definite conclusion about something we don't fully understand. One such example that holds promise is the use of positive thinking in self-healing. Maybe science should go where the evidence points instead of wasting time on more BS studies. And you seem to be invoking the "unused brain capacity" crapola. I don't think anyone in neurological studies has made that claim in a couple of generations. Quote
dre Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 That doesn't answer the question. Why is Dawkins making what's tantamount to a conclusion in his dismissal of telekinesis and other possibilities of the paranormal...when the human brain isn't fully understood by science. There's still much to explore. This supports my contention that Dawkins is not credible. If he can be as sloppy as this - and that's being generously kind and the least to say , then he can be sloppy in his own so-called "scientific works" as well. Why are you so obsessed with this guy? If you dont agree with him tune him out... like I have do with prominent christian celebrities like Jimmy Swaggart, and Pat Robertson. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
WIP Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 I absolutely love your dead serious answer here. I know kimmy didn't intend it as a serious question, but the fact that there are people who will bid thousands of dollars for a cracker that looks like the Virgin Mary means that a rational explanation is needed to inform some people not to be so quick to believe they've seen a miracle. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 I am wondering if 380 studies is enough? Granted that there is no clear evidence, does it mean there is no possibility at all? Feel free to fund some research looking for ESP if you believe it's real; the question is: should the sciences remain neutral on the likelihood of the existence of psi phenomena when so much research effort has found nothing? If there's any mathematicians here, you might be able to help me with this: I've heard from a couple of interviews that Bayes Theorem for determining conditional probabilities would apply here; so that each one of these 380 studies showing no evidence of psi, would keep reducing that slim possibility right out of any plausible chance of its existence. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
betsy Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Why are you so obsessed with this guy? If you dont agree with him tune him out... like I have do with prominent christian celebrities like Jimmy Swaggart, and Pat Robertson. Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry. This is an outright declaration of war. He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance. Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him. The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well. Edited April 8, 2011 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Posted April 8, 2011 Furthermore I ask you Dre, would you just make light and "tune-out" bigotry? Quote
WIP Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 I don't either, but I think Russell has it about right here. It's just that he's trying to be impossibly exact "when speaking to philosophers," as he rather oddly puts it. Russell's notion basically comes down to what most of us have been saying repeatedly: yes, I cannot prove there is no God, so in a sheerly technical sense, I must admit the possibility, and call myself an agnostic. However, there is no good reason to pretend that agnosticism is actually more useful as a descriptor; and I'm agnostic only so far as I don't 'know' that Zeus doesn't exist." Many atheist activists talk about atheists and agnostics as if they are one and the same thing, and can be lumped together in the same category...may be to bump up the poll numbers a little; and I still feel that this does a disservice to people in that middle ground who aren't sure whether God exists or not. It's worth noting that there are agnostics on the believing side too. A Christian agnostic perhaps wants to believe, but is unsure if his God exists. Someone like that does not belong in the same category as atheists. For my part, I can't say I can prove God doesn't exist either; I just haven't found any compelling arguments for any features of the universe as we know it, needing a supernatural creator to explain it. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Timothy17 Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 There's enough hot air in that article to carry a directionless, large balloon for at least a few miles. Quote "Error has no rights." "Ab illo benedicaris in cuius honore cremaberis. Amen." - Pope Pius XI, blessing a Protestant minister upon his request. The blessing is the one used over incense in the Catholic Mass, and translates, "Mayest thou be blessed by Him in Whose honor thou art to be burnt. Amen."
GostHacked Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 There's enough hot air in that article to carry a directionless, large balloon for at least a few miles. Welcome! You are going to be fun to chat with as well it seems! Quote
Tilter Posted April 8, 2011 Report Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry. This is an outright declaration of war. He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance. Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him. The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well. Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. and maybe to earn money to live like an Arabian Sheik and get really good hookers and then to cry crocodile tears and get "forgiveness" & go back to defrauding the public. Isn't Robertson the preacher/wannabe politician who fails at almost everything except earning big bux & lives like a movie star on that money???--- oh I forgot, he's only in it to serve God & to spread the good word----- at $500.00 a seat. Edited April 8, 2011 by Tilter Quote
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) and maybe to earn money to live like an Arabian Sheik and get really good hookers and then to cry crocodile tears and get "forgiveness" & go back to defrauding the public. Isn't Robertson the preacher/wannabe politician who fails at almost everything except earning big bux & lives like a movie star on that money???--- oh I forgot, he's only in it to serve God & to spread the good word----- at $500.00 a seat. You guys can't keep to the topic. It's all the same....nothing new...so predictable! You go on every website and you see a radical atheist going through the same gyrations as all the other radicals. So typical among the New Atheists! When they have nothing to rebutt, they deflect....or they start spitting snd spewing! I'm reminded of the kind of kids one is tempted to tease....just to see the expected reaction. It's comical. So very Dawkins Flock-esque. Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 9, 2011 Report Posted April 9, 2011 You guys can't keep to the topic. It's all the same....nothing new...so predictable! You go on every website and you see a radical atheist going through the same gyrations as all the other radicals. So typical among the New Atheists! When they have nothing to rebutt, they deflect....or they start spitting snd spewing! I'm reminded of the kind of kids one is tempted to tease....just to see the expected reaction. It's comical. So very Dawkins Flock-esque. Hold on a sec. You're calling them "radicals," but in the same thread in which you claim Pat Robertson is just some well-intentioned guy who "spreads the good news" and--astonishingly--"respects others' beliefs." Pat Robertson is a man who blamed the Haitian disaster on the Haitians, because they are "devil worshippers" who got what they deserved. (This makes him a moral degenerate, not to put to fine a point on it.) He also called for the United States to assassinate the elected leader of another country. He's not really such a swell guy, I don't think. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Hold on a sec. You're calling them "radicals," but in the same thread in which you claim Pat Robertson is just some well-intentioned guy who "spreads the good news" and--astonishingly--"respects others' beliefs." Pat Robertson is a man who blamed the Haitian disaster on the Haitians, because they are "devil worshippers" who got what they deserved. (This makes him a moral degenerate, not to put to fine a point on it.) He also called for the United States to assassinate the elected leader of another country. He's not really such a swell guy, I don't think. To tell you the truth, I don't really know much of Pat Robertson. If what you say is true, then he is a radical. Swaggart, from the few times I came across him in the past - and I didn't really stick around to listen enough - all I saw was someone spreading the Gospel. He did have his own style, crying at one point as I recall - if that was Swaggart I'm thinking about. There are preachers who sincerely want to do their Christian duty, same as there are scientists who truly want to know. Dawkins' cannot be taken seriously as a sceintist anymore. And I still suspect that he's losing his mind. But I think the point I'm making to Dre is clear. Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote
GostHacked Posted April 9, 2011 Report Posted April 9, 2011 But I think the point I'm making to Dre is clear. Clear as mud. Quote
dre Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry. This is an outright declaration of war. He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance. Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him. The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well. Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done. Theres no difference. One group tells you what you personally want to hear, and the other one doesnt. Well.. one group bangs hookers and blames natural disasters on fags Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry.This is an outright declaration of war. Oh please... who started this war? The church has been maligning non believers for centuries, and actually killed a whole lot of them. No to mention trying to censor knowledge and ideas, burn books, persecute scientists, etc. specifically the Christian religion. Horse shit. Iv actually read books by the authors youre talking about. These guys are constatly attacking Islam as well. Like I said before. You shouldnt be so obsessed with atheists. They are a tiny, disorganized, and persecuted minority. The real problem you face is that you cant even sell your anti evolution crap to other Christians. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry. Thats all just outright fantasy. Edited April 10, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted April 10, 2011 Author Report Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Theres no difference. One group tells you what you personally want to hear, and the other one doesnt. Well.. one group bangs hookers and blames natural disasters on fags Yes there is. The group that bangs hookers and blames natural disasters on homosexuals are not following the teachings of Christ! Whereas your group's doctrine - for all its bravado about their "rational religion" - is not rational! And yes, they do have one thing in common: hypocrisy! or lunacy! Like I said before. You shouldnt be so obsessed with atheists. That statement is out of context. It's not the atheists in general I'm talking about! Either you're being blatantly deceitful in your argument - or you're not paying attention to the discussion! Get on the right page! hats all just outright fantasy. Not bigotry? Really? What's your definition of bigotry, btw. October 19, 2009 Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion. Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle. Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross. These offensive disrespect are all done on Christianity. Horse shit. Iv actually read books by the authors youre talking about. These guys are constatly attacking Islam as well. Give me a sample where they showed blatant offensive dis-respect on Mohammed or the Quran....along the same lines as the one portrayed above on Blasphemy Day. CITE! Your words alone aren't worth much considering the way you bastardized history in the thread TEACHERS BRAINWASHING CHILDREN....which I patiently corrected your gaping errors! Therefore, cite a sample from your source. Edited April 10, 2011 by betsy Quote
GostHacked Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Get on the right page! This is page 12, you are stuck on page 1. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 Give me a sample where they showed blatant offensive dis-respect on Mohammed or the Quran....along the same lines as the one portrayed above on Blasphemy Day. Give a sample of "blatant offensive disrespect" on Jesus or the Bible. Quote
betsy Posted April 12, 2011 Author Report Posted April 12, 2011 Give a sample of "blatant offensive disrespect" on Jesus or the Bible. The samples were given...had you bothered to read the whole response! Quote
GostHacked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 The samples were given...had you bothered to read the whole response! You can't ask someone to read your links on the whole, when you are simply quote mining and not reading anyone elses links or posts fully. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I didn't see anything in those links that were "blatant offensive disrespect" towards Jesus or the Bible. Quote
betsy Posted April 22, 2011 Author Report Posted April 22, 2011 I didn't see anything in those links that were "blatant offensive disrespect" towards Jesus or the Bible. How can you? You've got your blinders on, remember? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2011 Report Posted April 23, 2011 I've asked you to point out some examples that blatantly offensive to you and it would be nice for a brief explanation as to how and why it's offensive. Since I have my blinders on, it would be nice to be enlightened. I won't hold my breath though. This task would involve you rubbing two braincells together. Quote
betsy Posted April 23, 2011 Author Report Posted April 23, 2011 I've asked you to point out some examples that blatantly offensive to you and it would be nice for a brief explanation as to how and why it's offensive. Since I have my blinders on, it would be nice to be enlightened. I won't hold my breath though. This task would involve you rubbing two braincells together. Whoa, I've been going out of my way accomodating your silly responses that don't jive with the discussion....not to say your inattention or laziness in reading. For someone asking for help for a quick guide to a post, you're being rather rude! For that rudeness, you're on your own. Grab the braincells you can find...after all you're the one begging for enlightenment! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.