Discussion in 'Guidelines & Introductions' started by Sciborg_S_Patel, Sep 26, 2016.
Don't worry, I wouldn't because I've never had one.
Neither have I, but Dr. Michael Shermer had an extraordinary paranormal incident - have you read about it?
Should we interpret that as you would never have one (use of the word "wouldn't" rather than "haven't") seems to suggest that. If so, is that because such dreams are impossible?
Interpret it as a joke.
Ahh, right ... as I usually do. Got it.
Yes, I did, but I don't remember well enough to comment all that he recounted.
You call it whining, but perhaps consider it from our perspective.
The issue wasn't over there being subforums where certain viewpoints where limited. The issue was that we were (and still are apparently) made to feel like pieces of crap that shouldn't even be permitted to participate in those subforums to explore those ideas from that perspective. That we are "stuck on stupid" and too dim to have an opinion worth hearing about how we would interpret things from different perspectives.
It was designed to demean and diminish us. We know this because otherwise it would have been presented without the demeaning language. How could it not be take as insulting?
I also think it is a shame. And unnecessary. Look, I get that there have been times where skeptical points of view have krept into those threads. For my part it's either been when I haven't noticed or when a discussion has gone into skeptic bashing. Or when a newcomer starts a thread in the science section not realizing it should have gone into CD. But it's not the majority of threads. I don't think it is the intention of any of the regs to stop those discussions.
I don't object to clamping down on that and will do my part to be more mindful of it
But there is no reason those kinds of discussions can't go on. And I'd even like to participate in some of them. I think there are some members of this forum who particularly dislike and distrust people who they identify as having certain beliefs. I'm not saying I don't understand why. I do. But it is unfortunate because I think these members foster the divisions between us. But I don't think that does anyone any good. We need to bridge the gap. Not necessarily meaning we all have to agree with one another, but that we need to mutually respect one another. That's accomplished only by bringing us together, not apart.
I know this makes some people roll their eyes, but think about it. This place could really be something special. A true haven for intellectual discourse about these topics which we all share a passion for, regardless of metaphysic.
I'm not saying trust will happen overnight. But it's something to strive for and it will never happen if we keep putting up these artificial barriers.
I agree that "stuck on stupid" was an unfortunate and derogatory term but I think I remember why it was coined. It was to do with the repetition of certain stock explanations for NDEs, etc., usually along the lines of Blackmore and Wiseman. Perhaps that's why Small Dog was not very well received when he (let's face it) arrogantly pursued a similar line of argument. And by arrogantly, I mean that his accusations of the lack of intellectual or professional faculties were directed at the proponents.
Incidentally, I have probably been your biggest critic yet we have had private conversations which ended up with civility. Others have been much more accommodating when it comes to the avenues you prefer to explore. I really don't think that you are generally regarded as dim, if fact I - your big critic - usually defer to your superior education and debating skills.
Well, he's a damn lawyer that's why you should. ;-)
Victor Zammit is a lawyer and he wrote a case for the afterlife based on analyzing evidence from a lawyer's perspective.
Should we also bow to his superior education and debating skills?
Oops, I put an emoticon in via my mobile which didn't appear. I've added one.
In Zammits case no.
It really bugs you to no end what I said about Tallis doesn't it?
How how longer are you going to carry on this Trumpian style assault. It reminds me of high school. He and you prove the adage " real life is just high school with money". Do I follow you around this forum? Be like K9!, if you don't like what I say don't engage.
There are a large number of scientism proselytizers that I have on ignore. However when they post outside of CD, they often manage to drag others into the usual "debates" / regurgitation of talking points that then takes threads off track.
I would welcome the return to strict moderation of the "banned" of seven.
Doesn't it bug me? No, not really.
Actually I think you're a great addition to this forum. You've probably convinced more people to at least question materialism than I ever could.
I'm all ears and eyes waiting to see this world is immaterial. Here's an easy way to do that. You or anyone could demonstrate the world is immaterial. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/a-pk-diy-device.3412/
Actually no PK wouldn't automatically mean the world is immaterial.
Just as nothing you've ever posted is a confirmation of materialism.
Why don't you pick a recent case that is particularly bad in your opinion, and hit the report button. Remember that I don't have the time to read everything on this website, so I do rely on reports.
How do you think you would feel if you did have one?
I would say that was a curious thing. But what I would not do ever, is assume it was precognitive. I would remain in an indeterminate state. One curious thing cannot be conclusive in my point of view. Do you understand?
Are you so sure? Pk is a demonstration that the mind can control reality. You do realize that? It's actually no different than Radin using the double slit. Speaking of evidence, there is a post I made sometime this month. In that post I link to a recently aired current season of the show "Ghost Hunters". In that show the crew caught something interesting. See if you can find it.
Yes, I'm sure.
I, however, would agree that if any Psi phenomenon would give materialism trouble it would likely be PK. But it doesn't prove immaterialism just by existing.
Separate names with a comma.