Where are all the atheists

I for one, would much prefer you and Paul to spell out your views on particular subjects - e.g. NDE's, terminal lucidity, evidence for reincarnation (Stevenson et al), Sheldrake's work, Dean Radin's work, etc - in full - ideally when a suitable context arises.
Why do we have the obligation to spell out our views in full when no one else does?

~~ Paul
 
One of the issues is that some here who don't always do a good job of engaging on a level when encountering alternative viewpoints. Sometimes there is stubbornness in place of dialogue, which can lead others to simply depart for more useful ways of spending time. It isn't simply a matter of sceptic versus proponent, it is sometimes just as much a case of balanced discussion versus stubbornness.


I think the site has a fair share of good members who can hold civil discussions. Compared to others I have been on this one seems ok.
 

Linda has a habit of constantly pretending that the file drawer effect is a problem with psi studies. She stirs the pot, waits a month or so and then stirs it again. After years of watching this I'm really tired of it, so I banished that argument to an obscure thread, much like what was done with Randi's MDC. She calls it "censorship." Some arguments are over and this is one of them. Dredging this topic up again and again amounts to trolling.
 
I've heard Alex say he will debate any known atheist. And indeed, he continues to put that challenge out there.

I've heard him make such comments as well. He's talking about media atheists coming on his show.

I'm not going to dig up posts, but his approach to the forum is very different. You can search for "stuck on stupid" on this and the old forum if you want to get a taste of where he stands here. I used to attempt to engage Alex substantively. He made it clear that he was not interested and I've long given up trying.

It's too bad.

And from the skeptko shows I've seen Alex discuss with atheists, he comes out on top.

The interviews are entertaining to be sure, but most barely scratch the surface of these topics, which can't adequately be canvassed in 30min- 1 hour interviews. They rarely get all that in depth into these topics, and even more rarely treat these topics in a nuanced manner. They are great introductions though and provide a valuable service (to me at least) in this manner.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to Alex for producing the podcast, having introduced me to a vast topic that I had never known much about, and for providing a forum which has given me so much (though I still think it could be so much more!).

I would have really liked to have truly engaging discussions with Alex. Perhaps it still may happen one day.

In any event, the podcast is different than the forum.
 
Linda has a habit of constantly pretending that the file drawer effect is a problem with psi studies. She stirs the pot, waits a month or so and then stirs it again. After years of watching this I'm really tired of it, so I banished that argument to an obscure thread, much like what was done with Randi's MDC. She calls it "censorship." Some arguments are over and this is one of them. Dredging this topic up again and again amounts to trolling.
You do realize that policy is going to require you to banish many topics, right? For example, the idea that evolution is random should be banished. Regarding libertarian free will, the idea that random means not determined should be banished, along with the opposing idea that free will is hidden in randomness. Pretty much every idea about metaphysics should be tossed.

If you're not completely fair about this---which I daresay is impossible---then it does end up being a form of censorship.

~~ Paul
 
I've heard him make such comments as well. He's talking about media atheists coming on his show.

I'm not going to dig up posts, but his approach to the forum is very different. You can search for "stuck on stupid" on this and the old forum if you want to get a taste of where he stands here. I used to attempt to engage Alex substantively. He made it clear that he was not interested and I've long given up trying.

It's too bad.



The interviews are entertaining to be sure, but most barely scratch the surface of these topics, which can't adequately be canvassed in 30min- 1 hour interviews. They rarely get all that in depth into these topics, and even more rarely treat these topics in a nuanced manner. They are great introductions though and provide a valuable service (to me at least) in this manner.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to Alex for producing the podcast, having introduced me to a vast topic that I had never known much about, and for providing a forum which has given me so much (though I still think it could be so much more!).

I would have really liked to have truly engaging discussions with Alex. Perhaps it still may happen one day.

In any event, the podcast is different than the forum.


Maybe you are not known enough. But I think an hour is enough to get a lot said.

Sorry at work can't respond fully
 
Linda has a habit of constantly pretending that the file drawer effect is a problem with psi studies. She stirs the pot, waits a month or so and then stirs it again. After years of watching this I'm really tired of it, so I banished that argument to an obscure thread, much like what was done with Randi's MDC. She calls it "censorship." Some arguments are over and this is one of them. Dredging this topic up again and again amounts to trolling.

That wasn't the file drawer issue Craig.

I tried to explain to you the difference between the two basic types of selection bias, but with all due respect, you refused to read what I wrote and declared that you would consider them to be identical because it was simpler for you.

I can't force you to take a closer look at these issues. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in doing so. There are others who do, however. At least permit all topics to be discussed in the CD forum where the only rule should be to enforce civil behaviour from all participants.
 
Maybe you are not known enough. But I think an hour is enough to get a lot said.

Sorry at work can't respond fully

Hope I didn't convey the impression that I wished to be interviewed on the podcast! I don't!

I was talking about engaging Alex on the forum! I'm not going to dig up old posts, if you're interested you can search on the old forum for my and Alex's previous discussions. There are a number of them.
 
Hope I didn't convey the impression that I wished to be interviewed on the podcast! I don't!

I was talking about engaging Alex on the forum! I'm not going to dig up old posts, if you're interested you can search on the old forum for my and Alex's previous discussions. There are a number of them.

I did understand what you meant, but my point was tha maybe Alex only wants to debate known atheists, rather than on the forum. Don't get me wrong, your arguments may be valid, but Alex probably wants to debate on a much larger scale.

also I've noticed he is a good talker and maybe can't express it through a key board as well.
 
I can't force you to take a closer look at these issues. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in doing so. There are others who do, however.

Coming from a guy who not once, but twice agreed to have a discussion about a seminal book in parapsychology and both times, made it perfectly clear he would not follow through on his agreement. A guy who has not apparently visited a valid medium and repeatedly on these forums has demonstrated a sketchy and denigrating knowledge of psychical research. Who repeatedly relies on Skeptic talking points rather than his own, or CSI's valid scientific research into the phenomena discussed.

Funny.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Linda has a habit of constantly pretending that the file drawer effect is a problem with psi studies. She stirs the pot, waits a month or so and then stirs it again. After years of watching this I'm really tired of it, so I banished that argument to an obscure thread, much like what was done with Randi's MDC. She calls it "censorship." Some arguments are over and this is one of them. Dredging this topic up again and again amounts to trolling.
Yes I think there comes a point where what is being engaged here can be summed up as trolling by remarkably arrogant, unethical Skeptics. They should be relegated to one forum and there should be signs all over the place for new users: HERE BE SKEPTIC TROLLS. Post at your own risk. And warning: don't leave surprised by the outcome.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
I did understand what you meant, but my point was tha maybe Alex only wants to debate known atheists, rather than on the forum. Don't get me wrong, your arguments may be valid, but Alex probably wants to debate on a much larger scale.

Honestly, its probably not worth rehashing old arguments between Alex and I. Our discussions are presumably still there on the old forum. Unless you think something positive will come out of it, I'm not terribly inclined to go look them up. As I said, I'm no longer attempting to engage him. I just want to have good discussions on the forum.
 
That wasn't the file drawer issue Craig.

I tried to explain to you the difference between the two basic types of selection bias, but with all due respect, you refused to read what I wrote and declared that you would consider them to be identical because it was simpler for you.

I can't force you to take a closer look at these issues. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in doing so. There are others who do, however. At least permit all topics to be discussed in the CD forum where the only rule should be to enforce civil behaviour from all participants.

No, I am not going to parse. That's your specialty and by all means, have at it. Just find something new to parse.
 
Honestly, its probably not worth rehashing old arguments between Alex and I. Our discussions are presumably still there on the old forum. Unless you think something positive will come out of it, I'm not terribly inclined to go look them up. As I said, I'm no longer attempting to engage him. I just want to have good discussions on the forum.
Honesty? What does a Skeptic know about honesty? Arouet spews out his dishonest nonsense, and once he reaches a certain point, refuses to acknowledge valid responses. Same MO of Michael Shermer with Sheldrake.

The same Skeptic stink and same odorous lack of intellectual integrity.

My Best,
Bertha
 
You do realize that policy is going to require you to banish many topics, right? For example, the idea that evolution is random should be banished. Regarding libertarian free will, the idea that random means not determined should be banished, along with the opposing idea that free will is hidden in randomness. Pretty much every idea about metaphysics should be tossed.

If you're not completely fair about this---which I daresay is impossible---then it does end up being a form of censorship.

~~ Paul
Clearly the difference is that the file drawer effect is based on a hypothetical number of experiments sitting in drawers - which is as long as a piece of string! Yes, we can use funnel plots, but that only works if there are a large number of similar studies. The funnel plot also has potential problems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnel_plot#Criticism

David
 
I think the site has a fair share of good members who can hold civil discussions. Compared to others I have been on this one seems ok.
I'm sure that relatively speaking is is reasonably ok, for the most part. However, my comments were not specifically regarding any particular faction, more with regard to the fact that maintaining civility is no guarantee of a fair debate.
 
Discussion directed at looking at whether proponent claims are valid is called "Stuck on Stupid" and is stopped by suspending or banning members engaged in the discussion and/or deleting posts which engage with the research in detail. Alternatively, this information is ghettoed by confining it to certain parts of the forum or even confining it to specific threads.

Craig offers a good example. No one is supposed to question the claim that parapsychology research is high quality and is not subject to any sort of selective reporting. So when the subject comes up, he dismisses the possibility using ad hominens and then insists that the research documenting that the claim is false be kept out of any threads in which the subject comes up.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/we-share-our-grief-with-animals.2296/page-3#post-69090
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...orting-file-drawer-effect-comments-here.2304/

Linda
 
Discussion directed at looking at whether proponent claims are valid is called "Stuck on Stupid" and is stopped by suspending or banning members engaged in the discussion and/or deleting posts which engage with the research in detail. Alternatively, this information is ghettoed by confining it to certain parts of the forum or even confining it to specific threads.

Craig offers a good example. No one is supposed to question the claim that parapsychology research is high quality and is not subject to any sort of selective reporting. So when the subject comes up, he dismisses the possibility using ad hominens and then insists that the research documenting that the claim is false be kept out of any threads in which the subject comes up.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/we-share-our-grief-with-animals.2296/page-3#post-69090
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...orting-file-drawer-effect-comments-here.2304/

Linda


So you are saying that anyone who is able to negate the arguments of the paranormal end up being banned and the threads get deleted.


that's pretty audacious claim.
 
So you are saying that anyone who is able to negate the arguments of the paranormal end up being banned and the threads get deleted.

That's the worst end of the range. Some are banned. Some posts are deleted (rarely threads). Some are suspended for varying periods. Basically people are told to stop discussing specific topics or they will suffer those consequences. And we do.

So, no surprise that you don't see as much critical discussion as you expected.

Linda
 
Discussion directed at looking at whether proponent claims are valid is called "Stuck on Stupid" and is stopped by suspending or banning members engaged in the discussion and/or deleting posts which engage with the research in detail. Alternatively, this information is ghettoed by confining it to certain parts of the forum or even confining it to specific threads.

Craig offers a good example. No one is supposed to question the claim that parapsychology research is high quality and is not subject to any sort of selective reporting. So when the subject comes up, he dismisses the possibility using ad hominens and then insists that the research documenting that the claim is false be kept out of any threads in which the subject comes up.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/we-share-our-grief-with-animals.2296/page-3#post-69090
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...orting-file-drawer-effect-comments-here.2304/

Linda
Dear God, the researchers themselves have gone to great lengths to demonstrate why selective reporting is not a problem. It's not that there are no unpublished studies at all, it's that in the sphere of parapsychology:
1. Everyone knows what everyone else is up to
2. Funding is so scarce that a bunch of unpublished studies is unlikely
3. It would take a large number of unpublished studies, all showing null results to have any effect and this would mean that researchers, -people who were known in parapsychology- would be working steadily for years on studies that were never published. That's a ridiculous supposition.
4. When unpublished studies have been found they did not hide a string of null results but rather showed a range of results, some of which were positive, meaning that non reporting isn't necessarily selective reporting.

Now we've been over this God knows how many times and Linda continually fails to acknowledge these points. She's doing her own form of selective reporting. That's not skepticism, that's propaganda.
 
Back
Top