Personal experience no doubt. TMI.
Well, yeah. Every middle finger I’ve ever seen is no bigger than a finger.
Where’s your mind?
My middle finger is so big I have to buy two gloves.
See !! These posts are more interesting than anything either Bibleman or Badchad has posted. Although without their participation we might not have gotten here.
Is it our individual make up and just a matter of timing that causes some experiences to resonate more than others? Is it the same thing that causes our beliefs to change, some from atheist to believer, believer to atheist, or many of the other possible changes?
Looking at my own background I can see emotional motivations for reacting as I did to certain experiences. It’s also easy to recognize emotional attachments in others belief systems. The social aspect of organized religion is very powerful.
As I’ve gotten older and had other experiences I’ve come to believe that it is about recognizing and surrendering our attachments and being as true to ourselves as we can be.
The amazing thing about that is the journey. Being true to myself as the young man who first joined the church asked different things of me than being true to myself now does. Yet in the sense of being true, they were the same or an extremely similar act. I think the same can be said for an atheist or believer. If that person is sincerely being true to themselves, which requires having the courage to examine our own hearts and minds honestly, then a believer and an atheist can be committing the same act of being true while holding vastly different belief systems.
I made a photocopy of the original Nature article on Geller, but it would take some time to locate. The 1974 article sounds about the right time period. Any large university library should have past Nature issues on file, that’s where I found mine. Regarding the stuff on J.B. Rhine, I don’t know what Journals he was published in, or if he was, but I did skim a book of his several years back, I think this one…
…in which he summarized a lot of his tests and findings. You can search more of his works and reprints under his name at amazon.com.
“Project Alpah” is fairly famous as well in which Steve Banachek (at the time Steve Shaw) and an associate fooled several scientists under laboratory conditions, which helped to make his career as a mentalist. Information on that is can be found here:
Also SDMB board member ianzin is largely regarded as an authority on the psychic phenomena and would likely back up whatever I said with better detail if someone cares to get his attention.
If your skeptic friends say that no “psychic” as demonstrated abilities in a laboratory condition then they are wrong, as cited above. I’m not saying there has been any breakthrough research in the area, I’m just saying that psychics have fooled a lot of researchers, and some researchers being poor at statistics have fooled themselves. Magicians are now generally kept on the payroll for such studies as Voyager said.
For what it’s worth I think I can bend silverware a lot better than Geller.
Reminds me of Tomndebb.
Well J.B. Rhine is now dead, but he did do lots research on E.S.P. out of Duke University so I’m not sure what your getting at. Perhaps you would love for me to be wrong so bad that you will actually pretend as much. Anyway here’s a cite.
Hey that’s pretty good Contrapuntal you quoted me in such a way as you were totally able change the meaning of my statement. I’m not at all arguing that there is lots of evidence in favor of psychic powers, only that J.B. Rhine found what he thought was evidence of such under laboratory conditions and anyone read Miller who claims that every time a psychic has been tested in a laboratory said psychic has failed the test, is wrong. As are Miller’s claims that he can prove psychic powers do not exist any more definitively than one can prove a generic god does not exist.
Well, lets not forget that you were arguing, or at least seconding Bryon’s argument, that it’s ok for people to criticize beliefs in psychic power but it’s not ok for me to criticize religious beliefs. Now that we have equated the two (or after you have given the idea enough thought to equate the two yourself) my questions for you is; will you decide to agree it is ok to criticize religion (and ok for me to attack Polycarp) or will you take back you endorsement of criticizing psychic powers (and proclaim it’s not ok for others to attack Geller)?
You can take any perspective you want but I am without a doubt challenging Tomndebb on his hypocrisy and pussyness.
This is what people always fail to realize regardless of how many times I explain it. I am attacking irrationality, superstition and the concept that belief in things without reason (i.e. because of faith) is stupid, prone to error, and a habit that is dangerous. This board has plenty of people who will criticize fundamentalists but in it’s fight of ignorance gives “nominal” Christians a pass. However nominal Christians in spite of what biblical teachings they deny still hold superstitious and irrational beliefs and maintain that faith is a virtue. Faith is flame in which most, if not all, hateful acts by fundamentalists are justified, and as such, even if nominal Christians are in the majority and otherwise act reasonably, they still give strength to the fundamentalists by saying faith is good. Get it?
That’s the idea.
It has to get personal. Nominal Christians all claim their beliefs as somewhat unique and as such the more personal the inquiries the more effective my criticism.
Can’t win? With regards to [Polycarp** I have essentially silenced him on religious matters. I count that a win. With Tom I’m winning by a mile. If he though his beliefs were at all supportable, he’d do so.
So in this we have another bit of common ground to share. However, where were you when I used to challenge Polycarp when he expressed his opinions as facts? Could it be that you only challenge Bible man when his opinions stated as facts disagree with yours, and gave Polycarp a pass because his opinions stated as facts agreed with yours?
Given the tone that you respond to me I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t take much pleasure in destroying any argument I would make. Assuming you thought you could, of course.
I’m pretending to have a life? Please support that.
I’ll keep that in mind so the next time you tell me to cease and assist going off topic in a thread, I’ll be sure to tell you where to go and how to get there.
I’m sorry if you made claims you can’t support and there have been questions you couldn’t answer. I’ll keep a running tab. I’ll add Voyager’s question that you chose not to answer as well.
**So you admit you are incorrect in saying I coyly hide my beliefs? Also it seems you think having no “system of Belief” is a bad thing. Why?
I should believe in things I don’t have evidence for? Wouldn’t that be kind of dumb?
Also I asked you to back up your assertion that my stance on free will is just a word game.
I’m taking your silence on the resurrection vs. 6 day, young earth creation as your admission I’m correct that you have no more reason to believe in one vs. the other.**
And Voyager’s question as promised.
But, given that his [Bible man’s] belief is in source material, how is that any different from your belief in the NT over the Koran, say?
Polycarp has always expressed his beliefs as beliefs, even when he expressed them as “true.” He has never posted a misstatement of science or history as “fact” in any thread I have read.
(There may have been some thread in which he misstated some science or history, but if so, it was in some sort of conflict with you that, not being a Mod at the time, I was not compelled to read, since I generally skipped over your tiresome little “gotcha” games when I was not compelled to read them.)
If you venture to make stupid statements about factual matters, I will point out your errors as I have in the past. Since you generally stick to matters of opinion, you will not lure me into a silly debate by this sort of remark.
As long as your stupid statements stay in the realm of opinions and belief, I will simply laugh at your tiny fist waving. You have provided no reason for me to change my posting behavior and I can’t imagine that your petulant attempts will do so in the future.
Yeah? Well ,you’re a nerd, scooby-doo lovin’, 7-11 goin’, wanna be outa’ yo parents basement mo.
When come back, bring some mental sophistication.
You’d have to ask Polycarp about that, though unless you can be bothered to keep a civil tongue in your head I can well understand why he’d choose not to dignify you with an answer. But why do you suppose that “{not} working all that hard to find another {job}” would be incompatible with a decision to choose to trust God for the day-to-day material needs?
Well, but there’s a question-begging epithet in there, badchad. I appreciate what you’re saying and it’s possible for a coming-and-going argument to be logically valid: “If A then B. If A then ~B. Therefore ~A.” But I don’t consider a lifestyle of Christian poverty to be ridiculous, though I certainly don’t feel called to follow it myself at the present time. And while you might talk of Christ as a man who teaches ridiculous things, directly you concede the possibility that he might be God made man you are obliged to accept that your perception of what is ridiculous might be the wrong one.
What’s this “if Jesus did teach this”, badchad? Priming another of your gotcha bombs? I know the verse: Mark 16:18 (not in the most ancient manuscripts, apparently). But I also know that I am not to put God to the test, as per Matthew 4:6-7. And after a little research, it seems that even snake handlers approach this with a little circumspection. So I think I’d consider them slightly “nuts” for making such a big thing out of one tiny piece of Scripture, itself of possibly dubious provenance, rather than the actual snake handling itself.
Whoop-di-doo. John 11:39 attests that people in Jesus’s time knew very well that a person four days in the tomb was a stinking, mouldering mass of corruption. The ancients were well aware that iron axe-heads don’t float on water even if Archimedes hadn’t got around to running down the street calling for a towel, and that water doesn’t suddenly turn into wine, and that sacrificial pyres don’t burst into flame just because you tell them to. Your attitude of “Our credulous forebears may well have believed this, but our enlightened 21[sup]st[/sup]-century science proves that these occurrences were impossible” is absurd, for were you able to put it to those same forebears they might, were they suitable forebearing, very well say “Thank you, we knew they were impossible; that’s why we call them miracles”.
For a little less anger and bitterness in your heart, badchad. What should I wish for other than that you should be received into the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ? But I admit, generally I have enough to do with remembering to care for my own spiritual welfare and the bodily well-being of others.
My god. Badchad is actually taking the Targ and Puthoff article on Uri Gellar as ‘good science’? I am somewhere between startled and beyond startled. The one published with a disclaimer? Dude, that’s so wrong, it’s not even right.
Oh, and
As long as I am not acting as a Moderator and you “tell me” without hurling personal insults, you are quite free to do so. (You did so in the thread over which you are whining, for that matter, without suffering any repercussions.)
And I initially missed this, since it was not addressed to me:
This would appear to support my impression that you are merely trolling, since your motive seems to be performing your little act for the sole purpose of counting “wins” even over posters with whom you have not actually debated.
You clearly have not silenced me, as I continue to post in exactly the same manner and with the same frequency that I would have posted had you not chosen to shit on our neighborhood forum.
And, in the unlikely case that you are not trolling, consider:
I am getting at exactly what I stated, that Duke disassociated itself from the Rhine Instirtute in no small part because of concerns about his methodology. To state that he is (or was) “out of Duke University” is, at best, misleading, but, more likely, simply dishonest. Thanks for the cite, by thway. Let me quote from it here, with emphasis.
I quoted your entire paragraph in context. You did not say that Rhine found “what he **thought **was evidence,” You said that he “found a lot of evidence.” You are the one changing your words, not me. Where is the evidence that you say he found? Show it to us.
badchad is winning the internet! He triumphs! Reminds me of Scott Plaid.
Not that my belief here means anything, but I can’t see how that’s trolling. He’s not pretending to hold a position, he’s not holding a position with the point of pissing people off, he’s not arguing out of ignorance simply because he’d like a fight. He’s got a goal of arguing a single subject into the ground, against all comers. He may be a one trick pony, and he may argue like a jerk some of the time, but I can’t see how he’s trolling.
Now… someone like Bible Man, who -does- argue things he knows nothing about, in order to stir shit up and piss people off… who pretends to want to debate but really engages solely to misrepresent facts and cop a superiority trip… and who, much more likely than not, by his own admission is a schizophrenic who hears voices telling him religious messages. That sure as heck seems like someone who is, at best, trolling. And at worst, is a lunatic taking up bandwidth.
And, yes, I am a fool for responding to a troll. My apologies.
Doesn’t matter, Finn Again. Tom’s on a mission here, to respond to badchad non-responsively and then claim that by his avoiding debate with badchad in a thoroughly chickenshit manner, badchad can’t plausibly claim to have defeated him. Makes no sense, but Tom’s supporters will keep pouring on the applause for anything he says short of “A troll is anything I say it is, and I am the Lord your Mod.”
I like this so much, I’m applauding with one hand.
What are the criteria for choosing a Winner?
If we get to vote, I know who will win!
I don’t know if it qualifies as trolling, but it appears to me that badchad’s only motive for posting here is to piss people off.
On SDMB, it is traditional that losers declare themselves winners.
I’m not sure I can agree. In my mind’s eye, it seems that his only motive is to rant and/or rave against religion. He does it via methods that are often hostile, and much of the time ends up pissing people off. Which is why I might (possibly) agree that his behavior is jerkish, but I don’t see it as trollish.
I’m wary of ascribing malice to his style, if only because I know that almost any discussion over religion will end up having people go berserk.
Pointing out that, for instance, that there’s no more reason to believe in the Abrahamic God over, say, Zeus? And that past civilizations have believed in things varying from pixies to spirits and used them to explain reality, but that we don’t credit them as viable these days? Well… it can and often does lead to some-but-not-all religious folks having total meltdowns.
It seems that some of the best arguments about the certainty (or lack thereof) of supernatural belief will, almost without fail, wind up making some people froth at the mouth and go straight into attack mode. I’m wary about outlawing any of those tactics simply because some folks will go crazy when they’re used.
Then again, my opinion counts for nothing in modly circles.