Palumbo believes in psychics!!!! Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

[ElSpiko]

"Unweaving the Rainbow" would be helpful for a lot of the posters here too so they could understand why what they have 'seen' and experienced is in no way infallible, or even half-way reliable.

[SonOfPluto]

No there isn't! There is no evidence whatsoever of any afterlife, and there cannot even be anecdotal evidence of this because dead people cannot 'sense' anything because our senses are a physiological process that ceases when all other physiological functions cease. Plus thought is well documented to be only a function of brain chemistry.

Once again, I disagree with you on all points.

[SonOfPluto]

How was Mentzer erroneous? You have not shown that a logical understanding of the universe is a false one in any way shape or form, and better and more intelligent men and women than you have certainly been trying for centuries now.

I watched those Ghosthunters clips, and I saw nothing that indicates the supernatural in any way. There is nothing in any of those that shows any evidence of anything but natural phenomena. There are lots of blurry images that are just pattern recognition, evidence of nothing but false-positives and great examples of how this bullshit gets started. They see the supernatural because that is what they want to see. None of this evidence can meet the skeptics' challenge. Again, the issue here is that you are all going to 'magic' as the default because you want to believe that is the answer, when really what you're seeing is a lot of shoddy untestable 'evidence' and hyperbole about what it indicates. Once again, you're all relying on anecdotal evidence to argue against tested, well documented evidence on the nature of the universe and how it operates. The probability that any of that phenomena is 'supernatural' is astronomically higher than the probability that the retards in that show and everyone believing it are just misinterpreting the data. You'll even hear them sometimes suggest the most probable, logical answer, and yet then they'll say "Well it can't be that, it must be ghosts!" as if that is somehow the more logical and likely answer, that the universe just showed that everything we have ever come to understand through observational, testable data just got thrown out the window. Those people are paid to be delusional morons for the entertainment and validation of other delusional morons (their viewers).

As for 'What the bleep do we know' that movie was a crock of shit. Entertaining, yes, but complete and utter bullshit as even the most basic of research into the concepts presented in it will show you. Once again, just because we do not have a complete understanding of something does not mean that anything goes; and in the case of quantum physics specifically, one of the reasons we are researching a unified theory is because quantum mechanics only applies to the micro and newtonian/einsteinian physics to the macro. The moment anyone starts throwing around the word 'quantum' to explain phenomena in the macro world that's a very good sign that they probably have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

[quote=ElSpiko;133029]How was Mentzer erroneous? You have not shown that a logical understanding of the universe is a false one in any way shape or form, and better and more intelligent men and women than you have certainly been trying for centuries now.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that I have limitations.

I watched those Ghosthunters clips, and I saw nothing that indicates the supernatural in any way. There is nothing in any of those that shows any evidence of anything but natural phenomena. There are lots of blurry images that are just pattern recognition, evidence of nothing but false-positives and great examples of how this bullshit gets started. They see the supernatural because that is what they want to see. None of this evidence can meet the skeptics' challenge. Again, the issue here is that you are all going to 'magic' as the default because you want to believe that is the answer, when really what you're seeing is a lot of shoddy untestable 'evidence' and hyperbole about what it indicates. Once again, you're all relying on anecdotal evidence to argue against tested, well documented evidence on the nature of the universe and how it operates. The probability that any of that phenomena is 'supernatural' is astronomically higher than the probability that the retards in that show and everyone believing it are just misinterpreting the data. You'll even hear them sometimes suggest the most probable, logical answer, and yet then they'll say "Well it can't be that, it must be ghosts!" as if that is somehow the more logical and likely answer, that the universe just showed that everything we have ever come to understand through observational, testable data just got thrown out the window. Those people are paid to be delusional morons for the entertainment and validation of other delusional morons (their viewers).

You cannot prove that the evidence they caught is not supernatural. Your statement is based on your individual interpretation of what is logical. Needless to say, there are many out there that would disagree with respect to Ghosthunters. Also, what is this fascination you have in associating the supernatural with 'magic'? Magic is a misrepresentation of reality. The supernatural isn't because of all the evidence that exists supporting it. Your assertion that this evidence is not valid is not shared by most that study the field. Sorry, I have no reason to place your beliefs on the topic ahead of the hundreds of experts that exist today

Those people are paid to be delusional morons for the entertainment and validation of other delusional morons (their viewers).

Now you're resorting to name calling, which surprises me because I thought you were above that. You have no evidence that they are paid for the express purpose of being delusional morons, its merely speculation on your part.

Hopefully, one of these days you'll step 'outside the box' and realize that "science" and "logic" are not infallible. They are concepts that operate within the boundaries and limitations that man assigns to them. You haven't proven anything to me that refutes the fact that supernatural phenomena exists. I do admire your confidence though in the validity of your assertions, you actually believe that you're right on all this!

I'm out of here, have a good night.

[Skeptic]

Physics are frauds.

Yes they are. And thank you for reminding us what the point of the thread is.

Full props to Dave for staying the hell oot of this thread that has spun sooooo far into the void.

[Curt James]

Physics are frauds.

And what's your opinion on psychics?

[bean44]

We didn't land on the moon!

O.J. is innocent, and the Bush administration knocked down the world trade center.

[jim]

I don't see anything wrong with being wary and skeptical, but I disagree that there is no room to study ghostly phenomena. If indeed there is a physical causation for this, then it would never be discovered and understood if avoided all together. I think you should exercise caution when making assumptions regarding brain function because this is something that is still not fully understood. Also, the 'thought' process cannot be fully attributed to merely the brain. if this were so, then people would cease to think after their physical bodies die, but there is a lot of ancedontal evidence to suggest that thought continues to occur long into the afterlife.

there is no evidence of an afterlife, and there is no evidence that minds exist outside of a physical instantiation. this is what i do for a living. i think it's a good bet that i'm aware of and understand the issues here better than you. that said, authority always yields to facts. if you have evidence, present it. but making bald assertions won't work with me as i know you're wrong and can and have explained why in detail.

[Luka Treska]

there is no evidence of an afterlife, and there is no evidence that minds exist outside of a physical instantiation. this is what i do for a living. i think it's a good bet that i'm aware of and understand the issues here better than you. that said, authority always yields to facts. if you have evidence, present it. but making bald assertions won't work with me as i know you're wrong and can and have explained why in detail.

HEY...it doesn't matter that you are more qualified on this topic than the people arguing against you, they have something that you don't: Personal Experience.

Honestly I feel exhausted reading this thread. People that blatantly and openly refuse to operate using logic and reason and scientific FACTS are either too stupid to argue with or simply want to piss off the person they're arguing with by acting dumb.

[jim]

In the movie "what the bleep do we know", the man who introduced Quantum physics to the scientific world defines it as the law of possibilities. Simply stated, Quantum physics does not rule anything out, and this would include things we clearly do not understand, such as supernatural phenomena and the existence of life in other parts of the Universe. Another thing that is said is that 'a grain of sand contains a thousand universes'. Suggesting that there is are multitudes of life existence that reaches far beyond our own. Its another thing that is simply not understood by science yet.

really? neils bohr was in that movie? or do you mean eistein? heisenberg? maybe you mean planck? born? schrodinger? pauli? jordan? dirac? oh, wait, probably not since all those guys are dead.
i don't know who you're talking about, and it doesn't matter, because it most certainly was not the person who "introduced Quantum physics to the scientific world," and it isn't a law of anything (though it has lots of laws in it), and it isn't about possibility. you don't know what you're talking about.
do a google search on that movie. it's garbage, and it was said to be such by a host of scientists, science writers, and scientific organizations, including david albert, a physicist who appeared in the movie but says that it was edited to attribute a position to him which he does not hold. from a salon.com interview

"I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing," he said in a statement reposted by a critic on "What the Bleep's" Internet forum, "but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed."

this is a guy that was in the movie, which, by the way, was made by three members of "ramtha's school of enlightenment," which is often thought of as a cult. it was not made by scientists.

and saying "a grain of sand contains a thousand universes" is so absurd that only someone who doesn't understand the concept of "universe" could say it. that's not me being mean; that's just a fact.

[jim]

HEY...it doesn't matter that you are more qualified on this topic than the people arguing against you, they have something that you don't: Personal Experience.

Honestly I feel exhausted reading this thread. People that blatantly and openly refuse to operate using logic and reason and scientific FACTS are either too stupid to argue with or simply want to piss off the person they're arguing with by acting dumb.

it's really weird when you're talking to someone, and you provide an explanation for your position, and their response is simply "uh-uh. you're wrong." you ask, "how so?" and their last word is "i just know it." how is that a legitimate response at all? and the attacks on evidence and facts are just weird, man. it's just weird. no one would use this kind of argument on anything else. "toilet paper is good for building bridges." "what? no it isn't! it would fall apart!" "no way. it's great." "no, and here are the reasons...." "you're wrong. you're just close-minded." that's a conversation you'll never see, but it's perfectly analogous to the one here. just weird.

[jim]

Magic is a misrepresentation of reality. The supernatural isn't because of all the evidence that exists supporting it. Your assertion that this evidence is not valid is not shared by most that study the field. Sorry, I have no reason to place your beliefs on the topic ahead of the hundreds of experts that exist today

what evidence?! what "experts"?! quote something, man. give some names. you just keep saying stuff and never backing it up. that's why people get so frustrated with you. you want people to stop calling you a delusional moron? stop acting like one! provide the damn evidence! let's see the research you think is out there.
christ, you're infuriating. you make all these bald assertions about all this evidence, but you never produce it. since there are hundreds of "experts" who say there is a supernatural, give us names of these trained ph.d.s who say the things you're saying.

Hopefully, one of these days you'll step 'outside the box' and realize that "science" and "logic" are not infallible.

and stop using this same straw man! no one is making the claim that science is infallible. NO ONE! you using the same straw man over and over won't change that. and we're using rational methods of inquiry because that's all that is available to us. once reason is let go, anything goes. you ask a question, and i respond "cheese tastes blue." you ask what i mean, and i write "blargh!" and those are legitimate if i don't need to be rational. once you let reason go, you let everything go. and you know this! otherwise you wouldn't be talking about evidence, experience, and experts. you yourself are trying to be rational in your discourse. it's just that when you start to lose you fall back into saying that we don't need to be rational. but you're wrong. you're just wrong. again, if you don't want to be treated like a delusional moron, then stop acting like one. seriously, i mean that with no venom. i would tell you the same thing if you were my brother. you're acting like a fool, and that's why you're being treated as such. just stop.

[Luka Treska]

it's really weird when you're talking to someone, and you provide an explanation for your position, and their response is simply "uh-uh. you're wrong." you ask, "how so?" and their last word is "i just know it." how is that a legitimate response at all? and the attacks on evidence and facts are just weird, man. it's just weird. no one would use this kind of argument on anything else. "toilet paper is good for building bridges." "what? no it isn't! it would fall apart!" "no way. it's great." "no, and here are the reasons...." "you're wrong. you're just close-minded." that's a conversation you'll never see, but it's perfectly analogous to the one here. just weird.

I know what you mean, it really is surreal. I almost feel like I'm saying "yes of course the earth is round, we know this for a fact, we have documented evidence for hundreds of years" and they simply reply "Well that's your opinion, I think you're wrong". What they don't understand is that it isn't our opinion, it's irrefutable fact. I couldn't care less if the earth is flat or round, it just is regardless of my feelings on it.

Most people arguing against us simply haven't grasped the very basic preliminary rules of understanding and applying science.

[BananaHammock]

Seems like alot of people here need to read Richard Dawkins' book called "The God Delusion".

I have and was not impressed. My I suggest reading the Dawkins' Delusion by Alister McGrath. Here is a review of The God Delusion.


Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.

The rest of the article is here http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/...rapr/1.21.html

[Wheels]

I don't see anything wrong with being wary and skeptical, but I disagree that there is no room to study ghostly phenomena. If indeed there is a physical causation for this, then it would never be discovered and understood if avoided all together. I think you should exercise caution when making assumptions regarding brain function because this is something that is still not fully understood. Also, the 'thought' process cannot be fully attributed to merely the brain. if this were so, then people would cease to think after their physical bodies die, but there is a lot of ancedontal evidence to suggest that thought continues to occur long into the afterlife.

No there isn't! There is no evidence whatsoever of any afterlife, and there cannot even be anecdotal evidence of this because dead people cannot 'sense' anything because our senses are a physiological process that ceases when all other physiological functions cease. Plus thought is well documented to be only a function of brain chemistry.

Once again, I disagree with you on all points.

Your reasoning for disagreement is, exactly, what ? It is impossible for there to be any anecdotal evidence of an afterlife by the word's own definition. How can one debate with you when you're throwing out assertions like these ? Time and again, you have been offered plausible reason throughout this discourse and time and again you refute it with no logical reasoning or evidence on your part. Instead you resort to something you've 'experienced' or watched on the SciFi channel; An ENTERTAINMENT oriented show aimed at securing viewership of people like you. Your frame of mind is already extremely impressionable, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

It is truly astounding to see the lengths at which people will go to to justify their beliefs. Hell, Hitler justified the genocide of Jews and other minorities to an entire country of people, I suppose anything can be done.

[lomox]

Actually, I did'nt finish reading your post. I've read some others, and there was really no point in reading the whole thing. What you say is right and logical. What everyone else may have experienced can easily be explained by you so there really is no reason to continue. You have all the answers to all of the questions. You must have a great imagination. How do you enjoy a movie without explaining why there is no way, for instance, a guy can turn into a big green monster and smash things. All of your science is not going to change what happened right here in my living room. No matter how you explain it, my DAD WAS DEAD BEFORE MY SON WAS BORN. HOW DID HE KNOW WHO HE WAS? You can't explain it, its something you believe or you don't. Because you don't, don't think big science brain waves poo poo platters are going to change what others believe.

So the possibility that your son overheard you discussing your father is beyond the realm of possibility? Chlidren are sponges and speaking from experience, tend to regurggitate information at the LEAST opportune times! But thats just one possibility.

That last statement about "change what others believe" is EXACTLY the problem with belief. People put so much fatih and stick to thier beliefs so strongly because they KNOW they are right. They KNOW what they saw, felt, smelled, heard, etc. Coming from an evangelical family I can't tell you how many religious discussions boiled down to "I felt the holy spirit fill me, thats how I know it's all true." THAT my firend is being closed-minded. But people need it. People need the comfort they gain from it. It's much harder to go through life not-knowing, than it is believing in something until something comes along to disproove it. That is NOT open-mindedness. It's wishful thinking. There is no such thing as personal truth. there is only truth. If a colorblind person sees a stop sign as grey they are wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

In the US legal system (ideally) you are innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to explaining the world around us "Prove me wrong" is not allowed. You must show it to be true. Not th eother way around.