Palumbo believes in psychics!!!! Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

[jim]

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

mcgrath is not a respected philosopher. he is a Christian apologist. as such, his opinions on philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt.
i went to a debate between mcgrath and dan dennett, who is a respected philosopher, at a baptist seminary. there was a significant consensus after the debate that mcgrath did quite a poor job of arguing against dennett, and this was quite surprising given the venue. and i don't just mean by those who came in support of dennett (or atheism, evolution, or whatever). it was quite clear that many Christians in the audience were quite displeased with mcgrath's defense of his position as well as his weak attempts to score points against dennett.
of particular interest is that mcgrath slandered dawkins at the beginning of the debate, and dennett, who is a friend of dawkins, decided to forgo a portion of his planned presentation to present dawkins' position and defend it from mcgrath's attacks.
i have not read dawkins' God Delusion, but i have read most of mcgrath's response, and i'll say i agree with dennett that it is quite poor.
if you would like to start another thread about this in the appropriate sub-forum, i'd be happy to have that discussion. just quote what you consider to be the relevant portion, and i'll respond.

[BananaHammock]

mcgrath is not a respected philosopher. he is a Christian apologist. as such, his opinions on philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt.
i went to a debate between mcgrath and dan dennett, who is a respected philosopher, at a baptist seminary. there was a significant consensus after the debate that mcgrath did quite a poor job of arguing against dennett, and this was quite surprising given the venue. and i don't just mean by those who came in support of dennett (or atheism, evolution, or whatever). it was quite clear that many Christians in the audience were quite displeased with mcgrath's defense of his position as well as his weak attempts to score points against dennett.
of particular interest is that mcgrath slandered dawkins at the beginning of the debate, and dennett, who is a friend of dawkins, decided to forgo a portion of his planned presentation to present dawkins' position and defend it from mcgrath's attacks.
i have not read dawkins' God Delusion, but i have read most of mcgrath's response, and i'll say i agree with dennett that it is quite poor.
if you would like to start another thread about this in the appropriate sub-forum, i'd be happy to have that discussion. just quote what you consider to be the relevant portion, and i'll respond.

Jim
You're right my post was way off topic and I apologize.

Method
I apologize for the tone of my post. I was simply getting a dig in and not trying to have a real conversation. This isn't the pit and I shouldn't have reacted that way.

[ElSpiko]

Once again, I disagree with you on all points.

The difference is, the evidence is on my side. The burden of proof lies with you, and as I pointed out the 'evidence' that supports the supernatural is devoid of value in the marketplace of ideas.

[ElSpiko]

[QUOTE=SonOfPluto;133106]

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.

You are missing the point. I don't need to prove anything; you do. You are the one asserting that the world operates in a way contrary to what massive amounts of bona fide evidence, observation, experimentation and testing has shown it to, so the burden of proof is on you. I have no doubt that science and logic can and has led us to incorrect understandings of things before and will continue to do so, but the only way we know is through a rational examination of those concepts, to test them and to try and disprove them however we can, and to compare those ideas to new observations which have also undergone thorough scrutiny and testing themselves. I call the supernatural magic because that is essentially what it is; it is a belief that the universe does not act in a logical and consistent way, and that anything beyond our immediate understanding defies all understanding. That is the height of arrogance. You in fact explained perfectly why the supernatural and magic are interchangeable in this argument:

Magic is a misrepresentation of reality.

That is exactly what you are doing. You have not presented any evidence yet for any of your ideas, only anecdotal experience and imaginings. The supernatural does not need to be dis-proven, it needs to be proven, and it has not. I call the ghost hunters morons, because they practice and promote a method of non-thinking, and they purport that emotion and desire are more valid than observation and evidence. They make the barest of attempts to dis-prove that their 'sightings' are anything but natural phenomena, and work from the assumption that it is first supernatural, not natural; even the very etymologies of those two words demands that you first assume a natural cause for anything, and only after all natural possibilities, however unlikely, have been exhausted should you then turn to the idea of the supernatural. And I call their viewers morons, because they practice this same method of non-thinking and willful ignorance. What in any way differentiates your beliefs form those who assert that the earth is flat and six thousand years old because of the bible? in both cases you are putting belief and desire before evidence about how the world functions, and by your apparent methodology of thinking their ideas are equally as valid as yours. You choose to be ignorant, so I use a word that describes an ignorant person. You are the one who is choosing a more limited and simplistic understanding of the universe, not I.

[ElSpiko]

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.

Well, to be fair, he had immense help from the German Catholic Church laying out more than a century of anti-semitic groundwork for him.

[Luka Treska]

About Ghost hunters. I personally never watched an entire episode and never been interested in the show simply because I figured if they actually have bona fide evidence for supernatural activity then it would make all the headlines and be the topic of discussion in every area of study among the world's intellectual elite. This of course has not happened.

Moreover, just the fact that it's a SHOW means that they need to A)appeal to an audience, B)entertain the audience and C)PROFIT from the audience. With the version they have now, they do exactly that. If they changed it and showed, episode after episode, that the supposed supernatural occurances are explained by physical, logical, natural incidents then their audience will stop following the series; since it wouldn't validate their own beliefs.

Same reason why more people know about Gregg Valentino than they do of Dexter Jackson. The reason why "The man whose arms exploded" was so popular is because it's illogical and unnatural. This type of rhetoric fascinates the general public because it offers wonder and amazement rather than rational answers.

How boring would the general public find a show following Ronnie around. Monday - cardio, eat, nap, eat, train, eat, take a shit, train, eat, cardio sleep. You can guess what tuesday will look like. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to watch a show about real bodybuilders but the general public would fall asleep watching it so no network will ever do something like it. Just like they won't air a show that explains the "paranormal" with rational, logical and unexciting answers.

[lomox]

How boring would the general public find a show following Ronnie around. Monday - cardio, eat, nap, eat, train, eat, take a shit, train, eat, cardio sleep. You can guess what tuesday will look like. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to watch a show about real bodybuilders but the general public would fall asleep watching it so no network will ever do something like it. Just like they won't air a show that explains the "paranormal" with rational, logical and unexciting answers.

Yet we still cant get enough "In the Trenches" and "Day in the Life" videos!

[Luka Treska]

Yet we still cant get enough "In the Trenches" and "Day in the Life" videos!

I know I love that stuff. I used to wait for the "In the Trenches" videos like a crack head jonesing for a fix. lol

[BigAl33]

but the wmd's and laser beams seem to primarily be used based on greed, hate, and faith.

and while i may sometimes romanticize earlier times, i'm awfully glad that i'm unlikely to die from a hernia now. 150 years ago i would likely be a goner.

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.

You know I'm wrong? Man, can you stop world hunger, or turn back time, or help me with my alcoholoism. Because sir, I can't believe you are even real. I mean, to be able to prove and disprove so much. How do you deal with always being right? I don't think I could handle being you, My mind would explode. I hear we only use about 10% of our brains, you must be at like 95%. Its just amazing how smart you are. Why do you even bother with us "common" folk? Are you an alien?

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.

Of course he could have overheard me talking about my father. May I ask you, when is the last time you called your pop "Papa Angel" when speaking about him?

The US legal system is your argument? Almost as corrupt as politicians... Of course we are not talking about the courts, we are tallking about something totally different, where agendas don't matter. I have nothing to gain by believing what I believe. Someone in a courtroom has everything to gain....or lose. You have a problem with belief? So you believe nothing? Interesting...(strokes chin with thumb and finger)

You guys have the same breakfast everyday, take the same route to work even in the fall and see no beuaty in things do you? "well logically those leaves are changing color because they are dying, and how could something dying be beautiful???"

[Wheels]

Well, to be fair, he had immense help from the German Catholic Church laying out more than a century of anti-semitic groundwork for him.

This is true, good point.

[Luka Treska]

Of course he could have overheard me talking about my father. May I ask you, when is the last time you called your pop "Papa Angel" when speaking about him?

Could your son not have realized that his grandpa has passed away and, as a child, associate him with being an angel?

The US legal system is your argument? Almost as corrupt as politicians... Of course we are not talking about the courts, we are tallking about something totally different, where agendas don't matter. I have nothing to gain by believing what I believe.

Of course you have something to gain, peace of mind, answer to your questions, an everlasting attachment to your father, or even just being right in this argument. You wouldn't defend it if you had nothing to gain.

Someone in a courtroom has everything to gain....or lose. You have a problem with belief? So you believe nothing? Interesting...(strokes chin with thumb and finger)

No one here has a problem with belief. We have a problem with belief without evidence.

You guys have the same breakfast everyday, take the same route to work even in the fall and see no beuaty in things do you? "well logically those leaves are changing color because they are dying, and how could something dying be beautiful???"

Beauty has nothing to do with science. Therefore a sensible man does not mix the two together. Beauty is subjective. What's beautiful to me, is not to others and vice versa. It's a personal preference that requires absolutely no justification. Science DOES. And here we're talking about science.

........

[lomox]

Of course he could have overheard me talking about my father. May I ask you, when is the last time you called your pop "Papa Angel" when speaking about him?

The US legal system is your argument? Almost as corrupt as politicians... Of course we are not talking about the courts, we are tallking about something totally different, where agendas don't matter. I have nothing to gain by believing what I believe. Someone in a courtroom has everything to gain....or lose. You have a problem with belief? So you believe nothing? Interesting...(strokes chin with thumb and finger)

You guys have the same breakfast everyday, take the same route to work even in the fall and see no beuaty in things do you? "well logically those leaves are changing color because they are dying, and how could something dying be beautiful???"

No the legal system was not an argument, it was an analogy.

Among the many possible explainations for "Papa Angel" could be that he overheard you referring to your dad as an Angel or "gone to heaven"; or heard from someone about Angels and made the correlation himself (which is a good sign of excellent congnative ability!); or [fill int he blank]. the point is there are allot more plasuable explainations than ghosts.

I want to be clear that I don't rule out the possibility of an afterlife or psychic ability, its just way way down on the list of possible explainations. Some psychic activity I think is undeniable. But this I feel is more when it comes to communication or telepathy. IMO this is part of our evolution and over time we'll get better at it. When I was three years old I was home being babysat by my grandmother. I awoke from a dead sleep in the middle of the night hysterical crying that my mom was hurt and needed help. I used the exact words "mommy's had an accident" (I know becuase my grandmother thought I was trying to tell her I wet the bed). I was unconsolable. Ten minutes later my aunt Elsa calls to tell us that they were in an accident on the belt parkway and they are at the hospital now. My mom hit her head on the windshield, my aunt had a broken leg and my other aunt was unharmed. My grandmother of course contends "jesus told you in a dream". O-KAAAAY. There is obviously something going on there. But I think its entirely physical and can be explained without resorting to "magic". We'll figure it out one day. But for now I dont know.

[jim]

You know I'm wrong? Man, can you stop world hunger, or turn back time, or help me with my alcoholoism.

yes, i can do all those things.

Because sir, I can't believe you are even real.

odd that you'll believe ghosts are real but not the thing producing the posts you're reading.

I mean, to be able to prove and disprove so much. How do you deal with always being right?

it feels pretty good.

I don't think I could handle being you, My mind would explode.

bummer.

I hear we only use about 10% of our brains, you must be at like 95%.

that's a myth. seriously.

Its just amazing how smart you are.

i agree.

Why do you even bother with us "common" folk?

out of my superhuman capacity to love.

Are you an alien?

nope, but i'm sometimes surprised that i'm the same species as everyone around me.



and, of course, i'm joking. i like talking about this kind of stuff, and what's going on right now between us just gets in the way of that. i'd rather move on to something of substance rather than continuing throwing barbs back and forth. cool?
but i really do like the line i'm using for my signature.

[BigAl33]

How long will it take you to cure world hunger jim? (Emphasis on the lower case letters)

.... I agree,lets move on. How bout that economy!!??

[BigAl33]

........

Hmm. At 1 1/2, I don't think he even knew what an angel was, or what "died" meant for that matter. But what do I know?