RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
If Randi were Christian, Rossi would have said something like "can you prove Christianity is true?" As I wrote here, that's the exact argument Char Margolis used on Larry King.
Randi on Anderson Cooper 360
- Thread starter Kage
- Start date
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Personally, I thought it could have used more Lancaster.
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
I am the GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ! Hey, leave that curtain alone! Pay no attention to the (wo)man behind the curtain.
Stewart had Neil DeGrasse Tyson on last night about his new book, Death by Black Hole. So the Daily Show will do science and by extension, I hope, Skepticism, but there may need to be a book involved.
That, in itself, is reason enough to be very proud!
God is a skeptic.
He's just over self confident. He never doubts himself.
noblecaboose
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2006
- Messages
- 686
I was slightly annoyed at how things ended up breaking down. I never like to see the voice of reason lose his cool. Granted, I would have lost my cool, but I am afraid that may have turned things against Randi. Cooper was great, though. He was fair, he was incisive and he was unrelenting. Like everyone else I wish it had been longer, wish the cookoo lady had not been such an interupting cow, and that someone had actually brought up that the million dollars could be given to charity.
What really frosts my mini-wheats, is that she claims to be doing this in the name of God. I'm an ex-christian, and she is the least christian person I can imagine. Maybe she hasn't heard of a book I like to call THE F***ING BIBLE???
From Deuteronomy 18:20-22 " "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my
name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall
speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall
die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the
word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh
in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come
to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken,
but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt
not be afraid of him."
or "For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not
ent them, saith the LORD."
Jeremiah 29:9
or if she'd prefer from the Gospel of Matthew 7:15:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall
know them by their fruits."
It just makes me so angry that she uses this vague, new age, "spirituality" under the guise of Christianity or some kind of God given powers. She is not Moses. I may not believe in God, but I'm still insulted that she invokes his name to do her evil deeds. It insults the notion of a divine being to claim that he speaks through a witch like Sylvia. Seriously, that Deuteronomy quote should end her argument from divine power right there. The things she says she got from God did not come to pass, ergo, according to the mythology she uses to support her own claims, she is a false prophet. End of story.
What really frosts my mini-wheats, is that she claims to be doing this in the name of God. I'm an ex-christian, and she is the least christian person I can imagine. Maybe she hasn't heard of a book I like to call THE F***ING BIBLE???
From Deuteronomy 18:20-22 " "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my
name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall
speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall
die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the
word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh
in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come
to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken,
but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt
not be afraid of him."
or "For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not
ent them, saith the LORD."
Jeremiah 29:9
or if she'd prefer from the Gospel of Matthew 7:15:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall
know them by their fruits."
It just makes me so angry that she uses this vague, new age, "spirituality" under the guise of Christianity or some kind of God given powers. She is not Moses. I may not believe in God, but I'm still insulted that she invokes his name to do her evil deeds. It insults the notion of a divine being to claim that he speaks through a witch like Sylvia. Seriously, that Deuteronomy quote should end her argument from divine power right there. The things she says she got from God did not come to pass, ergo, according to the mythology she uses to support her own claims, she is a false prophet. End of story.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
It's a common tool of the guilty to invoke the persecution of other groups that have nothing to do with them in hopes of attaining similar public sympathy.
I mentioned the book "The Psychic Mafia" earlier in this thread, and according to the author (read up on him, he went into hiding for years after exposing them) the christian angle is a big inside joke to the psychic community.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
The question I wanted to hear asked was, "If she has no way of knowing whether the 'revelations' are relevant or not, then how can it be distinguished from guessing?"
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
I suggest that we clear the air a bit by establishing the following proposition:
WHETHER A SELF-PROCLAIMED PSYCHIC CHARGES A FEE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PURPORTED PSYCHIC CAN GENUINELY ACHIEVE THE RESULTS S/HE CLAIMS TO ACHIEVE.
In other words, whether Browne charges $700 per half hour or not is beside the point. Even if she were to issue these pronouncements for nothing, this would in no way excuse her conduct.
If a doctor committed malpractice on you, would you let the doctor off the hook if s/he refused to charge you for the operation? If a contractor who said s/he'd fix your driveway ended up ruining it, is s/he any less culpable because s/he didn't charge a fee for doing so? If a restaurant's fare gave you food poisoning, should that restaurant be allowed to escape all responsibility if the meal was free?
If not, then the same rule ought to apply to self-proclaimed seers. Whether Browne charged the parents to tell them their son was dead or whether she gave them those words gratis is irrelevant. (In a way, what Browne's representative tried to portray as bad advice--that further readings were according to the standard fee--had the strange benefit of deterring people from listening to more made-up drivel from Browne!)
No one says doctors can't make mistakes, or that contractors can't make mistakes or that restaurants can't make mistakes. But what we do say is that these folks are responsible for the mistakes that they make. And if they make gross errors that cause serious harm, they should pay.
Why not hold seers to the same rules that everyone else has to abide by?
As for this weepy business about, "Oh, only God is 100% accurate, and Sylvia has never claimed to be 100% accurate," then I am reminded of a line from the movie Twelve Angry Men. Juror No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) thinks that Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda) is quibbling about details of witness testimony, and that Fonda is setting too high a standard for accuracy. "NOBODY can be that accurate!" Cobb pleads. But Fonda responds, "Well, I think that testimony that can put a boy into the electric chair SHOULD be that accurate."
Any self-appointed psychic who wants to tell parents that their child is dead SHOULD be damn close to 100% accurate, whether they charge a fee or not. And if they're dead wrong, they should be responsible for the harm that they caused, whether they charged a fee or not.
WHETHER A SELF-PROCLAIMED PSYCHIC CHARGES A FEE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PURPORTED PSYCHIC CAN GENUINELY ACHIEVE THE RESULTS S/HE CLAIMS TO ACHIEVE.
In other words, whether Browne charges $700 per half hour or not is beside the point. Even if she were to issue these pronouncements for nothing, this would in no way excuse her conduct.
If a doctor committed malpractice on you, would you let the doctor off the hook if s/he refused to charge you for the operation? If a contractor who said s/he'd fix your driveway ended up ruining it, is s/he any less culpable because s/he didn't charge a fee for doing so? If a restaurant's fare gave you food poisoning, should that restaurant be allowed to escape all responsibility if the meal was free?
If not, then the same rule ought to apply to self-proclaimed seers. Whether Browne charged the parents to tell them their son was dead or whether she gave them those words gratis is irrelevant. (In a way, what Browne's representative tried to portray as bad advice--that further readings were according to the standard fee--had the strange benefit of deterring people from listening to more made-up drivel from Browne!)
No one says doctors can't make mistakes, or that contractors can't make mistakes or that restaurants can't make mistakes. But what we do say is that these folks are responsible for the mistakes that they make. And if they make gross errors that cause serious harm, they should pay.
Why not hold seers to the same rules that everyone else has to abide by?
As for this weepy business about, "Oh, only God is 100% accurate, and Sylvia has never claimed to be 100% accurate," then I am reminded of a line from the movie Twelve Angry Men. Juror No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) thinks that Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda) is quibbling about details of witness testimony, and that Fonda is setting too high a standard for accuracy. "NOBODY can be that accurate!" Cobb pleads. But Fonda responds, "Well, I think that testimony that can put a boy into the electric chair SHOULD be that accurate."
Any self-appointed psychic who wants to tell parents that their child is dead SHOULD be damn close to 100% accurate, whether they charge a fee or not. And if they're dead wrong, they should be responsible for the harm that they caused, whether they charged a fee or not.
Kage
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 455
My point exactly. Doesn't it feel good to use leviticus for something usefull?
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
I am the cowbell.
Kage
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 455
Haha, exactly. Killing children who disobey their parents is up there as well.
Lisa Simpson
Unregistered
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 21,960
I am the walrus. Goo goo ga joob.
The walrus was Paul.
We have a perfect news peg coming up for Jon Stewart (but I think Anderson Cooper deserves first shot). That's when the JREF comes out with its aggressive challenge and sues Sylvia Browne. Of course her side likely won't appear because of "pending legal action."
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
And Sylvia is the Fool on the Hill?
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
I am Lisa as you are Lisa as Lisa is Paul and we are altogether.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
James I love you man. You are one of my personal heroes. Your intelligence, humanity, honesty, and talent are pretty awe inspiring.
Please keep that in mind when I tell you truly you are perhaps not the best face to put out there on the tv. You looked like a scowling cartoon villain. You had a kind of malevolent magician/mad scientist vibe going on.
Now, mind you, that idiot (rule8) you were debating last night pretty well self destructed into incoherent ad-hominum so she was a very unsympathetic character herself.
The problem is Mr. Randi that you cut a rather sinister figure on the telly and any photogenic well spoken opponent is likely to outshine you no matter the content of the argument they present.
I like you as you are sir....but if you are going to do this tv pundit thing more often you are really going to need to craft an image...a kindly image...like a Wilford Brimley, favorite grandfather kind of thing.
The point is that you are selling a message...and sadly tv is a image driven medium. The only point where I felt you did well last night was when you laughed at her silly ad-hom attack about your atheism. Your whole face changed and you looked really comfortable for the first time. You need to do more of that next time around. Actually I personally think that the most effective response to many of $B's claims is a hearty belly laugh coupled with one of your eyebrows tilted to that signature skeptical angle.
Sorry Mr. R...someone has to say it so maybe it must be me. Honestly the only skeptic I've ever seen debate in such a live format and do it well and sympathetically is Dr. Shermer.
But hey,...you're still my hero James.
-z
BTW: I also liked Bob Dole more than Bill Clinton in '96. I have been lucky enough to see both these men in person. Sadly though, Bob Dole gave off this Snidely Whiplash kind of vibe when he walked in the room. I knew at that very moment that his presidential bid was doomed....
Please keep that in mind when I tell you truly you are perhaps not the best face to put out there on the tv. You looked like a scowling cartoon villain. You had a kind of malevolent magician/mad scientist vibe going on.
Now, mind you, that idiot (rule8) you were debating last night pretty well self destructed into incoherent ad-hominum so she was a very unsympathetic character herself.
The problem is Mr. Randi that you cut a rather sinister figure on the telly and any photogenic well spoken opponent is likely to outshine you no matter the content of the argument they present.
I like you as you are sir....but if you are going to do this tv pundit thing more often you are really going to need to craft an image...a kindly image...like a Wilford Brimley, favorite grandfather kind of thing.
The point is that you are selling a message...and sadly tv is a image driven medium. The only point where I felt you did well last night was when you laughed at her silly ad-hom attack about your atheism. Your whole face changed and you looked really comfortable for the first time. You need to do more of that next time around. Actually I personally think that the most effective response to many of $B's claims is a hearty belly laugh coupled with one of your eyebrows tilted to that signature skeptical angle.
Sorry Mr. R...someone has to say it so maybe it must be me. Honestly the only skeptic I've ever seen debate in such a live format and do it well and sympathetically is Dr. Shermer.
But hey,...you're still my hero James.
-z
BTW: I also liked Bob Dole more than Bill Clinton in '96. I have been lucky enough to see both these men in person. Sadly though, Bob Dole gave off this Snidely Whiplash kind of vibe when he walked in the room. I knew at that very moment that his presidential bid was doomed....