God enthusiasm

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I wasn't voicing an opinion. When I give my opinion I say it that way. Smith was a fraud. This is clear from his background and clear from the fake text that he produced along with his fake plates. There is no doubt that this text is fake. Likewise, Patterson was a fraud based on his background and from the fake film that he produced along with his fake tracks. I'm not sure how someone could knowingly produce fake items and not be lying. Are you trying to claim that Smith and Patterson were not lying because they were mentally ill and therefore didn't realize what they were making?

I've not seen conclusive evidence that proves Patterson faked his film. In fact much of the evidence against it boils down to misrepresentations and lies as evidenced in the Michael Dennett article on "Footprints and Science" I believe it also appeared in the "Skeptical Enquirer".
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes, that is the nature of faith. It would be nice if I could do that with science but alas science isn't based on faith.


So bigfootery is a lifestyle choice.



And bigfootery is not more flawed than any other irrational belief. Okay.

No, a physical sighting of an unknown creature is not faith, it's "proof". Believing that creatures exists without ever seeing it would be "faith" though.

I suppose many that have seen these creatures are left with unanswered questions.


Bigfootery which is the study of people in the Bigfoot field is as flawed as the people themselves. The study of the creatures though is separate and a choice. Some choose to do so out of curiosity, some do some because they've had an encounter with an unknown creature(s) and want to know more about it. You know, since we were taught from an early age this kind f thing should not be happening and should not exist.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

creature

...

these creatures

...

the creatures

...
unknown creature(s).

Keep up the good work, Chris. You're doing a heck of a job.

Really,that's your input,you don't want to state your opinion on the topic just comment on the fact I spell Mormonism, like moronism.

I'm a 35yr old who watches anime and reads a lot,don't let anything I do needle you-im not worth it and lifes to short.

If however you have something to say on the claims morons(ha) make about what they call the lost book of Abraham and what real actual egyptologists say regarding the scroll I would,in real not sarcastic interest,like to hear.

My opinion of Mormonism is of no import here. Juvenile name-calling lowers the level of discourse. I'm not going to apologize for bringing it to your attention.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Keep up the good work, Chris. You're doing a heck of a job.




My opinion of Mormonism is of no import here. Juvenile name-calling lowers the level of discourse. I'm not going to apologize for bringing it to your attention.

So nothing about what was being discussed to say then. You actually took the time to write about me calling Mormonism,moronism. Tell you what i wont do it again. OK well I have nothing more to say about it.
On another matter i read that smith had his own militia and that they took part in a few shady killings. Did they try,either then or now,to justify the deaths on religious grounds. I was also curious about the morman church and its attitude to native Americans today.
It seems that the official line is that the modern native Americans are not to be discriminated against but I was curious how seriously modern Mormons take that in reality.
I tend to take religious persons claims that they are not bigots with a huge,as in really huge mountain of salt. And Mormon scripture definitely does not like native Americans.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Cosi cosi, sos so...
Truth is some people just don't understand, can' t conceive atheism - or so they say or behave like. Thus, in their minds, when I say "I am atheist" what I am actually doing is moving away from some Abrahamic god because he did something that somehow hurted me. I am misbehaving, not unlike a child running away from home because (s)he is angry with hers/his parents.

"Why are you angry with UFOs?" and "why are you angry with bigfoots" are very rare. Sure, I've read some sentences which could be seen as rough analogues.

I try and explain by analogy - I dislike smoking, would prefer not to have people do it around me, believe tobacco companies are horrible and that marketing their product to children is just wrong. But that doesn't mean I "Hate Joe Camel".

 

[skeptichaggis]

I try and explain by analogy - I dislike smoking, would prefer not to have people do it around me, believe tobacco companies are horrible and that marketing their product to children is just wrong. But that doesn't mean I "Hate Joe Camel".

I like that analogy,its pretty robust. With the exception that the tobacco plant really exists.
I think I'll steal your argument for future use. Thanks.

 

[barehl]

I've not seen conclusive evidence that proves Patterson faked his film.

It is possible that people in Tibet don't know that humans landed on the moon so this could be possible too.

In fact much of the evidence against it boils down to misrepresentations and lies as evidenced in the Michael Dennett article on "Footprints and Science" I believe it also appeared in the "Skeptical Enquirer".

That explains it. The evidence suggesting fraud is far larger than one or two articles. If your exposure was limited to two articles then I could understand how you could reach the wrong conclusion. The actual body of evidence begins in 1896.

 

[barehl]

No, a physical sighting of an unknown creature is not faith, it's "proof".

Yes, if repeated then a documented sighting would be proof. I already gave the example of the Chinese pika. But that isn't what you are referring to. You are talking about the claim of a sighting which is not proof of any kind without supporting evidence. You keep trying to make bigfoot a special case but it isn't. Exceptional observations happen all the time in science and many of these observations would be remarkable if true. Observation without duplication is not science.

Believing that creatures exists without ever seeing it would be "faith" though.

Suggesting that something exists while knowing that it doesn't, isn't faith; it's fraud. Patterson was about fraud, not faith.

 

[barehl]

Generally when people believe something that is unlikely we say that they are gullible or foolish. It is remarkable to see people turn this idea upsidedown and claim that the fact that a belief is so outlandish somehow adds to its credibility. We see this with religious belief, with belief in alien visitation, ghosts, herbal remedies, and bigfoot. This is where emotional arguments and cynicism are often used to fill in the gaping holes in reason. And if all else fails, you can always just assert your belief and your refusal to change your mind.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Generally, someone should only accept something based on undeniable proof. Anything else is faith based. Chris B.

 

[dlorde]

Generally, someone should only accept something based on undeniable proof. Anything else is faith based. Chris B.

I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.

 

[skeptichaggis]

I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.

Difference is you KNOW that no matter how inexplicable a magic trick is,its still a sleight of hand. You know its not real magic,magic does not exist.
I may not be the smartest but I am a critical thinker,no matter how bizzare something is I know,for certain,that it has a natural explanation. Not knowing what that is does not make it appropriate to think gandalf (or Zeus,Yahweh,Thor,Shiva) did it.
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that even direct personal experience is fallible. Eyewitness evidence is routinely shown up as very unreliable.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.

Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things. So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.
Chris B.

 

[dlorde]

Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things.

You miss the point, which is whether you're actually looking at a wild animal or not. I've seen enough pictures of shadows labelled 'bigfoot' to understand that pareidolia and confirmation bias are diagnostic characteristics of bigfootery.

So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.

Again you miss the point. You may think seeing is believing, but believing that what you think you saw is what you actually saw can be a mistake.

There are plenty of turkeys around, so it's quite likely you saw one if you think you saw one - especially if it ran across the road in front of you; but on the other hand, if you thought you'd seen one in the bushes you could easily be mistaken.

 

[carlitos]

Turkeys actually exist, so there's that to think about.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You miss the point, which is whether you're actually looking at a wild animal or not. I've seen enough pictures of shadows labelled 'bigfoot' to understand that pareidolia and confirmation bias are diagnostic characteristics of bigfootery.


Again you miss the point. You may think seeing is believing, but believing that what you think you saw is what you actually saw can be a mistake.

There are plenty of turkeys around, so it's quite likely you saw one if you think you saw one - especially if it ran across the road in front of you; but on the other hand, if you thought you'd seen one in the bushes you could easily be mistaken.

Yes of course, one cannot base an opinion of something hiding in a bush. You must see it directly out in the open to be sure of what you've seen so there can be no mistake. Absolutely. There must be no alternate explanation/possibility available. Chris B.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes of course, one cannot base an opinion of something hiding in a bush. You must see it directly out in the open to be sure of what you've seen so there can be no mistake. Absolutely. There must be no alternate explanation/possibility available. Chris B.

The point is there are always alternative explanations. You might have accidentally eaten some magic mushrooms and been stoned out of your mind when you thought you saw the turkey, you might be misremembering a dream as a real event, you might have hit your head or had a stroke and hallucinated the turkey, etc etc.

Of course the likeliest explanation is that you did see a turkey, but in the case of more exotic sightings of things for which there is no objective evidence (despite a great deal of looking) then misremembering/faulty perception/storytelling/fraud etc are all more likely explanations.

Compare the claims "there's a shed at the bottom of my garden" with "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden". Both have the same set of possible explanations, but the most probable explanations are different.

 

[SezMe]

In a real Christian church, ....

Don't you find such a blatant "No Real Scotman" fallacy at least a bit embarrassing?

 

[Resume]

Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things. So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.
Chris B.

Could have been one of these.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Avia...=GoogleProductAds&WT.z_mc_id1=03565866&rid=20

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Don't you find such a blatant "No Real Scotman" fallacy at least a bit embarrassing?

Not at all. The part of my statement you quoted is very true as it applies to the rest. You will find some Christian faith churches that have certain bylaws of what they find acceptable and what they don't. In those type churches you will find disapproval of certain individuals and their lifestyles. Some examples of those that would be excluded from the church would be: Homosexuals and divorced men and women who have remarried. You will also find preachers of those sects will not perform a marriage ceremony for anyone that has been divorced previously. Some will also only perform a wedding for two saved Christians, if one is saved and the other is not, it's a deal breaker.

But, Christian churches can also be found that do not practice these judgmental bylaws and these churches typically go only by the teachings of the Bible, from Jesus in particular. Especially those about not judging others. So all are welcome as all are sinners in this church's view.

If you have not experienced the differences, either you have not attended any or many different churches. The differences are there if you look.
Chris B.