Hello from a non-skeptic

[Garrette]

Ah, so the tactic is not to beat a newcomer to exhaustion, but to make use of mockery and sarcasm and be as rude as you possibly can in the hope that he/she will go away. Well done...

You are on the internet. Mockery, rudeness and sarcasm are part and parcel. That said, no one here has been remotely as rude as he/she possibly can. Nor is it the intent to drive you away.

It is, instead, the intent to shake your pedestal of all-knowingness, too. If that is a problem, then look in the mirror.

Yes, that is so... But the memory of such visions only made any kind of sense much later. In our ever present disbelief, it does take a lot to start believing in what is beyond the grasp of our day by day reality. I am no different.

No, it doesn't take all that much. Humans are wired to believe, not disbelieve.

Yes, again this is so... But can you point these exact words as having been said by me in this forum?

Whether said on this thread or not, it is pertinent.

Concerning evidence:

1. Have you ever read and analysed Dr Ian Stevenson's work concerning children who remember details of lifetimes other than their current one? He purposely directed his studies to children precisely because they are less likely to be influenced by external factors.

Yes. It has been dissected in more places than just here, and if he chose children for the reason you give then it adds to the flaws in his thinking. Children are extremely prone to influence by external factors.

If you want to discuss Stevenson, start a thread and be specific about what you feel was evidential in those cases.

2. In the case of Jacqueline Pool, the medium hit 129 out of 130 details of the murder, and you want to counter-argument this by saying that it was random chance?

Not remotely. (a) She did not hit 129 of 130 details (b) those she did hit are explainable partly by chance and largely by other means.

If you want to discuss Poole, start a thread and be specific about what you think was evidential for psi in her case.

3. Concerning my question about the dual-slit experiment and the wave-particle effect brought about by the intent of observation on the part of the observer, have you ever watched a film-documentary called "What the "bleep" do we know?" It is quantum-physicists who point this out, not me.

Good heavens, yes, as have actual quantum physicists. A greater collection of misrepresentations, lies, and silliness is difficult to find.

You have all focussed on the weak points, but fail to comment on those that are not,

You won't tell us which ones they are. When we ask for specifics you say that's not your question.

You are the one being evasive, Charles.

and clearly avoid any objectiveness in your argumentations,

Were the comments on the slit experiments subjective? Were the questions for specifics regarding your claims and your references to Poole and Stevenson subjective?

You are criticizing the home inspector who points out the cracks in the foundation because he also mentions he personally doesn't like the color scheme.

rather preferring to just attempt to ridicule.

If you read the thread again you will find that any ridicule (which is very minor) comes after repeated attempts to get you to focus on one thing and address the critiques.

Hardly surprising that anyone who might come here with views that are different to your own should find any desire to remain...

I think you meant "should NOT"

You say that what was said to me concerning my wife's pregnancy and Lady Di's death was either random chance or a lucky guess and claim that it means the case is closed? Sorry, not quite convincing enough to me who experienced such events as well as so many others...

You say your personal experience is enough and case closed? Sorry, not quite convincing enough to anyone who has studied and applied the vast knowledge regarding the unreliability of human perception and the ease with which humans are deceived by themselves and others and the extent to which humans make false assumptions about accuracy and probability.

 

[AdMan]

Am I?

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pghost27.htm

I see that was originally published in the News of the World, a credible source without a doubt.

You make it too easy, Charlie.

 

[Madalch]

3. Concerning my question about the dual-slit experiment and the wave-particle effect brought about by the intent of observation on the part of the observer, have you ever watched a film-documentary called "What the "bleep" do we know?" It is quantum-physicists who point this out, not me.

Don't trust anything you heard in that "documentary". The "scientists" who appear in it know very little about actual quantum physics, and are more concerned with trying to be psychics.

 

[Garrette]

How was it established that the murder had '130 details'? Where can we see a list of the 'details'? What about the other, uncounted, details?

To be fair to Charles, the 130 details are in reference to the number of details given by Holohan (the alleged psychic) in an interview given to Officer Batters. It is not a claim that the murder had only 130 details.

 

[Audible Click]

I don't understand why Mr. Boden would come here and expect us to take his anecdotes as evidence. Surely, he could see that this is a skeptical website and that evidence and credible citations are required for serious discussion of topics. If he read a few similar threads he would see that with anecdotes and no evidence these threads become a place with the same ongoing recursive argument.

 

[Sledge]

I don't understand why Mr. Boden would come here and expect us to take his anecdotes as evidence. Surely, he could see that this is a skeptical website and that evidence and credible citations are required for serious discussion of topics. If he read a few similar threads he would see that with anecdotes and no evidence these threads become a place with the same ongoing recursive argument.

Since when has a wooist cared about anything but their own "powers"?

 

[Olowkow]

You say that what was said to me concerning my wife's pregnancy and Lady Di's death was either random chance or a lucky guess and claim that it means the case is closed?

Goalposts have shifted. Now, something was said concerning Lady Di's death. I thought the claim was that a member of that royal family of yours would die. This is exactly what cold readers rely upon.

Charles, no one has insulted you, yet. It's called "sense of humor" and when it's done particularly well, "pith". Essentially, good sport among intellectuals.

You have been warned many times in good faith that you will be challenged to produce evidence, not bald assertions.

By the way, if you feel you have been attacked, you should report this to the mods by pressing the little triangle with the [!]. JREF takes this very seriously, and it is a two edged sword...trust me.
​

 

[Audible Click]

Since when has a wooist cared about anything but their own "powers"?

Yet thay complain about how we treat them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do we have the means and the instruments to truly verifiy such phenomenae? I would say "not yet", which by no means can be considered as proof of their non-existence...

Here's what I don't understand. You say you were once a skeptic, but you don't appear to have the "means and instruments" to be skeptical. What happened?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ah, so the tactic is not to beat a newcomer to exhaustion, but to make use of mockery and sarcasm and be as rude as you possibly can in the hope that he/she will go away. Well done...

It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.

- Jonathan Swift​

<snipped some stuff. Is there some chance of you learning to use the quote function so we can tell who you're responding to?>

Concerning evidence:

1. Have you ever read and analysed Dr Ian Stevenson's work concerning children who remember details of lifetimes other than their current one? He purposely directed his studies to children precisely because they are less likely to be influenced by external factors.

Children are what?????

Anyone who thinks that is in trouble from the outset. What a load of rubbish.

2. In the case of Jacqueline Pool, the medium hit 129 out of 130 details of the murder, and you want to counter-argument this by saying that it was random chance?

No, my counter-argument would be that it's a complete fabrication.

3. Concerning my question about the dual-slit experiment and the wave-particle effect brought about by the intent of observation on the part of the observer, have you ever watched a film-documentary called "What the "bleep" do we know?" It is quantum-physicists who point this out, not me.

You know how in the documentary Star Wars they explained that R2D2 had the plans for the Death Star . . .

You have all focussed on the weak points, but fail to comment on those that are not, and clearly avoid any objectiveness in your argumentations, rather preferring to just attempt to ridicule.

Attempt to ridicule??? I'm losing my touch.

Hardly surprising that anyone who might come here with views that are different to your own should find any desire to remain...

And yet remain they invariably do. Until the Meltdown™.

You say that what was said to me concerning my wife's pregnancy and Lady Di's death was either random chance or a lucky guess and claim that it means the case is closed?

There was no case to start with. If you wish to keep entertaining your fantasy then you're free to do so, but you have no right to an expectation of being believed.

Sorry, not quite convincing enough to me who experienced such events as well as so many others...

What on Earth makes you think we have any responsibility, or even an inclination, to convince you of anything?

 

[Sledge]

Yet thay complain about how we treat them.

Of course*. We're "attacking" (from their perspective) the most important thing in their life. The one thing that makes them special.

*I am not wearing an M. Bison costume

 

[Audible Click]

Of course*. We're "attacking" (from their perspective) the most important thing in their life. The one thing that makes them special.

*I am not wearing an M. Bison costume

So they come here which is akin to sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal. Gives the word "special" a whole different connotation.

 

[Akhenaten]

BTW, the image you used suits you guys very nicely.

No, Charles, it suits your made-up term, 'all-knowing pedestal' very nicely. It's almost as if I created it just for the occasion, isn't it?

Maybe you should hang it up above your computer table...

Charles, it was funny for about 3 seconds and totally meaningless outside the context of this thread. I think you need to get out more.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Ah, so the tactic is not to beat a newcomer to exhaustion, but to make use of mockery and sarcasm and be as rude as you possibly can in the hope that he/she will go away. Well done....

You do realize that we're not some multi-headed hydra with a single purpose of bringing you down, right? We are all separate people, with separate minds. There is no grand plan to "beat" you or "drive you away". Some people here wish to ridicule you, some wish to engage in honest conversation, some wish to convince you of their view and some just hope you'd clarify yours. Everyone is acting according to their own goals, and any "tactic" you perceive is nothing but your own illusion.

There is something most of us have in common, of course - namely the habit of not taking unlikely claims at their face value. I understand it can be frustrating when people don't simply believe all your stories and marvel, but that simply is the way this place works. None of us get away with unsubstantiated claims - heck, if there's any room for opinion, even substantiated claims get a lot of heat. That's the beauty of this place, if you honestly like re-examining your beliefs.

But if you merely wish to preach from a pedestal, to show those silly skeptics a thing or two, then you better bring in the big guns, because stories of a foretelling that sort of came true ten years ago and it was far too accurate to be fake but I won't say why ain't gonna get you nowhere.

As to being "as rude as we possibly can".. mister, you've seen nothing yet. For a paranormal claimant thread, this is still an extraordinarily clean one. Although of course you have moved on to insulting the community and skeptics as a whole, which usually is a sign of impending doom.

 

[Olowkow]

You do realize that we're not some multi-headed hydra with a single purpose of bringing you down, right? We are all separate people, with separate minds. There is no grand plan to "beat" you or "drive you away". Some people here wish to ridicule you, some wish to engage in honest conversation, some wish to convince you of their view and some just hope you'd clarify yours. Everyone is acting according to their own goals, and any "tactic" you perceive is nothing but your own illusion.

There is something most of us have in common, of course - namely the habit of not taking unlikely claims at their face value. I understand it can be frustrating when people don't simply believe all your stories and marvel, but that simply is the way this place works. None of us get away with unsubstantiated claims - heck, if there's any room for opinion, even substantiated claims get a lot of heat. That's the beauty of this place, if you honestly like re-examining your beliefs.

But if you merely wish to preach from a pedestal, to show those silly skeptics a thing or two, then you better bring in the big guns, because stories of a foretelling that sort of came true ten years ago and it was far too accurate to be fake but I won't say why ain't gonna get you nowhere.

As to being "as rude as we possibly can".. mister, you've seen nothing yet. For a paranormal claimant thread, this is still an extraordinarily clean one. Although of course you have moved on to insulting the community and skeptics as a whole, which usually is a sign of impending doom.

Wow! This. Thanks.
I'm thinking we need a new shipment of "know it all pedestals".

 

[godless dave]

Concerning evidence:

1. Have you ever read and analysed Dr Ian Stevenson's work concerning children who remember details of lifetimes other than their current one? He purposely directed his studies to children precisely because they are less likely to be influenced by external factors.

Yes. His work was discussed in this forum. His research methods left a lot to be desired.

3. Concerning my question about the dual-slit experiment and the wave-particle effect brought about by the intent of observation on the part of the observer, have you ever watched a film-documentary called "What the "bleep" do we know?" It is quantum-physicists who point this out, not me.

No, it was the producers of that movie (JZ Knight's Ramtha School of Enlightenment) distorting what quantum physicists said. See here: http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index1.html?pn=1

and here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/

 

[Sledge]

So they come here which is akin to sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal. Gives the word "special" a whole different connotation.

They don't know they're sticking their hand in the garbage disposal. Remember, they're special. They have powers. How could anyone not be won over by the evidence of their specialness?

 

[Audible Click]

They don't know they're sticking their hand in the garbage disposal. Remember, they're special. They have powers. How could anyone not be won over by the evidence of their specialness?

I'm assuming that is a rhetorical question.

 

[Sledge]

For you and me? Yes. For them? Sadly not.

 

[Audible Click]

For you and me? Yes. For them? Sadly not.

Why be sad? I don't think anyone can change thier minds with logic or rational thinking.