|
Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions
|
 (April 7, 2018 at 2:34 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Are the paranormal experiments mentioned by the OP actually a bunch of goobers walking around a building at night, with the lights off, while calling out to 'spirits' to communicate with them? Yeah, but don't forget "while filming each other with shakily held cameras". 
It is my view that wisdom starts with accepting the cosmos as it is. I live very close to nature, fully aware of the intricate web of life of which human kind is a part. I am an atheist because there is no hint of a god, or other paranormal phenomena, involved with that web.
Though I think it best to accept the universe as it is, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer something else. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in mythology as long as one doesn’t confuse mythology with reality. I think living in a universe where magic rules might be interesting, as would be living in one where there were the wise share knowledge with the trees and animals. What might be learned from a Dryad, pelican, or dolphin? (Actually, I suspect that dolphins and whales are as intelligent as humans. But their evolutionary history of living free in three dimensions, and not being tool makers, makes it impossible for us to communicate effectively with them.) It would be equally interesting to be a knowing part of a universal consciousness, a living bit in a living universe. Claiming to live in any of those however, would be to live a life of illusion (at best) or delusion (at worst). The one universe I would find disappointing is one created by an all knowing and (supposedly) compassionate god. Looking around at this world such a god would appear to be utterly incompetent or, more likely, more evil than compassionate. That is a cosmos I could do without.  (April 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: ...They don't bother to fully read into the things these paranormal researchers have to say which addresses any objections these skeptics have. When you disagree with something whether it be an idea, an experiment, or a certain claim, you should fully look into anything that addresses your objections... Fine, now Give us your best shot. In your own words which of the many claims of paranormal researchers do you find most convincing. No argumentum ad youtubium or links to crank websites please, just your own words.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
What the believers in supernatural phenomena don't realize is: if there were any substance or validity to their claims, science would be on that shit like white on rice. Scientists are always trying to learn new things about our world. If a scientist could conclusively prove that out of body experiences were real, he/she'd be given a nobel prize and a lifetime of fame and honor.
But no-- that's not how the story goes according to proponents of paranormalism. According to them, scientists are rigid and closed-minded. WRONG! As a scientist, if you prove science wrong, you get a fucking Nobel! Scientists across the globe DREAM of proving science wrong. A new discovery is the holy grail. So painting them as dogmatists misses the mark entirely. (I wish that the proponents of NDEs on these forums would realize this.) 
The key is rational skepticism, not just nay-saying.
Cue some unthinking nutjob announcing "But skepticism is its own form of dogma!".
I dare them, Hammy.
Luckily LR hasn't shit on this thread yet
RE: Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions
April 7, 2018 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2018 at 3:59 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(April 7, 2018 at 3:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I dare them, Hammy. Me too. We'd both end up ranting at them about how it's the opposite of dogma. Did you see how I even went on and on at Khem, a fellow skeptic, when he was dogmatic enough to insist that being absolutely certain about anything even the logical absolutes absolutely must be dogmatic so I pointed out how he was being both ironically dogmatic and just plain wrong
Khem is too gnostic. Granted... he's gnostic about the plausible things, which speaks to his benefit, but he's suspicious about a mind that's open to all possibilities (ie critical of agnosticism). That's too anti-Socratic for my tastes, and I challenge him on it when it pops up.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
