30 replies to this topic

[leonie]

SattvicMoon, on Jun 30 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

leonie, on Jun 30 2007, 03:11 AM, said:

LifeafterDeath did not say that all skeptics were this way but that some skeptics were this way, i think you went slightly over the top in your reaction to it. And LifeafterDeath is correct some skeptics can be very narrow or one minded but not all of them

Do you have any evidence or proof for that?

Sorry couldn't resist!

To Moonie

I will send you a skeptic in the post ok? lol, do your own scientific tests

[plindboe]

leonie, on Jun 29 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

Id just like to underline somthing that seemed inportant to what I am going to say here Plindboe. This is on a totally neutral scale I dont really know either you or LiifeafterDeath. And I dont know wether Im a skeptic of a believer to be honist with you. I believe in certain aspects but not others, I strive to learn more and come across happenings that may change my mind.

Right so back to underlining, sorry went off on a tangent then >>>> LfeafterDeath said "from some numbers of particular types of skeptics"

LifeafterDeath did not say that all skeptics were this way but that some skeptics were this way, i think you went slightly over the top in your reaction to it. And LifeafterDeath is correct some skeptics can be very narrow or one minded but not all of them

You are probably correct that LifeafterDeath did not intend to say that all skeptics was saying this. But he did say that he got the vibe from some skeptics "that today's science is complete, and that if it hasn't been proven yet, it won't be later on". I've truly never heard a skeptic utter such innanity before, and it seems to me like a misrepresentation of the points skeptics raise.

I'd certainly agree that there are skeptics a bit too narrowminded, but from my experience they are quite rare. In my experience skeptics acknowledge the fact that humans are frequently mistaken, and therefore consider doubt to be the only reasonable state, before we have a good amount of evidential support.

[MoonChild]

plindboe, on Jun 30 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

But he did say that he got the vibe from some skeptics "that today's science is complete, and that if it hasn't been proven yet, it won't be later on". I've truly never heard a skeptic utter such innanity before, and it seems to me like a misrepresentation of the points skeptics raise.

I'd certainly agree that there are skeptics a bit too narrowminded, but from my experience they are quite rare. In my experience skeptics acknowledge the fact that humans are frequently mistaken, and therefore consider doubt to be the only reasonable state, before we have a good amount of evidential support.

Peter, I do agree with you for the most part, but, how do you expect to solve something that is beyond today's science, with the parmetres that is within today's science?

[plindboe]

LifeafterDeath, on Jun 29 2007, 02:27 AM, said:

Your sense is awful really, I certainly have listened to your posts for the last three years or so.

I'll continue to use the word "prove". You sound like my son trying to play the semantics game.

It's not simple nitpicking I'm doing, as you've used a word that has a very different meaning than the way you used it. When you use words wrongly you won't be able to communicate well with people, therefore I think it would be wise of you to learn, instead of resisting my correction due to personal pride. It's merely meant as a friendly correction.

[plindboe]

SattvicMoon, on Jun 30 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

plindboe, on Jun 30 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

But he did say that he got the vibe from some skeptics "that today's science is complete, and that if it hasn't been proven yet, it won't be later on". I've truly never heard a skeptic utter such innanity before, and it seems to me like a misrepresentation of the points skeptics raise.

I'd certainly agree that there are skeptics a bit too narrowminded, but from my experience they are quite rare. In my experience skeptics acknowledge the fact that humans are frequently mistaken, and therefore consider doubt to be the only reasonable state, before we have a good amount of evidential support.

Peter, I do agree with you for the most part, but, how do you expect to solve something that is beyond today's science, with the parmetres that is within today's science?

We can't at this time. We'll have to wait and see, even though that might be frustrating for some. But why take a firm conclusion before adequate evidence is in? We see all over the world that people take up firm beliefs totally conflicting with each other. This shows clearly that it's in our nature to believe firmly before proper evidence is in, and what we have to acknowledge based on this fact is that dedication to unevidenced beliefs should be avoided and doubt is the only reasonable state, until proper scientific evidence is in.

[plindboe]

LifeafterDeath, on Jun 29 2007, 02:49 AM, said:

I also realize that scientists do not speak in absolutes, Peter. I also want you to realize that even though I may have a belief, it should not indicate to you that it is final, or some sort of dogma. Quite the contrary. Mine are changable, and have changed on many things.

That's a very healthy attitude, and one I possess myself.

[SeekX]

LifeafterDeath, on Jun 28 2007, 08:27 PM, said:

Your sense is awful really, I certainly have listened to your posts for the last three years or so.

I'll continue to use the word "prove". You sound like my son trying to play the semantics game.

Believer's evidence, hasn't proven a thing. Skeptics, haven't proven a thing. Science has found no evidence to support the claims of believers, so far. Skeptics don't think it will ever find the Proof (hey don't whine Peter, perhaps it is a mathmatical problem and solution).

PS.I'll make sure to send you my posts just in case it might offend you.

That is right LifeafterDeath, the Answer to the Ultimate Question about Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42.

I once went to see the old man on the mountain to find the answers , only to find he either had jumped been pushed or had fallen , gee more mysteries , love it!

SeekX

[Oniix]

Well good, we're all on the same page, some times I have a tendancy to react emotionally to your blunt posting peter, but then we are both used to each other's reactions lol

In my closing at least for this thread is this.

Science is ever changing, and it will always be so. What some people experience as ghosts or spirits, or some other paranormal titled event may never be brought within the sites of science.

Science can appear to have a very narrow band of vision, but I do want to say that it's not a negative thing.

[plindboe]

LifeafterDeath, on Jul 3 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

Well good, we're all on the same page, some times I have a tendancy to react emotionally to your blunt posting peter, but then we are both used to each other's reactions lol

Hehe, I know I can be a bit blunt at times. But there's a pretty harmless, silly and loving guy behind these posts, just trying to raise some valid points and hopefully making people think once in a while, so don't take my occasionally blunt posting too personally.

LifeafterDeath, on Jul 3 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

Science is ever changing, and it will always be so. What some people experience as ghosts or spirits, or some other paranormal titled event may never be brought within the sites of science.

Paranormal beliefs will always stay right out of the reach of science, because that's exactly how they are designed. They persist because they can never be shown right or wrong, and because people love mysteries. The day science shows a paranormal belief to be real and describes it in detail, is the same day believers will lose interest in it, as it's no longer a mystery and has therefore become boring.

That said, many answers will probably be provided within the next couple of centuries in the fields of psychology and neuroscience on why people adhere to these kinds of beliefs.

LifeafterDeath, on Jul 3 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

Science can appear to have a very narrow band of vision, but I do want to say that it's not a negative thing.

Science goes where the evidence takes us. Therefore it will tune in on reality, and thereby remain narrow to people who find reality to be dull. But of all human inventions science potentially has the broadest scope, as it can go anywhere, depending on what reality turns out to be.

[Richard Kimmel]

The ironic part of a skeptic is that they never have to make a concious decision. Has any skeptic ever offered proof that the Paranormal World, as such, does not exist?

Edited by Richard Kimmel, 04 September 2007 - 04:02 PM.

[DeadTrish]

Richard Kimmel, on Sep 4 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

The ironic part of a skeptic is that they never have to make a concious decision. Has any skeptic ever offered proof that the Paranormal World, as such, does not exist?

I don't think all skeptics are that black and white. I know skeptics that believe in the paranormal but maintain their skepticism by backing up explanations with fact. Hey I'm skeptical and I have my own team. lol

[Richard Kimmel]

A question I often pose on forums is offering the opportunity, to both the skeptic and sudo believers alike, to offer proof that what I state on my website that it is not as I present it to be?

I can tell you exactly why this has not happened, simply because my website does not deal with photographs of anomalies, rather with the actual artifacts, initial latent energy detection, reputable cold Psychic intervention, prior and after research.

There are no scientific explanations that may be offered due to the various phases of my investigation. You're not looking at what may be dust, moisture, breath, cigarette smoke, bugs, reflections, dropped pixels ... or other flaws that are the root of most controversy and the foundation, food if you will, for the skeptic.

[Richard Kimmel]

Why does it, more often than not, seem that when reality is offered the skeptics become mute?

Richard

[DeadTrish]

I just think skeptics get tired of having to explain themselves. I don't think they are mute.

[Richard Kimmel]

On the contrary, excluding the sudo believer, I feel that most of us who are serious about what we do are the ones who become tired of having, as it has been put ... "explain themselves".

Richard