Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A materialist and an NDE proponent go to a stage magic show together
#51
(01-16-2018, 06:44 PM)Desperado Wrote: Thanks for the clarification Linda.

To this, it is exactly why I see the paper bringing up a rather moot point.

I only brought it up to ask Hjorton if it was an example of what the materialists aren’t seeing.

Quote:I may see a face in the details of something or notice something and think it has the potential of being a ghost, but do I seriously after a moment of thought think it is? Definitely not, but I would give the possibility a moment of thought

That probably describes most everybody here, regardless of the labels put on them.

Linda
Reply
#52
(01-16-2018, 01:59 PM)Desperado Wrote: I guess it's just an opinion, but honestly no, Steve. How about your comment, is it not an insult in a way towards them if thinking the paper has any relevance towards them doesn't? 

No matter if you think it's true or not in your opinion, it is insinuating to think that all proponents here are constantly pulling sly tactics to make sure that the paranormal is never out of the question?

I've seen their reasoning to say the same back to you, Steve, but I'm not hostile towards you as a result

The first thing I need to day is thank you for the compliment.
Why I questioned it not being an insult is this study attempts to understand the thinking why some paranormalists find agency and why skeptics generally do not. See this video as it is pertinent. https://youtu.be/vb083Unh7ck  It is nor directly related to this study.  I've not once have ever thought members were using sly tactics. What I have and do think is members constantly think in ways that are self supportive. Why that happens is a mystery to me. The video gives an explanation how they do but does not answer the Why it's done. Now some members, perhaps nearly all will say I'm as guilty of the same crime but that is not my approach. I recognize my own biases and when I see  them sticking up I acknowledge them privately.

To answer your other question, because it's fun. One a deeper level is to help keep topics grounded so more folks do not become like Pssst or Hurmy and a grw others here and  over there. I must say too from past experience it is satisfying to help someone from not falling into a rabbit hole. That occurred long long ago on a forum far far away.
Reply
#53
(01-16-2018, 08:36 PM)fls Wrote: Well, how much of that is discussion and how much of it is people showing up to put down “the skeptics” with varying degrees of rabidity? I commend you for starting the NDE thread, but I’ll be surprised if the issues I brought up and the papers I referenced get discussed. But this week (or the weekend, anyways) was one for pleasant surprises, so maybe we’ll get lucky.

Linda

People here have given you and steve much, much more than the time of day. It's astonishing that you'd then complain in ridiculous fashion of a lack of legitimate interest on any proponent's part to discuss issues with skeptics, when others have managed to have the mind bending discussions with you that they do over such an extended period of time. I myself, and I see plenty of others, spend most of my time in the SvP forum, whether it's posting or just reading.

In spite of how utterly frustrated people get in attempting to have discussions with you, many still choose to do it. And, as Desperado pointed out, the SvP forum is by far the most popular here, just as it was on Skeptiko. Yet here you are not so subtly criticizing proponents for being unwilling to have extended discussions with the skeptics on this forum? Even steve, who generally seems to have the most run-of-the-mill, basic internet skeptic responses to any discussion, and frequently dismisses philosophy and other valuable points in patently unintelligent fashion, is given at least general respect. As Kam pointed out, keeping things in perspective is a really nice thing to do sometimes, when probably all or nearly all the people here have experienced firsthand the complete and utter nonsense, lack of basic intelligence, groupthink, and lack of decency (to put it incredibly mildly) that goes on in nearly any skeptical forum or blog across the web. It's just my two cents, but I think people are wildly patient with you and steve. 

There are reasons other than lack of interest in discussion with a skeptic that people don't always respond to your queries, if you hadn't considered that.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dante's post:
  • Kamarling
Reply
#54
Steve001 Wrote:The first thing I need to day is thank you for the compliment.
Why I questioned it not being an insult is this study attempts to understand the thinking why some paranormalists find agency and why skeptics generally do not. See this video as it is pertinent. https://youtu.be/vb083Unh7ck  It is nor directly related to this study.  I've not once have ever thought members were using sly tactics. What I have and do think is members constantly think in ways that are self supportive. Why that happens is a mystery to me. The video gives an explanation how they do but does not answer the Why it's done. Now some members, perhaps nearly all will say I'm as guilty of the same crime but that is not my approach. I recognize my own biases and when I see  them sticking up I acknowledge them privately.

To answer your other question, because it's fun. One a deeper level is to help keep topics grounded so more folks do not become like Pssst or Hurmy and a grw others here and  over there. I must say too from past experience it is satisfying to help someone from not falling into a rabbit hole. That occurred long long ago on a forum far far away.

A noble effort. If not for you, this forum may devolve into a worthless cesspool of idiocy.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dante's post:
  • Steve001
Reply
#55
(01-17-2018, 12:12 AM)Steve001 Wrote: The first thing I need to day is thank you for the compliment.
Why I questioned it not being an insult is this study attempts to understand the thinking why some paranormalists find agency and why skeptics generally do not. See this video as it is pertinent. https://youtu.be/vb083Unh7ck  It is nor directly related to this study.  I've not once have ever thought members were using sly tactics. What I have and do think is members constantly think in ways that are self supportive. Why that happens is a mystery to me. The video gives an explanation how they do but does not answer the Why it's done. Now some members, perhaps nearly all will say I'm as guilty of the same crime but that is not my approach. I recognize my own biases and when I see  them sticking up I acknowledge them privately.

To answer your other question, because it's fun. One a deeper level is to help keep topics grounded so more folks do not become like Pssst or Hurmy and a grw others here and  over there. I must say too from past experience it is satisfying to help someone from not falling into a rabbit hole. That occurred long long ago on a forum far far away.

As Dante said, Steve, you do provide a useful role around here. Many proponents say that some skeptics are actually healthy to have around and keep everything sharp and serious.
Reply
#56
(01-17-2018, 12:25 AM)Dante Wrote: People here have given you and steve much, much more than the time of day.
Indeed. I've tried to engage in discussion with fls, only to be told she wasn't going to talk to me because I was an "ass".
"There are more things in philosophy than are dreamt of in heaven and earth."
[-] The following 2 users Like Chris's post:
  • Desperado, Kamarling
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)