A materialist and an NDE proponent go to a stage magic show together

There's no prohibition on discussing "doubts". The prohibition is very specific:
"However, when an individual does not accept the anomalous nature of any of the various phenomena in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena (ECP) forum, and when the intent is strictly to "debunk", that type of post should be reserved for the Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions sub-forum"
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-fo...re-posting

Thank you for yet again pointing out the actual reason although why we need to keep repeating this is an indication of the nature of what we are up against. Steve is blind to his own intransigence while Linda will deliberately use underhand tactics like that to mischaracterise the intentions of users of this forum (as she did repeatedly on the Skeptiko forum). 

This forum was created for those interested in discussing Psi related matters. It is not primarily a skeptic vs proponent war zone. However, skeptics have been made welcome and they have a voice. They are free to question anything by posting in the appropriate forums. They are free to create threads on any subject and challenge any evidence. There is no prohibition of doubt but sometimes we like to go for a walk and a chat together without yapping dogs biting at our ankles.

I've made the point before when this subject has been brought up but I'll make it again and will keep doing so because it is entirely relevant. The internet has many more forums for skeptics, atheists and materialist-minded science enthusiasts and many of us here will have visited them from time to time. I'm sure that we are all aware of the treatment we can expect if we voice our doubts on their forums. They can be intolerant and hostile places which is something the founders here - to their credit - have strived to avoid, Linda's constant whingeing notwithstanding.

ETA II:

I intended no insult. I'm not making a judgement about variation in seeing agency. A slightly higher propensity to do so could be found to be cognitively advantageous, for example.

Linda

Thanks for the clarification Linda.

To this, it is exactly why I see the paper bringing up a rather moot point. This variation in agency to me is far from significant nor inherently negative. Because just because they notice things for something else off the bat more than skeptics do in this study, so what? According to it, they made them make a choice with no time to think, on purpose. Given some time to think, I doubt the "believers" would have made the same choice. 

For example, a person begins to take on a belief in the paranormal, etc and they begin to think the world may be under some effect by paranormal forces. So you start paying more attention to insignificant details then before. And give more attention and thought to them. But do they immideatly believe all these things they are picking up on that they didn't when a "skeptic" as being paranormal in source, a priori? No, amongst the more serious and nuanced thinkers, no. 

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

And yet there is little action over in most of those forums, and the Skeptic Vs Proponent one and other lightly moderated ones are much more frequented and posted in by proponents, skeptics, and whoever else. So there is still a very prevalent want for discussion, with people of opposing sides. 

Over 2,000 posts in the S vs P forum alone, which is more then all the posts in the moderated forums together. I just think of the moderated portion as the same as the Skeptiko mod thread ability, but done in a easier way. Once again, my opinion.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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".