James Randi crosses over

I don't know what you mean by believing in the evidence for anything spiritual eliminates the normal world. The world as we know it right now still exists, there might just be more stuff in it, or things might act in different ways.



If I was going to talk about your viewpoint, just going off blanks from in here, I'd say it's a bit of a fairytale to think that this paradgim won't lead to something strikingly different, or that no stuff exists that won't be absorbed into it that will eventually force a change. Thinking that we've finally figured it out and that any new discoveries will only be the ones that reinforce the current status quo and the ones that go against it will just magically one turn out to not be strange one day is pretty fairytale-ish, or beliefy, just taking it all on faith. Other than that dunno being skeptical is a pretty comfortable and safe spot, don't have to worry bout anything coming to shake your world up.

That wasn't the point which was Karmarling's criticism of Brian's point of view but implying his was not. 
Anyone is welcome to deconstruct my position as a fairytale. I've yet to see that happen. The majority on this forum believe the Universe is spiritual rather than material is de facto. That's analogous to saying the Universe is only quantum mechanical and not classical. Yet the classical world has not disappeared. I ask how does this spiritual point of view eliminated the world we wake up to everyday?

That's better, if you'll pardon me for saying so, so  I gave you a rare 'like' (not that you would care about that, particularly).  

It doesn't eliminate it, it adds to it and completes the picture more adequately. We need to take into account well evidenced phenomena that don't fit into a purely materialist framework. That's it.

... like trying to deal with a 'shirty' drunk in a nightclub at 2 'o' clock in the morning. I found that to be the case, anyway although I haven't been in such a place for thirty years.

I haven't been that 'shirty' drunk for a while either.

Other than that dunno being skeptical is a pretty comfortable and safe spot, don't have to worry bout anything coming to shake your world up.

I don't know if its all that comfortable. People are different of course, some laid back and others others more restless, but when, as inevitably happens, something comes along to disturb things, it may not always be comfortable or safe. One cannot hide forever, reality has a way of poking its way in.

For Randi, I reckon it's distateful to sit around wondering how he felt if he saw the bright lights or anything. Feels like an atheist enjoying the anguish of a man who just lost their religion, is fucked. I reckon all Randi's good work was done in the old days, the bit of good work that he did, but as he got older he just ended up doing what a lot of skeptics do nowdays. Go to event, repeat 20/30/40 year old talking point, get cheque and leave.

Similar feelings here. I don't like to speak ill of the recently deceased in most circumstances, including this one.

That wasn't the point which was Karmarling's criticism of Brian's point of view but implying his was not. 
Anyone is welcome to deconstruct my position as a fairytale. I've yet to see that happen. The majority on this forum believe the Universe is spiritual rather than material is de facto. That's analogous to saying the Universe is only quantum mechanical and not classical. Yet the classical world has not disappeared. I ask how does this spiritual point of view eliminated the world we wake up to everyday?

No one has ever said the Universe being "spiritual", whatever that means, makes the day to day world disappear.

Your position has been criticized numerous times, and I've yet to see you mount a good defense. Of course some things are indefensible, like when you though[t] the fields of physics were something supernatural...

Similar feelings here. I don't like to speak ill of the recently deceased in most circumstances, including this one.

I don't really understand this sentiment in this case.

The facts about who he was don't change because he died. He *lied* about disproving Sheldrake's work, he had no issue with go after people's reputations and careers in a dishonest way.

I could understand not bringing up issues one had with a board member of this forum if they passed away, but a public figure arguably has to be scrutinized especially in this case.

I could understand not bringing up issues one had with a board member of this forum if they passed away, but a public figure arguably has to be scrutinized especially in this case.

I agree. What about Hitler or Jack the Ripper as examples? Where do we draw the line?

I haven't been that 'shirty' drunk for a while either. 

I suppose it only has meaning to myself really. I don't mean that Steve is being nasty or anything like that; it's more a question of trying to reason with someone that's become awkward (I used literal intoxication as an example). I always thought rightly or wrongly that Steve is 'intoxicated' with materialism and in absolutely no circumstances whatsoever will he even consider something so outlandish as minds floating around ICU's for instance. It even makes him angry to hear such utter nonsense !!

Overlay that onto trying to reason with someone in a club (maybe your own mate) ..you could be saying something that you know to be quite reasonable like, "You don't need anymore to drink, c'mon fella, lets go home" ..."Get stuffed !!" (is the reply) that kind of thing. Of course, Steve could (in his reasoning) aim the same at me. 

There, I've explained it, Typoz. Was it worth it, I doubt it. 

Thanks Tim, for your reply.
(I was making a rather weak joke previously).
These days I don't like to comment on other forum members much. I'm tending to a more live and let live approach - though I may comment on the content of posts. I think I may have been a bit more robust towards Steve in the past, but it really doesn't seem where I want to be now.

Randi on the other hand, as a public figure would be more of a legitimate focus, if I thought it important. Time will tell how future generations evaluate these things too.