Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

[earl]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

No argument from me there. My statement to Path of One was a joke, not intended to be taken seriously.

That is not to say I don't believe it possible, and there are in fact certain little known experiments in psychokinesis and clairvoyance done by various military and security services going back into the 1950's and '60's.

The whole metaphysical field of knowledge is rife with charletans that take advantage of whatever opportunities that present themselves. That doesn't mean such endeavors are hollow and empty, merely that exploitation is easy and prone to abuse.

Some elements of reality are not so easily or casually boxed and labelled by modern methods, let alone adequately understood. I have long thought it short sighted to take the position that modern methods are the best methods for understanding at the exclusion of all other methods. Science and logic are *merely* two more tools to use for understanding, they are not the whole toolkit.

Actually a few well-respected researchers, such as Gary Schwartz, have documented some interesting findings, but what tends to happen with critics of such is that many seem to have a belief system predisposed to never considering those findings as actually reflective of something unexplainable by materialistic science. Here, for instance, is Gary Schwartz countering a critic of his research work:

How Not To Review Mediumship Research: Understanding the Ultimate Reviewer's Mistake

earl

[Postmaster]

Just read into Søren Aabye Kierkegaard Faith of knight thats pure genius.. Thats an idea I had in the back of my mind that I could never put down in words.

But the way I would have tried to explain it was like this

In science there’s the law of minimum it states that Growth and development of plants and animals are determined by the availability of that essential nutrient which is present in the smallest amount.

This kind of thinking is what led me to the opening post actually.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Actually a few well-respected researchers, such as Gary Schwartz, have documented some interesting findings, but what tends to happen with critics of such is that many seem to have a belief system predisposed to never considering those findings as actually reflective of something unexplainable by materialistic science. Here, for instance, is Gary Schwartz countering a critic of his research work:

How Not To Review Mediumship Research: Understanding the Ultimate Reviewer's Mistake

earl

I have come across this (friend of the cold reading fraudster) Shwartz before. Such pseudo-scientists are no different to the creationist zealots that want to redefine what constitutes scientific evidence. Hyman, the man he attacks for his rubbishing of Schwarts' paper, is an eminent and respected scientist who has for over 25 years specialised in analysing the details of experiments to insure against fraud and bad practice. Such men are a vital component in the scientific endeavour to insure lies, mistakes and frauds are exposed. He states about Schwarts' paper "(It is) one of the most fundamentally flawed papers I have ever read".

Schwarts, like all spiritulaist scientists and ID'ers, use(s) the fact that science does not provide an explanation (because the evidence is insufficient to do so) and calls that proof for any pet theory they dream up. It is utter nonsense and if I had my way such people should be prosecuted as fraudsters for calling themselves scientists. Nothing in Schwats' claims are not a regular feature of "cold reading" and are easilly repeated by sceptic mentalists that understand and manipulate people to achieve the same results. Schwatrs only answer to that is that the mentalists are being manipulated by the spirits too!! The guy is an idiot and the University of Arizona should be ashamed of themselves for having him on their staff.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have come across this (friend of the cold reading fraudster) Shwartz before. Such pseudo-scientists are no different to the creationist zealots that want to redefine what constitutes scientific evidence. Hyman, the man he attacks for his rubbishing of Schwarts' paper, is an eminent and respected scientist who has for over 25 years specialised in analysing the details of experiments to insure against fraud and bad practice. Such men are a vital component in the scientific endeavour to insure lies, mistakes and frauds are exposed. He states about Schwarts' paper "(It is) one of the most fundamentally flawed papers I have ever read".

Schwarts, like all spiritulaist scientists and ID'ers, use(s) the fact that science does not provide an explanation (because the evidence is insufficient to do so) and calls that proof for any pet theory they dream up. It is utter nonsense and if I had my way such people should be prosecuted as fraudsters for calling themselves scientists. Nothing in Schwats' claims are not a regular feature of "cold reading" and are easilly repeated by sceptic mentalists that understand and manipulate people to achieve the same results. Schwatrs only answer to that is that the mentalists are being manipulated by the spirits too!! The guy is an idiot and the University of Arizona should be ashamed of themselves for having him on their staff.

Tao, if you'd actually read Schwartz's detailed rebuttal, bothered to read his research and looked at it objectively-which wouldn't have been very "Tao" of you to have done so-you wouldn't have been able to simply have parrotted Hyman's claims. But you're 1 of those "religiously zealous" materialists I'd made reference to. It is this blind refusal to consider any evidence that makes folks like Path conclude such dialogues wearisome. earl

[earl]

As a little PS for ya Tao, to my knowledge Schwartz isn't an "ID'er," nor does his research address the issue of "God" per se. If you had your way, any research which suggested the possiblity of anything other than the materialist view might be true woudn't even see the light of day. That in itself is a rather fraudulent manner of proceeding. earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Tao, if you'd actually read Schwartz's detailed rebuttal, bothered to read his research and looked at it objectively-which wouldn't have been very "Tao" of you to have done so-you wouldn't have been able to simply have parrotted Hyman's claims. But you're 1 of those "religiously zealous" materialists I'd made reference to. It is this blind refusal to consider any evidence that makes folks like Path conclude such dialogues wearisome. earl

Actually I did bother to read his verbal diarrhoea and never called him an ID-er but by what he crassly calls himself a "spiritual scientist". As I said in my post I came across this moron quite some time ago and had formed my opinion on him rapidly as a man who wants to pervert the acceptable standards of scientific enquiry. I remain firm that my opinion on that is absolutely accurate. I have no blind refusal to accept real evidence but I can spot fraud as blatant as Schwarts' at 1000 yards.

You may be unaware that I myself have posted several times now of my belief in the possibility of some ESP being a fact. I am not closed to the possibility. But Idiots like that man do nothing but lower the bar in the credability of any such research. He is known as the "Bulldog" because he is famous for abusing his critics with insult rather than substance, because he has no substance.

I have a good dialogue with PoO because she never posts crap. In fact I consider her one of the few voices here that make any effort to understand where I stand and who is not so stupid as to confuse objection to nonsense as religious zeal. And I respect her enough that you will never find me speaking for her as you do.

[I, Brian]

Okay, a couple of posts removed. You folks shouldn't need a babysitter to remain civil, so it'll just be infractions next time.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Actually I did bother to read his verbal diarrhoea and never called him an ID-er but by what he crassly calls himself a "spiritual scientist". As I said in my post I came across this moron quite some time ago and had formed my opinion on him rapidly as a man who wants to pervert the acceptable standards of scientific enquiry. I remain firm that my opinion on that is absolutely accurate. I have no blind refusal to accept real evidence but I can spot fraud as blatant as Schwarts' at 1000 yards.

You may be unaware that I myself have posted several times now of my belief in the possibility of some ESP being a fact. I am not closed to the possibility. But Idiots like that man do nothing but lower the bar in the credability of any such research. He is known as the "Bulldog" because he is famous for abusing his critics with insult rather than substance, because he has no substance.

I have a good dialogue with PoO because she never posts crap. In fact I consider her one of the few voices here that make any effort to understand where I stand and who is not so stupid as to confuse objection to nonsense as religious zeal. And I respect her enough that you will never find me speaking for her as you do.

If you read it, then it would have been obvious to you there was no absusiveness to be found in the rebuttal. I'm surprised to hear you say you don't think Path "posts crap" when she is discussing her spiritual experiences-I thought that was what you defined as crap. Hyman never alleged fraud-show me where in that rebuttal you can find clear-cut proof of fraud. earl

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I guess this highlights for me the trouble with trying to label it all to begin with, but is there really any significant difference between panentheism and animism? From my perspective, I don't see any significant difference other than the spelling...

Not sure either - to be honest, not sure panentheists are sure either.

I think a key problem is that as humans we try and understand existence in human terms, when the universe is larger than that. It's kind of like an amoeba trying to explain existence in amoeboid terms - it may make sense ot other amoeba, but does it really understand anything fundamentally?

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Just read into Søren Aabye Kierkegaard Faith of knight thats pure genius.. Thats an idea I had in the back of my mind that I could never put down in words.

Glad you liked it.

I am no expert in his writings, and am actually planning on reading
more, but it is weird that you said that because I get a very familiar
feeling from Kierkegaard as well.

btw, this book is definitely on my wish-list. It has many of his writings compiled together: Amazon.com: The Essential Kierkegaard: Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, Soren Kierkegaard: Books

[Postmaster]

I'm glad you were intuitive enough to know that I understand his gist... I haven't read much only his philosophy on the knight of faith..

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

What if one views G-d less as an anthropomorphic entity and still prays to keep the car from running out of gas?

Logically it seems to me a conundrum, G-d just doesn't fit neatly into any little boxes we derive...

I've seen too many things that defy explanation, I used to make my guardian angel work overtime when I was a kid. Now I want to understand, but so much of my experience defies logic.

What interests me about refining the definition of what God is is how it changes the demographics of who is and isn't "officially" a theist. Remember that recent Pew study where self identified atheists said they believe in God? Makes you wonder what definitions were used and how the questions were framed, doesn't it?

Chris

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I'm glad you were intuitive enough to know that I understand his gist... I haven't read much only his philosophy on the knight of faith..

(lengthening message to a minimum of 10 characters...there... posting)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

If you read it, then it would have been obvious to you there was no absusiveness to be found in the rebuttal. I'm surprised to hear you say you don't think Path "posts crap" when she is discussing her spiritual experiences-I thought that was what you defined as crap. Hyman never alleged fraud-show me where in that rebuttal you can find clear-cut proof of fraud. earl

This statement which forms the basis of his argument and he uses repeatedly is fraudulent:
What I have concluded is as follows, "When the complete set of findings are considered, in total, the simplest and most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the largest amount of the data - including the "dazzle shots" - is currently the survival of consciousness hypothesis." This is a factual statement. No other single hypothesis accounts for as much of the data as does the survival hypothesis.
for a scientist who is making a lucrative career selling his books to a gullible and credulous American market to keep using the same so called mediums and releasing only selective results that fit what sells books is fraudulent. His rebuttal itself is a highly selective edit of Hymans critique that seeks continually to rubbish and ignores the substance of Hymans objections. Interesting to note he only set out on this research to get into the knickers of a girl he met who's dad had just died. Perhaps a true indicator of the kind of man he really is.

[Postmaster]

Does anyone sometimes feel like there heads going to explode? lol I'm starting to theorise that we need ignorance to protect our minds of the infinite constant rays of information we receive and we need philosophy to put everything we learn in dynamic order. Maybe Philosophy + Ignorance = Religion