Should there be a Religion forum?
Current time: 12-20-2014, 03:14 PM
User(s) browsing this thread:
Author: zonsb
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 55
Views: 13533

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should there be a Religion forum?
02-09-2012, 04:56 PM
Post: #16
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
I agree that if there is to be an Atheist's forum then there should also be a Religionists forum.

(sigh. I can see this going downhill rapidly.)

- NonE

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 07:23 PM
Post: #17
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
I've researched enough about James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge to know it's a fraud. It's his schtick, he can't afford to lose. He has ensured it's un-winnable. You're not going to convince me or other people that have empirical evidence/proof/experience that remote viewing is valid.

If you don't want to believe it or take the free course to validate it for yourself, that's your problem, not mine. Deal with. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

One of these days, weeks, months or years I'll get around to putting my database with over 3400 remote viewing trials on the interwebs. For now, I can talk/write about my experiences and knowledge about remote viewing. But not with you. You're like the crazy guy on the street waving his arms, "barking" at people. You're an embarrassment.

Quote:There's two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with. ~ Hossiers, the movie.


(02-09-2012 03:28 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 06:17 PM)zonsb Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 05:25 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Thus, closer to communicating and speaking more logically consistent, the restriction and/or the Category label needs it's qualifying or restricting terminology (e.g. God religion, or Theos religion, or Paranormal religion?)

Remote viewing is categorized as paranormal. Remote viewing is not a religion. It has been validated by many people with empirical evidence. I've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times. Every person has the ability to remote view -- it's a species-wide ability. It's easy to learn and do.

remote-viewing.com has a free course.

[Image: text1.gif]

--


http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Win $1,000,000 by proving it to James Randi.

I bet you could not. I am calling your claim false.

It is nonsense like this that allows people to 'see' the State.



Challenge Info

Written by JREF Staff
Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:10



The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

Click here to see the application.

Click here to see the current $1 million statement which shows the current amount in our prize account.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Log of Applicants

Last Updated on Thursday, 09 June 2011 11:55

Good luck!

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 09:37 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 09:38 PM by boyntonstu.)
Post: #18
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Quote:I've researched enough about James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge to know it's a fraud.

What facts do you have in your possession to prove that James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 09:57 PM
Post: #19
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-09-2012 09:37 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  
Quote:I've researched enough about James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge to know it's a fraud.

What facts do you have in your possession to prove that James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud?

I have more than enough to have become convinced it's a fraud. None that you deserve. All you get is a Google search: million dollar challenge fraud.

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Post: #20
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
OK I believe you as much as they believe you:

http://tinyurl.com/7o3uxcw

and: http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html

Dames pops up here because after the appearance of a column in which I made light of Remote Viewers, a reader wrote to me and said, "What about Ed Dames?" He indicated that Dames was the Real Deal.

As some of the evidence for Dames' authenticity as a guy who could telepathically "view" things from afar, my correspondent cited Dames' background with the CIA, and the "fact" that James Randi, the famous skeptic, had "refused to test Dames" because "he knew that Dames would win the one million dollars" of the challenge Randi has made to psychics, in place for years now. Randi offered one million dollars "to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions."

I tried to get hold of Dames, sending him email and messages through intermediaries, to ask if he made this claim about Randi and exactly why. Couldn't get him.

James Randi did respond to my email, and gave me his phone number. I called him at the James Randi Educational Foundation, and spoke to him several times. He is a very articulate man, sardonic in tone, and sometimes quite vehement though he never really lost his temper (nor was he impolite to me). He comes off as a man who's had it up to here with rumors and mythology about him and the Foundation. People aren't doing their homework; all these questions have been answered at his website (http://www.randi.org) or in his books, his encyclopedia, in Time magazine, and other places. But he answered me anyway.

Dames, he said, was welcome to take the test any time; and he was never prevented from taking the test. All he has to do is sign the application form. (Said form is available at the Randi website for your perusal.) Dames refused to sign the form -- which, so far as I can tell, simply lays out the inevitable rules of a scientific test. As to Dames' allegations: "A direct blatant lie," Randi said. "No two ways about it. He refuses to sign the claim form. He wants to make the rules for a test conform to his convenience. The first rule of the Challenge is you must agree to the rules of the test."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 11:47 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #21
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
zonsb Wrote:The thing is, you and everyone can validate for themselves via personal experience that remote viewing works. To not even entertain the idea that you and everyone has a "sixth sense" ability to remote view or choose to ridicule ...

Remote viewing is categorized as paranormal. Remote viewing is not a religion. It has been validated by many people with empirical evidence. I've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times. Every person has the ability to remote view -- it's a species-wide ability. It's easy to learn and do.

I just want to share a couple of thoughts about this and then ask a question.
I find it hugely disingenuous to refer to Remote Viewing as a sixth sense (even with it in quotes). First, if there are more than the primary 5 senses, the #6 slot has long been allocated imho.

But more crucially to point is that such would be referred to as a sense period. For example, is the placebo effect a sense? Yet evidence supports that it does indeed occur. My rub comes in considering that unlike the primary senses, The Big Five if you will, the likes of RVing requires instruction, direction, or teaching. Senses, in this regard, just don't work that way. (sure, we can develop keenness with the senses, but it doesn't require introduction to it; they just are).

Lastly, I'd like to ask, along the lines of what I heard NonEntity getting at: what value, other than the similar novelty of optical illusions (that are nigh universal as well i.e. anyone can 'do it') comes from 'practicing' RV? I mean really, wow, vague (subjective) patterns are identified remotely (where how much of it is akin Rorschach Prints "seeing" I really don't know, but find very tempting in parallel). And we can say we got a match. Novel perhaps, but hardly worthy of labeling such a sense, much less a sixth one -imho. [why you find it tempting to speak of it as "a sense" might prove valuable to you to examine/consider?]

Just to be sure, I'm not wishing to imply I believe RVing is anything more than something akin to Placebo, if even that. I honestly can't find the value of investigating it simply because I've never seen anything significant or productive offered about it as a return on investment (that again, is any different from the oddity of chance; you know like the one guy that wins the lotto, and earth being the only planet with life).

You state that you've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times; swell. What did it net beyond fascination or intrigue?
(02-09-2012 10:04 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  OK I believe you as much as they believe you:

http://tinyurl.com/7o3uxcw

and: http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html

Dames pops up here because after the appearance of a column in which I made light of Remote Viewers, a reader wrote to me and said, "What about Ed Dames?" He indicated that Dames was the Real Deal....
...
The first rule of the Challenge is you must agree to the rules of the test."

boyntonstu, with all due respect, you're risking losing me as a reader via posting text but not using the forum quote format for them --or identifying such as indeed being another's words in some way. I saw it happen in another instance where doing that led Jace (and myself) to take what was posted as being your own words (the "math teacher"). I am assuming of course, you aren't John Shirley, thus you're not the author of the text you've posted here? [meanwhile, I do appreciate you linking to that blog article; appears to be a quite interesting read --I'm now looking forward to getting back to] Cool

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Post: #22
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-10-2012 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
zonsb Wrote:The thing is, you and everyone can validate for themselves via personal experience that remote viewing works. To not even entertain the idea that you and everyone has a "sixth sense" ability to remote view or choose to ridicule ...

Remote viewing is categorized as paranormal. Remote viewing is not a religion. It has been validated by many people with empirical evidence. I've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times. Every person has the ability to remote view -- it's a species-wide ability. It's easy to learn and do.

I just want to share a couple of thoughts about this and then ask a question.
I find it hugely disingenuous to refer to Remote Viewing as a sixth sense (even with it in quotes). First, if there are more than the primary 5 senses, the #6 slot has long been allocated imho.

But more crucially to point is that such would be referred to as a sense period. For example, is the placebo effect a sense? Yet evidence supports that it does indeed occur. My rub comes in considering that unlike the primary senses, The Big Five if you will, the likes of RVing requires instruction, direction, or teaching. Senses, in this regard, just don't work that way. (sure, we can develop keenness with the senses, but it doesn't require introduction to it; they just are).

Lastly, I'd like to ask, along the lines of what I heard NonEntity getting at: what value, other than the similar novelty of optical illusions (that are nigh universal as well i.e. anyone can 'do it') comes from 'practicing' RV? I mean really, wow, vague (subjective) patterns are identified remotely (where how much of it is akin Rorschach Prints "seeing" I really don't know, but find very tempting in parallel). And we can say we got a match. Novel perhaps, but hardly worthy of labeling such a sense, much less a sixth one -imho. [why you find it tempting to speak of it as "a sense" might prove valuable to you to examine/consider?]

Just to be sure, I'm not wishing to imply I believe RVing is anything more than something akin to Placebo, if even that. I honestly can't find the value of investigating it simply because I've never seen anything significant or productive offered about it as a return on investment (that again, is any different from the oddity of chance; you know like the one guy that wins the lotto, and earth being the only planet with life).

You state that you've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times; swell. What did it net beyond fascination or intrigue?
(02-09-2012 10:04 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  OK I believe you as much as they believe you:

http://tinyurl.com/7o3uxcw

and: http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/two.html

Dames pops up here because after the appearance of a column in which I made light of Remote Viewers, a reader wrote to me and said, "What about Ed Dames?" He indicated that Dames was the Real Deal....
...
The first rule of the Challenge is you must agree to the rules of the test."

boyntonstu, with all due respect, you're risking losing me as a reader via posting text but not using the forum quote format for them --or identifying such as indeed being another's words in some way. I saw it happen in another instance where doing that led Jace (and myself) to take what was posted as being your own words (the "math teacher"). I am assuming of course, you aren't John Shirley, thus you're not the author of the text you've posted here? [meanwhile, I do appreciate you linking to that blog article; appears to be a quite interesting read --I'm now looking forward to getting back to] Cool

I apologize for my sloppy posting.

(I am used to listening through static when using Morse Code.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:43 PM
Post: #23
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-10-2012 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  boyntonstu, with all due respect,...

Reminds me of the biblical line about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Angel

- NonE

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:07 PM
Post: #24
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-10-2012 03:43 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(02-10-2012 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  boyntonstu, with all due respect,...

Reminds me of the biblical line about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Angel

- NonE

Foul! Foul! Fowl, I doth sayeth!! Referring to the bible in the HARDcore category?!? FOWL!!


[Image: chick3.gif]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 04:58 AM
Post: #25
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Quote:I just want to share a couple of thoughts about this and then ask a question.
I find it hugely disingenuous to refer to Remote Viewing as a sixth sense (even with it in quotes). First, if there are more than the primary 5 senses, the #6 slot has long been allocated imho.

I make mental note of your "tone" in your phrase "hugely disingenuous" that you wanted to share. I detect that it has relevance to you. It's of little value to me. What is the #6 sense, if there is one, in your humble opinion?

I chose "sense" because sensing is signal detection and that's pertinent to remote viewing (RV). Ears sense wave vibration that travel through space. The space is typically air (gases) but when you put your ear to a solid object your ear detects the tapping sound/vibration as its transmited through the atoms and molecules. A mechanics stethoscope works on the same principle. The auditory cortex process the signal and the mind detects patterns -- pattern recognition. It's how language, music and sounds are learned and differentiated. It's basically the same with eyes. Eyes detect light (photons) signals. The visual cortex process the signal and the mind detects patterns -- pattern recognition.

An infant's five senses take in information signals by which the senses are refined or developed to differentiate sounds, shapes, colors, odors and tactile sensations. A person from infancy to the age of five rapidly learns a tremendous amount.

Sometimes the input signal is processed incorrectly or the mind identifies with a wrong pattern -- it misinterprets. I remember walking in the woods and I was startled by a snake. On second look it wasn't a snake, it was a stick.

It's necessary to have a basic understanding of remote viewing, thus, I'll explain. The person doing the remote viewing is the subject. The item to be remote viewed is the object.

Three scenarios, all similar. 1) the subject is tasked with describing a hidden object. 2) the subject is tasked with describing the environment of the place that a person whom is unknown to the subject is standing and is at a place that is unknown to the subject. 3) the subject is tasked with describing a random picture he'll be shown at a specific time in the future.

I've done the 3rd scenario 3400 times. For the three scenarios the subject has no information about the object, the place or picture.

During the RV session the subject detects the signal and processes the information. He may perceive patterns of sight, sound, touch, odor, etc. After a few minutes of detection and pattern recognition I draw the images I perceived and descriptively write about the perceptions. Ie, what I saw, heard or felt. Birds, waterfalls, hot, cold, wet, etc.

I begin the RV session by saying to myself: "Any perceptions I'm about to experience will be related to the picture I will be looking at on Tuesday at 10:03am." That time is called the feedback time.

Sometime after the remote viewing session and written record of my perceptions are completed, a picture is randomly drawn/selected to be the feedback target. In other words, during the RV session I try to identify a picture that has yet to be randomly drawn/selected.

Here's three descriptions of what a subject perceived during three RV session and the feedback targets/pictures. Click on the thumbnails to see larger versions.
[Image: July17-0120mini.jpg]

[Image: June25-Emini.jpg]

[Image: may11-Amini.jpg]

Whatever part or aspect of the human body that detects the signal could be called the detector rather than a sense. The signal isn't coming through the commonly known five senses. Intuition is the most common word used to describe what is taking place. Signal is the word most used to describe what is being detected. Signal is differentiated from noise.

Quote:in·tu·i·tion (nt-shn, -ty-)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

Quote:But more crucially to point is that such would be referred to as a sense period. For example, is the placebo effect a sense? Yet evidence supports that it does indeed occur. My rub comes in considering that unlike the primary senses, The Big Five if you will, the likes of RVing requires instruction, direction, or teaching. Senses, in this regard, just don't work that way. (sure, we can develop keenness with the senses, but it doesn't require introduction to it; they just are).

The placebo effect is believing and/or thinking a drug will produce an effect. The cause is believing and/or thinking. The effect is ailment/sickness cured. It could be equated to having faith that the drug will cause a desired effect. It is the mind that causes the effect, not the ritual. The ritual is: the subject takes in information about the drug and the anticipated effects of taking the drug; the information is supplied by a doctor or technician; the ritual continues with taking the sugar pill that's believed/thought to be a drug.

In reality, it is the mind/body of the subject that cures the ailment -- the subject is the cause of the effect. Whatever the ritual is, is not predicated on there being a doctor/technician and the swallowing of pill(s). The ritual is whatever causes oneself to believe/think the ailment will be cured. A person could read on the internet that xyz physical exercise will cure her ailment. Yet, unbeknownst to her she does an exercise believing/thinking it's xyz exercise when it's not. She didn't follow the as-stated correct procedure, yet the ailment was cured. The ritual wasn't the cure.

Intuition just is. It's an innate attribute or ability. Keenness of detecting the signal can be refined to increase the signal to noise ratio. This is in part achieved by settling/quieting ones mind for the brain to maintain the alpha wave frequency range -- 7 through 14 cycles per second (cps) -- throughout the RV session. Beta is 15 through 30 cps and produces too much noise. Delta -- 4cps and under -- is deep sleep so that won't work. Theta is between Delta and Alpha and is difficult to maintain without falling asleep.

Quote:Lastly, I'd like to ask, along the lines of what I heard NonEntity getting at: what value, other than the similar novelty of optical illusions (that are nigh universal as well i.e. anyone can 'do it') comes from 'practicing' RV? I mean really, wow, vague (subjective) patterns are identified remotely (where how much of it is akin Rorschach Prints "seeing" I really don't know, but find very tempting in parallel). And we can say we got a match. Novel perhaps, but hardly worthy of labeling such a sense, much less a sixth one -imho. [why you find it tempting to speak of it as "a sense" might prove valuable to you to examine/consider?]

Regarding Rorschach Prints, there are signals processed by the visual cortex and interpreted by the mind. You're forgiven for your ignorance of remote viewing. With RV, where does the signal come from? Does it come from an as yet unidentified/unselected picture? Science has yet to identify how RV works or why it works. But it does work.

Quote:Just to be sure, I'm not wishing to imply I believe RVing is anything more than something akin to Placebo, if even that. I honestly can't find the value of investigating it simply because I've never seen anything significant or productive offered about it as a return on investment (that again, is any different from the oddity of chance; you know like the one guy that wins the lotto, and earth being the only planet with life).

Just to be sure, your post seems more an attempt to support or validate your mistaken or erroneous beliefs on remote viewing than acquiring information worthy of further investigation. It seems you find no significant or productive value or return on investment in correcting your errors regards remote viewing. Perhaps thinking there might be value in acquiring new information that would dispel mistaken or erroneous beliefs. [why you find it tempting to speak of RV as an "oddity of chance" and paranormal a religion might prove valuable to you to examine/consider?] Cognitive dissonance might be a good place to begin.

The placebo effect is believing/thinking having faith that the pill-ritual will cause the effect, Ie., cure the ailment. The fact is, it's the person's mind/body that causes the effect, not the information supplied about the drug and it's intended effects or the perceived authority of the doctor or technician or the sugar pill.

During one RV session I perceived the word "jack-o-lantern," and so wrote it down in my description. Latter on, a target/picture was randomly selected. When the feedback time arrived, the picture I was looking at was a jack-o-lantern. That's one of many targets I've nailed spot on.

The odds of winning a lottery that has 48 numbers and the winner must pick the correct 6 numbers, the odds are something like 12 million to one. What are the odds of the RV subject accurately describing a target/picture when the target/picture could be anything imaginable? Why a Jack-o-lantern and not a snowflake or a mouse or a billion other things? What are the odds the RV subject would nail the target/picture one hundred times out of 3400 attempts? How many times does the guy win the lotto in how many attempts? Probability of statistics says he should win once in 12 million attempts.

Lets you and I play our own lotto. Just one number will be randomly drawn from a pool of a billion numbers ranging from 1 to a billion. Your task is to predict the number that will be drawn. The odds are a billion to one that your prediction will be correct. The odds of correctly predicting the number one time in 3400 attempts is 294,117 to one. The odds of making a correct prediction one hundred times in 3400 attempts is astronomical.

Quote:You state that you've successfully remote viewed over a hundred times; swell. What did it net beyond fascination or intrigue?

I've gained much self-awareness that was otherwise untapped and greatly assisted in predicting whether currency pairs will go up or down on forex. It corrected my mistaken belief of paranormal abilities. I corrected my errors.

Let me put it this way. Your placebo effect doesn't hold water and is a false analogy as is equating RV to random chance lotto guy winning. You're forgiven for your ignorance of remote viewing. Or, would you rather I call it hugely disingenuous?

If you're really not interested in investigating remote viewing then you most likely won't investigate it. If you're really not interested in correcting your errors you probably wont investigate it.

My experience investigating RV. A good friend suggested I look into a certain website regarding Psi and specifically RV. Which I knew nothing about and up to that point had chalked up many strange occurrences to coincidence. I didn't believe in ESP/paranormal/psychic abilities. Coincidence sufficed. Greg's website at remote-viewing.com has a lot of information, dozens of examples like the three I posted above. The data is presented in tables and graphs; how much money he has made; mostly by predicting whether futures prices would go up or down. As much information as Greg has on his website, I read about five times as much about RV elsewhere on the internet.

It got to the point where, despite large amount of data and information validating remote viewing I had to validate it with personal experience. So that's what I did. My first RV session was a success. Which I have a vivid recollection of the session.

As I said to you in my previous post, remote viewing is a paranormal ability and it's not a religion. Though obviously you may continue to call paranormal a religion. No big deal. You'd just be wrong; as you are regards the placebo effect analogy. The placebo effect is believing/thinking, having faith. Remote viewing is detecting a signal and processing the information. Believing and faith have nothing to do with it. I know I can detect the signal and accurately process the information.

I recall the RV session where I sketched a clock. My clock-sketch matched the clock in the target/picture right down to the exact time.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2012 07:11 AM by boyntonstu.)
Post: #26
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Do the sketches in front of James Randi and win $1,000,000.00.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2012, 03:38 PM
Post: #27
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-11-2012 07:11 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:  Do the sketches in front of James Randi and win $1,000,000.00.

Two assumptions:
1. If remote viewing is valid someone would have won James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge.
2. If James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge is valid someone would have won it.

James Randi’s test is empirical evidence of the validity of his test, not remote viewing (RV). Remote viewing data is empirical evidence of the validity of RV.

The hallmark of the scientific method and scientific reason is consistency. With science, replication is critical. Appeal to authority is inconsistent with scientific reason.

How often have we seen appeals to the constitution, the law, judges and appeals to the Bible, Allah and religion? I’ve said as much to Stefan Molyneux in response to him saying in a video that if remote viewing was valid someone would have won James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge. I told him: People hear that and repeat it Stef, and it’s wrong. You put forth an appeal to authority that’s inconsistent with scientific reason. You want the empirical evidence. I gave him my RV stats and links to empirical evidence. I also suggested he research why someone hasn’t won Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge.

I thought it was an honest mistake; in his zeal to support his argument he used an appeal to authority. A person will naturally have a bias toward what they hold true. So I pointed it out in hopes that he’d appreciate the insight. That was four or five years ago. I don’t know whether he researched RV or where he stands on the issue today.

It doesn’t take much speculation to conclude a most likely reason that James Randi’s million dollar challenge is not a valid challenge. His career is debunking the paranormal. It’s critical, pivotal to his career and him personally to not have anyone win the challenge.

In light of the empirical evidence on RV, an appeal to James Randi as an authority would be laughable if it weren’t for it being a travesty of empiricism -- "spawning," or perhaps attracting cult-like followers like iron fillings to a magnet on his JREF Forum.

Quote:“They must find it difficult… those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” ~ Gerald Massey

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2012, 03:55 PM
Post: #28
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Quote:It doesn’t take much speculation to conclude a most likely reason that James Randi’s million dollar challenge is not a valid challenge. His career is debunking the paranormal. It’s critical, pivotal to his career and him personally to not have anyone win the challenge.

You come to a conclusion by speculating.

What facts do you have to support your view(s)?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2012, 04:48 PM
Post: #29
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-13-2012 03:55 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  
Quote:It doesn’t take much speculation to conclude a most likely reason that James Randi’s million dollar challenge is not a valid challenge. His career is debunking the paranormal. It’s critical, pivotal to his career and him personally to not have anyone win the challenge.

You come to a conclusion by speculating.

What facts do you have to support your view(s)?

What facts do you have supporting your use of the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy to be a valid argument? What part of "most likely" don't you understand? The fact that several people have tried to get through the application process and never made it. Yet there's a lot of people that have empirical evidence and first hand experience validating remote viewing. Speculation in essence is short on facts yearning for them. Follow the logic and speculate accordingly.

Speaking of failed credibility...





--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2012, 05:01 PM
Post: #30
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-13-2012 04:48 PM)zonsb Wrote:  
(02-13-2012 03:55 PM)boyntonstu Wrote:  
Quote:It doesn’t take much speculation to conclude a most likely reason that James Randi’s million dollar challenge is not a valid challenge. His career is debunking the paranormal. It’s critical, pivotal to his career and him personally to not have anyone win the challenge.

You come to a conclusion by speculating.

What facts do you have to support your view(s)?

What facts do you have supporting your use of the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy to be a valid argument? What part of "most likely" don't you understand? The fact that several people have tried to get through the application process and never made it. Yet there's a lot of people that have empirical evidence and first hand experience validating remote viewing. Speculation in essence is short on facts yearning for them. Follow the logic and speculate accordingly.

Speaking of failed credibility...





--
What facts do you have to support your view(s)?

Present them here.........................
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: