|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:42:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky.
Do you think Uri is a fraud or he can actually do what he claims (bend spoons and what not)?
URI is a real person.
He is not acting as any other illusionist or magician of any show business.
He is claiming to have real paranormal powers.
He can actually repeat all what he claimed before.
All what he claims he can do, can be also reproduced as a magician trick.
James Randi was the first who reproduced URI's performance as a magician trick ( in the TV show business)
The “bending spoons” trick was older than URI or Randi.
Uri is still claiming he has paranormal powers.
The old skepticism didn't stop URI's career as a paranormal guy.
Many people thinks URI has paranormal powers.
These people are called “believers” by the old skepticism.
LATINIJRAL facts :
One of the mistakes of the old scepticism is how they want the evidence to believe in what they consider could be paranormal.
Some pseudo skeptic organizations even have money rewards to those who can bring it.
Once the evidence could be presented they will become in another believer of the paranormal. That is one the reasons of their pseudo scepticism.
There is nothing in the universe to be considered paranormal at all. Everything has a rational explanation. Not having the correct answer now ,it doesn't mean that answer will be discovered in the future.
URI is just a fraud as the pseudo skepticism is.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Everything has a rational explanation.
Where is your evidence for this claim? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 00:25:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Everything has a rational explanation.
Where is your evidence for this claim?
In time. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 04:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky.
Do you think Uri is a fraud or he can actually do what he claims (bend spoons and what not)?
URI is a real person.
He is not acting as any other illusionist or magician of any show business.
He is claiming to have real paranormal powers.
He can actually repeat all what he claimed before.
All what he claims he can do, can be also reproduced as a magician trick.
James Randi was the first who reproduced URI's performance as a magician trick ( in the TV show business)
The “bending spoons” trick was older than URI or Randi.
Uri is still claiming he has paranormal powers.
The old skepticism didn't stop URI's career as a paranormal guy.
Many people thinks URI has paranormal powers.
These people are called “believers” by the old skepticism.
LATINIJRAL facts :
One of the mistakes of the old scepticism is how they want the evidence to believe in what they consider could be paranormal.
Some pseudo skeptic organizations even have money rewards to those who can bring it.
Once the evidence could be presented they will become in another believer of the paranormal. That is one the reasons of their pseudo scepticism.
There is nothing in the universe to be considered paranormal at all. Everything has a rational explanation. Not having the correct answer now ,it doesn't mean that answer will be discovered in the future.
URI is just a fraud as the pseudo skepticism is.
Ah, I think I finally see where you're coming from, here. According to you, that because Geller is not incarcerated or at least driving a truck for a living in spite of having been debunked at every turn, skepticism as we know it has failed. Is this close?
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but why the hell didn't you simply state it instead of going through a multi-page volume of tedium to make your point? What with the language difficulties, gleaning your points can often be chancey.
Skepticism has not failed because, you see, Geller has broken no law as far as anyone knows. Bamboozling the public is a perfectly legal endevor, within certain limits, and Geller, although a fraud, has carefully remained within those limits. So have many others of his ilk, some far more dishonest than he. I myself see little difference between what they do and someone running a pigeon drop, but it is not I who writes the law. Which is probably a good thing.
Y'see 'Jral, skeptics are far in the minority in the population. Critical thinking is not much encouraged, and people love to believe in the paranormal and the supernatural; the fantastical. Anything we might say and back up with proofs can simply be blown off as the ranting of a foolish curmudgeon who doesn't 'understand.' As has happened to Randi, now and again.
But has the New Skepticism, whatever that might be, fared any better? I've seen no evidence of this. Further, I've seen no evidence that this improved version even exists. So, I ask again:
(Bolded question concerning the evolution of skepticism along with a snotty remark about latinijral's failure to elaborate upon same, that I'm too lazy to type in this morning.)
You might also consider giving a brief and consice definition of what you call psuedo-skepticism. Just to clear up any misunderstandings.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 07:17:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you claim that I debunked the scepticism or that I claimed that I debunked the scepticism , you need to provide the evidence first.
It is your claim .
Once again, the threads you have been in are rife with evidence of your claims, none of them supportable. Even a part of your signature is an unsupported claim. Are you denying your own words?
Thus far, you have proposed nothing but unsupported crap. When are you finally going to explain yourself?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/12/2005 08:05:56 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 08:38:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
URI is a real person.
He is not acting as any other illusionist or magician of any show business.
He is claiming to have real paranormal powers.
He can actually repeat all what he claimed before.
All what he claims he can do, can be also reproduced as a magician trick.
James Randi was the first who reproduced URI's performance as a magician trick ( in the TV show business)
The “bending spoons” trick was older than URI or Randi.
Uri is still claiming he has paranormal powers.
The old skepticism didn't stop URI's career as a paranormal guy.
Many people thinks URI has paranormal powers.
These people are called “believers” by the old skepticism.
LATINIJRAL facts :
One of the mistakes of the old scepticism is how they want the evidence to believe in what they consider could be paranormal.
Some pseudo skeptic organizations even have money rewards to those who can bring it.
Once the evidence could be presented they will become in another believer of the paranormal. That is one the reasons of their pseudo scepticism.
There is nothing in the universe to be considered paranormal at all. Everything has a rational explanation. Not having the correct answer now ,it doesn't mean that answer will be discovered in the future.
URI is just a fraud as the pseudo skepticism is.
Ah, I think I finally see where you're coming from, here. According to you, that because Geller is not incarcerated or at least driving a truck for a living in spite of having been debunked at every turn, skepticism as we know it has failed. Is this close?
If you thought you finally saw where I was coming from…… why are you asking me to if you are close or not?
Read again the reply and now try to really think and quote me every word that you “think” support every particular claim you do about me.
Do you need evidence of the paranormal on order to believe in the paranormal?
Hmmmmm. Hard question for SFN.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 08:49:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R. Wreck
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijral:
A) You were on topic.
B)You didn't name Randi or Carlos.
C)You expressed your opinion about URI ---#61664; you don't care is he is still doing the same frauds and “laughing” to all the ones who thought he was “eliminated”.
D) You just care about Latinijral and what the new scepticism can do to “eliminate” all kind of fraudulent people. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A)Correct
B)Correct
C)Partially correct. I don't much care about Uri Geller. However I have no idea what he's doing these days, whether or not he is laughing at anybody, or if anybody thought he was eliminated.
D)Wrong. I seriously doubt you or the "new skepticism" can eliminate anybody. And I think your obsession with this need to eliminate all kinds of fraudulent people is very unhealthy. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A)Correct
B)Correct
C)Partially correct. You don't much care about Uri Geller. However in this topic you had the opportunity to learn a little more about Geller.
D)Wrong. I seriously doubt you were NOT the one who wrote before this :
“So, latinijral, I'll work to change what I can, and I'll leave the crusade of annihilation to you and the sons of the new skepticism. Good luck.”
Apparently you missed the the intended sarcasm, so I'll try to make it clear, so that even you can understand:
You appear to be a mentally unbalanced individual with a complete misunderstanding of what skepticism entails. You have an extremely unhealthy obsession with destroying those you believe to be frauds. You are in actuality incapable of destroying any of these people. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 11:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy:
Yah, napalm is effective as is molton lava. But damn, this guy's straw men are so flimsy that methane from a frog's ass ignited in the rain would put them to rest.
Do you have evidence that latin's man is made of straw?
Do you have evidence that a frog has an ass?
Do you have evidence that methane emanates from a frog's ass?
Do you have evidence that methane is flammable?
Do you have evidence that the particular methane from a frog's ass (which you haven't proven to exist) is flammable?
Do you have evidence that frogs emit methane from their ass in the rain?
Hey, this new skepticism stuff is easy! Completely fucking useless, but easy. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 13:24:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you thought you finally saw where I was coming from…… why are you asking me to if you are close or not?
Read again the reply and now try to really think and quote me every word that you “think” support every particular claim you do about me.
Do you need evidence of the paranormal on order to believe in the paranormal?
Hmmmmm. Hard question for SFN.
Wonderful. More garbage.
You know perfectly well what I am asking you, but you don't have the balls to answer. But that's ok, because there is no answer; never has been. So, let us revise the question:
When are you going to admit that you haven't the least idea of what you're talking about, the 'New Skepticism' is nonsense, and that you are no more than trying to fluff your ego by irritating others with bullshit?
There's a name for that.... what the hell is it.... hmmm... lessee....
Ah, I have it! You're a neo-conservative Republican!
My condolences, and best wishes for an early recovery.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/12/2005 13:39:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 18:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Everything has a rational explanation.
Where is your evidence for this claim?
In time.
And why would I want to wait? There's a Nobel prize in it for you, if you can demonstrate the truthfulness of your claim that everything has a rational explanation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 18:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Everything has a rational explanation.
Where is your evidence for this claim?
In time.
And why would I want to wait? There's a Nobel prize in it for you, if you can demonstrate the truthfulness of your claim that everything has a rational explanation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 19:59:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
If you thought you finally saw where I was coming from…… why are you asking me to if you are close or not?
Read again the reply and now try to really think and quote me every word that you “think” support every particular claim you do about me.
Do you need evidence of the paranormal on order to believe in the paranormal?
Hmmmmm. Hard question for SFN.
Why do you have to be such an asshole? Filthy was obviously trying to understand what your point is (since thus far you've been nothing but obtuse), and your reply was nothing but sarcasm and insults!
If that is how you want to treat people who are genuinely trying to follow your argument, then why are you here? I mean, if you want to discuss your ideas, then at least treat those who are tying to discuss it with you with respect. If not, then go elsewhere! |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 20:30:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
When are you going to admit that you haven't the least idea of what you're talking about, the 'New Skepticism' is nonsense, and that you are no more than trying to fluff your ego by irritating others with bullshit?
The day you bring the evidence of your claim.
Did I irritate you with my answer?
Poor baby , I didn't mean it.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 20:33:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R. Wreck
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijral:
A) You were on topic.
B)You didn't name Randi or Carlos.
C)You expressed your opinion about URI ---#61664; you don't care is he is still doing the same frauds and “laughing” to all the ones who thought he was “eliminated”.
D) You just care about Latinijral and what the new scepticism can do to “eliminate” all kind of fraudulent people. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A)Correct
B)Correct
C)Partially correct. I don't much care about Uri Geller. However I have no idea what he's doing these days, whether or not he is laughing at anybody, or if anybody thought he was eliminated.
D)Wrong. I seriously doubt you or the "new skepticism" can eliminate anybody. And I think your obsession with this need to eliminate all kinds of fraudulent people is very unhealthy. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A)Correct
B)Correct
C)Partially correct. You don't much care about Uri Geller. However in this topic you had the opportunity to learn a little more about Geller.
D)Wrong. I seriously doubt you were NOT the one who wrote before this :
“So, latinijral, I'll work to change what I can, and I'll leave the crusade of annihilation to you and the sons of the new skepticism. Good luck.”
Apparently you missed the the intended sarcasm ( snip)
Then you REALLY missed MY sarcasm.
I am laughing to the pseudo skeptics like you. But I still think you have potential.
Trust me !...............( where did I read that?).
P.D.
Maybe RICKY is satisfied with his curiosity about his specific question to the URI topic.
Maybe not.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 22:39:20 [Permalink]
|
| Personally, I think Geller really can bend spoons with his mind. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
