tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post1239108516848814707..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-8886649470725487922016-05-28T09:53:47.431-07:002016-05-28T09:53:47.431-07:00you never did look in the Numbers and Limnberg boo...<i>you never did look in the Numbers and Limnberg book to see that they say the thermodynamic argument seemed good at one time before we knew enough, read the book last two chapters. Lindberg sand Numbers God and Nature.</i><br /><br />I haven't read that book. But what does it matter if it seemed like a good argument in the past? I'm talking about what we know now, and what creationists believe today. There's no excuse for clinging to pseudo-science in the face of what is known in the scientific community.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-241694404601625822016-05-28T09:40:32.118-07:002016-05-28T09:40:32.118-07:00I was recalling an earlier discussion we had. I g...I was recalling an earlier discussion we had. I gave you several articles by respected scientists - not Wikipedia articles. I also compiled a list of different articles on the subject - both for and against the position that you and Stan hold. I then looked at who wrote them. EVERY article on your side of the issue was written by a creationist. Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me that your position is strictly religious - it is contrary to science.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-81198085596868542182016-05-28T09:33:28.930-07:002016-05-28T09:33:28.930-07:00What's your point, Joe? There are disagreemen...What's your point, Joe? There are disagreements among skeptics, so we shouldn't believe them? Well then, by your "logic" there is absolutely no reason to believe anything religious, is there?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-38695981148936632292016-05-27T23:43:13.533-07:002016-05-27T23:43:13.533-07:00you never did look in the Numbers and Limnberg boo...you never did look in the Numbers and Limnberg book to see that they say the thermodynamic argument seemed good at one time before we knew enough, read the book last two chapters. Lindberg sand Numbers God and Nature.<br /><br /><br />before you go lying about my research abilities look at the evidence I found, genjus,thiat's fundamental Einstein.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-42199187734657111492016-05-27T23:40:00.856-07:002016-05-27T23:40:00.856-07:00The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry was establishe...The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry was established by Paul Kurtz, a professor, humanist, and philosopher in 1976. It is part of the Center for Inquiry, and its stated goal is to "encourage the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminate factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public."<br /><br /><b>are you aware that they kicked Kurtz out and he denounced them as fanatical? do you not know they demonstrated their lack of credibility when the guy who started the Jesus project terminated it because he said it was being used as propaganda?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-13483510535215416562016-05-27T21:02:27.040-07:002016-05-27T21:02:27.040-07:00What real scientists? On Wikipedia? What real scientists? On Wikipedia? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-39619434680809493022016-05-27T20:01:01.281-07:002016-05-27T20:01:01.281-07:00You can get a million creationists to agree with t...You can get a million creationists to agree with that scientifically ignorant belief. They're wrong. I showed you a number of articles by real scientists that explain it. You ignored all of them, in favor of your creationist buddy Pogge.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-43813471062311800482016-05-27T19:55:56.638-07:002016-05-27T19:55:56.638-07:00Oh, he doesn't, huh? There were a few commente...Oh, he doesn't, huh? There were a few commenters at that link that agreed with him, and they seemed pretty knowledgeable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-37764328796118254432016-05-27T17:11:16.674-07:002016-05-27T17:11:16.674-07:00I absolutely did not EVER deny the physics of the ...<i>I absolutely did not EVER deny the physics of the second law of thermodynamics and in fact I derived the second law on my blog from the principle of conservation of energy.</i><br />- No, you just don't understand how it works. This is amply demonstrated in your idiotic diatribe against Carl Sagan (see Note 1) <a href="http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/06/entropy-conservation-of-energy-order.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a> You almost make it sound as if you know what you're talking about. But you DON'T.<br /><br /><i>I admitted that the comments were there.</i><br />- And you still implied that I had deleted them and then somehow restored them when found out (as if that could be done in Blogger). You never retracted your accusation. Your post titled <a href="http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/03/im-skeptical-bully-and-coward.html" rel="nofollow">IM Skeptical: Bully AND Coward</a> remains unaltered to this day.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-81489573520104191922016-05-27T16:28:42.943-07:002016-05-27T16:28:42.943-07:00I absolutely did not EVER deny the physics of the ...I absolutely did not EVER deny the physics of the second law of thermodynamics and in fact I derived the second law on my blog from the principle of conservation of energy. <br /><br />I admitted that the comments were there. <br /><br />You are an incorrigible liar.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-24167472889781635582016-05-27T16:06:56.334-07:002016-05-27T16:06:56.334-07:00And speaking of lying, you accused me of deleting ...And speaking of lying, you accused me of deleting your comments, which is a lie, and as far as I know you have never retracted the lie, even though it was immediately pointed out to you by one of your own followers that it wasn't true.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-49869556225836389392016-05-27T16:03:58.865-07:002016-05-27T16:03:58.865-07:00You deny the physics of the second law of thermody...You deny the physics of the second law of thermodynamics. I know that you think you're right, but that's because you either don't understand it, or you choose to interpret in a way that is incorrect, but agrees with your creationist views.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-52169233099020585612016-05-27T15:20:13.624-07:002016-05-27T15:20:13.624-07:00IM Skep,
I will be blunt: you are a liar. What you...IM Skep,<br />I will be blunt: you are a liar. What you said about me is a lie. That makes you a liar. You are, however, right in line with your normal line of BS.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-31384244476145513422016-05-27T10:53:55.978-07:002016-05-27T10:53:55.978-07:00With all due respect to Joe, I have read some of h...With all due respect to Joe, I have read some of his articles on science, but it seems he doesn't understand the sources he quotes, and then uses them in the mistaken notion that they support his religious views. As for my own knowledge of science, I have spent many years studying it and working with it professionally. That's why I am able to recognize Joe's false interpretations, and Pogge's deliberate pseudo-scientific distortions. I don't care if Joe wrote a hundred books and papers - he doesn't know what he's talking about. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-89818667511750036272016-05-27T09:48:06.227-07:002016-05-27T09:48:06.227-07:00You have to. It fits your ideology.
The evidence...You have to. It fits your ideology. <br /><br />The evidence that you claim is there really isn't. It's like Phoenix said on Stan's blog: You throw nonsense to the wall, and then you expect someone to waste their time researching it. Consciousness without a brain is far more believable than life coming from non-life. <br /><br />Before I end this reply, you should do yourself a favor: Take your nose out of High School Evolution books (you know, the propaganda that you probably wanted Phoenix to read) and buy a copy of Joe Hinman's book The Trace of God on Amazon (I think he has a Kindle version if that's better for you). <br /><br />Joe explains why religious experience is not reducible to brain chemistry. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-89012023152119025512016-05-26T16:07:58.623-07:002016-05-26T16:07:58.623-07:00Of course I assume materialism. That's what w...Of course I assume materialism. That's what we have evidence for - not gods, and not souls. It is irrational to assume otherwise without evidence to support it.<br /><br />There is also plenty of physical evidence of the brain activity associated with religious or near-death experiences. To think that one might have such an experience when there is no activity in the brain is absurd.<br /><br />Maybe Skeptical Enquirer article was a hit piece. Maybe the junk coming from Sharp deserves to be hit with a good dose of rationality.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-21395371685681343732016-05-26T13:23:51.418-07:002016-05-26T13:23:51.418-07:00Again, how do you know that there is no experience...Again, how do you know that there is no experience when the machine flatlines? When you said that they couldn't prove that they had something when the machine flatlined, you also can't just assume that they didn't, either. That's only true if you assume Materialism, which is what you do. <br /><br />And as far as that Skeptical Enquirer is concerned, they did raise a few issues. Now, before I continue, I don't know if it is true either way (Michael Prescott also made that point clear), but when I read through that again, it appears to me that it was a hit piece, not a real endeavor to find truth. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-88950192007762107182016-05-26T07:50:41.294-07:002016-05-26T07:50:41.294-07:00That's right. When you speculate about someth...That's right. When you speculate about something and then present it as factual, you are lying. The reality of these NDEs is that they happen when there is mental activity going on, although it may be that normal mental activity is failing. When the machines show no mental activity, there is no experience of anything.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-91037577544925653112016-05-25T21:58:49.347-07:002016-05-25T21:58:49.347-07:00100% sure it's a lie? I don't think you ca...100% sure it's a lie? I don't think you can say that since you yourself said that it's pure speculation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-69934540526970665382016-05-25T21:43:53.436-07:002016-05-25T21:43:53.436-07:00They raised legitimate issues with the story. Are...They raised legitimate issues with the story. Are there plausible ways to explain the subject's reports about her NDE? Yes. That doesn't disprove what she claimed, but it does provide sufficient reason for a skeptic to disbelieve it.<br /><br />And by the way, the claim that the NDE occurred while the subject was climnically dead is nothing but pure speculation, since nobody could ever prove that. The doctor doesn't know what she is experiencing at any given time. The subject doesn't know that the machines are showing that she is dead at the time of her experience, either. So any time you hear something like that, you can be 100% sure it is a lie.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53069103961212621312016-05-25T21:15:24.049-07:002016-05-25T21:15:24.049-07:00OK. Maybe that Sharp lady is messed up. However, i...OK. Maybe that Sharp lady is messed up. However, in Part 4, when someone brought up what Beyerstein said below, someone else said that it pertained to both sides, not just Sharp and her NDE people. <br /><br />"They came away with the clear impression that these people were scientifically illiterate and far more interested in bolstering their religious beliefs than they were in getting to the truth of the matter."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-55315296572141226312016-05-25T13:01:03.876-07:002016-05-25T13:01:03.876-07:00While you're noting some of the speculations i...While you're noting some of the speculations in the comments about the motivations of the investigators, did you read the comment immediately after that one?<br /><br />The author is someone who claims to have had an NDE herself, and she even thinks she had a two-way conversation with God. But you don't have any problem believing any of that, I suppose. You think the article debunking her fantastical stories is unbelievable because the student investigators were trying to impress their professor.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-36300516979710407782016-05-25T11:14:02.823-07:002016-05-25T11:14:02.823-07:00He questioned their attitude because it deserved t...He questioned their attitude because it deserved to be questioned. They had a dismissive tone, stereotyping the people at the NDE meeting as "religious" people that weren't interested in science without even knowing them. <br /><br />Also, someone in the comments section (in Part 4) said that the students (after volunteering for that assignment) claimed to debunk the experience to kiss up to the professor. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-43803238284279683142016-05-25T06:55:04.285-07:002016-05-25T06:55:04.285-07:00Are you kidding? This article purports to "d...Are you kidding? This article purports to "debunk" the investigation of a NDE by noting that two of the investigators were students, and then questioning their credentials and their attitude. I see nothing in this article that disproves or even argues against any of the investigations results. I see nothing that makes a case in support of the NDE experience. All I see is <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy.<br /><br />Good work, JBsptfn. You have made clear what kind of arguments appeal to your mentality. I'll just stick with science, thank you.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82319673261357053942016-05-24T21:03:11.641-07:002016-05-24T21:03:11.641-07:00Also, I forgot to show you this:
Michael Prescot...Also, I forgot to show you this:<br /><br /><a href="http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/07/who-will-watch-.html" rel="nofollow"> <b>Michael Prescott's five part series on CSICOP's investigation of Maria's NDE</b></a><br /><br />Michael did this series to subject CSICOP's skeptical account of the NDE to the same standard that they advocate, and to point out the double-standard that these skeptical organizations seem to hold to (that they can freely indulge in speculation, but proponents of parapsychology aren't allowed to, or they will be ridiculed). <br /><br />That isn't the sign of a group that should be respected, but it is the sign of a group who holds the same materialist ideology that you do. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com