"The Skeptics Dictionary" Unmasked, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times

reply posted on 29-11-2010 @ 01:58 PM by backinblack

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by backinblack

Well I like phage's posts here. I am very skeptical about the ETH side of UFO s and have gone on record here on ATS. I am skeptical but am a trained and practicing occultist with a degree in Bioscience.

I can only deal with what I have experienced directly or by trusted associates. What I cannot abide about ATS is the way that some skeptics demand the right to troll the paranormal forum. If you are a skeptic fine! May all skeptics live long and prosper! But please controll your evangelical urges or get a religion.

T

PS I have trained a parrot to say "it ain't so".

I stared your parrot..

reply posted on 29-11-2010 @ 02:52 PM by Mike_A

reply to post by Skyfloating

You see, it's possible to prefer medicine without belitteling alternatives.

Not for you, you call people who follow through with their belief “kooks”.

But it’s not about preference, you can have both but I must question why you can’t do with just one.

I don’t mind people having an open mind my disagreement with you stems from your (patchy) support for anecdotal evidence.

You say that you have personal experience of fire walking and acupuncture so you know that the sceptics are wrong and you say this as though it is meant to be mean something to everyone else.

But when it comes to faith healers, despite their being equal evidence, you lose the courage of your conviction and won’t place equal weight on this evidence as you expect others to do with yours. The logical implication is that you don’t really place any more faith in anecdotal evidence than I do; except when it suits your beliefs.

It’s not that you can’t have chocolate and vanilla it’s that if you were sincere in your OP you would have no problem with just having vanilla. But you do so...

reply posted on 29-11-2010 @ 02:54 PM by backinblack

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Becker44
Uhhhm FYI. That site is owned by Phage.

Whoa whoa wait. Can we get back to this post?

Phage is Robert Carroll?

Can Phage confirm this?

Who ever owns the site did not write the book although it appears they know the author..
So no, I don't belive he is Robert Carroll..

reply posted on 29-11-2010 @ 04:28 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Mike_A
Not for you, you call people who follow through with their belief “kooks”.

Those who only look at alternatives are kooks. Those who reject all alternatives are Pseudoskeptics. Both are afraid of seeing the other side of things.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 04:11 PM by Mayson

Based only on your quote provided and having not read the article, I have to defend the skeptics beliefs on firewalking.

"Sufficient" speed could be anywhere from standing still for days to running at the speed of light as long as it's "sufficient".

reply posted on 13-12-2010 @ 07:54 PM by kallisti36

reply to post by Skyfloating

Gotta love their article on Anti-theism. Apparently I am an "enemy of reason" for being a Christian. I was expecting them to actually make a scientific and rational attempt to "debunk" my beliefs, but no, they just spew the same bile and vitriol as Dawkins and Hitchens. I also have a number of athiest friends who would be offended by the use of the term "new athiests" to describe people who love to tear up the beliefs of others to make a quick buck. I think it's great that "new athiests" always use Dawkins and Hitchens as sources. They aren't stereotyping themselves at all by sourcing the same two authors time and again. Obviously Hitchens and Dawkins know everything about Theology. I am sure they are experts in the field and have spent thousands of hours researching the history, culture, scripture, writings, apologists, origins, and supporters of the religions they so knowingly lable as "bunk".