|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 9, 2011 12:48:20 GMT -6
Penultimate link today. This is an interesting video of one hundred scientists and academics telling why they do not believe in a god. There are some really smart people here. Here.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 9, 2011 12:51:11 GMT -6
20 Voices of Belief as something of a balance to the previous video featuring atheists. Here.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 10, 2011 16:53:16 GMT -6
Not really balancing Nitai ji. A lot of the people in the 20 people are not making very good points. We have to admit that religion is losing ground according to the parameter of "truth". Obviously, good sentiment is keeping it around and economic depression can help in its survival. Still I am interested in reading some articles on paranormal activities. Can you post some of those articles, Nitai ji?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 10, 2011 23:09:06 GMT -6
Not really balancing Nitai ji. A lot of the people in the 20 people are not making very good points. We have to admit that religion is losing ground according to the parameter of "truth". Obviously, good sentiment is keeping it around and economic depression can help in its survival. Still I am interested in reading some articles on paranormal activities. Can you post some of those articles, Nitai ji? It is true. It is a sad showing for believers. Hardly able to make any sense most of them. The best writer on the paranormal that I have read is David Ray Griffin in his book Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality. He makes a pretty good case for the authenticity of the paranormal and irrational blindness of the scientific community in recognizing it. I will try to scan some of the chapters and post them.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 11, 2011 10:22:43 GMT -6
On the other side of the coin, here is a link to a discussion of five books debunking the paranormal. The books by the Amazing Randi and Michael Shermer are not likely to be very balanced and therefore, not worth much. I think those guys are as fanatically close-minded as the worst of the paranormal supporters. They are not really interested in discovering the truth but pushing their own agenda. With them it is all hype. But the other three books look interesting and may be a good representation of people who have looked seriously at the evidence and decided it was not genuine. Those could be good reads. Here.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 11, 2011 17:13:04 GMT -6
Thanks Nitai ji for the links. Economic calimity in the world is the only hope for traditional religion to regain its footing. Pretty grim then.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 11, 2011 17:28:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 11, 2011 17:38:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 11, 2011 21:35:09 GMT -6
Thanks Nitai ji for the links. Economic calimity in the world is the only hope for traditional religion to regain its footing. Pretty grim then. Wait! Do we want religion to regain its footing?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 11, 2011 21:49:40 GMT -6
I didn't know this about him. Thanks for the heads up. What do you make of it? Here are some videos in which he presents his case. Here.Does this mean he is a kook and we should not take him seriously? Or, is that too close to an ad hominem?
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 11, 2011 21:54:28 GMT -6
I was being sarcastic. I said traditional religion's only hope is economic depression and psychological depression, not the actual search for truth. That is the hopeless state it is in.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 11, 2011 21:55:58 GMT -6
I was being sarcastic. I said traditional religion's only hope is economic depression and psychological depression, not the actual search for truth. That is the hopeless state it is in. Right! Sorry I missed it.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 12, 2011 0:58:59 GMT -6
I didn't know this about him. Thanks for the heads up. What do you make of it? Here are some videos in which he presents his case. Here.Does this mean he is a kook and we should not take him seriously? Or, is that too close to an ad hominem? I don't know Nitai ji. I don't find this issue too important, but I will try to examine it. I want paranormal activity to be true for sure, but when we investigate we have to be cautious too. Like you cannot believe people connected to Templeton foundation easily, we also have to examine this fellow. www.jod911.com/ Ryan Mackey has written a strong criticism of Griffin though Jim Hoffman defends Griffins 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html They guy who is defending Griffin does not seem to be that credible en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman Hoffman has also written a critique of the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the building collapses,[7] a critique of the 2006 NIST FAQ,[8] and critiques[9][10] of articles about the 9/11 conspiracy theories by the popular-science magazines Scientific American and Popular Mechanics. though there is a mormon scientist of some credibility backing him en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones. Even Noam Choamsky, who is a skeptic of most US govt moves like Iraq etc, distances himself from 9/11 conspiracy theory. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc&feature=related Maybe, Griffin is correct, but to me so far it looks unlikely. It may or may not be connected to the credibility of his paranormal research. However, it would have been good if he stuck to paranormal activity only
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Aug 12, 2011 1:02:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 12, 2011 11:25:07 GMT -6
I didn't know this about him. Thanks for the heads up. What do you make of it? Here are some videos in which he presents his case. Here.Does this mean he is a kook and we should not take him seriously? Or, is that too close to an ad hominem? I don't know Nitai ji. I don't find this issue too important, but I will try to examine it. I want paranormal activity to be true for sure, but when we investigate we have to be cautious too. Like you cannot believe people connected to Templeton foundation easily, we also have to examine this fellow. www.jod911.com/ Ryan Mackey has written a strong criticism of Griffin though Jim Hoffman defends Griffins 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html They guy who is defending Griffin does not seem to be that credible en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman Hoffman has also written a critique of the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the building collapses,[7] a critique of the 2006 NIST FAQ,[8] and critiques[9][10] of articles about the 9/11 conspiracy theories by the popular-science magazines Scientific American and Popular Mechanics. though there is a mormon scientist of some credibility backing him en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones. Even Noam Choamsky, who is a skeptic of most US govt moves like Iraq etc, distances himself from 9/11 conspiracy theory. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc&feature=related Maybe, Griffin is correct, but to me so far it looks unlikely. It may or may not be connected to the credibility of his paranormal research. However, it would have been good if he stuck to paranormal activity only Yes, I agree with you. I am not too interested in the 9/11 question. I am kind of sorry to see he has gotten so swept up in it. But, he seems to make good points and who knows, maybe there was such a thing, though on the face of it it seems to suggest that the Bush administration was a lot more clever and competent than I would have given it credit for. I have not followed it much, so I don't know if the evidence he cites is good or not. Hitchens doesn't respond to any of his evidence. I think he is quite content with blaming Islam. I will scan some of his writing on the paranormal and you can see what you think about it.
|
|