- ruby said" >> Why the assumption that a
so-called<br> "believer"...."believes" in everything, anything
considered<br> "unscientific?"<<<br> ramnova
replied:<< Don't make assumptions on my behalf, I'm asking
what the<br> beliefs are based on. It is often only
personal experiences. It<br> was a direct, sincere,
question. >><br><br>I was responding to your "direct,
sincere" questin. I was not assuming it was *not* sincere.
I was only commnenting on your remark that you
found it surprising a "believer" would be critical of
religious beliefs. I have found this very same assumption
in many debunkers/skeptics. I wasn't addressing
merely just you, or attacking you in any way. Your
commnet reminded me of this odd perception that I have
noticed with others. The way you presented the question
made it sound, indeed, like an "assumption." (I don't
know what you mean by "please don't make an assumption
on my behalf" ??)<br><br>ruby said:>>(what a
patronizing sneering label, we need to<br> findsomething
better)<<<br> ramnova replied:<<< That, I think, may
be half of the problem. Too many damned labels. Pick
your own, I don't want one. >><br><br>You used
the word "believers." Again, I was commenting in
general terms on the use of the word, and not neccesarily
attacking you, per se. Possibly I could have made that more
clear. If you want me to "pick your own, I don't want
one." then why did you use the word?
<br><br><<<<I had been pleased to come across several of the
well-spoken and intelligent women involved in these
discussions. I don't consider them to be<br>poor, deluded
creatures.>>><br><br>I'm glad you're pleased and that's been your
experience, but I'm curious why you say "women?" and not
people? Are you a woman? A feminist? A male - if so, I
find that remark patronizing. If not, I find it odd.
<br><br>ruby said: >>But this aspect seems to escape a
lot of skeptics; it's all<br> one and the same, as
far as they're concerned.<<<br>ramnova replied:
<<< You make the same all-encompassing statements, in
the same breath, you are in contradiction. I think
_someone_ has to define reality, in whatever current
understanding we have of it. >>><br><br>What? How I am
making all-encompassing statements? Again, based on my
obsevations and experience, where many (I did not say "all")
most certainly do, and have, made this assumption,
hold this perception. To the point that what's his
name, I can't remember at the moment (damn!) Dr.
whoever, who beleives that belief systems of a
spiritual/religious nature and all and any systems he considers
"weird" from tea leaf reading to Tarot to crystals to
seeing UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts to being a Catholic are all
the same thing, and are a serious mental disorder.
How am I "in contradiction?" Explain. Well you did
but it's unclear. "Someone has to define reality"
well that's the rub, isn't it? <br>Fine when you're
talking about something like if you put your hand on a
burning stove you'll get hurt, that's a reality no one
would argue with. Something else altogether when we're
discussing extraordinary, supernatural, metaphysical, or
paranormal experience.<br><br>~ r
it is the response of the skeptics to Vaughan, nothing less nothing
--- In email@example.com, James Dawson
>internt forum messages I've come across.
> This is one of the most tangled, confusing, out-of-context
> I have no idea what you're point is.
> Perhaps you don't care. But I thought I'd say so anyway.
> James N. Dawson
> fengshuip <woodwater1000@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, predawnflyer wrote:
> > 'Debunking the Debunkers: Lessons to Be
> > Learned'<br><br>Another article, this one by Valerie Vaughan,
> > in The Mountain Astrologer (Aug/Sept 1998). This
> > Vaughan article seems unrelated to to the David Lewis
> > article in Atlantis Rising (in the Links section). Below
> > are two links; #1 is a copy of the original Vaughn
> > article; #2 is a followup article by
> > Vaughan.<br><br><a
> You should read their response to her in «rebunking the debunkers»
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> Visit your group "debunkingdebunkers" on the web.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.