Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Labels

Expand Messages
  • rubyhoney97402
    ruby said >> Why the assumption that a so-called believer .... believes in everything, anything considered unscientific? << ramnova
    Message 1 of 4419 , Feb 1, 2002
      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
    • fengshuip
      James it is the response of the skeptics to Vaughan, nothing less nothing more. Paulo ... internt forum messages I ve come across. ...
      Message 4419 of 4419 , May 16 6:14 AM
        it is the response of the skeptics to Vaughan, nothing less nothing


        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, James Dawson
        <jamesndawson@...> wrote:
        > Paulo:
        > This is one of the most tangled, confusing, out-of-context
        internt forum messages I've come across.
        > 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 debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, predawnflyer wrote:
        > >
        > > 'Debunking the Debunkers: Lessons to Be
        > > Learned'<br><br>Another article, this one by Valerie Vaughan,
        > published
        > > 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
        > target=new>http://www.onereed.com/articles/debunk.html</a><br><a
        > href=http://www.onereed.com/articles/rebunk.html
        > >
        > Hi
        > You should read their response to her in Ā«rebunking the debunkersĀ»
        > www.astrology-and-science.com
        > paulo
        > ---------------------------------
        > Visit your group "debunkingdebunkers" on the web.
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > debunkingdebunkers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > ---------------------------------
        > ---------------------------------
        > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
        Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.