Here is something productive to work on. I get to  Illustrate a classic skeptic fabrication of the facts at hand.

Quote:

Diploid said: She's saying that you should believe something until it's disproved.

---

NO! I said, one doing investigative research can only conclude that paranormal activity does not exist in said house after being thoroughly investigated and the source of suspected activity found.

If another homeowner "suspects" paranormal activity, investigative research should be done before one comes to any conclusions about THAT house. 

No where did I say what you, "imagined in your head" that I said. 

And diploid, if every poster looked like their avatars , does that mean you have a square head and I have fins? 

Diploid said:

You asked the question to bring the issue to light and get the mod's attention. There's no other reason for posing it. Double that for pointing out how it's an IP ban on other boards.

Very spiritual of you.

---

Diploid said:

she did not say you should believe something until its disproved

She says it all the time, Deviate.

from now on please provide a direct quote

OK.

Here's one recent apropos example of many:

I pointed out that reverend Peter Popoff (who claims to read the mind of audience members by communicating directly with God) was exposed as a bold-faced liar by James Randi.

Randi caught Popoff using an accomplice with a radio transmitter and a tiny receiver in his ear to 'read minds'. Despite this, people have continued to pay the admission fee and stream into his prayer meetings by the millions every year.

jiggy's reply: Prove they were there because they believed he could read minds in the first place.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5493666#Post5493666

In other words, Popoff was exposed as a lying sack of shit about his ability to read minds, but maybe his OTHER powers are real because they haven't been disproved yet (he can cure everything from constipation to cancer with a smack to the head).

---

Another classic example of a skeptic misrepresenting the facts to fool people into beleiving something that isn't true.

You proved nothing of my believing in anything of the sort diploid.

How does his being caught with the MIC PROVE, members of the church ever attended ONLY because he claimed to read minds or continued too because they decided to beleive he still could even though he was caught using a mic?

Thats an assumption. Until you interview every church member and ask why they went to that Church and continue too, you are making false assumptions. You are the one believing that's why everyone attended and continue too without getting the facts.

FYI, some people go to churches for a sense of community. Some people go to meet potential dating partners. Some people go, out of curiosity. Some people go because they prefer group prayer or worship of God, not the minister. There are many other possible and plausible reasons for why members would continue to go, even if he was caught using a mic.

Why assume members still attending masses still believe he was doing it without the mic?

If you assume that without interviewing all of the members, you are the one believing in things until they are proven untrue. NOT ME buddy. 

Jim Baker was caught committing the "sin" of infidelity and embezzlement. It was all over the news for months and he served a jail sentence for it, you couldn't miss it. Yet when he founded a new ministry, people who forgave him of those things still attended knowing full well what he was found guilty of.

Do you honestly believe all people attending his new ministry don't believe he slipped Jessica Hahn the holy salami or stole money from the church? 

Same plausible scenario with the Mic fraud guy.

You are guilty of what you are attempting to find me at fault for.

BTW, I am open minded enough to consider a reasonable possibility of something being so, WHILE looking for a more logical explanation.

If my sister told me she thought someone at work was poisoning her coffee, I will look for a more logical reason for her symptoms and suspicions while also considering, the possibility. That's different from "believing" as if its a "proven fact". What if someone was, I found no evidence to the contrary, and decided to tell her it was all in her head and she ended up dead and the autopsy showed lethal amounts of arsenic in her.

I'm not that sloppy in either direction diploid. 

Temptress said:

that is a good topic for a fresh post - go for it!

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5510604/an/0/page/0


Alright, disregard my above post (that is really not on topic), I made a new thread for my questions..... 





>^;;^<

Diploid said:

yes there is. i want to know what the deal is reguarding bans.

You could have done that with a generic PM to a mod without an off-topic post bringing attention to the issue concerning ONE specific member.

---

MushmanTheManic said:

Many times individuals who give up a religion simply adopted a secular religion, such as Marxism or Objectivism. "Oh dear, somebody please tell me what's going on!"

---