Randi's Million Dollar Challenge

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Chuckleberryfinn

I hope that helps. Also, forgive me for being mean. I get snotty sometimes.

...and I sometimes act in haste and repent at leisure

Originally Posted by Ankhes

I care about the victims. The StopSylviaBrowne website drove it further home for me. At one time I said, "so what" if people were taken in but not anymore. If people feel that way that's okay. But I can't. Maybe I'm too much of a sap but I do care when desperate and grieving people are taken in. Some may be comforted (falsely or not I cannot say) but others are just plain exploited and hurt. And when a case is high profile the "mediums" and "psychics" descend. They are not always sought. Many do descend like vultures and I find that repulsive.

I understand your concern - but really, what can you do? Vulnerable people seek reassurance (they're the church's target demographic) and if people believe in the afterlife and the abilities of the psychics to contact the 'other side', what's the best way to 'protect' those people from the 'vultures'?

Why is okay for the church to reassure the grieving?

[kova]

Another definition of faith that I like is the desire not to know the truth.

I would like to see your source on that one...

But back to the thread...
I believe in a mix of evolution and creation. Both sides have there holes and both have their strong points in my eyes.

This is why your can't put mediums & psychics and religion in the same breath. There is a great deal of evidence that god or a being created us, but no evidence that tells me psychics exist.

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by kova

There is a great deal of evidence that god or a being created us...

Well, I see no evidence of that, but I think the best we can do is agree to disagree on that one.

[schticknz]

Originally Posted by Chuckleberryfinn

Randi, an intelligent man, probably has at least a basic understanding of the concept of "faith," which, by definition, equates with belief rather than proof, making such a challenge totally meaningless. No one who really understands faith, as defined best by Soren Kierkegaard, would take such a challenge seriously.

I remember a while back hearing that Randi has links to a 'humanist' society which to me at the time sounded like it was akin to a religious philosophy (maybe I was thinking about the Skeptics Society??).

Anyway, anyone who thinks dogmatically about something to the point where they use 'belief' or 'believe' in anyway ... well whats the difference between someone like Randi, and a church going christian for instance. To me they're identical.

(p.s writing this rather late-ish at night so excuse me if this comes out not quite as lucid or meaningful as intended ...)

[schticknz]

Originally Posted by kova

I would like to see your source on that one...

But back to the thread...
I believe in a mix of evolution and creation. Both sides have there holes and both have their strong points in my eyes.

This is why your can't put mediums & psychics and religion in the same breath. There is a great deal of evidence that god or a being created us, but no evidence that tells me psychics exist.

Evolution is still a relatively young field ... just over 100 years old ... so it will still have holes in it which will need filling in. I don't see a need to think that some divine being breathed life into us. Maybe our evolution has been 'tweaked' by some outside force ... but creationism is not in my mind a very valid hypothesis and is just a wee bit silly really. I think I'll agree to disagree too

[kova]

I don't think that youunderstand my meaning of god... but I agree with you on that.

I just don't think evolution explains everything. There has to be a start somewhere... and that is the dilema for me.

Maybe god is the wrong word.

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Originally Posted by kova

I would like to see your source on that one...

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

[kova]

Originally Posted by Chuckleberryfinn

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

cool. Thanks.

[Ankhes]

Originally Posted by Rick Deckard

I understand your concern - but really, what can you do? Vulnerable people seek reassurance (they're the church's target demographic) and if people believe in the afterlife and the abilities of the psychics to contact the 'other side', what's the best way to 'protect' those people from the 'vultures'?

Why is okay for the church to reassure the grieving?

Well, maybe not too much. But I donated books and newsletters to the site and I spread the word to people I know. Several people I know have stopped pouring money (usually a lot) into psychics when they've done some research.

Churches? Good question. I don't know. I am not a gods believer and don't go to or use churches.
Do they charge people for their counseling? I really do not know. If they don't then that is one way they differ from psychic predators.

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Ankhes

Churches? Good question. I don't know. I am not a gods believer and don't go to or use churches.
Do they charge people for their counseling? I really do not know. If they don't then that is one way they differ from psychic predators.

Well, all I know is that in the UK at least, the Church of England is one of the richest organisations in the country with assets greater than £6,000,000,000 GBP (six billion) - they were criticised for investing in a technology company that manufactured weaponry such as bombs and missiles.

According to wikipedia, direct donations to the Church of England (not including legacies) come to around £460 million per year...

...do these people donate hoping to buy a place in 'Heaven'?