-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
12-30-07 show Joel Martin
- Thread starter Crow
- Start date
Free episodes:
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Crow said:Really, really enjoyed the show with Joel Martin. I hadn't realized he was on before...I'm going to check that episode out in the archives.
Agree with David about Sylvia Brown.
Didn't Johnny Carson expose Uri Geller on the Tonight Show?
Anyways...great show you guys.
Carson/Randi did make Uri look a fool.
-9FjjrbQabw
Edgar Mitchel has some startling things to say about Uri though. I read about it in his book The Way of the Explorer. All of which indicate he's legit. I don't know what to make of him personally. There's arrows pointing toward and away from him being legit. The Carson show does make him look like a MAJOR phony though.
I like Joel a lot and glad they had him on again. I haven't listened yet, but I hope they discussed George Anderson some. He is one of only a few psychics that impress me. Having George on to do readings would be great someday. I can't recall if he does phone readings or not though. I think he might need to be present. Not sure.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
BJSxsbToLeE
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
First I've heard of this
LXGQt-X6NQs
LXGQt-X6NQs
P
pixelsmith
Guest
i met uri back in the 70s. i went to one of his shows. i brought a watch that had been broken in a car accident i had. it did in fact start running for awhile during his demonstration. very strange. it did not work when i got home. i tried everything to make it work for even a few seconds again but it never worked again.
valiens
Skilled Investigator
Is the consensus on Uri that he's a complete fraud or that he's a real psychci who is more interested in being a trickster so he also does magic, hoaxes, what have you?
Was he not tested by that U.S. military faction that created remote viewing protocols and found to be authentic but too shady a character to trust?
Was he not tested by that U.S. military faction that created remote viewing protocols and found to be authentic but too shady a character to trust?
spookyparadigm
Skilled Investigator
valiens said:
If correct, I think this says a lot about the remote viewing programs tried over the years.
gordstephan
Paranormal Novice
I also really enjoyed this show as well. He is certainly knowledgeable on this subject. The part that intrigued me was his thoughts on atheists. In my mind, there is more evidence of the existance of UFO's than there is for the existance of a higher being. Yet he insists that we all should have a belief in a higher being and be cautious of the existance of UFO's. Well isn't the belief in higher beings a blind faith without evidence?
At the very least, recorded "miracles" can be scientific anomolies, coincidences or pure good fortune, but we have not got pictures God or Allah or whoever you worship.
Why is it that people put blind faith in something that has no physical evidence yet they scoff at the phenomena of UFO's. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
At the very least, recorded "miracles" can be scientific anomolies, coincidences or pure good fortune, but we have not got pictures God or Allah or whoever you worship.
Why is it that people put blind faith in something that has no physical evidence yet they scoff at the phenomena of UFO's. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
nikki630
Skilled Investigator
Before you get started reading this I wanted to warn you that this is something of a rant. I got so angry at what Joel Martin had to say about atheists that I wanted to scream at my radio -- well at my MP3 player anyway. Instead I thought I would vent my anger here. You have been warned
We now return you to our regularly scheduled rant.
As an atheist I feel I have to comment on Mr Martin's misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist.
Mr Martin said that he felt sorry for atheists because they think they have it all figured out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every atheist I ever come in contact with is open minded and is willing to re-examine his or her beliefs based on new evidence and change those beliefs when the evidence warrants it. Believers on the other hand will often ignore or distort evidence that does not support their belief system.
He also said that we are 100% sure there is no god. This is another misconception of what an atheist thinks. I am not 100% sure there is no god, because there can be no proof of the existence or non existence of god. That does not make me an agnostic -- I believe there is no god. What that does make is open minded enough to recognize that I might be wrong in that belief. In his book "The God Delusion" even Richard Dawkins admits that he might be wrong in his belief that there is no god. In all his pontificating about what atheists believe, I never once heard Mr. Martin even imply that he might be wrong about his belief in a deity. He continually made statements like 'I can't tell you what heaven is like' and 'we don't know the nature of god" (these are paraphrased). In both cases the existence of heaven and god are presented as fact and the only question is what is their true nature. It sounds to me that Mr Martin is far more rigid in his beliefs than any atheist I know.
Then Mr Martin drew a connection between Stalin's atheism and the atrocities committed when he was in power. To be blunt this is nonsense. There is no evidence that Stalin's atheism had anything to do with the atrocities he committed. Stalin was a dictator and behaved as all dictators do whether they believe in god or not. I suggest Mr. Martin review history a little to see how much slaughter was done by believers in the name of their god. Here are a few to get him started, The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expect the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!!) , The Holocaust, The Palestinian/ Israeli conflict, The Iraq war which G. Bush claims god gave him the go ahead, The Shiite/Sunni violence in Iraq and lets not forget 9/11. The number of people killed in the name of one god or another is staggering. I know of no instance where anyone was killed by someone using the phrase "In the name of atheism" in the same way as "In the name of (insert your favorite god here)" is used and I'll bet Mr. Martin doesn't either.
Mr Martin puts forth the idea that without the belief in god, we would have either a dictatorship or anarchy. I would like to ask Mr. Martin which god's or gods' rules should we follow to prevent this breakdown of society, Yahweh ?, God the Father of the Christians ?, Allah ? Vishnu and the Hindu pantheon or Buddha ? Clearly there are many to choose from, and even believers don't follow ALL the rules. We no longer stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, Slavery is no longer considered acceptable even though the bible clearly deems it a proper thing and give rules how to treat slaves. So how do we pick which god rules is which holy book to follow and which not to. We innately know what is right and what is wrong and choose the ones that fit with our society. Belief in god has nothing to do with it.
Finally Mr Martin was going on about how the founding fathers were not Christian (which I agree with) . Then he seemed to say that even though they were not Christian they founded America on Christianity in order to appease the masses and to affirm their beliefs. Admittedly he was a little vague about this and I might be misinterpreting what he said. If he was indeed saying that America was in any way founded as a Christian nation, it is utter nonsense. If it were founded as a Christian nation, why is there absolutely no mention of Christ in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Rather than go on about this I will just add this quote from the Treaty of Tripoli signed on November 4th 1796:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Well I could probably go on, but I feel better now. If you have stuck with me this far I want to thank you for listening to me rant. Let me close by saying this. I have nothing against believers nor have I any desire to dissuade them from their beliefs. Its a tough old world out there and if believing in god helps you though the day, its OK by me. All I ask is the same consideration and respect.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams (an atheist)
We now return you to our regularly scheduled rant.
As an atheist I feel I have to comment on Mr Martin's misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist.
Mr Martin said that he felt sorry for atheists because they think they have it all figured out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every atheist I ever come in contact with is open minded and is willing to re-examine his or her beliefs based on new evidence and change those beliefs when the evidence warrants it. Believers on the other hand will often ignore or distort evidence that does not support their belief system.
He also said that we are 100% sure there is no god. This is another misconception of what an atheist thinks. I am not 100% sure there is no god, because there can be no proof of the existence or non existence of god. That does not make me an agnostic -- I believe there is no god. What that does make is open minded enough to recognize that I might be wrong in that belief. In his book "The God Delusion" even Richard Dawkins admits that he might be wrong in his belief that there is no god. In all his pontificating about what atheists believe, I never once heard Mr. Martin even imply that he might be wrong about his belief in a deity. He continually made statements like 'I can't tell you what heaven is like' and 'we don't know the nature of god" (these are paraphrased). In both cases the existence of heaven and god are presented as fact and the only question is what is their true nature. It sounds to me that Mr Martin is far more rigid in his beliefs than any atheist I know.
Then Mr Martin drew a connection between Stalin's atheism and the atrocities committed when he was in power. To be blunt this is nonsense. There is no evidence that Stalin's atheism had anything to do with the atrocities he committed. Stalin was a dictator and behaved as all dictators do whether they believe in god or not. I suggest Mr. Martin review history a little to see how much slaughter was done by believers in the name of their god. Here are a few to get him started, The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expect the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!!) , The Holocaust, The Palestinian/ Israeli conflict, The Iraq war which G. Bush claims god gave him the go ahead, The Shiite/Sunni violence in Iraq and lets not forget 9/11. The number of people killed in the name of one god or another is staggering. I know of no instance where anyone was killed by someone using the phrase "In the name of atheism" in the same way as "In the name of (insert your favorite god here)" is used and I'll bet Mr. Martin doesn't either.
Mr Martin puts forth the idea that without the belief in god, we would have either a dictatorship or anarchy. I would like to ask Mr. Martin which god's or gods' rules should we follow to prevent this breakdown of society, Yahweh ?, God the Father of the Christians ?, Allah ? Vishnu and the Hindu pantheon or Buddha ? Clearly there are many to choose from, and even believers don't follow ALL the rules. We no longer stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, Slavery is no longer considered acceptable even though the bible clearly deems it a proper thing and give rules how to treat slaves. So how do we pick which god rules is which holy book to follow and which not to. We innately know what is right and what is wrong and choose the ones that fit with our society. Belief in god has nothing to do with it.
Finally Mr Martin was going on about how the founding fathers were not Christian (which I agree with) . Then he seemed to say that even though they were not Christian they founded America on Christianity in order to appease the masses and to affirm their beliefs. Admittedly he was a little vague about this and I might be misinterpreting what he said. If he was indeed saying that America was in any way founded as a Christian nation, it is utter nonsense. If it were founded as a Christian nation, why is there absolutely no mention of Christ in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Rather than go on about this I will just add this quote from the Treaty of Tripoli signed on November 4th 1796:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Well I could probably go on, but I feel better now. If you have stuck with me this far I want to thank you for listening to me rant. Let me close by saying this. I have nothing against believers nor have I any desire to dissuade them from their beliefs. Its a tough old world out there and if believing in god helps you though the day, its OK by me. All I ask is the same consideration and respect.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams (an atheist)
Martin painted secularists with the same broad stroke. I just listened to him trip all over himself with "belief."
When someone begins to describe faulty belief systems, I'm sure I'm going to hear all about the "right" belief system pretty quick. Martin didn't disappoint.
When someone begins to describe faulty belief systems, I'm sure I'm going to hear all about the "right" belief system pretty quick. Martin didn't disappoint.
nikki630
Skilled Investigator
Poi said:
I am pretty sure he was using secularists and atheist interchangeably, even though theyare not strictly the same. But we did learn that atheists and or secularist are the cause of all the trouble in the world, and saying Happy Holidays in stores will cause the end of civilization as we know it.
Here is one other thing I noticed, I am a a pretty upbeat person. I have hope for the human race and think that people are basically good, and as you can tell from my last post, I am an atheist. Martin the believer thinks that humans have evolved as far as they can and pretty hopeless. So -- the nonbeliever sees hope for the human race -- the believer doesn't. Hmmmmmmmm
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
Makes me wonder what he thinks of agnostics or deists (I fit sorta inbetween those two).
He's right to say atheism is a belief system but EVERYTHING is a belief system. Atheism is not a RELIGION and there I think is the key. People always seem to mix up belief and religion just like they mix up religion and god.
I agree that humans have evolved as far as we can naturally however. Transhumanism is the only thing that will change us now (that or some random, global catastrophe although that would probably do less changing and more exterminating...).
He's right to say atheism is a belief system but EVERYTHING is a belief system. Atheism is not a RELIGION and there I think is the key. People always seem to mix up belief and religion just like they mix up religion and god.
I agree that humans have evolved as far as we can naturally however. Transhumanism is the only thing that will change us now (that or some random, global catastrophe although that would probably do less changing and more exterminating...).
nikki630
Skilled Investigator
donthizz said:
To be fair, he did say that he thought we had stopped evolving spiritually, which is another thing he said I disagree with . Of course we are still evolving. I recently read an article that said that the speed of evolution had increased in humans with the advent of agricultural societies. Directly opposite of what one would think.
What Mr. Martin forgets is that evolution is not a straight line and it takes a long time. There are many paths and dead ends before something that works appears. He is alive on this planet for a mere 75 or so years and he thinks he can discern evolution in process ? Not Likely. Here is another thought for Mr Martin, perhaps our next spiritual step is the putting aside the belief in god that he so vehemently defends.
I do have to say that I was disappointed that his trash talk about atheists was not challenged more. Gene and David rarely let absolutist statements go buy without challenging them and I was surprised when they just let him go on and on. He repeated so many myths and misconceptions as fact that I thought I was listening to a White House press conference.
CapnG said:
Of course atheism is a belief, since you can't prove the question of god one way or another. Personally I think believing something exists requires more proof than simply saying it is so. When the discussion of belief in god comes up, belief and non-belief are often treated as though they have equal footing. Lack of evidence for the existence of something may not prove it doesn't exist , but it does put the law of probability on the side of nonexistence. If this was not true then the existence of giant purple rats in tutus dancing the fandango is just as likely as their non-existence.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that Creationism is science.
Belief systems aren't inherently bad. We're geared for them. What's rotten is that we refuse to recognize them as what they are, subjective. Too many believe they are "right," a very human flaw and rather dire need for those who are not as spiritual in nature as they tend to think they are.
My belief: There's wisdom in not knowing so much.
But I may be wrong.
My belief: There's wisdom in not knowing so much.
But I may be wrong.
I was going to rant a bit on the atheism thing as well but it looks like it has been handled. In my personal experience I have found that there are a couple of key phrases that can alert the listener that they're hearing the words of a fool. Two of these phrases are:
Athiesm is a religion.
Science is a religion.
These statements indicate that the speaker can not differentiate between a belief, a logical process of discovery, and a religion.
Personally, if someone can't tell the difference between these three things then I'm not really interested in anything else they have to say. I'm interested in the paranormal, but I see no reason why someone who can't differentiate between a belief and a religion would be qualified to tell me anything about it. If they can't grasp the simple truths why are they speaking about complex ones?
Athiesm is a religion.
Science is a religion.
These statements indicate that the speaker can not differentiate between a belief, a logical process of discovery, and a religion.
Personally, if someone can't tell the difference between these three things then I'm not really interested in anything else they have to say. I'm interested in the paranormal, but I see no reason why someone who can't differentiate between a belief and a religion would be qualified to tell me anything about it. If they can't grasp the simple truths why are they speaking about complex ones?
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
nikki630 said:
In the case of your ballerina vermin, maybe but not in the case of an omnipotent super-being who could easily hide it's existence from us at will or indeed proof of who's existence may require sensory appartia we simply don't have. That's the flipside to the existence/non-existence debate: god(s), by definition alone, would be smarter than we are.
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
In my opinion Joel Martin's conversation just seemed fueled by judgment and emotion. He had some interesting things to say about his experiences, but when he started going into the "Secularists" and the atheists I kinda had the same reaction many here have had.
Also, I question whether he really thinks about what he's saying. He said at least twice that you can't get 2 people to agree on anything anymore, but then goes on to talk with David how society has polarized into liberal and conservative. If his original lament about today's world was true then how could the populace settle on just 2 political parties? They couldn't, there would be many more 3rd party options.
He should probably just stick to what he knows, these recent episodes have just turned into the "mental masturbation" that David has mentioned several times. I don't really fault the hosts that much, I fault the format of a weekly 2 hour show. You have to fill over 50 slots a year, and in this genre there just ain't that many interesting rational people.
Also, I question whether he really thinks about what he's saying. He said at least twice that you can't get 2 people to agree on anything anymore, but then goes on to talk with David how society has polarized into liberal and conservative. If his original lament about today's world was true then how could the populace settle on just 2 political parties? They couldn't, there would be many more 3rd party options.
He should probably just stick to what he knows, these recent episodes have just turned into the "mental masturbation" that David has mentioned several times. I don't really fault the hosts that much, I fault the format of a weekly 2 hour show. You have to fill over 50 slots a year, and in this genre there just ain't that many interesting rational people.