Food for thought...

[Angel of Ioren]

I went back and looked for my first post. Funny enough, Ron was one of the first people to reply and welcome me (thanks Ron )

Anyway, here's the link: What's the best UFO evidence? https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...t-UFO-evidence/page2?highlight=evidence+billy

 

[Sean Elifritz]

It's the one forum where there are so many opinions on one type of topic that it makes it really interesting. Plus, I feel like I'm a member of the community after so long and so many posts.
It's funny because David closed the first thread i started and almost banned me for making a Billy M joke. I said that I donated money to him and he didn't get my joke.

If you go back and look at my posts, you'll see my evolution from a somewhat believer to a pretty hard nosed skeptic. I cringe when I look at some of the stuff i wrote even just two years ago.

I think everyone does that. I certainly do. My opinions are always evolving, sometimes I'm in an altered state of consciousness when posting, ha ha, etc. I was actually pretty pleased when the MUFON forum got wiped because I had posted A LOT of pretty silly stuff there and was glad to have it out of the public domain. The older I get the more skeptical I keep getting.

 

[tyder001]

Just kiddin....Well, kind of. 8)

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Skunkape wrote to your post:<!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus -->

Start with the Billy Meier stuff. It's all totally real.


Priceless.
​

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Just kiddin....Well, kind of. 8)

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Skunkape wrote to your post:<!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus -->

Start with the Billy Meier stuff. It's all totally real.


Priceless.
​

I just think it's fun to see how things have changed.

 

[MacDaddy]

I went back and looked for my first post. Funny enough, Ron was one of the first people to reply and welcome me (thanks Ron ) Anyway, here's the link: What's the best UFO evidence?

Wow. I just went and read the thread. The most fascinating thing was the reaction of David Biedny. He was the best thing about the original Paracast, but he could be maddening. Come to think of it, those two facts are not unrelated. He portrayed himself as a normal guy to whom weird things kept happening but he often protested too much. From time to time I'd be convinced that he was just loopy, but he always reeled me back with his rational take on some topic or other, usually having to do with the area of his expertise. That image expert schtick of his went a long way toward convincing me of his essential sanity, but I now see that I was probably wrong. People can be very skilled and competent and still be loopy. I once strayed over to his Angry Human podcast and that was quite a trip. He is a profoundly angry person.

 

[SurferMike]

Power, Money, Persuasion, Supplication, Persecution--these can lift at a colossal humbug,--push it a little-- crowd it a little--weaken it a little, century by century: but only Laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand.

The. Best. Quote. Evah. Thanks dude.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

If I went over to the jimmy randi forum and started calling people names and "stirring" the pot I would be banned. Funny how some "free thinkers" are about free speech.

Thanks for pointing me to the Randi forum. I don't want to offend anyone here but there's a hell of a lot of common sense over there. They also seem pretty patient with honest questions although there is a bit of snarkiness when the subject of Sylvia Browne or John Edward arises. Also not much tolerance for dowsing, although they seemed to have issued an open invitation to any dowsers willing to prove their skill in a controlled setting. Seems fair to me. Anyway, thanks.

 

[crabtown]

Thanks for pointing me to the Randi forum. I don't want to offend anyone here but there's a hell of a lot of common sense over there.

I find the Randi forum a little boring for some reason, although they do seem to know what they're talking about. The one really great resource I've found on critical thinking is the weekly Skeptoid podcast. The guy who does it sounds a little pompous at times but he puts out about 15 minutes per week of pure gold. All of it is archived on his site and it's like a graduate course in critical thinking. I've learned a lot about a whole range of topics over there, but the main thing I've learned is how to apply reason and research to questionable claims.

 

[MacDaddy]

Well, the recent news on that case piles on to the doubt I've had about it for a long time. He seems to keep making more stuff up. He seems to want attention.

What recent news is that?

 

[Sloppy Joe]

The difference here will always be about faith. Oral tradition is an important channel of transmission of information throughout the ages and cultures (I actually mentioned that on previous post in other threads on this subject) but, reliable as it might be, it isn't a verbatim record of what was said or done. Besides, the reliability of a medium does not vouch for the factuality or accuracy of the message. Reading the New Testament you don't find an detached approach to the matters - there's a literary passion to the texts that infuses them with life and, in the end, contributed directly to its following by what would become Christianity. Besides, the fact that real people, places and occurences are mentioned throughout the bible doesn't automatically mean that everything there is true: the bible will never be an unbiased collection of accounts. In the end where does all this leave us? The faithful will see the book as a source of spiritual and religious illumination, a reference point to their belief in Christ. The agnostic (like me), will see an interesting book that opens a fascinating window into the minds, culture, beliefs and hopes of two of the biggest religions in history.

I never stated that everything must be true, merely because parts of it are true. That's a bit of a stretch from what I actually wrote.

Also, when you have huge groups of people who provide testimony on ANYTHING, even if they all saw the exact same thing, the totality of the accounts will never be unbiased. You'll always have the biased opinions on the subject. "Bias" doesn't equal "false", nor does it mean "unbelievable". Another thing people tend to do is talk about "well, it happened so long ago, we can't be sure it's really what they say it was" even if you have written records about it all. It's simply an easy way out for a lot of skeptics in my opinion.