Wisdominnature7 Fail

TheCartesianTheist spanks yet another youtube atheist with a penchant for committing fallacies.

If you like his work, I encourage you to go subscribe to his channel if you have a youtube account. He's fighting a one-man battle against the hordes of youtube atheists and he could use our support!

See ya.

P.S.

How to respond to a supercilious atheist.

Skeptics and Narcissistic Vampires

I was reading Psychic Vampires by the prominent psychologist Dr. Joe H. Slate and on pages 49-50 I came across his description of a "narcissistic vampire":

As a group, narcissistic vampires have a grandiose sense of self-importance along with needs for attention and admiration that often reach back to early childhood. They view themselves as superior; however, their self-esteem is usually quite fragile. Their needs for acceptance and recognition drive them to overestimate their accomplishments while either discrediting or taking credit for the work of others. In the work setting, they often seek control of the decision-making process, while exhibiting few of the skills required for responsible decision-making. Lacking empathy, narcissistic vampires tend to disregard the feelings of others while expecting others to be concerned about their welfare. As a group, they tend to be untrustworthy, disdainful, self-absorbed, and self-promoting. Undisciplined and exploitative, they do not hesitate to take advantage of others to achieve their goals. They are often pseudo-intellectuals or con artists with a superficial charm that can be temporarily disarming. They are, as a group, unreliable, critical, and pessimistic. Simplistic and immature in their views of right and wrong, they are quick to judge others. Authoritative and controlling in their social relationships, they have serious difficulty working with people. their administrative and supervisory skills are extremely limited. They are typically distrustful of colleagues and superiors, as reflected in their excessive demands for documentation ("in writing") of even minor issues. Frequently found in the academic setting, they are often aggressive publicity seekers who embellish and exaggerate their credentials as "scholars." Their claims of  being "skeptical thinkers" are almost always a bid for attention or a reaction to their felt insecurities and shallow intellect. They characteristically react to their own lack of integrity by calling into question the integrity of others. The prognosis for the narcissistic vampire is extremely poor.

Gee, who does this remind me of? It sounds so familiar... Oh well, I am sure it will come to me eventually.

See ya.

In Defense of Sir William Crookes

Undoubtedly, Sir William Crookes, the discoverer of thallium and one of the world's greatest scientists, is also one of the most controversial and maligned figures in psychic history. Scientists from all over the world have showered him with honors for his brilliant scientific investigations. Critics have tried insidiously to destroy his credibility. Anti-psychic, anti-afterlife, conservative negatively prejudiced scientists unconscionably and most unfairly tried to dismiss his great psychic achievements. Yet over the last 125 years his experiments have been successfully repeated and his impact on the worldwide investigation of psychic phenomena has been most impressive.

Thus begins this defense of Sir William Crookes, a figure in parapsychological history who has seen his share of accolade as well as invective. Indeed, skeptics have denounced him as incompetent, a fraud, a liar, and accused him of working with and being taken in by known hucksters. By now you will have seen that skeptics, being the untruthful, disingenuous lot that they are, have no credibility, and that everything they say is to be taken cum grano salis. In other words, we can safely be skeptical of the skeptics and the censure they lob at Sir Crookes. For it is imperative that we keep in mind a very important point made in said article: anyone can make baseless allegations.

Sir Crookes' credibility was impeccable. He was a universally acclaimed scientist who made lasting contributions to physics and chemistry. Are we really going to listen to a group of rabid skeptics who have the ulterior motive of defaming one of the brightest minds of the 19th century? To put it emphatically:

Contrary to the negative malicious rhetoric and imputations by his uninformed critics, Crookes was NEVER found to be involved in fraud, NEVER found to have used any kinds of tricks, was NEVER charged with anything fraudulent and NEVER found anything that is not consistent with international findings about materialisations and ectoplasm.

Please, do go read the whole thing. It debunks all the nonsense spouted by skeptics against Sir Crookes and those he worked with, one lie at a time.

See ya.

Pam Reynolds' NDE

Pam Reynolds is a rather well-known NDEr whose story is especially remarkable because it gives some of the best evidence for the ontological objectivity of NDEs. She underwent surgery in order to have a rare basilar artery aneurysm removed, but first, in order for the doctors to excise it, it was "required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death." The fact that someone who was in such a grave condition could report veridical observations after "popping" out of her body, flies in the face of any explanation provided within a physicalist paradigm. Do go read it, it's yet another nail in the coffin of our present scientific paradigm.

See ya.

P.S.

Also, check this out.

The Importance of Mediumship Research

Here is a rather lengthy paper written by Dr. Julie Beischel and Dr. Gary Schwartz in which they discuss methodological advances in mediumship research and the importance of mediumship research in the first place. In fact, they have this to say in the beginning of the paper:

Providing empirical evidence on a topic historically linked with religious faith (the afterlife) may impact modern society. For example, research in Terror Management Theory has found that belief in an afterlife may liberate us from “the compulsion to continually prove our value and the correctness of our beliefs” (Dechesne et al 2003), an impulse that can manifest in the extreme as radical nationalism (which provides the individual with the psychological comfort of symbolic immortality). However, evidence for survival of consciousness may also have negative consequences (e.g., possible increased justification for terrorism or suicide).

If we have evidence that there is an afterlife, then we will not fear death to the extent that we may have if we disbelieved in postmortem survival. I can say from experience that when I doubted I would continue to "live on" after I died, so to speak, that I felt an overwhelming sadness and existential angst which, when I became aware of the evidence, vanished almost immediately. That's a reason why I write this blog, to help bring some of the evidence to you so that you too may find peace of mind.

However, as the above paragraph states, there is a downside to believing in an afterlife, namely that one may not hold this life in esteem any longer but rather be in a hurry to get on to the otherside. Terrorism, for example, relies heavily on the belief in a paradisaical afterlife to motivate people to kill themselves and others. Indeed, belief in the afterlife can be used for incredibly untoward ends.

Thankfully, killing oneself in order to get to the otherside is a comparatively rare phenomenon. Most people, I find, begin to take more interest in this life after they become convinced that there does, indeed, exist an afterlife as demonstrated by tightly controlled research with mediums and the stories brought back by NDErs. A veritable weight is lifted off one's shoulders and life becomes much more bearable. Indeed, as Carl Jung maintained, the fear of death is at the root of all man's neuroses.

See ya.

P.S.

The link the paper appears to be broken, as sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. If it leads you to an error page just try again a little later. It's kind of a gamble :-\

Ex-Skeptic talks about why he left the Skeptical Movement

Stephen Bond, former skeptic, had this to say:

Of course, there is nothing inherently elitist about reason or the scientific method. Critical thinking involves applying a few simple rules that are accessible to everyone, at least in theory. And indeed, a lot of people become skeptics for the best of intentions: to spread the word of reason and critical thinking, to arm the masses rather than shoot them down. In highlighting bunk and deception wherever it occurs, their aim is to protect the vulnerable against the hucksters, charlatans, politicians and priests who exploit them.

But such is the character of skepticism that good intentions quickly get swamped by bad ones. Look past the crocodile tears on any online debunking forum, and you'll quickly find that the majority of visitors are not drawn there by concern for the victims of irrationality, but by contempt. They're there to laugh at idiots. I'm not going to plead innocence here: I've often joined in with the laughter, at least vicariously; laughing at idiots can be fun. But in the context of skeptic sites, the laughter takes on a bullying and unhealthy tone. It's never pleasant to watch a group of university graduates ganging up to sneer at people denied their advantages in life, especially when for some of them it's a full-time hobby. It's an unfair fight between unequal resources, and far too few skeptics care about this inequality or want to do anything about it.

If anything, I'm convinced that most of them would prefer to keep the resources unequal. The average skeptic has little time for spreading the word of reason to the educationally or intellectually lacking. His superior reason is what separates him from the chumps around him, and he has no interest in closing the gap. For him, the appeal of the skeptic clique is its exclusivity. It's a refuge from the stupid masses, and a marker of his own special privileges. It's Mensa rebranded. [Emphasis mine]

This is, in nuce, the reason why Mr. Bond left the professional skeptical movement, and it's a major reason why I don't take skeptics seriously. Skeptics sequester themselves into these little cliques from which they can point and laugh at the average person, deluding themselves into thinking they are the most intellectually sophisticated people on the planet. The irony is that most skeptics, while indeed usually well-read, display an incredible inability to reason and a wilful ignorance of the rules of logic. Not to mention they are not intellectually honest enough to admit defeat, but instead resort to ad hominem attacks or, again, egregious illogicality. It's a joke.

Mr. Bond goes on:

Online forums, whatever their subject, can be forbidding places for the newcomer; over time, most of them tend to become dominated by small groups of snotty know-it-alls who stamp their personalities over the proceedings. But skeptic forums are uniquely meant for such people. A skeptic forum valorises (and in some cases, fetishises) competitive geekery, gratuitous cleverness, macho displays of erudition. It's a gathering of rationality's hard men, thumping their chests, showing off their muscular logic, glancing sideways to compare their skeptical endowment with the next guy, sniffing the air for signs of weakness. Together, they create an oppressive, sweaty, locker-room atmosphere that helps keep uncomfortable demographics away.

What may look, at first glance, as a group of people seeking to educate the supposedly addlepated hoi polloi is really nothing more than an exclusive club of self-congratulating, egotistical misogynists:

One demographic skeptics are particularly uncomfortable with is the female of the species. It's an increasingly acknowledged fact that the skeptic community is rife with sexism -- especially in the wake of the "elevator guy" controversy, about which more later. Women are a small minority in the skeptic world, and the few who get involved get shit thrown at them constantly by their skeptic peers. Every day, they suffer the whole gamut of attitudes from sneering to leering.

Keep in mind that Mr. Bond was an insider to all this. He witnessed firsthand this delusion and bigotry. Please, go read the whole thing, it corroborates what I've been saying all along about skeptics. If you are someone who was considering joining the skeptical community, I implore you to read this article with an open mind and seriously reconsider.

See ya.

Answering some "Criticisms"

I'm famous! Well, not really. I did however garner some attention recently, and it appears that not everyone is happy with my little blog. The purpose of this post is to answer the criticism leveled by one "darryl" who, apparently, hasn't read my blog very closely at all, yet feels the need to slander me in a forum. This response isn't for him per se, but rather to show anyone who might see his comments and immediately think I am some kind of fundie wingnut that he is way off base. Without any further ado....

=======================================================================

"darryl" has this to say:

He brings up his background himself. It is supposed to be a blog about physicalism yet he can not leave religion or God out of it.

Well yea, I do talk about physicalism as well as other things. I talk about psi, NDEs, and  other things which challenge a strict physicalist interpretation of the cosmos. Just because I don't come right out and say I am talking about physicalism doesn't mean I am not addressing it. And if physicalism is wrong, which I think I've done an able job in thusfar demonstrating, then questions about God and religion become all the more interesting because the plausibility of there being something to these topics is much higher. Also, I bring up my background in an attempt to establish rapport with my readers so that they can see I am a human being with foibles and passions just like everyone else.

He does not seem to have any arguements [sic] against physicalism apart from mentioning religion, hes not interested in science, he just wants to have a rant at those he doesn't like.

LMAO! What?! He obviously hasn't read my blog very closely because I've given several arguments against physicalism (here and here for example). They are not my original work though, because I am more interested in promoting the work of others who are far more intelligent than little ol' me than I am in promoting myself. I am not writing to establish a clan of sycophants, I am writing to show that research done by others is far more concrete than skeptics would have you believe. Also saying I am not interested in science is just plain stupid. By promoting work done by scientists like Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake et al. and citing numerous papers and scientific articles how could one say I am not interested in science? He doesn't seem to be a materialist in which case I would say his qualm is that I am not promoting *materialistic* science, so I am just going to chalk this up to his failure to read my blog, again. Finally, yes, I do rant a lot because after reading so much bullshit written by nasty pseudointellectuals like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, frankly, I'm a little upset and I am trying to show that these people cannot be trusted.

The blog also has very little if anything to do with parapsychology, hes not even dropping any names of parapsychologists, I do not think he is well read in this area! he appears to have mentioned Dean Radin and that is about it.

I stand corrected. It's not that he hasn't read my blog closely....he hasn't read it at all. I've talked about Dean Radin indeed, but also about Rupert Sheldrake, Julie Beischel, Gary Schwartz, Daryl Bem, and many others throughout my posts. And....very little to do with parapsychology? Right now, if you search for "parapsychology"  on this blog, eight pages of results come up. Also, I think it's funny that he thinks that just by dropping names that would show I automatically know what I am talking about. Austin Cline, for example, is notorious for  name-dropping theologians and philosophers but closer examination reveals that he hasn't really read their work. Again, read the freakin' blog.

Hes been doing threads such as "I am sick of Atheists strawmanning Thomas Aquinas" and "Idiotic atheists" etc etc.

Yes.....and....? Aquinas tends to get the crap strawmanned out of him and hardnosed atheists do display some idiotic tendencies.

Its annoying this guy trys [sic] to associate himself with parapsychology he gives it a bad name.

You give people who take the time to read things and formulate serious, thought-provoking critiques a bad name.

Parapsychology has nothing to do with religion.

......

Are you really that stupid, sir? If parapsychological phenomena are real, like religions have been teaching for millenia, then I would say all those hardnosed skeptics and atheists owe us religious folk an apology.

The owner of the blog is probably unaware that the majority of parapsychologists in the past have been non religious, agnostic or atheists.

So? Does that affect the fact that they've shown paranormal phenomena like psi and telekinesis to be real? I don't give a flying hoo-haw about their religious beliefs: I give a flying hoo-haw about the *implications* of their research.

I am certainly open to reading criticism/s [sic] of physicalism, an example would be the work of John Beloff, I may disagree with most of John Beloff's views about dualism but he spent most of his life studying parapsychology and produced a very valuable handbook on the topic filled with 1000s of case studies, he must of spent countless hours writing about parapsychology, and yes Beloff was a strict critic of physicalism he even came up with lots of original arguements [sic] against it, but Beloff was an atheist and certainly didn't resort to religion to defend his view of dualism instead atleast [sic] he was attempting to do science.

Well, at least he's read some critiques of physicalism. Maybe there is hope for this lad yet!

The owner of the blog is an embarressment. [sic]

Oh yea? Takes one to know one!!! Nah nah!!

===================================================================

Seriously, take the time to read something and get to know it before making yourself look dumb. If he would have read my blog he wold have seen:

1) That I've cited arguments against physicalism
2) I've cited papers/books/articles written by highly credentialed scientists and philosophers
3) He would understand how important parapsychological answers are regarding religious questions
4) Maybe he would have seen I am trying to promote science and scientists, not become the next blog-writing celebrity.

And on, and on. True, my blog is not perfect, but then again neither am I. I've never written a blog before, so I try to do my best given my usually hectic schedule. In the end though, I am more interested in you coming to know the work of those I cite than I am in gaining fans.

See ya.