Unfortunately (I guess?) in a capitalist society money is the rate of exchage, so instead of asking for barter in exchange for services (although I guess that's probably still capitalism), we ask for money. "The workman is worth his meat." While I hate to tell you this, a lot of us don't "believe" in James Randi.
I did happen to check out the "order page" by the way, and noticed they're offering a 30 day money back guarantee, so that might help to ease the uncertainty of some people. That's capitalism at work too now isn't it?
Then that sounds to me like there's no sense of a commitment on your part. You know what they say, put your money (and hence resources) where your mouth is.
Then by this you're "implying" that the guys who do remote viewing are not legitimate ... whatever.
Yes, but can you "prove" his intentions? Ahh, it's just a big act and you know it!
If somebody believes in something strongly enough, then they should be willing to put their money where there mouth is and not have to rely upon somebody like James Randi for support. Matter of fact I think people would find it much more believable if you were to do the work yourself, rather than "selling out" to some crackpot like James Randi.
But the million dollar test is not a matter of proving their belief - it is a certificate confirming the execution of a controlled, scientifically objective test. It is not a matter of relying on selling out to randi, it's a legal idea - the independent witness. And Randi is about as independent from any claim of paranormal activity as you can get. The randi fund was never about the money - it was about putting something to a reasonable scrutiny in an environment where someone's intentions or beliefs are irrelevant. Randi does not fudge the tests. They are not impossible tests, but tests carried out regularly in any scientific work.
And yet, one does not need to go through all this rigmarole to determine that God exists. In fact it's all about one's "interior perception." Which is the whole point, because if we were to establish God externally (i.e., through the sensationalism of Randi's approach), without learning how to approach the God "within us," then that becomes tantamount to idolatry, and we all will have missed the boat.
No, what I'm saying is we don't want to be worshipping "external gods," because you're right, they don't exist -- not in time and space anyway which, I guess is saying the same thing.
And yet they don't seem to have too much trouble getting other people to buy what they're selling -- to what extent of it's mumbo jumbo or not I couldn't tell you? -- so why should they concern themselves with James Randi?
Then you can't attack Randi here, because Randi as a factual test represents an attempt to get away from subjective beliefs into objective reality.
Because supposedly they don't like to wear a sticker saying "I don't care about being true, I just want to make money off gullible people."
What are you suggesting we "sanitize" our relationship with God?
Nope, not good enough. To "dismiss" is not to "disprove." However, if you wish to remain skeptical about the whole thing, that's entirely up to you.
Actually I don't believe in anybody, or anything, except the "ground of my own being" (my existence). Perhaps this is what makes me such a "good skeptic?"
TENYEARS:
TENYEARS:
Did you read my post to FZ+? I think to the degree that we rely on material proof (especially when sensationalized), then to that degree we don't rely on "spiritual proof," which is what affects us "interiorly." I know for me that there are any number of things that have happened to me in my life, that may or may not constitute proof in Randi's respect, and yet constitutes proof to me, because I was there. And yet being of a personal nature, with me being the only witness, it belies the fact that The Spirit was there guiding me. Therefore I'm very reluctant to take this to an outside source (which isn't to say I won't), especially when it involves someone who doesn't seem to have an appreciation for what it entails. I'm afraid I just don't see that in James Randi. I would rather go about my own business and remain an unknown.
All I can say is "buyer beware."
As I said earlier (after your post here), I don't believe in anybody, or anything, except the "ground of my being" (my existence). Which is to say I can get pretty skeptical, indeed.
If it looked like it was being "orchestrated" from up above (so to speak), then I would say it would be worth looking into ... and yet this is not the sort of "go ahead" that I get with James Randi.
The thing about Randi, in his totally "concrete view," is I don't think there's a spiritual bone in his body, which leads me to ask why he should be put in charge of those things which involve "spiritual matters?" Wouldn't that be akin to putting the fox in the hen house? Indeed, there's something very lacking in his attitude which just doesn't ring true.
Then what are you saying? That anyone who works in the field of "the mind," doesn't have a right to make a living at it? Then should that also not include the whole field of psychiatry? While I can assure you, a lot of them have no business practicing either!
But isn't that like with anything, where to the degree that you become "overly" self-conscious, that it affects your normal ability to do what you do, naturally?
And indeed this is entirely possible based upon the evidence that I've seen. Did you ever get chance to see the Nova program on remote viewing? It was pretty amazing, and they were backing up all their claims!
No. I am saying that we maintain the division from things purely in the internal subjective belief, as you impression is, and things that supposed exist with an objective element. I am saying that we should be clear on which we mean, because you are attacking Randi for failing to do what he did not set out to do.
Depends on what you see by disprove. If it is shown that x has no effect on external reality, then the view held by these people that x does have an effect on external reality is disproved. If they maintain that x neccessarily has a side in objective existence, then their whole belief system is show to be inconsistent with the world, and is disproved. If their belief system can accept a lack of professional scrutiny, and real existence, then it is dismissed from rational judgement. If there is intentional to stop x from being proved, disproved or dismissed when the nature of x allows these tests, then their intentions are suspect.
Did you see that Nova program on remote viewing? They gave some pretty conclusive evidence to me. If you haven't seen it I would recommend you get a copy!
Apparently you didn't see the program then. These were extensive tests which were conducted by the CIA, and the whole approach seemed scientific to me. Here are a couple of sites which seem to substantiate the findings.
Proof! ... That's such a dirty word. I didn't use to believe in any of this stuff either, and couldn't possibly conceive of how it was true ... that is until I found out. Hmm ... Now all I can say is, based upon my own experience, the likelihood that these things do exist is real. If you want proof, and it was meant for you to find out (it's more a matter of sincerity I believe), then you will have proof. In the meantime, I wouldn't waste so much time getting all worked up about it.
That was because I deleted twice and reposted, sorry. I will do this sometimes (re-edit) so long as no one has posted after me.
Would you say Randi was a died-in-the-wool Atheist? This was the distinct impression I got, which is an indication of bias right there. While I also got the impression that the only proof Randi is looking for is proof to justify his own Atheism.
What are you saying they refused because they didn't respond, to something they otherwise might not be aware of? (Randi's challenge). Or, are you saying Randi approached them directly and then they refused? Hey, that's a big difference!
Oh, I think you mean "cash in."
Did you read my list of facts about the Randi challenge?
Randi is no better than the damn news media that come on at night. It's all sensationalism. Therefore, if you get Randi out of the way, and you get the sensationalism out of the way, then it might be another story. And yet without all the sensationalism, who cares? Right? This is the kind of attention you need in order to draw attention to "James Randi." It's big joke! Whereas if it was that important, why isn't anybody else offering the same challenge? Unless of course it's already being done, in the name of private research, except without all the fanfare and the money.
This is why:
The reason for the fanfare is so that no one can claim that they didn't respond because they never heard of it.
