Search



Comments

« Trick, treat and go to Hell • Home • Mrs. Jesus »

James Randi on talking to fools

• Skeptics & Atheists

There's no escaping the damnable illogic of the unsane, no sensible person should bother arguing facts and reason against revelation. Believers have too radically different a mindset, almost a distinct neurophysiology. Even if you are reasoning from premise the antecedent assumptions are alien to what any half-sane person would assume. (When Mr. Natural let Flakey Foont in on the truth it was that the "universe is insane." Even if the universe isn't its biological products available for local viewing are.)

James Randi on the impossibility of dialoge with the nutty:

I've reached the point where I just have to unload on this subject that until now I've felt was just outside of the matters that the JREF handles. Since religion shows up as a part of so many arguments in support of other fantastic claims, I want to show you that its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day. Previously, I've excused myself from involved discussions of this pervasive notion, on grounds that it offers no examinable evidence, as the other supernatural beliefs actually do — though those examinations have always shown negative results. Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just "are."

Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.

Found at Bunda.org

Earlier about the Brights: The Brights Movement and Politics and the Brights Movement.

[Listening to: I Believe - Jimmy Somerville - Root Beer (04:00)]

Richard Evans Lee
October 31, 2003 •
BlinkList • del.icio.us • Digg it • Furl • ma.gnolia
RawSugar • Shadows • Simpy • Spurl • Yahoo MyWeb
Top↑

Comments

Parapsychologists and rationalists both avoid the (telepathy?) of Shared Psychotic Disorder or Folie a Deux. Robert Carroll has refused to add it to his web page. In the other skeptics' dictionary it rarely apprears. Only in medical dictionaries does it appear. How very odd. Randi won't even talk about it. It may be the monkey wrench in the machine. I do not think Folie a Deux is a spiritual thing (mysticism and such). It is probably just a mundane function of the mind. We know very little about emotional contagion and rare psychotic disorders. There doesn't seem to be much of a hurry for rationalists to discuss or even acknowledge their existance, other than an abnomally. What the hell is that ? A cope out? Psychiatry doesn't just brush it aside.

Posted by: Charlie Turek | December 11, 2003 8:07 PM

If it is simply a psychiatric disorder why would fans or skeptics of the paranormal bother with it?

Posted by: Richard | December 11, 2003 8:21 PM

Go back and read my letter. Here is the question. Can telepathy exist within the psychotic disorder of Folied a Deux? The medical literature, psychiatry, psychology, and my own personal experiences indicate this may be possible. If skeptic's are really interested in telepathy why are they avoiding Folie a Deux? One searches for answers. One does not just wait for an answer to come without exerting effort. Don't skeptics have genuine curiousity without boundaries? From what I have observered over and over skeptics skip things, just like (unskeptics?). We avoid things that may make us feel uncomfortable. We do not criticize our own biase. It is our nature. I know it and you know it. So why don't you stop trying to jerk me off, like some of those other dorks! What makes you think psychotic disorders are simple? Brother, they ain't. Read the literature. Charlie Turek

Posted by: Charlie Turek | December 12, 2003 8:58 PM

"I know of no calling which depends so much upon mutual trust and faith as does ours." James Randi Abracadabra 2 Feb 1974 Randi is addressing British magicians and ( I humbly genuflect. I am not kidding. ) The Great Magic Circle.

Posted by: Charlie Turek | December 16, 2003 10:12 PM

Can Mr. Randi explain the nature of consciousness ?

Posted by: Mike | February 18, 2004 5:24 PM

Why don't you explain it for us.

Posted by: Richard | February 18, 2004 5:42 PM

How do you feel?

Feel free to share your feelings about James Randi on talking to fools. Please stick to the theme of the entry. Disagreement is fine. Homophobia, racism, and kindred expressions of hatred will be deleted. This site is one of my hobbies. I genuinely enjoy hearing from people and hate moderating or killing comments. Forthright disagreement is fine as long as it is civil.
My thanks,
Richard

Monthly Summaries

March 2007, February 2007, January 2007, December 2006, November 2006, October 2006, August 2006, July 2006, June 2006, May 2006, April 2006, March 2006, February 2006, January 2006, December 2005, November 2005, October 2005, September 2005, August 2005, July 2005, June 2005, May 2005, April 2005, March 2005, February 2005, December 2004, November 2004, October 2004, September 2004, August 2004, July 2004, June 2004, May 2004, April 2004, March 2004, February 2004, January 2004, December 2003, November 2003, October 2003, September 2003, August 2003, July 2003, June 2003, May 2003, April 2003, March 2003, February 2003, January 2003, December 2002, November 2002, October 2002, September 2002, August 2002, May 2002, April 2002, March 2002,

Recent Posts



Thematic Archives

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0

Syndication


Edifying Spectacle
Index
Skeptics & Atheists
James Randi on talking to fools
Top of page