Plan B Forum

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/james-ra ... eaaa0e1f97

He did more to promote scientific thinking than anyone that comes to mind (OK, maybe Martin Gardner too). While not a working 'scientist' in the normal usage of the word - like Gould or Dawkins or Hawking or Darwin who popularized many aspects of their work - he made people see that there were rational explanations for such things as spoon-bending. It's hard to credit now, but there was a time when someone like Uri Geller could claim supernatural powers as opposed to run-of-the-mll magic, and many people believed it. Randi also exposed faith healers such as Peter Popoff as charlatans.

A sad day indeed. We need many more just like him among us.

What I remember is his demonstrations establishing that 'trained scientific observers' were no better than the average Joe at detecting fraud.

He had a special challenge gigantic check for anyone who could demonstrate real 'psi powers' I don't think anyone really attempted it.

snailgate

I'm skeptical about this news

He was an excellent magician as well; I probably saw him more than a dozen times in various venues. His act included a number of escape tricks and some were pretty great. Indeed, I recall seeing him with Alice Cooper at Madison Square Garden where he staged a beheading at the end of the act (I think it was the tour after either School's Out or Billion Dollar Babies); he was a lot older than the band, but he played along and eventually ended with a fun effect (the killing at the end of the set was a trademark of Cooper's act).

As for his skepticism, I recall reading an article by him once that said scientists are among the easiest to fool as they approach their observations in the same way; a good illusionists could design a trick to easily misdirect and fool them, and adding things like "I need a 12" x 14" opening in the room or adjusting the lighting to create dark spots only compounds it.

I also met him number of times as he lived in a neighboring town when I went to high school; I worked in a local discount store, Two Guys (kind of like a predecessor to K-Mart) and he would often come into the store with a big Macaw sitting on his shoulder. I talked with him a few times (nothing in depth, more joking around about the bird), and he was a kind of crazy guy with a biting sense of humor (if I recall, he also wrote a humorous column for one of the local weekly newspapers).

An all around interesting guy; I agree with @W, we need more like him.

He came out publicly at age 81, bless his heart. I guess I just assumed he would live forever.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:35 pm

He came out publicly at age 81, bless his heart. I guess I just assumed he would live forever.

Whodaphuque cares who or what he was into, especially at age 81?

-"BB"-

I wonder if he and Houdini are talking things over right now?

It’s a one sided conversation. Randi was an atheist.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:37 pm

It’s a one sided conversation. Randi was an atheist.

In my heaven, awesome people of whatever prior deity belief would be there to enjoy the best of what we have.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:37 pm

It’s a one sided conversation. Randi was an atheist.

Plenty of atheists in the after-life....

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 25, 2020 10:36 am

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:37 pm

It’s a one sided conversation. Randi was an atheist.

Plenty of atheists in the after-life....

I guess that renders John 3:15-17 moot and one need not waste time and effort worshiping and reaching out to convert others. Unless, of course, you are making a sly reference to hell in afterlife. In that case I am sure one would be busy burning and toiling for the old master to have time for a conversation.

@W, you have pulled my chain. This is right in the sweet spot of apologetics for my spiritual tradition. John 3:15-17 needs context. The book of John is the last written of the Gospels and is based on the least direct experience. Much of it is formed by the 'orthodoxy' that develops long after Jesus and those who had personal contact with him were gone .G-d does not need worship. Humans need to appreciate the beauty and love that is the ultimate cause. Conversion is not for 'pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye'. It is for a better life right now, for individuals and for the community. This is not acceptable for many who identify as Christian. A transactional god who rewards 'good' and punishes 'bad' is preferred by many. They also have a problem working around the story Jesus related in Matthew 20 about the workers in the vineyard who all got paid the same now matter how long they worked. My spiritual tradition has its own illogical and paradoxical spots. Every theology is a limited metaphor for the infinite.

snailgate.

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

All atheists (and dogs!) go to Heaven!

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 25, 2020 4:55 pm

@W, you have pulled my chain. This is right in the sweet spot of apologetics for my spiritual tradition. John 3:15-17 needs context. The book of John is the last written of the Gospels and is based on the least direct experience. Much of it is formed by the 'orthodoxy' that develops long after Jesus and those who had personal contact with him were gone .G-d does not need worship. Humans need to appreciate the beauty and love that is the ultimate cause. Conversion is not for 'pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye'. It is for a better life right now, for individuals and for the community. This is not acceptable for many who identify as Christian. A transactional god who rewards 'good' and punishes 'bad' is preferred by many. They also have a problem working around the story Jesus related in Matthew 20 about the workers in the vineyard who all got paid the same now matter how long they worked. My spiritual tradition has its own illogical and paradoxical spots. Every theology is a limited metaphor for the infinite.

snailgate.

There is nothing quite like healthcare to lead one to conclude that, “God has a plan”, to explain the suffering we see- is malarkey. Either there is no God, particularly a loving God, or God is psychotic. I mean this to include the 330 million Gods the Hindus have available that lead them to believe that dogs and cats should not be spayed or neutered as they should choose to whether or not they should reproduce. (Guess what they choose.) I am wholly of the opinion that religion is only about controlling the gullible masses.

I believe it was Karl Marx who opined that religion was the opiate of the masses. Now that Purdue Pharma has been found guilty of crimes in a federal court and its stockholders striped, This modern opiate Oxycondin should be more economically available to the masses.

The Darwinian sociology which I find persuasive holds that religion serves a survival function within human societies as it acts to reinforce the status quo political establishments. "It is all part of God's plan" is a formulation of that social function. If that formulation is true, then I fully agree with @W, that god is a sadistic psychotic. Where that plan gets thrown for a philosopher's two out of three falls is in discussions of free will.

And by my personal standards, Randi was a good man who left this world a better place for his being with us.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 25, 2020 4:55 pm

John 3:15-17 needs context. The book of John is the last written of the Gospels and is based on the least direct experience. Much of it is formed by the 'orthodoxy' that develops long after Jesus and those who had personal contact with him were gone. G-d does not need worship. Humans need to appreciate the beauty and love that is the ultimate cause. Conversion is not for 'pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye'. It is for a better life right now, for individuals and for the community.

Yes, the book of John (terrific writing in places) is polemic supporting very late first/early second century church doctrine. I don't believe God "needs" worship any more than I "need" ice cream. But I sure enjoy a bowl of that delicious frosty treat (not Walmart).

But the old "psychotic god argument" remains as lame as it ever was, when applied to Christianity. Plenty of psychotic 'christians' out there though - one only has to see their pro-Trump ignorance to know that's true.

Is "lame" all you got there MGM? Because I can offer up a ton of evidence (all you need do is look around the world at the amount of injustice) to positively indicate that there is either no God or no Gog who gives a shit one way or another about what happens to us. I find it increasingly incredulous that there are those who are otherwise intelligent individuals who remain gullible on this point. Very lame indeed that issue.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:12 pm

Is "lame" all you got there MGM? Because I can offer up a ton of evidence (all you need do is look around the world at the amount of injustice) to positively indicate that there is either no God or no Gog who gives a shit one way or another about what happens to us. I find it increasingly incredulous that there are those who are otherwise intelligent individuals who remain gullible on this point. Very lame indeed that issue.

So, make a coherent argument instead of Trumpalizing. And don't you mean "incredible"?

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:40 pm

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:12 pm

Is "lame" all you got there MGM? Because I can offer up a ton of evidence (all you need do is look around the world at the amount of injustice) to positively indicate that there is either no God or no Gog who gives a shit one way or another about what happens to us. I find it increasingly incredulous that there are those who are otherwise intelligent individuals who remain gullible on this point. Very lame indeed that issue.

So, make a coherent argument instead of Trumpalizing. And don't you mean "incredible"?

So yo got nothing. I am not sure how Trump figures into an discussion of this nature.