ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags aliens , bigfoot , ghosts , religion

Reply
Old 22nd April 2015, 09:18 PM   #121
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Smith's book makes a good analogy with the Patterson film, I think. The book makes many historical claims which can be evaluated compared to archaeological and other evidence, just as the film can be evaluated compared to films of primates and humans.

There are many people who have faith in the truth of the book or film, regardless of any contrary evidence, and start with the asssumption that the book/film is true, then try to explain mistakes in any contrary evidence, to protect their faith.
I disagree. The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.

Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.

So Patterson claims he saw a Bigfoot and he offered the film he took as evidence of that sighting.
Smith said he saw and spoke with an angel and was given a couple of stones and a plate of some sort, yet we only have his word on it and no other evidence to evaluate from his claim.

Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful. Who knows? Bob Gimlin knows the truth about Patterson, but I don't think even the editor that wrote down the Book of Mormon while Joseph Smith "translated" was privy to looking in the hat.......
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2015, 09:34 PM   #122
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Have you ever heard the phrase "talking through your hat"? That was literally how Smith wrote the book. He had magic stones called seer stones that he put into his hat. Then he put his face in his hat to get visions. And while still having his face in his hat he would recite what he saw. This is the way all of the frauds at that time did it. Smith had already claimed that he could find treasure using his seer stones. His laughable Urim and Thumin device was two stones that had been ground into hollow rings that were held together with wire, making crude spectacles. Oddly enough, Mormons often make the same claim about Smith that footers make about the PG film. They claim that Smith was too uneducated to have written it without divine guidance much as footers claim that Patterson wasn't sophisticated enough to have faked the PG film.

Very similar.
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yes, like all those customs footers came up with like knocking on trees and howling. There are probably other crazy footer customs that I'm not familiar with.
Yes I'm aware of the story of how the book came into being. I'm not knocking it because I don't know, I wasn't there and I've not seen any evidence to evaluate. I'm not Mormon and have nothing against anyone that is.

People do things that can seem silly to those without a proper understanding of why they are doing them I suppose. I understand the concept and purpose of tree knocking, just not the overall benefit. After all, one could be communicating with woodpeckers if the subject knocking back is never seen. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2015, 04:01 AM   #123
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I disagree. The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.

Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.

So Patterson claims he saw a Bigfoot and he offered the film he took as evidence of that sighting.
Smith said he saw and spoke with an angel and was given a couple of stones and a plate of some sort, yet we only have his word on it and no other evidence to evaluate from his claim.

Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful. Who knows? Bob Gimlin knows the truth about Patterson, but I don't think even the editor that wrote down the Book of Mormon while Joseph Smith "translated" was privy to looking in the hat.......
Chris B.
I see the two claims as this:
Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was an accurate account of life in pre-Columbian America.
Patterson claimed the film contained images of an actual unidentified North American primate.

Both artifacts, the film and the book, can be evaluated for their accuracy compared to other information from relevant fields.

I reject the claim about angels as silly, just as if Patterson claim angels helped him take the film. But the artifacts and the other claims would remain, and they can be evaluated. (Actually, if information unavailable to Smith corroborated the Book of Mormon, it might lend credence to the existence-of-angels claim, but just the opposite has occurred.)
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2015, 12:12 PM   #124
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Smiths claims go beyond human stupidity straight into full blown ,true sky blue,monstrous idiocy. The thing with moronism is that it is easy to completely 100% disprove it. Of the top of my head their is a papyrus scroll that smith claimed to be able to read. What he claims is in the scroll is absolutely wrong,with no wiggle room.
In short the scroll event proves he just made it all up. Kinda like Mohammed did. Or the weirdos that wrote about Jesus the iron age zombie.
We know absolutely smith made it up,yet imbeciles still pile into moronism.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 06:28 PM   #125
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.
Smith had similar flimsy evidence like his copper plates. This is comparable to the Pattysuit tracks and film.

Quote:
Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.
Actually we do have sketches of the markings on the plates. And we have the text itself which shows clear evidence of attempted fraud, much like the Patterson film.

Quote:
Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful.
No, both Smith and Patterson were lying; that is clear.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 06:34 PM   #126
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Yes I'm aware of the story of how the book came into being. I'm not knocking it because I don't know, I wasn't there and I've not seen any evidence to evaluate. I'm not Mormon and have nothing against anyone that is.
I wasn't there either but the fraud in the text is undeniable.

It's odd to me that both Mormons and footers base their faith on the claimed incompetence of the founders of their movements. That seems more than a little irrational.

Last edited by barehl; 24th April 2015 at 06:37 PM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 07:50 PM   #127
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Smith had similar flimsy evidence like his copper plates. This is comparable to the Pattysuit tracks and film.


Actually we do have sketches of the markings on the plates. And we have the text itself which shows clear evidence of attempted fraud, much like the Patterson film.


No, both Smith and Patterson were lying; that is clear.
Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 08:04 PM   #128
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I wasn't there either but the fraud in the text is undeniable.

It's odd to me that both Mormons and footers base their faith on the claimed incompetence of the founders of their movements. That seems more than a little irrational.
Nonsense. It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not. I have personally seen them so I am convinced they exist.

Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. I will not believe anything without proof. Unfortunately that also applies to religion. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.

There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion. They all must be taken with a good dose of faith. If you don't have it you can still attend but you'll do so without the expectations of an afterlife. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 08:36 PM   #129
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.
I wasn't voicing an opinion. When I give my opinion I say it that way. Smith was a fraud. This is clear from his background and clear from the fake text that he produced along with his fake plates. There is no doubt that this text is fake. Likewise, Patterson was a fraud based on his background and from the fake film that he produced along with his fake tracks. I'm not sure how someone could knowingly produce fake items and not be lying. Are you trying to claim that Smith and Patterson were not lying because they were mentally ill and therefore didn't realize what they were making?
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 08:54 PM   #130
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not.
Yes, that is the nature of faith. It would be nice if I could do that with science but alas science isn't based on faith.

Quote:
Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.
So bigfootery is a lifestyle choice.

Quote:
There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion.
And bigfootery is not more flawed than any other irrational belief. Okay.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2015, 11:09 PM   #131
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,341
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.
Chris B.
There's no ambiguity, Smith was a liar. His claims are demonstrably false. It is not an opinion to state Smith lied.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 02:48 AM   #132
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Nonsense. It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not. I have personally seen them so I am convinced they exist.

Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. I will not believe anything without proof. Unfortunately that also applies to religion. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.

There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion. They all must be taken with a good dose of faith. If you don't have it you can still attend but you'll do so without the expectations of an afterlife. Chris B.
All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.
In the 1830s ,convicted fraudster smith got hold of a Egyptian papyrus and claimed he read it and it was the lost book of Abraham. This very papyrus resurfaced in the mid 20th century and was read by actual egyptologists. It is the book of breathing with what appears to be a part of the book of the dead thrown in.
Not the lost book of Abraham then. Simply a document already well known to egyptologists from several other surviving copies. We don't have the harry potter like gold plates,but we do have the papyrus which proves,beyond ANY doubt smith was a complete liar.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 06:01 AM   #133
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by skeptichaggis View Post
All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.
In the 1830s ,convicted fraudster smith got hold of a Egyptian papyrus and claimed he read it and it was the lost book of Abraham. This very papyrus resurfaced in the mid 20th century and was read by actual egyptologists. It is the book of breathing with what appears to be a part of the book of the dead thrown in.
Not the lost book of Abraham then. Simply a document already well known to egyptologists from several other surviving copies. We don't have the harry potter like gold plates,but we do have the papyrus which proves,beyond ANY doubt smith was a complete liar.
The main difference between Mormonism and Protestantism or Catholicism, for example, is that Mormonism was founded so recently that more information about its founding is readily available.

But other than that, I don't see much difference. There's still an equal amount of evidence against Protestantism and Catholicism, if one combines common sense with archaeology and ancient histories.

Do you think there might really have been a talking snake or a guy who could walk on water or raise the dead. Or that there might be historical evidence for Israelites enslaved in Egypt and led out by Moses, but not for Israelites in the pre-Columbian New World? It's all made up, or heavily embellished, every detail.

I just don't see any significant difference. Edted to add: This comes up a lot and it always puzzles me. I think it might be that most people are raised in a Judean-Catholic-Protestant culture than are raised in a Mormon culture, so Mormonism seems subjectively more "weird" than the background noise of the religions they're used to.

Last edited by Pup; 25th April 2015 at 06:03 AM.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 06:38 AM   #134
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
The main difference between Mormonism and Protestantism or Catholicism, for example, is that Mormonism was founded so recently that more information about its founding is readily available.

But other than that, I don't see much difference. There's still an equal amount of evidence against Protestantism and Catholicism, if one combines common sense with archaeology and ancient histories.

Do you think there might really have been a talking snake or a guy who could walk on water or raise the dead. Or that there might be historical evidence for Israelites enslaved in Egypt and led out by Moses, but not for Israelites in the pre-Columbian New World? It's all made up, or heavily embellished, every detail.

I just don't see any significant difference. Edted to add: This comes up a lot and it always puzzles me. I think it might be that most people are raised in a Judean-Catholic-Protestant culture than are raised in a Mormon culture, so Mormonism seems subjectively more "weird" than the background noise of the religions they're used to.
I think I made it completely clear that I think all religions are stupid and can be completely and utterly 100% disproved. I was pretty clear about that-it surprises me that anyone reading what I wrote before could reach any other conclusion.
As to disliking moronism more than other christian cults,I'm Scottish, I've never even seen a Mormon. I was also raised completely atheist. I didn't really go to school and had absolutely no knowledge of religion outside history books until I got older. I was pretty shocked to find out people beleived in it. My father told me lots of folk were still religious-I thought he was pulling my leg.
My point about moronism is that we have the actual real papyrus that smith claimed was the lost book of Abraham. We know for a fact its just a fairly common ptolomaic era religious text. Which makes you wonder how moronism gains any converts.
I still don't get how you thought anything I wrote supports any other religious cults claims though. I normally assume good faith and try to be polite. So I will politely assume there is nothing wrong with your reading skills and you just need new glasses.
I'll add a quick edit-you clearly did not read all of the postings on this page,if you had you would have read above my comparison of smiths claims with Islam and the ressurection-i clearly wrote they are all utterlly stupid claims.

Last edited by skeptichaggis; 25th April 2015 at 06:43 AM.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 07:24 AM   #135
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by skeptichaggis View Post
I still don't get how you thought anything I wrote supports any other religious cults claims though. I normally assume good faith and try to be polite. So I will politely assume there is nothing wrong with your reading skills and you just need new glasses.
A bit touchy on this topic?

Nowhere did I say you were supporting other religious claims. I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by skeptichaggis
All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.
My point was that all Biblical-based religions (as well as others) make a vast amount of pseudohistorical claims; Mormonism is far from in a different league, in that regard.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 07:39 AM   #136
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Here's one of the problems. It was claimed that Smith's made up characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. They are not.

The second of Smith's blunders was to give a letter for letter translation to his made up characters. However, the quantity of characters on each plate was vastly different from the amount of text that he produced. In other words, it is 100% impossible that the text he recited came from the plates. This is simple math.

Patterson made similar mistakes.

Last edited by barehl; 25th April 2015 at 07:40 AM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 10:19 AM   #137
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
A bit touchy on this topic?

Nowhere did I say you were supporting other religious claims. I was responding to this:



My point was that all Biblical-based religions (as well as others) make a vast amount of pseudohistorical claims; Mormonism is far from in a different league, in that regard.
As I have said above and elsewhere on site,I think that religious claims are completely disprovable and that "can't prove a negative"arguments are weasel words. Mormonism as I specifically say above is as stupid as Islam and Christianity. That being said the fact that Mormonism is so recent and we know so much about its rise,coupled with the fact that we have the actual documents,not copys of copys and we can completely disprove smiths claims makes it hard to see how Mormonism gains members.
Reading over my last reply to you I concede its tone could have been lighter-my bad.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 10:31 AM   #138
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Here's one of the problems. It was claimed that Smith's made up characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. They are not.

The second of Smith's blunders was to give a letter for letter translation to his made up characters. However, the quantity of characters on each plate was vastly different from the amount of text that he produced. In other words, it is 100% impossible that the text he recited came from the plates. This is simple math.

Patterson made similar mistakes.
Yep,that's what I mean. There's no way to put a spin on this,the papyrus proves utterly that smith just made it up. OK we know Shintoism,Hinduism,Christianity etc are made up to,but inthe mormonism case we have the actual document.
Its not a copy of a copy,its the actual one smith used. We also have a wealth of written evidence from the period-by smiths own hand-that says the papyrus is the lost book of abraham,that's just not true.
It is the recent age of Mormonism ,allied to its bizarre historical claims that,like Scientology make it especially foolish. We understand how ancient religions took hold but when relatively recent religions take of in light of scientific knowledge to the contrary-well it makes you sort of dispare.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 10:35 AM   #139
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,730
Originally Posted by skeptichaggis View Post
moronism ..... moronism .
Unless this is your spell-checker gone bad, the thread could do without the juvenile insults.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 11:20 AM   #140
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Unless this is your spell-checker gone bad, the thread could do without the juvenile insults.
Really,that's your input,you don't want to state your opinion on the topic just comment on the fact I spell Mormonism, like moronism.
I'm a 35yr old who watches anime and reads a lot,don't let anything I do needle you-im not worth it and lifes to short.
If however you have something to say on the claims morons(ha) make about what they call the lost book of Abraham and what real actual egyptologists say regarding the scroll I would,in real not sarcastic interest,like to hear.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 11:32 AM   #141
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I wasn't voicing an opinion. When I give my opinion I say it that way. Smith was a fraud. This is clear from his background and clear from the fake text that he produced along with his fake plates. There is no doubt that this text is fake. Likewise, Patterson was a fraud based on his background and from the fake film that he produced along with his fake tracks. I'm not sure how someone could knowingly produce fake items and not be lying. Are you trying to claim that Smith and Patterson were not lying because they were mentally ill and therefore didn't realize what they were making?
I've not seen conclusive evidence that proves Patterson faked his film. In fact much of the evidence against it boils down to misrepresentations and lies as evidenced in the Michael Dennett article on "Footprints and Science" I believe it also appeared in the "Skeptical Enquirer".
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 11:38 AM   #142
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yes, that is the nature of faith. It would be nice if I could do that with science but alas science isn't based on faith.


So bigfootery is a lifestyle choice.



And bigfootery is not more flawed than any other irrational belief. Okay.
No, a physical sighting of an unknown creature is not faith, it's "proof". Believing that creatures exists without ever seeing it would be "faith" though.

I suppose many that have seen these creatures are left with unanswered questions.


Bigfootery which is the study of people in the Bigfoot field is as flawed as the people themselves. The study of the creatures though is separate and a choice. Some choose to do so out of curiosity, some do some because they've had an encounter with an unknown creature(s) and want to know more about it. You know, since we were taught from an early age this kind f thing should not be happening and should not exist.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 11:58 AM   #143
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,730
God enthusiasm

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
creature

...

these creatures

...

the creatures

...
unknown creature(s).
Keep up the good work, Chris. You're doing a heck of a job.


Originally Posted by skeptichaggis View Post
Really,that's your input,you don't want to state your opinion on the topic just comment on the fact I spell Mormonism, like moronism.

I'm a 35yr old who watches anime and reads a lot,don't let anything I do needle you-im not worth it and lifes to short.

If however you have something to say on the claims morons(ha) make about what they call the lost book of Abraham and what real actual egyptologists say regarding the scroll I would,in real not sarcastic interest,like to hear.
My opinion of Mormonism is of no import here. Juvenile name-calling lowers the level of discourse. I'm not going to apologize for bringing it to your attention.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2015, 06:02 PM   #144
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Keep up the good work, Chris. You're doing a heck of a job.




My opinion of Mormonism is of no import here. Juvenile name-calling lowers the level of discourse. I'm not going to apologize for bringing it to your attention.
So nothing about what was being discussed to say then. You actually took the time to write about me calling Mormonism,moronism. Tell you what i wont do it again. OK well I have nothing more to say about it.
On another matter i read that smith had his own militia and that they took part in a few shady killings. Did they try,either then or now,to justify the deaths on religious grounds. I was also curious about the morman church and its attitude to native Americans today.
It seems that the official line is that the modern native Americans are not to be discriminated against but I was curious how seriously modern Mormons take that in reality.
I tend to take religious persons claims that they are not bigots with a huge,as in really huge mountain of salt. And Mormon scripture definitely does not like native Americans.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:23 AM   #145
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,614
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
Cosi cosi, sos so...
Truth is some people just don't understand, can' t conceive atheism - or so they say or behave like. Thus, in their minds, when I say "I am atheist" what I am actually doing is moving away from some Abrahamic god because he did something that somehow hurted me. I am misbehaving, not unlike a child running away from home because (s)he is angry with hers/his parents.

"Why are you angry with UFOs?" and "why are you angry with bigfoots" are very rare. Sure, I've read some sentences which could be seen as rough analogues.

I try and explain by analogy - I dislike smoking, would prefer not to have people do it around me, believe tobacco companies are horrible and that marketing their product to children is just wrong. But that doesn't mean I "Hate Joe Camel".
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 02:59 AM   #146
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
I try and explain by analogy - I dislike smoking, would prefer not to have people do it around me, believe tobacco companies are horrible and that marketing their product to children is just wrong. But that doesn't mean I "Hate Joe Camel".
I like that analogy,its pretty robust. With the exception that the tobacco plant really exists.
I think I'll steal your argument for future use. Thanks.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:39 AM   #147
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I've not seen conclusive evidence that proves Patterson faked his film.
It is possible that people in Tibet don't know that humans landed on the moon so this could be possible too.

Quote:
In fact much of the evidence against it boils down to misrepresentations and lies as evidenced in the Michael Dennett article on "Footprints and Science" I believe it also appeared in the "Skeptical Enquirer".
That explains it. The evidence suggesting fraud is far larger than one or two articles. If your exposure was limited to two articles then I could understand how you could reach the wrong conclusion. The actual body of evidence begins in 1896.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:49 AM   #148
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
No, a physical sighting of an unknown creature is not faith, it's "proof".
Yes, if repeated then a documented sighting would be proof. I already gave the example of the Chinese pika. But that isn't what you are referring to. You are talking about the claim of a sighting which is not proof of any kind without supporting evidence. You keep trying to make bigfoot a special case but it isn't. Exceptional observations happen all the time in science and many of these observations would be remarkable if true. Observation without duplication is not science.

Quote:
Believing that creatures exists without ever seeing it would be "faith" though.
Suggesting that something exists while knowing that it doesn't, isn't faith; it's fraud. Patterson was about fraud, not faith.

Last edited by barehl; 26th April 2015 at 04:51 AM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:59 AM   #149
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,648
Generally when people believe something that is unlikely we say that they are gullible or foolish. It is remarkable to see people turn this idea upsidedown and claim that the fact that a belief is so outlandish somehow adds to its credibility. We see this with religious belief, with belief in alien visitation, ghosts, herbal remedies, and bigfoot. This is where emotional arguments and cynicism are often used to fill in the gaping holes in reason. And if all else fails, you can always just assert your belief and your refusal to change your mind.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:24 PM   #150
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Generally, someone should only accept something based on undeniable proof. Anything else is faith based. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:38 PM   #151
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,853
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Generally, someone should only accept something based on undeniable proof. Anything else is faith based. Chris B.
I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 02:16 PM   #152
skeptichaggis
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.
Difference is you KNOW that no matter how inexplicable a magic trick is,its still a sleight of hand. You know its not real magic,magic does not exist.
I may not be the smartest but I am a critical thinker,no matter how bizzare something is I know,for certain,that it has a natural explanation. Not knowing what that is does not make it appropriate to think gandalf (or Zeus,Yahweh,Thor,Shiva) did it.
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that even direct personal experience is fallible. Eyewitness evidence is routinely shown up as very unreliable.
skeptichaggis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 02:25 PM   #153
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
I tend to prefer the provisional 'beyond reasonable doubt' approach; always bearing in mind that even personal observation is no guarantee of what you think you see being beyond reasonable doubt, and certainly not 'undeniable proof'. Any stage magician can demonstrate that.
Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things. So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 03:49 PM   #154
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,853
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things.
You miss the point, which is whether you're actually looking at a wild animal or not. I've seen enough pictures of shadows labelled 'bigfoot' to understand that pareidolia and confirmation bias are diagnostic characteristics of bigfootery.

Quote:
So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.
Again you miss the point. You may think seeing is believing, but believing that what you think you saw is what you actually saw can be a mistake.

There are plenty of turkeys around, so it's quite likely you saw one if you think you saw one - especially if it ran across the road in front of you; but on the other hand, if you thought you'd seen one in the bushes you could easily be mistaken.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:04 PM   #155
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,730
Turkeys actually exist, so there's that to think about.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 09:48 PM   #156
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
You miss the point, which is whether you're actually looking at a wild animal or not. I've seen enough pictures of shadows labelled 'bigfoot' to understand that pareidolia and confirmation bias are diagnostic characteristics of bigfootery.


Again you miss the point. You may think seeing is believing, but believing that what you think you saw is what you actually saw can be a mistake.

There are plenty of turkeys around, so it's quite likely you saw one if you think you saw one - especially if it ran across the road in front of you; but on the other hand, if you thought you'd seen one in the bushes you could easily be mistaken.
Yes of course, one cannot base an opinion of something hiding in a bush. You must see it directly out in the open to be sure of what you've seen so there can be no mistake. Absolutely. There must be no alternate explanation/possibility available. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:25 PM   #157
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,593
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Yes of course, one cannot base an opinion of something hiding in a bush. You must see it directly out in the open to be sure of what you've seen so there can be no mistake. Absolutely. There must be no alternate explanation/possibility available. Chris B.
The point is there are always alternative explanations. You might have accidentally eaten some magic mushrooms and been stoned out of your mind when you thought you saw the turkey, you might be misremembering a dream as a real event, you might have hit your head or had a stroke and hallucinated the turkey, etc etc.

Of course the likeliest explanation is that you did see a turkey, but in the case of more exotic sightings of things for which there is no objective evidence (despite a great deal of looking) then misremembering/faulty perception/storytelling/fraud etc are all more likely explanations.

Compare the claims "there's a shed at the bottom of my garden" with "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden". Both have the same set of possible explanations, but the most probable explanations are different.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 11:27 PM   #158
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,766
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
In a real Christian church, ....
Don't you find such a blatant "No Real Scotman" fallacy at least a bit embarrassing?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 05:04 AM   #159
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Looking at a wild animal and looking at a stage magician's trick are two very different things. So in some cases "seeing is believing" as an example I saw a wild turkey just the other day. It was not an illusion or a stage trick, it was simply a turkey.
Chris B.
Could have been one of these.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Avian...3565866&rid=20
__________________
This is not the America I know and love. We're better than this.

Chesley B. Sullenberger III
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 01:09 PM   #160
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Don't you find such a blatant "No Real Scotman" fallacy at least a bit embarrassing?
Not at all. The part of my statement you quoted is very true as it applies to the rest. You will find some Christian faith churches that have certain bylaws of what they find acceptable and what they don't. In those type churches you will find disapproval of certain individuals and their lifestyles. Some examples of those that would be excluded from the church would be: Homosexuals and divorced men and women who have remarried. You will also find preachers of those sects will not perform a marriage ceremony for anyone that has been divorced previously. Some will also only perform a wedding for two saved Christians, if one is saved and the other is not, it's a deal breaker.

But, Christian churches can also be found that do not practice these judgmental bylaws and these churches typically go only by the teachings of the Bible, from Jesus in particular. Especially those about not judging others. So all are welcome as all are sinners in this church's view.

If you have not experienced the differences, either you have not attended any or many different churches. The differences are there if you look.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.

Last edited by ChrisBFRPKY; 27th April 2015 at 01:12 PM. Reason: spelling
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.