A common trait amongst many people is to paint the enemy as these evil doers, horrid humans, but often it is false. As far as Atheists and sceptics it is false to judge all by whichever troll you've been messed around by online. Equally, one must not jump to conclusions. The position of many is to build on ignorance, which is a poor foundation to say the least. From a position of ignorance and a belief in knowledge, the arrogant form serious opinions, and the validity of which will be, by definition, in error.
In my experience, although it is amusing to me, I have witnessed many nonsensical claims. Some were trolling, but many are so messed up that they believe in these irrational points. These range from claims of a political alignment, such as saying all Atheists are big government supporters, even though many are libertarian. Or that all atheists are liberal, some really really are not liberal. Some believe that Atheists are communists or fascists or Nazis, etc. No proof that all are, nor that most are, nor that you, personally, agree with those ideologies.
Some claims are that we Atheists want to ban religion, that we want atheist governments, that churches will be destroyed and bibles burnt. Of the sum of western Atheists, a small proportion may want to do that, mostly sad cases on the internet, many of whom are after attention and offer anti-intellectual arguments for their extremism. We Atheists, the average non-believers of any title or stripe, we do not seek such things out. We don't want religion and government to mingle, we believe we are all better off letting believers live with their choices and not being dictated to by other believers or by those who lack belief in religion and the supernatural. If you don't break the law then there is no real problem we will have, if you aren't trying to manipulate politics by telling your flock how to vote then we'll respect you are far more.
At the worst, the extreme end of everyday Atheism says you shouldn't be able to have tax free status or that you should earn your status through good deeds. I would be far happier to see the very rich church do more soup kitchens for the homeless and elderly to earn a tax status, and I would love to see the money grabbing cult leaders get jail time or get hit with a big tax bill. If you're a good church ad you help people, do good for goddness sake, nothing would change, but televangelists would suffer a tax bill. This doesn't sound extreme to me.
Now, one thing I wish to bring up is the repeated claim by believing New Age Spiritualists that I want to put them in camps. I have never said I want to, I do not want to, no mainstream atheist says as much, and it wouldn't help to deconvert magical thinking pseudoreligious nutcases anyway. And, for goodness sake can't we have a discussion about the evidence without most believers employing fallacies all the time. I know experience is important to you, as might be stories from others or holy texts, but religious and spiritual people need to know how untrue their evidence claims are. You do not know how deceptive you're being.
Lastly, I just want to make clear that most Atheists are moderate, they enjoy sports, entertainment, raising their families, socialising, comunity, and many other things that you probably enjoy. They just don't buy into the god claim because of the lack of evidence for the claim and many rival claims that are equally as nonfalsiable. So we don't know you're right, we don't know you're wrong either, but that's true of all other gods and magical beings and superadvanced alien beliefs, you can't prove a negative.
Showing posts with label skeptic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skeptic. Show all posts
Monday, 5 November 2018
Sunday, 26 March 2017
The moon is made of cheese. ;)
The title isn't serious, nor is anyone of sound mind claiming this to be true, yet, it is the kind of claim that one could keep alive by moving the goal posts. If anything the idea of the moon being made of cheese is a joke about the power of ignorance and what things may look like to simple minds.
When we talk of god, heaven, or any such idea, it is easy enough to say without canonical reasoning that the trouble must be that we haven't disproved god as much as one idea of god. We can go to the extreme of examining the stories of every holy book and the idea of god(s), and when we test what we can the faithful can always move god beyond our ability to test. Long ago it was normal to image the gods walking the hills and mountains, meeting on the highest mountains, such as Olympus, and when we conquered these high places the gods became kings of the sky. As modern science kicked in the ability to test the skies and the vastness of space pushed the room for god to an every greater extent, until, at some point, god is no longer in our universe, or not visible in our dimension. The process is one that the god of the Israelites is now the god of the gaps.
To the ignorant and thought-reformed, the idea of a small universe, a young earth, etc. Isn't hard to accept, from a point of ignorant faith it is easy to imagine a god unseen watching mankind and helping the flock. It isn't unlike the stories we tell to children, the idea that fairies live in the garden, that pixies look after the forests, or giants live in the sky and are reached by climbing magic bean stalks. Or, the moon is made of cheese, a fun idea added into children stories and cartoons, and because it looks a bit like a kind of cheese with pits and holes. We troll our off-spring in this way, giving the kinder an inspired imagination in their earliest years.
The link between ideas of god and the cheese based moon is to not understand where we come from via a natural selection process and cheese comes from cow. The outspoken theist and outspoken child may well speak with the honest belief that this is so, one at 44 years and the other at 4 years. The arguments used would stem from the ideas they have, every step back they make would require them to deny or change view to the nearest safe position, thus, in a fashion, they are alike.
To give an example, when addressing the theist you may point out the universe is not geocentric, they will likely disagree and agree, the universe seems to be not geocentric. But if the universe is centred on us then how could you truly refute it if it is at a cosmic level if not as far as our star system nor our galaxy. So we both aren't the centre yet are the focus of the universe. The argument moves the centric view while making it more concrete to the faithful via a leap of faith and imagination.
The child's view of a moon of fermented curds might make similar moves, denial can't last in children on such issues for long, adsorption is the logical step, thus, they would incorporate the ideas or adapt them to fit their model of reality. Literal cheese or otherwise may as well be cheese since it is so far that we cannot touch it, but then mankind has visited the moon, and so a staggering realisation can take place. The obvious takes place, they learn or remain foolishly uninformed, the latter kind is most like the devout religious person. In which case faith or trust in an idea is coupled with imagination, and when one ponders possibility and not literal philosophy one can create universes of near nonsense. In an extreme case we could dream up a character that thinks the cheese of the moon is to refer to the feminine energies of both the moon and cheese being aligned, or indeed an idea of other worldly cheese, a food of the gods. Such people would find themselves in padded cells in adulthood, yet to those innocent youths the idea of the lunar emmental is believable, and only because you have no yet developed your rational faculties.
So, what the hell am I talking about? I'm using an odd example of the moon being made of cheese and the comparison to irrational beliefs to express that one should outgrow the unrealistic over time, yet the idea of religion often linger for a lifetime. At which point the health answer is not to move the goal posts and suggest multi-dimensional forces, but instead to recognise that you do not know the answer. In cases of the moon and god, we can accept the evidence and need not jump to any conclusions. Even if we have way of making our mistaken views seem to be less irrational as we mess with the perimeters. Final clarification, to make claims of knowledge when you know little is to know almost nothings, to warp reality to your beliefs prove nothing at all.
[A bit random, I know.]
When we talk of god, heaven, or any such idea, it is easy enough to say without canonical reasoning that the trouble must be that we haven't disproved god as much as one idea of god. We can go to the extreme of examining the stories of every holy book and the idea of god(s), and when we test what we can the faithful can always move god beyond our ability to test. Long ago it was normal to image the gods walking the hills and mountains, meeting on the highest mountains, such as Olympus, and when we conquered these high places the gods became kings of the sky. As modern science kicked in the ability to test the skies and the vastness of space pushed the room for god to an every greater extent, until, at some point, god is no longer in our universe, or not visible in our dimension. The process is one that the god of the Israelites is now the god of the gaps.
To the ignorant and thought-reformed, the idea of a small universe, a young earth, etc. Isn't hard to accept, from a point of ignorant faith it is easy to imagine a god unseen watching mankind and helping the flock. It isn't unlike the stories we tell to children, the idea that fairies live in the garden, that pixies look after the forests, or giants live in the sky and are reached by climbing magic bean stalks. Or, the moon is made of cheese, a fun idea added into children stories and cartoons, and because it looks a bit like a kind of cheese with pits and holes. We troll our off-spring in this way, giving the kinder an inspired imagination in their earliest years.
The link between ideas of god and the cheese based moon is to not understand where we come from via a natural selection process and cheese comes from cow. The outspoken theist and outspoken child may well speak with the honest belief that this is so, one at 44 years and the other at 4 years. The arguments used would stem from the ideas they have, every step back they make would require them to deny or change view to the nearest safe position, thus, in a fashion, they are alike.
To give an example, when addressing the theist you may point out the universe is not geocentric, they will likely disagree and agree, the universe seems to be not geocentric. But if the universe is centred on us then how could you truly refute it if it is at a cosmic level if not as far as our star system nor our galaxy. So we both aren't the centre yet are the focus of the universe. The argument moves the centric view while making it more concrete to the faithful via a leap of faith and imagination.
The child's view of a moon of fermented curds might make similar moves, denial can't last in children on such issues for long, adsorption is the logical step, thus, they would incorporate the ideas or adapt them to fit their model of reality. Literal cheese or otherwise may as well be cheese since it is so far that we cannot touch it, but then mankind has visited the moon, and so a staggering realisation can take place. The obvious takes place, they learn or remain foolishly uninformed, the latter kind is most like the devout religious person. In which case faith or trust in an idea is coupled with imagination, and when one ponders possibility and not literal philosophy one can create universes of near nonsense. In an extreme case we could dream up a character that thinks the cheese of the moon is to refer to the feminine energies of both the moon and cheese being aligned, or indeed an idea of other worldly cheese, a food of the gods. Such people would find themselves in padded cells in adulthood, yet to those innocent youths the idea of the lunar emmental is believable, and only because you have no yet developed your rational faculties.
So, what the hell am I talking about? I'm using an odd example of the moon being made of cheese and the comparison to irrational beliefs to express that one should outgrow the unrealistic over time, yet the idea of religion often linger for a lifetime. At which point the health answer is not to move the goal posts and suggest multi-dimensional forces, but instead to recognise that you do not know the answer. In cases of the moon and god, we can accept the evidence and need not jump to any conclusions. Even if we have way of making our mistaken views seem to be less irrational as we mess with the perimeters. Final clarification, to make claims of knowledge when you know little is to know almost nothings, to warp reality to your beliefs prove nothing at all.
[A bit random, I know.]
Saturday, 25 March 2017
Personal Spirituality and Irrationality without Religion
Personal Spirituality, irrationality without religion
The best you can gain from spirituality without religion may be a delusional view of reality, minus the traditional culture of indoctrination, you have another style, if still the voodoo of faith. Escaping the bastion of traditional religious organisations, with their rules and conformity, so you have free choice, exploration, and the ability to disagree massively, even if you cling to the mystical and experiential as critical for a serious view of reality. Religion minus the church, minus the priesthood, and without a holy book, it sounds superior to religion indoctrination, even though you still have groups and organisations, experts and officials, and, you have many books that offer spiritual knowledge. You may have broken free in some ways, yet you are still very much caged in others, the limits of an orthodox religion have been surpassed, but you cling to fun ideas that religious thinking can offer. 'Spirituality' is often just a term used to say personal religion, you mix and match based on what you wish, not what's traditional, nor what's evident, and commonly, its bias to own desires and the arguments you use to support your views.
The removal of Hell is an example of this with moderate Christians. Liberal Christians may rethink the concept, making it philosophical, non-literal, we see this process being watered down even more, which isn't a bad thing. Although most religions like to select texts, in new age spiritualism almost anything goes, and any nonsense will do. Such as the idea that Jesus spent time in India learning from great masters, at the feet of gurus, or even travelled to Tibet. Even though there is no serious evidence to confirm this idea in the least, you may as well suggest he moved to China while you're at it. This kind of thinking and that of moderates means the books are a starting point, how they proceed to include ideas depends on common sense. You can quickly dismiss a pet theory that is true but unknown and call a thing the true while not knowing that this is the case.
Many suggest a foundation to spirituality, so they kind God in all religions with a few wild interpretations. It's all selection, and who says what is the foundation and the errors created afterwards? Fundamentalists say their belief is right and the rest became corrupted, the spiritualists claim the cute stuff and then claim the unpleasant things are to do with negativity and materialism.
Even if many possibilities are used to say that the things you hold dear are correct, selection for fundamentalist Christians is to select stories about great floods in ancient times. Searching the history books and ancient legends to find anything that suggests that the biblical stories are true, and often finding a flood myth is enough for them to say that the global flood is reported in every culture.
To pose the idea that a global flood took place, even if their flood story is Atlantis, is simple enough. The way they prove the faith is by poor connections, so a spiritual person selects data to fit it into a lost global civilisation belief, and then without question will accept reincarnation stories as evidence, just because they have a bias the idea that one can reincarnate, as well as spirit channelling, and other mystic ideas.
Data selection based on bias includes the acceptance of hearsay and supportive ideas, which are held together by a unifying hypothesis, or series of hypotheses, and from the shaky ground the unsound idea is constructed. This can including the unaccounted years of Jesus meaning that he must have been in India learning from gurus, just as ignoring the periods of floods reported in various cultures and myths can seem to support a biblical view of a global event, well, if you are fine with selecting what you want, not that which is in full context and backed by solid evidence. And you may even say the great flood was evidence of the planetary shift that sank Atlantis, or even that it was the result of a near miss, as a planet X passed close to the earth, but you would still be trying to support beliefs with unsubstantiated legends.
The issue is how we rationalise things based on limited information, even using hearsay as evidence, so beyond myths, the concern is poor reasoning based on belief, a poor comprehension of terms and concepts, and this ignorance, and a kind of arrogance has a knock-on effect on society. Moderate people, whether religious or spiritual, are often very vulnerable to such leaps.
The best you can gain from spirituality without religion may be a delusional view of reality, minus the traditional culture of indoctrination, you have another style, if still the voodoo of faith. Escaping the bastion of traditional religious organisations, with their rules and conformity, so you have free choice, exploration, and the ability to disagree massively, even if you cling to the mystical and experiential as critical for a serious view of reality. Religion minus the church, minus the priesthood, and without a holy book, it sounds superior to religion indoctrination, even though you still have groups and organisations, experts and officials, and, you have many books that offer spiritual knowledge. You may have broken free in some ways, yet you are still very much caged in others, the limits of an orthodox religion have been surpassed, but you cling to fun ideas that religious thinking can offer. 'Spirituality' is often just a term used to say personal religion, you mix and match based on what you wish, not what's traditional, nor what's evident, and commonly, its bias to own desires and the arguments you use to support your views.
The removal of Hell is an example of this with moderate Christians. Liberal Christians may rethink the concept, making it philosophical, non-literal, we see this process being watered down even more, which isn't a bad thing. Although most religions like to select texts, in new age spiritualism almost anything goes, and any nonsense will do. Such as the idea that Jesus spent time in India learning from great masters, at the feet of gurus, or even travelled to Tibet. Even though there is no serious evidence to confirm this idea in the least, you may as well suggest he moved to China while you're at it. This kind of thinking and that of moderates means the books are a starting point, how they proceed to include ideas depends on common sense. You can quickly dismiss a pet theory that is true but unknown and call a thing the true while not knowing that this is the case.
Many suggest a foundation to spirituality, so they kind God in all religions with a few wild interpretations. It's all selection, and who says what is the foundation and the errors created afterwards? Fundamentalists say their belief is right and the rest became corrupted, the spiritualists claim the cute stuff and then claim the unpleasant things are to do with negativity and materialism.
Even if many possibilities are used to say that the things you hold dear are correct, selection for fundamentalist Christians is to select stories about great floods in ancient times. Searching the history books and ancient legends to find anything that suggests that the biblical stories are true, and often finding a flood myth is enough for them to say that the global flood is reported in every culture.
To pose the idea that a global flood took place, even if their flood story is Atlantis, is simple enough. The way they prove the faith is by poor connections, so a spiritual person selects data to fit it into a lost global civilisation belief, and then without question will accept reincarnation stories as evidence, just because they have a bias the idea that one can reincarnate, as well as spirit channelling, and other mystic ideas.
Data selection based on bias includes the acceptance of hearsay and supportive ideas, which are held together by a unifying hypothesis, or series of hypotheses, and from the shaky ground the unsound idea is constructed. This can including the unaccounted years of Jesus meaning that he must have been in India learning from gurus, just as ignoring the periods of floods reported in various cultures and myths can seem to support a biblical view of a global event, well, if you are fine with selecting what you want, not that which is in full context and backed by solid evidence. And you may even say the great flood was evidence of the planetary shift that sank Atlantis, or even that it was the result of a near miss, as a planet X passed close to the earth, but you would still be trying to support beliefs with unsubstantiated legends.
The issue is how we rationalise things based on limited information, even using hearsay as evidence, so beyond myths, the concern is poor reasoning based on belief, a poor comprehension of terms and concepts, and this ignorance, and a kind of arrogance has a knock-on effect on society. Moderate people, whether religious or spiritual, are often very vulnerable to such leaps.
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Notes from an online discussion.
Notes from an online discussion.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Milo Yiansausages bitches about people in universities with liberal arts degrees or degrees in cultural studies when he is a dropout?
I know he made his first rush of cash from an online business, sure, but he dropped out of law and then dropped out of English literature. So maybe he could have spent a few years doing an artistic or cultural degree instead?!
He only has a career due to his first flurry of an online business and as an amateurish journalist he capitalised on gamergate, and now he panders to young republicans on US college campuses.
I'm just saying he may be able to pull off some debates in a moderately fair manner, he can spin a few facts, however, he isn't more qualified for a reasonable discussion than many of my friends on facebook, some of whom have qualifications that far beyond his station.
So consider the simple facts, we have a person who is by technicality as educated as many of you with a moderately better debating skill level and is able to recall a few basic biased surveys and studies that are flashed across the interwebs.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Milo Yiansausages bitches about people in universities with liberal arts degrees or degrees in cultural studies when he is a dropout?
I know he made his first rush of cash from an online business, sure, but he dropped out of law and then dropped out of English literature. So maybe he could have spent a few years doing an artistic or cultural degree instead?!
He only has a career due to his first flurry of an online business and as an amateurish journalist he capitalised on gamergate, and now he panders to young republicans on US college campuses.
I'm just saying he may be able to pull off some debates in a moderately fair manner, he can spin a few facts, however, he isn't more qualified for a reasonable discussion than many of my friends on facebook, some of whom have qualifications that far beyond his station.
So consider the simple facts, we have a person who is by technicality as educated as many of you with a moderately better debating skill level and is able to recall a few basic biased surveys and studies that are flashed across the interwebs.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
Skeptic vs. Spirituality group on facebook
New Age Sceptic
enough said, the group has been up for months, over a hundred people on it, a dozen or so regulars, and about half a dozen admins, and I have one rule, well two by technicality; don't spam, keep the posts relevant.
enough said, the group has been up for months, over a hundred people on it, a dozen or so regulars, and about half a dozen admins, and I have one rule, well two by technicality; don't spam, keep the posts relevant.
Friday, 29 January 2016
Skeptic group on facebook - first update/log
I have had some good interaction between skeptics and spirituals as of late, not least friends of the End Of Fear Project, as well as friends from youtube vlogging channels, who have helped add to the discussion, share topics, and broaden the group to over a hundred people. Thus far, I have only had to kick out one person for posting unrelated material that was a shallow plug for her book, sadlythis is common enough to facebook, and I can only imagine other sites and communities suffer in much the same way. Despite this minor problem, the group is doing well, and recently a guy with a hindu view of philosophy has been posting many things on brahman and the lotus, the important thing is to note how the beliefs do not work, not use insult, but say why meditation is not the key to perfect or ultimate knowledge, as he claimed a few times. New Age is heavily influenced by these kinds of ideas, that 'We know nothing, now let me tell you what it means.', or 'knowing is a divine truth, so to not know the divine you must be out beyond knowledge.' sadly, such thinking is accepted as valid by a kind of cultural relativism that exists in liberal society, this allows pseudo-science to rest next to science, even though one method of inquiry offers results, the other is incapable.
So, if your interested then visit the group, feel free to add content, comments, but keep it honest, I do not want to only allow vetted people to post, although if you are into preaching, then expect your argument to be owned!
Skepticism Discussion Group (facebook) - covering new age and skeptic topics and discussion points.
So, if your interested then visit the group, feel free to add content, comments, but keep it honest, I do not want to only allow vetted people to post, although if you are into preaching, then expect your argument to be owned!
Skepticism Discussion Group (facebook) - covering new age and skeptic topics and discussion points.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Skeptical Of New Age - New Facebook Page For Critics Of New Age Conmen
I just wanted to inform you that this group now exists, and isn't about hatred, politics, or any such nonsense, just calling out the conmen and the state of mind that create the mind that can be abused by those con-artists.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/522212297955886/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/522212297955886/
Saturday, 5 September 2015
How Major Stage Psychics Get $$$
just stating the obvious when it comes to Psychic Sally's income.
hate to tell people this but Sally Morgan is getting way too much money for selling her nonsense, she makes over 1.5 million per year I reckon, from simple mathematics you can work out that 45-50 theatre shows per year at a rate of £24-£26 a seat, sell out shows that fill a three thousand seat theatre.
I did the low end maths and found that based on a 25quid cost in a 2,000 seat threatre, with costs+tax covered she is making in profit 30k, 50 shows at that mediocre end of her business she makes 1.5 million per year, plus book sales, plus celebrity readings, plus other 1-to-1 readings £400-£500 each, for 20-30minutes. then add the money she gets for repeats of TV shows, appearances on day time TV, etc. We are talking about a quiet year for sally is earning her more than most of you will get in a life time!!!
video to be added on this topic soon.
hate to tell people this but Sally Morgan is getting way too much money for selling her nonsense, she makes over 1.5 million per year I reckon, from simple mathematics you can work out that 45-50 theatre shows per year at a rate of £24-£26 a seat, sell out shows that fill a three thousand seat theatre.
I did the low end maths and found that based on a 25quid cost in a 2,000 seat threatre, with costs+tax covered she is making in profit 30k, 50 shows at that mediocre end of her business she makes 1.5 million per year, plus book sales, plus celebrity readings, plus other 1-to-1 readings £400-£500 each, for 20-30minutes. then add the money she gets for repeats of TV shows, appearances on day time TV, etc. We are talking about a quiet year for sally is earning her more than most of you will get in a life time!!!
Tuesday, 1 September 2015
Aleister Crowley and the Beatles
I was reading up on him and find that the reason the Beatles put him on one of their covers was because of his almost anarchic individualism and his escape from Christian moral limitations that were up until the 60s a very real problem.
conspiracy theories are abound on this topic, yet really you need only understand that 60s culture was one of liberation, and the Beatles were at the crest of that wave for a time, and just as Crowley travelled east to learn from the world, so did the Beatles. Although, come to think of it, the results were far from perfect, and the spirituality in the end no better than other faiths, more free and personal, more about living life, exploring life. And yet, still limited by the fact of the delusions you live are just illusions dancing over reality, they are not the real world, just the mask it wears when we want to something other than it's bare face.
I will be uploading a video soon to my main youtube channel on Aleister Cowley, I will try to remember to note that here. https://www.youtube.com/user/robertwlester
I will be uploading a video soon to my main youtube channel on Aleister Cowley, I will try to remember to note that here. https://www.youtube.com/user/robertwlester
Cult leaders
[a few thoughts]
we can mean a person who is popular with a following, a so-called 'cult of personality', yet typically we mean a person who run a group of extreme devotion, or a charismatic guru who gathers followers to his or her self.
At a push you can call a scammer a cult leader, with Peter Popoff he is a guru of sorts, a scammer, sure, yes, and indeed uses his ministry to gather funds, it's a racket, a front, he has a pet cult on a lead to get money, yet there are worse things than greed alone.
David Berg, also known as Moses David, ran a group known as the Children of God, since changed it's name a few times, and he wasn't in it for money, he was in it for lots of sex with underage-girls, he was a narcissist in the extreme, and created a faith to allow him to live out every fantasy and perversion.
There are many reasons why cult leaders become what they are, in the sense of position and the abuse they offer, the everyday western guru, new age or otherwise, doesn't often form an organisation, they are selling a product. And usually not on the scale of Popoff, small business models based on lectures, books, and worshops, no big clean up scam, lots of small plays that are not easily regulated.
Narcissists are commonly the type of people to create cults, socially insecure people are often the best followers, the narcissist hungers for position, the rest are dominated, indoctrinated, or expelled.
The average Newage speaker isn't a cult leader, they are a sales person with a willing and credulous audience, same for many christian speakers, they may make vast sums of cash, but it's more about the money than anything. And these sorts of people are rarely true narcissists.
The Narcissistic Cult Leader is one who isn't so much after money, sex, or any such thing as such, it's all about what Sam Vaknin, an expert on Narcissism, calls 'narcissstic supply', the sense of gratification that comes of having their own way. And remember the worst thing you can do is remove that supply to the narcissists ego, it is their life's blood, and extreme cases will do anything to ensure they get it and keep such a supply within their power.
we can mean a person who is popular with a following, a so-called 'cult of personality', yet typically we mean a person who run a group of extreme devotion, or a charismatic guru who gathers followers to his or her self.
At a push you can call a scammer a cult leader, with Peter Popoff he is a guru of sorts, a scammer, sure, yes, and indeed uses his ministry to gather funds, it's a racket, a front, he has a pet cult on a lead to get money, yet there are worse things than greed alone.
David Berg, also known as Moses David, ran a group known as the Children of God, since changed it's name a few times, and he wasn't in it for money, he was in it for lots of sex with underage-girls, he was a narcissist in the extreme, and created a faith to allow him to live out every fantasy and perversion.
There are many reasons why cult leaders become what they are, in the sense of position and the abuse they offer, the everyday western guru, new age or otherwise, doesn't often form an organisation, they are selling a product. And usually not on the scale of Popoff, small business models based on lectures, books, and worshops, no big clean up scam, lots of small plays that are not easily regulated.
Narcissists are commonly the type of people to create cults, socially insecure people are often the best followers, the narcissist hungers for position, the rest are dominated, indoctrinated, or expelled.
The average Newage speaker isn't a cult leader, they are a sales person with a willing and credulous audience, same for many christian speakers, they may make vast sums of cash, but it's more about the money than anything. And these sorts of people are rarely true narcissists.
The Narcissistic Cult Leader is one who isn't so much after money, sex, or any such thing as such, it's all about what Sam Vaknin, an expert on Narcissism, calls 'narcissstic supply', the sense of gratification that comes of having their own way. And remember the worst thing you can do is remove that supply to the narcissists ego, it is their life's blood, and extreme cases will do anything to ensure they get it and keep such a supply within their power.
Monday, 20 July 2015
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
Bad Science in the name of Spiritualism.
I have recently been tying to please the spiritualists by looking into the best science for their claims, I regret to inform you that your science is far from serious, and your results are bias, and as a result your not taken seriously by impartial experts.
I made a few videos on a channel on youtube called GeneralSwartz, this channel is secondary to my RobertWLester channel, yet it's a place I talk about any topic I wish, so I I asked for their best evidence, and as a result made about 7 videos over a week, as well as two on the RobertWLester channel. The results of internet investigation found that the most outspoken sights were religious or conspiracy theory sites, the worst being forums full of biases on such things as the scole experiments and marcello bacci, noting it "must be true" because of their experiences with mediums or due to documentary presentations that agree upon. Their foundational reasoning is it's true, and here's the movie, here's the book, and it's sciency because we had tests, they ignore stories, documentaries, books, and tests are warped by biases, or poor test conditions with the so-called tests.
note that no matter how much research I do I find no serious evidence, and the tests done by paranormalists are often made to gather results, not ensure true results, as with the scole experiment
this shame, this quackery display allowed many poor controls and no controls in a few cases, as with using a room in the mediums home to conduct a session, and they waved the right to confirm the room was OK for this test.
the other example noted was in regard to Marcello Bacci, a chap who uses a radio to talk to the dead, it seems to be the Ghost box trick, or maybe a radio trick using a transmitters.
in any case the tests run with Mr. Bacci were not run for confirmation of the ability as much as getting results with slack controls.
one man who keeps pushing for lax controls is Mr. Victor Zammit, a spiritualist and lawyer, who has even insisted that James Randi should make the Million Dollar Challenge easier so mediums can pass it. Victor is a man who like to think he is the answer to scepticism, and that mediums are real because in his tests they seem to offer results, yet in such cases he cuts out critical thought and leaves the "tests" open to trickery, such as hot and cold reading methods. And he is the one saying that James Randi is a fraud, I think religion has poisoned his mind, and it can happen, just look at the writer of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was a genius as far as his famous work, yet fell prey to the power of religious thinking, and spent many years as a fund raiser, being hustled, by spiritualist conmen and believers alike.
https://www.youtube.com/user/generalswartz/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/robertwlester/videos
I made a few videos on a channel on youtube called GeneralSwartz, this channel is secondary to my RobertWLester channel, yet it's a place I talk about any topic I wish, so I I asked for their best evidence, and as a result made about 7 videos over a week, as well as two on the RobertWLester channel. The results of internet investigation found that the most outspoken sights were religious or conspiracy theory sites, the worst being forums full of biases on such things as the scole experiments and marcello bacci, noting it "must be true" because of their experiences with mediums or due to documentary presentations that agree upon. Their foundational reasoning is it's true, and here's the movie, here's the book, and it's sciency because we had tests, they ignore stories, documentaries, books, and tests are warped by biases, or poor test conditions with the so-called tests.
note that no matter how much research I do I find no serious evidence, and the tests done by paranormalists are often made to gather results, not ensure true results, as with the scole experiment
this shame, this quackery display allowed many poor controls and no controls in a few cases, as with using a room in the mediums home to conduct a session, and they waved the right to confirm the room was OK for this test.
the other example noted was in regard to Marcello Bacci, a chap who uses a radio to talk to the dead, it seems to be the Ghost box trick, or maybe a radio trick using a transmitters.
in any case the tests run with Mr. Bacci were not run for confirmation of the ability as much as getting results with slack controls.
one man who keeps pushing for lax controls is Mr. Victor Zammit, a spiritualist and lawyer, who has even insisted that James Randi should make the Million Dollar Challenge easier so mediums can pass it. Victor is a man who like to think he is the answer to scepticism, and that mediums are real because in his tests they seem to offer results, yet in such cases he cuts out critical thought and leaves the "tests" open to trickery, such as hot and cold reading methods. And he is the one saying that James Randi is a fraud, I think religion has poisoned his mind, and it can happen, just look at the writer of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was a genius as far as his famous work, yet fell prey to the power of religious thinking, and spent many years as a fund raiser, being hustled, by spiritualist conmen and believers alike.
https://www.youtube.com/user/generalswartz/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/robertwlester/videos
Sunday, 1 March 2015
Hypno-Bullshit Wendi the pseudo-expert on "hypnotherapy"
[video's description]
[background audio is quiet in comparison to voice audio, excuse your shock ;)
and I also decided not to edit Penn & Teller clips into this video since it is easy enough for people to go watch the full episode on youtube or netfix or something]
Bullshit Hypnosis - Critical Review Of Wendi.com
Response to a woman called Wendi Friesen, who appeared on P&T Bullshit! - Hypnosis, and appeared on other tv shows a few times, she is one of a growing breed of pseudo-scientists. She is a hypnotherapist who creates CDs and downloads to do that which hypnotherapy just can't seem to do, but because she is making big money she is happy to advertise breast enlargement hypnosis, if you gotta a problem she would have an audio therapy session to help you, help you to give her a big income. In the Penn & Teller episode on hypnotherapy she said her site makes millions, and that show was made over 5 years ago, so how much money is she making now? [I dread to think!]. I chose to critique her works due to her lack of scientific standing and her radical claims, I'm sure she is a nice gal and yet I just can't let such quackery pass without serious criticism, it's not personal, it's just business. I find it interesting how her work covers everything you may need, the claim are great and yet a great deal of loose language means she is covered legally within alternative therapy, and still the great claims draw in millions of people and have made her quite rich.
I personally disagree with people who say they know anything that can't even half prove, and if they make a buck off a cancer victim to make a buck or play on human weaknesses that really annoys me, and that is what wendi does, not just prey on guys with tiny cocks.
she claims to be able to hypnotically cure cancer
http://www.wendi.com/html/cancer.html
and she has a guarantee, where basically she claims if you do what she says you'll get results, but if it's motivation then who needs hypno-bullshit?
http://www.wendi.com/html/guarantee.html
Testimonial page is interesting, and proves nothing, considering even Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn, as well as most quacks, have many testimonials.
http://www.wendi.com/html/testimonials.html
look for yourself, don't laugh too much ;)
http://www.wendi.com/
Wendi's Youtube channel, WendiFriesen (yes, she has a channel)
http://www.youtube.com/user/WendiFriesen
Penn & Teller's Bullshit! - Hypnosis (full episode)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_BM34ViAxk
Penn And Teller Website
http://www.pennandteller.com/
And Go Like The Penn And Teller Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/PennAndTeller
---
if anyone has any questions just ask, and if I can help then I will, or at least redirect you to a better informed guy.
---
also, what is fair use?
http://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Fair-Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
THANK YOU FOR REACHING THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ;)
[background audio is quiet in comparison to voice audio, excuse your shock ;)
and I also decided not to edit Penn & Teller clips into this video since it is easy enough for people to go watch the full episode on youtube or netfix or something]
Bullshit Hypnosis - Critical Review Of Wendi.com
Response to a woman called Wendi Friesen, who appeared on P&T Bullshit! - Hypnosis, and appeared on other tv shows a few times, she is one of a growing breed of pseudo-scientists. She is a hypnotherapist who creates CDs and downloads to do that which hypnotherapy just can't seem to do, but because she is making big money she is happy to advertise breast enlargement hypnosis, if you gotta a problem she would have an audio therapy session to help you, help you to give her a big income. In the Penn & Teller episode on hypnotherapy she said her site makes millions, and that show was made over 5 years ago, so how much money is she making now? [I dread to think!]. I chose to critique her works due to her lack of scientific standing and her radical claims, I'm sure she is a nice gal and yet I just can't let such quackery pass without serious criticism, it's not personal, it's just business. I find it interesting how her work covers everything you may need, the claim are great and yet a great deal of loose language means she is covered legally within alternative therapy, and still the great claims draw in millions of people and have made her quite rich.
I personally disagree with people who say they know anything that can't even half prove, and if they make a buck off a cancer victim to make a buck or play on human weaknesses that really annoys me, and that is what wendi does, not just prey on guys with tiny cocks.
she claims to be able to hypnotically cure cancer
http://www.wendi.com/html/cancer.html
and she has a guarantee, where basically she claims if you do what she says you'll get results, but if it's motivation then who needs hypno-bullshit?
http://www.wendi.com/html/guarantee.html
Testimonial page is interesting, and proves nothing, considering even Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn, as well as most quacks, have many testimonials.
http://www.wendi.com/html/testimonials.html
look for yourself, don't laugh too much ;)
http://www.wendi.com/
Wendi's Youtube channel, WendiFriesen (yes, she has a channel)
http://www.youtube.com/user/WendiFriesen
Penn & Teller's Bullshit! - Hypnosis (full episode)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_BM34ViAxk
Penn And Teller Website
http://www.pennandteller.com/
And Go Like The Penn And Teller Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/PennAndTeller
---
if anyone has any questions just ask, and if I can help then I will, or at least redirect you to a better informed guy.
---
also, what is fair use?
http://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Fair-Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
THANK YOU FOR REACHING THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ;)
[here ends the description]
response to a linked comment.
[the comment]
[my response to the comment]
a
comment left a day ago states 'let he who is without sin, cast the
first stone', firstly that story seems improbable to be historical, even
if it's meaning is moral. the stone cast by myself is to say of Wendi,
that her claims are false, or so far fetched as to be highly probable to
be so. As for my own 'whiter than white' aspect, I am not without
wrongs, past, present, and I would not doubt in my future, yet sin is a
construct invented by religion to enslave generations, feel free to
disagree. To say I must be 'without sin', 'whiter than white', to
'throw mud' is an odd idea, since no one person is perfect, or at least
it is highly improbable, and my going on are only my critique of such
money making pseudo-experts as Wendi and her quackery website. so, if
you please, consent to give humanity more credit, and indeed freedom, to
doubt the unreal and illogical, than to follow and remain faithful to
the peril of quackery and con-artistry. We need not be better or even
brighter than the people we ask questions of, nor do we need to stand as
the meek before all as the inheritors of the earth to call out an
untruth, for it is not a need to be pure to point out some obvious
errors. And I doubt that my audience, or at least most of them, think
that I would be unwilling to retract my points if show scientific
evidence of the claims of Wendi.com.
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Sunday, 22 February 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)