On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 5:54:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:10:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 11:33:30 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

Of course it's disgusting, it's about scumbag televangalists!

Who are scumbags because they make a lot of money huckstering according to
you. So what about those who claim some divine revelation but make no
money and, in fact, are persecuted for it and die ignominiously broke?
Should you not embrace their claims?

Well, you are the guy who has promoted the word 'huckster', and it could not
be more appropriate. As per Webster...

: HAWKER, PEDDLER
especially : one who sells or advertises something in an aggressive,
dishonest, or annoying way

Do you really think that a religious huckster could be considered anything
but a scumbag? I don't either... and regarding those who claim divine
revelation without compensation? I suppose they just don't have the proper
huckster chops.

So they're not hucksters, and you didn't answer the question :-)

Not everyone who chooses a vocation is successful at it, Gary, some folks just need to pick a different life path. Some need to audition several paths before finding the right one... and some are perpetually lost at sea. It sucks, but that's life.

Not all of it did, but this family is beyond rich these days...

https://www.idolnetworth.com/todd-bu...t-worth-189111

... I would say that $42 million is certainly a nice return for a fantasy
yarn. As always, Gary... "Follow the Money"! By the way, here is a well-
thought-out expose about Burpo that you should read...

https://nathandickey.wordpress.com/2...n-is-for-real/

It's obvious that Dickey doesn't have an open mind. All of his "objections"
amount to speculation and parochial thinking. When you fold in the Akiane
story it gets MUCH more difficult to explain.

Much like Burpo's story is just speculation and parochial thinking. Not much
substance there, in my view... and I doubt that I am alone in this thinking.
It seems to me that you very much *want* to believe this stuff, while I, on
the other hand, demand evidence as defined by the scientific method, that is,
repeatable experiments and/or observations. Do you happen to have any of thse?

People experience lots of things in this world that cannot be explained.
Denial of their existence limits one's viewpoint and is not logical.

Follow the money, Gary, and all will become clear.

That hucksters exist is not proof that everyone is a huckster. In fact,
each of us know lots more people that aren't hucksters than are.

... you might even modify your thinking about all of this.

Actually, I've modified my thinking about YOU. Since you have previously
claimed to be an agnostic, it's refreshing to see that you have come out
of THAT closet.

There is a fine line between an atheist and an agnostic.

I don't agree. An agnostic is honest and humble but an atheist is arrogant
and may also be dishonest or a sycophant.

Nonsense. A 'true believer' is equally as arrogant as any atheist. Each is betting 'all in' that their way it the only way. Give me an example of a 'dishonest atheist' and I will claim that it also applies to a True Believer.

If the concept of a god could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like
all good scientists, I would change my evil ways... but the odds are very
long that this will ever happen.

"I believe God himself will someday debate with and answer every objection
arrogant men can come up with against him" -- Criss Jami

Killosopher? The designer of Killosopher Apparel? Really? This is someone you admire? This fellow also said...

“Religion, like science, is only noteworthy when it emphasizes a matter of what is true rather than whose belief is greater or lesser or which deity works for whom. Sincere religion and tested science are similar in that their assertions can be argued logically and objectively; otherwise, we get false cults and babble.”

This makes sense to you? I don't think that religion can be argued logically and objectively. How can it, with zero evidence to present?

Each of us has had experiences that aren't scientific (because they aren't
repeatable) but color our viewpoints. Demanding scientific evidence (i.e..,
repeatable under laboratory conditions) of these things is not logical.

For example, telepathy is not scientifically confirmed but I know that
it exists because I have experienced it -- once. Not repeatable but I
cannot deny my own experience.

I think that there is an alternative explanation for your experience. From Wiki...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

"There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience."

I'll side with the scientific community rather than certain psychologists.

Well, here I disagree completely. I think your #1 is self-explanatory,
and it is pretty dang straightforward, to me.

I understand that your mileage may vary.

You've tried desperately to deny all the evidence about early
civilizations, so it's pretty dang clear that you fall close to this
category:

Uh, just which early civilizations am I supposed to have desperately
denied? I don't recall ever doing such a thing... please refresh my
memory.

An early civilization that is statistically probable.

Which early civilization would that be, Gary? Perhaps I've missed something along the way...

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?” ― Robert Buettner

Nice quote from a military science fiction author, but how is it relevant?

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the
earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up
into the heavens and say there is no God.” – Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was no scientist, so he can be forgiven for saying what he said..

He WAS a human being, and a vary smart one, too. Being a "scientist"
isn't necessarily a virtue.

Just because *he* couldn't conceive of such a thing does not mean that
others cannot. Lincoln did say... "if I were two-faced, would I be
wearing this one?", and that I can believe!

:-)

BTW, I read Ruppelt's "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" in
the fifties and came away allowing that there might well be some
substance to UFOs. A few years ago, I read a 2nd edition of it which
had two extra chapters, the last one pointing out that all instances
where photos of radarscopes were taken, the "unknowns" were explained..
That caused me to being a "nonbeliever." Then THIS happened:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...f&action=click

So that refutes Ruppelt's claim. Maybe they ARE here after all :-)

However, maybe some flyboys thought they would stir the pot, just for
laughs. It is definitely within the realm of possibility and has been
done before umpteen times. Who knows? I sure don't, and neither do you.

So now you have become a conspiracy theorist :-)

No, I'm just a healthy skeptic, and a skeptic I shall remain.

“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”
― Carl Sagan

I am too much of a skeptic to fall for a single claimed incident.
If the 'observation' is singular and has never been repeated, I say
'beware', and so should you!

Beware is good, denial is not.

The current thinking

Yeah, the current thinking of a civilization just emerging from the
Dark Ages.

is that the distances are just too far to be considered realistic

By a civilization just emerging from the Dark Ages.

and that no other beings could have possibly ever been here, and this
is what a vast majority of scientists say today, and that is good enough
for me, at this point in time.

Remember these guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_and_Betty_Hill

A whole lot of folks still believe this is god's truth. How about you?

I don't really know. There have been a lot of "Taken" experiences, but
they are all hostile to my world view. I'm with you on this.

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

“Probability is orderly opinion and inference from data is nothing other than the revision of such opinion in the light of relevant new information.”
― Eliezer S. Yudkowsky