When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

A bit off topic but is Skeptic Pete still with us?

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

A bit off topic but is Skeptic Pete still with us?

Do you mean is he still in the land of the living or here?

He is on FB and I see his posts and comment and he does the same to mine.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

A bit off topic but is Skeptic Pete still with us?

Do you mean is he still in the land of the living or here?

He is on FB and I see his posts and comment and he does the same to mine.

Right. Thanks. Now that you mention it. Yes Facebook.

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

But the groups you list are not skeptics. They are pseudo-skeptics, precisely because they totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

But I doubt that any of those groups represent a majority opinion.

turns out that it’s hard to tell, just on the basis of agreement, if X agrees with Y because of rational or irrational reasons

‘Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers’

Yes, they do ‘reject mainstream opinion’ in their own way.

But they’re rejected by skeptics because those groups/beliefs cannot provide any valid, verifiable, repeatable, or assessable evidence to support their assertions.

James Randi famously put up a $1million prize for anyone who could demonstrate the existence of magical/paranormal/psychic powers and phenomena, conforming to some basic conditions which would eliminate the possibilities of trickery or ‘çheating’. All he wanted was a clear-cut case of a phenomenon which could only be explained by the existence of the proclaimed powers, abilities, or influences.

And no-one ever has provided such a case. Randi, the embodiment of skepticism, was willing to entertain such claims up to the point where they could not be shown to actually exist.That’s what skeptics do; they say ‘ok, that’s interesting, prove it’.

captain_spalding said:

‘Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers’

Yes, they do ‘reject mainstream opinion’ in their own way.

But they’re rejected by skeptics because those groups/beliefs cannot provide any valid, verifiable, repeatable, or assessable evidence to support their assertions.

James Randi famously put up a $1million prize for anyone who could demonstrate the existence of magical/paranormal/psychic powers and phenomena, conforming to some basic conditions which would eliminate the possibilities of trickery or ‘çheating’. All he wanted was a clear-cut case of a phenomenon which could only be explained by the existence of the proclaimed powers, abilities, or influences.

And no-one ever has provided such a case. Randi, the embodiment of skepticism, was willing to entertain such claims up to the point where they could not be shown to actually exist.That’s what skeptics do; they say ‘ok, that’s interesting, prove it’.

uh these recent Nobel winners did

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

‘Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers’

Yes, they do ‘reject mainstream opinion’ in their own way.

But they’re rejected by skeptics because those groups/beliefs cannot provide any valid, verifiable, repeatable, or assessable evidence to support their assertions.

James Randi famously put up a $1million prize for anyone who could demonstrate the existence of magical/paranormal/psychic powers and phenomena, conforming to some basic conditions which would eliminate the possibilities of trickery or ‘çheating’. All he wanted was a clear-cut case of a phenomenon which could only be explained by the existence of the proclaimed powers, abilities, or influences.

And no-one ever has provided such a case. Randi, the embodiment of skepticism, was willing to entertain such claims up to the point where they could not be shown to actually exist.That’s what skeptics do; they say ‘ok, that’s interesting, prove it’.

uh these recent Nobel winners did

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

What does that have to do with “ magical/paranormal/psychic powers”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

‘Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers’

Yes, they do ‘reject mainstream opinion’ in their own way.

But they’re rejected by skeptics because those groups/beliefs cannot provide any valid, verifiable, repeatable, or assessable evidence to support their assertions.

James Randi famously put up a $1million prize for anyone who could demonstrate the existence of magical/paranormal/psychic powers and phenomena, conforming to some basic conditions which would eliminate the possibilities of trickery or ‘çheating’. All he wanted was a clear-cut case of a phenomenon which could only be explained by the existence of the proclaimed powers, abilities, or influences.

And no-one ever has provided such a case. Randi, the embodiment of skepticism, was willing to entertain such claims up to the point where they could not be shown to actually exist.That’s what skeptics do; they say ‘ok, that’s interesting, prove it’.

uh these recent Nobel winners did

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

What does that have to do with “ magical/paranormal/psychic powers”?

It’s magic.

SCIENCE said:

uh these recent Nobel winners did

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

I would have expected you to be able to recognise that entangled states is science, and not magic.

As the brief article says, those conclusions are the result of experiments, including experiments which gradually eliminated influences which could have or would have produced misleading results.

And, as they’re proper experiments conducted with due rigor, they are presumably repeatable by others in the field who don’t need any special magical powers or induction into a mystic order.

As to precisely how quantum teleportation works and why, that can be the subject of further research. It undoubtedly has an explanation, the question is whether our intellects and technology can discover it. What the Aspect/Clauser/Zeilinger work has done is to show that it’s a thing which does exist, and is worth investigating.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

uh these recent Nobel winners did

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

What does that have to do with “ magical/paranormal/psychic powers”?

It’s magic.

No it isn’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does that have to do with “ magical/paranormal/psychic powers”?

It’s magic.

No it isn’t.

Someone may need to change their forum handle.

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Have you had your coffee yet?

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Wot?

Even if they haven’t got a vagina?

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Have you had your coffee yet?

yeah halfway through my second today, how about you, master spalding

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does that have to do with “ magical/paranormal/psychic powers”?

It’s magic.

No it isn’t.

Any God Sufficiently Does Advanced Not Technology Play Is Dice Indistinguishable With From The Magic Universe

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Wot?

Even if they haven’t got a vagina?

They’re Incels

There was this bloke we called Hubcap.
If we went to the pub Hubcap was there, if we went to play golf Hubcap would turn up with his clubs etc etc.
He was always about but he had nothing to offer, there was no point to him.

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Have you had your coffee yet?

Its obvious that he has not had a coffee yet.

Once he has he should return to normal.

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Have you had your coffee yet?

yeah halfway through my second today, how about you, master spalding

Your not making your coffee strong enough.

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Have you had your coffee yet?

yeah halfway through my second today, how about you, master spalding

Had one cup. I was worried about you, you were talking like you were caffeine-deprived.

Peak Warming Man said:

There was this bloke we called Hubcap.
If we went to the pub Hubcap was there, if we went to play golf Hubcap would turn up with his clubs etc etc.
He was always about but he had nothing to offer, there was no point to him.

We had a bald bloke called mudguard.
Shiny on top. Shitty underneath.

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Have you had your coffee yet?

yeah halfway through my second today, how about you, master spalding

Had one cup. I was worried about you, you were talking like you were caffeine-deprived.

yeah nah just insulting the worst of skeptics, the really stupid of them, the stupidest

skeptics

Arts said:

skeptics

Heck!

Arts said:

skeptics

And magnetism should have two ts

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

Most people can’t afford to get vaccinated by a witchdoctor.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

Most people can’t afford to get vaccinated by a witchdoctor.

They are normally attended to by their friendly local vampire.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

If the PM was sceptical about masks stopping COVID, after a second time of getting COVID the PM should be less sceptical about wearing a mask.

So I’m thinking that it may take another few infections of COVID might see him not being sceptical about wearing masks.

I’m not sure though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

perhaps they explores the susceptibilities of hooman brians, which was tempted to call minds but ya know some would probably deny that exists, or they exist

mind probably gives savantist skeptics a dry vagina

Wot?

Even if they haven’t got a vagina?

Suppose you agree that he hasn’t got a vagina, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have a vagina.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

Most people can’t afford to get vaccinated by a witchdoctor.

It’s all voodoo to me.

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ah, I think I see the problem, No masks, not even the nurse.

Some people Most people don’t get it.

Most people can’t afford to get vaccinated by a witchdoctor.

It’s all voodoo to me.

I think you got the placebo.

Arts said:

skeptics

That shit for real?

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

skeptics

That shit for real?

Quite possibly:
See Skepticfriends

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

But the groups you list are not skeptics. They are pseudo-skeptics, precisely because they totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

But I doubt that any of those groups represent a majority opinion.

Your understanding is back to front.

> pseudo-skeptics

Those are the ones that are rejected. They are all minority opinions. Minority opinions are always rejected.

> they totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

I’ve found that this is also true of the skeptics organisations.

They, too, totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

That’s the problem.

To put it another way, given the scientific method of hypothesis-testing-confirmation.
Skeptics organisations immediately reject all hypotheses that don’t support their opinion without testing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

skeptics

That shit for real?

Quite possibly:
See Skepticfriends

Here’s a page from the same book about ‘vision’

Buffy should be interested to hear that knowing what happens when light enters the eye does not equate to an understanding of how eyes work. I assume that she was just winging it for all those years, living on lucky guesses.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

That shit for real?

Quite possibly:
See Skepticfriends

Here’s a page from the same book about ‘vision’

Buffy should be interested to hear that knowing what happens when light enters the eye does not equate to an understanding of how eyes work. I assume that she was just winging it for all those years, living on lucky guesses.

The “ayes” have it.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

When I attended the skeptics conference, I noticed something just slightly off.
This qualm has now crystallised. It can be expressed as follows.

Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.
Skeptics organizations :- reject anything and everything that questions the majority opinion.

So skeptics organizations are anti-skeptic?

—-

Here are some of the things that skeptics organizations reject that were specifically mentioned at the conference.

Quack medicine
Mysticism
Witchcraft
Von Danikan
UFOs
Climate skeptics
Anti-vaxxers

And here is what they supported:
Humanist, rationalist, atheist etc.

But the groups you list are not skeptics. They are pseudo-skeptics, precisely because they totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

But I doubt that any of those groups represent a majority opinion.

Your understanding is back to front.

> pseudo-skeptics

Those are the ones that are rejected. They are all minority opinions. Minority opinions are always rejected.

> they totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

I’ve found that this is also true of the skeptics organisations.

They, too, totally ignore all evidence against the positions they support, and accept without question any evidence that appears to support their position.

That’s the problem.

To put it another way, given the scientific method of hypothesis-testing-confirmation.
Skeptics organisations immediately reject all hypotheses that don’t support their opinion without testing.

Well I disagree.

It is of course true that everybody (or near enough everybody anyway) accepts evidence they want to believe too readily, and rejects evidence they don’t want to believe without sufficient consideration of whether it might be true, but it is nonsense to suggest that true skeptics are just like pseudo-skeptics in this respect.

There is a spectrum, with true skeptics reasonably close to one end, and the pseudo-skeptics as close to the other end as it is possible to get.

And the other problem is that the skeptical mode appropriate for science is often applied to engineering questions, where it is totally inappropriate.

For engineering questions you have to consider the consequences of a hypothesis being correct, even if it is unlikely.

And that’s not just opinion, that’s the law (at least in Australia).

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Quite possibly:
See Skepticfriends

Here’s a page from the same book about ‘vision’

Buffy should be interested to hear that knowing what happens when light enters the eye does not equate to an understanding of how eyes work. I assume that she was just winging it for all those years, living on lucky guesses.

The “ayes” have it.

‘How do we see light?’‘

Step 1. Throw this book away.

Step 2. Stop listening to moronic religious ideas (the ones about kindness, charity, peace are ok, but ditch just about everything else).

Step 3. Get a proper education.

And you’ll see the light.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Here’s a page from the same book about ‘vision’

Buffy should be interested to hear that knowing what happens when light enters the eye does not equate to an understanding of how eyes work. I assume that she was just winging it for all those years, living on lucky guesses.

The “ayes” have it.

‘How do we see light?’‘

Step 1. Throw this book away.

Step 2. Stop listening to moronic religious ideas (the ones about kindness, charity, peace are ok, but ditch just about everything else).

Step 3. Get a proper education.

And you’ll see the light.

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The “ayes” have it.

‘How do we see light?’‘

Step 1. Throw this book away.

Step 2. Stop listening to moronic religious ideas (the ones about kindness, charity, peace are ok, but ditch just about everything else).

Step 3. Get a proper education.

And you’ll see the light.

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Arts said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

‘How do we see light?’‘

Step 1. Throw this book away.

Step 2. Stop listening to moronic religious ideas (the ones about kindness, charity, peace are ok, but ditch just about everything else).

Step 3. Get a proper education.

And you’ll see the light.

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

The lived experience of religious folk is why they believe what they do. To my mind there is too much about reality we don’t know to disregard all spirituality as blind acceptance of untruths. I don’t believe in any organised religion myself but what I do ‘believe’ about the nature of reality is just as strange as most religious beliefs, and is just as untestable.

I lean towards either i) that reality is a simulation of some sort or ii) my subjective experience is just one of an infinite multiverse where literally anything is possible.

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

so what we’re saying is that for these fucking idiots, the finer and more fundamental a description is, it will never count as an adequate “explanation”, but the cruder and more vacuous a claim “it is God” is, makes it perfect

Arts said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

‘How do we see light?’‘

Step 1. Throw this book away.

Step 2. Stop listening to moronic religious ideas (the ones about kindness, charity, peace are ok, but ditch just about everything else).

Step 3. Get a proper education.

And you’ll see the light.

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAA1FhCdPk8

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Arts said:

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

The lived experience of religious folk is why they believe what they do. To my mind there is too much about reality we don’t know to disregard all spirituality as blind acceptance of untruths. I don’t believe in any organised religion myself but what I do ‘believe’ about the nature of reality is just as strange as most religious beliefs, and is just as untestable.

I lean towards either i) that reality is a simulation of some sort or ii) my subjective experience is just one of an infinite multiverse where literally anything is possible.

I find the ancestor simulation a strange idea, our advanced descendants for some reason simulate my mundane boring life.
I suppose if its as easy as loading up a game on a PC it makes sense.
Could explain why we can’t explain a few things as the simulation isn’t as fine as the real universe

>Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.

No, skeptics question opinions that deserve questioning, regardless of how many people hold those opinions.

Bubblecar said:

>Skeptic :- question the majority opinion.

No, skeptics question opinions that deserve questioning, regardless of how many people hold those opinions.

I find that often outrageous views contradicting evidence based ways of doing things have vested interests in doing so.
It’s not any sort of public service but get them to do it our way and charge them money to do so.

As usual, moll confuses being habitually contrarian with being skeptical.

He always finds crank views more attractive than rational, evidence-based views. In his worldview the cranks are the heroes, no matter how obviously wrong they are and how much damage they do.

Real skeptics rely on evidence. Pseudo-skeptics have only opinions.

Any skeptic that impinges on my world view I call a pseudo-skeptic.

Peak Warming Man said:

Any skeptic that impinges on my world view I call a pseudo-skeptic.

That might just be your opinion. :)

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

The above really appeals to those who are so religious no hope exists for them to believe anything that wasn’t done by god

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAA1FhCdPk8

hahaha.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Arts said:

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

The lived experience of religious folk is why they believe what they do.

for many people it’s the lived experiences of a family who are inside the cult.

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

they are all in a cult.. a very well organised and media savvy cult that begins with a lie, but has the best PR department on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAA1FhCdPk8

hahaha.

ROFL

Arts said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much isn’t it
Even if god did directly create humans and all life on Earth it would still be based on various sciences and not magic
It would all be discoverable with time unless it’s locked behind some paywall

The lived experience of religious folk is why they believe what they do.

for many people it’s the lived experiences of a family who are inside the cult.

Speaking from experience?

Oh dear, oh dear.

A major thrust of the skeptics conference was taking Covid seriously.

Four people who attended the conference have now come down with Covid.

mollwollfumble said:

Oh dear, oh dear.

A major thrust of the skeptics conference was taking Covid seriously.

Four people who attended the conference have now come down with Covid.

we got a notification the day after our conference ended that a delegate had tested positive… I’m not worried, I don’t socialise.