• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Enemies of Reason


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#31 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 18 August 2007 - 05:28 PM

There are, however, a number of credible sightings that are honest and accurate and bear serious consideration.

This is true, there are people who have honest sighting and experiences, but just because they are by credible people doesn't mean they aren't shooting stars, birds, or classified military aircraft (innocent mistakes as you mentioned).

There are two things that I think will keep alien visitation and abductions alive:

1) The inability for people to accept something the government says, for instance, it doesn't matter how many declassified documents are released to the public, they won't be happy until someone admits there really are aliens... it will never die until governments across the world say "um, yeah there are aliens, are you happy?". People will always claim information is being hidden from them until they get the answer they want!

2) People don't play ET's psychologist often enough. Why the hell would a creature (or creatures) who can control enough energy to get themselves here zig zag back and and forth in our atmosphere? Which is more likely, a drunk alien (perhaps trying to screw with our heads) or the military testing a new aircraft's top speed or maneuvering abilities?

I would very much like to see Dawkins do his homework on the UFO issue since he's so willing to rationally analyze and debunk other areas where claims for the supernatural are being made. It's not even-handed or fair in my opinion to focus in one area and leave out an area where stronger evidence exists.

Agreed, I would love to see him approach this as well, it however does involve physical experiences that can be caught on camera, so it isn't necessarily as far-fetched (far-fetched as in people seeing one, not them being aliens). Also, religious/spiritual superstition is actually having a negative effect on our global civilization, people not being able to identify weird lights they see in the sky and then calling them aliens isn't starting wars, hurting our children's education or affecting how people view genetic engineering, and non-conventional biological research.

Elijah, out of all fairness, I agree that every flavor of superstition should be investigated and scolded, however I think religion is an especially easy target because so many believe in it, and so many allow it to have an effect on their lives and their moral policies. :)

Edited by Joseph, 18 August 2007 - 05:41 PM.


#32 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 18 August 2007 - 10:17 PM

"Your religion doesn't make sense, and has no evidence" is an entirely reasonable thing to say, yet people take that as rude or angry...probably because it makes them angry, because they feel it is rude (having had someone break through their wall of protection of that social contract).


indeed, and I think that the PC movement is a trojan horse for irrationality and superstition being accepted as fact because it distorts the language used to describe knowledge itself and twists it to conform and placate those who are easily offended.

Do I go out and deliberately "offend" people with my almost fanatical hatred of religion? no. but if they are offended,tough shit. I'm offended by their patriarchal belief system, and seek to undermine it at every possible opportunity.

Science itself is quite offensive, look at evo psych and it's absolute ruthlessness. Is the cinderella effect offensive? probably, but it's reality nonetheless. Is death offensive, yes, and your corpse will rot away to dust and be consumed by organisms; I think it is absolutely essential that death is given the recognition it deserves, not as a bullshit gateway to some non existent place, but rather a complete end and utter destruction of everything that constitutes who and what you are.

then we will have the fear of the masses, and they will do whatever it takes to ensure their flame is not extinguished.

#33 william7

  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 18 August 2007 - 10:33 PM

Why the hell would a creature (or creatures) who can control enough energy to get themselves here zig zag back and and forth in our atmosphere?

Surveillance and testing. They may be monitoring human reactions to their presence and getting humanity use to the idea of their existence in preparation for their intervention in human affairs.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 18 August 2007 - 11:46 PM


Penn and Teller's BS on alien abductions.

#35 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 19 August 2007 - 12:23 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is very simple.

Though I am a transhumanist, I do have a major qualm with this claim.
This "extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence" meme needs to be exposed for the rubbish it is.

First of all, most people around the world, all through recorded history, have not thought that the existence of a designer was an extraordinary claim. It might, of course, be regarded as extraordinary against the background of a prior disposition to cling to a materialist worldview. But most people haven't been committed to a such a worldview. Anthropologically, belief in a designer is the norm, not the exception, and the claim that the world has an intentional origin has not generally been regarded as extraordinary at all.

Now one might object that it is extraordinary, because materialism is true, or prima facie true. But that's a blatantly obvious example of petitio principii. And it is very far from obvious how to account for all the phenomena associated with reason and value from a materialist starting point. It's hard to imagine how rationally conscious, morally and aesthetically aware minds could arise unintentionally from matter at all, let alone that it's in any way obvious that they did. I think the idea that blind matter operating by sheer chance generates binding moral or rational norms is very much in 'unicorn territory'. Atheists seem to think that it is obvious that materialism is obviously true. But actually, there's no obvious reason to accept this atheistic claim. And so the atheist needs to do more than simply beg the question as to the supposed obviousness of materialist naturalism, and the supposed extraordinariness this would allegedly require of evidence of design.

I mean, if human minds aren't evidence of design, what could conceivably even count as such evidence?

#36 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2007 - 12:40 AM

Though I am a transhumanist, I do have a major qualm with this claim.
This "extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence" meme needs to be exposed for the rubbish it is.

First of all, most people around the world, all through recorded history, have not thought that the existence of a designer was an extraordinary claim. It might, of course, be regarded as extraordinary against the background of a prior disposition to cling to a materialist worldview. But most people haven't been committed to a such a worldview. Anthropologically, belief in a designer is the norm, not the exception, and the claim that the world has an intentional origin has not generally been regarded as extraordinary at all.

Now one might object that it is extraordinary, because materialism is true, or prima facie true. But that's a blatantly obvious example of petitio principii. And it is very far from obvious how to account for all the phenomena associated with reason and value from a materialist starting point. It's hard to imagine how rationally conscious, morally and aesthetically aware minds could arise unintentionally from matter at all, let alone that it's in any way obvious that they did. I think the idea that blind matter operating by sheer chance generates binding moral or rational norms is very much in 'unicorn territory'. Atheists seem to think that it is obvious that materialism is obviously true. But actually, there's no obvious reason to accept this atheistic claim. And so the atheist needs to do more than simply beg the question as to the supposed obviousness of materialist naturalism, and the supposed extraordinariness this would allegedly require of evidence of design.

I mean, if human minds aren't evidence of design, what could conceivably even count as such evidence?

I don't disagree with the you about the phrase being flimsy when held up to a rigorous logical critique, but then, I don't think that the phrase is meant to be a rigorous logical device. I think of it as a folk-logic tool. A very very simple tool to help the average non-philosopher simply re-think their claim before they go and proclaim it as true.

Besides, the phrase really isn't directly about how to find "The" truth so much as it is about going against conventional wisdom. True the assumption that there was a designer would have been the conventional wisdom, and so the claim that there is none would have required extraordinary evidence....and guess what, there was. While I have said that it isn't a rigorous logical tool, I think as a guiding concept it is pretty straight forward. People who have their minds set on a belief NEED a lot of evidence to change thier minds. So if you think the universe can be explained without a designer, then how about a beautiful theory backed up with 20 years of carefully conducted research which generally supports said theory and concludes with "No designer required"? And if that doesn't meet your need for extraordinary evidence, then how about 150 years of independently agreeing evidence from paleontology, anthropology, geology, cosmology, molecular biology, botany, zoology and numerous other fields? I think that that is EXTRAORDINARY evidence, and that is why Evolution is accepted as a factual theory now.

So it the simple guideing phrase can cut both ways, but when it comes down to it, if you want to make a claim about reality, it should require extraordinary evidence in any case. Whether you want to claim there is a god, there is no god, there is a tea cup orbiting mars or pretty much anything.

I guess you could restate the phrase "To have any claim accepted, you need extraordinary evidence" but that is far less catchy.

#37 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 19 August 2007 - 01:13 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is very simple.

It would have sounded better if you said:
'To put it simply: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

#38 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 19 August 2007 - 01:35 AM

or even better:
'Simply put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

#39 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 19 August 2007 - 01:40 AM

I guess you could restate the phrase "To have any claim accepted, you need extraordinary evidence" but that is far less catchy.

I agree with this and the rest of your reply. :)
At least now I know that not everybody uses the phrase oblivious that it is not foolproof to rigorous logical critique. Good to know :)

#40 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 19 August 2007 - 01:43 AM

is it "ignore Karo week"? I wasn't given the memo, could someone please forward it to me. :)


that's ok, I'm not easily offended. [lol]


It would have sounded better if you said:
'To put it simply: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'



there is, as of yet, no objective measure of what constitutes "extraordinary" so that discussion will go nowhere quite fast. The correlation between "claims" and "evidence" has not been substantiated as of yet, so the cliches will also have to wait this one out.


I might view elijah as a religious nutcase who looks like the real thing, but someone else might view him as a legitimate nonsense spewing "prophet".

#41 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 19 August 2007 - 02:36 AM

is it "ignore Karo week"?  I wasn't given the memo, could someone please forward it to me. :) 


that's ok, I'm not easily offended. [lol]


It would have sounded better if you said:
'To put it simply: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'



there is, as of yet, no objective measure of what constitutes "extraordinary" so that discussion will go nowhere quite fast. The correlation between "claims" and "evidence" has not been substantiated as of yet, so the cliches will also have to wait this one out.


I might view elijah as a religious nutcase who looks like the real thing, but someone else might view him as a legitimate nonsense spewing "prophet".


LOL.

but have you ever thought what those same religious people think of you in their minds?

#42 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 19 August 2007 - 03:11 AM

but have you ever thought what those same religious people think of you in their minds?



[lol] indeed I have...And I could care less.


I am who I am. Inasmuch as others stay out of my way, I stay out of theirs. I bother no one so long as it doesn't directly interfere in my life; the moment it crosses that line, my attitude changes from one of tolerance to one of extreme anger and machiavellian stratagems.

#43 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 19 August 2007 - 06:08 AM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. :))

#44 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 19 August 2007 - 06:03 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol

#45 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 19 August 2007 - 07:23 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol


It will air 8pm (UK time) Monday Aug 20 (tomorrow), and will probably be posted to Google vids within a couple days of airing. I'll keep my eye out for it and post it when I see it. I'll probably just post it in the first post of the thread just so future people don't have to scroll through pages looking for it.

I am actually looking forward to it a bit more than the first one since it has to do with health claims. I want to see what all he tackles.

#46 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2007 - 11:31 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol


It will air 8pm (UK time) Monday Aug 20 (tomorrow), and will probably be posted to Google vids within a couple days of airing. I'll keep my eye out for it and post it when I see it. I'll probably just post it in the first post of the thread just so future people don't have to scroll through pages looking for it.

I am actually looking forward to it a bit more than the first one since it has to do with health claims. I want to see what all he tackles.

LOL. Watch, he'll go after immortalists, just to really screw us up.

I think Dawkins is smart enough to differentiate between our immortalism and magnetic bands/hgh salesmen but I can't be sure until he goes after one and not the other. It would really upset me if he couldn't tell the difference. I think Dawkins is very intelligent, but I have seen a lot of intelligent people say really stupid things about Aubrey and others who express similar desires.

#47 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 19 August 2007 - 11:35 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol


It will air 8pm (UK time) Monday Aug 20 (tomorrow), and will probably be posted to Google vids within a couple days of airing. I'll keep my eye out for it and post it when I see it. I'll probably just post it in the first post of the thread just so future people don't have to scroll through pages looking for it.

I am actually looking forward to it a bit more than the first one since it has to do with health claims. I want to see what all he tackles.

LOL. Watch, he'll go after immortalists, just to really screw us up.

I think Dawkins is smart enough to differentiate between our immortalism and magnetic bands/hgh salesmen but I can't be sure until he goes after one and not the other. It would really upset me if he couldn't tell the difference. I think Dawkins is very intelligent, but I have seen a lot of intelligent people say really stupid things about Aubrey and others who express similar desires.


I don't think he will go after immortality, due to the description on the Channel 4 page for the program:

The Irrational Health Service
C4 Mon 20 Aug 2007 8pm
Prof Richard Dawkins looks at how health has become a battleground between reason and superstition. A third of us now spend a total of over 1.6 billion a year on superstitious alternative remedies, but 80% of them have never been subjected to properly conducted trials.


...although I guess he could surprise us. I am betting he tackles stuff like crystal healing and homeopathy and stuff.

#48 Liquidus

  • Guest
  • 446 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 August 2007 - 11:45 PM

I still can't stop thinking about the cartoon appearance of the 'fictional' Richard Dawkins in the Nintendo Wii Episode of South Park (where Dawkins has sex with Miss Garrison, a transsexual on the show).

I wonder if he's aware of them ever doing that? It's one of the more recent seasons of the show, I thought it was pretty amusing, although they did a decent job of emulating his theories and his accent ;). The South Park writers really take no sides to an issue, they like to make fun of everyone, including themselves.

#49 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2007 - 11:49 PM

I still can't stop thinking about the cartoon appearance of the 'fictional' Richard Dawkins in the Nintendo Wii Episode of South Park (where Dawkins has sex with Miss Garrison, a transsexual on the show).

I wonder if he's aware of them ever doing that? It's one of the more recent seasons of the show, I thought it was pretty amusing, although they did a decent job of emulating his theories and his accent ;). The South Park writers really take no sides to an issue, they like to make fun of everyone, including themselves.

Yes he knows. He is a very active interactive person, and there is no way he hasn't read many emails about it. He probably watched the episode himself (well at least some of it). There was quite a large thread on it over on the Richard Dawkins forum.

#50 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 20 August 2007 - 12:22 AM

From his website

and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.



#51 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 20 August 2007 - 01:13 AM

From his website

and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.


Lol. I'd like to see him on the Simpsons.

#52 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 21 August 2007 - 05:02 AM

In that interview, Dawkins said that he has nothing against dousing actually working. Even if it does, it's such an incredibly stupid subject to comment on in general, that I can't believe Dawkins actually stooped to that.
The documentary is what you would expect - people are retards and there aren't many rational thinkers in the world at all.

I've never ever believed in religion, new-age, paranormal stuff, etc and I fail to realize why can't everyone else do the same and continue on the great journey of science, towards immortality, eternal youth, blissful life, to the singularity? Why the hell should they succumb to lame surrogates mentioned above? It's demeaning to me as one of the representatives of the human race that our society is as screwed up as it is.

#53 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 21 August 2007 - 05:13 AM

In that interview, Dawkins said that he has nothing against dousing actually working. Even if it does, it's such an incredibly stupid subject to comment on in general, that I can't believe Dawkins actually stooped to that.

So you would rather leave all the "stupid" subjects uncommented on? Personally I am glad that people take the time to point out the incoherent or illogical beliefs of people.

..and the thing about these types of things working or not working; Just about every skeptic I have ever heard says stuff like that. James Randi always says that he holds no presuppositions about anything other than the testing that has been shown and he would love to see some kind of supernatural thing succeed (and allow him to give out the million dollars that he offers) because it would allow a new piece of information to be learned.

I don't think most people have anything personally against dousing or crystal healing or astrology or anything else; It's just that there is no data to support any of the claims, and so once it is shown to be an illogical belief people should just drop it. (of course that isn't how things work, haha) But, like I said, not commenting on stuff that is illogical doesn't make sense, and I am glad people like Dawkins and others take the time to show how false they really are.

#54 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 21 August 2007 - 05:17 AM

Like Penn and Teller.

Now *they* are angry.

#55 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 21 August 2007 - 05:27 AM

So you would rather leave all the "stupid" subjects uncommented on?

That's not what I meant.

Even if dousing and astrology worked, it's so incredibly insignificant in the long run, that I have no idea why people make a big deal out of it! So I can find water with my two friggin sticks, so what?! So my astrological horoscope is always 100% correct based on my constellation, so what?! So some tarot-reading freak got everything right, and? What's the big deal?

I think there is a much better way to replace this new-age thinking without resorting to reason pleas as Dawkins always does. I think we should demonstrate people that there are much more important matters to throw their money on (such as everything discussed here), something their whole lives depend upon, something much more exciting than astrology, psychics, tarot reading or dowsing that are as superficial as they come (even if there was something to them, and there isn't). I think all these people who are not scientifically-literate and would not normally anticipate the singularity like we do because of that, due to their irrationality and proneness to superstitious beliefs, would be MORE LIKELY to actually expect it to occur in the future, more than all of us taken together, since it's so extraordinary and so unlike everything we have right now. Eventually, after we produce tangible results, and after they find out that it's all due to SCIENCE and not a smorgasbord of self-flattering shmucks, they would be much more likely to accept rationality and see how much better it is compared to the unending crap that is religion and the practices in Dawkins documentary.

It would validate their DEMAND for us to be more than doomed primitive monkeys destined to disappear in a huge unfathomable universe better than any new-age tricksters could ever do! In fact, after reading Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near", of all people, I would expect everyone like them to magically become a transhumanist, enthralled by these magnificent ideas. The spreading of intelligence across the entire universe? that asserts us as the eventual center of everything - is there any better way to cater to that desperate currently irrational need to be in the middle of this infinite space they experience and which is directly responsible to their irrational beliefs? In fact, Dawkins himself hinted at the singularity in some interview, although I do recall he is against uploading. Regardless, he is aware of it and he can make use of it better than any of us can! How about "The Hedonistic Imperative"? If we could actually engineer new emotional states and keep them on indefinitely, wouldn't it be a much more worthwhile surrogate to the mental sleight-of-hand that is new-age thinking for these people? We have the tools already, and they are so much beyond these self-magnifying cheap-jacks, that I would assume the irrationality of believing in the singularity (due to their UNFAMILIARITY with the concept, since we anticipate it on valid grounds and they would do find their own irrational justification why to believe in it) would kill two birds in one strike - it would familiarize them with science and would promote our goals and ideals. It's a win-win situation!

Transhumanism, to the scientifically-illiterate, to the mainstream society, is a BOON. They were practically made for each other, since science in it's normative guise lost it's appeal for them a long time ago so all that's needed is to beef it up and offer them something entirely unexpected, natural and beyond their wildest dreams ! Does anyone agree with me here or am I rambling to myself? :D

Edited by dimasok, 21 August 2007 - 05:46 AM.


#56 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 August 2007 - 05:44 AM

Howcome it's called New Age? I thought it was supposed to be left out in the dark ages.

#57 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 21 August 2007 - 09:34 AM

Lo and behold how much buncombe is swiveling around the globe. That's what irrationality produced over the history.
http://en.wikipedia....st_of_religions

Edited by dimasok, 21 August 2007 - 02:08 PM.


#58 william7

  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 21 August 2007 - 04:38 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol

Lol if you guys want to, but I bet you Dawkins never touchs UFOs. Too much legitimate scientific research in the area for him to dismiss it as foolish and unreasonable. Notice the Wikipedia entry on ufology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFOlogy.

#59 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 21 August 2007 - 04:41 PM

dimasok, it is irrationality in general that needs to be challenged at every place you can. Not paying attention to something because it doesn't seem worthy of your time just leaves it unchallenged and allows it to grow. It is more a mindset that is being challenged (the mindset of allowing people to unquestioningly accept things told to them with no proof) than it is the individual things that are being challenged. Keeping people thinking logically and continuing to question ideas and demand proof is important societally, imo.

#60 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 21 August 2007 - 04:46 PM

Lol. I didn't expect this to become an aliens are here on Earth thread. I suppose that does fall under the category of someone who is an "Enemy of Reason" though, so it fits. wink1.gif

Yeah, we're just waiting for the thread to get knocked back on track with the second part of that miniseries, lol

Lol if you guys want to, but I bet you Dawkins never touchs UFOs. Too much legitimate scientific research in the area for him to dismiss it as foolish and unreasonable. Notice the Wikipedia entry on ufology at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFOlogy.

Well, since the second part has to do with health claims, of course it won't have anything to do with UFOs in it.

Side note: UFOs have already been discussed in this thread more than I would like, please start one of your own if you want to continue talking about UFOs. (not demanding that you do so, only requesting so as a favor to me)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users