Sriram #fundie

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk

Actually if you consider the biofield and the chakras...the heart area does store, emit and receive emotional energies. Its called the Anahata chakra.

90 comments

old comment by tipsyGnostalgic

Nah, I've just got a massive hateboner for Abrahamic religion because getting thrown out of my family's church for who I chose to fall in love with has alienated me from about 97% of them, and I find the logical disagreements with Christianity to be quite compelling at this point. Outside of Abrahamic death cults, conspiracy theorists that pack ten gallons of extraterrestrial illuminati freemason shite into a 1 gallon jug, and right-wing ideology, I'm not a skeptic in the slightest. I find comfort in my chosen religion; and so long as the practitioners don't discourage the use of modern scientific findings in terms of medical care, et cetera, then more power to 'em in my eyes.

old comment by KittyKaboom

#1873963: Not all of us are skeptics. I and some of the others are Pagan. We also have Buddhists, Agnostics and a couple of Satanists.

The primary thing we all have in common is the ability to tell the difference between a rabid fundamentalist asshole and a person who simply has harmless religious/spiritual beliefs. Belief is not harmful on it's own until the believer makes it so.

Having beliefs in and of itself is not fundy. Taking it to extremes and running everything down to your grocery choices and what other people watch on TV through your religious filter is fundy.

Fundy doesn't necessarily mean 'christian'. We've had a few fundy Atheists, Radfems and MRAs quoted as well.

old comment by FundieVision Inc

@ Meeeh

Let's see.

I'm sure your argument will hold up to some mild scrutiny hmm?

"Utter and total bullshit, from start to tend, you're nothing but a dimwit crackpot!"

1. Not a logical refutation, not a rational statement, but a vitrolic insult to someones belief system despite them being fairly polite and rational throughout the thread. Profanity involved, and insults hurled.

2. An attack on character without proof, again made in a venemous manner and without even an attempt for debate and reason.

Conclusion?

It doesn't hold up after all.

I do however have another name for your argument, and something you might want to Google.

Ad Hominem.

Logical fallacies do not make good debate or argument tactics Meeeh. Try again, and call us tomorrow.

@ Whatever.

I'm just a big nerd with a strong academic interest in and fascination for spirituality, mysticism, religion, and the occult.

I realize you don't care, but I dislike bullies with a fiery passion. I think something needed to be said.

@ Kitty Kaboom

Dead on, and I appreciate your candor and continuation of diplomacy.

While agnostic, I lean heavily towards atheism (in the sense of deity) for ideological reasons, and from personal observations and research.

I also believe in the supernatural because I've had the dubious pleasure of experiencing some incredibly strange and inhuman things first hand that mark me to this day.

"smiles wryly"

@ Tipsygnostalgic

I've always liked Wicca. More flexible than the Abrahamic religions in my opinion, and considered converting when I was a teenager.

Coven or eclectic?

old comment by whatever

@Hasan Prishtina
"Go and look at the definition of "fundie" in FAQ. You'll find that it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion but rather with lack of rationality, emotional appeals, fondness for logical fallacies, bigotry and many other reasons."

That approach to the definition of fundies runs the risk of creating a hive mindset on FSTDT. Mind you, a lot of the time it seems there already is...

The broader the definition of fundy, the more alike we all have to be in order to avoid being classed as one.

Mind you I have encountered atheists on here who use fundy logic, fundy rhetoric, and fundy debating techniques.

I agree with KittyKaboom.

old comment by Hors Service

This doesn't strike me as fundie.

Wooish, crank and easily disproven affirmation, though, but not the usual kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort them kind of fundie.

However, I'm not of the opinion that this is just a "statement of belief" either.

"I believe that there exist a spiritual domain outside the natural world" is a statement of belief.
"I believe that building chairs is the highest moral achievement" is a statement of belief.
"I believe that there is a hierarchy in humans and some of inherently more value than others" is a statement of belief.

"the heart area does store, emit and receive emotional energies" is a testable statement that can be submitted to scientific inquiry.
@whatever used a crystal for it, probably very unscientifically if he got any results from it, but it's possible.

But be assured, Alties or Spiritual people, that this sort of woo can be nearly as indirectly destructive than a crusade.

When the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to get life-saving blood transfusions based on their "statement of belief", they're being exactly as nutty as any pagan wearing a rune necklace at a coven meeting in order to feel more harmony with Gaia's energies.

The only difference is that the pagan's faith in erroneous testable statements have not led to the death of anyone... yet.

old comment by KittyKaboom

Nearly Sane: Not necessarily. As I said before, many of the people who use this site have some type of spiritual or religious beliefs. The beliefs in and of themselves do not make a person irrational.

My mom is christian, not batshit, not an aggressive proselytizer and a pretty normal, wonderful lady. She'd also be the first to tell you faith is not enough; get medical help. In her words, "You can't screw around with your health. Go see a damn doctor".

Not every belief that you might see as irrational means the person who holds said belief is an idiot or nutjob.

Common sense is not a super power. Refusing to use it is what makes people fundy.

old comment by Hors Service

@Whatever

The problem, chakras are not something you simply believe in or not.
As far as I've read the comments, you assert that you can detect them with crystals for example.

This is something that is scientifically provable, with rigorous experimental conditions.

To me, there lies the problem: you make some claims, then refuse to submit to the same standards of evidence as the rest of natural phenomenons. This is a form of reasoning bias called "special pleading".

"The World has many secrets that science has not yet fully understood or even explored. "

And it's not by being unscientific that we will explore more secrets.
It's not because the theories have holes that one can fill them with whatever idea comes to mind.

To finish, those ideas, chakras, ley lines, power of prayer, HAVE been investigated, and some still are. Those avenues of research just didn't hold up to scrutiny.

old comment by Hors Service

@whatever

Let me take another angle, then.

If you look at the top100 of this site, you will notice that the n°1 is the "Battle Leviathan" quote.
It's a magnificient piece of craziness, sustained by an ill mind that has been drowned in its own brand of christianity and became drunk on it.
However, I wouldn't classify it as "fundie" so much as "loonie".

It's on this website because it's darned funny :)

Here, Chakra guy draws from the same type of nuttiness than Leviathan gal, like the conspie crowd.

To me, it's the kind of nuttiness that can degenerate very quickly in "alternative medecine is as good as real medecine" then in "I'm gonna treat my child's diabetes with prayer". It's not aggressive, but it's destructive all the same.

That's why I, like NearlySane, find it "dangerous".

By the way,
"the operation of the chakras can be studied by anyone willing to take the time".
This sounds like a claim to me. But now you "merely stated that I have done this." ?

...

And then you accuse rationalists here of fundamentalism (and totalitarism)? I've only seen very polite discussion and debate. Nobody threatened your life (or your after-life), nobody called for the genocide of people like you, nobody called for the criminilization of looking at chakras.

People just exposed their opinions, and tried to convince you. Yet you call them "fundie", but still object to chakra guy being classified as fundy.
And yes, by definition, unscientific, unsupported by evidence, unproven (or proven false) claims are... irrational.

To me, it really sounds like you made a claim, "the operation of the chakras can be studied by anyone willing to take the time", and then got defensive when people asked you to back up your claim. Either by saying "I just state what I've done", "I don't care if you don't believe", or "no, YOU are the fundie!"

old comment by whatever

@Hors Service

I mean people are using fundy logic and taking fundy attitudes. Fundies don't always threaten others. They just cannot or will not allow divergence of opinion.

I posted my initial comment knowing full well it wasn't going to be accepted.

Ever had that feeling that you cannot give more than hearsay evidence in court? Yet you know it is correct... and you know it is not going to be believed?

There is no way for me to show anyone else what I have observed. This is why it no longer concerns me if people don't accept anything I say. It isn't going to change the World in any way. You will not change me and I won't change anyone else.

old comment by Hors Service

@whatever.

Honestly, I haven't read NearlySane trying to forbid you to have a "dissenting opinion", just trying to convince you. I may surely be biaised because I more or less agree with him, but the Atheist fundies we've seen quoted on this site tended to be much less carefull in their logic or their words than NearlySane.

Also, here I think you make a confusion between "opinions" and "facts". "I have worked on chakras, sometimes using a crystal pendulum, and have become aware of how they operate" is not an opinion, a statement of faith or belief. It is a testable, studiable proposition. If your pendulum reacts in a defined, reproducible way to define, reproducible areas of the body like your comment implies, then it is a wonderfull scientific discovery that could help millions and deepens our understanding of reality.
Reality is not based on hearsay. Reality is not a court room. Chakras, according to you, are not past events that can only be reconstructed from partial clues. They "can be studied by anyone willing to take the time", isn't it?

Yet you refuse to offer any evidence or even discuss your reasons, saying that " it no longer concerns me if people don't accept anything I say".

Then... why come here and say anything at all? If you assert things with no proof, don't be offended if people dismiss them with no proof either.

I try to convince you because A) it saddens me that smart, kind fellow humans stay in demonstrably false errors, it hampers human progress. B) i think it is dangerous to other fellow humans, or even me, in the end.
What will happen if my doctor thinks he can cure me with chakras? If being irrational about such things is OK, when will it be OK to shun unbelievers like me?

If you're being irrational about chakras... What's stopping you from being irrational about a whole lot of other things?

Reality is not relative. (except for General Relativity, of course :)

old comment by Hors Service

@whatever.

Maybe to help understand my position:
"Was it justified to nuclear-bomb Japan in WWII?"
The answer to this question is a matter of opinion. There are arguments to support both sides, morality to define, laws to examine and so on.
"Were two nuclear-bombs dropped on Japan in WWII?"
The answer to this question is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
We have the technical documents, the photos of the event, the historical archives, the residual radioactivity.
There is an array of converging evidence from varied independent sources, and no better suited explanation.

"Do chakras exist, and can we study them using a pendulum?"
The answer to this question is, similarly, not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts.

old comment by whatever

@Hors Service
"I try to convince you because A) it saddens me that smart, kind fellow humans stay in demonstrably false errors, it hampers human progress. B) i think it is dangerous to other fellow humans, or even me, in the end."

Yes how dare anyone think differently from you.

"What will happen if my doctor thinks he can cure me with chakras? If being irrational about such things is OK, when will it be OK to shun unbelievers like me?"

No Doctor would do such a thing and if he did, you could go elsewhere.

"If you're being irrational about chakras... What's stopping you from being irrational about a whole lot of other things?"

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. If you are going to use fundy arguments, you might as well use them all.

""Do chakras exist, and can we study them using a pendulum?"
The answer to this question is, similarly, not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts."

You are so close with this statement, yet so far...

As I have stated previously, it is difficult or impossible to share my experiences with any third party. A lot of psychic work has this stumbling block. You may have many different kinds of experiences within your own perception, but they cannot be displayed on a screen.

Just out of interest, I have never seen your user name on FSTDT before. Did you adopt it specially for this thread?

old comment by whatever

@Hors Service
It's been a while but something is still bothering me. I don't know whether it's your ignorance, your presumptiousness,or your arrogance, but you feel that not only is your empirical worldview inarguably right, but you feel that anyone who has a different view must be converted to yours! Yet you don't see yourself as a fundy!

You also imply that it's "dangerous" to believe anything outside your predefined field of "normality". The only real danger here is intolerance. People like you need to broaden your view a bit and understand that there is a lot more to this Universe than what empirical science can show you. You have to accept that psychic receptivity is experienced subjectively and therefore difficult to prove on an Internet forum. This does not invalidate it simply because proving one's experiences is difficult!

Not all on FSTDT take your attitude, thankfully. Some, if not most, are willing to be open to new possibilities. If I wasn't open myself, I wouldn't have learned anything either.

You must also stop lumping things together that don't belong, and making false assumptions about what I may or may not accept. If you want to get into strawman arguments as you have done, don't expect me to take your comments seriously.

Your attitude is somewhat similar to Theodore Shoebat. Become more open and challenge new ideas, rather than shooting them down in a frenzy of self-righteousness.

old comment by The Mimic Octopus

I wanted to write a rant against you superstitious idiots, but I will restrict myself to two points:

1. Hypocrites. Actually, Creationism is probably less dangerous than a magical explanation for biology/health. If you can manage to keep your superstitons out of your decision making, than good for you (... I... guess...), but quackery is nothing but a danger to the public.
2. I strongly loathe the New Age mentality, for two major reasons: for its eclecticism that encourages crank magnetism, and because our own culture has more than enough irrational superstitions and don't need new or "exotic" (and usually badly researched) foreign ones.
I will let Tim Minchin handle the rest.

old comment by whatever

@The Mimic Octopus
You appear to argue more reasonably than Hoarse Service, but I still query your use of the umbrella term "superstitious idiots". Any umbrella term is edging into strawman territory.

Medical quackery cannot be condoned in any terms. Use of metaphysics for any medical purpose would be very controversial, and not something I would suggest or support. Any "magical explanation" for helth matters would be very irresponsible. There. I thought I'd make that clear.

"New Age mentality" is a brush so broad it could cover almost anything and everything. There are many supposedly "New Age" ideas and schools of thought which I similarly dislike.

Your suggestion of more categories is really just a way of polarising and dividing everyone even further than at present. You would want every group to be on their own island, forever focussing on each other's differences rather than similarities. It would end up that all FSTDT commenters are sorted and vetted for attitude and belief, more and more strictly until only those who are "approved" would be tolerated. Any deviance from the hard-line empiricist viewpoint would result in ridicule... the choice weapon of the emotionally insecure.

Anything that is experienced subjectively is always going to be difficult to prove to another. Only by having the experiences yourself can they be validated. Even then it's not guaranteed and not particularly easy. Of course you will disbelieve if you haven't had any experience of such things. It's perfectly natural.

But nowhere would I condone the use of "pseudo-science" in the medical profession. If I am ill, I go to the local hospital. It's common sense.

old comment by whatever

Regarding actual medicine, as one other FSTDT commenter once said, there is stuff that works and stuff that doesn't. Defining it as "herbal" or "alternative" is unnecessary pigeon-holing and prejudicial.

I take saw palmetto for urinary and prostate health. It was recommended to me by a doctor. It is plant-sourced... therefore it may be considered "herbal". There are many herbal or plant-sourced medicines out there. Many may work, and many others may not. The same could be said for drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies. Generally if I need medicine, and the kind I get doesn't work, I'll ask my doctor to recommend or prescribe something else. I would rather rely on someone's experience than a hunch or on some fashionable view that has not yet earned my scrutiny.

So medicine and chakras are not inhabiting the same space as far as I am concerned. If they did, then the term "superstitious idiot" would be deserved. I do agree with you on the danger of quackery, and also on the abundance of superstitions. Especially the rambly kind that make endless stretched connections between the media, freemasons, ancient Egypt, the Jews, Mayan prophecies, UFOs, and Nibiru!

old comment by The Mimic Octopus

I know I will never be able to comprehend human antirationality, so I will just answer this:

"Your suggestion of more categories is really just a way of polarising and dividing everyone even further than at present. You would want every group to be on their own island, forever focussing on each other's differences rather than similarities."
No. It is because a lot of the quotes here are (in my mind) repetitive (e.g. "Mass shooting X is a false flag", "I hate gays because the Bible says so") and to make it easier to seek out the areas one is interested in - in my case, I do not really particularly care about, or have much to contribute to, American politics, being neither American nor a political person. As an aspiring scientist with great interest in pre-modern history and mythology, I would appreciate creationist stupidity, charlatanry, "creative approaches" to history, and all that pseudoscholarship. I have no ulterior motives.
Also note that (according to the preview) it will be possible to tag a quote into multiple categories (as opposed to the status quo, where one has to choose between fundie, conspiracy or racist). If anything, I would expect less fragmentation.

old comment by whatever

@J.James/Horse Service & Idiotic Octopus
So much for your lamentable ignorance in the guise of "knowledge". As for the "burden of proof" comment, you can only see the reality of something if your mind is ready to accept it. If you are looking the other way, you will not see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and tragically many of those people are on this site. It is unfortunate that this site exists to ridicule blinkered religious attitudes, but you end up ridiculing those with real spiritual knowledge in the process.

I always say there's a big difference between being ignorant and having an ignorant attitude. Being ignorant just means there's stuff you don't know. Having an ignorant attitude means you never learn because you think you already know.

I look back at my early teens when I thought just like you, and I am so grateful I had the chance to move out of those closed thinking patterns.

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk

90 comments

Confused?