An honest question.

[Syntax]

skeptic1,

Tell us a little about yourself.

1.) What drives you?
2.) What are your hobbies?
3.) What is your career of choice?
4.) Are you married?
5.) Divorced?
6.) Have any children?
7.) Are you happy with where your life is?
8.) Where (if you went) do/did you go to college, and what is/was your major?

To be fair, I'll go first.

Discovery drives me. My hobbies are reading, playing games (role-playing and video), watching anime, and working some random problem that interests me at the time. My career of choice is being a entrepreneur, but honestly, I spend more time on magic and related endeavors. I am married with no kids and have never been divorced. I am extremely happy with my life. I currently attend the University of Tennessee as a Computer Science major. It's a part time thing that I do for fun. That's me in eight questions.

Now you.

[skeptic1]

I will at least answer the two most important:

What drives me? Truth. As hokey as it sounds, it is hard, cold, truth that I long for. Thus my challenge here.

What are my hobbies? I have friends with whom I engage in varous gaming. Normal sorts of "Let's do a movie and then a beer" things. Other than that, this sort of thing. Asking questions and not being put off when no answer is given.

I work in IT and in spite of having way more hours then anyone without a degree should ever have, I do not have a college degree.

[elfmaiden]

I hope that helped.

Yes, it was VERY helpful. I was starting to worry that I jumped in at the exact worst spot and that I'd, um, aligned myself with one side or the other in an argument. I was just about to post a "withdrawing as gracefully as possible" message when I saw your reply. Thank you!

I found this forum through doing some research on belief systems. It was during a time in my life when I felt two things very strongly. First, I wanted - no, needed - to take control of my life after feeling like things were happening to me for a very long time. This drew me to Paganism and Wicca. I wanted the results and empowerment of magic but I didn't feel right getting to them through worship. But secondly, I never felt comfortable with the notion of a god and goddess, and worshipping them without believing, just to achieve my goals, felt like a very bad way to go about it. Google eventually led me to Omnimancy, and here I am, letting you know that lack of spirituality is not a problem.

I'll confess to giving the application less eyeball time than it deserved. The Overview webpage says it takes 18-24 months of training and that's a bit intimidating. I was hoping to poke around and get a little more information first before jumping in. I hope that's okay, despite my unfortunate (?) choice of starting point.

[Oyama]

What drives me? Truth. As hokey as it sounds, it is hard, cold, truth that I long for. Thus my challenge here.

This is why I think your challenge is pointless. Magicians don't really go around screwing with dice or RNG's. While magic in general may have the capability to do things like that, it's not really practical, and going around asking people to mess with dice isn't really going to prove anything. I've never had much consistent success with dice or RNG's, but I also don't practice to be able to, because who the hell cares? Even the things I find magic to be most effective at are still not 100%. Magic is not omnipotence, and common uses for magic involve circumstances with HUGE numbers of different factors, and it's still subject to human error.

Even in omnimancy, which is focused on results and practicality rather than religion or spirituality, magic is still not a "cold, hard" kind of thing. But if truth really drives you, I can point you to some parapsychology experiments that should be much more relevant and convincing then our little dice experiment. If you aren't interested in seeing that, then you're not really looking for truth, you're just trying to stir up trouble in a group of people with whom you disagree, or just hoping the person fails to validate your disbelief. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but this stuff has been investigated before, and you might want to check out what's already been done.

[Syntax]

I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but this stuff has been investigated before, and you might want to check out what's already been done.

Beautifully said Oyama. There are a ton of resources available for any skeptic, be he version 1 or another. If you are looking for data, look into that. As far as truth goes, it does sound sort of hokey. You seem to be looking for religion rather than science. Science evolves, and thus abstains from handing out truths. Religion seems to be the current main distributor of truth in its various forms. Check out Christianity, as it seems to be really popular and my mom gives it two thumbs up in regards to providing her and anyone else with the ultimate truths. Oh, and here's a fun visual and a possible future purchase for you. LINK!

[skeptic1]

I most certainly have looked into previous parapsychology and am thus aware that there has never once been any solid evidence thus produced. No statistically signifcant result has ever been repeated. I was willing to give omnimancy a chance to begin changing that. Unfortunately, I have seen little willingness.

I have heard time and time again the claim that real results in a dice test wouldn't prove anything. This is untrue. Repeatable results of this kind would show that something, when a test subjects so claims, is changing the outcome of the dice rolls in some unknown way. An effect of this kind has never, ever been demostrated.

You are not sounding like a dick, just an honest person who is, I think, badly mistaken about some important things. I am willing to be shown that I am wrong. If a test we did together showed real results, I would instantly embrace them. Are you equally willing to put your ideas to the test?

You say that you are irregularly capable of influencing a dice roll due to the fact that you have not practiced it. Very well. Are you capable of any kind of observable, testable effect we could work with? If you find that the answer is "no" you may want to consider if you are actually doing anything at all or not.

[skeptic1]

Syntax,

I should prehaps have said that I seek facts and as real as possible a conception of what the world really is.

I am well aware of the vast resources available to the skeptic and the way that they have time and again shown the claims of the paranormal to have no validity. If you know of any that have (thus setting the scientific world on it's ear) perhaps you could cite them?

I don't know how religion came into this at all. Your claim is, sadly, pretty far off the mark. I am an atheist. Just as there has never once been any evidence for magic, there has never been any for the existence of any deity. Thus, I see no reason to give either any credence.

As to your link, I don't put silly things like that on my vehicle.

Your tone of sarcasm has been noted but I am not going to reply in kind. I just didn't want you to think you were being clever.

Exactly how have I upset you? I certainly have not, as you have, asked a "friendly" set of questions and then used the answer in an attempt at mockery.

I came to this forum to offer a chance for to talk with people and learn together. You people don't take well to being challenged, do you?

[Syntax]

I should prehaps have said that I seek facts and as real as possible a conception of what the world really is.

You should have, but you didn't. It's unfortunate that you used the truth word. What it shows is a poor grasp of what seeking out answers is all about. Any scientist will tell you that truth is a long long way away. Facts hold until proven otherwise. They are a far cry from being a truth. What it seems to me is that you are simply looking for a quick way to put your mind at ease with an answer that won't make you look foolish.

I am well aware of the vast resources available to the skeptic and the way that they have time and again shown the claims of the paranormal to have no validity.

Good. You've got your answer. Why are you here? If you have made your presence known in hopes that we have some fantastic training program that will help you live out your dream of being a Power Ranger, I'm sorry, but we do not publicly disclose such information. Look to Zordon.

I don't know how religion came into this at all.

I thought that was made clear. You were looking for truths. I didn't really know of any other provider. Do you?

Your claim is, sadly, pretty far off the mark. I am an atheist.

Great! I hear that a federal appeals court has recognized your faith in case you haven't heard. (A quick source, but I'm sure you could find another more satisfactory one.)

Why are you atheist? Have you seen proof that there is no god? (I would love to hear a negative proof by the way.) Have you found some undeniable truth that points you in that direction? Personally, I'm agnostic. I don't claim to know if there is an intelligent creator to all that is. You seem to be so far seeing and knowledgeable that you do. Kudos. (And yes, I am also reserving my opinion on the existence of unicorns, so there.)

As to your link, I don't put silly things like that on my vehicle.

Why, because you are stuffy?

I just didn't want you to think you were being clever.

Awww. I guess I'm just not.

Exactly how have I upset you? I certainly have not, as you have, asked a "friendly" set of questions and then used the answer in an attempt at mockery.

You haven't upset me. I don't remember taking an angry tone. Mostly I was being playful. As far as the friendly set of questions, I answered them first. You answered three but said you only answered two. It just so happened that you answered the first question in an amusing fashion. That is not my fault. As far as mocking you, it was really all in good fun. Maybe we should go and do the movie/beer thing together. I'll show you my dice if you show me yours. Boys night out!!! (If you are not a dude, I apologize. We can still do the movie/beer thing.)

You people don't take well to being challenged, do you?

That's an assumption. I actually love being challenged. That being said, I don't do tricks for free.

[Obsidian]

*offers Syntax a Scooby-Snax*

>.> I couldn't help it =P

[Syntax]

*offers Syntax a Scooby-Snax*

>.> I couldn't help it =P

Ranks Shaggy!

[Oyama]

No statistically significant result has ever been repeated.

The autoganzfeld experiments had statistically significant results, and there was obviously more than one of them. Now of course there are critics of the experiments, and the data is subject to interpretation as to whether it really validates magic/psi/psychism, but things are not quite as clear-cut as you're making them out to be, and there have been statistically significant results. There have also been positive results for PK. Here's one group of experiments:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html

Whether or not you like people's reasons for not accepting your challenge, you should understand that proving these things to random challengers is entirely unimportant to most of us, including me. I know Art personally and yes, I can see how devoting a single evening to this would be a pain in the ass for him, and that there are a lot of other things that would be more worthwhile to him. I'm able to accept because I work long hours for fewer days in the week and I don't have a wife or kids, and I simply don't mind participating.

You say that you are irregularly capable of influencing a dice roll due to the fact that you have not practiced it. Very well. Are you capable of any kind of observable, testable effect we could work with? If you find that the answer is "no" you may want to consider if you are actually doing anything at all or not.

Perhaps weather manipulation or event manipulation of some sort. This kind of thing is harder to measure, but perhaps we can come up with something adequate. I'm still willing to do dice as well though.

[skeptic1]

Syntax,

Your ranting is very amusing. Enjoy your Scooby Snack. It was well earned by your performance.

Sadly, there was little content of value. For instance, my admittedly improper use of the word "truth". You are attempting to extract meaning that isn't there. You do so amusingly, of course. but you are quite wrong.

I am here, you see, to try and learn a few things (not how to draw on ley lines or those sorts of things, because I have as yet seen no evidence for such practices and thus see no reason to believe in them) by actually seeing what your brand of magic can be observed to do. Sadly, no one but Oyama is interested that. Enjoy your vitriol but it is misplaced when directed at me.

By the way, a Power Ranger? Why on earth would I want that. How very silly.

You are also very mistaken in your claim that Atheism is a faith. It is a lack of faith. It is no more reasonable to say that atheism is a faith then to say that not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is looking at the available evidence (or lack of) and concluding "there is nothing here that persuades me".

This may come as news to you, but it is impossible to prove a negative. That is why in any debate, the burden of proof falls on the positive claimant and if that proof fails, the reasonable person withholds belief till proof is provided. Thus, when some one says, "There is a God" the burden of proof is on them, just as when some one says "There are Unicorns" or "There is magic". The burden of proof is on the claimant. If one takes a lack of dismissing evidence as the criteria for belief, one must equally accept everything form Russell's Teapot to invisible pink unicorns.

I'm not stuffy. I just think those sorts of things on cars are idiotic.

Perhaps you did mean it in good fun. I have no real way of knowing either way.

[skeptic1]

I will investigate your cited sources. Thank you.

I will check with my science guy (I do represent a group) to see what kind of testing model we can put on weather manipulation. I will likely have some questions about the parameters of your control. Range, amount of change, time needed to effect a change, etc. Thank you again.

[LordArt]

I couldn't ignore this:

This may come as news to you, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

No, it's impossible to prove a positive is the normal way it's phrased, and even that isn't correct, the real way it goes is it is impossible to PROVE anything. You can have an infinite amount of evidence to support your theory and it only takes one piece of evidence to disprove it. Eventually we take working theory and make it fact for practical purposes until that disproving evidence comes along.

As an example, even as late as the late 1800s, theories such as Phlogiston Theory was used to explain something like combusion and chemistry and was mainstream. ( http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm ). It was eventually shot down because of evidence finally disproving it that we all think now is obvious because of what we are taught in school, but it certainly wasn't obvious at the time. It was a learning process.

Another thing, the burden of proof is on the side that isn't the status quo, not the positive claimant. If we lived in mideval Europe and said "there is no god", you'd have to prove he wasn't there.

I'm just glad you aren't the science guy. (I find it interesting that NOW he represents a group). This is already stinking as a mockery of science. I hate bad science, it does no one any good in the long run, and generally makes all involved look like idiots.

As far as Atheism goes, it's a belief system. You believe nothing is there, which is fine. Most people think about belief systems as defined by faith in whatever. You have faith in that there is nothing there. It's a grey area of definitions. Faith is defined officially as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." So saying you have faith in Atheism or that Atheism is your faith isn't a false observance. Your objections come from the overtones of the word (associating it with religeon).

And as an ADMIN NOTE, I don't want this turning into a flame war. You are in a guest in someone else's house, please act as such. Quit with the mocking tones.

[skeptic1]

Art,

My tone has not once been mocking.

You are technically correct in your discussion of proofs. I spoke in haste.

You are incorrect in your assessment of where the burden of proof lies. It lies with the claimant.

"I'm just glad you aren't the science guy. (I find it interesting that NOW he represents a group)."

Come now, Art... who is using a mocking tone now? Also, at what point did I say I was alone? I never did.

If you think that what I am proposing is bad science, then I fear that the only conclusion I can reach is that you lack an understanding of what science is. I would be happy to explain any questions you may have. Remember, there is no shame in ignorance, only in adhering to it.

You may say that Atheism is a belief system all you like. You are certainly entitled to you opinion. You are, unfortunately, incorrect. I do not have faith that nothing is there. I do not give any credence to propositions for which there is no (or can be no) evidence. Big difference.

I must ask where you got your definition of faith and what exactly makes it "official"? I was unaware that any dictionary had been made official or even what body had the authority to make such a declaration. Mark Twain defined it as "Believing what you know ain't so." How official is that?