BellGab/bellchan Archive

Hi, all.
Called in earlier.


My question:

"Do you feel that your line of thought alludes more to pseudoscientific magical thinking rather than the fact that we have not yet neuronally mapped what one would define as consciousness?"


Art had mentioned that the statistics seem to back it up.


Going to just leave this here.


Not totally refuting astrophysical precursors to consciousness, but his statistics are faulty.  So yeah, "we'll see who gets there first."



http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_big_evidence_isnt_the_statistical_pitfalls_of_dean_radins_supernormal/

I'm early!

Quote from: ZomZom on August 19, 2015, 11:46:17 AM
I used to enjoy listening to Malachi Martin but, fortunately, his Fatima-inspired predictions of doom, which he said would have happened long before now, haven't come to pass.  That puts him somewhere between wrong and a fraud.

As for the off-the-rails component of this show, no baker should be forced to bake a cake they don't want to bake.  No one should ever be forced to do something they don't want to.  And I say this as someone who became same-sex-married in the DC courthouse shortly after it was made legal in 2010.  The overriding (and consistent) principle is that you don't use the ballot box to impose your morality on others.

Precisely.

Quote from: K_Dubb on August 19, 2015, 11:22:11 AM
I'm surprised that with a guest prepared to talk about exorcisms and conspiracy the callers (and, if this thread is any indication, Bellgab generally) would prefer to discuss gay rights and tired doctrinal debates.  If the show failed to take off, it's at least partly our fault.

So Art had an ultra-conservative priest on and he said orthodox things.  IMO that's the least-interesting thing about him.  He also had some cool supernatural experiences.  Maybe demons are a played-out topic?  Maybe we want to know the politics of a guest before thy talk about their paranormal experiences?  I'm confused.

I think the point of contention began to rise when users had accessed his page. I believe it was his second post which seemed horribly dogmatic, and it seemed like listeners had a difficult time seeing past this once it was brought into the public eye after Art posted it on his page. That and the comments made by Art at the beginning of the show about women in the military probably didn't bode well, as some on Twitter felt that it pandered to the guest's political extremes. A part of me wishes we could have started the show all over again without those elements to see how differently everyone might have perceived the guest. It didn't really get off the ground. I don't think that demons are a played out topic; I just think that while listeners were expecting one thing boasting the new Fr. Malachi, they didn't get that. It was far easier to dismiss Malachi's dogma as his personal set of beliefs which didn't seem to interfere with the dialogue about demons and alleged demonic possession. Choc that one up to a rough show for everyone. I'm looking forward to the rest of the week.

Quote from: AceAzzameen on August 19, 2015, 10:27:44 AM
Surely a guest on Art Bell's shows knows ahead of time that they will be scrutinized by listeners... maybe he was just not prepared for this.

I think we're seeing a bit of self-actualization in terms of fear. Dealt with an alleged abductee with a similar pattern of behaviour. Wanted everyone to take him seriously, but would never actually talk about his experiences. I offered to listen, but he kept this dialogue of social rejection. Odd balance of narcissistic grandiosity/lack of empathy mixed with histrionic attention seeking yet avoidant personality tones. Would lash out any time I'd offer consolation to his dialogue but would ask me questions about how I perceived notions of reason and subjective cognitive experiences. Not sure what his goals were...or if he was looking for some sort of confirmation bias in that I was, by definition, a skeptic (although willing to listen withholding judgement). Similarly, I think perhaps the Fr. could be looking to perceive those who reject his dogma as some cloaked spiritual threat made manifest in the physical realm.

Quote from: Kolchak on August 19, 2015, 10:45:48 AM

Pulling down his site is truly odd. Here's what the site looked like as of may. I don't see anything too noteworthy.

Exactly what I thought.

On a side note, as I had suspected it appears that Fr. Ashcraft did indeed view Twitter and has thus decided to block my account from viewing his tweets. If you happen to venture over and read my feed, note the comment I made on perceived criticisms. He's afraid of something, but not sure entirely what as he doesn't seem to spark much controversy aside from his dogmatic assertions which are largely lost in the wake of others more repute making political gestures, as well as a few cameos on ghost shows. (To that end, wish we'd have heard instead from Bishop James of Bobby Mackey/Ghost Adventures lore.)


At any rate, the guest seemed more defensive about his dogma than he did about his claims of exorcism.
We all waited for a good story, but seemed to come up short.


Resounding opinion: He doesn't come off as the next Fr. Malachi. If he could leave his politics at the door (which accounted seemingly for the first two hours of the show last night) and provide us with a better narrative of supernatural claims, might have had a better discourse.

Conversely, if Fr. Ashcraft is reading this, he can reach out to me through my website for comment.
Would like to have a reasoned interview on supernatural claims minus the politics. I write for other sources, most of which never makes it onto HS as I don't have time these days for many updates. Unlike the Twitter-riffing which takes place when listeners sense that a guest might be in-genuine, my professional-self offers a neutral ear to listen to any and all claims of the supernatural. 


HS

Quote from: Kolchak on August 19, 2015, 08:54:14 AM
Finally got to listen to the last half hour this morning, where the guest continued to go off the rails. There is no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution. There's just evolution. Everything is a transitional form.

The law of biogenesis did not demonstrate that life could not come from non-life. Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation, a prevailing theory in his time that said things like maggots spontaneously generated on rotting meat and such, was wrong. He essentially discovered eggs and larvae. But, this is all a strawman because evolution makes no claims on origins. It simply explains the diversity of life.

I still enjoyed the show. It's good to have guests that rile people up. But please, Art, do not have Ken Hamm on. If you want to have an evolution show, Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins would be fantastic. If you want a show on abiogenesis, perhaps Lawrence Krauss. All of these people are very adept at explaining science in a concise way.

All valid points and great suggestions, though in the future on the topic of exorcisms and demonology, I'd love to see Joe Nickell on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nickell

Hi guys.


Lurker, first time poster. On Twitter/#DMTalk most nights.


Continued conversation from last night led me to reference Ashcraft's page.
This morning, I found the following.
What gives?

Also, we suspect that he was reading #DMTalk last night in-between breaks, but could have very well been BellGab or any other source.




HS