WordWolf

I made exactly ONE TYPO. I owned up to it, and pointed out it was lack of sleep that led me to make that MISTAKE. The MISTAKE was that I said they didn't produce a language (and gave an example of an identified language.) What I MEANT TO SAY (AND CORRECTED MYSELF AS RIGHT AFTER THAT) was that they failed to produce an IDENTIFIED LANGUAGE. Everything else I said before and after that was consistent with that, and I made no attempt to defend the ONE ERROR I made. It's either SLOPPY (you didn't notice) or DISHONEST (you noticed but you pretended you didn't because it was to your benefit to pretend I was being inconsistent) to claim otherwise. For anyone else, there really shouldn't be any confusion or inconsistency.

"So now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, in spite of all your losing." "How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore. Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords." "Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land. To fight the hordes and sing, and cry. 'Valhalla, I am coming!'"

Was this the "Deadpool" movie? It sounds like a movie that acknowledges the 4th wall.

Obviously, there's a difference between what an anecdote is supposed to illustrate. If it's an eyewitness account ("then I saw him rip her shirt off") that can make a huge difference, but if it's a second-hand account, it might not be ("He said he saw the other guy rip her shirt off.") That's why courts of law have "cross-examination", which has been referred to as one of the most vital tools the court has to try to determine what the truth is in a case presented before it. There's also a significant difference in what we'd accept off a single eyewitness account, even if the person saw something himself. A person claiming to see someone approach a building and throw a burning molotov cocktail at a building an instant before a fire began is one thing. A person claiming to see another walk on water is something else entirely. There's few ways (or reasons) to fake the former, there's lots of ways to fake the latter. Then again, it's good to examine all accounts. I once stood with a bunch of smokers, and was seen to take out a lighter and a cigarette, light the cigarette, and take a puff out of it. (Close friends would have been VERY suspicious, since I avoid cigarette smoke.) I then held up the "lighter" and "cigarette", showing they were neither, and I had lit a Binaca spray with a flashlight and pretended to smoke it. I did it for amusement and because I actually had the right items at the right time to fake it. However, everyone around saw what they expected to see-despite seeing me light an unusually fat cigarette and blow invisible smoke in the air.

I probably am, but I thought this was a point that should at least be raised. It's come up on more than one thread. Someone considered "a friend-of-a-friend told me about this time" as "evidence" and was shocked that they're the only one who thought that. In case lots of people are having that problem (or even 1 lurker), I thought it was important to at least make an effort to set the record straight. Then again, there's an on-off discussion somewhere completely unrelated to the GSC about whether actual logic or evidence ever convinces people of anything, or if we should focus on style rather than substance. (It's partly political so it's off-topic here completely.)

When it comes to discussions of events-what CAN happen, what DID happen, and so on- it is common to hear ANECDOTES. Those are stories that people claim occurred a certain way. Often, someone will act as if a claim of an event, an anecdote is, in and of itself, proof of something. It is not. Why not? Others have explained it, some in layman's terms. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence "Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method." "In all forms of anecdotal evidence, testing its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence." "In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: "information that is not based on facts or careful study" [1] "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts" [2] "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" [3] "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" [4] "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"" "Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation. " http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html " Testimonials and vivid anecdotes are one of the most popular and convincing forms of evidence presented for beliefs in the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, testimonials and anecdotes in such matters are of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. Sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel or the Virgin Mary, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, or a psychic surgeon are of little value in establishing the reasonableness of believing in such matters. Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy. Thus, stories of personal experience with paranormal or supernatural events have little scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claim made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief. As parapsychologist Charles Tart once said after reporting an anecdote of a possibly paranormal event: “Let’s take this into the laboratory, where we can know exactly what conditions were. We don’t have to hear a story told years later and hope that it was accurate.” Dean Radin also noted that anecdotes aren't good proof of the paranormal because memory “is much more fallible than most people think” and eyewitness testimony “is easily distorted”(Radin 1997: 32). Testimonials regarding paranormal experiences are of little use to science because selective thinking and self-deception must be controlled for in scientific observations. Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves. They are satisfied that their experiences provide them with enough positive feedback to justify the belief in their paranormal abilities. Controlled tests of psychics and dowsers would prove once and for all that they are not being selective in their evidence gathering. It is common for such people to remember their apparent successes and ignore or underplay their failures. Controlled tests can also determine whether other factors such as cheating might be involved. If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve." =============================== In short, accounts of what some friend-of-a-friend saw or experienced are unreliable and untestable. They are generally how claims of Bigfoot and other mythical monsters still perpetuate. However, with no ability to follow up with the original person and scrutinize the specifics, there is no evidence and so no conclusion can be drawn from them. If one wants to make a claim of something fantastical, the standard of proving it is not "because I say so" or "because I believe it", but is a LOT more stringent. If one happens where skeptics observe, if it is repeated in a lab and it is proven not to be some hoax, if a variety of people with a variety of opinions are party to the same event and all immediately agree on exactly what happened (which is rare no matter what event) and they agree with what the videocamera showed when it was rolling at the time- those are something else entirely. Even the skeptic has to sit up and take notice when stringent requirements are met. When none are met, it's no surprise if nobody believes someone just because they say something happened. They may be lying, or simply honestly mistaken. They may have wanted to see something-which affected how they interpreted what they saw. And so on.

I drew logical conclusions before addressing your posts on that thread. Cease guilt-tripping yourself. I felt a lot more secure about my conclusions after reading them, but I'd already drawn them. As I've said. If you read my posts the same way you read the studies, then I know why we disagree on the results. Oh, and "defending the truth" isn't how devout Christian cessationists would view it. Wait-you didn't read their work, which included their criteria, their "checklists"? That explains a lot.

If you have one, take it.

Romeo + Juliet Brian Dennehy Cocoon

Only knew Shelley Winters was in it from a line a comedienne said some time ago, when doing a show where the ceiling had an air vent really high up. IIRC, it was Paula Poundstone.

"What did my approach to the discussion say?" Strategies in discussion are like strategies in a courtroom, and certain gambits play to certain strengths and minimize certain weaknesses. Just like there's other posters who will show up on a thread and completely change the subject-because they can't refute the thread and can't silence it, so they try to divert it. It becomes a "tell" and actually tells you why they're posting. I saw what I consider a "defensive" strategy. If I was an attorney defending a guilty client (one reason I refused to consider law as a career was this was a possibility), I would use this strategy. Discredit the expert analysis, fog the issues, all to try to win the case by blurring the lines. I saw some amazing digressions where the meaning of language was challenged, and report results were creatively reinterpreted, and so on. It was the natural strategy for someone trying to "win on points" and not on the facts. That's what it told me. And I wasn't going to get into it, but you did ask. "I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach." I said it HELPED convince me. You were unable to provide a logical "argument" for the side I wanted to see win. Neither was I. Furthermore, you fell on strategies used by those who don't have the facts on their side. To me, that lampshaded the same points. "My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. " That's your PERSPECTIVE. In the thread, you approached it in a specific way, and THAT's what I noted. A) I did make a posting error. My example was my point-it was not identified as a known language. I meant to say that, but it was late and I was tired. But the pauses, again, would characterize something like :"free vocalization" just as much as the samples. B) Yes they did. C) Yes they did. You kept selectively referring to parts of their checklist while skipping the other parts. And again here- the trick is not to distinguish between animal communication "baa baa" and human communication, but between a real human language and an absence of a human language underpinning the sounds. Anecdotes are NEVER proof. I'll get into that when I have time.

Then what about "The Poseidon Adventure"?

I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit. Others can read the thread to their satisfaction. As concerning languages and the recorded examples, I came away with the following: A) At no time was an actual language produced ("He's speaking Ukranian! He's praising Jesus!") B) At no time was a recording identified as qualifying as a language unknown to the expert ("I've never heard this language, but this meets all the requirements of a language, so it is one nonetheless!" ) C) Recordings were never found to match ALL the criteria of a language-and ALL would have to be met to confirm it's a language. Recordings were found to have SOME of the criteria of a language- but so would an actor doing "free vocalization." It's not noteworthy that the recording was out loud, had syllables, and pauses. We all communicate out loud with syllables and pauses, so even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property. In other words, the recordings met the same criteria as free vocalization would, and failed the same criteria that free vocalization would. (As someone who believed in SIT at the time, I found that rather telling-and annoying. It undermined the position I held at the time. I think further rehashing will hit the same reefs as before, but I'm willing to let the new guy pick which reef he wants to hit.

I wasn't. I'm just amazed it took you this long to ponder this. I was asking about this back in the 1980s while IN twi. Raf should remember me asking, in fact. My personal conclusion at the time-which I have never articulated until this moment was: The tongues would not appear in any non-verbal, non-vocal language. So, no "tongues" in writing, no "tongues" in sign language. The person could still SIT but it would only be "spiritual" and not observable. Prophecy could be done in a sign language, but with no audible "tongue", I would have expected no TIP interpretation for a "silent tongue." Looking back, that's as good an answer as any I ever got in twi. And makes about as much sense. or as little.

"So werewolf you believe that christians who claim to speak in tongues are doing nothing more than what actors do when they act like they are speaking a language? " A) No need to call names. B) I claim there's no substantial difference between the type of supposed "SIT" I was taught in twi (and all incidents I've seen) and what actors are taught to do, and the differences are all cosmetic. (Actors could be taught to produce results that look absolutely identical to the twi experience with a little coaching, staging, and practice. " I guess the question becomes do those actors experience the effects that christians experience when they speak in tongues. For instance when I speak in tongues I get spiritual insights(by this I mean certain questions involving angels or other spiritual questions i have i get insights on whether its an actual thought or image etc its in a form that is understandable to me in my mind that clears up some confusion i have had about a spiritual matter), chills(good relaxing ones), increased peace, my mind feels at rest and calmer than before doing it etc." Actually, the feelings of the actors are different because they know they are actors and are feigning emotion. If we had a "control" group, it would be of a bunch of actors or otherwise non-charismatics who were taken through the exercises, taught convincingly they were genuinely of God, and that they're supposed to feel connected to God. I expect THOSE people would definitely feel SOMETHING. As for insights, there's 2 answers, neither of which is difficult. If there IS no such divine insight, your subconscious is working things out and presenting them when you're expecting them-which is when you're petitioning for divine insight. They may or may not be actual insight. (The Questioning Faith subforum assumes this position.) If there IS such a thing as divine insight, then the key to getting it is to get yourself to the point where you can listen to it, then ask for it. Getting there might involve raking sand, working in a garden, baking, reading, quietly thinking, ecstatically dancing, etc. So whatever you do to get your head there does not need to be anything other than a mundane practice that works for you. "Now of course my experience when I speak in tongues is subjective and not all people experience what I experience, but I think theres some reasons to believe that what I am doing is biblical because why would paul wish we would all do it?' You're automatically assuming that you're doing what Paul was recommending, then assuming that you're right because he made good recommendations, so his recommendation "of what you're doing" is a reasonable one.

We're also getting a "so what" on the languages. It's pretty simple. If you're producing excerpts of a language through a miraculous event, then you are producing excerpts of a language. So far, every time a claim like that has been put forth, the claimant has been disappointed. No known language has been demonstrated to have been produced. Ok, so then you claim you always produce an UNKNOWN language. The thing is, experts in language can tell when they're confronted with a language vs being confronted with some sort of gibberish. Even non-experts can sometimes recognize excerpts in a language they don't know. I saw someone publish something written in Hungarian (Magyar). His editor asked him about an error he caught- despite not knowing it was IN Hungarian. He compared the phrases, and deduced which word should appear in an instance. (He was right.) Even invented languages have a structure. (An episode of Star Trek had an error in an invented language, and a fan pointed it out.) Of course, in these instances, it is a strength to know more than one language in one's life, since you have practice in comparing words in at least 2 languages. So, what's the relevance to all that? The claimants didn't produce known languages, and they didn't produce results that were pronounced A language. Their speech lacked the specific distinctions between a discrete LANGUAGE and sounds that RESEMBLED a language superficially but fell short nonetheless. So, a miraculous production of..nothing..isn't very impressive, nor is it noteworthy.

It's no different from being handed counterfeit money and being told it's genuine. The practice titled "free vocalization" can be taught to any adult. Normally, it's taught as a simple acting exercise, when it's taught at all. However, take the exact same practice and claim it's actually some supernatural activity of God. Show lots of people doing it, all convinced it's of God. Spend hours and hours teaching about the activity from God and get people to want to do that. All the while, keep pouring on that they're the same thing, and people will go along and not question why they're not identical, why there's differences. Insist that any second thoughts about this will actually be evil and of the devil, so the people will be in FEAR of questioning it. Make a big deal about the first time people do it, with celebrations when they do. Then, when you get ridiculous, they won't question it for a moment. When you have them practice saying words all starting with the same letter, they won't question why this is never mentioned in the Bible, or how you're now telling God which utterances to supply, or how you're supposed to speak a wonderful work of God in extensive alliteration. (The excellors sessions, by themselves, should make it obvious we were REHEARSING and PRACTICING a secular ability.)

"

"I find this quite amazing that you spent so much time faking speaking in tongues." A large number of ex-twi people agreed it was faked. It's neither amazing nor unique to have spent as much time faking it as he did. Others said they'd faked it longer (they were in twi a lot longer.) " I think if you actually spoke in tongues you probably would still be a christian today." I agree. If he'd been the recipient of a miraculous healing, or prayed and saw a miracle unfold the following seconds as well, those would have made an indelible impression on him, and I would be shocked if he just dismissed them, even decades later. (I say this as someone who's known him for years because I have. I'm ashamed to say I'm the one who introduced him to twi.) "Of course there are plenty of people who speak in tongues who are no longer christians and probably dont do it anymore." They certainly BELIEVED they were speaking in tongues, but their opinions didn't change the reality of the situation. ". But the mere fact that you were faking it is hilarious and sad at the same time." You have an odd sense of humor. We were taught to fake it. We faked it institutionally. I think that IS sad, but not funny. " I also am not going to say your faith was weak because you couldn't speak in tongues but I will say faith clearly just isn't a gift you have." Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's certainly meant as an insult. " I definitely believe speaking in tongues is real but I also believe that if you can't speak in tongues then you can't understand it. " That's awfully convenient for you. It frees you from having to bother attempting to explain things logically, or explain why logical "arguments" that refute your position exist. "The mere fact that you were faking it obviously brings into question your character and any faith you may have thought you had couldve been fake as well. I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues and then go out and assume everyone is because he is." Speaking on this before understanding it makes ignorance obvious. "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is a folly and a shame unto him." A lot of devout posters-still committed Christians to this day-admitted they faked it in twi, in addition to lots of folks who admitted they faked it and are no longer devout Christians. A devout person can do something and naively think they're pleasing God while they're doing the opposite. How do you think vpw got women to go along with his claims that his sexual assaults on them were godly and going along with them was pleasing God? He fooled legitimately devout people. As for why to think it was ALL faked- we were all taught the same thing, to perform identically in the same way. If LOTS of people came forth and said it was fraud, then the identical times that they DIDN'T step forward should be identically fraudulent. Again- people MEANT to do godly things but were genuinely mistaken in thinking that.Didn't mean they're any less devout. Ever meet devout Trinitarians? Would you dare accuse all Trinitarians of lacking true devotion because they're wrong as you see it? "Thats definitely a fallacy to assume because you can't do something that no one else is or can." By all means, throw this discussion wide open- conclusively demonstrate an ability to do exactly what SIT is in the Bible. I for one would be THRILLED to welcome that event. When examining all attempts to prove this so far, they've all fallen short. Just ONE conclusive demonstration would change everything. Until then, at best you have an unproven claim- and there's lots of evidence that people with identical claims were NOT doing it-regardless of their conviction that they were. "I still personally wouldn't waste my time faking tongues or believing in something I thought was not true but to each its own." Nobody here's claimed they "believed in something they thought wasn't true" (explain how that's supposed to work. How does one disbelieve something while believing it? It's the story of the tall midget. ) As for not wasting your time faking tongues.....

Since we're going around in circles on SIT again, I thought it made sense to have a fresh, new thread in which to rehash the same points without anyone changing their minds on anything. So, here it is. As for the previous threads, they can be reread for hours and hours of discussion, much of which made legitimate points that were worth posting and reading. For those who want to know about the secular activity named "free vocalization" (important if you want to discuss the modern practice called SIT, there's a separate thread just for that here: If one feels the need to actually get back into the discussion of what a language IS and IS NOT, and how they work, we had this thread: The discussion of SIT from the skeptical perspective is here: The very long thread in About the Way had most of the discussion. An attempt at restarting that thread was also made. Finally, there was an original thread in Doctrinal about this one. Anyone who wants to reference the material from those threads can certainly do so.

Ok, Staff? Where should I post my responses to him? This is "Questioning Faith." Should someone start a new Doctrinal thread, or something? We're going "off-topic" for "Questioning Faith" right now, so I don't want to disrespect the system, here.

For the benefit of the new person, I'll reiterate my position. First, understand that I began the discussions at least nominally supporting the same view twi pushed concerning SIT. As the discussion progressed, I re-evaluated everything, and changed position because I found my previous one did not stand up to scrutiny, and all objections to it could be answered. So I understand both sides of this issue well. Second, understand that there's a type of exercise we discussed at points. It has been named "free vocalization" because it is unregulated ("free") and spoken (vocalized.) This practice is done by acting students as well as by small children. To any outside observer, it's identical to what twi said was "Speaking in Tongues." Any person could learn to perform "free vocalization" and do it. If they were also told "this practice is of God" and given examples of practitioners who believed the same, they'd even do it with the firm belief this was something supernatural-which it obviously is not. This would then appear completely identical to the supposed modern 'SIT". Third, understand that the modern "SIT" does not actually resemble the Biblical "SIT" except where someone's insisting it resembles it. The Biblical examples were all of spoken words in actual languages, and many people understood them who were eyewitnesses (happened on Pentecost, happened at the house of Cornelius....) The modern "SIT" practice (that resembles free vocalization exactly) ALWAYS produces speech that is NOT understood as a language by any bystander- except as when vpw himself faked it and spoke Greek when claiming he was Speaking In Tongues (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION and as recorded in "The Way-Living in Love.") Actual attempts to identify SOME kind of language with modern SIT have-without exception- shown the results to be an amalgam of sounds resembling the speaker's primary language, but not being any kind of language and not possessing the structure OF a language. (Not just "not a known language", but also "not an unknown language",) The only defense given for this is the SINGLE verse in I Corinthians that mentions "tongues of angels"-a subject that never comes up again. A careful read of the surrounding verses shows that each verse introduces a RIDICULOUS EXAGGERATION in order to make an independent point-including that verse. So, the "tongues of angels" reference is as normative as "moving mountains with faith", "having ALL Knowledge", and giving to charity to the point that you're body is hauled off for kindling. In short, if the Biblical SIT exists now, it in no way resembles the thing twi taught and called "SIT." The modern "SIT", however, completely resembles a practice that is in no way supernatural. I don't have a deep, compelling reason to dismiss the possibility that there's a Biblical SIT out there right now that IS legitimate and supernatural- but I'm fully persuaded that the one SIT taught-and all the ones in that pattern, all the ones I've seen in my life- are neither that nor supernatural, but something actors are taught. All of these were previously discussed, some in different threads. There was a thread just to discuss Free Vocalization in Open. There was a Doctrinal thread that discussed the verses. The main thread covered the main discussion, and kept circling the same handful of points because someone kept trying to fog issues for pages and pages. The main problem was a conflation of "I believe twi was right about SIT" with "I'm a Christian" and to challenge one was secretly to challenge both. BTW, that continual insistence on fogging the issues was the final nail in the coffin of my old position. I was looking to see if I'd somehow overlooked something, but that side only had obfuscation to offer, not actual substance. And when I pointed that out, I was asked why I didn't post an example of something I'd overlooked. Seriously-you want me to think up something I haven't thought up, then post about it?

Yes. I was getting ready to cite Dracula, Saruman, and Count Dooku if nobody got the current list.

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury Marquis St. Evremonde Sir Henry Baskerville Dr. Pierre Gerard Prof. Alan Driscoll Paul Allen Capt. Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt Mephistoles Count Ludwig Karnstein Prof. Karl Meister Franklyn Marsh Sir Matthew Phillips Philippe Darvas Godfrey Hanson Lord George Jeffreys John Reid Col. Charles Bingham James Hildern Sir Alexander Saxton Lord Summerisle Dr. Stephen Hayward Martin Wallace Charlemagne Francisco Scaramanga Dr Catheter Dr Wilbur Wonka The Jabberwock Sherlock Holmes

No, and I'll be a tiny bit surprised if you've NEVER seen ANY of the movies in which he played those roles. I'm hoping that I can add roles tomorrow that are better-known without giving it away completely.