Raf

Sean Penn Mystic River Tim Robbins

Ouch. Let me play Angel's Advocate here because there are some things that are being said but not being adequately addressed because of where and how they are said. First, everyone on this thread, myself included, has limited access to the studies that have been done. This is explicit in my, for now, rejection of Sherrill based on insufficient data. I'm inclined not to believe Sherrill for reasons I've stated elsewhere, but I do so only in a superficial way. I have not seen his research and cannot comment intelligently on it... and neither can anyone else on this thread who has not read it. So we have an outstanding piece of potential evidence and/or research that very well could prove me wrong, but no one here knows it because we haven't seen it. We HAVE seen a summary of it, but no one has challenged me, seriously or otherwise, on my rejection of that summary. It is also VERY possible, if modern SIT is true, that someone we have yet to identify HAS documented an example or multiple examples. We just haven't come across the research yet. This is related to the inherent problem of sample size. Any sample under 100 percent is insufficient to prove my point conclusively. I can discover (for the sake of argument) that 99.95 percent of alleged glossolalia HAS been documented and reviewed and determined to be non-language, and there would still be a possibility that genuine, Biblical SIT is produced in the remaining 0.05 percent consisting of unreviewed cases. Assuming 10 million people SIT, that leaves us with thousands of people producing the real thing under the radar, so to speak. I'm wrong, but the evidence still shows I'm right because no legitimate case has been reviewed. Chockfull raises another issue: On what basis are we assuming that the phenomenon of glossolalia is really what Samarin's reviewing? We don't know who the speakers are. We are pretty much taking his word that they are, indeed, Christians claiming to produce glossolalia. How do we know they're telling the truth? Because Samarin says so? And Goodman? And Kildahl? And Newman (who did the brain wave study that, I believe we agreed, doesn't prove what people claim it does)? And every other psychologist, sociologist and linguist who's investigated SIT? We only know what they're telling us. What if all their subjects are lying to the researchers? If what they're telling us is a lie from the pit of hell, then we're investigating scientific analyses of something that's not even SIT! Personally, I think that last paragraph is a nutty conspiracy theory. It takes for granted a profound level of dishonesty, but if you're inclined to believe that this kind of research is committed to discrediting SIT instead of investigating it, then you have to take that possibility into account. In that case, you can reject the research wholesale -- but you're rejecting the research. You're not countering it. You're not debating it. You're not discussing it. You're declaring it invalid by fiat. Hey, feel free. But if you can do that to the research, you have no standing to stop me from doing that to your SIT claims. Good for the goose, as they say. If we do not agree that the research into SIT is a valid subject of inquiry and review, we have no common ground for an argument or discussion. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. It certainly appears to be where Chockfull is headed. It answers none of the questions raised in this thread. It evades them. And if you're cool with that, Godspeed. We are left with each other's opinions, and to each his own.

Forgive the thread interruption, but I had to post THIS AMAZING LIST of the 6 most spectacular low points in modern pop culture. Look what made number one, the LOWEST point in modern pop culture!

Correct.

Flashbacks and nightmares.

I have a good one. If AHAT doesn't post by the end of today, anyone mind if I jump in?

I'm your number one fan.

Yeah, I definitely got the quote wrong, but clearly I was right enough to draw out the correct-ish answer. It was Aliens. Your move.

By now, your dismissal and denigration of free vocalization as an innate human ability should embarrass you. That it doesn't underscores my contention that you are not approaching this subject honestly and really don't deserve to be responded to as though you are.

Ah! So the third reference is NOT the one I thought it was. Rather, it was some outside reference getting lumped in on this thread with the accounts we already have. Thanks for clearing that up. If you're going to do THAT, then the number of accounts is a LOT greater than three. I mean a LOT greater. You left out the review of Sherrill's work, for example, which implies at LEAST two more. All undocumented. All unverifiable. But I'm supposed to believe them solely on the basis that the claim was made. He doesn't do this in ANY of his studies? Really? So... you've reviewed the rest of his studies? Right? Not just the one article we're referring to. You've reviewed them all and determined that he doesn't provide a reference to statistics in any of them? Oh, you HAVEN'T read all of Samarin's studies. So... I have to assume someone else HAS reviewed them, and you're citing that other person as your source. Because you CERTAINLY are not stating your opinion as fact. I mean, that would be... Interstingly, Samarin DOES provide a sample of glossolalia in the study we are reviewing. But you would have known that if you'd just read the flipping report. Sure. I haven't reviewed the work, so I'll just trust you are able to do this. Name the Persian. Name the Glossolalist.

Claim: You have a dragon in your garage. My approach: Prove it. Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing. My approach: You have described something whose existence is impossible to verify. By taking a testable claim (a real dragon) and making it untestable (invisible, non-thermal, non-corporeal), you have made your dragon, which you allege is there, and made it indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist or is not there. Unless you provide real proof that you have a dragon in your garage, I am compelled to disbelieve it. Call me when you have actual proof. *** Claim: You have a dragon in your garage. Chockfull's approach: Prove it. Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing. Chockfull's approach: Well, since I can't disprove it, and the Bible says nothing about God parking dragons in your garage, I'm going to have to assume your dragon is actually a devil spirit. *** And that's the difference. A person making a supernatural claim that, if true, is clear evidence of devil spirit power in concrete form, first has to prove that the supernatural claim is, in fact, true. Le Baron's xenoglossia fails that test. He told us what he did. He told us how he did it. He WROTE DOWN the alleged xenoglossia. He told us what languages to look for. The xenoglossia was dispassionately examined. It was not confirmed. Rather, the dispassionate research determined that, in the opinion of the researcher, there was no linguistic difference between LeBaron's output and the product of those claiming glossolalia today. Two possible conclusions to draw: Samarin must be some kind of idiot. Not only can he not tell a language when he doesn't know what to look for. He can't even tell a language when he DOES know what to look for. Why are we even dealing with this guy? What a maroon! OR LeBaron was a con man who faked a claim of xenoglossia. You decide which conclusion is more reasonable.

By the way, it did not escape my notice that we suddenly have three alleged accounts of people understanding SIT instead of two. I think this demonstrates my point that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order to be accepted, considering that the third account offered exactly zero information to back it up. Not a shred of evidence. Not even a description of what happened. Just a naked claim, accompanied by a warning from the person making the claim that you'd have to be crazy to believe it, and BAM! Three accounts instead of two. But I'm wrong to suggest a bit of gullibility.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not the one demanding the other side prove its point, making it impossible for the other side to prove its point, lying about what the other side DOES say and demonstrate, then acting as if their failure to prove their point validates mine (although by the standard rules of debate, I am entitled to draw such a conclusion at SOME point, I do not believe I've reached that point). I have an opinion. I've expressed it. That's my right. Who cares? Obviously, you do, for one. Despite your protestations. People who don't care about a thread don't post on it. If you TRULY don't care, you know what to do...

Ok. You win. Congrats!

If you seriously think at this stage of the discussion I am going to bend to your sudden demand that we change the terms of the debate and expect me to believe that you will adhere to the new terms, you truly are speaking a language no one on earth can understand. I've seen how you "debate." I don't trust you. I'm not a circus monkey. You have the methodology. You have as much access to the studies as I do. Do your own damn homework. What I've said has been proven, has been proven. What I've said has been merely demonstrated, has been demonstrated.

Look, I'm not doing this with you. Appealing to the scientific method as if you're the one adhering to it is a flipping joke, and anyone following along can see it.

And that's why it's pointless to argue with you. Thanks for playing. Tell him what he's won, Johnny Gilbert!

This is getting so flipping tedious. I have stated my opinion as fact as often as you have. I have never referred to something as proved or documented that was not, and I would just as soon you STOP LYING ABOUT THAT. It's bulls hit, I've called you on it repeatedly. Enough.

I can understand qualms about the definition of xenoglossia, and based on what i can see of the definition, i will no longer say that glossolalia should produce xenoglossia. I will say that glossolalia and xenoglossolalia are redundant terms. But understanding appears to be implied in xenoglossia, where it is explicitly denied in glossolalia. Nonetheless, our ability to draw conclusions from that is limited. A glossolalist who produced a recognized language would be presumed xenoglossic and treated as such. You and I disagree on why no such cases have emerged. I believe the linguists have checked the phonemic strata of the glossas and repeatedly determined, with exceptions, that the phonemes match the native language of the speaker. The exceptions are attributable to the speaker's exposure to other languages (like me with Chanukkah). This is not merely Samarin's finding. At best, he hints at it. But it appears to account for the findings of numerous other researchers. You believe the linguists haven't detected foreign languages because they are so incompetent at identifying language they would be unable to spot one even when they're explicitly told what language to look for. I cannot concur with such a dismissal of their studies. But i will repeat what I've said before: you cannot do everything in your power to make a testable claim intestable and then draw conclusions from my inability to prove my case. It's hypocritical. I do believe i am entitled to draw conclusions based on your inability to prove your case. In my opinion, proof of your case should be the rule, not the exception. But hey, you can disagree in peace. You cannot disagree in peace with the existence of free vocalization as an innate human ability. That's just not negotiable. Unlike free mouthvoiceization, free vocalization actually describes something real, true, documentable and repeatable. The phony term you made up describes nothing real. It is not worth debating.

With respect, you don't investigate crap. Investigation by definition involves skepticism of a claim until it is proved. You assume the claim to be true and weigh the religious implications. You don't investigate a damn thing, because you corner yourself by defining everything in such a way as to make investigation impossible. All one has to do to convince you an extraordinary supernatural act has taken place is claim it, and suddenly you will demand others DISprove the claim. No. Prove the claim.

I got the impression that Samarin DID read LeBaron's xenoglossia, not hat ge merely read ABOUT them. There was a different account in which he reached a similar conclusion on shakier grounds, and said so. Had Samarin been investigating xenoglossia, I'd have expected more detail. It's enough to know that no claim of xenoglossia has ever withstood scrutiny. None. You can CALL it a lie. But that's stating your opinion as fact. Some people on this thread don't take too kindly to that sort of thing. FYI: I never said SIT is not available. I do not know. I believe if it were not available, that would explain why no one seems to be producing it. But I could be right and SIT could still be available. It would just mean we'd need to learn how. I have no idea.

Look, Samarin wrote a study on glossolalia. In writing the study, he seeks to distinguish it from xenoglossia. Xenoglossia supposedly produces a language. Samarin investigates the claim and, based on the information he has, concludes no difference in the end product of an alleged non Christian xenoglossist and an alleged Christian glossolalist. So, no, I reject your demand for proof on the grounds that I have already done so to any extent I am able to. The difference between you and I, apparently, is that when someone claims to have operated the power of God, your first question is Which God? while mine is What power? A failure to answer my question renders your question moot.

Tee hee hee. What about the Society for Psychic Research leads you to believe it has the slightest interest in DIScrediting such claims?

Did I say there is no spirit realm? Did I say there's no such thing as godly or satanic influences? No. What I said was, before I'm going to attribute a phenomenon to God or Satan, I am going to rule out any natural explanation that fits the facts. In the case of SIT, as well as alleged xenoglossia, free vocalization fits the facts. LeBaron was a con man. Had he produced a language, I would conclude he was demonically possessed. The evidence leads me to believe he was a con man.

More misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I refuse to participate in your Inquisition.