well after reading a little bit on what a sikh is I found out that it
is just the title of a disciple in a popular religion in India.
Anyway, It seems possible that the sikh knew of the American while he
was in America. Especially since he knew fluent english. Maybe the
two sikh's (disciples) just happened to be visiting the same guru.

Subject:  skeptic manifesto

ADVERTISEMENT I thought Michael Shermer had many interesting points. He made me think when he said, "If you are skeptical of everything, you are skeptical of yourself" Leaving one never quite sure of any truth. There is basically always room for doubt. Even when Shermer gave the example of Socrates the supposed wisest man who in the end claimed to know nothing. In the midst of all his knowledge and experience he obviously still felt like he was never quite sure of any truth other than knowing nothing. I thought a definite con he had was that Shermer tried to tie all the beginnings of skepticism to a documented person. In reality skepticism existed when the first human came into being. It is only natural to be skeptical. One con I found in Shermer's theory was when he said, "skepticism does not produce progress" I think contrary; one must first decide that an idea/concept is worth debating in one's mind before it can find a conclusion/solution. Therefore, skepticism would create progress. Another thing is Shermer wanted to modify the word skeptic with rational and I think being a skeptic is not always rational because a rational person can just as easily say it makes sense to feel that something makes sense even when they don't have all the fact or pieces to the puzzle. Shermer goes on to explain how science leads us towards rationalism and help us avoid dogmatism. This is true but what does it have to do with his main point of skepticism? After all is there a such thing as a skeptic dogmatic person? How skeptic could one possibly be if they just believe anything/everything they are being told?   Subject:  Cold Readings ADVERTISEMENT One of the pro's I found in the cold readings was that even if the whole thing is a trick, many people still walk away feeling better than they did when they came in. I guess this would be a prime example of wanting to believe the lie rather than accepting the truth. These people would probably be the ones to say ignorance is bliss. I don't know it's not a method I would choose but who am I to say that it is not for someone else? It may be more common that people want to believe the lie anyway! Just like Mr. Lane talked about on the first class meeting when he said, "As humans were not interested in the truth [and] we couldn't function if we knew the truth" One of the con's in this reading assignment was that the author gives only examples of the client giving out all the information or as he says it, "after broadcasting all sorts of information to the reader" It just makes sense that many people go in to see a medium already skeptical of them so why then would they just give out a burst of information? I don't know but all this not knowing has made me curious; maybe I'll personally take on the task of finding out how these cold/hot readings come about! Anyway, the article seemed to be a common sense article. It only makes sense to read people and if you're getting paid to know about human characteristics one should be able to read them well!   Subject:  Viruses of the Mind ADVERTISEMENT I thought of all the three articles this week this was by far the most interesting. The only con it had was that the author spent too much time on the dry information computer viruses. It was a good analogy but a little dry! The part that really got me though was when the author said; "It is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents" It seems to simple yet for a moment so profound. I guess because it hit me personally! I have held on to my parent's religion all my life a find myself in a place where I am, "asking to many questions" Here I can relate to what the author is talking about. In the past I found myself defending what I thought was truth by saying if I could explain my religion then it is a false religion because it requires no faith. We all know science contradicts faith. How can I continue to defend a belief when I'm not sure why I believe in it? Then comes the next question. Is faith merely a delusion with lack of virtue? Or can it be possible that not having faith is the true lack virtue? The author talks about how it is thought that it is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Can it be true that in fact there are mysteries that the human mind cannot comprehend therefore there is no true solution and the end we can all profess as Socrates did, "All I know is that I know nothing?" I'm still not sure whether faith should be called a delusion or not. After all is seems necessary due to the fast that we as humans are so limited."   Subject:  Skeptical Inquiry ADVERTISEMENT Skeptical Inquiry In this article the author asks the question, "Are there areas such as religion in which science cannot enter" Then later in the article defines religion as, "to that which transcends human experience or reason. My question then is if religion transcends human reason how then can science even be applied to it! It seems to me that there is a contradiction here! The two seem to be like oil and water to me they just don't mix. If there is someone out there who can reveal the mystery behind religion and according to the author's definition of religion again they would need to be something other than human because religion transcends human reason. Right? The author also talks abbot the bible and the Koran, which many base their religious beliefs in and say they go by faith. Here we go again, how can science ever prove faith. Contradictions all over the place Water and oil my friends. The bottom line is if I can prove it something exists or is tangible then I have no need for faith! Then again this sounds very profound and can possibly be simply ignorant at the same time. I don't know seems as if the battle will go on forever. To believe or not to believe! That is the question.   Subject:  Guide to critical thinking ADVERTISEMENT Guide to critical thinking I think James Lett comes up with some reasonable and simplistic ways of critical thinking. I like his acronym, "FiLCHeRS" In Lett's six rules he started of with falsifiability, which I thought, was the least important because this step seemed all too simple. Why would one even consider something to be a question if there was no reason to question it? Hello. The other five were pretty decent thought. The next point was logic. According to Lett's any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound. Validity of course would prove to be very important in critical thinking. This rule seemed very simple yet while I sit here in reflection I can think of plenty of arguments, which people claim to be sound, yet are based on a false premise. Lett's give some examples of those who are illogical to him e.g. von Daniken and I'm sure we all can think of a few. I think when it comes to the area comprehensiveness is where many fall short. It might be the hardest part to make attempt at covering all the bases. This area would be more difficult because here one really would not know if they covered everything and would simply have to guess. This is probably why our minds are constantly changing. At one point we think we fully understand something only to have new information added to our thought; taking us in an all-new direction based on the information. Replicability is another good point but how can it be applied in everyday life? We are sometimes just too busy to think things over much less perform it again! I guess if it's being applied to research it should be used. In everyday life. Not too practical. Sufficiency seemed to be the wrong word for the last point. It was still a good point though.   Subject:  Real Physics ADVERTISEMENT I'm a: WomanMan Seeking a: ManWoman Age: to City or ZIP: Take our FREE Personality Test Finally, A chance to know hoe it's really done! I mean all this time I knew there were simple physics behind these demonstration but to actually see them is soooo cool! The walking on broken glass was the most interesting to me because I've seen it done in real life and since then wondered how it was done. Alas, peace of mind. It all makes sense now. I see how all these stories we have been reading about really tie together when it comes to putting away or revealing the "mystery" in it all. The mystery of the cold readings the mystery of faith and finally the mystery of how they do all those mysterious tricks! Oh happy day! No more mystery the problems actually have solutions! Although dipping ones fingers in molten lava will always seem dangerous to me but not a mystery!!! In the about the author note it says that David Willey is actually known for the longest firewall. I'm interested in what else he does. Especially how he will explain it! Subject:  My own naive thinking??? ADVERTISEMENT well I guess if I'm going to apply occams razor to my own thinking I would have to say that this class has definately had an impact on my shall we say old way of thinking. The simplest of the competing theories I believe would say to go against my religion due to its complexity. It is so much more complex to try to believe in something that cannot be proven or even made simple. This class will definately challenge any belief just because that all it is and ever will be is a belief. The hardest part seems not to be in challenging the belief or in proving it but rather in still believing when there is no scientific explaination. Then here I am again back at the same old drawing board! Is it right to have faith in something I cant prove. Then again if I could prove it there would be no faith. If I went with the latter; then I basically would never have any use for faith because faith is believing! Subject:  UFO Himilayan C. ADVERTISEMENT Irene Olivia D. UFO Himalayan Connection In this article Lane explains," Our state of reality is determined by the movement of consciousness into various expressions of the Chandian Effect. Each level of awareness is controlled and empowered by its inherent degree of certainty, which is determined by the intensity and duration of its minimum threshold. Thus, for example, we are predisposed to call the waking state "real" because it is longer (and hence, by extension, more vivid) than the dreaming stage. We say this only when we are awake, however, never while we are dreaming." This seems to be the explanation for the visions one may see or UFO's. Lane also goes on to explain the UFO-ologists have often found that many UFO are not unidentified but misidentified. So it may be with the many visions people have. Irene Olivia D. Unknowing Sage Phil 8 This story was really confusing. I first noticed it was going to be interesting when he said he was going to stop having relations with his wife. The same wife he had married when he was only thirteen. He also said that he had started gambling and even found himself with a prostitute. Originally, he started to study the Ramayana, the Mahabharta, and other scriptures of Hindu Dharma. He stated the reason he was drawn to this religion because he was, "Tormented by the poverty at home and always fearful of my father's wrath, from the age of seven years onward I sought relief in the name of God." Did the relief he sought in God subside at the time in his life when he decided to go astray? It seems that Faqir is very impressionable. The guys he worked with all ate meat and so he did also. It also seems like the only reason he doesn't eat meat is because others will be disappointed in him. Furthermore, he felt guilty because he said his guru sent him home to begat a son and in the process he started to enjoy joy and felt he was indulging. This all seems pretty strange to me. Faqir's little life story seems to be as if he needs someone to tell him what to do and is incapable of being an individual.visions that people have! From:  "savvyzoi" <savvyzoi@y...> Date:  Sun Mar 6, 2005  8:43 pm Subject:  Vegetarianism? Phil 8 Vegetarian issue Phil 8 I think being a vegetarian is completely up to the individual and there certainly is no right or wrong. Each individual had his or her own feelings and argument about the issue. Personally, I feel that it is good to eat meat because there are essential vitamins and minerals we can use in it. The argument of that David gives of why I don't eat faces really didn't make much sense to me though. Some people have a good argument I think this one just wasn't one of them [hope I don't get in trouble for this but its what I really feel]. First of all the David starts out by saying, " I had eaten too much junk food; that is, too many cokes, too many M&M's, too many hamburgers. It was right then, after feeling stuffed, plastic, and just plain sick to my stomach, that I decided to change my diet" I mean really, a person overeats then feels guilty for their indulgence and suddenly has a transformation. David goes on to some of the other reasons that he is now a vegetarian and in some small way redeems his argument. I still think that animals were created to be eaten and that's why in nature it just works out. This is just my opinion.   "CRITICAL THINKING Midterm: Fall Session 2004, MSAC, Professor Lane." NAME: Irene Olivia Duron USERNAME: savvyzoi WEB ADDRESS: http://savvyzoi.tripod.com/ 1. Please COPY AND PASTE all of the postings you have done for this ENTIRE class (including your responses to the problems I posted) 2. How would a skeptic explain the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba? How would a believer in Sai Baba argue against such skepticism (this may necessitate doing web based research). 2. A skeptic would explain the miracles of the Sai Baba as many ex devotees do on a web site I found www.exbaba.com. There are plenty of skeptical standpoints here. Some of the people were coming from a Christian standpoint saying,   An excerpt from the www.exbaba.com “Miracle is faith's dearest child and so faith in Sai Baba produces an abundance of rarely verifiable reports of miracles. The art of »materializing« things with a wave of the hand is something trick artists also hold in their power. A chemical analysis of Sai Baba's holy ashes has shown that they are composed of aromatic sediments of scorched husks of rice. Numerous diseased men and women return from Puttaparthi unhealed or, at least, without permanent recovery.”   Another website I found is called http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storyman.htm There is an article here Titled Man of Many Stories I found interesting   “As a Hindu teacher of simple village people, SB has naturally made extensive and effective use of stories taken from Hindu scriptures based on the legends of Hindu gods. I leave the authenticity of such specialized stories for others to examine and judge.”                                                                              Man of Many Stories, Brian Steel 2002   There seem to be so many willing followers largely due to the fact that his “miracles” don’t really come into question. Followers are just supposed to “have faith” As far as many of the miracles are concerned I’m really not buying it. Some people believe things just because they want to and not necessarily because there is any truth behind it. Others just have great imaginations. It is very unfortunate that so many people are being blinded by a “human” that considers himself to be divine and yet commits these cruel acts.   A believer in Sai Baba would argue against such skepticism by arguing that one needs to trust and live by faith. If one cannot live by faith they are not going to be able to have any revelations or miracles of their own. The same argument that Christians use, one can’t really argue with faith one just has to accept it.     3. Why does Dawkins argue that religions are akin to viruses? How would a Biblical Christian argue against Dawkins' theory? Again, web based research may be necessitated. Be specific.   On a site I found Of Dawkins He gives a list of quotes. Here are a few Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm   By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. -- Richard Dawkins, in "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1 Television (12 November 1996) I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. -- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown) Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. -- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001) Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. -- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown) 3. Dawkins argues that that religions are akin to viruses because he basically says that we are open to anything out there. Just like a virus that we spread to those all around us so is it with religion. There are so many out there and we can become infected at any time. After opening my mind to what Dawkins has to say, “I am afraid to say, I see his point” The other members of the church I attend [because my parents expect me to] always say, “be careful to much education draws people away from God” Why is that? Should it be the other way around if all you gain is knowledge?   I think a biblical Christian would argue against Dawkin’s and his theory by saying that one just needs to believe and without question follow. Kind of makes me feel dumb when I think about it and just listen to what other people are telling me. Maybe I just caught that Christian virus unknowingly. I feel just like a sheep. Listening to the defense of well that’s just the way God made it! Accept it or because of your doubt you will be cast into hell for eternity! 4. In light of Memetics, how would you explain the popularity of the Bible? 4. In light of memetics I would explain the popularity of the bible as a story that just spread from person to person throughout time. It seems to be so popular because it appears to have the answers to almost any question one might have and the questions that one feels that don’t have the answers to they are told to just have faith. The bible is also spread in such a massive way. Everywhere you turn there seems to be a church. The people who attend these churches then teach the bible to their children and so forth just multiplying the popularity of the bible as time goes on. One other reason I feel that in light of memtics the bible is so popular is because memetics also has to do with the ideas and beliefs of that culture. It seems that almost if not every culture has to have some form of rules, which then deem to be good or right and the bible gives an extensive list of rules that can be applied in such a manner. 5. How would a skeptic "explain" why CREATIONISM is more accepted and popular than evolutionary theory in the USA?   5. A skeptic would explain why creationism is more accepted than evolutionary theory by explaining that creationism is a concept that is supposed to be just accepted without question. If one questions creationism that are looked at as non-believers and placed in    light especially in the U.S. A country that was balsamically founded in the idea of, “In God We Trust”  6. What is Faqir Chand's most significant revelation concerning religious visions? How would a believer critique Faqir's revelations? Again, web-based research may be needed.   6. Faqir Chand’s most significant revelation came when he was on the battlefield. Faqir Chand says, “The holy from of  Shiv [his guru] appeared before me and said, Faquir worry not the enemy has not come to attack but to take away their dead” After telling his superior about the decision they were safe. Faqir lived to fulfill his vision. A believer would critique Faqir’s revelations as being real.   7. How did Lane relate Faqir Chand's philosophy with UFOs? Why is Lane's correlation incomplete? What is the ultimate argument behind the film, THE SECRET OF FAQIR? Lane related to Faqir Chand’s philosophy with UFOs when he pretty much summed I up the Himalayan connections conclusion saying,   THE HIMALAYAN CONNECTION http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/himalay.htm   “The real mystery, therefore, is not in alien space creatures who prey upon naive inhabitants, but in the very nature of attention. To comprehend the restraining certainty hold of the Chandian Effect and how consciousness evolves through its various boundary thresholds is the most important frontier awaiting the study of UFOs. The problem, as several UFO-ologists have already stated, has not been a case of "unidentified" but one of "misidentified". I would have to say that Lane is incomplete because of his inability to prove that the UFO didn’t exist. It ultimately means that we see what we want to see or make things out to be our own perceived reality.   8. What is the major problem with connecting quantum mechanics with the paranormal? Be specific.   8. http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/3764/diss.html  info. No longer available. 9. Who won the Lane/Caldwell paranormal debate and why? (No need to brown nose here; just explain the strengths/weaknesses in the debate).   9. Well seriously without brown nosing, I feel that Lane is much more open minded and was interested in the views of others. I may have a bias because of the way he presented himself the first day of class as being such an open minded person. Caldwell on the other hand seemed to be more concerned with being right and not very open to anything else. I also feel that Caldwell had a lack of evidence in his examples 10. KEY QUESTION: What is the most "non" rational thing you believe in and why. Now critique this belief in light of the critical thinking guide provided during the second week. If you have sufficiently critiqued your idea (and we need to see evidence of that), then the follow-up question that needs to be answered is this: Why do you still believe in it?   10. The most “non” rational thing I belief I have is that “illegal” drugs are unacceptable or bad and “legal” drugs are acceptable and good.   The reason I still believe this because even though I have logically came to the conclusion that illegal drugs are the same as legal drugs. It is rooted so deep in my heart that illegal drugs are bad and people who do them are bad I really don’t think I go ever get past it.  11. What is the skeptic's manifesto and how does it relate to critical thinking in every day life?   11. The skeptics manifesto is basically, getting the validity you need out of something you believe in by proving that it is scientifically true. If this is not possible the premise should not be considered. This is really hard because it excludes faith. Which means if a person believes in the bible according to the skeptic’s manifesto it should be thrown out due to the fact that it cannot be proven scientifically. In relation to everyday life the skeptics manifesto is hardly ever really applied because people just accept whatever they hear as truth instead of going through the process of figuring out whether or not it can be proven. It actually should be preformed more often in everyday life but I guess being that not all things can be proven to begin with it would be just a source of frustration. Although we should still critically analyze and apply the skeptics manifesto whenever possible. 12. How would a skeptic explain experiences of synchronicity? How would he critique the idea of reincarnation and karma (think Hume)? You may have to do some research on this one.   12. A skeptic might explain experiences of synchronicity as serendipity basically just as chance. Synchronicity might also be explained as someone wanted to see something so bad that they end up making a situation up in their minds that to them is real. As far as the issue of reincarnation and Karma a skeptic would view them as wanting to believe something because of their religion but it all is just in their mind. It is kind of like synchronicity where if you want to believe something so bad in your mind you make it a reality. For example, if I wanted to believe in reincarnation then the idea of reincarnation would be my reality 13. Among all the posts on the Sikh Issue, whose did you find more persuasive and why? Be sure to copy that post here.   13. Among the post on the Sikh issue I found this one by Alexandra to be more persuasive. The main reason I liked this one was because it made the most sense. The wallet was stolen. I also agreed with her when she said, “my second hypothesis is that the Sikh man could actually have some type of psychic ability. The hardest piece of knowledge that one can grasp in critical thinking” From:  "swtxpnay52" <swtxpnay52@y...> Date:  Wed Jan 19, 2005  11:25 pm Subject:  Critical Assignment: LETTER #1 ADVERTISEMENT I'm a: WomanMan Seeking a: ManWoman Age: to City or ZIP:   Take our FREE Personality Test   Alexandra Jovellanos January 19, 2005 There are so many explanations as to why this "miracle" occurred. The hardest part is taking the situation, taking a step back, and looking at the situation as a whole. My first hypothesis to the account is that the American's wallet was stolen by the Sikh man. The Sikh, who apparently spoke English quite well, could have been a professional thief. In the American's wallet, there could have been a picture of his family with their names written on the back. My second hypothesis is that the Sikh man could actually have some type of psychic ability. The hardest piece of knowledge that one can grasp in critical thinking is that sometimes you may be wrong or things can happen without explanation. 14. How would a skeptic analyze the Iraq/USA war? Be sure to support your answers.   14. A perfect example of how a skeptic would analyze the Iraq/US war is how Michael Moore did it in his movie Fahrenheit 911. After watching his movie this skeptic leaves his audience very confused. After watching his movie it’s really hard to believe the US had or has any business in Iraq. Moore brought up so many good skeptical concerns that even the people in the theater watching the movie began to make comments out loud. The main issue that kept being pressed was that Bush is only there for the money that can be made in the oil. 15. How would you critically analyze the issue of gay marriage? What are the arguments pro and con. Take a position but defend it VIA RATIONAL (not emotional) arguments.   15. I would say that gay marriage should be accepted. In critically analyzing this issue I came to the conclusion that it is very unfair not to let them marry. For example, upon the death of a partner, a gay or lesbian person is left vulnerable to attacks over estate issues by the descendant’s family. It is also very unfair that because they are not “legally” Married, gay and lesbian individuals who are in relationships cannot receive their partner’s social security checks after the latter dies. These are some of the reasons that after critically analyzing the issue of gay marriage I feel it should be accepted.