OK. I will read it, then get back to you to see what you are talking about.

This isn't about the "proof" subject anymore. This is about the thread I just went to.

Should I start a new thread?

Ok. I skimmed through it. Question: everyone's reasoning was so methodical, do you really believe the majority of people THINK/rationalize like that?

Is there something wrong with the fact that they don't?

What I took from it, a few guys were sitting around the table, trying to crack the "code" of Life....That's all I sensed....Like y'all were in your brainstorming state....LOL or were y'all just obsessed with words and their double-meanings??? I'm curious.

 

 

The problem that I've noticed is that most people do think in a methodical manner, using evidence to form conclusions, except whn it comes to matters of religion.

Why does religion always get a pass?

It's instilled as though it's tangible when in actuality it is not.

 

Sigh, so this is why Poe's Law is so difficult.

I was not referring to your personal experiences, dumbass! I was utilizing a hypothetical example to explain the subjectivity of anecdotal evidence.

However, just to illustrate my point even more, if you knew anything about supernatural investigations, you would know that the car doesn't have to be in your room, nor did I suggest that it was in your room. Imagine that it is 11:00 pm and there is a window in the room. A car drives by and its headlights shine through the window. This kind of scenario has been the basis for a plethora of claims of "hauntings."

 

Wrong! Stop referring to my explanations until you can show that you have understood them.

Your experiences are important to you, but they are meaningless in an academic context.

What is supernatural evidence?

There is subjective and objective. Subjective varies. Objective does not. So, my answer to your question would be yes on subjective evidence.
 

 Hahaha, alright, alright, apparently the thread has moved on.

 

No.

Eh, it would also depend on what they are thinking about. Typically, when we start discussing a person's religious convictions, the light turns off. 

If people cling to their beliefs, then they're not open to new ideas. This is the basis for many problems with humanity.  

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

Well, it's important for us to dissect the meaning of words to clarify certain topics.  

Hmm, interesting threads.

 

Evidence does not have to be 'tangible', something that can be touched, visible, or whatever, to be analysed scientifically. Psychology does have problematic aspects as a science, in that most of its evidence is 'intangible' and based on personal accounts of experiences and perceptions. But with enough carefully designed studies across many individuals, consistent and useful patterns can be found, and used to develop hypotheses and then tested in further studies.

And of course we have a lot of very useful data from things like fMRI studies which are allowing us to relate mental phenomena to physically measurable phenomena, providing much valuable new insight into the nature of consciousness, mind, and perception.

'Evidence' does need to be testable or verifiable in some way, typically by being independently and consistently replicated by other people, and subject to scrutiny by other people knowledgeable in the relevant field of knowledge, to minimise the effects of personal biases and errors.

When reports of some general phenomenon or experience vary widely from individual, that is a strong indicator that there is a very high subjective element, IOW it most likely is connected with or generated by something in the individual mind, rather than some common external reality, although some aspect of the individuals external environment or life history is very likely involved, so we should investigate for some common background or history among the different people reporting it.

That tendency for people to believe many things which are totally incorrect is an objective, verifiable fact. So when we demand something more than personal anecdote before we take seriously accounts of stuff which cannot readily be either proved or disproved directly, we are making a perfectly RATIONAL decision.

NOTE: we are not questioning your accounts of these experiences, just the certainty with you cling to your interpretation of them.

The approach is justified by the massive evidence that people can become totally convinced by such mental experiences, whether dreams or sights and sounds, that only they can detect or that they cannot explain, which have been shown by careful studies to be totally generated by there mind, having no external reality. Remember this includes cases where what they believe in is some physical fact or happening which can be shown in the most explicit and incontrovertible sense to be mistaken.

When the belief is supernatural, you are on far shakier grounds, with no physical evidence, IOW pure fantasy and/or speculation. Even when you can point to some sort of matching of the experience with some actual real-world event, you cannot rule out coincidence, which tends to be far more likely than most people without a background in statistics and probability are not well equipped to assess. Apart from anything else, to put any such event in context, you would need to have recorded every dream or vision which had similar feelings associated with it, and noted later whether or not some event happened which unambiguously related to it.

IOW without noting all the times a vision or dream did NOT predict anything, your 'evidence', while still being evidence, is extremely weak.

Welcome! A bit late greeting, but... Well, it's gonna be a long time before I read such a... 164 posts now.
I have a similar opinion as you, because I saw a few of my past lives myself thanks to a regression therapy, and I saw it work for like 200 people as well, this is why it convinced me. That's it, simple, huh? Does it count as a belief too?
Btw, my mom is not a medium, but besides a regression therapy, she does the unattaching of spirits from the people, so technically, she makes a mediums of her clients for a while
I had seen a lot of strange things, paranormal phenomena perhaps, on my own eyes and skin, so I don't demand a proof from you, I already have mine. But we can share experiences and learn something new.

That's too vague. I've seen said it much more precisely, and with exactly defined methods to fix all the world's problems. These methods will be applied when the world will stop riding on the already dead horse of speculative economics.

So, let's start reading these 164 posts, so I can join in.
As you see, this forum is a den of subjectivity. It's perfectly working with it's primary purpose, which is a fight against a threat of Christianity and other dangerous religions, (which is very real) but it's competence doesn't reach to the area we know.

OOOh, that's my dream, that's why I'm doing this all!!! I don't want fame, I don't want worshippers, I want aura vision goggles at every doctor's office, I want cars, aircrafts and spacecrafts running on Tesla's "cold electricity", and I want all this and more to work for the benefit of all humanity. And I don't mind if scientists will get the fame. It's the only way, actually. I'd better be more polite to DG, and maybe on Xmas I'll get a message, that he discovered the system of nadis, and on my birthday, that he found the etheric body, which is connected by nadis to physical body, and which is the missing link between mind-spirit causality he's (actually not) looking for, and for which he'd surely get a Nobel. That would have to be celebrated.
(meant very seriously, only with a slight flavour of personal, non-offensive sarcasm)




You'd be surprised. Arj's claims are similar, if not identic, to many, many other people's claims, some of whom I know, or my family knows, or our friends knows... We unite people with such a similar interests. This gives us a certain degree of objectivity, Arj is certainly not the one who invented mediumship, and I can say with absolute certainity, that he refers to a very frequent phenomenon. I can evaluate what he says according to a certain standard and a vast theoretical basis. I certainly do have some objections, but these are of a technical character and not related to an existence of his experiences.
Epistemology doesn't contradict this, a frequent subjective phenomenon becomes a basis for it's objective model of explanation. The scientific methods brings a light of understanding even here, though without an official blessing.

This also means that I disagree with Arj that's there's no objectivity in there. It certainly is, but to know that, Arj would have to read at least several more books, and some of them aren't easy to read. This is a part of nature, a playground for future technology, and as such, it's damn extensive and complicated. Our primitive glimpses of that part of nature may be subjective, but the real scientific work will uncover everything about it, step by step. Of course, a "discovery" of nadis comes first, then for many years nothing, then etheric body, then even more years nothing and then will be discovered the astral body, which Arj uses primarily for his psychism. Arj, you're gonna be old, when they'll apologize to you. Maybe dead. Scientists takes it always the longer way.
Btw, care to edit the 1st post and add some personal data?

How can he know this? Even if yes (I do) how can he or me answer in a way meaningful for you? This knowledge I'd have to refer to is extensive, and to you, it would look like I can just pull out of my sleeve an "explanation" for everything. But my main interest is in the most basic entry point for this knowledge, the existence of etheric-physical matter. This is immediately relevant, which your question isn't.

We psychics must stand our ground and defeat the evil skepticists, who just defeated the evil Christians, who defeated the evil Roman polytheists!
No, seriously, we need some standards for discussion, and mainly a mutual respect on both sides. I tried to demonstrate this here.

 

The subject of your question wasn't the sun. It was 'where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???' Please stay on topic.

 

What? The answer on your question is "reincarnation on outer planets, in etheric-material bodies."
The absurdity of this idea is ony your personal feeling, just as absurd was flying, 200 years ago.
The evidence is - only you don't have it, and according to the theory of discussion on metaphysical topics, that's your fault and your problem. Why, I demonstrated it on that link in my signature. I've lived for all my life in a house full of evidence (hundreds of regression therapy clients were here) and full of books describing the reincarnation into detail, theoretically and practically, so don't make a fool of yourself. Isn't it like sticking your fingers into your ears and humming loudly? Anyway, it's silly.

You probably didn't notice that ROFL smiley next to this. Man, it was a fuckin' intellectual joke. But you're now in your childish mode.
Every new idea must overcome a resistence, and so the revolutionaries may find themselves on the place of obscurants they had overthrown. This is the point of this joke.

Me too. This is why I gathered a plenty of personal evidence, but I did it by myself, and so must you, if you ever want any evidence.
The theory of discussion on metaphysical topics says so.

Ok I'll change it. Here you go:IS THAT BETTER?

Show us the evidence, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

I ignored the rofl icon because I do not see anything to laugh about except your ignorance and thats not funny; its sad.

Your delusional ideas are not new. They've been around for centuries and there is no basis for the persistance of these ideas other than delusion.

The joke is you.

You too? You're lying because you are trying to promote pschic paranormal superstitious hogwash. I'm imagining you traveling town to town in a covered wagon pulled by a team of horses to set up your palm-reading tents with the crystal ball and a big sign out front that says: "Your future told here. Magic performed in front of your very eyes"

Personal experiences is not evidence of your pschic paranormal superstitious hogwash. Your personal experiences are evidence that you are having delusions.

What is the ontology of reincarnation? Of pschic "abilities"? Of "etheric-material bodies"? HUH? You don't know what you're talking about.

I'll give you a clue: SCIENTIFIC METHOD Read about it.

Please remove the link to your site from your signature, unless you want to pay to advertise it

If that's the case, then YOU misinterpreted me. I never said ignored. I think it's absolutely rational to be skeptical in lieu of this environment. It's dumb to think otherwise (but it is irrational to be consumed with so much hostility and rage). However, I said what's the point in begging the question when the same conclusion will not be reached BECAUSE this is just considered anecdotal evidence. Meaning, like I made plenty of examples in the posts prior, someone else will just say it's a shadow from a car, or a coincidence, or wishful thinking. That's not ignoring the evidence that's just seeing a different point of view. That's been my point from the VERY beginning. 

Please remember, (I've said this ALL along 2) I don't and have NEVER cared to "prove" shit to you or DG or anyone else. I don't give a fuck about what you consider "objective evidence". LOL. When will this dawn on you people? Because it seems as though it STILL hasn't.

 

What the hell is a fanatical skeptic?

Or is that just someone who doesnt consider 'experience' as evidence which I sure you will find covers 99% of rational people.

 

Wildest thread I remember reading at RRS.

Bob Spence summed it up pretty well for me. The mind creates imagination, understanding how is science. Let's get a hold of ourselves, and test our ideas, regardless of how emotional.

"Reincarnation", now so perverted by imaginative folklore, has been abandoned as a useful word of communication by many eastern philosophers, which was simply an early intuition of thermodynamics, and was not a belief that consciousness would stay assembled as an individual.

"Karma", same thing. Project and receive, good or bad, basically true and simple.

Keep the "awe", get rid of magical beliefs and dogma by understanding how our minds and the cosmos works. Go science.

Being skeptical is a handicap? How does downplaying the validity and importance of an emotional argument prevent one from working with abstract ideals? 

I don't know if I'm a fanatical skeptic, but I certainly don't know you as well as you do. How did you come up with this definition?

I assume what is plausible based on what I know. 

I was under the impression that a fanatical skeptic wouldn't believe in heaven. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

It must feel fulfilling to depict our senses and logic as Gods, but that doesn't change what they are. Humans must depend on these things because these are the only reliable methods by which we can explore the world. 

A fundamentalist type belief in coincidence would suggest that we must cling to any unlikely succession of events as a coincidence. I don't think this is case with most of the people on this forum. You have to carefully observe such happenings and make logical conclusions based on your investigations to determine whether or not it is a coincidence. 

Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. 

We can all travel to the nearest traffic light and watch it. We can take pictures and record its changes. On the other hand, I doubt I you could show me one reliable video of a UFO sighting. Am I saying there are no UFOs? Of course not, but based on what I know now, I think it is rational for me to, by default, doubt the veracity of any claims of confrontations with extraterrestrials. The main problem is that claims of the supernatural are the anomaly, not the norm. Furthermore, these claims are virtually always debunked after careful analysis. Just like with religion, the proponents have the obligation to submit evidence, not the skeptics. 

Huh? So a fanatical skeptic will just stand there and let the tiger eat him? I don't understand your point.

If I could be said to a 'rigid' belief, it is that for something to be treated as very likely to be true, it should be supported by independent evidence, evidence not just originating in my own mind, and not based purely on 'authority', although sources with a good relevant 'track record' will score more highly. What my own thoughts contribute is examining the evidence and arguments for consistency and coherence.

Not quite sure how you could provide 'evidence' that this is an invalid belief...

So I am happy to be called 'fanatical' for refusing to change this belief.

By abstract ideals I mean things like justice, freedom, brotherhood, public benefit (though this is a bit sinister ideal) and so on. These are abstract thoughts, and to employ them in reality, they must be expressed in a specific, rational thoughts, which is often a problem. Justice for who, who first, who will judge and how, and who will pay him and watch him? These are the practical questions which arises.
Indeed, to this abstract category also belongs things like a soul, this is why many mystics speaks of it. This is the initial idea, but if this idea should be practically manifested in physical form, then it takes a form of esoteric teachings about spiritual 'realms'. You're correct, many such people are materialists, they just differ three states of dense physical matter, four kinds of etheric matter, seven kinds of astral matter, and so on. For them, there's nothing supernatural about it. Fortunately I am sensitive to a part of the influences on the etheric level, so I know that at least this part is a functional model. Maybe what I describe as the etheric matter, is nothing else than a dark matter, known from astrophysics, and I'd welcome an evidence for that. But for other people, it takes a great deal of idealism to come to the same conclusion. It's amazing how they can find out that there is 'something', even if they can't touch or see it. Note that it contains no emotional persuasion, like a fear or a reward.
It's also good if someone else, like you, is able to hypothetically consider this idea, without squirming by an uncomfortable irrationality of this thought.

Right. However, an intuition can be trained. There's a futurologic theory, that rational processes, like computing a numbers, or a logical processes will become natural and sub-conscious, and we will consciously work with intuition as a main tool of the mind.

I think this is a bad example, because it seems very natural that people like Erwin Schröedinger or Niels Bohr had drawn a parallels from quantum mechanics to mysticism, which nowadays resulted in the quantum mysticism. This seems like a very intuitive act.

You're correct. But in my experience, so far, the only precise observations about me were how well I'm doing at an office work. (not well, actually) But practically all evaluation of my hobby were rather primitive appeals to illusion, faith or a lack of criticism. If it would be a correct evaluation, I would either accept it, because it's so precise, or get angry, because it's so precisely pointing out the flaws. I often accept a more perfect formulations, so I'm able to recognize if someone actually has the point about this topic, but most of the skeptic evaluations works only with me and dozens of people around who lives, works and has families, as being utterly crazy. This is not the case, so this evaluations fails.

Well, possibly. But if I think that the group U.F.O.'s I saw didn't look like a meteorological ballon, then I must say it. The balloons aren't that big, doesn't glow, doesn't change colors, doesn't stay at one place for many minutes, and doesn't disappear.
 

Surely, a faint glimpses of something strange can't be really compared to a normal function of senses. What I mean are clear observations in normal state (like not drunk), which deserves the same evaluation, as a normal observation of any other thing. I had met a skeptics, who tried to bend or  omit an important details of my descriptions so that it would fit to some trivial explanation of theirs.

 

Surely it is a satire.  But I'm not threatening theistically anyone with an eternal suffering in Hell, or God forbid, by eternal boredom in Heaven. I live with being consciously aware of a certain aspects of reality, which a majority of other people isn't aware of. This gives me a certain responsibility to those who wants their model of reality to be perfect. I have  one of many pieces missing in their mosaic of the world, and I search where it fits in there. Maybe somewehere, where the mosaic isn't built yet, but hopefully will be soon. It surely sounds like a reference to one book of the Strugacki Brothers, where one of characters spoke about a philosophic idea how every generation builds a beautiful temple of human knowledge, which is here for all the humanity.

As for the methods of logics and reasoning, these are OK, but the scientific institution might use some kind of deep shock, a paradigm shift, because they neglect a very valuable methods and resources which could make the scientific work more sophisticated and faster. Some of esoteric teachings (like the existence of etheric matter) are a functional models, they only need do be proven by science, expressed in scientific terms.
As for the science as such, there is an exaggerated rate of specialization. A specialist is maybe good at his particular sub-branch of his genre of his field, but the true nature of the reality is, that everything is connected to everything, and a specialist fails to see these clues for his work in other areas of knowledge. If the scientific practice will improve, it will also be in a greater universality of the scientists themselves.

 

 

Luminon, re UFO's, I hope you are aware that weather balloons are hardly the only explanation presented for UFO sightings. I was curious when I first read your reference to weather balloons in your list of skeptic's Gods, since I hadn't seen you talking about UFO phenomena before. Took me a while to realize you may have lumped UFO's in to your grab-bag of topics that you see being unfairly attacked by skeptics.

There is significant evidence that the classic Roswell stuff may have been connected with US military reconaissance balloons aimed at monitoring Russian nuclear activities - I have actually seen the re,ains of one of these things in a Moscow museum.

Then there are militarty aircraft, reflections from formation of high flying birds when the sun is at certain low angles and relative directions, etc, etc.

I was prepared to allow your use of 'weather balloon' as a stand-in for mundane explanations of UFO's, but your apparent assumption that that was the only alternative explanation for your personal sighting is a bit disappointing. It suggests you have not read enough of the writings of the more reasonable skeptics to fully grasp the 'other side'. Have you listened to/read much of Joe Nickell or Phil Plait?

For a non-theist, you're an extremely arrogant little kid aren't you? Don't get your panties in a knot again.

If you can cite an official definition for fanatical skeptic, that would be helpful, but you haven't. In fact, I doubt there is any official definition since it's a phrase instead of one word, and I've never even come across this term before. As a result, it is certainly up for subjective interpretation, especially given its virtually oxymoronic connotations. The action of clinging to a set of beliefs simply doesn't match up with the definition of the word skepticism itself. Thus, I'm terribly sorry, but your words are not the law, no matter how many times you underline and capitalize them. You need to refer to evidence or construct logical arguments instead of debating from the authority of yourself.   

In essence, you are insinuating that we are dumb because we didn't automatically read your mind and spout exactly what you would say. Obviously, you are already making the assumption that your interpretation is 100%, HIV positively, correct. Is it possible, Arj, that not everything in language is absolute?

1) You automatically jump to infallible positions.

2) You repeatedly contradict yourself and then you claim that you had been spouting the opinions of the people you are debating all along. Even though you originally called them deluded, irrational, dumbasses, morons, etc.  

3) You utilize a kind of strange doublethink where you admit that people are smarter than you while claiming that you are superior to everyone else. 

4) You refuse to admit it when you make a mistake. When you disagree with many of the posters with college degrees, the natural conclusion is that you are right and they are stupid.

Finally, many of the people on this forum have been extremely respectful to you, (I'm not included) yet you will not hesitate at any opportunity to call everyone an idiot. Yup, you're the kind of person that is very susceptible to religion. The only reason you're not completely religious is because of the influence of your family and environment. Well, at least you believe in an afterlife. 

 

This is a DAMN lie. I can count on all of two fingers how many people have been respectful of other people's beliefs. And I agree. You are not included. And I haven't made a mistake in my beliefs. I said I'm not here to prove myself and it seemed like no one could hear me. So who made the error here? Especially when you concluded that that would be nonsense.

Ahh I see Arj, you are equating 'not respecting a person's beliefs' with 'not respecting the person'.

Well, we do make that distinction, and will make no apologies for not taking your belief seriously.

You seem to regard our pointing what we honestly believe are the mistakes and errors in your beliefs as 'not treating you with respect'.

You in reponse not only make clear that you do not accept our beliefs, which is fine with us, we want people to come on and tell us exactly what they see as wrong with our beliefs and world-views, we don't expect everyone to 'respect' our beliefs.

What we don't approve of is straight out insults, 'ad hominem' attacks, which you have made at at least as much as anyone from this 'side'.

Are you really that insecure in your beliefs that you react so violently to any questioning of them? Is that why you aren't intereating in actually debating them? You afraid you may not be able to defend them? Because that is at least a reasonable conclusion to draw from your behaviour here.

Were those examples supposed to justify your claim that the "brutality, partiality, and animosity in this forum could mirror the bigotry of the KKK." ?

Oh, and 'radical atheist' is more intelligible label and less offensive (at least to me) than 'fanatical skeptic'.

No I'm not. You don't know me as a person so how could I get those two confused? First, I'm a woman and everybody's been calling me a dude and I have yet to address that because I'm not OFFENDED by that obvious PERSONAL assumption. That contradicts your theory. I am strictly talking about how my beliefs are being disrespected in the introduction section.

That's my point. I don't recall asking you to.

If that were the case, then this debate wouldn't be 200 posts deep. PERIOD.

Ok. So defending myself is the same thing as being the aggressor??? No wonder this plea rarely stands up in court.

Skepticism and disrespect are TWO different things.

No. This is why. "The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people [APPEAR TO BE] so full of doubts" -- a modern christ , Bertrand Russell.

No. I thought the fact that this debate is NOW 200 posts deep would prove that point.

Great. I was hoping you would FINALLY get my point. For Atheists who claim to know so much, they sure like to play dumb when it's convenient.

Just for you. 

But that was my point. I'm not debating shit. Period. And y'all are mad at me for this very reason. What's not getting through to you here?????????????????????????????? I feel like I'm starting back at post one with all of this circular reasoning.

 

I am intrigued by the fact that you have posted this quote. I love this quote; in fact, I have it in one of my blogs on myspace. However, I am extremely suspicious as to why you typed "APPEAR TO BE" and enclosed it with brackets since this phrase is not in the original quote and changes the entire meaning of the sentence. 

I am also puzzled by the descriptor, "a modern christ," since he is non-theist.