Psychics And The Paranormal

[webmdave]

Other than having left Christianity, I'd say we are a widely diverse group. With that in mind, it's probably wise to accept the fact that people will have strikingly differing views on a variety of topics.

 

So, I'd like to ask that everyone try to remember just one thing during these discussions: This site is intended to encourage those who have decided to leave Christianity.

 

Thanks.

[SpaceMonk]

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I can't call myself atheist.

I think most things that are currently seen as paranormal will eventually be explained by science.

I love paranormal things, because I love looking for explanations. I don't have any belief to defend, or that I'm afraid will be crushed.

 

Anyway here are some of the things I am intrigued by, which hold me back from 'becoming' atheist:

 

- A TV documentary on OBE's on the Australian ABC (it's been on a couple of times and I hope will be on again) which interviewed a woman who had been blind from birth.

She was in a car accident and taken to hospital. On the operating table she found herself rising out of her body and seeing for the first time in her life.

She looked down on herself and those working on her, and was able to describe the sight. Then she rose out through the roof above the building from where she could see over the entire town.

She was just beginning to really enjoy it when she felt herself being pulled back to her broken body, since the doctors were making progress in 'saving' her life. She really didn't want to go back and was even thinking something like, "Why are you bothering to try and keep me in that body?' but she awoke later as her blind self once again.

 

- Many cases of past life memories proving reincarnation, which I won't go into here, but some can be read here:

http://www.ianlawton.com/misc5.htm

(the author also has an official challenge to materialist skeptics here: http://www.ianlawton.com/misc4.htm)

 

- The fact that the governments of the world have spent millions investigating these areas themselves, in particular the cold war CIA vs the KGB in their Remote Viewing of each others secret sites and projects.

I recommend the internet radio show, http://www.theparacast.com/, in particular their September 17th episode interviewing an ex-CIA remote viewer who had success in identifying several Soviet secret projects that were unable to be known about any other way. He also explains the strict methods they had to use to avoid being influenced by what others may have wanted them to see, so that what was reported was more reliable.

CIA documents on the subject are available (for purchase ) here:

http://www.rviewer.com/SGArchive.html

[AKR]

Dave, do you mind if I jump in and remind you that you're being an asshole?

 

It's easy to dismiss everyone else's experiences because they're not yours. Get over yourself. Nobody has the answers to everything and neither do you.

 

Jesus fucking Christ, it pisses me off when militant asses like yourself preach to everyone else how they know better about What Really Happened than the people who were really there do.

 

I'll say it once and probably again: This website and people like you have seriously made me hate atheists. I'm so damn sick and tired of their thinking that all they have to do is say "It's bullshit" and their making that statement proves to them that it's fact. Then when somebody calls them a fundamentalist they get all pissy and whine about how open-minded they are and how everyone else is the poor half-brained loser for not agreeing with everything they say.

 

It never occurs to them that perhaps they're putting themselves through the same mind-filtering false-intelligence bullshit that fundy Christians and Muslims do.

 

So I seriously fucking hate you, and everyone like you. In fact I may very well leave this board, because I'm damned nauseous over the Richard Dawkins fellatio, the raising of atheism to the very salvation and pinnacle of human development, the hypocrisy, and the blind single-minded asshood of so many atheists. At least Christians teach themselves to be humble. You people make me sick and I've had it.

 

lol, i love the first line of your rant, and i fully agree. he gives atheists a bad name. dave is using faith the same as christians do-just to claim the opposite. it makes no difference to me. it's stupid either way you use it. i don't feel like reading through this whole thread. i just wanted to back you up.

[AKR]

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I can't call myself atheist.

I think most things that are currently seen as paranormal will eventually be explained by science.

I love paranormal things, because I love looking for explanations. I don't have any belief to defend, or that I'm afraid will be crushed.

 

Anyway here are some of the things I am intrigued by, which hold me back from 'becoming' atheist:

 

- A TV documentary on OBE's on the Australian ABC (it's been on a couple of times and I hope will be on again) which interviewed a woman who had been blind from birth.

She was in a car accident and taken to hospital. On the operating table she found herself rising out of her body and seeing for the first time in her life.

She looked down on herself and those working on her, and was able to describe the sight. Then she rose out through the roof above the building from where she could see over the entire town.

She was just beginning to really enjoy it when she felt herself being pulled back to her broken body, since the doctors were making progress in 'saving' her life. She really didn't want to go back and was even thinking something like, "Why are you bothering to try and keep me in that body?' but she awoke later as her blind self once again.

 

- Many cases of past life memories proving reincarnation, which I won't go into here, but some can be read here:

http://www.ianlawton.com/misc5.htm

(the author also has an official challenge to materialist skeptics here: http://www.ianlawton.com/misc4.htm)

 

- The fact that the governments of the world have spent millions investigating these areas themselves, in particular the cold war CIA vs the KGB in their Remote Viewing of each others secret sites and projects.

I recommend the internet radio show, http://www.theparacast.com/, in particular their September 17th episode interviewing an ex-CIA remote viewer who had success in identifying several Soviet secret projects that were unable to be known about any other way. He also explains the strict methods they had to use to avoid being influenced by what others may have wanted them to see, so that what was reported was more reliable.

CIA documents on the subject are available (for purchase ) here:

http://www.rviewer.com/SGArchive.html

 

 

how would the existance of anything you mentioned prove there is a god? all it would prove is that our consciousness is not limited to our physical body. just because religious people attach these things to religion doesn't mean they really are. a lot of christians thing aliens are demons. does this mean that if aliens are real, that christianity is real? hell no. don't forget good ol' occam's razor.

 

correction: a lot of people "THINK"

 

what's up with the inability to edit posts?

[dibby]

Very interesting Space Monk. We had a TV documentary in England about a young boy who ever since the age of 2 years had been speaking about a life on a Scottish island. He gave the name of his family, what sort of house they lived in, and where it was in relation to the rest of the island. He describes falling through some sort of "portal" when he died to his current family. When taken to the island for the first time the details prove correct. The only thing they cannot verify is his statement about how his past life father died.

 

A living relative of the family on the island was traced. He says he is pretty sure father didn,t die in the way the boy described. But I would say 95% was verified.

 

A fairly, convincing case that something is going on here whether past life, or not. The researcher they contacted in the USA says there are hundreds of such cases on file.

[Kurari]

I just beat you to hell and back with one,....

Since it's your childish game, I'll let you win.

 

[SpaceMonk]

...

how would the existance of anything you mentioned prove there is a god? all it would prove is that our consciousness is not limited to our physical body. just because religious people attach these things to religion doesn't mean they really are. a lot of christians thing aliens are demons. does this mean that if aliens are real, that christianity is real? hell no. don't forget good ol' occam's razor.

correction: a lot of people "THINK"

...

You're right about that.

I was on about the topic of 'psychics and paranormal'.

I'm not recommending any religion, especially not any god.

I only said it stops me from labelling myself 'atheist' because, although I don't believe in any god, I can't yet throw out the possibility of spirit, life beyond death, etc, which aren't what people would normally think of by the label 'atheist'.

[LosingMyReligion]

Anyway, I do believe.....

I do think.....

I also believe.....

Maybe we.....

I also think we.....

 

But I no longer believe in god or any of the concocted characters in Holy books...

 

So I guess that makes me athiest, perhaps....

Your argument for the paranormal seems to be based on your opinion. Your opinion also seems to have shifted regarding religion. But neither is apparently based on research, fact or science. Without the proper study, you are very subject to slipping back into religion. You should abandon religion based on something more than "I no longer believe" just as you should believe in the paranormal only if you can base that on something more than "I believe."

 

 

*Sigh*

 

That is not it.

 

This thread was not an argument for the paranormal. I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

 

The point of it is that I am believing in super natural things less and less and I wanted educated opinions on the paranormal/supernatural issues that I used to believe in...There is a distinction.

 

I wanted a rational explanation for why there was a hiveless swarm of bees hanging out in my tree...Aside from the angel of death...

 

Again, I am being THOROUGH in my transition from evangelical to athiest and I NEEDED different opinions to counter my beliefs. I was basically asking for scientific evidence for all the stuff that I used to believe in...

 

I'm not basing my deconversion on emotion ala, "OH I hate god. Fuck off I'm an athiest now!" No, that is not me. So the comment about "falling back into religion" was uneccessary. Been there, done it, and I really have no need to go back to it...

 

Once again, I created this thread for people to debunk the paranormal. I just wanted rational explanations(maybe topics to read about)...

[Dave]

I'm not arguing FOR the paranormal, just pointing out that we don't really know either way.

I'm trying to explain that we do know that much of what is called "paranormal" is junk science and will never be proven real because there is nothing there. Every test they've come up with to prove their pet paranormal project has failed. There is no known mechanism for any of it to work. My question is how long do we have to look for unicorns before we say they don't exist?

We can only go on what makes the most sense. To me, it makes more sense that SOMETHING is going on in SOME cases, rather than believing that thousands of people are all making up having the same experiences. For example, it makes more sense to me that a "haunting" that multiple people experience independantly of each other is the result of an energy anomaly, rather than say that it's "nothing."

That's the exact same rationalization that theists use to support their belief in gods. I don't buy it.

What are your sources to say that all evidence has failed to prove anything is going on? There are the little things like indescrepencies in temperature readings and odd effects on electronic equipment that have not been explained in ALL cases. There is a study in which a parrot was able to identify picture cards held by it's owner in a seperate room. These things are not proof for anything, but they mean there are things we have yet to prove are baseless "nothings." Failure to provide evidence doesn't really mean much in this case, since if we don't know what we are dealing with, we don't know if we even have the capability to test or prove whatever it is.

In those studied you mentioned, and I've read about them, all had flaws or outright fraud. The birds "study" I believe was done by Sheldrake. Read some of the skeptical literature and they'll give you the details on the flaws in his "research." Failure to provide evidence speaks volumes. How many years have they been studying this stuff? And they have yet to come up with anything?

This differs from deities, for me, in that it makes sense to me that there may be more to science than we currently know of. Deities make no sense no matter how I look at it/them. None of this needs to point to any higher powers or anything beyond what we have as atheists, it just means that there may be more going than what meets the eye of the average person. Or maybe there's not. But I think writing all of it off without a second thought would be ignorant. There is so much of our brain that we don't use, and the five basic senses have a documented range much further than what most will ever experience, so who's to say that some don't have valid, freaky experiences?

Again, the exact same arguments theists use; " There MUST be more than what we see." I'll say the same thing I tell the theists; prove it. When proof is provided, I'll gladly say I was wrong. But until that proof arrives I see no reason to believe any of it.

For me, first hand accounts by people I trust are enough "evidence" for me that something goes on, though not proof that it's a matter of psychics and ghosties. Just that we can't currently say what it is, and I think humans need that ego check.

Yes, it is that ego that wants to put humans at the center of a magical Universe. For good reason those stories, or "first hand accounts" are not acceptable as evidence or proof of anything but the gullibility of humans.

 

 

lol, i love the first line of your rant, and i fully agree. he gives atheists a bad name.....

Gee, forgive me then. I didn't know telling the truth gave Atheists a bad name.

[Dave]

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I can't call myself atheist.

I think most things that are currently seen as paranormal will eventually be explained by science.

Based on what? From what I've seen all of this paranormal stuff has already been explained either as outright fraud, showmanship (as in Uri Geller), poor methodology, or just plain belief.

I love paranormal things, because I love looking for explanations. I don't have any belief to defend, or that I'm afraid will be crushed.

 

Anyway here are some of the things I am intrigued by, which hold me back from 'becoming' atheist:

 

- A TV documentary on OBE's ......

No one here has said that OBEs do not exist. That they happen has been proven beyond a doubt. WHAT they are has been explained as the brain starting to shut down. There is no reason to believe, except belief, that they are some pointer to an unexplained and ill defined afterlife.

- Many cases of past life memories proving reincarnation..

All of those cases have not withstood skeptical inquiry.

- The fact that the governments of the world have spent millions investigating these areas themselves, in particular the cold war CIA vs the KGB in their Remote Viewing of each others secret sites and projects....

Those are more of an urban legend than reality. Yes, they did some studies, but they failed to provide anything of any use. You can read up on that CIA project here.

 

 

I was on about the topic of 'psychics and paranormal'.

I'm not recommending any religion, especially not any god.

I only said it stops me from labelling myself 'atheist' because, although I don't believe in any god, I can't yet throw out the possibility of spirit, life beyond death, etc, which aren't what people would normally think of by the label 'atheist'.

An Atheist lacks a belief in gods. That's it. As you've seen here many Atheists believe in many other things. You can still believe in ghosts and rightly call yourself an Atheist.

[trashy]

Again, I am being THOROUGH in my transition from evangelical to athiest and I NEEDED different opinions to counter my beliefs. I was basically asking for scientific evidence for all the stuff that I used to believe in...

I truly did miss that part, sorry.

 

I would utilize the following sources (and I apologize ahead of time for not having the time to look up the links, please google them)

 

Penn & Teller

James Randi (http://randi.org)

Skeptical Enquirer

CSICOP

 

They handle a lot of paranormal issues, from levitation to ghosts to remote sensing to tarot to palm reading to auras to psychics, etc. Kudos on your persistence!

[Lorena Rodriguez]

what's up with the inability to edit posts?

 

You can only edit within 10 minutes of your post. Subscribers can edit anytime.

[Acolyte]

All of those cases have not withstood skeptical inquiry

 

Depending on the kind of skepticism we're dealing with, that could be said of anything. Face it, people will believe what they want to believe, and skeptics are no exception.

[Dave]

All of those cases have not withstood skeptical inquiry

Depending on the kind of skepticism we're dealing with, that could be said of anything. Face it, people will believe what they want to believe, and skeptics are no exception.

And I'm sure you believe that. I don't. I've been asking all along for proof. Show me the proof and I'll not have to choose to believe or not since there will be no choice. And your argument here was another example of the same rationalizing that theists use. Again, all I'm asking for is proof, not excuses, not conjecture, not "what if's", not some projection into the future, just plain old, simple, proof.

[Delicate_Catastrophe]

And I'm sure you believe that. I don't. I've been asking all along for proof. Show me the proof and I'll not have to choose to believe or not since there will be no choice. And your argument here was another example of the same rationalizing that theists use. Again, all I'm asking for is proof, not excuses, not conjecture, not "what if's", not some projection into the future, just plain old, simple, proof.

 

Proof or not, it's obvious that there are cases of SOMETHING happening that we can't explain with CURRENT science. Are you denying that? Are you denying studies in which things have been found that cannot yet be explained? I'm not talking T.V. psychics or anything like that.

 

One reason little is found is that scientists need to make a living, and studying the paranormal isn't the way to do that. It's more of a hobby, or something to do if you don't care if you're taken seriously or not. So it hasn't exactly received the resources that, say, cancer has.

 

Just because some Christians use similar reasoning doesn't make it the same. Because they use all strange events as proof of God. OBEs, unusual visions, etc. All I'm saying is that they are proof of themselves, and that I don't think it is anything supernatural or God-related, just more of the same (basic science.) It makes more sense to me that these things thousands of people experience are SOMETHING. It does NOT make sense to me to say that things people experience point to their favorite God.

[Dave]

Proof or not, it's obvious that there are cases of SOMETHING happening that we can't explain with CURRENT science. Are you denying that?

Absolutely!

Are you denying studies in which things have been found that cannot yet be explained? I'm not talking T.V. psychics or anything like that.

What has not been explained? People keep claiming "unexplained things have happened" yet fail to say what those "things" are. From what I've seen is that many of those "things" never happened or have been explained. What has not been explained they always assume something paranormal was the cause. The "Bermuda Triangle" for example. I read a study where this researcher went to Lloyds of London (they keep a record of every boating accident and it goes back hundreds of years) to look up all the boats or ships that were claimed to have been lost in the "Bermuda Triangle." He found that most of the boats that were claimed missing never existed. The rest were just run of the mill boating accidents. Nothing special there, but do you think anyone in the paranormal business ever told anyone about that study?

One reason little is found is that scientists need to make a living, and studying the paranormal isn't the way to do that. It's more of a hobby, or something to do if you don't care if you're taken seriously or not. So it hasn't exactly received the resources that, say, cancer has.

If there was anything there to study the money would be there too.

Just because some Christians use similar reasoning doesn't make it the same.

It does. Sorry.

Because they use all strange events as proof of God. OBEs, unusual visions, etc. All I'm saying is that they are proof of themselves, and that I don't think it is anything supernatural or God-related, just more of the same (basic science.) It makes more sense to me that these things thousands of people experience are SOMETHING. It does NOT make sense to me to say that things people experience point to their favorite God.

Again, no one here has ever denied that people believe they have experienced strange things. NDE's for example; yes, there is "something" there and that something is the brain getting pretty close to dying. Many are not satisfied with that answer and they want that "something" to be more magical. That's fine, they can believe all they want.

[SpaceMonk]

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I can't call myself atheist.

I think most things that are currently seen as paranormal will eventually be explained by science.

 

Based on what? From what I've seen all of this paranormal stuff has already been explained either as outright fraud, showmanship (as in Uri Geller), poor methodology, or just plain belief.

 

Based on the examples I gave. I don't care about Uri Geller or obvious frauds. I'm on about stuff that hasn't been explained.

You seem to think everything has already been explained. So, we are at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge right now? Wow! How priviledged we are to live in such times.

So, somebody around here must know how the Universe originated, and I'm missing out?

 

I love paranormal things, because I love looking for explanations. I don't have any belief to defend, or that I'm afraid will be crushed.

 

Anyway here are some of the things I am intrigued by, which hold me back from 'becoming' atheist:

 

- A TV documentary on OBE's ......

 

No one here has said that OBEs do not exist. That they happen has been proven beyond a doubt. WHAT they are has been explained as the brain starting to shut down. There is no reason to believe, except belief, that they are some pointer to an unexplained and ill defined afterlife.

 

You have dismissed this case without noticing the details. You assume it is just like every other OBE you've seen dismissed before.

I'm fully aware of such arguments against OBE's, that is why this particular case intrigues me.

This is a women who was blind from birth, yet during her OBE is able to see...

 

- Many cases of past life memories proving reincarnation..

All of those cases have not withstood skeptical inquiry.

 

Which ones? All of the ones I pointed too?

Where?

I'm quite sure they won't stand up to cynical enquiry. Nothing ever does.

Skeptical enquiry is a different matter though, as mentioned in the challenge to skeptics I mentioned, and you ignored, which specifically mentions James Randi's challenge and Csicop.

Not everybody who's interested in spirituality or the paranormal is hanging onto the same old bunk that the debunkers have already debunked. Some people are aware of what hads been debunked and are honest enough to move on, yet are still aware of what hasn't.

That's one reason I hang around here at ex-christian. I spend alot of time out there looking into weird stuff, so being here and observing skeptical atheists at their best keeps me honest.

If I wanted to just believe what made me comfortable, or happy, then I'd be off in hippy fairy land and never come back.

 

Still, I don't say I 'believe' in reincarnation. I don't say that about anything. I learned my lesson when I dumped my belief in christianity. I just think there is some intriguing evidence that can't be dismissed so easily.

Yet I don't even like the idea of reincarnation. Life is suffering. Why would I want more?

I 'd rather be flying around the Cosmos in pure astral form, but I don't think it works like that...

 

- The fact that the governments of the world have spent millions investigating these areas themselves, in particular the cold war CIA vs the KGB in their Remote Viewing of each others secret sites and projects....

 

Those are more of an urban legend than reality. Yes, they did some studies, but they failed to provide anything of any use. You can read up on that CIA project here.

 

Thanks for the link.

However I didn't see much in there to contradict the information in the episode of the Paracast I mentioned, in which an RV'er gives his personal story and successful examples that can't be dismissed so easily.

- and that Csicop article seemed to revolve around one particular case, which it admits wasn't even proper RV.

 

An Atheist lacks a belief in gods. That's it. As you've seen here many Atheists believe in many other things. You can still believe in ghosts and rightly call yourself an Atheist.

 

Thanks.

 

Edit: Bloody quotes. Why didn't they work?

[trashy]

Edit: Bloody quotes. Why didn't they work?

you had an extra 'end-quote' in your post

 

I was going to respond to many other parts of your post but gave up - you appear to hang on to a belief in the supernatural based on the same type of reasoning many Christians use. Something like "you can't prove _____ (god, nde, rv, etc.) doesn't exist, therefore I believe"

 

There really is no argument sufficient to persuade you otherwise, so I'll defer.

 

However, I did find a web site where this woman in that documentary describes her NDE. She recognizes people in her NDE whom she has never seen before, by sight. Where, pray tell, did she get the initial image to match up with her NDE sighting?

 

And although I may be cynical, that is simply the motivation for my skeptical inquiry. Cynicism does not mean irrational.

[Vigile]

I hate Sylvia Brown. I don't see how anyone can buy into her crap.

I mean, come on! $700 a question?!!

 

Hate her? Com'on. You're not fooling me. You're just jealous you can't get $700 to answer questions. I know I am.

[SpaceMonk]

Edit: Bloody quotes. Why didn't they work?

you had an extra 'end-quote' in your post

 

I was going to respond to many other parts of your post but gave up - you appear to hang on to a belief in the supernatural based on the same type of reasoning many Christians use. Something like "you can't prove _____ (god, nde, rv, etc.) doesn't exist, therefore I believe"

 

There really is no argument sufficient to persuade you otherwise, so I'll defer.

 

However, I did find a web site where this woman in that documentary describes her NDE. She recognizes people in her NDE whom she has never seen before, by sight. Where, pray tell, did she get the initial image to match up with her NDE sighting?

 

And although I may be cynical, that is simply the motivation for my skeptical inquiry. Cynicism does not mean irrational.

I don't understand why you say any of that.

I was trying to make clear that I am open to evidence and changing my own mind.

That's why I'm here.

 

It defeats the point if you say you can't be bothered. If I wasn't open to changing my opinions then this is the last place I'd be.

I'm only posting things that I think are outside what I've seen most commonly debunked by the likes of Randi, etc.

 

If you read my posts properly you'll see I never once said "I believe" about anything (a habit I've taken on since coming to ex-christian.net).

I'm not trying to be rude, but you aren't quoting me accurately and seem to be trying to create a false impression of me.

 

In your NDE example, are you saying you've found the website of the blind woman I mentioned?

Anyway, I'm no expert but as I understand it, seeing without physical eyes would be more of an extra-sensory 'knowing'.

You can hear a good explanation of how a similar phenomenon seems to work in that Paracast episode I recommended on Remote Viewing.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just saying why I think the way I do.

[Vigile]

A friend of mine at college didn,t believe in ghosts....until he saw one. He even walked up to the "light" he saw saying to his friends, "Nonsense. It's a trick of the light". That is until the light turned out to be a person who looked at him and walked through the wall.

 

I have had pychic experiences. But I don,t expect other people to believe. It is a personal matter.

 

Ever noticed how these types of experiences are always "a friend of mine"? If these types of events really occured without rational explanations, why is it that none of them have been documented, photographed, sufficiently researched, peer reviewed, etc...?

 

I'm sure the answer offered here will be that the scientific body is skeptical and therefore ignores these phenomena. I'll just counter that they are skeptical for a rational reason; because these events either don't occur, or they have a rational explanation when the facts are all layed out on the table.

 

Critical thinking is not a common skill I guess.

 

"Hey, can you tell what's different? She thought for a second and couldn't see anything obvious so she sensed my aura (she doesn't have the Sight so she has to use her hands) which is when she realized that I was pregnant!

 

 

If a woman comes up to me and asks me "Hey, can you tell what's different?" My first response would automatically You're pregant! If that didn't work, I would say, You got a haircut.

 

Not so lucky guess.

[LosingMyReligion]

I think it is so cool that this thread has gone so long....

[Vigile]

Dave, do you mind if I jump in and remind you that you're being an asshole?

 

It's easy to dismiss everyone else's experiences because they're not yours. Get over yourself. Nobody has the answers to everything and neither do you.

 

Jesus fucking Christ, it pisses me off when militant asses like yourself preach to everyone else how they know better about What Really Happened than the people who were really there do.

 

I'll say it once and probably again: This website and people like you have seriously made me hate atheists. I'm so damn sick and tired of their thinking that all they have to do is say "It's bullshit" and their making that statement proves to them that it's fact. Then when somebody calls them a fundamentalist they get all pissy and whine about how open-minded they are and how everyone else is the poor half-brained loser for not agreeing with everything they say.

 

It never occurs to them that perhaps they're putting themselves through the same mind-filtering false-intelligence bullshit that fundy Christians and Muslims do.

 

So I seriously fucking hate you, and everyone like you. In fact I may very well leave this board, because I'm damned nauseous over the Richard Dawkins fellatio, the raising of atheism to the very salvation and pinnacle of human development, the hypocrisy, and the blind single-minded asshood of so many atheists. At least Christians teach themselves to be humble. You people make me sick and I've had it.

 

Dave's not diplomatic, and for that matter, I'm sure neither am I. Nevertheless, I'm personally getting tired of getting shouted down for being genuinly skeptical and applying logic and rational thought to extraordinary claims. Don't like it? Stop making extraordinary claims and we'll have nothing to critique.

 

Yes, the site is ex-christian and not pro atheist. Many of us became ex-christian by applying critical thinking to extraordinary claims. Love us or hate us, it's who we are. Frankly, I could care less what others believe. Just expect a rebuttal if you throw those beliefs out there for all to see.

[LosingMyReligion]

Dave, do you mind if I jump in and remind you that you're being an asshole?

 

It's easy to dismiss everyone else's experiences because they're not yours. Get over yourself. Nobody has the answers to everything and neither do you.

 

Jesus fucking Christ, it pisses me off when militant asses like yourself preach to everyone else how they know better about What Really Happened than the people who were really there do.

 

I'll say it once and probably again: This website and people like you have seriously made me hate atheists. I'm so damn sick and tired of their thinking that all they have to do is say "It's bullshit" and their making that statement proves to them that it's fact. Then when somebody calls them a fundamentalist they get all pissy and whine about how open-minded they are and how everyone else is the poor half-brained loser for not agreeing with everything they say.

 

It never occurs to them that perhaps they're putting themselves through the same mind-filtering false-intelligence bullshit that fundy Christians and Muslims do.

 

So I seriously fucking hate you, and everyone like you. In fact I may very well leave this board, because I'm damned nauseous over the Richard Dawkins fellatio, the raising of atheism to the very salvation and pinnacle of human development, the hypocrisy, and the blind single-minded asshood of so many atheists. At least Christians teach themselves to be humble. You people make me sick and I've had it.

 

Dave's not diplomatic, and for that matter, I'm sure neither am I. Nevertheless, I'm personally getting tired of getting shouted down for being genuinly skeptical and applying logic and rational thought to extraordinary claims. Don't like it? Stop making extraordinary claims and we'll have nothing to critique.

 

Yes, the site is ex-christian and not pro atheist. Many of us became ex-christian by applying critical thinking to extraordinary claims. Love us or hate us, it's who we are. Frankly, I could care less what others believe. Just expect a rebuttal if you throw those beliefs out there for all to see.

 

 

True.

I made this thread to be a critical thinking tool(mainly for myself). My questions were for the sole purpose of being discredited.

I really want nothing to do with religion and the supernatural. If we needed all of this supernatural guidance and intervention then why do we exist in a physical realm?

 

Honestly, I see and hear the opinions of fundie and religious faithful on a daily basis. You can't turn around and NOT hear it. I find it refreshing to read the opinions of vocal athiests. The opinions on this site help balance things out, for me.

[Dave]

Based on the examples I gave. I don't care about Uri Geller or obvious frauds. I'm on about stuff that hasn't been explained.

You seem to think everything has already been explained. So, we are at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge right now? Wow! How priviledged we are to live in such times.

So, somebody around here must know how the Universe originated, and I'm missing out?

What does the origin of the Universe have to do with the paranormal? And what in the realm of the paranormal has not been explained? I never said we were at the pinnacle of anything.

 

You have dismissed this case without noticing the details. You assume it is just like every other OBE you've seen dismissed before.

I'm fully aware of such arguments against OBE's, that is why this particular case intrigues me.

This is a women who was blind from birth, yet during her OBE is able to see...

Again, I have not dismissed OBEs. Where have I said they never happen? I've even posted a link to a scientific explanation of NDE's and I can find on on OBEs if you wish. Here is something to read on OBE's. OBE's happen, it is the magical properties people give them that I am dismissing.

 

I found this:

The theoretical significance of out-of-body experiences in blind people is explored. In this context I report results of a survey of a small sample of blind adults. It is concluded that we have yet to locate a case of an out-of-body experience in the blind that has critical implications for the interpretation of the experience among the general population.

Acknowledgement hereby is given to the efforts of Margaret Kerr, Coordinator of Field Services for the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales, Australia, in supervising the collection of data reported in this paper.

Publishing details: Out-of-Body experiences in the blind

Journal Journal of Near-Death Studies

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0891-4494 (Print) 1573-3661 (Online)

Subject Behavioral Science

Issue Volume 6, Number 1 / September, 1987

DOI 10.1007/BF01073268

Pages 53-60

Online Date Wednesday, February 02, 2005

 

A blind woman "seeing perfectly" would have had a critical implication.

 

Which ones? All of the ones I pointed too?

Where?

I'm quite sure they won't stand up to cynical enquiry. Nothing ever does.

Skeptical enquiry is a different matter though, as mentioned in the challenge to skeptics I mentioned, and you ignored, which specifically mentions James Randi's challenge and Csicop.

If they can't stand up to cynical inquiry, then it wouldn't stand up to any but cursory inquiry.

Not everybody who's interested in spirituality or the paranormal is hanging onto the same old bunk that the debunkers have already debunked. Some people are aware of what hads been debunked and are honest enough to move on, yet are still aware of what hasn't.

That's right. I am aware of what has been debunked and I've moved on. All of science is based on "debunking." That's what they do. One scientists does some studies, makes a proposal, publishes his stuff and everyone else tries to tear it apart. If they can't, then it stands until someone does tear it apart. Science does not go around just believing things because another scientist says so. Cold fusion is a good example of that.

Still, I don't say I 'believe' in reincarnation. I don't say that about anything. I learned my lesson when I dumped my belief in christianity. I just think there is some intriguing evidence that can't be dismissed so easily.

From my years at college, and many years after that of reading; reincarnation has been dumped. There is no known method for reincarnation to work and there is nothing pointing to anything that might make it work.

Thanks for the link.

However I didn't see much in there to contradict the information in the episode of the Paracast I mentioned, in which an RV'er gives his personal story and successful examples that can't be dismissed so easily.

- and that Csicop article seemed to revolve around one particular case, which it admits wasn't even proper RV.

All I can say is that I will ALWAYS take the word of a scientist over that of some guy giving personal anecdotes on a tv show.

 

.....Anyway, I'm no expert but as I understand it, seeing without physical eyes would be more of an extra-sensory 'knowing'.

You can hear a good explanation of how a similar phenomenon seems to work in that Paracast episode I recommended on Remote Viewing.

Why do you believe what was said in that "paracast"? Why are you skeptical, cynical, of anything that does not agree with the paracast?

 

Don't answer those questions, just think about them.

 

 

Ever noticed how these types of experiences are always "a friend of mine"? If these types of events really occured without rational explanations, why is it that none of them have been documented, photographed, sufficiently researched, peer reviewed, etc...?

That's the problem, when they are they suddenly turn out to be not as originally claimed.

I'm sure the answer offered here will be that the scientific body is skeptical and therefore ignores these phenomena. I'll just counter that they are skeptical for a rational reason; because these events either don't occur, or they have a rational explanation when the facts are all layed out on the table.

Science should be critical and slow to accept new things. What a mess things would be if they just accepted everything anyone said!

Critical thinking is not a common skill I guess.

I blame the schools for teaching kids what to think instead of how to think.

If a woman comes up to me and asks me "Hey, can you tell what's different?" My first response would automatically You're pregnant! If that didn't work, I would say, You got a haircut.

If she is the slightest bit overweight and not pregnant, you could be in more trouble than you can handle.