Another OBE
Trish
Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real tired.
Took a little nap and had an OBE.
Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen, though, I
noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some reason,
this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was kinda
excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to the
kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
I can't cut a break. :
PZ Myers
<capu...@gte.net> wrote:
It wouldn't have been a confirmation either way. If it had actually been
open, it would have been more likely that your tired brain had noticed
it as you walked off to bed, and then the state of the refrigerator had
been nagging at you, which is why you dreamed about it.
Trish
PZ Myers wrote in message ...
Probably. But since I'm the one who pays the electric bill around here,
noticing it, even at a glance, would have prompted me to close the door.
Either way, nothing came of it.
PZ Myers
<capu...@gte.net> wrote:
Maybe not, if you were doped to the gills with those extraordinarily
potent drugs you need to quell your ferocious, raging hormones.
Trish
Oh you shouldn't vilify me so. I haven't quite earned it yet.
PZ Myers
<capu...@gte.net> wrote:
Where's the vilification? Maybe I rather like ferocious, raging
hormones...
B.D. Yager
PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:myers-B2D77E....@news.newsguy.com...
And, ... perhaps you'd like to sample some? I have plenty to go around!
Watch it, buster!
Bruce David Yager
:)
Trish
If that be the case, then surely you would be the perfect target on which
to release the darkest of mood swings. Just take care to think twice before
hiding the Midol.
PZ Myers
<capu...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >Where's the vilification? Maybe I rather like ferocious, raging
> >hormones...
>
> If that be the case, then surely you would be the perfect target on
> which to release the darkest of mood swings. Just take care to think
> twice before hiding the Midol.
Dark mood swings? No, that isn't the kind of raging hormonal ferocity I
like. Sorry.
Trish
PZ Myers wrote in message ...
That's ok. It's all a matter of taste. And I definitely wouldn't be a
tasty morsel during times like these, even for a villain like you.
slide...@my-deja.com
"Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> I'm on a roll this week.
>
> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
tired.
> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
>
> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
though, I
> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
reason,
> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
kinda
> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
the
> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
>
> I can't cut a break. :
>
>
There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
felt when they made the world round?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sorcerer Supreme
slide...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
Have you ever noticed how advertisers and Hollywood endorse white men and
black women relationships, but keep black men and white women taboo on
screen?
Is there a pattern here?
Haunter
wrote:
>Read my theory on the 10 sense up above
>
>slide...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
>> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>> > I'm on a roll this week.
>> >
>> > Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
>> tired.
>> > Took a little nap and had an OBE.
>> >
>> > Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
>> though, I
>> > noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
>> reason,
>> > this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
>> > bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
>> kinda
>> > excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
>> the
>> > kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
>> >
>> > I can't cut a break. :
>> >
>> >
>>
>> There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
>> you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>> felt when they made the world round?
Gotta pipe in here, Sorcerer. I don't understand your one sentence
responses to these posts. If you could explain the thought behind it,
I would appreciate it.
Your post about the "bundle of senses" during OBE explains nothing. In
fact, those self-same lables have been used for the last 40 years by
way of providing a basis of common usage so that the theory behind the
anomalous cognition could at least be talked about. However, lableing
a concept and defining how that concept works within the known laws of
physics are two totally seperate issues. By simply saying that your
theory (which is not a theory at all, it's a lable) somehow explains
the reception or perception of knowledge otherwise unattainable is
incorrect. You cannot define a thing using the selfsame lable of the
thing to which you are trying to explain. See what I mean?
So please, if I'm missing something here, I'll be glad to listen.
--
Haunter: Cognitive Dissident
White Crow Society:Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear
http://www.whitecrowsociety.com
New Double CD of casefiles, now available
Sign up now for 3 new WCS on-line classes
in Intro., Medical and In-field Parapsychology
Phil Harrison
>
>There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
>you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>felt when they made the world round?
>
ignorant than to investigate something?
--
Phil Harrison
Sorcerer Supreme
Haunter wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:15:13 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Read my theory on the 10 sense up above
> >
> >slide...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> >> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> > I'm on a roll this week.
> >> >
> >> > Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
> >> tired.
> >> > Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> >> though, I
> >> > noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
> >> reason,
> >> > this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
> >> > bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
> >> kinda
> >> > excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
> >> the
> >> > kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
> >> >
> >> > I can't cut a break. :
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
> >> you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> >> felt when they made the world round?
>
> Gotta pipe in here, Sorcerer. I don't understand your one sentence
> responses to these posts.
I was very interested in what the poster said, and wondered if he/she had a
chance to rethink his/her own views on cognitive reality (the physical) and
unreality (the metaphysical).
> If you could explain the thought behind it,
> I would appreciate it.
I didn't want to take away from what the poster was saying, so I strayed from
posting my thought in their entirety when they are already posted for all to
see.
>
> Your post about the "bundle of senses" during OBE explains nothing.
Actually I draw a distinction between the two, and draw a conclusion that an
OOBE is actually 6+ senses operating in a remote area, beyond the first five.
> In
> fact, those self-same lables have been used for the last 40 years by
> way of providing a basis of common usage so that the theory behind the
> anomalous cognition could at least be talked about.
Perhaps I missed this, but could you cite a reference to others that came up
with the 10 senses and their relation to OOBEs? My research showed that I am
the only one.
> However, lableing
> a concept and defining how that concept works within the known laws of
> physics are two totally seperate issues.
I thought that I drew a distinction from physics and metaphysics in the body of
my theory? The first five senses are bound by the laws of physics, the other
five are metaphysical.
> By simply saying that your
> theory (which is not a theory at all, it's a lable) somehow explains
> the reception or perception of knowledge otherwise unattainable is
> incorrect.
I am sorry you lost me here.
> You cannot define a thing using the selfsame lable of the
> thing to which you are trying to explain. See what I mean?
No I do not.
>
> So please, if I'm missing something here, I'll be glad to listen.
>
Actually if you are serious, I would be glad to email you or go to a chat room
of your choice to discuss my "theory" in more detail.
>
> --
>
> Haunter: Cognitive Dissident
> White Crow Society:Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear
> http://www.whitecrowsociety.com
> New Double CD of casefiles, now available
> Sign up now for 3 new WCS on-line classes
> in Intro., Medical and In-field Parapsychology
--
slide...@my-deja.com
phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote:
> slide...@my-deja.com wrote
> >
> >There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you
try
> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> >felt when they made the world round?
> >
better to be
> ignorant than to investigate something?
> --
> Phil Harrison
>
This is a difficult question for me to answer. On one hand I believe
that investigation and research is extremely important (especially in
this field). That investigation needs to be as impartial as possible
for it to mean anything.
OTOH I know that we are far more than we appear to be. The slightest
doubt that something is not real will make it not real. When Trish
returned to her body after her fridge experience she doubted that it
was real and set out to prove/disprove herself (is this right,
Trish?). The doubt that she felt caused the fridge to be closed. If
she had truely believed the fridge was open it would have been. We
create our own reality.
slide...@my-deja.com
try
> > you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think
people
> > felt when they made the world round?
> >
Read and digested your previous post. I wasn't sure whether I should
respond or ignore your post. It seems so completely irrelevant to what
is being said in this thread. Maybe you meant to respond directly to
Trish? If not let me know what you are thinking to reduce the mystery
surrounding your response.
Haunter
wrote:
Moody, Monroe, Swann, Tart, Honorton...the list goes on. They've all
used similar descriptions, going back to the 60s.
Trish
slide...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>> I'm on a roll this week.
>>
>> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
>tired.
>> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
>>
>> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
>though, I
>> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
>reason,
>> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
>> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
>kinda
>> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
>the
>> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
>>
>> I can't cut a break. :
>>
>>
>
>There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
>you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>felt when they made the world round?
>
I don't understand what you mean. The world really is round. We just had
to realize it. (?)
Sorcerer Supreme
Haunter wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:24:20 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
> Moody,
Nope.
> Monroe,
Nope.
> Swann,
Nope.
> Tart,
Nope.
> Honorton...the list goes on.
Nope.
> They've all
> used similar descriptions, going back to the 60s.
I have nearly every source on OOBE and nothing is remotely similar to my theory,
which makes it unique. Unless there was something unpublished (which is possible).
--
Phil Harrison
>In article <slrn8pggb4.v...@ramtop.demon.co.uk>,
> phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote:
>> slide...@my-deja.com wrote
>> >
>try
>> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>> >felt when they made the world round?
>> >
>better to be
>> ignorant than to investigate something?
>> --
>> Phil Harrison
>>
>
>This is a difficult question for me to answer. On one hand I believe
>that investigation and research is extremely important (especially in
>this field). That investigation needs to be as impartial as possible
>for it to mean anything.
>
>OTOH I know that we are far more than we appear to be. The slightest
>doubt that something is not real will make it not real. When Trish
>returned to her body after her fridge experience she doubted that it
>was real and set out to prove/disprove herself (is this right,
>Trish?). The doubt that she felt caused the fridge to be closed.
Perhaps it was just closed all along.
> If
>she had truely believed the fridge was open it would have been. We
>create our own reality.
How do you know you create your own reality? Is this just something you like to
believe and you don't like investigating things too closely because you are
attached to this belief?
--
Phil Harrison
Billy
Of course - how could it not have been. If it had been open it would have been
open all along. The door is either open or closed depending on how you decide to
perceive it.
> > If
> >she had truely believed the fridge was open it would have been. We
> >create our own reality.
>
> How do you know you create your own reality?
I don't, it just feels right (for me). You may decide to believe something else -
that's your reality.
> Is this just something you like to
> believe and you don't like investigating things too closely because you are
> attached to this belief?
Are you trying to imply that I will investigate nothing? If so, you could not
be further from the truth. I will investigate anything that aroses my interest -
as long as it appears out of my control. I do not consider an OOBE to be
something that I have no control over. An external influence by another
intelligent being is required.
B.B.
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Billy
> slide...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> I'm on a roll this week.
> >>
> >> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
> >tired.
> >> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> >>
> >> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> >though, I
> >> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
> >reason,
> >> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
> >> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
> >kinda
> >> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
> >the
> >> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. : (
> >>
> >> I can't cut a break. :
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> >felt when they made the world round?
> >
>
> I don't understand what you mean. The world really is round. We just had
> to realize it. (?)
That's one possibility, but ... (from here on things may seem a little
absurd)
maybe the round really was flat and then we decided to make it round by
questioning our beliefs. If you believed your OOBEs were genuine the door
may have been open when you got there. Its just another way of interpreting
your experience. You need to believe that your OOBEs are real, then you'll
start to prove them. It may seem backwards but it just seems to work.
Haunter
wrote:
>
>
>Haunter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:24:20 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
>> Moody,
>
>Nope.
>
>> Monroe,
>
>Nope.
>
>> Swann,
>
>Nope.
>
>> Tart,
>
>Nope.
>
>> Honorton...the list goes on.
>
>Nope.
>
>> They've all
>> used similar descriptions, going back to the 60s.
>
>I have nearly every source on OOBE and nothing is remotely similar to my theory,
>which makes it unique. Unless there was something unpublished (which is possible).
First of all, clear up something for me: are you also
Subject:
Re: Another OBE
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:03:31 -0500
From:
"Will" <hip...@worldnet.att.net>
To:
"Haunter" <hau...@castles.com>
that just wrote me asking why I asked for you not to send unsolicited
email?
Second, each and every one of those researchers/theorists I mentioned
speak of one's sensing the "objective" world while OBE mostly in terms
of a clairvoyant ability, which is exactly what you are saying. If you
are not, then please re-state your theory. Simply saying that they are
different but similar senses only on another "plane" cannot be proved.
So, if those extra senses aren't sensing anything that can be
verified, as one can do through testing of "real world" clairvoyance,
how does your theory clarify anything, except as one more theoretical
model of what "could be"?
Lorz
--
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man." --H. L. Mencken
Billy <slide...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:3999C145...@deja.com...
Trish wrote:
slide...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>> I'm on a roll this week.
>>
>> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
>tired.
>> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
>>
>> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
>though, I
>> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
>reason,
>> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
>> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
>kinda
>> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
>the
>> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. :
>>
>> I can't cut a break. :
>>
>>
>
>There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
>you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>felt when they made the world round?
>
>I don't understand what you mean. The world really is round. We just had
>to realize it. (?)
>
>That's one possibility, but (absurdity follows)
>maybe the world really was flat, until we decided to question our beliefs.
If >you had no doubts that your OOBEs where real then the fridge door would
>have been open when you arrived. To prove that your OOBEs are real >you'll
have to believe in them first. Seems crazy (even to me), but it does
>appear to work
This has appeared to work for you personally Billy?
Also please use plain text in NG not HTML
bracus
<slide...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> > I'm on a roll this week.
> >
> > Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
> tired.
> > Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> >
> > Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> though, I
> > noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
> reason,
> > this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So I
> > bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
> kinda
> > excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
> the
> >
> > I can't cut a break. :
> >
> >
>
> There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
> you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> felt when they made the world round?
Hello Slider! My angels have shown me that if you test a belief then you
are disbelieving it. And it won't work anymore. Have faith and seek the
truth. If you can't have faith in something then you don't desire it, and
it won't happen. The world has always been round. God made it that way and
he gave us the brains to figure it out! But I see what you are meaning.
They were probably tore to pieces over the information. They should have
asked the angels!
PZ Myers
<bra...@mailcity.com> wrote:
At least you are honest about your total lack of critical thinking...but
it would be a scary world with any more people like you around.
Consider this: the only people who tear heretical thinkers to pieces are
those who follow unfounded superstitions without thought, as you have
just endorsed.
Trish
Phil Harrison wrote in message ...
> slide...@my-deja.com wrote
>>In article <slrn8pggb4.v...@ramtop.demon.co.uk>,
>> phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote:
>>> slide...@my-deja.com wrote
>>> >
>>try
>>> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
>>> >felt when they made the world round?
>>> >
>>better to be
>>> ignorant than to investigate something?
>>> --
>>> Phil Harrison
>>>
>>
>>This is a difficult question for me to answer. On one hand I believe
>>that investigation and research is extremely important (especially in
>>this field). That investigation needs to be as impartial as possible
>>for it to mean anything.
>>
>OK...
>
>>OTOH I know that we are far more than we appear to be. The slightest
>>doubt that something is not real will make it not real. When Trish
>>returned to her body after her fridge experience she doubted that it
>>was real and set out to prove/disprove herself (is this right,
>>Trish?). The doubt that she felt caused the fridge to be closed.
Yes, I suppose lots of people do. : )
>Perhaps it was just closed all along.
>
>> If
>>she had truely believed the fridge was open it would have been. We
>>create our own reality.
>
>How do you know you create your own reality? Is this just something you
like to
>believe and you don't like investigating things too closely because you are
>attached to this belief?
>
>
>--
>Phil Harrison
This is the primary reason why I find it very difficult to accept something
as a belief. I can never tell if I'm believing just to have something to
believe in.
Trish
Billy wrote in message <3999C145...@deja.com>...<8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> I'm on a roll this week.
> >>
> >> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was real
> >tired.
> >> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> >>
> >> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> >though, I
> >> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For some
> >reason,
> >> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation. So
I
> >> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I was
> >kinda
> >> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
> >the
> >> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. :
> >>
> >> I can't cut a break. :
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you try
> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> >felt when they made the world round?
> >
> I don't understand what you mean. The world really is round. We just
had
> to realize it. (?)
>
>That's one possibility, but (absurdity follows)
>maybe the world really was flat, until we decided to question our beliefs.
If you had no doubts that your OOBEs where real then the fridge door would
have been open when you arrived. To prove that your OOBEs are real you'll
have to believe in them first. Seems crazy (even to me), but it does appear
to work.
>
>B.B.
That's an interesting idea. Provocative to think about. But an idea like
this always tends to remain out there in the subjective field of "what ifs".
We can ponder it, but that's about all.
Janice
I wonder how plants got their nourishment before someone kindly invented
photosynthesis. :)
Billy
Billy
> > In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > I'm on a roll this week.
> > >
> > > Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was
real
> > tired.
> > > Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> > >
> > > Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> > though, I
> > > noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For
some
> > reason,
> > > this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation.
So I
> > > bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I
was
> > kinda
> > > excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went
to
> > the
> > >
> > > I can't cut a break. :
> > >
> > >
> >
> > There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you
try
> > you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think
people
> > felt when they made the world round?
>
you
> are disbelieving it. And it won't work anymore. Have faith and seek
the
> truth. If you can't have faith in something then you don't desire
it, and
> it won't happen. The world has always been round. God made it that
way and
> he gave us the brains to figure it out! But I see what you are
meaning.
> They were probably tore to pieces over the information. They should
have
> asked the angels!
>
> >
> >
Yuck, that's horrible.
I'm beginning to regret posting this. My point was that Trish should
not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of course,
I may be talking a load of hogwash.
B.B.
Billy
"Lorz" <Lo...@Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> --
> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has
descended from
> man." --H. L. Mencken
>
> Billy <slide...@deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3999C145...@deja.com...
> >In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> I'm on a roll this week.
> >>
> >> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was
real
> >tired.
> >> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> >>
> >> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
> >though, I
> >> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For
some
> >reason,
> >> this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation.
So I
> >> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I
was
> >kinda
> >> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went to
> >the
> >> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. :
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There is no point in testing your beliefs. No matter how hard you
try
> >you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think people
> >felt when they made the world round?
> >
just had
> >to realize it. (?)
> >
> >That's one possibility, but (absurdity follows)
> >maybe the world really was flat, until we decided to question our
beliefs.
> If >you had no doubts that your OOBEs where real then the fridge door
would
> >have been open when you arrived. To prove that your OOBEs are real
>you'll
> have to believe in them first. Seems crazy (even to me), but it does
>
> This has appeared to work for you personally Billy?
>
> Also please use plain text in NG not HTML
>
>
Sure, many times. A relevant eg: I've been trying to have OOBE's since
I was about 14. I went to a Catholic school (I'm not Catholic - I'm
starting to find it hard to even claim to be a Christian) where I was
told over and over that we are a body that contains a soul. The soul
can only leave the body when we die. I didn't have an OOBE until I
arrived at University and found Robert Monroe's book 'Journeys out of
the body'. My first OOBE happened after I read the book - the first
time I'd actually believed it was possible. So the belief came before
the proof. This does seem to follow in other areas too - the Wright
brothers would never have proved flight possible unless they truely
believed it was.
These posts are simply me exercising my intellect. There are countless
explanations for OOBEs, all of which must hold some truth for them to
exist in the first place. It is only by analysing each explanation
carefully and deciding what makes sense to us that we can arrive at a
possible conclusion.
My humblest apologies for using HTML in the NG. It was not
intentional, my news client sent the message even though I retracted
it. That is also the reason for 2 very similar posts.
Billy
I guess that is the curse of being open minded. I change my tune more
often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
Trish
Billy wrote in message <8ndkcs$4gm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <URlm5.1925$Zo5.7...@homer.alpha.net>,>> news:8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
>> > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>> > > I'm on a roll this week.
>> > >
>> > > Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I was
>real
>> > tired.
>> > > Took a little nap and had an OBE.
>> > >
>> > > Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the kitchen,
>> > though, I
>> > > noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open. For
>some
>> > reason,
>> > > this hit me as potential for some type of physical confirmation.
>So I
>> > > bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up ... I
>was
>> > kinda
>> > > excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I went
>to
>> > the
>> > >
>> > > I can't cut a break. :
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>try
>> > you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think
>people
>> > felt when they made the world round?
>>
>you
>> are disbelieving it. And it won't work anymore. Have faith and seek
>the
>> truth. If you can't have faith in something then you don't desire
>it, and
>> it won't happen. The world has always been round. God made it that
>way and
>> he gave us the brains to figure it out! But I see what you are
>meaning.
>> They were probably tore to pieces over the information. They should
>have
>> asked the angels!
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>I'm beginning to regret posting this. My point was that Trish should
>not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
>believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of course,
>I may be talking a load of hogwash.
>
>B.B.
>
Don't regret posting it. That's not necessary. : )
I know (or at least I think I do) what you mean .. but I also see a danger
there. Once you convice yourself of something, you can no longer be
objective about it. There's no measure.
I've had OBEs since I was 5 years old, and there was a time that I honestly
believed that I had left my body, and the things I saw around me were truly
the physical world. You'd think that I would have picked up something,
anything, during these OBEs, that would have provided some type of evidence
of it. But I never did.
Trish
Billy wrote in message <8ndsai$cek$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
>have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
>the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
>maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
>
That's a healthy attitude to take. I think a lot of the skeptics here are
waiting for the same thing. : )
Haunter
snip
>>I guess that is the curse of being open minded. I change my tune more
>>often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
>>have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
>>the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
>>maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
>>
>
>
>That's a healthy attitude to take. I think a lot of the skeptics here are
>waiting for the same thing. : )
>
spirit-like entity being the vehicle of my OBEs, but in lieu of that,
I must stay with the LD explanation. Hell, I'm so easy, evidence of
Psychokinesis while OBE would make me weak in the knees! :))
Billy
you
> >try
> >> > you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think
> >people
> >> > felt when they made the world round?
> >>
Thanks, I feel better now. I'm not sure if I like it when people start
talking about asking angels for advice. It just doesn't agree with me:)
>
> I know (or at least I think I do) what you mean .. but I also see a
danger
> there. Once you convice yourself of something, you can no longer be
> objective about it. There's no measure.
>
> I've had OBEs since I was 5 years old, and there was a time that I
honestly
> believed that I had left my body, and the things I saw around me were
truly
> the physical world. You'd think that I would have picked up
something,
> anything, during these OBEs, that would have provided some type of
evidence
> of it. But I never did.
>
>
Like I said before - its the curse of being open-minded:( Is there a
point where you draw the line? If the fridge had been open on your
return would that have convinced you? I'm sure that there'd have been
people on this NG that would have given you a thousand reasons why it
wasn't real. I can think of hundreds just sitting here typing this
email.
If (when you were 5 or so) you'd found some evidence, do you think
you'd be a different person today? I guess I'm doomed to spend my
entire life seeking an answer that is beyond my grasp:( Oh well, I'll
just keep banging away at my keyboard and hope for a revelation!
B.B.
Sorcerer Supreme
Haunter wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:06:12 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Haunter wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:24:20 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
Haunter
wrote:
Since SS won't be seeing this, and just by way of explanation for the
rest of the group, SS sent me an email when he should have posted it
to the group. I asked him not to do that and that it was not good
Unsenet ettiquette. He responded, smugly, that I was the one who
should learn proper posting proceedures (?).
. I disagreed; again, without emotion.
For this, and for playing "devil's advocate" to help him better flesh
out the ideas in his "theory", I get killfiled.
<shrug>
No big whoop.
>That is enough out of you on this group: "Kerplunk!!" Kill file
>
>Haunter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:06:12 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Haunter wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:24:20 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
>> --
>>
>> Haunter: Cognitive Dissident
>> White Crow Society:Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear
>> http://www.whitecrowsociety.com
>> New Double CD of casefiles, now available
>> Sign up now for 3 new WCS on-line classes
>> in Intro., Medical and In-field Parapsychology
>
>
--
White Crow Society:Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear
http://www.whitecrowsociety.com
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm
http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm
Janice
Are you suggesting there were no plants on the planet *until* someone
worked out photosynthesis?
Trish
Billy wrote in message <8ne812$ptj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <Dyvm5.198$T7.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>> Billy wrote in message <8ndkcs$4gm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <URlm5.1925$Zo5.7...@homer.alpha.net>,
>> > "bracus" <bra...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <slide...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:8n954m$3ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>you
>> >try
>> >> > you'll disprove yourself one way or another. How do you think
>> >people
>> >> > felt when they made the world round?
>> >>
Hmm. That's a good point. Where do we draw the line. Ok. If the fridge
would have been opened upon my return, I have to honestly say that it
wouldn't have convinced me. After all, there are other options. But, I can
say, that the OBE option would have at least been considered along with the
others.
>If (when you were 5 or so) you'd found some evidence, do you think
>you'd be a different person today? I guess I'm doomed to spend my
>entire life seeking an answer that is beyond my grasp:( Oh well, I'll
>just keep banging away at my keyboard and hope for a revelation!
>
>B.B.
I'd say that I'd be, at least, considering the whole thing in a different
way. I'd be looking more at my methods of determining evidence, rather than
viewing the whole thing from a biological standpoint.
Right now, the materialist point of view is fascinating to me.
Trish
Haunter wrote in message <39ff8e80....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:13:28 GMT, "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>snip
>>>I guess that is the curse of being open minded. I change my tune more
>>>often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
>>>have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
>>>the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
>>>maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
>>>
>>
>>
>>That's a healthy attitude to take. I think a lot of the skeptics here are
>>waiting for the same thing. : )
>>
>Good point! I'd absolutely LOVE to find proof of a seperate,
>spirit-like entity being the vehicle of my OBEs, but in lieu of that,
>I must stay with the LD explanation. Hell, I'm so easy, evidence of
>Psychokinesis while OBE would make me weak in the knees! :))
>
You're not kidding. : ) I'd love to have someone show me how there is
something 'more'. I don't want to die anymore than anyone else does.
In lieu of that, the psychokinesis thing would be rather clever. : )
And .. in lieu of *that* ... I'll happily sit here pondering the brain. You
gotta find your wonder where you find it.
Trish
Haunter wrote in message <3a0acb05....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:39:10 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>Since SS won't be seeing this, and just by way of explanation for the
>rest of the group, SS sent me an email when he should have posted it
>to the group. I asked him not to do that and that it was not good
>Unsenet ettiquette. He responded, smugly, that I was the one who
>should learn proper posting proceedures (?).
>. I disagreed; again, without emotion.
> For this, and for playing "devil's advocate" to help him better flesh
>out the ideas in his "theory", I get killfiled.
><shrug>
>No big whoop.
Don't you love it when you really, honestly wish to question someone, even
if it's to expand your own knowledge by critique ... and they just plonk
you?
Sheesh. Well ... you tried.
Phil Harrison
>something
>> as a belief. I can never tell if I'm believing just to have
>something to
>> believe in.
>>
>>
>
>often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
>have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
>the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
>maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
>
there are pixies living at the bottom of my garden, and you can't prove me
wrong. Admittedly I can't provide evidence to prove this assertion correct
either.
So should I believe in the pixies because they have not been disproved, or not
believe in them because of a lack of evidence?
--
Phil Harrison
Phil Harrison
>invented
>> photosynthesis. :)
>>
>
>
--
Phil Harrison
Phil Harrison
>
>I'm beginning to regret posting this. My point was that Trish should
>not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
>believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of course,
>I may be talking a load of hogwash.
>
sense that they interact with the physical world) then she (or anyone else for
that matter - I don't want you to think I am picking on Trish) would be able to
prove it to other people too?
For example, if I were to randomly leave my fridge door open or closed each
night, could someone who believed their OOBE's allowed them to percieve the
physical world actually tell me and be right better than random chance would
predict (or would I just get food poisoning)?
--
Phil Harrison
Haunter
>
>Haunter wrote in message <3a0acb05....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:39:10 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>Since SS won't be seeing this, and just by way of explanation for the
>>rest of the group, SS sent me an email when he should have posted it
>>to the group. I asked him not to do that and that it was not good
>>Unsenet ettiquette. He responded, smugly, that I was the one who
>>should learn proper posting proceedures (?).
>>. I disagreed; again, without emotion.
>> For this, and for playing "devil's advocate" to help him better flesh
>>out the ideas in his "theory", I get killfiled.
>><shrug>
>>No big whoop.
>
>Don't you love it when you really, honestly wish to question someone, even
>if it's to expand your own knowledge by critique ... and they just plonk
>you?
>
>
>Sheesh. Well ... you tried.
>
That kinda thing used to bug me, but hey, that's life. Nobody ever
guarnteed that we're supposedto be able to get along with everyone
else :-) Actually, that would make for a very boring life.
bracus
You must be dubious of these things aren't you? You evidently have no
experience with the other side of this world.
PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:myers-EAB2CD....@news.newsguy.com...
>
> At least you are honest about your total lack of critical thinking...but
> it would be a scary world with any more people like you around.
You are a very rude man PZ Meyers! If you were connected to your own
angels, you would not be so cruel! I can help you, if you want to learn
how.
>
> Consider this: the only people who tear heretical thinkers to pieces are
> those who follow unfounded superstitions without thought, as you have
> just endorsed.
Thought is a wordly thing. My inspiration comes from me personally being on
the other side of this world (and I mean spiritual) and from having talked
with my own angels. Yes, I have been oobe like this group! But I have
learned that true life and true being comes from our soul! They are not
unfounded superstitions like you say. They are revelations from the beyond!
I ask my angel to take me there, and I get strong vibrations and a loud
humming all around me! Then, I am taken to beautiful places and shown many
things about this world and our real meaning for being human. I feel sorry
for you Mr. Meyers. I will help you if I can.
bracus
Billy <slide...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ndkcs$4gm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
> believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of course,
> I may be talking a load of hogwash.
>
Hello B.B.! You are right in a way. You must have faith or truth will be
taken away from you! But I'm not sure if Trish's oobe was really a
spiritual thing at all. We sometimes just assume that it is but it might
just be her own mind doing these things, because if it was spiritual her
angel would have given her comfort in knowing that. She would not question
it. Do you see?
Trish
Phil Harrison wrote in message ...
>>
>>I'm beginning to regret posting this. My point was that Trish should
>>not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
>>believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of course,
>>I may be talking a load of hogwash.
>>
the
>sense that they interact with the physical world) then she (or anyone else
for
>that matter - I don't want you to think I am picking on Trish) would be
able to
>prove it to other people too?
Pick on me, please. : )
>For example, if I were to randomly leave my fridge door open or closed each
>night, could someone who believed their OOBE's allowed them to percieve the
>physical world actually tell me and be right better than random chance
would
>predict (or would I just get food poisoning)?
Those individuals who believe that they are truly perceiving the physical
world probably do get a better, or more accurate representation ... based on
memory and expectation ... than someone like me who doubts it.
I don't think that would help with *your* fridge door, though.
Billy
Janice <not...@not-here.net> wrote:
> Billy wrote:
> >
> > In article <399A2A...@not-here.net>,
> > Janice <not...@not-here.net> wrote:
>
> worked out photosynthesis?
>
I'm offering a possible explanation. If we can accept that we're going
to exist for eternity, does it not make sense that we have always
been? That would suggest (to me) that we existed before plants. It
also makes sense to me that we created everything. Every throught we
had / have brings something into existence. So, in the beginning there
was nothing then we decided to think. Of course, this is only a
suggestion, something to ponder. Everything I have said may be wrong:)
B.B.
Billy
phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote:
> Billy wrote
> >In article <399A2A...@not-here.net>,
> > Janice <not...@not-here.net> wrote:
> >>
> >invented
> >> photosynthesis. :)
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Phil Harrison
>
From what, and where did it come from? Please realise that this is
simply a discussion of possibilities - I do not pretend that any of
this is true. There is no way I can know the truth, but I enjoy
investigating the possibilities;)
Billy
But I do have pixies living at the bottom of my garden:)
Neither. You don't believe they are there, but you don't discount the
possibility of their existence. Until evidence comes along to prove it
one way or another you don't allow a belief system to influence you.
j...@visi.net
I think this is a bad example. I mean there isn't even anecdotal
evidence of pixies. I've never once heard anyone seriously say that the
just had a conversation with a pixie! ;-)
In the case of OOBE something is certainly happening that doesn't happen
on a regular basis to the average person. I think dismissing that out of
hand because it sounds "woo-woo" is rather the wrong thing to do, just
as much as blindly accepting the experience as literal. It is very
possible that OOBE is some type of "dream" with some part of the brain
having a more important role than usually.
And people who see ghosts obviously saw "something" whether or not it
was a ghost is in question, but shared hallucination is hardly any more
valid a theory than ghosts are. And no I am not saying that ghosts are
real, all I am saying is that if something repeatedly is experienced by
many different people from many different walks of life than we owe it
to that experience to research it a little further. if something isn't
experienced by anyone then we shouldn't research it further.
Billy
> >not stop believing that her OOBEs are real - in fact she needs to
> >believe they are true before she'll be able to prove them. Of
course,
> >I may be talking a load of hogwash.
> >
> Do you think that if Trish starts believing that her OOBE's are real
(in the
> sense that they interact with the physical world) then she (or anyone
else for
> that matter - I don't want you to think I am picking on Trish) would
be able to
> prove it to other people too?
>
closed each
> night, could someone who believed their OOBE's allowed them to
percieve the
> physical world actually tell me and be right better than random
chance would
> predict (or would I just get food poisoning)?
>
> Phil Harrison
>
Ahhhhh - my brain is beginning to hurt;)
If someone really believed in their OOBEs they would probably start
proving them to themselves. Whether the OOBEs are real or not. You
can prove anything to yourself if you try hard enough. When you pop
into the equation it becomes a little more complicated. If you did not
believe, then your disbelief would probably make the experiment fail.
If you believed that the person was really capable of OOBEs then the
experiment may or may not be successful.
Leaving your fridge open all night would certainly lead to a smelly
house and probably food poisoning:(
B.B.
j...@visi.net
> > > >In article <bQnl5.1471$O76.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > > > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > >> I'm on a roll this week.
> > > >>
> > > >> Today I took a few PMS pills at work, so when I came home I
was real
> > > >tired.
> > > >> Took a little nap and had an OBE.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nothing too unusual, just a walk around my house. In the
kitchen,
> > > >though, I
> > > >> noticed that someone had left the refridgerator door open.
For some
> > > >reason,
> > > >> this hit me as potential for some type of physical
confirmation. So
> > I
> > > >> bounded down the hallway, back into bed and woke myself up
... I was
> > > >kinda
> > > >> excited. : ) After a few seconds of shaking off the SP, I
went to
> > > >the
> > > >> kitchen to investigate, but the fridge door was closed. :
> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
invented
> photosynthesis. :)
Silly Girl! The plants got hungry and invented photosynthesis
themselves! ;-)
Billy
"bracus" <bra...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Hello PZ Meyers. I don't know who you are, but I was posting to
Slider.
> You must be dubious of these things aren't you? You evidently have no
> experience with the other side of this world.
>
The other side of this world? You mean Australia? You can't divide it
into this side and that like they're two sides of the same coin. It's
all one.
> PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-EAB2CD....@news.newsguy.com...
> >
> > At least you are honest about your total lack of critical
thinking...but
> > it would be a scary world with any more people like you around.
>
> You are a very rude man PZ Meyers! If you were connected to your own
> angels, you would not be so cruel! I can help you, if you want to
learn
> how.
>
Do your angels have to come into everything?
> >
> > Consider this: the only people who tear heretical thinkers to
pieces are
> > those who follow unfounded superstitions without thought, as you
have
> > just endorsed.
>
> Thought is a wordly thing. My inspiration comes from me personally
being on
> the other side of this world (and I mean spiritual) and from having
talked
> with my own angels. Yes, I have been oobe like this group! But I
have
> learned that true life and true being comes from our soul! They are
not
> unfounded superstitions like you say. They are revelations from the
beyond!
> I ask my angel to take me there, and I get strong vibrations and a
loud
> humming all around me! Then, I am taken to beautiful places and
shown many
> things about this world and our real meaning for being human. I feel
sorry
> for you Mr. Meyers. I will help you if I can.
>
>
Do you separate yourself from your soul, two beings sharing one body.
What is this thing you call 'my soul'?
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
>Once you convice yourself of something, you can no longer be
>objective about it. There's no measure.
IMO almost nobody is "objective" about anything. However much one
may try to convince others (themselves ?) that they are everyone is
consciously/unconsciously influenced by others, what they have read,
seen on T.V. etc.
>I've had OBEs since I was 5 years old, and there was a time that I honestly
>believed that I had left my body, and the things I saw around me were truly
>the physical world. You'd think that I would have picked up something,
>anything, during these OBEs, that would have provided some type of evidence
>of it. But I never did.
Why should you pick up evidence of something if you weren't looking
for it ? :-)
Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ jo...@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:633/309
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
PZ Myers
<slide...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <slrn8pltqo.7...@ramtop.demon.co.uk>,
> phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote:
> > Billy wrote
> > >How do you think plants came about in the first place?
> > >
> > They evolved.
> >
> > --
> > Phil Harrison
> >
>
> From what, and where did it come from? Please realise that this is
> simply a discussion of possibilities - I do not pretend that any of
> this is true. There is no way I can know the truth, but I enjoy
> investigating the possibilities;)
Single-celled organisms. A kind of prokaryote evolved a mechanism for
capturing photons and converting their energy into a useable chemical
form; the current hypothesis is that plants are a consequence of a
symbiosis between those organisms (which now form an organelle called a
chloroplast in plants) and a eukaryote.
If you want to know where the mechanism for capturing photons came from,
you need to know a little biochemistry...but the short answer seems to
be that it evolved out of the phototactic response. Bacteria used a
sensory system to recognize light so they could swim towards or (perhaps
more likely) away from it. Most photosynthetic organisms use chlorophyll
to capture photons; interestingly, one group, the halobacteria, use a
form of retinal -- the same compound we use to sense light in our eyes.
These same molecules that undergo a chemical change in response to light
were just incorporated into pathways that use those changes to release
energy.
Another interesting tidbit: chlorophyll looks like a big complicated
molecule, but it's everywhere. It's just a porphyrin ring. It's almost
the same structure as heme, the oxygen carrying pigment we use in our
red blood cells -- the only major difference is that heme has a molecule
of iron at its center, chlorophyll has a molecule of magnesium.
PZ Myers
> Hello PZ Meyers. I don't know who you are, but I was posting to
> Slider.
No, you were posting to the whole wide world. New to usenet?
> You must be dubious of these things aren't you?
"Dubious" is a gross understatement.
> You evidently have no experience with the other side of this world.
Nope.
>
> PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-EAB2CD....@news.newsguy.com...
> >
> > At least you are honest about your total lack of critical
> > thinking...but it would be a scary world with any more people like
> > you around.
>
> You are a very rude man PZ Meyers!
Hey, you just called me "rude" and "cruel"! That's pretty darned rude,
don't you think?
> If you were connected to your own angels, you would not be so cruel!
There are no angels. Grow up.
> I can help you, if you want to learn how.
No, thanks.
>
> >
> > Consider this: the only people who tear heretical thinkers to
> > pieces are those who follow unfounded superstitions without
> > thought, as you have just endorsed.
>
> Thought is a wordly thing. My inspiration comes from me personally
> being on the other side of this world (and I mean spiritual) and from
> having talked with my own angels. Yes, I have been oobe like this
> group! But I have learned that true life and true being comes from
> our soul! They are not unfounded superstitions like you say. They
> are revelations from the beyond! I ask my angel to take me there, and
> I get strong vibrations and a loud humming all around me! Then, I am
> taken to beautiful places and shown many things about this world and
> our real meaning for being human.
Yeah, right. You missed my point. Historically, the people who have been
most dangerous, most disruptive, and most likely to turn on and harm
others in mass action, are the people who claim to have had inside
information from God, angels, spirits, whatever...people who give
creedence to the little voices in their heads without measuring those
words against the reality of the outside world. Like you.
> I feel sorry for you Mr. Meyers.
> I will help you if I can.
No, you won't. I'm not interested in the help of delusional strangers.
I suggest that you could use the help of a psychiatrist. Funny little
voices talking inside your head can also be a sign of schizophrenia, you
know.
icejes...@my-deja.com
I do have to disagree with you. Just because you have no evidence of
these things, does not mean that they do not exist. Although the ideas
may seem strange or awkward to you, they may not be wrong. I think that
you are short sighted to automatically disavow anything that you have
no ability to prove or disprove. You may be selling your own self very
short.
To address the issue of the many very dangerous people who heard the
voice of "God" or "Angels," I can not help to submit. Yes.. they did
exist. You do however fail to mention that there were/are just as many
people who do very good things that also 'hear' the voices of "God" and
"Angels." Missionaries, Priests, Stigmatics to name a few. The phrase
"squeaky wheel gets the oil" applys here. The 'bad' people get more
attention... the 'good' ones are quickly forgotten.
You seem to be fairly well versed in the biology/bio-chem arena, and
surely from that you must be familiar with scientific method. From that
you must admidt that these experiances can never be proven or disproven
and therefore fall outside the realm of science. By that, one can
derive that the only purpose to your slamming of someone here is to
make them feel bad, and that (by any strech of the immagination) is not
nice.
In short, these experiances fall outside you personal realm of
understanding. You have no qualifications to belittle, slam, or tear
into anyone regarding these affairs. This NG is for people who want to
share their ideas and experiances with others who 'understand.' You my
friend, do not by any means qualify.
Billy
Yeah, I'm happy with that. Now where did the single celled organism
come from?
B.B.
icejes...@my-deja.com
Okay... from re-reading that last part, I decided it was a bit
'mean.' Well... it was in fact down right rude, and I apologize. I get
so angry sometimes because although I adhere to a number of strict laws
in my own life, I feel it is a basic human right to think/believe
whatever one wants to. If you PZ Meyers want to be here, I have no
right to say you can or can't. It was my mistake and I was rude.
(I still don't think it's nice to 'trash' someone who believes
something when you really don't fully understand it)
No harm no foul?
JrM
Billy
Temper, temper. You'll need slapping on the wrist for that:) You're
right of course. If you don't agree with someone say so in a nice
way. You can't convince anyone of anything by alienating them now, can
you?
icejes...@my-deja.com
bad... I need to be spanked" Let's just say that I repented and
formerly apologized...
Gunnar Ljungstrand
> Historically, the people who have been most dangerous, most
> disruptive, and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action,
> are the people who claim to have had inside information from God,
> angels, spirits, whatever...people who give creedence to the little
> voices in their heads without measuring those words against the
> reality of the outside world. Like you.
Not so PZ.
Historically the people who have been most dangerous, most disruptive,
and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action, are the
people who refuse to think for themselves and blindly follow corrupt
leaders, be those religious or political leaders. Then disaster follows.
The largest death tolls of the 20th century are from communistic
countries, and materialism is a necessary part of Communism (note: I´m
not saying that all materialists need be communists).
Soviet Union: Purges, Deliberate famine, Gulag - perhaps 60 million
dead.
China: Great Leap, Cultural Revolution, Camps - at least as many
victims.
The fact that organized religion has caused a lot of damage must not
hide the fact that ideologies spawned from materialism have caused just
as much. By contrast, damage, if any, from people who speak to angels is
small and local.
And BTW, I am actually more skeptical than the skeptics; I am skeptical
of the prevailing materialistic paradigm, while so-called skeptics like
you are very much *believers* in it, without having as much as a shred
of evidence for it.
So there you have it, the skeptics are believers and the believers are
skeptics.
Regards,
/Gunnar
---------------------
- Question Authority!
- Yeah, Says Who?
---------------------
Haunter
>Append:
>
> Okay... from re-reading that last part, I decided it was a bit
>'mean.' Well... it was in fact down right rude, and I apologize. I get
>so angry sometimes because although I adhere to a number of strict laws
>in my own life, I feel it is a basic human right to think/believe
>whatever one wants to. If you PZ Meyers want to be here, I have no
>right to say you can or can't. It was my mistake and I was rude.
>
> (I still don't think it's nice to 'trash' someone who believes
>something when you really don't fully understand it)
>
>No harm no foul?
>
>JrM
>
>
Don't feel guilty or apologize; there's no reasoning with peezee on
certain matters and his opinion of anyone who considers psi or the
paranormal is well known. Killfilter the sucker like I and several
others have, or be prepared to go back and forth forever in a
fruitless attempt to modify his closed-minded psuedo-skepticism.
Janice
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:30:09 GMT, icejes...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Append:
> >
> > Okay... from re-reading that last part, I decided it was a bit
> >'mean.' Well... it was in fact down right rude, and I apologize. I get
> >so angry sometimes because although I adhere to a number of strict laws
> >in my own life, I feel it is a basic human right to think/believe
> >whatever one wants to. If you PZ Meyers want to be here, I have no
> >right to say you can or can't. It was my mistake and I was rude.
> >
> > (I still don't think it's nice to 'trash' someone who believes
> >something when you really don't fully understand it)
> >
> >No harm no foul?
> >
> >JrM
> >
> >
> Don't feel guilty or apologize; there's no reasoning with peezee on
> certain matters and his opinion of anyone who considers psi or the
> paranormal is well known. Killfilter the sucker like I and several
> others have, or be prepared to go back and forth forever in a
> fruitless attempt to modify his closed-minded psuedo-skepticism.
Or learn to ignore anything about his style you don't like and get what
you can out of him (here, that would mostly be humor and some useful
information about the workings of the brain).
Janice
> > Billy wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <399A2A...@not-here.net>,
> > > Janice <not...@not-here.net> wrote:
> > > > I wonder how plants got their nourishment before someone kindly
> > > invented
> > > > photosynthesis. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do you think plants came about in the first place?
> >
> > Are you suggesting there were no plants on the planet *until* someone
> > worked out photosynthesis?
> >
>
> I'm offering a possible explanation. If we can accept that we're going
> to exist for eternity, does it not make sense that we have always
> been? That would suggest (to me) that we existed before plants. It
> also makes sense to me that we created everything. Every throught we
> had / have brings something into existence. So, in the beginning there
> was nothing then we decided to think. Of course, this is only a
> suggestion, something to ponder. Everything I have said may be wrong:)
OK, so you're saying we existed as *spiritual* beings before plants.
Trish
icejes...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8nh0d5$su$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Append:
>
> Okay... from re-reading that last part, I decided it was a bit
>'mean.' Well... it was in fact down right rude, and I apologize. I get
>so angry sometimes because although I adhere to a number of strict laws
>in my own life, I feel it is a basic human right to think/believe
>whatever one wants to. If you PZ Meyers want to be here, I have no
>right to say you can or can't. It was my mistake and I was rude.
>
> (I still don't think it's nice to 'trash' someone who believes
>something when you really don't fully understand it)
>
>No harm no foul?
>
>JrM
Trust me, save your breath. Unless you're partial to dark slaps of
unfeeling skeptical reason ... you've suddenly hit a brick wall. You can
either smash your head against it, or climb it to see what's on the other
side.
Or ... you could just walk away.
Oh, and it's Myers. Not Meyers. : )
Trish
John Fitzsimons wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:12:19 GMT, "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
>< snip >
>
>>Once you convice yourself of something, you can no longer be
>>objective about it. There's no measure.
>
>IMO almost nobody is "objective" about anything. However much one
>may try to convince others (themselves ?) that they are everyone is
>consciously/unconsciously influenced by others, what they have read,
>seen on T.V. etc.
Oh heck. Then I might as well toss in the towel. : )
>>I've had OBEs since I was 5 years old, and there was a time that I
honestly
>>believed that I had left my body, and the things I saw around me were
truly
>>the physical world. You'd think that I would have picked up something,
>>anything, during these OBEs, that would have provided some type of
evidence
>>of it. But I never did.
>
>Why should you pick up evidence of something if you weren't looking
>for it ? :-)
>
You'd think that I'd trip over it or something. I seem to trip over
everything else! : )
icejes...@my-deja.com
paragraph was hypicritical in that I was spouting off about how people
should be allowed to have their own opinions/beliefs, while also
denying PZ his/hers.
Like telling a child that every child should be allowed to have his/her
own toy which is why he/she can't have one. It's difficult (for me at
least) in this regard to really mean what you say and say what you
mean.
I'm still pretty new here and I really don't need to make enemies in
this already difficult time in my life. (difficult as in my new found
questions regarding OOBE/Sleep Disorders/Psychological Issues).
Sigh... I guess you really can't make an omlet without breaking some
eggs... (Unless you use one of those dremmel drills with a really fine
drill bit, but that's really not the issue here is it?)
Janice
Unless you've got a wrecking ball. :)
PZ Myers
> PZ Myers wrote:
>
> > Historically, the people who have been most dangerous, most
> > disruptive, and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action,
> > are the people who claim to have had inside information from God,
> > angels, spirits, whatever...people who give creedence to the little
> > voices in their heads without measuring those words against the
> > reality of the outside world. Like you.
>
> Not so PZ.
>
> Historically the people who have been most dangerous, most disruptive,
> and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action, are the
> people who refuse to think for themselves and blindly follow corrupt
> leaders, be those religious or political leaders. Then disaster follows.
>
> The largest death tolls of the 20th century are from communistic
> countries, and materialism is a necessary part of Communism (note: I´m
> not saying that all materialists need be communists).
>
> Soviet Union: Purges, Deliberate famine, Gulag - perhaps 60 million
> dead.
>
> China: Great Leap, Cultural Revolution, Camps - at least as many
> victims.
Yes, so? Any time people surrender the ability to think for themselves
to blind acceptance of kooky beliefs, you've got trouble.
>
> The fact that organized religion has caused a lot of damage must not
> hide the fact that ideologies spawned from materialism have caused just
> as much.
And where is the evidence that materialism has anything to do with the
horrors you cite?
> By contrast, damage, if any, from people who speak to angels is
> small and local.
I see. The Roman Catholic church is just a small, local organization?
>
> And BTW, I am actually more skeptical than the skeptics; I am skeptical
> of the prevailing materialistic paradigm, while so-called skeptics like
> you are very much *believers* in it, without having as much as a shred
> of evidence for it.
>
> So there you have it, the skeptics are believers and the believers are
> skeptics.
<groan>. There you go. You start off making a rational argument (one I
disagree with, but you weren't saying anything abominably stupid), and
then you go and blow it by spewing out one of the oldest, most idiotic
word games that the kooks always play. You aren't a skeptic, Gunnar.
Using your argument, you'd have to say that the wacko babbling about
angels talking to him is the 'true' skeptic here. And that's just an
attempt to define the term so broadly that it is no longer useful.
By the way, the "prevailing materialistic paradigm" is accepted by many
people precisely because there is so much evidence for it: it works,
unlike the goofy superstitions of the 'believers'. That computer you are
typing on is the product of the "prevailing materialistic paradigm", not
the dreaming of true believers or the gift of sweet friendly angels.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
> PZ Meyers,
>
> I do have to disagree with you. Just because you have no evidence of
> these things, does not mean that they do not exist. Although the ideas
> may seem strange or awkward to you, they may not be wrong. I think that
> you are short sighted to automatically disavow anything that you have
> no ability to prove or disprove. You may be selling your own self very
> short.
>
> To address the issue of the many very dangerous people who heard the
> voice of "God" or "Angels," I can not help to submit. Yes.. they did
> exist. You do however fail to mention that there were/are just as many
> people who do very good things that also 'hear' the voices of "God" and
> "Angels." Missionaries, Priests, Stigmatics to name a few. The phrase
> "squeaky wheel gets the oil" applys here. The 'bad' people get more
> attention... the 'good' ones are quickly forgotten.
Missionaries are not good people. Perhaps if you already agree with
their beliefs, you can find them pleasant...but I've always found
missionary work terribly offensive and destructive.
"Priests" is a pretty general term. I've known a few good people among
them, and a few fascist weasels. It's like saying "people" -- it's not a
term automatically indicative of goodness.
Stigmatics? You've got to be kidding me. They are a bunch of crazy
frauds.
>
> You seem to be fairly well versed in the biology/bio-chem arena, and
> surely from that you must be familiar with scientific method. From that
> you must admidt that these experiances can never be proven or disproven
> and therefore fall outside the realm of science.
No. They can be disproven. OOBEs as methods of obtaining information
about the real world is a concept amenable to testing and verification.
Discussing dreams as a method of viewing the operation of the brain
during sleep states is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
> By that, one can
> derive that the only purpose to your slamming of someone here is to
> make them feel bad, and that (by any strech of the immagination) is not
> nice.
Awww. And your intent with this little slam is...?
Your conclusion is based on a mistaken premise: that experiences of the
mind cannot be evaluated by rational thought, and therefore that anyone
who purports to be trying to do so must be lying, and is really here for
underhanded reasons. This is, of course, false.
>
> In short, these experiances fall outside you personal realm of
> understanding. You have no qualifications to belittle, slam, or tear
> into anyone regarding these affairs. This NG is for people who want to
> share their ideas and experiances with others who 'understand.' You my
> friend, do not by any means qualify.
This is a public newsgroup. Discussion is *not* restricted to any one
side of the issue, much as you might wish it were. When your arguments
are so weak, so pitiful, so irrational, I can see why you might want to
be able to just tell your critics to go away.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yeah, I'm happy with that. Now where did the single celled organism
> come from?
From an earlier, cruder kind of thing called a progenote.There and
before that, we're currently left with speculation, since biochemistry
tends not to fossilize very well. Personally, I rather like Kauffman's
ideas about autocatalytic sets -- suites of chemicals that bootstrap
themselves out of random collections by virtue of fortuitous
interactivity.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
The only wrecking balls these guys might have is made up of tissues of
wishful thinking. They tend not to hold up wall against brick walls.
When dreams and reality collide, we all know who wins.
--
PZ Myers
nym
Hint: It isn't the cocksucker who gets demoted to some shit job in
Shithole, Minnesota because of his crappy work ethic.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH!
You go where they TELL you, BOY!
Billy
Glad you both agree here:)
Yep, you make sense here - people blindly believe in the materialistic
paradigm because it works, just like those who blindly believe in the
spiritual world. The materialistic world works to a point, there are
still things it cannot explain - one of its biggest mysteries is that
it cannot explain how it came into existence.
> That computer you are
> typing on is the product of the "prevailing materialistic paradigm",
not
> the dreaming of true believers or the gift of sweet friendly angels.
>
Many of the people who developed the computer where religous. It
wouldn't surprise me to find that one or two (or most) of them
attributed their findings to 'God'. I find this as hard to understand
as you most likely do, but 'the dreaming of true believers' has had a
far greater influence on this planet then your materialistic paradigm.
Billy
PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <8nh0b5$s3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Billy <slider0669@my-
deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Yeah, I'm happy with that. Now where did the single celled
organism
> > come from?
>
> From an earlier, cruder kind of thing called a progenote.There and
> before that, we're currently left with speculation, since
biochemistry
> tends not to fossilize very well. Personally, I rather like
Kauffman's
> ideas about autocatalytic sets -- suites of chemicals that bootstrap
> themselves out of random collections by virtue of fortuitous
> interactivity.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
>
But even the autocatalytic sets had to come from somewhere. You can
claim that the big bang theory explains their existence, but what
caused the big bang in the first place. It all starts to fall apart as
you move to the beginning. Something, at sometime, caused something to
happen and you cannot explain it. No matter how hard you try there
will always be something that your material viewpoint cannot and will
not explain.
B.B.
Janice
>
> In article <8ngvpo$4v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, icejes...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
>
> > PZ Meyers,
> >
> > I do have to disagree with you. Just because you have no evidence of
> > these things, does not mean that they do not exist. Although the ideas
> > may seem strange or awkward to you, they may not be wrong. I think that
> > you are short sighted to automatically disavow anything that you have
> > no ability to prove or disprove. You may be selling your own self very
> > short.
> >
> > To address the issue of the many very dangerous people who heard the
> > voice of "God" or "Angels," I can not help to submit. Yes.. they did
> > exist. You do however fail to mention that there were/are just as many
> > people who do very good things that also 'hear' the voices of "God" and
> > "Angels." Missionaries, Priests, Stigmatics to name a few. The phrase
> > "squeaky wheel gets the oil" applys here. The 'bad' people get more
> > attention... the 'good' ones are quickly forgotten.
>
> Missionaries are not good people. Perhaps if you already agree with
> their beliefs, you can find them pleasant...but I've always found
> missionary work terribly offensive and destructive.
I've heard that Christian missionaries used to show paintings of hell to
tribesmen who, not yet sophisticated enough to distinguish paintings
from photographs, took this as proof of the concept. Pretty underhanded
if it's true.
Janice
Yeah, yeah, yeah. :D
Although the impact of a tissue wad against a brick wall shouldn't
damage the tissues very much.
icejes...@my-deja.com
> "Missionaries are not good people. Perhaps if you already agree with
> their beliefs, you can find them pleasant...but I've always found
> missionary work terribly offensive and destructive. "
The same could be said about certain sects of terrorists. My point was
trying to illustrate that not all people who hear the voice(s) of "God"
or "Angels" are inherently evil/destructive.
> " "Priests" is a pretty general term. I've known a few good people
> among them, and a few fascist weasels. It's like saying "people" --
> it's not a term automatically indicative of goodness."
Why are you using my args for your points? I never stated that
'Priests' were 'indicative of goodness.' I was giving examples of types
of people who in my minds eye are typically 'good.' I did that in
response to your example of 'terrorists.' Terrorists that you implied
were indicitive of badness.
> " Stigmatics? You've got to be kidding me. They are a bunch of crazy
> frauds."
How (please oh please) can you prove or disprove that statement? Better
yet, prove or disprove the existance of God, THEN prove or disprove the
death (or life) of his son, THEN prove or disprove the impact of that
death on people we know as "Stigmatics." Please... I really would like
you to enlighten me in these theosophical concerns. (The Vatican would
probablly like to know too).
> "No. They can be disproven. OOBEs as methods of obtaining information
> about the real world is a concept amenable to testing and
> verification. Discussing dreams as a method of viewing the operation
> of the brain during sleep states is a perfectly reasonable thing to
> do."
Unless you can prove without a doubt that any one given person's 'soul'
did not and can not leave their body, you can not totally discount the
possibility. I could name a number of people who tried to fly and
failed before the Wright brothers. To the ones who 'failed' the concept
of 'flight' was impossible. If you asked them... they didn't see every
possible solution, and therefore failed. You (I have a feeling) do not
see every possible solution here. Only so much can be measured with a
machine built by human beings based on logic created by human beings.
Human beings can never be 'perfect.' It is not in our nature. You're
missing something, and you're too proud to admidt it
> "Your conclusion is based on a mistaken premise: that experiences of
> the mind cannot be evaluated by rational thought, and therefore that
> anyone who purports to be trying to do so must be lying, and is
> really here for underhanded reasons. This is, of course, false."
I think the clairification of my point(s) was sufficient, and my
previous argument about you stands.
>"This is a public newsgroup. Discussion is *not* restricted to any one
> side of the issue, much as you might wish it were. When your
> arguments are so weak, so pitiful, so irrational, I can see why you
> might want to be able to just tell your critics to go away."
Apparently you did not read my second post stating that you had every
right to access/post to this NG. (See? You're missing parts here too) I
had apologized for my rudeness, as I realize that my being human allows
for mistakes.
PZ, I don't mind your perspective... I rather enjoy it. Why? I have
been experiencing (fairly chronic) sleep paralisys and some people have
led me to this forum for information. Others have led me to my doctor.
Others still have led me to my Priest (he's one of the good ones). I
try to look at every possible angle when I make a decision. You angle
exists, so does theirs. The fact that you have so much faith in your
beliefs does not automatically disprove theirs. That's all I'm trying
to say.
capuchin
Don't even worry about it. There are a variety of viewpoints here, and
some are more straight forward and unrestrained than others. Some
people enjoy diplomatic discussions .. others favor debate, or cut to
the chase.
Gunnar Ljungstrand
> Yes, so? Any time people surrender the ability to think for themselves
> to blind acceptance of kooky beliefs, you've got trouble.
So I disproved your assertion.
You said: "Historically, the people who have been most dangerous, most
disruptive, and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action,
are the people who claim to have had inside information from God,
angels, spirits, whatever...people who give creedence (Sic!) to the
little voices in their heads without measuring those words against the
reality of the outside world."
I showed this not to be the case, by proving that the largest deathtoll
in history was caused by regimes specifically not believeing in anything
immaterial.
And BTW, your habit of calling anything you disagree with "kooky" really
waters the word out to signify nothing.
> And where is the evidence that materialism has anything to do with the
> horrors you cite?
Materialism is a prerequisite of communism. Just read Marx.
> > By contrast, damage, if any, from people who speak to angels is
> > small and local.
>
> I see. The Roman Catholic church is just a small, local organization?
I haven´t heard about any popes or cardinals lately seeing and talking
to angels. Even in medieval times, this (supposedly) happened only to
ordinary people, who *after that* might be declared saints, or burned as
heretics.
But the leaders and policymakers of the Roman Catholic Church never
communicated with angels themselves, which might be expected, since most
were not spiritual people at all, but only interested in power.
> > So there you have it, the skeptics are believers and the believers
> > are skeptics.
>
> <groan>.
Always happy to make you groan PZ. It takes a certain skill. ;-)
> There you go. You start off making a rational argument (one I disagree
> with, but you weren't saying anything abominably stupid), and then you
> go and blow it by spewing out one of the oldest, most idiotic word
> games that the kooks always play.
But I will prove it.
> You aren't a skeptic, Gunnar.
I´m not your kind of pseudoskeptic, no.
I thought you would take this bait PZ, so I will take this opportunity
to expand. Below.
> Using your argument, you'd have to say that the wacko babbling about
> angels talking to him is the 'true' skeptic here.
And he might be. Even tho I have never seen any angel, I suspect they
exist. There are many, fairly consistent reports of them. In the same
way I have never seen a black hole, but I suspect they exist, too.
> And that's just an attempt to define the term so broadly that it is no
> longer useful.
Like your definition of the word "kooky", you mean?
> By the way, the "prevailing materialistic paradigm" is accepted by
> many people precisely because there is so much evidence for it: it
> works, unlike the goofy superstitions of the 'believers'. That
> computer you are typing on is the product of the "prevailing
> materialistic paradigm", not the dreaming of true believers or the
> gift of sweet friendly angels.
I would say it is the product of scientists and engineers, some of whom
may have been materialists, while others were not.
BTW, isn´t it interesting that Great scientists (the Nobel Prize winning
kind) very often are spiritual or at the very least open-minded, while
the outspoken materialists and skeptics belong to mediocrity? Of course
this is to be expected, since to be able to make breakthroughs you will
have to be able to think beyond the already accepted...
*
Right, I was going to prove that I am more skeptical than you PZ. Here
we go:
What is the only thing I can really KNOW? Descartes said "I think,
therefore I am", but he is wrong. What I KNOW is that I THINK and that I
EXPERIENCE. Period. "I think, therefore I think. I experience, therefore
I experience." Which of course does not lead anywhere.
I cannot KNOW that anything at all exists outside my own awareness. I
may believe it, assume it, or think it very likely, but I cannot *know*
it.
There are several types of experience - awake world, dreams, and OBEs to
name a few. There may be more.
Now, to get further people will *have* to make a few assumptions to use
as axioms, things they cannot prove, but which they use as starting
points. Most people are not aware of this, however, since these axioms
are taken for granted.
You, PZ, consciously or unconsciously, use the assumption that the awake
world is "real" and dreams and OBEs are not (whatever you mean by the
word "real"). You might mean that anything "real" should be made out of
atoms (well, elementary particles) and exist in ordinary spacetime. But
are magnetic fields real then?
Ok, let´s include fields then. What about magnetic monopoles? Strings?
Membranes? Theoretical physics is constantly discovering (inventing?)
new things which do not fit, and which have to be included in the
material world.
You might say that real things should be measurable and give repeatable
and consistent results. This is better, but you skeptics keep trying to
use *physical* apparata to measure nonphysical phenomena, which of
course is ridiculous. Of course you won´t get any result if you use the
wrong tools. You might as well try to use scales to measure temperature.
If you want to get spiritual data you will have to use spiritual
techniques. That´s the way it is, a law of hypernature if you will. Deal
with it PZ.
Also, the "realness" of something has in many ways become a way of
saying if it is important or not, if it is real it is important. If it
is unreal, you can disregard it totally.
I, on the other hand, simply accept all my experience. The experience
simply *is*. And believe it or not, my position is championed by Occam´s
Razor. "Realness" is an unnecessary parameter, and an unneeded
complication. It is far simpler and more elegant to accept that things
are as they seem rather than building epicircles upon epicircles to
explain how something is *simulated* by something else.
Also, there is in my mind no justification whatsoever for the bias
against dreams and OBEs as compared with waking experience, in terms of
"realness" and therefore importance.
Some skeptics believe that OBEs are a kind of dreams, and that dreams
are simulations done by the brain. But what they fail to realize is
that, if this was indeed the case, the waking world could just as well
be totally simulated. Dreams, and particularly OBEs, can be just as
vivid, detailed, complex, vast and consistent as the waking world - yes,
even more so.
Indeed, even neuroscientists now say that noone actually perceives the
outside world directly. They say what you see, hear, smell, and so on
*is* a model created by the brain. So then, how do they know any outside
world exists at all? *Everything* *everyone* experiences is supposedly
models in the brain, including data gathered by scientists.
It could all be simulated by the mind (not the brain, since in this case
there is no brain)! And isn´t this what the mystics in all ages have
said? That the physical world is an illusion.
So I accept all my experience as equally valid; waking life, dreams,
OBEs. The experience happened and experience is all there is. That is
all I can know. Everything else is speculation.
I accept things that I haven´t experienced myself too, but that doesn´t
mean I *believe* them at 100%. In fact, I don´t *believe* anything, but
I *accept* (tentatively) everything. Not the same thing. If two things
(seem to) contradict each other I cannot believe them both, but I can
accept them both. Belief is exclusive, Acceptance is inclusive.
So I accept that there is probably angels and that people sometimes talk
to them.
And, I am more skeptical than you PZ, by challenging your implicit
assumption that only the waking world is "real" and important. In fact,
I disregard the entire notion of "realness" as unnecessary.
Experience is all there is.
> PZ Myers
PZ Myers
<capu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Or cut to the bone, as some of us might prefer to put it.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
<slide...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Yes, so? Science ain't religion -- it doesn't pretend to provide all
of the answers. Pointing out lacunae in our knowledge isn't troubling
at all. What is interesting is that the nay-sayers always have to keep
pushing the examples of our ignorance farther and farther away; where
once they could pretend the ages of miracles were only a few thousands
of years back, now they have to seek refuge in the darkness of tens of
billions of years ago.
That's progress.
--
PZ Myers
John Garrison
>
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > PZ Meyers,
> > >
> > > I do have to disagree with you. Just because you have no evidence of
> > > these things, does not mean that they do not exist. Although the ideas
> > > may seem strange or awkward to you, they may not be wrong. I think that
> > > you are short sighted to automatically disavow anything that you have
> > > no ability to prove or disprove. You may be selling your own self very
> > > short.
> > >
> > > To address the issue of the many very dangerous people who heard the
> > > voice of "God" or "Angels," I can not help to submit. Yes.. they did
> > > exist. You do however fail to mention that there were/are just as many
> > > people who do very good things that also 'hear' the voices of "God" and
> > > "Angels." Missionaries, Priests, Stigmatics to name a few. The phrase
> > > "squeaky wheel gets the oil" applys here. The 'bad' people get more
> > > attention... the 'good' ones are quickly forgotten.
> >
> > their beliefs, you can find them pleasant...but I've always found
> > missionary work terribly offensive and destructive.
>
> tribesmen who, not yet sophisticated enough to distinguish paintings
> from photographs, took this as proof of the concept. Pretty underhanded
> if it's true.
That doesn't make sense, If the tribesmen were unsophisticated then they
would likely mistake a photograph for a painting, as most primitive man
is already familar with paintings and has never heard of a photograph.
PS I am sending this through my regular news server so if deja doesn't
pick it up I will send it throught there. At some point it may appear as
though I posted it twice. (sometimes my news server kicks in and sends
posts it should have sent a while ago)
john_g...@my-deja.com
is already familar with paintings and has never heard of a photograph,
correct?
Of course, Lord knows that people will try anything to get people to
follow "the Lord". The thing is a really really don't think that the
Lord wants people to be tricked into following him.
capuchin
Mmmhmm. I detect a bounce in your step now that you've picked up the
scent of fresh blood. Intoxicating.
--
Trish
Janice
They had some cool folk art, of course, but they weren't familiar with
detailed, realistic paintings like those of the Europeans. While they
didn't have cameras in their own culture, they could see the results
when missionaries and anthropologists took photographs of them, so they
knew that photos captured scenes live (you've probably heard that photos
were taboo in some cultures because they thought the camera captured
their souls). A complex painting - particularly one that was made into
a print in a book - could easily look more like a photograph to them
than it would resemble the average primitive decorating on bark, wood
and rock that they were familiar with.
Janice
> correct?
Gotcha the first time on this one.
> Of course, Lord knows that people will try anything to get people to
> follow "the Lord". The thing is a really really don't think that the
> Lord wants people to be tricked into following him.
Or into sending lots of money to television evangelists. ;)
John Garrison
Cool! Now I don't have to you stupid deja anymore!
> > Of course, Lord knows that people will try anything to get people to
> > follow "the Lord". The thing is a really really don't think that the
> > Lord wants people to be tricked into following him.
>
> Or into sending lots of money to television evangelists. ;)
Yeah, I particularly enjoy those "strict" christians that talk about how
we shouldn't watch TV, then you have your TV evangelists. Ironic, eh?
I think that the God I believe in is far different from the one that
most "christians" believe in. That is to say, I fail to see how a god
who would create man and woman would have any complaints about a woman
wearing pants, or showing leg, I just think those things are very petty.
The same thing with violence in video games and such. People like Jerry
Falwell all talk about how video games are "evil", but I think God and
everybody else (except Jerry Falwell and his...minions) know the
differnce between fantasy and reality.
If God is so strict that I can't listen to a certain type of music,
watch a certain tv show, or wear certain clothes then quite frankly I
don't want to go to heaven. And I think that the people that use such
extreme measures to spread "Chrisitanity" are doing a far better job of
turning people against christians. When indeed not all people who
believe in God choose to impose such cruel and petty limitations upon
themselves in the name of God.
Janice
Aha, so that's what you find appealing about PZ - he's a serial killer
of woo-woo ideas! :D
PZ Myers
> PZ Myers wrote:
>
> > Yes, so? Any time people surrender the ability to think for themselves
> > to blind acceptance of kooky beliefs, you've got trouble.
>
> So I disproved your assertion.
No, I think you showed that you agreed with me.
>
> You said: "Historically, the people who have been most dangerous, most
> disruptive, and most likely to turn on and harm others in mass action,
> are the people who claim to have had inside information from God,
> angels, spirits, whatever...people who give creedence (Sic!) to the
> little voices in their heads without measuring those words against the
> reality of the outside world."
>
> I showed this not to be the case, by proving that the largest deathtoll
> in history was caused by regimes specifically not believeing in anything
> immaterial.
I think the Will of the Proletariat has been amply demonstrated to be
immaterial.
>
> And BTW, your habit of calling anything you disagree with "kooky" really
> waters the word out to signify nothing.
No, I'm pretty specific in what I call kooky. It's not my fault that
much of what you accept as true seems to be pretty danged kooky.
>
> > And where is the evidence that materialism has anything to do with the
> > horrors you cite?
>
> Materialism is a prerequisite of communism. Just read Marx.
I have, but long ago. I didn't find him particularly compelling.
>
> > > By contrast, damage, if any, from people who speak to angels is
> > > small and local.
> >
> > I see. The Roman Catholic church is just a small, local organization?
>
> I haven´t heard about any popes or cardinals lately seeing and talking
> to angels. Even in medieval times, this (supposedly) happened only to
> ordinary people, who *after that* might be declared saints, or burned as
> heretics.
It doesn't have to be literal speech with angels specifically -- I think
the belief that a divine entity or entities communicates with people or
some subset of people, which christian churches *do* accept, fits my
characterization quite well.
>
> But the leaders and policymakers of the Roman Catholic Church never
> communicated with angels themselves, which might be expected, since most
> were not spiritual people at all, but only interested in power.
My, my. Not only do you try to redefine skeptics as woo-woos and
woo-woos as skeptics, but now you want to pretend the Roman Catholic
Church had nothing to do with spiritualism or religion. OK.
>
> > > So there you have it, the skeptics are believers and the believers
> > > are skeptics.
> >
> > <groan>.
>
> Always happy to make you groan PZ. It takes a certain skill. ;-)
>
> > There you go. You start off making a rational argument (one I disagree
> > with, but you weren't saying anything abominably stupid), and then you
> > go and blow it by spewing out one of the oldest, most idiotic word
> > games that the kooks always play.
>
> But I will prove it.
>
> > You aren't a skeptic, Gunnar.
>
> I´m not your kind of pseudoskeptic, no.
>
> I thought you would take this bait PZ, so I will take this opportunity
> to expand. Below.
[snip longwinded, sophomoric, superficial argument]
Let's do a little simple Gordian knot slashing here. We don't need none
of this stupid undergraduate philosophizing.
You are the guy who believes in literal OOBEs, astral travel, what have
you. You are defending a fellow who claims a little angel talks to him
and reveals the truth, who says "There is no point in testing your
beliefs". You seem to be claiming that simple, personal, subjective
belief is sufficient to make something real -- dreams are as valid as
what you see when awake.
I'm the fellow who says you had better show me multiply replicated
studies with good controls and unambiguous results before I will
provisionally accept your claims.
Now you want to play word games and redefine terms so that you can claim
that *you* are the skeptic, and *I* am the woo-woo.
I think that's simple enough to understand. You're a real kook.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
wrote:
> > "Missionaries are not good people. Perhaps if you already agree with
> > their beliefs, you can find them pleasant...but I've always found
> > missionary work terribly offensive and destructive. "
>
> The same could be said about certain sects of terrorists. My point was
> trying to illustrate that not all people who hear the voice(s) of "God"
> or "Angels" are inherently evil/destructive.
And I never said they were. I suspect that most of the people who hear
those little voices and think angels are talking to them are completely
harmless. However, surrendering reason to that kind of irrational
nonsense is dangerous, and historically has been misused in evil ways.
>
> > " "Priests" is a pretty general term. I've known a few good people
> > among them, and a few fascist weasels. It's like saying "people" --
> > it's not a term automatically indicative of goodness."
>
> Why are you using my args for your points? I never stated that
> 'Priests' were 'indicative of goodness.' I was giving examples of types
> of people who in my minds eye are typically 'good.' I did that in
> response to your example of 'terrorists.' Terrorists that you implied
> were indicitive of badness.
You think priests are typically good, but you don't think being a priest
is indicative of goodness? How confusing.
What terrorists? I never brought up terrorists.
>
> > " Stigmatics? You've got to be kidding me. They are a bunch of crazy
> > frauds."
>
> How (please oh please) can you prove or disprove that statement? Better
> yet, prove or disprove the existance of God, THEN prove or disprove the
> death (or life) of his son, THEN prove or disprove the impact of that
> death on people we know as "Stigmatics." Please... I really would like
> you to enlighten me in these theosophical concerns. (The Vatican would
> probablly like to know too).
The stigmatics who have been investigated have usually been found likely
to have inflicted the wounds on themselves. That's fraud.
I have no interest in proving or disproving god, jesus, buddha, the
easter bunny, or whatever deity you think rules your life.
>
> > "No. They can be disproven. OOBEs as methods of obtaining information
> > about the real world is a concept amenable to testing and
> > verification. Discussing dreams as a method of viewing the operation
> > of the brain during sleep states is a perfectly reasonable thing to
> > do."
>
> Unless you can prove without a doubt that any one given person's 'soul'
> did not and can not leave their body, you can not totally discount the
> possibility.
Sure I can. There's no evidence for it, no logical underpinnings to it,
and the phenomena are more than adequately explained as a kind of dream.
> I could name a number of people who tried to fly and
> failed before the Wright brothers. To the ones who 'failed' the concept
> of 'flight' was impossible. If you asked them... they didn't see every
> possible solution, and therefore failed.
Well, actually, they did see a solution: more powerful engines.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
capuchin
Appealing is probably too strong a word. Replace it with
'interesting', and you've got a hit. :D
Lorz
--
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man." --H. L. Mencken
Haunter <Hau...@castles.com> wrote in message
news:3a1305c1....@cnews.newsguy.com...
: On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:56:53 GMT, "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
:
: >
: >Haunter wrote in message <3a0acb05....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
: >>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:39:10 GMT, Sorcerer Supreme <tle...@yahoo.com>
: >>wrote:
: >>Since SS won't be seeing this, and just by way of explanation for the
: >>rest of the group, SS sent me an email when he should have posted it
: >>to the group. I asked him not to do that and that it was not good
: >>Unsenet ettiquette. He responded, smugly, that I was the one who
: >>should learn proper posting proceedures (?).
: >>. I disagreed; again, without emotion.
: >> For this, and for playing "devil's advocate" to help him better flesh
: >>out the ideas in his "theory", I get killfiled.
: >><shrug>
: >>No big whoop.
: >
: >Don't you love it when you really, honestly wish to question someone,
even
: >if it's to expand your own knowledge by critique ... and they just plonk
: >you?
: >
: >
: >Sheesh. Well ... you tried.
: >
: That kinda thing used to bug me, but hey, that's life. Nobody ever
: guarnteed that we're supposedto be able to get along with everyone
: else :-) Actually, that would make for a very boring life.
:
Sick Isis on him Haunt! ;-)
Lorz
Phil Harrison <phar...@ramtop.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn8pltke.7...@ramtop.demon.co.uk...
: Billy wrote
: >In article <sanm5.850$Ku3.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
: > "Trish" <capu...@gte.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> This is the primary reason why I find it very difficult to accept
: >something
: >> as a belief. I can never tell if I'm believing just to have
: >something to
: >> believe in.
: >>
: >>
: >
: >I guess that is the curse of being open minded. I change my tune more
: >often than I change my underwear (which I do every day). The reason I
: >have started posting here is to get feedback on my posts. I think its
: >the best way to test for the truth. If no-one can dispute it then
: >maybe it is something that can be believed in:)
: >
: But there are lots of things that you can't really dispute. I could say
that
: there are pixies living at the bottom of my garden, and you can't prove me
: wrong. Admittedly I can't provide evidence to prove this assertion correct
: either.
:
: So should I believe in the pixies because they have not been disproved, or
not
: believe in them because of a lack of evidence?
:
: --
: Phil Harrison
Well it's not like people are having BOGPE's (bottom of garden pixie
experiences) you know? I think that there is no doubt that people are having
these out of body type experiences regardless of what they truly may be, the
experience *does* happen.