Spirit Guides Explain It All Through Their Channelers

120 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
A long documentary where Channelers separately contact their spirit guides and the the spirit, having taken over their bodies is then interviewed about the meaning of everything and how it all works, suprising uniformity in their answers. Not for everyone.

  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    A long documentary where Channelers separately contact their spirit guides and the the spirit, having taken over their bodies is then interviewed about the meaning of everything and how it all works, suprising uniformity in their answers. Not for everyone.

    Tuning In - Spirit Channelers In America (Full Length) - YouTube
    Yes, before the tidal wave of the usual, l will defend my skepticism because l like being a skeptic, l will intersect a few words, that will be forgotten and dismissed.

    Yes, l have tried this, and there is something positive to say about it!

    But l should say, that even guides can screw up, not as much as we do, but it is possible!

    They just collected enough frequent flyer points to get off the treadmill and stay up there and help some of us down here!

    We all have 3 guides on average, although for the most skeptical ones, they probably just throw things at them to make them see that they are mistaken, and hope for the best!

    The second last reading l had, there was almost 10 guides above her, all professionals in different fields. Which explains her 100 accuracy in explaining my aches and pains back then!

    No rummaging through my bin, l never saw her before, and she could fake or guess some, but not all!


    Ok, enough common sense, l will let the bloodbath begin!


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10119765].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
      Banned
      I never enjoy having what little intellect I possess insulted so early in the day, not too mention my abundance of common-sense.

      Carnies.

      Cheers. - Frank
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120295].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
        Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

        I never enjoy having what little intellect I possess insulted so early in the day, not too mention my abundance of common-sense.

        Carnies.

        Cheers. - Frank
        Listen to the first 30 seconds, the Darth Vader breathing is priceless.
        Signature

        Marriage, For The Best Arguments

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120629].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
          Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

          Listen to the first 30 seconds, the Darth Vader breathing is priceless.
          Yes, the breathing at the start is a bit off putting, and possibly the overacting, but l may take a look at it later on?

          But l doubt that anything l or others can say will convince a skeptic!

          Apart from saying that l have tried it, and it isn't your subscioncious taking over, it is something else!

          Interesting experience, but not to be done in an unsafe environment.

          Being possessed and spending your time spinning your head, etc, not good!


          As for the event that has galactic implications, now, possible, but it is a long story. Most likely has something to do with the planets energy matrix going up and everyone's ego's going nuts to try to suppress the obvious?

          The more you relate to your ego as your self, the more you will be dragged, (kicking and screaming, if necessary) into the age of Aquarius!


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120684].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

            As for the event that has galactic implications, now, possible, but it is a long story. Most likely has something to do with the planets energy matrix going up and everyone's ego's going nuts to try to suppress the obvious?
            This makes being 60...and reasonably close to death...much easier to take.

            Not because it gives me hope....but because, when I'm dead, I'll never have to see this kind of nonsense again.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120710].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


              Not because it gives me hope....but because, when I'm dead, I'll never have to see this kind of nonsense again.
              Or you will have a front row seat to it.








              P.S. haven't watched the video just going off the "spirit" part of the title.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120909].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              This makes being 60...and reasonably close to death...much easier to take.

              Not because it gives me hope....but because, when I'm dead, I'll never have to see this kind of nonsense again.
              I thought it would be interesting to some as it is a complete and detailed description of what most regard as intangible and showed some uniformity and consensus. Like I said, not for everybody.
              Signature

              Marriage, For The Best Arguments

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120932].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                I thought it would be interesting to some as it is a complete and detailed description of what most regard as intangible and showed some uniformity and consensus. Like I said, not for everybody.
                I didn't watch any of the video. I was commenting on Shane's post.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10120961].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  This makes being 60...and reasonably close to death...much easier to take.

                  Not because it gives me hope....but because, when I'm dead, I'll never have to see this kind of nonsense again.
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  I didn't watch any of the video. I was commenting on Shane's post.
                  Only trouble is, if you are right, then you will probably come back as a drooling baby, since ceasing to exist or to be conscious are the only options!

                  And when you start to suck on some toy donuts, and your parents post it here, then we will know!

                  Groan!

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10121020].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                    Only trouble is, if you are right, then you will probably come back as a drooling baby, since ceasing to exist or to be conscious are the only options!
                    Shane; I won't come back at all.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10121119].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Shane; I won't come back at all.

                      Signature

                      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10121215].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Shane; I won't come back at all.
                      Ok, so you will die, see nothing but darkness, and that is it?

                      Then after a while you will realize your body or mind is officially dead, but you are still conscious?

                      Then after that you will have a tug of war between trying to figure out whether you are really conscious or part of your brain that is by now rotten, or is ashes in an ern somewhere is the reason?

                      After that l expect some of your family members will appear and slap you around a lot, but in a nice way!

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10121883].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                        Ok, so you will die, see nothing but darkness, and that is it?

                        Then after a while you will realize your body or mind is officially dead, but you are still conscious?

                        Then after that you will have a tug of war between trying to figure out whether you are really conscious or part of your brain that is by now rotten, or is ashes in an ern somewhere is the reason?

                        After that l expect some of your family members will appear and slap you around a lot, but in a nice way!

                        No. I won't exist. I won't see darkness. I won't see anything.
                        Signature
                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122624].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                          No. I won't exist. I won't see darkness. I won't see anything.
                          I'm being serious here Claude as I know your belief system and respect it.

                          But out of my curiosity only, what do you think that you would think if you died. Your body that has housed the real you gave up the ghost so to speak. What do you think your first thought would be?


                          Terra
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122658].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                            Banned
                            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                            I'm being serious here Claude as I know your belief system and respect it.

                            But out of my curiosity only, what do you think that you would think if you died. Your body that has housed the real you gave up the ghost so to speak. What do you think your first thought would be?


                            Terra
                            "Frank was right. I wasn't very far behind him, at all. I think I see him, just up ahead. Maybe if I hide, he won't see me." :-)

                            Cheers. - Frank
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122683].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                            I'm being serious here Claude as I know your belief system and respect it.

                            But out of my curiosity only, what do you think that you would think if you died. Your body that has housed the real you gave up the ghost so to speak. What do you think your first thought would be?


                            Terra
                            Are you asking me, what I would think...if I was still conscious?...after I died?

                            And Terra; .I have no belief system. This is how a person talks, when they have no beliefs in this area.
                            Signature
                            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                            Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122696].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              Are you asking me, what I would think...if I was still conscious?...after I died?
                              Yes, exactly, you know, you are energy. The house collapsed, but you, your energy still existed. I know you would be surprised, at least I think you would. So, what do you think your first thought would be?

                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              And Terra; .I have no belief system. This is how a person talks, when they have no beliefs in this area.
                              Sure you do. It certainly isn't a complex one, but a system, just the same. Birth, life, death, nothing. That's your belief system, am I right?


                              Terra
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122735].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                Yes, exactly, you know, you are energy. The house collapsed, but you, your energy still existed. I know you would be surprised, at least I think you would. So, what do you think your first thought would be?

                                Sure you do. It certainly isn't a complex one, but a system, just the same. Birth, life, death, nothing. That's your belief system, am I right?


                                Terra
                                This is Claude's first after death thought....




















                                Unless, he has a thought, then it will be, "Dammit"!

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122797].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                Yes, exactly, you know, you are energy. The house collapsed, but you, your energy still existed. I know you would be surprised, at least I think you would. So, what do you think your first thought would be?



                                Sure you do. It certainly isn't a complex one, but a system, just the same. Birth, life, death, nothing. That's your belief system, am I right?


                                Terra

                                Terra, you beautiful lady...there just isn't a way for me to explain it, that will make sense to you.
                                Signature
                                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122836].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                  Terra, you beautiful lady...there just isn't a way for me to explain it, that you'll accept.
                                  Thank you, you gallant man, you, but who said I had to accept it?


                                  Terra
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122857].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              And Terra; .I have no belief system.
                              Mentally impossible - particularly as relates to your previous statements.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10124570].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              Are you asking me, what I would think...if I was still conscious?...after I died?

                              And Terra; .I have no belief system. This is how a person talks, when they have no beliefs in this area.
                              That is what you told me at the English pub, in 1832, as well as Europe in 1776, and....


                              But in a way you are right, but there is another possibility that you can't remember the last one, and just think that this is a one off?

                              Maybe it is a lot of one-off's?



                              PS finally finished watching the video, fascinating, but not for everyone!

                              Especially not for skeptics, unless they are tied down in a chair?
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10126589].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                                Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                That is what you told me at the English pub, in 1832, as well as Europe in 1776, and....


                                But in a way you are right, but there is another possibility that you can't remember the last one, and just think that this is a one off?

                                Maybe it is a lot of one-off's?



                                PS finally finished watching the video, fascinating, but not for everyone!

                                Especially not for skeptics, unless they are tied down in a chair?
                                I would say the video is for sceptics, but not to convince them otherwise. Only to educate them (if they have not read up on it already) as to the way this (to them) intangible alternative reality works and pans out. It is a fair representation of consensus and opinion as to how it all fits together.

                                I would say to sceptics that rather than just saying nay and just quoting science, it is wise to educate yourselves (know your enemy) a little in what exactly they are debunking and its terminology, even though it does not change their opinions one jot. The video provides a lot of this info. The video also trashes conventional religious doctrines.
                                Signature

                                Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10126648].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author discrat
                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              Are you asking me, what I would think...if I was still conscious?...after I died?

                              And Terra; .I have no belief system. This is how a person talks, when they have no beliefs in this area.
                              Claude,
                              I would respectfully disagree.

                              You most certainly have a Belief System. Just from what I have gathered here over the years...

                              You believe in NOT taking any sides.

                              You seek only the Truth. Wherever that leads you. Good or Bad. Which I respect and to a certain degree Iam that way as well.

                              I can tell you without hesitation that I know people in my Life that do NOT have Belief Systems.

                              These are people who just live day to day. Who eat. sleep. work, piss, sh@t and have no real in depth type of thinking.

                              They not only do NOT believe in God, the subject of whether or not there is a God has never entered their Mind.

                              They are very shallow thinkers.

                              Think of Maslows Hierarchy. They are at the bottom of that pole.

                              And you are definitely not one of them.

                              You are a deep thinker therefore you do have a belief system
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127227].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                Well, Shane. It might be easy to explain away my perceptions and experiences. It's quite another to be able to explain away my dog's. Nobody who has ever known one of my dogs has ever tried to second guess my communications with them. Munchie said that wolf was not there just being a normal wolf. Either time we saw him on that weekend - and considering the situation, I had second guessed my own perceptions until I took note of his behavior. That was not a normal encounter by any stretch of the imagination. The natives I talked to didn't think it was either. I trust their wisdom and understanding of the natural before any western "civilized" indoctrinated human's. Especially when the natives I talked to have science educations. Everyone else's opinion is just "fad", "indoctrinated", "misinformed" in my book.
                                Yes, the American Indians, just like the Aboriginals of AU, have access to things that most westerners, would dismiss as drug induced or mind created!

                                Although with a little more research it becomes obvious that channeling and seeing guides, are real or an accepted part of their world.

                                The western explanation is drug induced fantasies or schizophrenia with split personalities, or some such nonsense!

                                Interesting what they said about the emotional body creating illness or changing our genes; certainly fly's in the face of the western slant on illness, or it is a roll of the dice, and spend $5000 a month on this treatment that chances genes back to their healthy state.

                                I doubt that bringing the emotional body back to optimum health would cost that much?

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127545].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                Claude,
                                I would respectfully disagree.

                                You most certainly have a Belief System. Just from what I have gathered here over the years...

                                You believe in NOT taking any sides.
                                First, thank you.

                                I looked up the word Believe.

                                verb (used without object), believed, believing.
                                1.
                                to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
                                2.
                                to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.


                                When I say I don't have beliefs, I mean that I don't have assertions that something is true without evidence, or at least a sound logical argument. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that I don't hold something to be true on faith.

                                It really helps that I don't care where the evidence leads...what the results are. I care much more about the process used to come to a conclusion. Mostly, my own.

                                While I try not to take sides, or a position (because the thinking stops at that point), it isn't that I don't believe in taking sides, it's that it doesn't generally happen.

                                I guess I've pontificated enough on this.
                                Signature
                                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10128130].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                  First, thank you.

                                  I looked up the word Believe.

                                  verb (used without object), believed, believing.
                                  1.
                                  to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
                                  2.
                                  to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.


                                  When I say I don't have beliefs, I mean that I don't have assertions that something is true without evidence, or at least a sound logical argument. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that I don't hold something to be true on faith.

                                  It really helps that I don't care where the evidence leads...what the results are. I care much more about the process used to come to a conclusion. Mostly, my own.

                                  While I try not to take sides, or a position (because the thinking stops at that point), it isn't that I don't believe in taking sides, it's that it doesn't generally happen.

                                  I guess I've pontificated enough on this.
                                  Respectable position. I've seen channelers on TV, etc, and would call them 100% charlatans to the point it pissed me off that people would suck in anything they said. Out in the mountains, I would have taken the events with the wolf to be my imagination reacting to exposure. It was only my dog that made me realize that something was very out of the ordinary. Dogs don't lie about that kind of crap. They wouldn't even realize it to be something to lie about. Our eyes only register a small part of the light (visual) spectrum. Our ears register much less than a dog's. And our noses are practically useless compared to an animal's. I feel our limitations don't allow us to know half of what is around us. We also know there are energy vortexes and alternate dimensions, so I cannot dismiss the possibilities of anything just because I can't see, hear, or understand it. Neither can I prove it on my own. It took a dog to let me know I'm severely limited in my perceptions. Mostly because he wasn't.
                                  Signature

                                  Sal
                                  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                  Beyond the Path

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129088].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                    Dogs don't lie about that kind of crap. They wouldn't even realize it to be something to lie about.
                                    Dogs don't lie about this particular subject? I didn't even know they could talk.
                                    Signature
                                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129485].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      Dogs don't lie about this particular subject? I didn't even know they could talk.
                                      They all talk in deep baritone voices because they have a Sub-Woofer
                                      Signature

                                      Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129587].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      Dogs don't lie about this particular subject? I didn't even know they could talk.

                                      Dogs are notorious liars, Claude. They'll tell you anything you want to hear, especially if you have a Snausage in your hand.
                                      Signature

                                      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129594].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                        Banned
                                        Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                                        Dogs are notorious liars, Claude. They'll tell you anything you want to hear, especially if you have a Snausage in your hand.
                                        I try to keep my Snausage in my hand as much as possible. My dog is another story, altogether.

                                        Cheers. - Frank
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129830].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                          Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                          I try to keep my Snausage in my hand as much as possible. My dog is another story, altogether.

                                          Cheers. - Frank

                                          I call it a Snausage too, but only when my nose is stuffy.
                                          Signature
                                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129835].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                            Banned
                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                            I call it a Snausage too, but only when one is stuffed up my nose.
                                            Fixed.

                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129843].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                      Banned
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      Dogs don't lie about this particular subject? I didn't even know they could talk.
                                      They can't talk, but they do have an innate ability to communicate effectively that surpasses the conversational skills of most people that I know.

                                      Cheers. - Frank
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129839].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                        Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                        They can't talk,
                                        IF they could understand our gibberish (to them at least) they might be saying

                                        "what you talking bout Willis?"

                                        We bark and you get our meaning lots of times? Woof

                                        My dog lies all the time. Whining like he is in pain when he likes what i am eating.
                                        Signature

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130026].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                          Banned
                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                          IF they could understand our gibberish (to them at least) they might be saying

                                          "what you talking bout Willis?"

                                          We bark and you get our meaning lots of times? Woof

                                          My dog lies all the time. Whining like he is in pain when he likes what i am eating.
                                          I spent 14 years, 24/7 with my last dog. She was smart as a whip and understood every word I said by the age of 2. If I said, "someone is coming to see you,' that got a particular reaction. If I said, "Aunt Connie is coming to see you," she'd jump 3 feet in the air. She had a different reaction for each person mentioned by name, from wagging her tail to laying at the front door in rapt anticipation or even pushing the curtain away from the window if I would tell her they are bringing her a treat. I firmly believe that they understand much more than we give them credit for, and I also believe they refer to us as dorks when they are in the company of other dogs.

                                          My dog has also trained me to respond appropriately to her vocal cues, from sighing, whining, various levels of barking and snorting. Honey has never growled, though.

                                          Have I ever mentioned that I love my dog more than anything in my life. It is in direct proportion to the joy she brings me and how often she just makes me laugh. I'm not big on laughing, but this nut keeps me in stitches.

                                          Cheers. - Frank
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130454].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                    I cannot dismiss the possibilities of anything just because I can't see, hear, or understand it..
                                    This isn't directed at you, Sal. But you triggered the thought.

                                    A common straw man argument against atheists, rational thinkers, and skeptics is, "They don't believe it, unless they can see , smell, taste, or feel it".

                                    It's an argument created to make it easier to dismiss critical thinking. The truth is, there is plenty that we can't detect with our senses...that is real; air, radio signals, light out of the visible spectrum, radiation, changes in temperature, certain gasses are undetectable by smell, gravity, electricity, and more.

                                    But we (Yes, even skeptics) know these things exist. How? We can see the effects. And from that, we can determine the cause.

                                    There are two types of knowledge....discovered and invented.

                                    Discovered knowledge is what we have when we experiment, or when we determines a cause, based on the effects. Or when we reason out how something works...something that fits the facts...and then we change it, when we find something that fits the facts better.

                                    Invented knowledge is what our imagination creates. It's impossible to test, and won't allow critical thinking. It simply has to be accepted...or you are called arrogant, closed minded, or a heretic. One way we know this knowledge is invented, is that it doesn't change. Why would it, it was just made up in the first place. And there is never any new discovered knowledge to advance the idea. So the idea remains static. That's a huge clue, that the information is invented....and not real.

                                    And one of the most common arguments, when defending an invented idea....is to claim that the skeptic "refuses to believe it, unless he can see, tough, smell, or taste it".

                                    In fact, this argument is almost exclusively used with invented ideas. Why? Because reality can be defended using far better arguments.

                                    I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I know that's impossible. But it passes the time.

                                    Now, I'm going to go back to work.
                                    Signature
                                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10129579].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      This isn't directed at you, Sal. But you triggered the thought.

                                      A common straw man argument against atheists, rational thinkers, and skeptics is, "They don't believe it, unless they can see , smell, taste, or feel it".

                                      It's an argument created to make it easier to dismiss critical thinking. The truth is, there is plenty that we can't detect with our senses...that is real; air, radio signals, light out of the visible spectrum, radiation, changes in temperature, certain gasses are undetectable by smell, gravity, electricity, and more.



                                      But we (Yes, even skeptics) know these things exist. How? We can see the effects. And from that, we can determine the cause.

                                      There are two types of knowledge....discovered and invented.

                                      Discovered knowledge is what we have when we experiment, or when we determines a cause, based on the effects. Or when we reason out how something works...something that fits the facts...and then we change it, when we find something that fits the facts better.

                                      Invented knowledge is what our imagination creates. It's impossible to test, and won't allow critical thinking. It simply has to be accepted...or you are called arrogant, closed minded, or a heretic. One way we know this knowledge is invented, is that it doesn't change. Why would it, it was just made up in the first place. And there is never any new discovered knowledge to advance the idea. So the idea remains static. That's a huge clue, that the information is invented....and not real.

                                      And one of the most common arguments, when defending an invented idea....is to claim that the skeptic "refuses to believe it, unless he can see, tough, smell, or taste it".

                                      In fact, this argument is almost exclusively used with invented ideas. Why? Because reality can be defended using far better arguments.

                                      I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I know that's impossible. But it passes the time.

                                      Now, I'm going to go back to work.
                                      It is an ad hominem argument, Claude. No denying that one.
                                      However - some things are true whether we have the science to explain them or not. Look at how many things we didn't know only 100 years ago.........simply because the science wasn't there yet. Science is now in the stage of proving all sorts of things about energy that we could only guess about decades back.

                                      Nothing, nothing - is written in stone.

                                      As far as dogs talking? They are excellent communicators whose brains have morphed over their thousands of years of domestication to be more compatible with human thinking and sociology. The only reason they don't speak human is because they don't have the appropriate vocal chords. If you can live with a dog, though, and not understand it when it tells you something, it's you that is stupid, not the dog. (you meaning anyone, not specifically you).
                                      Signature

                                      Sal
                                      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                      Beyond the Path

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130088].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                        It is an ad hominem argument, Claude. No denying that one.

                                        As far as dogs talking? They are excellent communicators whose brains have morphed over their thousands of years of domestication to be more compatible with human thinking and sociology. The only reason they don't speak human is because they don't have the appropriate vocal chords. If you can live with a dog, though, and not understand it when it tells you something, it's you that is stupid, not the dog. (you meaning anyone, not specifically you).
                                        I agree. Dogs can convey many separate feelings and attitudes. The list is long. I even believe that some breeds can understand reasonably complex language. I've seen it.

                                        What strains my acceptance is that a dog can say a complex sentence to you...and you understand it.

                                        I'm not saying it isn't true. Only that I don't accept it as true.
                                        Signature
                                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130104].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                          I agree. Dogs can convey many separate feelings and attitudes. The list is long. I even believe that some breeds can understand reasonably complex language. I've seen it.

                                          What strains my acceptance is that a dog can say a complex sentence to you...and you understand it.

                                          I'm not saying it isn't true. Only that I don't accept it as true.
                                          Mishka the talking dog.

                                          Signature

                                          Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130479].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                                            Mishka the talking dog.
                                            I'd be more impressed if he said, "I think that foreign dictators are a mean evil bunch"..rather than arrr, aaarr, aaaarrr, arrr, arrrrhhh, aaaarrrhhh.

                                            "Go ahead Rex! Tell us what is on top of a house!"

                                            "Girl! What's on the outside of a tree?"

                                            Yes, I love dogs. Yes, I think they are very intelligent. No, they cannot talk in complex sentences. Yes, when they hear the words, "Aunt Molly", they know to run and hide.

                                            Even Riffle can do that.

                                            (Perfect time for a WC joke. Too bad he's gone)
                                            Signature
                                            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                            Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130502].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                              I'd be more impressed if he said, "I think that foreign dictators are a mean evil bunch"..rather than arrr, aaarr, aaaarrr, arrr, arrrrhhh, aaaarrrhhh.

                                              "Go ahead Rex! Tell us what is on top of a house!"

                                              "Girl! What's on the outside of a tree?"

                                              Yes, I love dogs. Yes, I think they are very intelligent. No, they cannot talk in complex sentences. Yes, when they hear the words, "Aunt Molly", they know to run and hide.

                                              Even Riffle can do that.

                                              (Perfect time for a WC joke. Too bad he's gone)
                                              "I'd be more impressed if he said, "I think that foreign dictators are a mean evil bunch"..rather than arrr, aaarr, aaaarrr, arrr, arrrrhhh, aaaarrrhhh."

                                              He's a Pirate dog! (real name Patch)
                                              Signature

                                              Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130512].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                                                "I'd be more impressed if he said, "I think that foreign dictators are a mean evil bunch"..rather than arrr, aaarr, aaaarrr, arrr, arrrrhhh, aaaarrrhhh."

                                                He's a Pirate dog! (real name Patch)


                                                So, the mystery is solved. It's not a talking dog. The parrot on it's shoulder is a ventriloquist.

                                                The next mystery is.....where did the dog get the parrot....Oh, I forgot....pirate dog.
                                                Signature
                                                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130516].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                  And that is why I said, "I mean....." because I knew that different people use the word differently. I wanted to explain what I actually meant.

                                                  You call that faith. I would call it proven experience.

                                                  I will grant you that some atheists are unreasonable. But your description of what they assume isn't really accurate. Nor could it be.

                                                  There are few things in this world of which I am absolutely certain. One of those few things I am certain of, is that a religious person cannot know how an unreligious/skeptical person thinks.

                                                  Our brains are just wired differently. And no matter how hard either one tries, it won't make a dent.
                                                  Brains are wired differently, the difference between Al Bundy and a priest?


                                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                  I agree. Dogs can convey many separate feelings and attitudes. The list is long. I even believe that some breeds can understand reasonably complex language. I've seen it.

                                                  What strains my acceptance is that a dog can say a complex sentence to you...and you understand it.

                                                  I'm not saying it isn't true. Only that I don't accept it as true.
                                                  So, if you don't accept it as true, then you are saying that Sal imagined it all, and apparently her dog did at the same time!

                                                  Sounds more like skeptics won't accept anything at face value if it unsettles their beliefs, or critical thinking is flawed?

                                                  If a cosmologist, used your reasoning to indirectly find a new planet around a sun, it would be a case of if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is anything but a duck, because l don't want to believe that it is a duck!

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130690].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                    Brains are wired differently, the difference between Al Bundy and a priest?
                                                    Besides my previous logical objections, the true stupidity of the argument is that it assumes against evidence that a skeptical person has never become a believer and therefore more than capable of understanding both positions. people have converted and still each week both ways but Claude in his isolated world is oblivious.

                                                    When you see someone hang their hat of being "absolutely certain" on something so illogical you know that rationality isn't the basis of their most cherished beliefs.
                                                    Signature

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130739].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                      Besides my previous logical objections, the true stupidity of the argument is that it assumes against evidence that a skeptical person has never become a believer and therefore more than capable of understanding both positions. people have converted and still each week both ways but Claude in his isolated world is oblivious.

                                                      When you see someone hang their hat of being "absolutely certain" on something so illogical you know that rationality isn't the basis of their most cherished beliefs.
                                                      No, neither of us want to use a certain word, but the other one is fear!

                                                      Fear labelled as rational thought!

                                                      Hell, when l saw my dead Grandmother, (she passed away about ten years previously) l had to glue my feet to the floor, and l have seen a lot of stuff like this, but it has all been third party.

                                                      So according to Claude what l saw was impossible or something else, eventhough it was as clear as day!

                                                      I have also seen a ghost and described it in minute detail, and someone else beside me also described the same entity in as much detail,.....apparently we were both hallucinating at the same time? Or the Turkish take away, was using magic mushrooms?

                                                      Yeah, rational thinking or super intelligence, sounds more like a giant band aid!

                                                      Or security blanket?

                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130840].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author discrat
                                                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post


                                                        Hell, when l saw my dead Grandmother, (she passed away about ten years previously) l had to glue my feet to the floor, and l have seen a lot of stuff like this, but it has all been third party.
                                                        Not sure quite what you mean ?

                                                        Could you expound ?

                                                        Are you talking about levitation ??
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130896].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                        No, neither of us want to use a certain word, but the other one is fear!

                                                        Fear labelled as rational thought!

                                                        Hell, when l saw my dead Grandmother, (she passed away about ten years previously) l had to glue my feet to the floor, and l have seen a lot of stuff like this, but it has all been third party.

                                                        So according to Claude what l saw was impossible or something else, eventhough it was as clear as day!

                                                        I have also seen a ghost and described it in minute detail, and someone else beside me also described the same entity in as much detail,.....apparently we were both hallucinating at the same time? Or the Turkish take away, was using magic mushrooms?

                                                        Yeah, rational thinking or super intelligence, sounds more like a giant band aid!

                                                        Or security blanket?

                                                        There's never anything wrong with thinking rationally. What triggers the thought, though, will definitely determine what is rational. I have known people who were almost irrationally skeptic have experiences that were so bizarre, they were beyond skepticism, and their rational at the time reverted more to belief than denial. They were still thinking logically, but what was apparently logical did a 180 from their previous states of logic.

                                                        As one of the people I am referring to stated -- I know what I saw. I have no explanation for it - but I know what I saw.
                                                        Signature

                                                        Sal
                                                        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                                        Beyond the Path

                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131046].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                          Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                                          Not sure quite what you mean ?

                                                          Could you expound ?

                                                          Are you talking about levitation ??
                                                          No, l am talking about one of my family members passing away 10 years back and paying me a visit!

                                                          Apparently flickering lights are a indication that they are there, which l also saw just before.


                                                          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                                          There's never anything wrong with thinking rationally. What triggers the thought, though, will definitely determine what is rational. I have known people who were almost irrationally skeptic have experiences that were so bizarre, they were beyond skepticism, and their rational at the time reverted more to belief than denial. They were still thinking logically, but what was apparently logical did a 180 from their previous states of logic.

                                                          As one of the people I am referring to stated -- I know what I saw. I have no explanation for it - but I know what I saw.
                                                          No, there is nothing wrong with thinking rationally, but using pure logic or herd information, in order to dismiss the obvious is going the other way in my opinion.

                                                          I also know of some people that l have shown the UFO's that followed the Apollo astranauts during most of their moon voyages to.

                                                          These things are verified, by the astranauts, so they are real.

                                                          They move from side to side, so something or someone is controlling it.

                                                          And they are very hard to fake, since it was 1969, and saying that the Russians did it, is very unlikely.

                                                          But l show this to some people and they say that they don't know what it is?

                                                          Well, by using some intelligence, it is very likely that a human of alien was controlling it, and by the images, it was a shuttle, very advanced but shuttle like.

                                                          Certainly if we travelled back in time, the first step on another planet would be at the top of the list. So coming back to that time to take video for a museum likely!

                                                          But just saying l don't have a clue, is a bit of a cop-out. No wonder we don't do research on all of this, most people forget about it?

                                                          But since the main viewscreen was triangle shaped, (common theme on Mars junk, etc) we probably have humans and another two alien races to consider?

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131232].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                                            Banned
                                                            Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                            Apparently flickering lights are a indication that they are there, which l also saw just before.
                                                            Where did you read that factoid? In, "Poltergeists for Dummies?'

                                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131292].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author discrat
                                                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                    Brains are wired differently, the difference between Al Bundy and a priest?
                                                    Actually some of the pedophile priests who have been destroying young boys' lives for decades are not unlike Bundy's brain in some regards
                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130786].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                          I agree. Dogs can convey many separate feelings and attitudes. The list is long. I even believe that some breeds can understand reasonably complex language. I've seen it.

                                          What strains my acceptance is that a dog can say a complex sentence to you...and you understand it.

                                          I'm not saying it isn't true. Only that I don't accept it as true.
                                          When Munchie was a young dog, when we were walking, I would look at the sky and then at him and tell him "we're losing daylight" and turn and head back to the car. By the time he was 3, he'd walk in front of me, stop, look at the sky, then me, and turn and head back to the car. There are a lot complex ideas dogs can learn and relay. They have higher cognition functions. They can learn categorically as well. For instance, they will know their ball and stick are both "toy" category items.

                                          I know this because I studied language acquisition and used the techniques to teach my guys. That's why my dog training ebook is called "Smart Beyond Obedience".
                                          Signature

                                          Sal
                                          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                          Beyond the Path

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131035].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


                                  When I say I don't have beliefs, I mean that I don't have assertions that something is true without evidence, or at least a sound logical argument. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that I don't hold something to be true on faith.
                                  Thats a wide spread and persistent misunderstanding of the meaning of the word faith/belief. most skeptics (although I have yet to meet any real skeptics) like to claim that but its not true at all and even your dictionary citation doesn't confirm that conclusion. Nothing precludes faith by dictionary definition from having sound logical arguments or even evidence behind it. Sure, No doubt some people, maybe even many, have faith without evidence or sound logical arguments but it need not be the case.

                                  I have great faith/confidence in a number of my family members and some friends. I believe them (and not merely that they exist) in many scenarios AND I have good reason to based on past experience. We pick up the paper, watch television and even go to school and exercise faith on a daily basis that what we are being told, learning and hearing is reliable. We buy into it fully. all of us, or we wouldn't state half the things we state as fact in this forum merely because we heard it in the news, saw it in a television program etc.

                                  Thats not even getting into the deeper level of philosophical assumptions we make that themselves have never been tested

                                  Thats why its pretty much impossible to say you have no beliefs and be accurate.

                                  A common straw man argument against atheists, rational thinkers, and skeptics is, "They don't believe it, unless they can see , smell, taste, or feel it".

                                  It's an argument created to make it easier to dismiss critical thinking.
                                  Meh....perhaps in some lazy cases but in more serious discussions - no. First, I don't hear that very often in serious discussions so its an over simplification.. second, it was always more about challenging the materialistic assumptions of atheists/materialists than it was "dismissing critical thinking". How so? Well Atheists tend to be circular in their reasoning. They assume/believe that "physical" is all there is and cite as evidence no physical evidence to the contrary (whether you assume the same or not it most definitely is circular).

                                  Skeptics? Now there's a misnomer. Almost entirely, certainly every self professed skeptic i've ever met, is merely skeptical about one thing or to be more pointed - one "person" .

                                  If being skeptical of one thing makes you a skeptics then i suppose we are all skeptics. In the end Its more about getting at the underlying certainly wrong perception of materialists - that every thing has a physically rational explanation.

                                  That's almost as impossible as having no beliefs
                                  Signature

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130015].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                    Thats a wide spread and persistent misunderstanding of the meaning of the word faith/belief.
                                    And that is why I said, "I mean....." because I knew that different people use the word differently. I wanted to explain what I actually meant.



                                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                    I have great faith/confidence in a number of my family members and some friends. I believe them (and not merely that they exist) in many scenarios AND I have good reason to based on past experience.
                                    You call that faith. I would call it proven experience.

                                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                    Well Atheists tend to be circular in their reasoning. They assume/believe that "physical" is all there is and cite as evidence no physical evidence to the contrary (whether you assume the same or not it most definitely is circular).
                                    I will grant you that some atheists are unreasonable. But your description of what they assume isn't really accurate. Nor could it be.

                                    There are few things in this world of which I am absolutely certain. One of those few things I am certain of, is that a religious person cannot know how an unreligious/skeptical person thinks.

                                    Our brains are just wired differently. And no matter how hard either one tries, it won't make a dent.

                                    The only way I can know how a religious person thinks, is by remembering how I thought, in my childhood.(my family was religious) But even that seems completely alien to me. And my interpretation of how you think is going to be wrong.

                                    And your interpretation of how I think... is wrong. And nothing can change that.
                                    Signature
                                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130071].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      You call that faith. I would call it proven experience.
                                      Not at all. My experience with them is proven however what they may and sometimes have said to me can be entirely new to me and therefore not based on my experience. I BELIEVE them because of their character not because what they say has always been proven (for example about a situation or circumstance they experienced and i didn't).Thats Faith.

                                      I will grant you that some atheists are unreasonable. But your description of what they assume isn't really accurate. Nor could it be.
                                      I have debated skeptics, have friends who are so persuaded and have had no shortage of exposure to materialistic based reasoners. Read Dawkins, Hitch and company. Its entirely accurate and in many a case that I have personally been involved with the parties have told me as much. However since you assume you have no beliefs I wouldn't be surprised you are not aware of them

                                      There are few things in this world of which I am absolutely certain. One of those few things I am certain of, is that a religious person cannot know how an unreligious/skeptical person thinks.

                                      Our brains are just wired differently.
                                      Alrighty then....So somewhere around the time of Darwin give or take a few hundred years the human species began to have a rapid evolution of brain chemistry whereby the almost universal majority of the population that was theistic began to have atheistic offsprings with rewired brain chemistry in what? 5-9% of the population?

                                      and this thesis is what you are "absolutely certain" of but ummm don't have have any beliefs? right?

                                      I mean barring genetic differences for this "brain chemistry" many people can and have understood each other's position even on this since many people on both sides of the issue have asked the same question, entertained the evidence and had doubts or been skeptical but ended up answering them differently (usually by considering more than others have) . Nothing in "brain chemistry" forbids someone from understanding what is supposedly based upon reasoning unless of course you are trying to say anyone that doesn't believe what you believe is inherently biologically inferior and incapable of rationality.

                                      hopefully you just haven't thought about what you believe on that because saying "you are all dumb because I am smart" isn't really a grown up way to discuss things (and tends to provide evidence against the premise).


                                      And your interpretation of how I think... is wrong. And nothing can change that.
                                      I don't recall telling you how you personally think . I do recall responding to your characterization of why people say certain things with your own assumptions as to why (allegedly to void rational conversation).

                                      You clearly have beliefs and nothing including pronouncements otherwise can change that. I need not put a dent in your BELIEF you have none and that was never my intention. It was more to show that such beliefs are in themselves irrational

                                      P.S. You are right your experience as a child would not translate. I didn't come from a religious family
                                      Signature

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130148].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                        I have debated skeptics, have friends who are so persuaded and have had no shortage of exposure to materialistic based reasoners. Read Dawkins, Hitch and company. Its entirely accurate and in many a case that I have personally been involved with the parties have told me as much. However since you assume you have no beliefs I wouldn't be surprised you are not aware of them
                                        You are wrong.


                                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                        Alrighty then....So somewhere around the time of Darwin give or take a few hundred years the human species began to have a rapid evolution of brain chemistry whereby the almost universal majority of the population that was theistic began to have atheistic offsprings with rewired brain chemistry in what? 5-9% of the population?

                                        and this thesis is what you are "absolutely certain" of but ummm don't have have any beliefs? right?
                                        Not even close. You are doing what you always do. You are deciding that someone means something that they didn't say, and you argue that (completely invented by you) point of view.

                                        But, your post gave a hint at rational thinking, so I made the repeated mistake of engaging you, as though you are a thinking person.

                                        So, go ahead and twist what I said again. I won't see it.
                                        Signature
                                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130180].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                          Yawn....yes of course Claude. You have no beliefs.....even though you do but you don't because you say so

                                          No rationality in sight and its all because anyone who doesn't think like you isn't wired for the "rationality" of atheism.

                                          ...the basement at its finest.
                                          Signature

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130202].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author DianeBlack
                                          Very interesting video. Thanks a lot!
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132919].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                        .So somewhere around the time of Darwin give or take a few hundred years the human species began to have a rapid evolution of brain chemistry whereby the almost universal majority of the population that was theistic began to have atheistic offsprings with rewired brain chemistry in what? 5-9% of the population?

                                        I mean barring genetic differences for this "brain chemistry" many people can and have
                                        Mike, I can't speak for Claude, but I think you're taking his use of the term "wired differently" far too literally.

                                        Also, brain chemistry is an entirely different thing altogether, if you want to be literal, which it seems you do... Nothing he said has anything to do with brain chemistry.
                                        Signature
                                        If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130200].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                          Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                                          Mike, I can't speak for Claude, but I think you're taking his use of the term "wired differently" far too literally.

                                          Also, brain chemistry is an entirely different thing altogether, if you want to be literal, which it seems you do...

                                          Say what? I want to be literal? Whats this?

                                          There are few things in this world of which I am absolutely certain. One of those few things I am certain of, is that a religious person cannot know how an unreligious/skeptical person thinks.

                                          Our brains are just wired differently. And no matter how hard either one tries, it won't make a dent.

                                          I want to read english when I am reading English. Brain chemistry/wiring makes not a stick of difference to the argument. Thats Claude point blank saying that religious people cannot by virtue of biological wiring understand an unreligious person. Its a crock particularly because he thinks the skeptic position is arrived at by rationality. that being the case theres no other way of taking it but that religious people have a biological issue processing (at least some kinds of) rationality.

                                          1+1 = 2 but the people who don't want to admit they were saying 2 get upset when you do the addition.

                                          He's only sulking because he got called on it. As usual. and his "absolute certainty" just goes to show how deeply he hold beliefs.

                                          No surprise (at least to me) there.
                                          Signature

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130226].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author discrat
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post



                                      There are few things in this world of which I am absolutely certain. One of those few things I am certain of, is that a religious person cannot know how an unreligious/skeptical person thinks.

                                      Our brains are just wired differently. And no matter how hard either one tries, it won't make a dent.
                                      Claude, to be frank ( not literally lol) I have to say this is just not true.

                                      Many religious people have been back and forth. And you would be surprised to know that very religious people at one point of time in their adult life have been Major skeptics.

                                      To me, only a irrational person or a person with little common sense would say that they have never been a skeptic or never questioned the existence of a deity.

                                      I know Iam religious but I totally understand the Mindset of a skeptic.
                                      Mainly because I have been there and done that on many many occasions.

                                      Hell, I still have questions
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130760].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                        Claude, to be frank ( not literally lol) I have to say this is just not true.

                                        Many religious people have been back and forth. And you would be surprised to know that very religious people at one point of time in their adult life have been Major skeptics.
                                        These people were skeptical. But you can be skeptical about something, without being a skeptical thinker.

                                        There is a huge difference between vacillating one way and another...and being a skeptical thinker, in the way I mean it. I mean scientific thinkers, who are studying how the world works. Shermer, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. Rational thinkers don't vacillate back and forth. Knowledge doesn't point both ways. Rational thinking doesn't lead in two directions.

                                        What you might think of as skeptical thinking, I may see as simply vacillating in your beliefs.

                                        Personally, I've never known a skeptical thinker, to go back to religious thinking. But I've read about them.

                                        And the word Skeptic, is so broad, we can make it mean anything.

                                        On this forum, I've even read someone say something like, "I was skeptical, but this psychic really connected with me". To me, that isn't skeptical thinking at all.....

                                        When someone says to me that they have no faith, I ask the reasons. The reasons they give will tell if they are really thinking skeptically and rationally. Sometimes not. People can have the right view...for completely wrong reasons.
                                        Signature
                                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131463].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                          These people were skeptical. But you can be skeptical about something, without being a skeptical thinker.

                                          There is a huge difference between vacillating one way and another...and being a skeptical thinker, in the way I mean it. .
                                          Thats as fine an example as I have ever read of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

                                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

                                          Essentially make an exception to the evidence when the evidence doesn't suit. If someone Vacillates proving your point wrong then they never were a true Skeptic in the way you mean it

                                          Anthony Flew was a very well known Skeptic that changed his mind. There are many more.

                                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

                                          According to the above fallacy though you will just claim they were not true Skeptics.

                                          I mean scientific thinkers, who are studying how the world works. Shermer, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. Rational thinkers don't vacillate back and forth. Knowledge doesn't point both ways. Rational thinking doesn't lead in two directions.
                                          Au contraire...you are confused Claude. Rationality does not pick a direction and stick with it. Any truly rational person takes multiple turns and twists of direction as he considers multiple lines of evidence and viewpoints. Rational people back step, turn hesitate, vacillate and flat out change their minds based on the evidence or points of view they had not previously considered.

                                          What you are describing there is more dogmatism and close mindedness than anything rational.

                                          P.S. Your inclusion of Hitchens among those who scientifically study how the world works gives you away a bit. Hitchens was no scientist. Dawkins has done nothing in decades and Harris is best known for being a hater of religion than any breakthroughs in how the universe works. Thats not a list of great scientific thinkers thats just a list of haters of religion.
                                          Signature

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131711].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                            Banned
                                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                            What you are describing there is more dogmatism and close mindedness than anything rational.
                                            I'm sorry for intruding, but I thought I heard someone call me?

                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131723].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                            Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                            Where did you read that factoid? In, "Poltergeists for Dummies?'

                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                            No, tons of books out there, including web sites, and eventhough l couldn't find the flickering lights reference, l have personally experienced the first two on this site.

                                            The third as well, but only in a group!

                                            Are You Being Visited by a Ghost, a Loved One From the Other Side or an Angel? : In5D Esoteric, Metaphysical, and Spiritual Database

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131739].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                              Banned
                                              Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                              No, tons of books out there, including web sites, and eventhough l couldn't find the flickering lights reference, l have personally experienced the first two on this site. The third as well, but only in a group!
                                              Well, I have been alive a long time and have never experienced anything along those lines. While I am quite used to humanoids not liking me, being completely shunned by the spirit world is more than I can bear.

                                              "I just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?":-(

                                              Cheers. - Frank
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131750].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                                Well, I have been alive a long time and have never experienced anything along those lines. While I am quite used to humanoids not liking me, being completely shunned by the spirit world is more than I can bear.

                                                "I just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?":-(

                                                Cheers. - Frank
                                                Noooooo, but you could try Diegon Alley, might be a start? Or is that "Die-gone", "l wonder", he, he!

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131764].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                              Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                              No, tons of books out there, including web sites, and eventhough l couldn't find the flickering lights reference, l have personally experienced the first two on this site.
                                              To be honest I discounted most such reports. I like to be opened minded but not to the point of having my brain fall out (I don't think the only reason dogs don't speak to us is because they lack the right vocal chords either). HOWEVER one of my relatives and a close friend of his on different occasions saw an apparition in a house - clear as day they say (only they could see right though her).

                                              Knowing them well for most of my life I am hard pressed to find a rational explanation for what they saw, why they would make it up or that they were on anything at the time (since where they lived and the time in which they lived didn't make drugs readily available).

                                              I don't cite that as any evidence by the way. my reason for believing them has to do with MY knowledge and experience of them over the years. If you don't know them then it wouldn't resonate. Considering many even skeptical people believe in universes outside of our own i just don't know that its rational to immediately discount the probably hundreds of thousands (over the last 100-200 years) who claim to have seen similar things.
                                              Signature

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131770].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                  First, thank you.

                                  I looked up the word Believe.

                                  verb (used without object), believed, believing.
                                  1.
                                  to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
                                  2.
                                  to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.


                                  When I say I don't have beliefs, I mean that I don't have assertions that something is true without evidence, or at least a sound logical argument. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that I don't hold something to be true on faith.

                                  It really helps that I don't care where the evidence leads...what the results are. I care much more about the process used to come to a conclusion. Mostly, my own.

                                  While I try not to take sides, or a position (because the thinking stops at that point), it isn't that I don't believe in taking sides, it's that it doesn't generally happen.

                                  I guess I've pontificated enough on this.
                                  Hey Claude,

                                  First, I would like to tell you that I find your sense of humor very amusing. So this is not some kind of attack. BUT, I would like to challenge you a bit here.

                                  Your reluctance to make a decision one way or the other comes from a deep seeded need to feel as though you are in control. Which is why you claim you don't care either way. So... Why are you even on this thread?

                                  "While I try not to take sides, or a position (because the thinking stops at that point..."- You claim you have taken no side, and yet you know what its like to be on either side of the coin? I assure you, I have been on all three sides of the coin. The thinking doesn't stop. The thinking never stops. Well, at least for those who chose to.

                                  Have you ever wondered that maybe God used the process of evolution to create life or assist with it? If he is all powerful, than why would he be limited to the restrictions of mortal man? Why does a question that is far beyond our limited way of thinking have to be an absolute?

                                  Even though he was a bit pompous about it, Mike did have some very valid points. Sometimes the debate on topics that are so deeply tied to emotions people forget about civility. Its a very common attitude amongst believers. I get it, just dont agree with it.

                                  Not that you were too harsh, Mike. Just.. sometimes we should all remind ourselves to be as gentle with others as we would want to be treated. When debating a subject matter like this, it causes people to question their beliefs.

                                  Claude, I would like to share a website with you. I do not agree with all of the data. I like to research and study the material myself. Check sources, and there is just too much for me to really be able to cover on this site. I believe this site would give you a much different and more aligned (aligned with your way of thinking) understanding.

                                  Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and approaches the subject matter from a skeptics perspective. Yet, he is neverending-ly (is that even a word?) finding more and more reasons to believe. Just check it out if you want.

                                  www.reasons.org
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130970].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                    Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                    Why are you even on this thread?
                                    Entertainment, pure and simple.



                                    Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                    "While I try not to take sides, or a position (because the thinking stops at that point..."- You claim you have taken no side, and yet you know what its like to be on either side of the coin?
                                    I didn't say I knew what it was like to be on either side. In fact I said that I could not know what it was like to be on the religious side. I only have old memories of believing, and they are foggy at best.

                                    I do know, that I can't go back to thinking that way again.

                                    And I'm not on a side. This isn't a debate. I simply have no religious beliefs. And I try not to have beliefs in any area. They are road blocks to critical thinking. It's a real effort to disassociate myself from outcomes in thinking.

                                    Again, it's impossible for me to explain how I think in a way that you'll understand.

                                    I've been through this hundreds of times. I promise you, what you think I'm thinking...I'm not.
                                    Signature
                                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                    Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131488].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author discrat
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      Again, it's impossible for me to explain how I think in a way that you'll understand.

                                      I've been through this hundreds of times. I promise you, what you think I'm thinking...I'm not.
                                      LOL

                                      I do not enjoy discussions like this because I know they can get touchy. And I do not want to offend or get others heated up.

                                      But what you say right above is a BELIEF in of itself.

                                      The fact that you think it is IMPOSSIBLE (or that you PROMISE) for someone (that you do not even know) to understand or not understand you because they are NOT you is a very entrenched BELIEF.

                                      When I see words like "promise" and "impossible" I realize that those are indications of emotions being involved.

                                      I think Mike makes a lot of sense when he talks about the most rational and unbiased people in this World are those that go wherever the situation takes them and whatever that may be including changing ones beliefs,ones opinions, vacillating here and vacillating there, being a skeptic, and being a believer etc... when the evidence presents itself.

                                      And to be honest making the assumption like you did above saying that it was impossible for this person to understand you does not align with this assertion Mike was making about a truly objective and rational person without biased beliefs.

                                      Quite frankly, as a practical person I cannot make the assumption by " promising" that this person can or cannot know what you are thinking or how you are thinking ! Or for any person for that matter

                                      But evidently you can
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131903].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                    Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                    Not that you were too harsh, Mike. Just.. sometimes we should all remind ourselves to be as gentle with others as we would want to be treated. When debating a subject matter like this, it causes people to question their beliefs.
                                    Welcome Dave . You are most likely not aware but theres a loooooong history of religion/faith bashing from a few here who misunderstand the nature of the no religious discussions here rule (they feel that being anti theist is not a religious discussion when it is).

                                    If I sensed in the least there was really any openness I would take your point but given history there really isn't. My intention IS to come across just as confident in my positions as they often come across in theirs (why shouldn't I when its vastly more thought out? ) . If you are going to bash endlessly peoples beliefs then it does a soul well to be taken apart on the matter unceremoniously.

                                    If I sound pompous then I take that as mission accomplished. Too many urchins running around on the internetS not being called on their irrationality but slamming everyone else's.
                                    Signature

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10131677].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                      I promise you, what you think I'm thinking...I'm not.
                                      Promises get broken all the time. You are not as unique in your way of thinking as you may believe. I wont try to sit here and say out right that I can read your mind. WOOOOOOOO

                                      But the choice of wording and defense is very telling in it of itself. I do respect you and your beliefs though and wont press anymore. I just see some seriously big misconceptions on what believing in a higher power actually involves. Just because some chose not to use their brains and write things like science and evolution off does not mean that they speak for all who believe.

                                      I actually cant stop critical thinking. I cant stop using my brain and have pushed beyond a point of feeling their even needs to be sides.

                                      Just one bit of advice: You will never believe in a higher power if you do not first learn to look and hear "His" messages.

                                      (would like to emphasis that just because I use terms like "He" and "Him" does not imply that God is either man or woman or even within a realm of our perceived physical existence)

                                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                      Welcome Dave . You are most likely not aware but theres a loooooong history of religion/faith bashing from a few here who misunderstand the nature of the no religious discussions here rule (they feel that being anti theist is not a religious discussion when it is).

                                      If I sensed in the least there was really any openness I would take your point but given history there really isn't. My intention IS to come across just as confident in my positions as they often come across in theirs (why shouldn't I when its vastly more thought out? ) . If you are going to bash endlessly peoples beliefs then it does a soul well to be taken apart on the matter unceremoniously.

                                      If I sound pompous then I take that as mission accomplished. Too many urchins running around on the internetS not being called on their irrationality but slamming everyone else's.
                                      LOL, Thanks for the welcome!

                                      I can understand totally how history can affect ones disposition and even build a set type of reaction. There is just one thing though. You sound more like you are debating more for yourself rather than to share the knowledge. This may not be the case but it will be how others (in this public arena) will perceive it.

                                      Its exactly that pompous attitude that pushes non-believers away from believing in a higher power. If your intent is purely to get under Claude's skin, that's cool, whatever floats your boat. The catch is you are doing it under a pretext that others then associate negative to.

                                      I once had to spend a day with someone who was laughing in my face when I shared my beliefs with him. He then spent the rest of the day trying to convince me my beliefs were wrong. It didnt bother me, It didnt make me want to get under his skin. It just strengthened my belief.

                                      Meeting people with the same type of animosity or force you are met with will only achieve the same results they received. Have you ever been in a discussion or debate with someone over this subject and walked away feeling as though you were wrong in your beliefs? I doubt it. Imagine how Claude or anyone else would respond when met with the same.

                                      Sure, I get it. Its Jacked up. You are dealing with people who try to claim logical and rational thought as a means to avoid even dealing with it, when just a little research shows that every, and I mean EVERY thought in your head has emotion attached to it. No matter how miniscule. Thats one of the inescapable facts of the hard wiring of our brains.

                                      I have debated this subject matter quite a bit. Yes, its annoying when I tell people that I cant be for sure, but I believe that God does not have a physical form and lives on a realm of existence that is pure energy. Yet, they just keep saying I believe in some "sky daddy." But remember this, when a person's argument has no weight they will either avoid the debate altogether or they will change subject and attack the person or others. So If you are being attacked, lean back, relax, put a big $h/t eating grin on your face because you already achieved your goal of getting under their skin.

                                      Thank both of you though, I wasnt sure how either of you would take my post and glad that both of you handled it better than I expected.

                                      D
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132019].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                        Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                        Thank both of you though, I wasnt sure how either of you would take my post and glad that both of you handled it better than I expected.

                                        D
                                        Dave; As long as you're reasonably polite, you'll get good results here.


                                        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                        Quite frankly, as a practical person I cannot make the assumption by " promising" that this person can or cannot know what you are thinking or how you are thinking ! Or for any person for that matter

                                        But evidently you can
                                        Of course I can. It's obvious from the language they use.
                                        Signature
                                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132059].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                        Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                        You sound more like you are debating more for yourself rather than to share the knowledge. This may not be the case but it will be how others (in this public arena) will perceive it.
                                        Now You are just off to a bad start. You can't really speak to how everyone in a public arena perceives it. You can speak for yourself and others can as well. Thats about it. See there is another group that most people don't care about but I do more than I do vocal and already made their mind up "skeptics". Its those who get bullied by skeptics and end up doubting what they believe in not because of the irrationality of their convictions but by the defacto premise that their position is inherently less rational (and hence they are stupid). Its rampant on the Internet and the traditional "believers" response of not pointing out firmly where the other side is being totally irrational and illogical allows it in MANY situations to be a one sided message that helps the psychological bullying.

                                        So again - no apologies for anything I have written because i have called no one names or hurled any invectives - just pointed out irrationalities. IF you feel you have to gloss everything over and paint it in sweet pink tones thats really just your approach and from what I see it just plain doesn't work. Plus painting ugly blue pink is quite often just a PC form of lying

                                        To some of your other points

                                        A) No skeptic at the point they take to the Internet has ever been pushed away from believing in a higher power because of an attitude of a theist. They already were at the point. Skeptics already held to their position or they wouldn't pronouncing it to the public. think about it for a little bit longer and you will probably realize yourself how off your accusation is

                                        B) despite your many many many (almost nonstop) assumptions my intent is not to get under Claude's skin. I ALWAYS speak to what people communicate on the basis of what they communicate. No one on this board is important enough to the lives of other people to even care where their skin is much less care about getting under there. what Claude thinks isn't even terribly important to me beyond the issues raised. I think you like perhaps a good deal of theists put way too much importance on the person making the skeptic arguments. Its a forum and from what i have seen others have seen some of the irrationalities and biases skeptics have as a product of our exchange. I've read Claude much longer than you have and I really don't expect him to be open

                                        C) if people are going to point out where other people are irrational , incapable due to brain wiring etc etc then they OUGHT to be called out on their own irrationality. despite yet another of your assumptions not doing so (with I guess the premise of being gentle and winning them over) is a form of hypocrisy enabling. No thanks.

                                        Like a wife catching her husband in bed with another woman or a kid whose hand is stuck in his sibling's piggy bank being all genteel rather than stating the realities doesn't do a lick of good
                                        Signature

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132253].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                          Now You are just off to a bad start. You can't really speak to how everyone in a public arena perceives it. You can speak for yourself and others can as well. Thats about it. See there is another group that most people don't care about but I do more than I do vocal and already made their mind up "skeptics". Its those who get bullied by skeptics and end up doubting what they believe in not because of the irrationality of their convictions but by the defacto premise that their position is inherently less rational (and hence they are stupid). Its rampant on the Internet and the traditional "believers" response of not pointing out firmly where the other side is being totally irrational and illogical allows it in MANY situations to be a one sided message that helps the psychological bullying.

                                          So again - no apologies for anything I have written because i have called no one names or hurled any invectives - just pointed out irrationalities. IF you feel you have to gloss everything over and paint it in sweet pink tones thats really just your approach and from what I see it just plain doesn't work. Plus painting ugly blue pink is quite often just a PC form of lying

                                          To some of your other points

                                          A) No skeptic at the point they take to the Internet has ever been pushed away from believing in a higher power because of an attitude of a theist. They already were at the point. Skeptics already held to their position or they wouldn't pronouncing it to the public. think about it for a little bit longer and you will probably realize yourself how off your accusation is

                                          B) despite your many many many (almost nonstop) assumptions my intent is not to get under Claude's skin. I ALWAYS speak to what people communicate on the basis of what they communicate. No one on this board is important enough to the lives of other people to even care where their skin is much less care about getting under there. what Claude thinks isn't even terribly important to me beyond the issues raised. I think you like perhaps a good deal of theists put way too much importance on the person making the skeptic arguments. Its a forum and from what i have seen others have seen some of the irrationalities and biases skeptics have as a product of our exchange. I've read Claude much longer than you have and I really don't expect him to be open

                                          C) if people are going to point out where other people are irrational , incapable due to brain wiring etc etc then they OUGHT to be called out on their own irrationality. despite yet another of your assumptions not doing so (with I guess the premise of being gentle and winning them over) is a form of hypocrisy enabling. No thanks.

                                          Like a wife catching her husband in bed with another woman or a kid whose hand is stuck in his sibling's piggy bank being all genteel rather than stating the realities doesn't do a lick of good
                                          LOL, So you are the defender of the weak and the meek, eh? If a person enters into a debate and walks away with his faith in question, did that person's faith have a solid enough foundation to begin with? Life and God send tests daily. Yes, even tests of your own faith. It is the individuals responsibility to remain not only firm in his convictions but also open-minded and considerate enough to hear the other side of the argument.

                                          I get where you are coming from but you delivery is my issue, not the content. I do not require an apology nor did I ever ask for one, I am not even trying to challenge you, only pointing out where I see that you could improve your approach. So I say again, if you were trying to be pompous (which you took pride in) you achieved your goal. Im not your parent, nor do I wish to be.

                                          Being that there is history, maybe the best approach would be to continually be kind and considerate. If you have a proven track record of consistent gentleness and kindness eventually it would reenforce that maybe you are doing something right, but subliminally when you stoop to their level and meet fire with fire it tells them that you are no different than them. Peoples perceptions of what a believer thinks and believes is different than what it is in reality (at least most of the time). So when pushed they expect a different reaction than the norm.

                                          What assumptions? You clearly took pride when I pointed out how you will be perceived. If you believe some guy on the internet makes a claim that it is irrational to believe in God and that causes a person to question or lose faith.... Then you do not understand faith to begin with.

                                          I give too much importance to the skeptic's argument? Or I give importance to the individual who is making the skeptics argument? I will let you decide on that one.

                                          This is the thing Mike, the subject matter requires a person to actually remove their own emotions and personal driven goals. Because in reality, no side can be proven wrong or right. So even though as much of a truth and reality it is to me that God exists, the atheists stand point is just as much of a reality to him/her.

                                          Sure, I get where you are coming from but it isnt a off the cuff remark from someone who was clearly trying to avoid the deeper debate that would cause questioning, but the pushy and judgmental tone of someone forcing a debate to be off putting.

                                          You dont agree with my approach, thats cool. But how can I be a hypocrite if I never intended to sway anyone's beliefs. Read my previous post again. I said I respect Claude and his beliefs. That does not mean I have to believe them or am trying to sway them. That means I respect him enough as an individual to not criticize every little detail where he may be contradicting himself.

                                          My point all along was more to inspire thought. My goal is to get people to think deeper on the matter. Not to convert anyone. LOL, I am a half white, half puerto rican, messianic Jew (Let the Juan Epstein jokes begin!). That's a bit of a tough sell. So no, no intention of swaying beliefs. More just trying to get people to understand themselves and why they believe what they do.

                                          Hey, The handle is DaveTheSINISTER. I havent been banned. I havent cause more than one person here any form of grief. I believe I am off to a fantastic start. Even if I have stepped on your toes a bit.

                                          P.S. If you ever do catch your wife/GF in bed with another man. The best way to not only make them reevaluate themselves and their actions is to simply take responsibility and be kind and gentle. Your wife/GF will never forgive themselves if your immediate reaction is, "Im sorry I made you feel as though you had to do this."
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132463].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                            Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                            LOL, So you are the defender of the weak and the meek, eh?
                                            Actually the title on my name plate only has that as a partial title.


                                            If a person enters into a debate and walks away with his faith in question, did that person's faith have a solid enough foundation to begin with?
                                            I am the defender of the weak and the strong in faith. Today.... you are all equally blessed



                                            I get where you are coming from but you delivery is my issue, not the content. I do not require an apology nor did I ever ask for one
                                            and yet you are still begging.

                                            I don't buy your premise and your opinions. You have stated them several times and you are doing nothing at this point but derailing the thread on personal asides and innuendos. Your approach in doing so needs work and your delivery is failing to make a dent. Its to put it your way -- terrible off putting.

                                            anything substantive to add to the subject besides dubious style points which have a dubious style in themselves?

                                            P.S. If you ever do catch your wife/GF in bed with another man. The best way to not only make them reevaluate themselves and their actions is to simply take responsibility and be kind and gentle.
                                            ROFL. men and women should take responsibility for their partners cheating should their partners cheat on them eh?. Its the fantasy of every cheater that they can blame their spouse if they ever get caught. dude seriously go pontificate to the picture of Oprah on your wall and let us get back to some real discussion . Thankfully I never married a woman that would believe that rot neither for herself or me.

                                            Your wife/GF will never forgive themselves if your immediate reaction is, "Im sorry I made you feel as though you had to do this."
                                            spoken like a person who has lived no life. I was 12 when i last thought that you could make all humans feel guilty by your own conduct. When you live a little life more you will find there are people in the world who have little or no morality for you to be certain of causing them guilt. Terribly naive view of the world, reality and humanity.

                                            at least in your next round of pontification - add something to the subject perhaps?
                                            Signature

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132502].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                              To be honest I discounted most such reports. I like to be opened minded but not to the point of having my brain fall out (I don't think the only reason dogs don't speak to us is because they lack the right vocal chords either). HOWEVER one of my relatives and a close friend of his on different occasions saw an apparition in a house - clear as day they say (only they could see right though her).

                                              Knowing them well for most of my life I am hard pressed to find a rational explanation for what they saw, why they would make it up or that they were on anything at the time (since where they lived and the time in which they lived didn't make drugs readily available).
                                              See right through him or her, cool, no l couldn't see through her. She was more like a black and white version of my Grandmother with multicolors coming from the top of her head down.

                                              Fascinating and beautiful to see, but as said before the urge to go screaming into the nig,....day, was an option?

                                              I was standing there, freaking out, with part of me saying it is ok, stay glued to the floor, and another part thinking that this is seriously cool!

                                              She smiled at me when she appeared, and l nervously waved back, then she walked or moved, (l wasn't paying attention to that) to the window, looked around, smiled and disappeared!

                                              Others may have tried to say hello to me, but couldn't pull it off, from what l have heard it takes practice to manifest something up there or to pay a family member a visit down here?

                                              The only way a skeptic could use, so called critical thinking is to say that my mind created the whole thing!

                                              No drugs, no bender and no mental instability history, just seeing something out of the ordinary as clearly as seeing a piece of furniture from 3 metres away!


                                              I think that skeptics need to critically think about why they are so SURE that they are right, when obvious experiences like this, show that they are trying to fortify a brick wall around their beliefs, to the point of it becoming a mental disorder!

                                              Ok, said enough!


                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132615].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                                                Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                I think that skeptics need to critically think about why they are so SURE that they are right, when obvious experiences like this, show that they are trying to fortify a brick wall around their beliefs, to the point of it becoming a mental disorder!
                                                So, skepticism is a mental disorder, but having fanatic religious beliefs isn't. Um, okay.

                                                Shane, in my experience, skeptics usually aren't the ones who are "so SURE that they are right". It's often the other way around. A person can be skeptical about something and not have a rigid belief about whatever the issue is. For example, someone who is skeptical that God exists isn't necessarily "sure" he doesn't exist.

                                                The definition of skeptical is "not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations". The definition isn't "having a firm, but different, belief". Do you see the difference?
                                                Signature
                                                If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132809].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                  Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                                                  So, skepticism is a mental disorder, but having fanatic religious beliefs isn't. Um, okay.

                                                  Shane, in my experience, skeptics usually aren't the ones who are "so SURE that they are right". It's often the other way around. A person can be skeptical about something and not have a rigid belief about whatever the issue is. For example, someone who is skeptical that isn't necessarily "sure" he doesn't exist.

                                                  The definition of skeptical is "not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations". The definition isn't "having a firm, but different, belief". Do you see the difference?
                                                  Fanatic religious beliefs, l didn't mention that?


                                                  And there is a difference between someone who is skeptical of something, but will reconsider their viewpoint on the bases of an experience they had, and someone who is also skeptical has had several experiences, but refuses to accept it at face value!

                                                  Brain being wired differently, pig headeness or mental issues, not sure, but it isn't what a well balanced normal human being would do!

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132896].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                                                    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                    And there is a difference between someone who is skeptical of something, but will reconsider their viewpoint on the bases of an experience they had, and someone who is also skeptical has had several experiences, but refuses to accept it at face value!
                                                    "Experiences" don't necessarily prove anything, because one person's interpretation of something he or she experienced won't necessarily be the same as someone else's. And that's the major flaw in your argument.

                                                    You and I (or any two people) could experience the same things several times and come up with entirely different interpretations or explanations of what we just experienced. Your interpretation or explanation would be based on a variety of factors, as would mine. But because we arrive at different conclusions doesn't automatically mean one of us is "pig-headed", has a "mental issue", or "isn't a well-balanced human being".

                                                    Putting those derogatory labels on anyone who doesn't come up with the same explanation as yours certainly suggests that (from your perspective) only your interpretation or explanation is right, and therefore something is clearly wrong with the other person.

                                                    Our explanations for the experiences we have in life are based on multiple factors including our backgrounds, culture, age and life experience, and belief system. Context can also play a significant role in how we interpret an experience.

                                                    Originally Posted by Princess Balestra View Post

                                                    Nothing goes in without being filtered, and what comes out ain't a half of what's going on behind the eyelids. We're not even conscious of most of that shit.
                                                    You hit the nail on the head with this statement, Princess Balestra.
                                                    Signature
                                                    If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132981].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                      Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                                                      "Experiences" don't necessarily prove anything, because one person's interpretation of something he or she experienced won't necessarily be the same as someone else's. And that's the major flaw in your argument.

                                                      You and I (or any two people) could experience the same things several times and come up with entirely different interpretations or explanations of what we just experienced. Your interpretation or explanation would be based on a variety of factors, as would mine. But because we arrive at different conclusions doesn't automatically mean one of us is "pig-headed", has a "mental issue", or "isn't a well-balanced human being".

                                                      Putting those derogatory labels on anyone who doesn't come up with the same explanation as yours certainly suggests that (from your perspective) only your interpretation or explanation is right, and therefore something is clearly wrong with the other person.

                                                      Our explanations for the experiences we have in life are based on multiple factors including our backgrounds, culture, age and life experience, and belief system. Context can also play a significant role in how we interpret an experience.
                                                      That is true, but only to a point!

                                                      The discussion Claude and maybe one or two others are saying is that by using a scientific approach, a ghost isn't a ghost until proven.

                                                      But since a ghost cannot be bottled or maybe not proven with scientific instruments, then it is something else.

                                                      But if a lot of reliable eye witnesses have experienced the same thing and the evidence points to a higher realm, then this cannot be dismissed!

                                                      There is plenty of evidence if someone looks for it, but if someone doesn't look for it, and assumes that they are certain that it isn't what it looks like then that is pig headed!

                                                      And if someone shows them overwhelming evidence and they refuse to accept it, then mental issues is the only thing l think of!

                                                      If someone shows me overwhelming evidence for something l am certain of not being the case, l will do a 180. Even if it scares me or l don't like it.

                                                      We are here to find the truth, not bury it!

                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133218].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                                        Banned
                                                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                        We are here to find the truth, not bury it!
                                                        And just who's truth would that be? Mine, or yours?

                                                        Cheers. - Frank
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133232].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                          Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                                          And just who's truth would that be? Mine, or yours?

                                                          Cheers. - Frank
                                                          See, that's the thing, Frank.

                                                          We all have life experiences that convince us of truths and then everything is filtered through that mindset that has been built up due to those experiences of what is truth to that person.

                                                          Just because your life experience or Shane's life experience convinces you something is "a" truth, it doesn't mean it is "the" truth.

                                                          There are a lot of truths out there in the minds of people, but that doesn't mean they are "the" truth.

                                                          I highly doubt that anyone knows the total and complete "truth".


                                                          Terra
                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133246].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                                            Banned
                                                            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                            See, that's the thing, Frank.

                                                            We all have life experiences that convince us of truths and then everything is filtered through that mindset that has been built up due to those experiences of what is truth to that person.

                                                            Just because your life experience or Shane's life experience convinces you something is "a" truth, it doesn't mean it is "the" truth.

                                                            There are a lot of truths out there in the minds of people, but that doesn't mean they are "the" truth.

                                                            I highly doubt that anyone knows the total and complete "truth".


                                                            Terra
                                                            Exactly. My 'truth' is mine and mine alone. I never expect anyone to agree with it, nor do I have any interest in having anyone accept my truth as their own.

                                                            That said, everyone else can have their truth, just don't try to get me to shift my way of thinking to accept it as my own. If that makes me pig-headed, dogmatic, unreasonable, tight-assed, narrow-minded or rigid - so be it. I have been called much worse.

                                                            One man's truth is another man's bald-face lie. That's just the way life is and will always be. Additionally, by the time you reach my age, beliefs are fairly ingrained. The only way you are going to get me to believe any any of what I call' spirit nonsense' is for a spirit to walk up to me, offer to shake my hand and then invite me to sit for a chit-chat. Rest assured that before taking a seat, I will ask to see some ID and for two references.

                                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133330].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                              Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                                              Exactly. My 'truth' is mine and mine alone. I never expect anyone to agree with it, nor do I have any interest in having anyone accept my truth as their own.

                                                              That said, everyone else can have their truth, just don't try to get me to believe it or shift my way of thinking to accept it as my own. If that makes me pig-headed, dogmatic, unreasonable, tight-assed, narrow-minded or rigid - so be it. I have been called much worse.

                                                              One man's truth is another man's bald-face lie. That's just the way life is and will always be. Additionally, by the time you reach my age, beliefs are fairly ingrained. The only way you are going to get me to believe any any of what I call' spirit nonsense' is for a spirit to walk up to me, offer to shake my hand and then invite me to sit for a chit-chat. Rest assured that before taking a seat, I will ask to see some ID and for two references.

                                                              Cheers. - Frank
                                                              I'd like to be there to experience that experience of yours myself, lol!

                                                              Anyway, you are absolutely right. Every single person has the right to choose what they believe.

                                                              As far as trying to convince someone, I think it does bring out the, and I quote, "pig-headed, dogmatic, unreasonable, tight-assed, narrow-minded or rigid" in everyone. There is a big difference between proffering a belief to someone and trying to convince someone of something because as I just said, everyone has the right to believe whatsoever they choose. Trying to convince someone of something, especially via argumentation isn't very wise and goes against an old proverb, "Don't cast your pearls before the swine."

                                                              I would much rather discuss things I have in common with someone rather than argue differences. Arguing is a waste of time for all parties involved and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and most importantly, defeats the intended purpose faster than a speeding locomotive.

                                                              Terra
                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133364].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                              [DELETED]
                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133497].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                        The discussion Claude and maybe one or two others are saying is that by using a scientific approach, a ghost isn't a ghost until proven.

                                                        But since a ghost cannot be bottled or maybe not proven with scientific instruments, then it is something else.
                                                        No. I would like to use this as an example of how a believer believes a non-believer thinks. It simply isn't true. That's not how I think at all. And it isn't how any skeptical thinker I know thinks.
                                                        Signature
                                                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133389].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                          Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                                          And just who's truth would that be? Mine, or yours?

                                                          Cheers. - Frank
                                                          What all the available information pertaining to the subject shows!

                                                          Developing an idea or belief based on available data, or the data of others, is a sound way to progress to new discovery's or to further our understanding, just as long as it is credible of course.

                                                          But having a belief based on emotional attachment, and little to no research is a dead end, in more ways than one!

                                                          Maybe society is more dumbed down than l thought? I hope not?


                                                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                          No. I would like to use this as an example of how a believer believes a non-believer thinks. It simply isn't true. That's not how I think at all. And it isn't how any skeptical think I know thinks.
                                                          Hmmm, glad that you are not into developing a new warp drive or antigravity devise, guaranteed not to happen!

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133416].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                                                            Banned
                                                            Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                            is a dead end, in more ways than one!
                                                            Meaningless. In the end, we're all dead anyway. Does it really matter what anyone believes while they are alive, as it pertains to insignificant matters? Personally, I believe it doesn't.

                                                            I'll let you know after I'm dead since it appears that you will be receptive to receiving my message. FYI - I use a spooky, custom ringtone.

                                                            Cheers. - Frank
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133434].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                              Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

                                                              Meaningless. In the end, we're all dead anyway. Does it really matter what anyone believes while they are alive, as it pertains to insignificant matters? Personally, I believe it doesn't.
                                                              Insignificant no, it doesn't matter, but discussing things that point to an afterlife and the possibility of reincarnation, l think that does matter overall.

                                                              But in the scheme of things that doesn't matter either, if an individual doesn't want to believe in any of this, then as others have said that is there choice.

                                                              Usually when someone has a very strong belief in something that is false, it may take 5 or more lifetimes to experience that mindset in its fullest, or to metaphysically burn themselves out!

                                                              If there belief is correct then there is no more balancing to do, but if it is not, then they might be in for the long haul.

                                                              But their choice!!!




                                                              I'll let you know after I'm dead since it appears that you will be receptive to receiving my message. FYI - I use a spooky, custom ringtone.

                                                              Cheers. - Frank
                                                              Don't you dare, LOL!

                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133468].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

                                                        But since a ghost cannot be bottled or maybe not proven with scientific instruments, then it is something else.

                                                        But if a lot of reliable eye witnesses have experienced the same thing and the evidence points to a higher realm, then this cannot be dismissed!

                                                        There is plenty of evidence if someone looks for it, but if someone doesn't look for it, and assumes that they are certain that it isn't what it looks like then that is pig headed!

                                                        To a certain extent we ALL start out with baseline assumptions from which we determine what is rational and irrational. To us they are defacto truths seldom consciously examined. Skeptics have a whole slew of them - materialism, assumptions of authority and even wholesale contradictions of what physical explanations are.

                                                        Further I'd say 90% of the skeptics I read, meet and talk with accept as a priori that religion is just inherently irrational with no need for them to construct a rational by which that conclusion is derived. They consider it the baseline that must be disproven as if its been established truth. Most skeptics will define themselves as skeptics merely for their stance on doubting religion/spiritual issues - nothing else (which hardly makes them skeptics in general)

                                                        Here is where it all gets very disingenuous however. As far out as they claim your experience of seeing a "ghost" is absolutely none of that is more bizarre or even as "miraculous" than what science is showing in the field of Quantum Mechanics. The "rational scientific thinkers" Claude refers to are proposing -

                                                        That everything can come out of absolutely nothing (including your grandma)
                                                        That other realities/universe/multiverse exist outside our own
                                                        That everything is ultimately causeless (which amusingly they don't realize destroys chews up and spits out materialism) being from an infinitely old regress of process.
                                                        That remarkable things are possible to pop out into existence at a moments notice (though generally low probability)

                                                        and yet they take issue with you at the possibility that an image appeared before you.

                                                        So its not outlandish even remarkably unexpected an unusual things they object to. Its just that you are not one of the scientists they genuflect to. We have got to the point where "Science" is whatever some people say it is and "skeptics" never having been real skeptics (but only skeptics of one thing) lap it up like a dog to a bone.
                                                        Signature

                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133459].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                          To a certain extent we ALL start out with baseline assumptions from which we determine what is rational and irrational. To us they are defacto truths seldom consciously examined. Skeptics have a whole slew of them - materialism, assumptions of authority and even wholesale contradictions of what physical explanations are.

                                                          Further I'd say 90% of the skeptics I read, meet and talk with accept as a priori that religion is just inherently irrational with no need for them to construct a rational by which that conclusion is derived. They consider it the baseline that must be disproven as if its been established truth. Most skeptics will define themselves by skeptics merely for their stance on doubting religion/spiritual issues - nothing else (which hardly makes them skeptics in general)

                                                          Here is where it all gets very disingenuous however. As far out as they claim your experience of seeing a "ghost" is absolutely none of that is more bizarre or even as "miraculous" than what science is showing in the field of Quantum Mechanics. The "rational scientific thinkers" Claude refers to are proposing -

                                                          That everything can come out of absolutely nothing (including your grandma)
                                                          That other realities/universe/multiverse exist outside our own
                                                          That everything is ultimately causeless (which amusingly they don't realize destroys chews up and spits out materialism) being from an infinitely old regress of process.
                                                          That remarkable things are possible to pop out into existence at a moments notice (though generally low probability)

                                                          and yet they take issue with you at the possibility that an image appeared before you.

                                                          So its not outlandish even remarkable unexpected an unusual things they object to. Its just that you are not one of the scientists they genuflect to. We have got to the point where "Science" is whatever some people say it is and "skeptics" never having been real skeptics (but only skeptics of one thing) lap it up like a dog to a bone.
                                                          Yes, funny that l talk about my experience, and the skeptics do a runner?

                                                          At least Sal got some feedback, eventhough it was, l don't know?

                                                          It quacks like a duck but it is a pink elephant?

                                                          Or throw the baby out with the bathwater, because l don't want to believe the baby is wet!

                                                          Great way to progress and make new discovery's that can better mankind, groan!

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133495].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                          To a certain extent we ALL start out with baseline assumptions from which we determine what is rational and irrational. To us they are defacto truths seldom consciously examined. Skeptics have a whole slew of them - materialism, assumptions of authority and even wholesale contradictions of what physical explanations are.

                                                          Further I'd say 90% of the skeptics I read, meet and talk with accept as a priori that religion is just inherently irrational with no need for them to construct a rational by which that conclusion is derived. They consider it the baseline that must be disproven as if its been established truth. Most skeptics will define themselves as skeptics merely for their stance on doubting religion/spiritual issues - nothing else (which hardly makes them skeptics in general)

                                                          Here is where it all gets very disingenuous however. As far out as they claim your experience of seeing a "ghost" is absolutely none of that is more bizarre or even as "miraculous" than what science is showing in the field of Quantum Mechanics. The "rational scientific thinkers" Claude refers to are proposing -

                                                          That everything can come out of absolutely nothing (including your grandma)
                                                          That other realities/universe/multiverse exist outside our own
                                                          That everything is ultimately causeless (which amusingly they don't realize destroys chews up and spits out materialism) being from an infinitely old regress of process.
                                                          That remarkable things are possible to pop out into existence at a moments notice (though generally low probability)

                                                          and yet they take issue with you at the possibility that an image appeared before you.

                                                          So its not outlandish even remarkably unexpected an unusual things they object to. Its just that you are not one of the scientists they genuflect to. We have got to the point where "Science" is whatever some people say it is and "skeptics" never having been real skeptics (but only skeptics of one thing) lap it up like a dog to a bone.
                                                          You have made some valid points. Hard, evidence/science people rarely take the time to actually study or at least farmiliarize themselves with what they are dismissing. I never see any knowledge of it coming from them. They only quote and re-quote the text book stuff they have learned. That's why I put the video up, to give a good overview.

                                                          I have no idea where quantum physics will eventually take us but it seems to be hinting and suggesting that the familiar view that has shaped our scientific thinking will eventually be shattered or at least hugely shaken up.

                                                          Their is a genuine phenomena here that despite all it's misinterpretations, occasionally manifests itself for real. It persists and continues to plague us. Studying it is hugely difficult as is providing evidence is nigh impossible at this moment in time. Having said that, it has huge consensus as to it's nature.

                                                          I see a future time where it will be considered as part of nature, normal. That will come when a much wider understanding of everything and how it works is achieved.
                                                          Signature

                                                          Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133921].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post


                                                            I see a future time where it will be considered as part of nature, normal. That will come when a much wider understanding of everything and how it works is achieved.
                                                            Just curious here, but exactly how do you "see" a future time if you are not psychic?


                                                            Terra
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133997].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                                                            I have no idea where quantum physics will eventually take us but it seems to be hinting and suggesting that the familiar view that has shaped our scientific thinking will eventually be shattered or at least hugely shaken up.
                                                            Yep previous assumptions of causality are already on shaky ground due to data coming in from double slit experiments and how the universe is structured on information (rather than physical processes) is becoming clear based on studies of entanglement and faster than light information "travel". Mind you I think the criticism of people using QM to validate any and everything has merit but there are definitely some questions that have arisen that should leave us a bit hesitant to laugh at any and everything that doesn't fit into normal every day experience.
                                                            Signature

                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134109].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                              Yep previous assumptions of causality are already on shaky ground due to data coming in from double slit experiments and how the universe is structured on information (rather than physical processes) is becoming clear based on studies of entanglement and faster than light information "travel". Mind you I think the criticism of people using QM to validate any and everything has merit but there are definitely some questions that have arisen that should leave us a bit hesitant to laugh at any and everything that doesn't fit into normal every day experience.
                                                              Michael, I really was going to stay away, but I have plenty more to offer. I do not typically like to continue on with such a conversation with someone who is just disagreeing to disagree.

                                                              I was in agreement with what you said but made a slight comment about your delivery and you took it too personal. You then proceeded to twist and manipulate everything I said afterward. I feel a need to clarify this before I continue with this post.

                                                              Quantum Mechanics although truly thought provoking, is unable to explain why the reality we see is practically the opposite on the Quantum level. Sure, recently scientist believe they found The Boson field (it isnt 100% official, but tough to deny), but that does nothing more than show a "link" (if you will) to everything in the universe.

                                                              My own interest is more into "Dark Matter." The stuff is what makes up, well, everything. It is all around us at all times and even moving through us constantly. I also find it interesting how in the book of Job it says, "Do you know darkness? Can you take me there?" This quote from the bible implies that "darkness" is not a condition but a place.

                                                              How would you ever know what I could bring to the table? You have no idea of who I am, just from what I project in my posts (you however have plenty of information to go over and get a sense of, really enjoyed your presentation on Youtube buddy... that was sarcasm just in case). Maybe you should try to do yourself a favor and learn how to really deal with others in a more gentle way.

                                                              Sure, I may make assumptions and what not, but those assumptions are based off of experience and knowledge. I may not have been fully correct in all of them but I would imagine the fact that Claude didnt feel the need to correct me, would give a small indication that maybe I was right on a couple things.

                                                              You are too sensitive a person to have this conversation appropriately. As that would take you having to actually remove your over inflated ego for a couple minutes. Appears as though you can't. Yeshua/Jesus didn't teach repeated attacks and beating of information over one's head. He said if they arent listening, move on.

                                                              2 things:
                                                              1)This message really wasn't for you
                                                              2)I Still forgive you

                                                              D
                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135197].message }}
                                                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                                Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                                                Michael, I really was going to stay away, but I have plenty more to offer.
                                                                okay.....So when can I expect it? gave you the benefit of the doubt but stopped reading pretty quick when I realized it was the same personal drivel for like the fifth time in a row. You can write for the others but you won't make a dent with me.

                                                                We all decide who to take personal directions from and you lost every drop of credibility with me when you argued that the best way for a person to deal with a cheating spouse is to take responsibility for the cheating. I'd take advice from a ten your old never been married or been with a woman before I would take any advice (on just about anything) from someone who thinks like that.

                                                                But by all means go for the 6th personal post in a row. i'm not reading it through but if its all you have to work with....hey got to use what you got.
                                                                Signature

                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135363].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                              Actually the title on my name plate only has that as a partial title.




                                              I am the defender of the weak and the strong in faith. Today.... you are all equally blessed

                                              Triumphant Entry - YouTube




                                              and yet you are still begging.

                                              I don't buy your premise and your opinions. You have stated them several times and you are doing nothing at this point but derailing the thread on personal asides and innuendos. Your approach in doing so needs work and your delivery is failing to make a dent. Its to put it your way -- terrible off putting.

                                              anything substantive to add to the subject besides dubious style points which have a dubious style in themselves?



                                              ROFL. men and women should take responsibility for their partners cheating should their partners cheat on them eh?. Its the fantasy of every cheater that they can blame their spouse if they ever get caught. dude seriously go pontificate to the picture of Oprah on your wall and let us get back to some real discussion . Thankfully I never married a woman that would believe that rot neither for herself or me.



                                              spoken like a person who has lived no life. I was 12 when i last thought that you could make all humans feel guilty by your own conduct. When you live a little life more you will find there are people in the world who have little or no morality for you to be certain of causing them guilt. Terribly naive view of the world, reality and humanity.

                                              at least in your next round of pontification - add something to the subject perhaps?
                                              The saddest form of troll, Mike... One who doesn't even realize they are a troll.

                                              I personally don't believe in spirit guides, but am not so rigid to follow the rule book as some. If my posts get deleted, they get deleted. If my posts are terribly off putting, why even respond to me? All you are doing is giving me attention. Feeding the admitted troll within myself.

                                              LOL, Mike. Who is the one pointing out assumptions? This is all you have done in my regard. You are so quick to debate you have mistaken much of what I have said and twisted this into something else...

                                              I wont correct you either, you are already too far gone for me to bother in this regard. Your ego... You can handle that all on your own. Must be a tough balancing act keeping that all tucked in there.

                                              So let me get this straight, I repeat myself to the point of annoyance but you still question me and my sincerity? You must be a very sensitive individual, Michael. Yes, I am here to GET CLOSE TO YOU MICHAEL, AND PLUNDER ALL YA GOT! You caught me. Do I just turn myself into warrior jail? How does this work? I am new after all and naive so I must apologize. How could I ever try to get one over on you.

                                              Enjoy yourself, Mike. We both know you will.
                                              D
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132765].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                                So let me get this straight, I repeat myself to the point of annoyance but you still question me and my sincerity? You must be a very sensitive individual, Michael. Yes, I am here to GET CLOSE TO YOU MICHAEL, AND PLUNDER ALL YA GOT! You caught me. Do I just turn myself into warrior jail?
                                                D

                                                not exactly...You are pretty much there already. The OT section is pretty much it. But thank you for at least answering my question

                                                You have stated them several times and you are doing nothing at this point but derailing the thread on personal asides and innuendos. Your approach in doing so needs work and your delivery is failing to make a dent. Its to put it your way -- terrible off putting.

                                                anything substantive to add to the subject besides dubious style points which have a dubious style in themselves?
                                                So the answers is no - Apparently not . You are out of material (so young to the discussion so empty) and that's about all you have but again I appreciate the honest answer.
                                                Signature

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133350].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author DaveTheSinister
                                                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                                  not exactly...You are pretty much there already. The OT section is pretty much it. But thank you for at least answering my question



                                                  So the answers is no - Apparently not . You are out of material (so young to the discussion so empty) and that's about all you have but again I appreciate the honest answer.
                                                  Wow, apparently sarcasm goes way over your head....
                                                  This is becoming boring at this point.
                                                  No worries though, Michael. I forgive you.

                                                  D
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133494].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                    Originally Posted by DaveTheSinister View Post

                                                    Wow, apparently sarcasm goes way over your head....
                                                    This is becoming boring at this point.
                                                    D
                                                    The good news as i ignore your further posts is that we part in agreement. Your responses off the point and merely personal in content are beyond being boring. This is like your fourth in a row. If I happen to see where you finally raise a substantive point I will reconsider discussion with you but as you have so amply indicated and answered- at this point you have nothing else to offer
                                                    Signature

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133510].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author discrat
                                                      Some say Definition of Mental disorder : "Believing a big guy in the sky controlling the universe in a puppeteer fashion

                                                      Some say Definition of Mental disorder : " Believing a piece of Computer Code HAS to be designed by a Coder but yet believing one strand of DNA, which is about a billion times more complex, is developed through Random Occurrence.

                                                      Some might say the latter is mental insanity
                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133663].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                                                        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                                        Some say Definition of Mental disorder : "Believing a big guy in the sky controlling the universe in a puppeteer fashion

                                                        Some say Definition of Mental disorder : " Believing a piece of Computer Code HAS to be designed by a Coder but yet believing one strand of DNA, which is about a billion times more complex, is developed through Random Occurrence.

                                                        Some might say the latter is mental insanity

                                                        And a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce Shakespeare.
                                                        Signature

                                                        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133694].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                                                          And a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce Shakespeare.
                                                          and without wearing out the typewriters or themselves first to boot!
                                                          Signature

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133732].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                                        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                                                        Some say Definition of Mental disorder : "Believing a big guy in the sky controlling the universe in a puppeteer fashion
                                                        and yet that in itself is a gross mischaracterization of the position. No major religion holds to a big guy anywhere. they do hold to a consciousness outside of our universe but when skeptics went to the thesis that other realities/universes exist outside of our own in order to explain the fine tuning of this universe they gave up the rational ground that realities outside of our own are preposterous.

                                                        My issue with skeptics is not their appeal to rationality - its that they don't think far enough rationally.
                                                        Signature

                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133713].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                        Originally Posted by discrat View Post


                                                        Some say Definition of Mental disorder : " Believing a piece of Computer Code HAS to be designed by a Coder but yet believing one strand of DNA, which is about a billion times more complex, is developed through Random Occurrence.
                                                        You forgot the DNA has no junk code as computer code does.


                                                        Terra
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133714].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                          No. I won't exist. I won't see darkness. I won't see anything.
                          That's why we are putting LED lights around the inside of your coffin attached to a solar panel.
                          Signature

                          Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10122700].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                          No. I won't exist. I won't see darkness. I won't see anything.
                          Claude

                          Have been thinking about the recent thread about aging and losing interest in areas like doing business, making money, being successful, competitive etc. While this is a slow and ongoing process for you and I both, it is happening and even if we retain 90 percent of our intellect and mental sharpness and physical health to our dying day, our motivations, interests and priorities are changing. To what, the simple pleasures, to enjoy a sunset, to go for a walk, to enjoy our companions/family, a forum, to talk, to potter around. In the end, it boils down to a single thing. We are moving towards simply. "To Be"

                          Ironic that the predominant theme in an immortal existence is exactly the same, simply that you will become aware that the ultimate state is of total acceptance and co-existence with everything. To just co exist with it all, join , to simply "be" No more competition, learning, total letting go. you will still be a consciousness of sorts but not in the conventional sense. If you decide though, you may like to hold back for a long time and enjoy, create etc. But know it is your ultimate state that you will get to in the end

                          When you are younger in this life you would probably be very much against this idea. If I don't stimulate and drive myself then I have stagnation, nothing. As you get older, this starts to fade.

                          So whether you just end up being a collection of biomass in the ground with no consciousness being absorbed back into the earth, or a surviving conscious entity, the ultimate fate is the same, you will join with the all whichever way you look at it.

                          As to why the intangible is thought to work this way (why you go through it) is as just as difficult question to answer as to the nature of the universe. Both are intangible.
                          Signature

                          Marriage, For The Best Arguments

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10126755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I could never work as a Channeler. According to all the Natives out here in the West - my spirit guides are canine and I think it might put people off if I growled at them or started sniffing crotches.

    I have had 4 encounters with canines as spirit guide and if you tell me it isn't so, I'll pray you never get stranded in mountains in the middle of winter. You might not make it out. That is where I found my guide, a wolf, and he saved Munch and I. He showed up one more time on our way out and I would have taken the wrong road otherwise. I've had a few other encounters that were quite interesting and slightly bizarre as well.

    If those first two encounters had just been me, I'd have doubted my sanity. I had Munchie with me though and he did not react to these animals in any way usual or normal. Yet I know from the RCA dog head tilt, after which he sat down and watched calmly, that he clearly saw and knew what was going on instead of charging them or standing them off which would have been normal behavior for him.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10126876].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

      I would say the video is for sceptics, but not to convince them otherwise. Only to educate them (if they have not read up on it already) as to the way this (to them) intangible alternative reality works and pans out. It is a fair representation of consensus and opinion as to how it all fits together.

      I would say to sceptics that rather than just saying nay and just quoting science, it is wise to educate yourselves (know your enemy) a little in what exactly they are debunking and its terminology, even though it does not change their opinions one jot. The video provides a lot of this info. The video also trashes conventional religious doctrines.
      Hmmm, maybe, but it would also ingrain their beliefs with a dumptruck!

      A video of a channeler who doesn't overreact to questions or acts like he is having a heart attack when finished would help?

      The video also opened up a can of worms regarding religious beliefs, but didn't give an adequate answer, in some cases.

      When l tried it, the drivers seat moving over to the passenger side, was an excellent analogy. It literally does feel like your consciousness is being pushed to one side, and someone else is taking control, but not in a Hollywood fashion, but in an, "l can regain control at any time"!

      I channeled a Buddhist Monk, by the way, with glasses.


      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I could never work as a Channeler. According to all the Natives out here in the West - my spirit guides are canine and I think it might put people off if I growled at them or started sniffing crotches.

      I have had 4 encounters with canines as spirit guide and if you tell me it isn't so, I'll pray you never get stranded in mountains in the middle of winter. You might not make it out. That is where I found my guide, a wolf, and he saved Munch and I. He showed up one more time on our way out and I would have taken the wrong road otherwise. I've had a few other encounters that were quite interesting and slightly bizarre as well.

      If those first two encounters had just been me, I'd have doubted my sanity. I had Munchie with me though and he did not react to these animals in any way usual or normal. Yet I know from the RCA dog head tilt, after which he sat down and watched calmly, that he clearly saw and knew what was going on instead of charging them or standing them off which would have been normal behavior for him.
      Right, so according to skeptics, your experience has a rational explanation, or anything but what you saw, and your dog saw!

      This is similar to me seeing my dead Grandmother a while ago, after saying that, the skeptics went quiet, and did a runner!

      If they do replay to your experience, it will be to find another reason, probably to the point of judging your sanity?

      Hopefully it won't go that way, but l always find it fascinating how we can discuss these sorts of things here, obvious have good credibility with this forum, and the skeptics will avoid discussing it directly like their entire world will collapse if they do?

      Anyway l have probably said enough, thanks for sharing Sal, it always takes some guts to post something like this, considering the potential for negative rebuttels?

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Well, Shane. It might be easy to explain away my perceptions and experiences. It's quite another to be able to explain away my dog's. Nobody who has ever known one of my dogs has ever tried to second guess my communications with them. Munchie said that wolf was not there just being a normal wolf. Either time we saw him on that weekend - and considering the situation, I had second guessed my own perceptions until I took note of his behavior. That was not a normal encounter by any stretch of the imagination. The natives I talked to didn't think it was either. I trust their wisdom and understanding of the natural before any western "civilized" indoctrinated human's. Especially when the natives I talked to have science educations. Everyone else's opinion is just "fad", "indoctrinated", "misinformed" in my book.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127223].message }}
  • "Wanna take this call?"

    "Who is it?"

    "Some guy needs his grandmother for a meat loaf recipe. He's entertaining tonight."

    "Don't know nothing about meat loaf. And you know how I hate being a grandmother. Don't nobody want no dead movie stars?"

    "Nope."

    "Sheeeeeesh. How's he sound?"

    "Scared, but kinda desperate."

    "OK, pass the headset and Google some recipes for me. When did this guy's grandmother die?"

    "When he was 7. He really misses her."

    "And he's how old now?"

    "92."

    "Yeah. He ain't going to remember jack shit. Pick something from the first 10 hits and we'll roll with that one. Uh...oh...hi there. Is that Jack?"

    "His name is Ethan."

    "Yeah, sure...Ethan. We're just calling up your grandmother now. Nice lady. Pretty eyes. And she's whispering in my ear...plenty butter...plenty butter. That sound like your recipe? Hey, sure I'll dig out the rest. Your guests are gonna love this baby. What? No guests? Suicide pact? Oh, ok, I get it. No problem. But lemme ask you something. You any good with old lady voices? Cos we need a little help up here on that score..."

    (I'm in the skeptic camp, btw.)
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cam Connor
    Ianfear, I watched the entire thing, and I found it to be intensely insightful. I knew of Bashar, but none of the other ones.

    I wasn't a huge Bashar fan before this, and mostly listened to Abraham, however, I've found a lot of value in an entity named Aridif (that's A R I D I F, Aridif). You can find his YT channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8J...TYIKhO7UXLbMtg

    He also teaches some of the same stuff as the channelees in that documentary. A lesser known channel, though I found the information to be supremely valuable and insightful.

    I've noticed a strange pattern for how similar the information which these channels teach is.

    If anyone wants a logical/scientific basis for this stuff, I'd recommend checking out MyBigTOE (Tom Campbell) Home - My Big Toe or just search "Tom Campbell" in YouTube. He's a physicist who's taken the time to study the Larger Reality (or Larger Consciousness System as he calls it). His theory also helps to explain our reality quite well, and is based on the latest quantum physics experiments.

    Again, thanks for posting such a great video.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10127904].message }}
  • WHUP!

    WHAP!

    KA-POW!

    ZOOIIIINNNG!

    Hey, watch it guys or someone's gonna get brained — and then there'll be one less people.
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10130866].message }}
  • My bedtime reading right now is a mashup of American Psycho and some cool Christin & Bilal graphic novs.

    Compared to my morning reading here in the bar, this stuff's real easy on the eye.

    Here's my take (and remember: I'm the gal who gets flamed regular. Like I care.)

    I don't see any of us figuring the nature versus nurture deal anytime soon, but what's certain is we get here SOMEHOW.

    Could be Darwinian DNA making clever with the quantum, could be a divine presence creating something perfect, could be a mix, could be something we ain't figured yet.

    When I'm old and gray 70 years from now, and AI is up and running alongside fundamental discoveries about how brains work, I'm guessing I'll still be able to write out that last line with the same conviction.

    The moment we're here, we start interacting with stuff, kinda like a tango, but one partner is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than the other.

    Compared to the cosmos, we're all small guys, and although we can do crazy, small stuff together, like hanging out and communicating on forums, or forming human pyramids that stay upright without a word being spoken, far as our feelings and senses go, we're all closed loops.

    Nothing goes in without being filtered, and what comes out ain't a half of what's going on behind the eyelids. We're not even conscious of most of that shit.

    When we come to compare on stuff, what we lack is any universal language, and in some ways I'm all in favour of us sharing this kinda plight.

    I'm reminded of a story I read once, and thanks to the internet I don't have to write it all out, so here's the link.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ety%22&f=false

    Ha! The link is longer than the story, but what the hey!

    My guess is we're never going to agree on what anyone else saw or didn't saw. Because we can't.

    (I know the law courts hang on pinning all this stuff down, but the time ratio makes it impossible to roll out across the board. Split second murders can take years to resolve, and anyways, most of us wanna spend time living rather than being elegant diarists.)

    So, yeah, I'm skeptic, and yeah, I started out in this trail with a flippant and maybe irrational sideswipe at the whole spiritual deal, which makes me real baaad when I see how things are turning out here.

    But at least I never said HUH MY FISH IS BETTER'N YOUR FISH, F*CK FACE, which is kinda how this trail is panning out now.

    *re-reads, hoping to agree with conciliatory tone of critique*

    *realises, ulp, no, now you're just gonna make everyone mad*

    *checks in on Bret. flosses.*
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10132873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I don't "get" the idea that an after here has to include a deity.

    And yeah - if something understands a word, all they need is the vocal chords to say it to you. Communication is instinctual - even cross species.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134929].message }}
  • This goes on any longer, one of us is gonna DIE.

    Maybe come back and haunt this forum.

    Maybe it's happening already.

    Over and over.

    So whaddya think, reader?

    You the only one still left alive in this whispering cavalcade of spooks?
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135233].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Princess Balestra View Post

      So whaddya think, reader?
      Well, I have followed this thread and I have never read so much pompous, pretentious, pontifical drivel presented as certainty of fact in my entire life. I love it when people claim to 'know' things, without checking with me first for confirmation.

      Two words on this thread; ho and hum! If you require two more, here ya' go; mental masturbation!

      Enjoy your day.

      Cheers. - Frank
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135250].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
        Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

        Well, I have followed this thread and I have never read so much pompous, pretentious, pontifical drivel presented as certainty of fact in my entire life. I love it when people claim to 'know' things, without checking with me first for confirmation.

        The words on this thread; ho and hum! If you require two more, here ya' go; mental masturbation!

        Enjoy your day.

        Cheers. - Frank


        Sorry to go all WC, but he is probably been banned for life, so....

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135276].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Princess Balestra View Post

      This goes on any longer, one of us is gonna DIE.

      Maybe come back and haunt this forum.

      Maybe it's happening already.
      One look at your avatar and I think it has
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135333].message }}

Trending Topics