• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

I Am Soul

Oh, I'm sure I will... but on the other hand... Navigator stands in the place of many self important" people that intimidated me into silence over my lifetime. Moreover, he's "invited" me to express my opinions of him by expressing his opinions of me on a skeptics forum as well as making statements of belief as though they were claims of fact. So, my little bleeding heart doesn't have to worry about whether I'm hurting feelings.

Plus, it gives others who are more timid like I once was, the courage to speak up as well. I'm tired of the self appointed gurus belittling me and the posters I've really come to respect. They are so... smarmy. It makes me feel good to hurl barbs at them on occasion. Besides, I think they enjoy the attention. Otherwise, all they have to talk to is other woos or new people who haven't put them on ignore yet.
 
Does anyone think that Navigator is making more sense than Tom Cruise in his tape? I don't feel like I have more of an issue with Tom Cruise than with Navigator. To me, they sound equally "incoherent" and equally sure that they've had divine experiences. And equally unlikley to understand that they are woos.

I think Maatorc sounds even more incoherent and angry and Breathe sounded dingier... but to me they all sound like they believe that their woo is true... while they clearly think Tom Cruise's woo isn't. But none have given a reason why anyone else should think so. So, I'm curious... do any of my fellow skeptics have such a reason? When you look at Tom Cruise's recent clip do you find his communications or beliefs any more coherent or less coherent or valid than Navigators? If so, can you tell me why? Are either of them communicating something of value to you? Does ones seem more delusional than the other and if so how and why?

Do you guys think it's as funny as I do when the woo believers try to explain away your lack of belief with psychobabble and semantics and snide inferences about your character? Does anyone here who doesn't already believe in this brand of woo think that Navigator actually "left his body" as he believes he did?

I'm not trying to be mean. It's just that to me Navigator is no more coherent than Tom Cruise... Navigator's words aren't tampered with, nor are the questions deleted, but I still am not following his point. Clearly he has some invented some sort of psychiatric diagnosis of me which allows him to explain away my lack of following him-- but does anyone follow him? Does anyone find him more coherent than, say Tom Cruise. And, if so, can you sum it up for me?

I get the part that he thinks he's having OBE's and that we could have them too if we only believed and followed his lead... but I think that's as much a delusion or "woo" as Tom Cruise's belief that Scientologists are the experts of the mind. I mean it can be twisted to find validity in it.... Scientiologists do control minds and you do have to believe in OBE's to believe that you've objectively experienced one.... but....

If there is anyone who thinks that he is communicating anything of value, I trust that you will tell me, but for now, I've concluded that Navigator is just another garden variety woo and his reaction to me is due to my threatening his belief that he's a prophet or guru or savior or truth bearer.

It reminds me of this:

 
Last edited:
Simply stupendous.

It's becoming clear why movie theaters are hurting.
This entertainment can even rival some of their top offerings...and it's free (less the power consumption of the computer...well ok, and the internet line)!
How about ya'll have a heart and give me a heads up when one of these threads breaks out arrright?

...and Art,...that video......you're kill'in me...my kidneys still ache!


:D
 
Last edited:
Does anyone think that Navigator is making more sense than Tom Cruise in his tape? I don't feel like I have more of an issue with Tom Cruise than with Navigator. To me, they sound equally "incoherent" and equally sure that they've had divine experiences. And equally unlikley to understand that they are woos.

I think Maatorc sounds even more incoherent and angry and Breathe sounded dingier... but to me they all sound like they believe that their woo is true... while they clearly think Tom Cruise's woo isn't. But none have given a reason why anyone else should think so. So, I'm curious... do any of my fellow skeptics have such a reason? When you look at Tom Cruise's recent clip do you find his communications or beliefs any more coherent or less coherent or valid than Navigators? If so, can you tell me why? Are either of them communicating something of value to you? Does ones seem more delusional than the other and if so how and why?

Do you guys think it's as funny as I do when the woo believers try to explain away your lack of belief with psychobabble and semantics and snide inferences about your character? Does anyone here who doesn't already believe in this brand of woo think that Navigator actually "left his body" as he believes he did?

I'm not trying to be mean. It's just that to me Navigator is no more coherent than Tom Cruise... Navigator's words aren't tampered with, nor are the questions deleted, but I still am not following his point. Clearly he has some invented some sort of psychiatric diagnosis of me which allows him to explain away my lack of following him-- but does anyone follow him? Does anyone find him more coherent than, say Tom Cruise. And, if so, can you sum it up for me?

I get the part that he thinks he's having OBE's and that we could have them too if we only believed and followed his lead... but I think that's as much a delusion or "woo" as Tom Cruise's belief that Scientologists are the experts of the mind. I mean it can be twisted to find validity in it.... Scientiologists do control minds and you do have to believe in OBE's to believe that you've objectively experienced one.... but....

If there is anyone who thinks that he is communicating anything of value, I trust that you will tell me, but for now, I've concluded that Navigator is just another garden variety woo and his reaction to me is due to my threatening his belief that he's a prophet or guru or savior or truth bearer.

It reminds me of this:



I agree with all you said, articulett, and the video is a classic. Rivals some of the best of Cook and Moore.

M.
 
Skeptics exhibit #1.

1... They have no connection with these ideas, but are written into every classic legend-myth-operation, including Osiris, The Iliad, The New Testament, The Gothic Cathedrals, Troubadours, The Grail, and The Shakespeare Canon, behind all of which there is an identical myth-knowledge system which is the source of what I have been saying. I am truly astonished by the level of ignorance here.
2... I agree there are pseudo religions such as Scientology, Primal Scream, and pseudo skeptical reductionist scientism, which are pure bunk with not a shred of evidence to support their tunnel visioned cultist belief systems.
3... You cannot reasonably judge what you do not know, do not understand, or blindly deny.

Tricky tried testing the 'irony waters' here but didn't really get anywhere, so I thought we need to return.

If I can understand what is being said: Tom Cruise and his $cientology lot, are espousing a whole lot of bunkum and 'real - come on this site and convince us' believers aren't.

I'm convinced. Where do i sign up!
 
Yes... all woos deliver the same crap wrapped in different words. It all boils down to "my woo is the true woo and you are ignorant if you don't agree". There are never any reasons or facts or evidence as to why we should believe them more than others who preach their views here-- or why we should find them more comprehensible--but in their own heads they are the "bringers of truth". That's kind of funny and arrogant, isn't it--that they think they've tapped into some "divine knowingness"?

It always bugged me that religions warn of "false prophets", but there really is no way to tell a false one from a real one is there? I think the best bet is to presume they are all false. They all sound crazy to me. They want the skeptics to believe that it is their lack of understanding that is responsible for our not "buying into" their claims-- but we understand each other... and most of the material we read... basic science articles, rules of evidence, logical fallacies... clearly, the problem is with the people calling the skeptics ignorant--the ones with delusions of having accessed "mystical truths".

We can't make sense of them, because they really aren't saying anything that makes sense.
 
It always bugged me that religions warn of "false prophets", but there really is no way to tell a false one from a real one is there? I think the best bet is to presume they are all false.
You don't have to presume, all prophets are false, it is all woo.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I am sure that there were many unknowns to which those early adventurers prepared for as best they could.
IF there is a continuation of consciousness after death of human instrument, then it might be that OBEs – rather than being some delusion of the brain, are bridges from one state of reality to another.
IF so, then OBEs might be helpful for preparation into that unknown.
But there is no good evidence that consciousness continues after the death of the "human instrument". What other scenarios for which there is no evidence should we prepare for? Should we study Hades in case the Greek scenario of the afterlife is right?

Not exactly.
I am basing another type of existence on what I know of this existence.
It is from this corporal existence that I experience and acknowledge.
I do not have any recalled information that I have consciously used to help me prepare for this corporal experience. All assistance received has been based upon those who have lived or are living a corporal life before my own.
Based on the small amount of subjective experience I have had with OBE, I can deduce that the two types of experience (corporal and non) are closely related.
I do not see from your evidence that any sort of non-corporal experiences exist. All I see is a human who has a very corporal brain that does some odd things sometimes. There is a great deal of evidence for this. There is none for non-corporeal experiences.

Nope. I don’t knock the human instrument. Nor do I belittle the creator of this thing. I am unable to believe that something without intelligence could have created something as complex as a human instrument.
Yet you believe that the even more complex creator could exist without itself being created? Careful, Navigator. That argument is one that is is extremely easy to counter. I don't think you want to go there.

Anymore than I am able to believe that within the universe, there are no other systems which have produced similar complex life-forms.
The odds for other complex life forms existing are quite good. The odds of encountering them are not nearly as good.

I don’t discount the usefulness of dreams, but the OBEs I have had are clearer than both dreams, and what is referred to as real life.
To you, perhaps, yet you cannot show them to anyone else. Remember, your brain is very good at fooling you. That is why real evidence is objectively observable.

It is possible that there are no voices.
It is possible that there are voices.
It is possible that the voices are heard because the brain of the individual is ‘wired’ to receive these voices.
If so, these voices might come from the incorporeal. If so, this might be another form of ‘heads up’ on something of what is going on in that world.
It is possible that when a personality departs this world it may find itself existing independently of a corporal body.
It is also possible that the personality retains much of its prior self. So if it was a nasty prick in this world, it may be a nasty prick on the other.
I suppose you could say that "anything is possible". But there are so very many "anythings" to choose from. How do you decide which ones are likely? As it turns out, there is a way that has proved to be reliable time and time again. Evidence.

I don’t long for another world to exist.
Then why are you preparing for it?

I don’t belief in the existence of ‘supernatural’ – IF that parallel world exists, it may very well be a production of this world. This corporal world is natural (although – sheesh! Many believe that it was created by accident –such a belief is more the ‘supernatural’ to me than the belief that there was a conscious intelligence involved)
Natural things have evidence. But it is pure hubris to think that the only way complexity could arise is through consciousness. And again remember, turtles all the way down, i.e. what created the consciousness?

So far I don’t even have a tiny scratch from the retaliation I have witnessed, to what I have shared.
I am sure you are not physically injured. I suspect that you believe that your arguments have not been countered by better arguments. Such is the nature of forums. But I find it highly unlikely that your arguments have convinced anyone here.

Hmm…then someone might complain about words ‘being made up to suit concepts’ dammed if ya do…
All that I ask is that you stick to the same definition within the scope of a thread. What we call consciousness in humans is nothing like the description of consciousness in some proposed creator.

This is interesting when you discover that some people believe that the brain is responsible for an incredible amount of people’s irrationalities and delusions.
IF this is so, then the brain is actually something that isn’t suitably able to define itself clearly using the device of its self.
And yet, it appears to be the only device around to attempt the job.
Actually, the scientific method is quite good at this sort of thing. In fact, it helps people prevent themselves from being misled by their brains. If the evidence doesn't fit what your brain wants to believe, then you must accept the likelihood that your brain was wrong.


One might conclude therefore that any brains or any number of brains might make up words to express what they see as their own or others delusions.
Even that this might be the case, there is apparently no outside intelligence which could verify conclusively that brains are really delusional or just able to explore places using consciousness, which cannot be done any corporal way.
Each person who is not you is an "outside intelligence". They don't have to be god-like beings. If something is observable by you, but not by the outside intelligences of other people, then the strongest possibility is that it is purely internal to you.

No one knows just how much any or every brain knows, or how intelligent it is beyond the measurable, or how much information it might be able to keep from the part of itself defined as ‘personal identity’, or for what reason it would keep this information, assuming it could.
No, these things are not known with certainty. Good thing too, of a lot of psychologists would be out of jobs.:D But many of these things are knowable and indeed are being studied objectively. You might be surprised at how much we do know about these things. But I am not a psychologist. I recommend you direct such questions to Mercutio, who teaches the subject. He's another "nice guy".:)

Satisfies the mind.
Interesting.
Why does the mind need satisfying?
Why do brains think? It is just what they do. In the light of natural selection, I suspect it has survival value. We are a problem-solving animal. It has worked well for us.

Because it cannot conceive of nothingness? But it can. It started out that way, as far as we each are aware.
We have no sense of ever always having being in existence, therefore it is that understanding which can give us an idea of what it is like to not be.
Yes, it can be defined, but have you actually conceived of nothingness? What is is like? And how big is infinity?

Maybe it is not so much ignoring as it were, but already having a concept of having come from nowhere.

Just like the universe, as far as we can tell, came from nowhere.
I consider that simply unknown.

And predictability will give the world stability?
Stability? Maybe not. But we will understand much better how it works. I was merely responding to your assertion that the world was unpredictable. Some parts are. Some aren't.



I meant embrace now, the idea of your death being the end of everything that you are.
I don't "embrace" it. Frankly, I'm not really too keen on it. But I accept it. All evidence tells me that this is the case. What I "want" will not change that.

The process of OBE – there is a process.
Can any of this process be demonstrated objectively?

So your process for having what you call OBEs had something to do with panic attacks.
The medications prevented the panic attacks and also stopped the OBEs.
Yes, that is correct. I don't claim that it is the only way that OBEs can occur, but it is one way, and it appears to have a purely physical basis. My experience is anecdotal (and therefore not good evidence) but the collection of numerous pieces of medical evidence shows that my case is not unique.

If I cannot prove to you that it happened, then it cannot be real to you, therefore there is no reason for you to believe it happened.
And there is no way for you to prove to me that it didn’t happen, although you can suggest other hypothetical explanations for me to consider.
Unless you can demonstrate that an actual journey to another realm/plane/existence occurred, then no, I have no reason to believe it happened anywhere other than in your mind. Your incredibly complex, incredibly inventive, incredibly tricky mind. I am open to further evidence.

I think that we may have to wait for science to develop the instrumentation which will be able to achieve this thing, provided of course, that the other side truly does exist.
But gosh, if it can be measured by scientific instruments on this side, then how can it really be the other side? Do you see the paradox of trying to defend the supernatural?

Percentage wise…what would be easier for you to believe could exist:

1: There is a continuation of individual conscious awareness after that individual consciousness leaves the dead human instrument.

2: There is an organization of scientists who are funded by the private sector to investigate areas of human consciousness which secular scientists are not funded to investigate.
This is what is know to students of logic as a "false dichotomy". It is not a case of "If not #1 then it must be #2. Honestly, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.

But yes, there are many privately-funded groups which try to bend science to their particular brand of mythology. The Discovery Institute comes to mind. That is why it is better to rely on peer-reviewed publications for the most accurate, reproducible, objective information.
 
......If I can understand what is being said: Tom Cruise and his $cientology lot, are espousing a whole lot of bunkum and 'real - come on this site and convince us' believers aren't. I'm convinced. Where do i sign up!

There is no innate distinction between cult like belief sub-systems such as Scientology and pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism.
 
There is no innate distinction between cult like belief sub-systems such as Scientology and pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism.

Then what is the distinction between your belief system and their cult like belief sub-systems? Aren't they are both figmants of someone's imagination, one a bit more recent than the other.

Neither of them offer any proof (ever), whether it be a photo of the aliens under Italian mountains, or deep booming voices stating "i am god, believe in me". Why do these gods hide themselves away? Are they shy? They need to get out here and show themselves, so that we skeptics can be shut-down once and for all.

It beggars belief that one lot believe in one thing and another lot believe in something else and both of them think the other lot are nuts for believing in that false god.
 
Maatorc is saying that what skeptics believe is like Scientology... "scientism" is just basic reality--science... it's woo speak to make evidence based understanding on par with faith based "understanding". Maatorc believes in some new age clap trap where "energy is god is love is all". He sounds even less coherent than Tom Cruise does on his recent tape, and when I pointed it out and asked him to clarify, he came back with his tu quoque (nyah nyah "what you say is what you are") argument. He lacks the capacity for originality. He's trying to say that he's not wacky like Tom Cruise-- Science is. Or skepticism is. But he's very hard to parse. (Don't worry no one else can make sense of him either. I think most people have him on ignore.)

I'm trying to get the believers to illustrate how their communication to us is different than Tom Cruise and his Scientology tape-- I want them to tell me how he's crazy and why they aren't... why they think they are more coherent or that we should believe what they say more than what he says. Or at least tell me how they would treat someone who was clearly a little off--like Tom Cruise... would they treat him the way we treat them? Tom Cruise sincerely believes what he's saying, after all. And I think that Navigator really believes he's had an out of body experience. And who knows what maatorc believes--but he has some major messiah complex.

But they never answer. In their heads Tom Cruise is a woo... and the others are woos... but they aren't. Yet they never offer anything that differentiates them. They all sound equally crazy to me-- equally sure of their "nothingness" and mystical secrets--equally sure that they have a "calling" to preach or whatever-- they all seem to have a "messiah complex" where they believe themselves to be speaking in poetic platitudes of channeled truths or something.

I want to know WHY they think we should take them more seriously than other woos--but they never say why... they just speak incoherently and fling ad homs and infer that their mystical experiences and beliefs are really truly real and fabulous and we could have them too if only we believed as they did or were more like them or whatever. They tell me that I'm the only one not understanding them... but I just think they are unaware of the fact that no-one is following them. No one can sum up their point. No one believes that Navigator really left his body any more than they believe that "Scientologsts are the experts of the mind" or "energy is god is all is love." It isn't just me.
 
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
There is no innate distinction between cult like belief sub-systems such as Scientology and pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism.
1... Then what is the distinction between your belief system and their cult like belief sub-systems?
2... Aren't they are both figments of someone's imagination, one a bit more recent than the other.
3... Neither of them offer any proof (ever), whether it be a photo of the aliens under Italian mountains, or deep booming voices stating "i am god, believe in me". Why do these gods hide themselves away? Are they shy? They need to get out here and show themselves, so that we skeptics can be shut-down once and for all.
4... It beggars belief that one lot believe in one thing and another lot believe in something else and both of them think the other lot are nuts for believing in that false god.

1... The difference between the cult belief systems, of Scientology and pseudo skeptical reductionist scientism, and what I have previously explained my position to be is one of confusing cause and effect.
2...I agree that the cult belief systems of Scientology and pseudo skeptical reductionist scientism ..."are both figments of someone's imagination, one a bit more recent than the other".
3... You may be a little confused here: Are you saying this is a shared belief of Scientology and pseudo skeptics? It certainly has no connection with anything I have proposed or accept.
4... It certainly does beggar belief that the cult like belief sub-systems of Scientology and pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism believe this way and I can understand your concern here.
 
Maatorc is saying that what skeptics believe is like Scientology... "scientism" is just basic reality--science... it's woo speak to make evidence based understanding on par with faith based "understanding". Maatorc believes in some new age clap trap where "energy is god is love is all". He sounds even less coherent than Tom Cruise does on his recent tape, and when I pointed it out and asked him to clarify, he came back with his tu quoque (nyah nyah "what you say is what you are") argument. He lacks the capacity for originality. He's trying to say that he's not wacky like Tom Cruise-- Science is. Or skepticism is. But he's very hard to parse. (Don't worry no one else can make sense of him either. I think most people have him on ignore.)

I'm trying to get the believers to illustrate how their communication to us is different than Tom Cruise and his Scientology tape-- I want them to tell me how he's crazy and why they aren't... why they think they are more coherent or that we should believe what they say more than what he says. Or at least tell me how they would treat someone who was clearly a little off--like Tom Cruise... would they treat him the way we treat them? Tom Cruise sincerely believes what he's saying, after all. And I think that Navigator really believes he's had an out of body experience. And who knows what maatorc believes--but he has some major messiah complex.

But they never answer. In their heads Tom Cruise is a woo... and the others are woos... but they aren't. Yet they never offer anything that differentiates them. They all sound equally crazy to me-- equally sure of their "nothingness" and mystical secrets--equally sure that they have a "calling" to preach or whatever-- they all seem to have a "messiah complex" where they believe themselves to be speaking in poetic platitudes of channeled truths or something.

I want to know WHY they think we should take them more seriously than other woos--but they never say why... they just speak incoherently and fling ad homs and infer that their mystical experiences and beliefs are really truly real and fabulous and we could have them too if only we believed as they did or were more like them or whatever. They tell me that I'm the only one not understanding them... but I just think they are unaware of the fact that no-one is following them. No one can sum up their point. No one believes that Navigator really left his body any more than they believe that "Scientologsts are the experts of the mind" or "energy is god is all is love." It isn't just me.


Thanks. I wasn't sure before but after this:


1... The difference between the cult belief systems, of Scientology and pseudo skeptical reductionist scientism, and what I have previously explained my position to be is one of confusing cause and effect.
2...I agree that the cult belief systems of Scientology and pseudo skeptical reductionist scientism ..."are both figments of someone's imagination, one a bit more recent than the other".
3... You may be a little confused here: Are you saying this is a shared belief of Scientology and pseudo skeptics? It certainly has no connection with anything I have proposed or accept.
4... It certainly does beggar belief that the cult like belief sub-systems of Scientology and pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism believe this way and I can understand your concern here.

I am now sure. :p
 
Maatorc is saying that what skeptics believe is like Scientology... "scientism" is just basic reality--science... it's woo speak to make evidence based understanding on par with faith based "understanding". Maatorc believes in some new age clap trap where "energy is god is love is all". He sounds even less coherent than Tom Cruise does on his recent tape, and when I pointed it out and asked him to clarify, he came back with his tu quoque (nyah nyah "what you say is what you are") argument. He lacks the capacity for originality. He's trying to say that he's not wacky like Tom Cruise-- Science is. Or skepticism is. But he's very hard to parse. (Don't worry no one else can make sense of him either. I think most people have him on ignore.)

I'm trying to get the believers to illustrate how their communication to us is different than Tom Cruise and his Scientology tape-- I want them to tell me how he's crazy and why they aren't... why they think they are more coherent or that we should believe what they say more than what he says. Or at least tell me how they would treat someone who was clearly a little off--like Tom Cruise... would they treat him the way we treat them? Tom Cruise sincerely believes what he's saying, after all. And I think that Navigator really believes he's had an out of body experience. And who knows what maatorc believes--but he has some major messiah complex.

But they never answer. In their heads Tom Cruise is a woo... and the others are woos... but they aren't. Yet they never offer anything that differentiates them. They all sound equally crazy to me-- equally sure of their "nothingness" and mystical secrets--equally sure that they have a "calling" to preach or whatever-- they all seem to have a "messiah complex" where they believe themselves to be speaking in poetic platitudes of channeled truths or something.

I want to know WHY they think we should take them more seriously than other woos--but they never say why... they just speak incoherently and fling ad homs and infer that their mystical experiences and beliefs are really truly real and fabulous and we could have them too if only we believed as they did or were more like them or whatever. They tell me that I'm the only one not understanding them... but I just think they are unaware of the fact that no-one is following them. No one can sum up their point. No one believes that Navigator really left his body any more than they believe that "Scientologsts are the experts of the mind" or "energy is god is all is love." It isn't just me.

Absolute, total, comprehensive, incomprehensible inArticulett.
 
Maatorc appears to think if he/she says "pseudo-skeptical reductionist scientism" often enough it will magically mean something. How droll.

M.
 
All it would take is evidence... but you guys never have any... just semantics. Evidence... the kind of stuff we have to show that evolution is factual, and gravity, and atomic theory... evidence the kind of stuff we use to make planes fly and computers work... and to solve mathematical problems and physics equations. Just plain old measurable, replicable, evidence... the stuff that distinguishes real phenomena from human delusions, misperceptions, and the like.

But evidence only arises as a subset of a certain mindset - objectivity. If you have a need for evidence, to me you are fundamentally saying that you are afraid of life. When the fear dissipates you no longer care about evidence because you can follow where your feelings lead.

When I see people push objectivity as though it were a priori real, and not simply a mental construct, well, for most it is simply that they are afraid.

Equally, one might say that confronting the subjectivist fantasist with some good, skeptical demand for objectivity can bring up feelings he or she is trying to suppress with the fantasy.

It's swings and roundabouts.

Nick
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom