I Am Soul

[Moochie]

Edge.

Are you speaking of the constellation of Orion in terms of where it looks to be in the sky, or where it actually is?

Even if I were able to do this, I am more interested in a bit of a study of Earth, hereabouts, and would likely centre my attention hereabouts for the time being.

Even if we both were able to conrrelate our experiences, this would not mean diddly squat to others who can't varify it, not that that signifies anything overly important mind you.

You are so near, and yet so far.


M.

 

[edge]

Edge.

Are you speaking of the constellation of Orion in terms of where it looks to be in the sky, or where it actually is?

Even if I were able to do this, I am more interested in a bit of a study of Earth, hereabouts, and would likely centre my attention hereabouts for the time being.

Even if we both were able to conrrelate our experiences, this would not mean diddly squat to others who can't varify it, not that that signifies anything overly important mind you.

Where it actually is.
It is the unseen there that you will then see and yes it won't mean anything to these ones here, But I guarantee that for you it will.
Just keep it in mind when your ready, if you will it.

 

[Nick227]

It sounds as if you're saying that the existence of "self" is but a persistent illusion. I can see how this differs from solipsism which says that the existence of others is but a persistent illusion. If this illusion is generated by the brain, well so be it. It wouldn't be the first "concept" that was generated by the brain. It is there. Ignore it at your own peril.

Well, ignoring it would be a conscious act of will by this generated sense of selfhood. So that would be just conscious negation.

What I don't see is how this is better than objectivity. If self is a persistent illusion, well it is at least persistent. I do not know of a single coherent person who does not experience this "illusion".

Well, to be coherent, you would have to experience it, at least at the time. I don't see it as being "better than objectivity," rather that with this awareness objectivity becomes truly a tool to create change, rather than an attempt to examine reality. It puts things in a more accurate perspective, to me it takes away some of the BS associated with objectivity.

I find it also interesting to note that many people these days, from all walks of life and persuasions, are reporting experiences consistent with non-duality. Everything looks the same as it always did, but for a period there is no sense of a limited observer present. Those not aware of non-duality often process these experiences as being "spiritual" or "mystical" when actually, to a non-dualist, they are just the experience of baseline reality.

So if two people perceive a thing differently, you might be able to speak the words, "Actually that's just two bits of the the same thing perceiving differently". In what functional way is that different from objectivity? You've still got fundamentally different observations that must be resolved. Adding an "overmind" and calling the objectivity something else is simply adding an unnecessary layer to the sharing of information between two "perceptions".

And of course you note the problem of not having any evidence for this part of the brain that understands the lack of self. It is quite clear through experimentation that illusion of self is a very fundamental part of our mind. It can be damaged or manipulated and it can disappear when the brain stops functioning, but it is there in almost all people. Nothing similar can be said for the "illusion of no-self". As such, it loses almost all explanatory power it might have.

If you look at your primary experience - objects, scenes, feelings, thoughts - there is nothing actually to tie this all together into a meaningful context. The sense of selfhood does this. Without it, everything is happening just the same but there's no belief in a limited entity to whom it is happening. The sense of limited selfhood, the ego, develops as a result of likely a series of brain or mind processes as yet not fully grasped, but likely involving somatosensory awareness, mirroring, and identification with thought.

One value in grasping the reality of this, and seeing it as primary to the experience of selfhood, is that one can more accurately assess the value of objectivity. One can be more real.

One can equally assert that the ego is just as primary as sensory experience. However, until VS Ramachandran, or some similar luminary, manages to actually track the brain processes involved in creating the ego down, it's a bit feeble imo for an objective materialist to say this.

Thus, if reality is non-dual, objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.

Nick

 

[PBTree]

I agree with you Paul, because it makes skeptics dishonest and untrustworthy and paints the whole thing with the same brush.
It makes skeptics to be exactly what they appear to be proclaiming intolerance towards.

I have seen very few skeptics on this forum be intolerant (in the first instance) to non-skeptics. Everyone is generally very nice to 'the believer' and asks pertinent questions and requests information that could verify their {insert miracle/event here}.

This only occurs after the bs meter has gone through the roof and the un-believable starts to creep in. eg. people having OBEs and heading towards Orion.

All most of us are after, is a bit of proof but no, we just get people babbling incoherently for page after page, citing gurus, fakirs and scriptures that make even less sense and we end up seeing nada, zilch, zero. Then we get the insults (the weapon of the unconvincing) because we won't accept some nonsensical reason for this religion and/or experience.

Proof is not "I had an experience". Think of how arrogant that is. god visited you (whoever the 'you' is) specifically and gave you an experience that changed your life. Damn the thousands who died from ebola, malaria, leprosy, cancer, war, terrorism (someone else's god), whilst he was looking after 'you'.

If someone shows me something, proof, anything that verifies all of this religious claptrap I will become a believer overnight and start in with the prayer bit. How about you god, give me an experience, come on, I'm ready for it! Didn't think so.

Until then, it is just a 'life crutch' for the fearful and just so much twaddle.

 

[Tricky]

I know this post was not to me, but I'm sure you won't mind if I reply

‘What is worth pursuing’ is really what?

Worthy of investigating, in terms of what ‘most people here’ have decided, based on a shared reality which is able to be measured and verified.

I would say what is "worth pursuing" is a model of reality which has reliability and predictability. Obviously, you can't predict everything, but good models function similar to the "real world". What we find again and again is that models which include supernatural elements are inferior in reliability to those which don't.

That is fine and understandable if very narrow. People’s beliefs cannot be verified in the same way.

I'm not sure what you mean. If your beliefs make a statement about reality, then, at least potentially, it is verifiable.

Therefore it makes no sense at all if as you say – ‘we skeptics’ have a certain way of looking at our collective lives, and focus only on that which can be verified before we believe in it – makes no sense to have a sub forum inviting discussion on religion and philosophy.

Sure it does. You don't have to believe in something to enjoy talking about it. I am quite interested in why people believe what they believe. As for philosophy, well that covers a lot of ground. Skepticism is itself a philosophy. Philosophy is just "thinking about thinking".

It makes no logical sense because those things are non verifiable, and can only be labeled as ‘wooism’ and set upon by the individual who believes that religion (especially) is non verifiable in terms of the objective method.

Oh, religion is easily verifiable. I can walk down the street where there are half a dozen churches are and verify that religion exists. What is harder to verify are many of the things that religion claims are true. But we have had other threads (A Christian Skeptic started one) about what verifiable things would support religious claims. What it requires, though, is that the things you believe affect reality in some way. If they don't, then how can one possibly say that they are real? How could you tell the difference between real things that don't affect reality versus imaginary things which don't affect reality?

You would essentially be saying, "I believe this because I want to, not because it has any meaning."

The only sense this makes to me, is that the forum exists to entice the unconverted believers in ‘woo’ in the hopes that these types will denounce their silly un-provable beliefs and join hands in the fellowship of skepticism, that a sane world may one day be a reality. If they continue to resist, we will do our best to send them packing from our temples, using disruption and discrimination and derrogative methods if necessary (usually necessary)

So you say. But you also said earlier that you were "not here to convince anyone". Well, that makes a nice sound byte, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. Why in the world would a person hold certain beliefs unless he thought they were good beliefs? Why would he tell anyone else about them? I won't deny for a second that I think my way of viewing the world is a good one, and I'm so proud of it, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Maybe you will think so too. The fact that you are sarcastically denouncing the members of this forum in the above sentences give me evidence that you also want to have your beliefs respected. Otherwise, such "derrogative methods" would be pointless.

I repeat that I am not deriding you for using sarcasm. I use it all the time. It has its purposes, but not unless you have some pride in your own beliefs.

However, I don’t want to belong to any particular system that tells me I have to accept them and their beliefs before they can accept me. I don’t care what they call themselves or even that they are in complete opposition to each other, as far as beliefs go, if they proclaim or otherwise infer or behave as if I have to accept them and their beliefs before they can accept me, then they are – as far as I am concerned – the same thing wearing a different costume.

Who says you are not accepted? I don't doubt that there are a few, but really, few people here are asked to leave. Don't mistake "not agreeing with you" for "not accepting you".

But to be a skeptic, then it pretty much means that you have to embrace skepticism. It's not a club, it's what the word means. I mean you wouldn't say to a Christian group, "why won't you accept me as a Christian, just because I don't believe in Jesus?" would you?

But of course, this is an internet forum, and as such, has all the subtle dynamics of a school playground. Some bullies here will loudly decry, "You're no skeptic!" Well, sticks and stones, kids.

The best policy for me is to enjoy the reality of my individual life, and honor individuality by proving for myself what ‘is’ and what ‘isn’t’

Although I avoid use of the word "prove", I would say we all "decide" what is and what isn't. Some of us (like myself) think that evidence is the best way to make this decision. If you don't, well it's no skin off my nose, but it means that though I may accept you, I won't accept your beliefs as having any validity.

This does not exclude any particular notion or belief or idea etc…it just does not allow for me to accept that (for example) just because I have had a few OBEs doesn’t mean I have to believe what someone else says about them.

Of course not. However, if someone told you something about OBEs that was more convincing than what you currently believe, you would accept it wouldn't you? I've been convinced to change my beliefs on these boards many times. It's actually pretty cool.

If someone says that I shouldn’t leave my body because some other entity might take it over, or that God is telling me it is time to come home soon or that aliens are abducting me and making me think I have left my body or that if I don’t stop goofing with that kind of thing I will be sent to hell or that it is just my brain tricking me into thinking I can exist independently…etc…I might say “show me the evidence” (which only limits me if I ‘know’ they can’t,) or they might show me some evidence which is more physical (like the brain is tricking you hypothesis) and say this is the ‘most likely’ truth – but so far no evidence or lack of evidence has convinced me enough to drop everything and jump on the wagon denouncing everything else not of it.

Of course that's your choice. I personally feel that some of the evidence you've been shown is pretty good and that yours is pretty poor. I've even tried to explain why I believe that. While it would have been pleasing to me if I had made a case that convinced you, I will swallow my disappointment and struggle on with my life.

That’s what I like about my sense of individuality.

Lucky for you. It would be very sad if you didn't.

 

[Navigator]

I have seen very few skeptics on this forum be intolerant (in the first instance) to non-skeptics. Everyone is generally very nice to 'the believer' and asks pertinent questions and requests information that could verify their {insert miracle/event here}.

This only occurs after the bs meter has gone through the roof and the un-believable starts to creep in. eg. people having OBEs and heading towards Orion.

All most of us are after, is a bit of proof but no, we just get people babbling incoherently for page after page, citing gurus, fakirs and scriptures that make even less sense and we end up seeing nada, zilch, zero. Then we get the insults (the weapon of the unconvincing) because we won't accept some nonsensical reason for this religion and/or experience.

Proof is not "I had an experience". Think of how arrogant that is. god visited you (whoever the 'you' is) specifically and gave you an experience that changed your life. Damn the thousands who died from ebola, malaria, leprosy, cancer, war, terrorism (someone else's god), whilst he was looking after 'you'.

If someone shows me something, proof, anything that verifies all of this religious claptrap I will become a believer overnight and start in with the prayer bit. How about you god, give me an experience, come on, I'm ready for it! Didn't think so.

Until then, it is just a 'life crutch' for the fearful and just so much twaddle.

This doen't address my point.

Nore do I agree that "I had an experience" is arrogant, and I certainly have not presented an opinion that is arrogant.

Nor did I say I believed in any particular 'God' let alone say that 'God' is a 'he'

I think what you are saying is that skeptics are 'human' and humans tend to react to stuff that makes them angry, in an angry way.

I know what I am suggesting is that humans don't have to allow the opinions of others to permit them to react with anger.

 

[articulett]

Non-duality would say that it is all just happening. The experience of there being a brain, the notion of filtering, the thoughts passing through the mind creating the interpretation.

However, the brain is also constructing the notion "I" at the same time. The experience of "I" is not intrinsic in the way that sensory information is intrinsic. There is no actual "I." No one has ever objectively proven it. Neither has anyone yet discovered a brain process which creates it. We all experience it, and most people assume it's a priori, that it's intrinsic to existence. It's not, at least no one's proven it to be.

Nick

That's true. There is no ghost in the machine. And people do have episodes where they don't feel like a self-- Cotards syndrome, for example--when people believe they are dead or that the person in the mirror is someone else. There are lots of types of brain changes that are associated with a lots of sense of self.

Sound is the self's interpretation of soundwaves, moving air molecules, and in turn the hair in our ears firing neurons to our brain where we experience sound. We don't see air or sound nor is color "external"-- But we can measure and learn and know more about this things because they are material... they follow properties of our physical universe. We can understand what oxygen is doing in our body and why other gases can block oxygen receptors and cause death. It's invisible, but understanding the material allows us to understand more and more. This is also how we know that there are sound waves making sounds that other animals can hear, but we can't. We know a lot about color vision and what brain structures are necessary and which ones we lack and which colors aren't on the human spectrum. We understand that thoughts arise and are intimately connected to chemicals and electrical stimulation in our brain. Our brain is programmed via sensory input and feedback loops. It's hardware.... the brain interprets and give meaning to the input.... that is consciousness... feeling and perceiving and interpreting and thinking and remembering-- that doesn't exist outside the human brain... There is no explanatory or useful information that can come from positing and invisible immeasurable "something" that we are processing. Yes, the picture waves are in the air even when you aren't watching your t.v.-- but the information is only meaningful when it's received... the meaning IS the consciousness. Although these words exist in a material form they don't have meaning until there is a brain processing them.

While we cannot disprove that we aren't consciousness filters of some universal consciousness... and it's a nice way to perceive things... and to feel like "you" will exist after your death-- it is ultimately "useless" for understanding more for refining and honing this knowledge. Though it IS cool to contemplate! It posits the existence of something that is indistinguishable from the absence of that something. It's like a god that doesn't want you to know him or the matrix.

Consciousness is built upon and intimately tied in with memory. If you cannot learn new things, you perpetually feel like you have just woken up from a coma or death. We know that there is a particular part of the brain that needs to be functioning properly to remember... to learn new input and connect it on top of old learning and concepts of self... so how can there be a memory or interpreter or connector of self without a material brain? At least we can tune in our televisions (material objects) to get the picture...(which our brain then interprets--gives meaning to.) We can fix our computers and extend our understanding and use of them by understanding the ways they work--the physics... the mechanicals... the material. This is true of the brain... --materialism... the notion that consciousness arises from brain processes is the only theory which allows us to further our understanding... it's the best tool by far for learning more. There are tons of other things that "could" be true... but unless we had a way to measure, test, or refine knowledge about them--what good does it do to "believe" it?

 

[articulett]

Edge is a fundamentalist Christian of some sort... I suspect you'd take his reality or beliefs about on par with how he'd take your out of body experiences, Navigator. And neither of you give a skeptic a reason to consider one of your "truths" as more valid and useful and objectively true than any of the others people presume, but offer no evidence for.

 

[Navigator]

Edge is a fundamentalist Christian of some sort... I suspect you'd take his reality or beliefs about on par with how he'd take your out of body experiences, Navigator. And neither of you give a skeptic a reason to consider one of your "truths" as more valid and useful and objectively true than any of the others people presume, but offer no evidence for.

What is of no use to one individual is of use to another.

Your subjective opinion on what is useful to you and the life you are living, is worthy of my respect, simply for that fact.

When you or anyone else insists either forthrightly or subtly through the innuendo of mockery and derision, that what is USELESS for you as an individual, is therefore USELESS to life in general, I have no respect, simply for that fact.

I am skeptical about believing in anything which is not 100% proved to me as fact.
At this time, my OBEs (most of which I have not even detailed here apart from a brief description of a couple) are proof to me that it can happen, and the braintrick explanation that others here have postulated as being the likely explanation, while interesting, has only left me to wonder why my brain would want to trick itself.

This in turn might lead me to believe I can’t trust myself.

This might give me a sense of insecurity and I would have to go to those who told me my brain couldn’t be trusted, and seek their guidance.

However (quandary) If my brain cannot be trusted, what makes their brains trustworthy?

My best course of action is to continue in my daily life, being useful in my work and play, realizing that I don’t actually have to be a believer OR a skeptic to enjoy myself.

But I MIGHT not be able to fully trust myself, if I were a believer or a skeptic.

So what have I learned so far with this meander into this forum?

That I can at least, Trust Myself.

It may be incomplete (this self) it may have questions and experiences and wonder about this and that, and not have any god or no god or whatever – but it IS trustworthy.

That might be a precious thing.

Or:

Would I be more useful to you if I publicly renounced my beliefs on the grounds that I can’t prove them to you?

 

[PBTree]

This doen't address my point.

Nore do I agree that "I had an experience" is arrogant, and I certainly have not presented an opinion that is arrogant.

Nor did I say I believed in any particular 'God' let alone say that 'God' is a 'he'

I think what you are saying is that skeptics are 'human' and humans tend to react to stuff that makes them angry, in an angry way.

I know what I am suggesting is that humans don't have to allow the opinions of others to permit them to react with anger.

Never anger. Anger means you have lost. Just gobsmacked incredulity that someone's brain talks them in this manner.

Back to your experiences. Have you ever wondered why you have them? Are they for a purpose? Did they come with instructions? Are you meant to be somewhere else in the universe assisting with something/someone. Surely you weren't given this 'skill' for the fun of it. And I am not trying to be a smarta.se here.

These things have to mean something if you are having them. eg. Why have them if they don't do anthing. he/she/it might as well have given you a bag of rocks.

Is going somewhere OB better than going somewhere IB? At least IB you can get some photographic evidence, whilst OB remains a mystery to everyone but you. So of what earthly use is OB to anyone?

 

[Tricky]

I am skeptical about believing in anything which is not 100% proved to me as fact.

Since you don't require objective evidence to prove facts for you, all this really means is that you believe what you believe. This isn't exactly headline news.

 

[articulett]

Everybody believes what the believe for subjective reasons. I just want to know if there is any reason for ME to believe. I like understanding why people believe what they do. I like to know if my beliefs have a basis in reality. When I see someone with a believe that doesn't appear to have a basis in the physical world as I understand it, I try to see if there is objective evidence to take their belief at face value. If not, I try to figure out what makes them do so. There may even be a time in my past where I viewed things similarly.

I like reading these forums and seeing other skeptics doing the same. I know not everyone is here for the same reason I'm here... but I like knowing why people post here--what they tell themselves about posting here. I feel like I'm always learning and laughing and sharing with people I've really come to care a lot about.

I am defensive when I hear people insulting skeptics for being skeptical... it's a rare treat to be able to be skeptical "out loud" regarding someone's religion or philosophy--a freedom that we might be too polite or scared to practice in real life. I'm glad people come here willingly-- to subject their beliefs to such scrutiny, and as abrasive as I've been, I don't seem to be scaring anyone away... or perhaps there's just a steady replacement.

I don't have any goals or delusions that I will "convert" anyone to my way of thinking. But I feel good when people let me know they "get something" out of what I say. I try and support others whom I enjoy reading too. But I have an aversion for folks who seem to expect a kind of respect for their opinions (usually stated as facts) when they have little respect for my opinions and the people I've come to respect here.

 

[Navigator]

Although I avoid use of the word "prove", I would say we all "decide" what is and what isn't. Some of us (like myself) think that evidence is the best way to make this decision. If you don't, well it's no skin off my nose, but it means that though I may accept you, I won't accept your beliefs as having any validity.

Evidence is fine. So is your non- acceptance of my experiences (having no validity for you.)

Of course not. However, if someone told you something about OBEs that was more convincing than what you currently believe, you would accept it wouldn't you? I've been convinced to change my beliefs on these boards many times. It's actually pretty cool.

Not if I was simply TOLD. If I was shown, then I would have to adjust my beliefs.

Oh, religion is easily verifiable.

I know you know what I meant in the first instance.

I would say what is "worth pursuing" is a model of reality which has reliability and predictability.

Yes I know. But does your value system invalidate mine.

Well, that makes a nice sound byte, but I'm afraid I don't buy it.

Is that science or personal opinion?

Why in the world would a person hold certain beliefs unless he thought they were good beliefs?

Do you think that people are so predictable?

What is it to you or your opinion of anyone, that they might not be brave, that you would see them as shameful?

Lucky for you. It would be very sad if you didn't

Lucky?

 

[Navigator]

Everybody believes what the believe for subjective reasons. I just want to know if there is any reason for ME to believe. I like understanding why people believe what they do. I like to know if my beliefs have a basis in reality. When I see someone with a believe that doesn't appear to have a basis in the physical world as I understand it, I try to see if there is objective evidence to take their belief at face value. If not, I try to figure out what makes them do so. There may even be a time in my past where I viewed things similarly.

I like reading these forums and seeing other skeptics doing the same. I know not everyone is here for the same reason I'm here... but I like knowing why people post here--what they tell themselves about posting here. I feel like I'm always learning and laughing and sharing with people I've really come to care a lot about.

I am defensive when I hear people insulting skeptics for being skeptical... it's a rare treat to be able to be skeptical "out loud" regarding someone's religion or philosophy--a freedom that we might be too polite or scared to practice in real life. I'm glad people come here willingly-- to subject their beliefs to such scrutiny, and as abrasive as I've been, I don't seem to be scaring anyone away... or perhaps there's just a steady replacement.

I don't have any goals or delusions that I will "convert" anyone to my way of thinking. But I feel good when people let me know they "get something" out of what I say. I try and support others whom I enjoy reading too. But I have an aversion for folks who seem to expect a kind of respect for their opinions (usually stated as facts) when they have little respect for my opinions and the people I've come to respect here.

Okay so you are human.

So what I want to know is WHY you made the move toward being derogative toward me, when I never behaved that way to you.

 

[articulett]

I think you were derogatory from the get go-- You said "I am soul" and reacted hostily when we took that like you might take Tom Cruise's statement "Scientologists are the experts in the mind." It's an odd thing to state as fact... especially on a skeptic forum. It's an odd thing to claim you've had an out of body experience when it's clear that you believe you've had an out of body experience and you are not willing to find out if you are mistaken. Moreover, you are hostile that we don't believe this any more than we believe the weird stuff maatorc says. Do you? We try to pin you down on what you believe and why and you treat us like we're stupid and not as "enlightened" as you and so forth because you are having out of body experiences and we're not. In my mind--you were derogatory first. I could go back and cut and paste, but we've already determined that you don't care what I think about what you say. (Or so you say.)

You sound like someone who thinks of themselves as some sort of enlightened master... like maatorc or Tom Cruise... it's hard to tell what exactly you are saying--but mostly you seem mad and defensive because we don't "get" it or believe it or whatever and so you spin this tale as to why and how it's all our fault-- perhaps we're not as enlightened as you.

Well, how is that different than Tom Cruise? Have I been derogatory towards him? Is comparing you both derogatory? Why? Do you have an opinion about what he's saying? I beg for a reason for us to treat your words differently than his or to tell us how you react to that sort of "poetic spiritual talk"-- but you just dodge and weave and spin the belief you want about yourself and us... just like he is doing on that tape.

I perceive you as "high hatting us monkeys" to coin a phrase. You talk down to people I think up to. And you are all too easily offended when it comes back as though you didn't start it.

 

[Navigator]

I think you were derogatory from the get go-- You said "I am soul" and reacted hostily when we took that like you might take Tom Cruise's statement "Scientologists are the experts in the mind."

Yes you think that I was derogatory from the start. But I was not.
Certainly saying “I am Soul” is not, and anyone can see the reaction for themselves.

It's an odd thing to state as fact... especially on a skeptic forum.

Yes – but not so odd a thing to get that kind of reaction. This is a skeptic forum – what else can I expect – that’s what is being said.

It's an odd thing to claim you've had an out of body experience when it's clear that you believe you've had an out of body experience and you are not willing to find out if you are mistaken.

No – I have gone to the links provided, and am not willing to go along with the ‘likeliness’ theories.
This makes me a target.

Moreover, you are hostile that we don't believe this any more than we believe the weird stuff maatorc says.

Show me where I am hostile.

We try to pin you down on what you believe and why and you treat us like we're stupid and not as "enlightened" as you and so forth because you are having out of body experiences and we're not.

This statement is fabrication.

In my mind--you were derogatory first.

But that is not a fact, so your mind might be seeing what it wants to see.

You sound like someone who thinks of themselves as some sort of enlightened master...

You are proving to me that a skeptic is susceptible to elaboration of ‘facts’ when it suits.

but mostly you seem mad and defensive because we don't "get" it or believe it or whatever and so you spin this tale as to why and how it's all our fault-- perhaps we're not as enlightened as you.

I believe this is your understanding. Not everyone’s. (the we us and them you speak of) I assume the ‘we’ you are talking about also has to do with the individuals who behave as you do, rather than the whole world of skeptics.

You won’t be able to show where it is I appear mad, or defensive in relation to my beliefs.
I might appear this way in relation to people’s use of derogatory tactics.
This is a reaction to those tatics, not to your belief or lack of belief in my subjective experiences.

like maatorc or Tom Cruise... it's hard to tell what exactly you are saying--
Well, how is that different than Tom Cruise? Have I been derogatory towards him? Is comparing you both derogatory?

If I were speaking on behalf of Tom or maatorc, it might make sense to me you compulsion to bring them into your argument.

Do you have an opinion about what he's saying?

Nope

I beg for a reason for us to treat your words differently than his or to tell us how you react to that sort of "poetic spiritual talk"-- but you just dodge and weave and spin the belief you want about yourself and us... just like he is doing on that tape.

Your opinion/observation is false.

I perceive you as "high hatting us monkeys" to coin a phrase. You talk down to people I think up to. And you are all too easily offended when it comes back as though you didn't start it.

Well I understand you that I started it just by being here in this forum.
That doesn’t make what you say to be the truth.

 

[articulett]

Okay, here's the post I think that really started to piss me off-- you were talking to a very smart poster whom I respect... and your response was this piece of messiah complex pedantry:

know that you are convinced that you are brain and when brain is dead, so will you be.
I understand that it can be no other way for you.
I understand that you cannot believe that it will be any different for anyone else.
I don’t altogether understand that this offends or bothers or upsets you or causes you to act with silliness and disruptively.
But I accept that you do and it may be nothing more than as you said…how would a forum with other beliefs react if you went there and spoke of your own beliefs which were contrary to theirs, in the way you do here?

It is human nature at this stage of evolution. I don’t take it personally – just study it for what it exhibits.

Now if you don't understand how that comes across or why it's similar to the way Tom Cruise sounds or Maatorc sounds... or if you think that I am the only one perceiving this as obnoxious... then I don't think you are capable of having any real dialogue with anybody here. Instead you are having long monologues to prop up your beliefs -- and yes, that's my opinion. Try and respect it the way you want your platitudes (as shown above) respected.

I think lots of people have been trying to tell you this or trying to pin you down or get your message or communicate... but how is someone supposed to communicate with utterances like that? It's smarmy.

I don't think most skeptics are interested in your beliefs any more than you are interested in theirs (and I see no interest... I see you labeling things as "beliefs" that you want to be "beliefs" while refusing to admit your OBE is a "belief" that has not been substantiated in any way...) we can not distinguish your OBE from a woo claim such as Tom Cruise's claim that "Scientologists are the experts in the mind". We have no reason to treat your assertions different than we would treat such a claim by Tom Cruise... nor is it a statement that invites discussion or discovery... just like Tom Cruise's. It's a statement of your beliefs stated as fact and in a way that makes it clear that you expect to define your beliefs as facts... and other peoples claims--which they even provide evidence for-- as "beliefs".

I don't know how most people feel towards you. You seem to be engaging in sermons and monologues not dialogues from what I see, and lots of people are trying to show you this. As, I said, I cannot tell your monologues from Tom Cruise's or Maatorc's or Edges. I know that you believe all the stuff you are saying just like they do... I just see no reason to treat it differently than you treat their claims or the claims of others. You just sort of dismiss others opinions as "nothing" while asserting yours as something we should "respect" or be interested in or be eager to hear. You certainly don't invite discussion. Like Edge you have your "personal truth". There's nothing to indicate that you are willing to actually discuss anything. You have your and are pissed that we (I) find in as laughable or incoherent as Tom Cruise's "truth". But I'm not the only one. Your first responses all generated show this reaction and affect. You appear oblivious to it.

So you have your "subjective truth" Big deal. So does everyone. What's new? I'm as interested in yours as you are in mine. I treat your opinions with the same respect you show other opinions that differ from yours. Where are you ever showing the respect of opinion that you seem to want for yours? Where do you see yourself as being coherent and clear and "to the point"? You ignore all attempts at clarification or dismiss queries with wordy spiritual nothingness like the above. Who in the world can respond to that and what would make them think dialogue was possible? And why would they want to. You are hear to preach. Those types do not change and cannot learn... so we (I) play with them. What else is there to do?

 

[articulett]

Yes... my opinion of you is not a truth. Though you might call it an "subjective truth" if it was YOUR opinion. Objective truths are things that are the same for everybody. You either really left your body in some many or it was an illusion of some sort. The majority here believe it to be the latter. We can't prove it, but it's not up to us to prove your belief. It's up to you. And you clearly have a need to believe that it's a fact even though you have no evidence to offer for this "fact"--yet you expect us to accept your word that it is an "objective truth" just because YOU believe it.

That's arrogant. You clearly don't believe our opinions because we said so. You have no interest in the evidence that we proffer to support what we say. You have no interest in dialogue or in finding out if your experience was true or could be proven in some way... you just want us to buy into your claims and spin and nothingness because it's "subjectively true" and deep to you. You want to believe that this hostility towards is because you are more enlightened or we just can't understand someone as deep as you. Standard woo defense. I'm sure Tom Cruise would say the same if we were joking about him.

You tell yourself that we are angry and hostile that's why we can't "know" that OBE's are real. That's your subjective opinion about our opinions. That's how YOU treat our opinions. And yet you want your opinions respected? Try showing the understanding that you want others to give you. You aren't some enlightened master, okay? Quit trying to sound like one. It makes you look goofy.

 

[Navigator]

Well I understand you that I started it just by being here in this forum.
That doesn’t make what you say to be the truth.

I think the difference between you and I is that I can stand on my own, were you need to bring others in.

Also – you seem to suggest that when you perceive that your friends have been slighted, you can speak on their behalf, and show the perceived offender that you are retaliating on their behalf.

I have not offended anyone here as far as I am aware, and am quiet certain that if I had, they would say so themselves, and I respect that in anyone.
I respect that Tom can speak for himself, as can maatorc as can anyone.

Here are some people speaking for themselves…in this thread.

You Are Ignored
You had me until you invoked the magic word....

"quantum shift"


Any credence you may have had up to that point was immediately lost.
I am funk. I am Canadian! It must be the lunar eclipse...

Um...did I break the rules?

Nope, I don't think so.

Don't let it get to you - things are not always as they appear and I have learned to use my time the way I want to.
You might be one to answer every question ever put to you, but why would that make you think I should be like you?
Enjoy the fact that you are unique. I certainly am.

Hint.

If you want to interact with me, respect me. If you can't respect me, find something else to do, somewhere else.
That is helpful advice for you and the 'we' you speak of.

Also - check out the name of the forum and the name of the thread. Yes, I know not all individuals have the same point of view as I do. I can silently accept that.
Can you?
It is nothing to be distainful about. Even less important to argue over.

If you want answers because you are lacking direction, then find out what direction you want to move toward and those answers will come to you soon enough.

Enjoy your ride.

I hope you don’t think that was derogative.

Dancing Dave can speak DD’s self yes? If DD has issues with Navigator DD can say so for DD’s self yes?

Yes. See a clue there? Speak for thyself – complain for thyself. BE an individual not a pack attack spokespersonality!

Lapus and I sorted it enough to be respectful once the wobbly wheel settled down.

We didn’t agree with each other but it didn’t come to throwing derogative at each other. That is a sign of respect.

What then of your pitiful ego spewing forth egotistic BS in this place?

your first contribution to this thread articulate…
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3491044#post3491044

woo trolls stick around long enough to get the last word...

it helps prop up the delusion they are spinning in their head....

Maybe we can get them to talk at each other. Both maatorc and navigator seem to imagine themselves enlightened beings... they have a Tom Cruise-ish sort of Messiah complex from my perspective... lots of words and woo and inferences... but nothing really said. And that new member, Limbo....

Maybe we can get them in a knockdown drag out to see who will be crowned the JREF forums protypical New Age Woo.

I'm getting "good vibes" about this.

I don’t believe you articulate.

I guess [ignore] is an option….I have read you talking of it.

Oh and that post I was replying to someone - have you got the link so I can see for myself if the poster replied to me and where things went from there?

 

[articulett]

And how could one "show" you you were mistaken about OBE's what kind of evidence if any would you accept? We have told you lots of things that would be evidence for us to accept the experience... plus we have the MDC. We could devise a test. You're the one for whom no evidence would change your mind... not the other way around. We disbelieve because there is no evidence. You believe but you have no evidence-- you have a subjective experience which you conclude is evidence that you left your body.