Split Thread Scorpion's Spiritualism

Everyone who dies becomes a spirit, and there are different levels of evolved souls in the spirit world. On a bad day an inexperienced medium might be fooled by a lower spirit. It might amuse some lower spirits to deceive and torment humans
Or perhaps its just part of the plan of making people suffer.
 
Correct, because their prey have similarly evolved and are a shade faster (or slower or larger or smaller or differently patterned or whatever).



In many ways evolution is like a permanent ongoing arms race.



Also interesting is Scorpions notion that evolution has an upward goal. It doesn't. Evolution is omnidirectional. Upwards, downwards, sideways all are good if they contribute to the survival of a species. Indeed survival is not a driver of evolution, it is a consequence.
Again think of who is imparting this knowledge, the mediums. It would seem that their level of knowledge is what determines what they can tell people.

Scorpion's view and use of the term evolution (that he formed from what his “genuine “ mediums said) sounds exactly like the general vague understanding people have of evolution. E. G. The idea that humans are the "most" evolved, that we are the culmination of evolution, that there is an end goal - it's just the usual misunderstanding you will hear from the casually ignorant who has perhaps watched a few Attenborough TV shows.
 
Life started out as one celled organisms, now we have a world full of sophisticated animals. So it is obvious evolution is progressive.
 
Wow. So many unevidenced claims in such a short paragraph.

First demonstrate that spirits exist.

How do you know that EVERYONE who dies becomes a spirit?
How do you know that spirits evolve?

How do you know that there are any "levels" at all?

How do you know that there is a spirit world at all? And if there is, it must be particularly noxious since these "spirits" seem to have nothing better to do than fiddle with this one. And if the plan is that we evolve in this world towards some imagined goal, why are the "spirits" totally borking that evolution?

Why would a medium have a bad day? Aren't they connected to a higher power? Why don't the higher spirits do something useful by blocking these lower spirits? Are they that useless? Is that level of ineffectiveness something you aspire to?

If you bother to respond, your answer will include some variation of elitism, carefully cloaked.

I tend to believe the consensus of opinions that I have heard from several different trance mediums over the years. They pretty well say the same things.

We are all spirits that are currently incarnate in physical bodies. Spirits evolve through many lifetimes of experience. By trial and error, reincarnation and karma.

I also take my views from some books, like 'the teachings of Silver Birch', and a book called ' life in the world unseen.'

Any medium can have a bad day as they are human beings, and they may not always reach the higher spirits, and instead get false information from lower spirits. Trance mediums do have spirit guardians that usually prevent lower spirits from taking them over.

Some of the higher spirits do concern themselves with our evolution, and they come back to guide us. But the world is surrounded by clouds of negative psychic energy caused by all the wars and suffering. Mediums have to raise their consciousness to penetrate this darkness and reach the higher teachers.
 
And the only way to know whether or not a lower spirit has taken over a medium is when you find out they lie, or when they tell you stuff about supernatural events that doesn't fit what you want to believe?

And conversely, a medium telling lies isn't lying to you, they've been fooled by a lower spirit?

Seems ironclad to me...
 
The mental gymnastics some people are prepared to go through in order to justify beliefs that make no sense whatsoever never ceases to amaze me.
 
Life started out as one celled organisms,
. . . and our world is still home to prokaryotes little changed from those earliest forms so, not evidence of progressive evolution.

. . . now we have a world full of sophisticated animals.
And the world used to – but no longer – have creatures more sophisticated than those with us today, so not evidence of progressive evolution.

So it is obvious evolution is progressive.
What might seem obvious to you or the charlatans who've victimized you with their middle-school understanding of biology is neither obvious nor even a thing to evolutionary biologists.
 
And the world used to – but no longer – have creatures more sophisticated than those with us today, so not evidence of progressive evolution.

We are part of the evolutionary chain. Do you think we are less sophisticated than dinosaurs?
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

One of the more common misconceptions, with a history long before Darwin, is that evolution is progressive; that things get more complex and perfect in some way. In fact, this view is attributed more to social and religious attitudes of 18th and 19th century European culture than to any evidence. It was a given that things are getting better and better, every way, every day. This persisted until long after Darwinism, until the middle of this century (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin). Even Darwin was ambiguous about it, talking on occasion about 'perfection' as a result of selection.

At the time of the 'modern synthesis' [note 9] in the 1940s, the notion of progress was quietly dropped, with a few exceptions like Dobzhansky and Huxley within the synthesis, and Schindewolf and Goldschmidt outside it. Of course, heterodox writers (usually not biologists) like Teilhard and Koestler remained progressionists long after this. But by the 1970s, progress had been abandoned by working biologists.
 
Define “sophisticated”.

I could look the word up and give you a dictionary definition, but I think we are far more sophisticated than dinosaurs. They were larger with bigger muscles and many of them with bigger teeth. But all they did for hundreds of millions of years was run around eating each other. At least I never heard of a building constructed by dinosaurs, and where are their computers.

We are more sophisticated by far.
 
I could look the word up and give you a dictionary definition, but I think we are far more sophisticated than dinosaurs. They were larger with bigger muscles and many of them with bigger teeth. But all they did for hundreds of millions of years was run around eating each other. At least I never heard of a building constructed by dinosaurs, and where are their computers.

We are more sophisticated by far.

This is a long thread in which you've displayed on probably every page that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. This post, however, might just outdo them all. Bravo.
 
"Did dinosaurs build Stonehenge? We don't know, we just don't know."

Eric Idle.


 
I could look the word up and give you a dictionary definition, but I think we are far more sophisticated than dinosaurs. They were larger with bigger muscles and many of them with bigger teeth. But all they did for hundreds of millions of years was run around eating each other. At least I never heard of a building constructed by dinosaurs, and where are their computers.



We are more sophisticated by far.
And what about the porcine tapeworm?
 
Scorpion, the first step to shaking off a load of woo is being able to question it.

The next is looking for the reasons why it failed.

You are on the way now. Keep questioning.
 
The theory is that our spirits were breathed out of the Godhead in large batches. But they could not function as pure spirits because they had no experience, so they/we began the long cycle of incarnations, on this and other planets.


No you missed my point.

I want to know if the spirits that talk to mediums, are spirits that have evolved from human spirits, or are they something different altogether?
 
The mental gymnastics some people are prepared to go through in order to justify beliefs that make no sense whatsoever never ceases to amaze me.

Bertrand Russell:
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
 

Back
Top Bottom