Your thoughts on Astral Projection.

AmyWilson said:
The astral dimension, too - looks fluid and changeable, exactly like the website says. I recall a few other experiences (which I didn't tell anyone here about because I might get beat up even more), where my bedroom walls looked fluid and melty. I sleep on my back every night, so astral projecting might be earier for me. A dimension is supposedly a higher realm sitting on top us at a higher frequency... like another TV channel.
Click to expand...

Yeah back in the young days of being in bands, partying hard and the like I remember seeing walls melt and entering new 'dimensions' many a night.....
 
fowlsound said:
That's what I thought. All blowhard, no evidence.

Any answer as to why you felt the need to post under false pretenses? What were your socks, and do the moderators know about it?
Click to expand...
Just checked the old mod threads--yes, we knew (about most, at least). This was prior to the no-sock rule; Ian gave up his socks when the rule kicked in. (actually, there was a problem with his main account, and he had to use a sock for a while, to be completely accurate in answering...)

Thanks, Ian.
 
AnotherSillyAlias said:
I also have a problem with wild generalisations, I believe they are rarely useful.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

You see this is simply more intellectual fashion. We should never generalise about people but take each individual as they come? Well we should certainly take each individual as they come, but it's simply flat out ridiculous to say that generalising does not have it's uses. Not that I was generalising anyway since I tend to use the word skeptic to refer to those people who have a particular family of beliefs represented by the contemporary western metaphysic. For good old fashioned scepticism I use the word sceptic.

I would consider myself a skeptic, maybe not a good one, but a skeptic nonetheless. I certainly don't claim to know everything,
Click to expand...

They never claim that. It's an underlying attitude. Obviously I don't know whether you fit into that category or not. My initial impression is that you seem to be a little more sensible than most.

in fact the more I learn the more I realise how much I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely. The older I get the more baffled I get regarding what we are, our ultimately purpose (if any), what reality is. Oh absolutely everything vaguely philosophical!

I also question my beliefs and I consider myself open minded and willing to examine credible evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes I do precisely the same. Constantly.

I would suggest that many others here hold similar views. I think you need to look a little beyond your feelings of superiority, examine your critical thinking skills and ask yourself if exaggerations and generalisations, like those above, advance your argument.
Click to expand...

Obviously they don't advance my argument. I'm simply stating the way things are. It must be a pretty piss poor feeling of superiority you claim I feel given that most skeptics completely fail to understand the most elementary arguments imaginable. They don't even try. They just assume they are correct about everything. It's tedious beyond belief.
 
Interesting Ian said:
They might well be well educated, but I cannot agree with you that they are "VERY intelligent". Indeed I have been absolutely flabbergasted that the good majority of skeptics on here are apparently unable to understand the most simple philosophical ideas. Since I am mostly interested in philosophical discussion and critical thought, it is not surprising I have failed to learn anything.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Coming from one who believes in PSP and souls, this is not a very appropriate comment.
 
Ian said:
They never claim that [they know everything]. It's an underlying attitude.
Click to expand...
Ah, now you're psychoanalyzing attitudes in order to rag on the dreaded materialists. Why don't you just say it's an inherent component of the materialist ethic and get it over with?

~~ Paul
 
Interesting Ian said:
I certainly think I'm very intelligent at philosophy. But there again it's a life long passion of mine which I've thought about a hell of a lot. It is perhaps not therefore altogether surprising that I do not learn anything in this area on this board.
Click to expand...

Lol, Ian, you are naive in your philosophical ramblings. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing of importance. Do you honestly think that believing in PSI and souls makes you more intelligent than anyone here??????
 
Coming from one who believes in PSP and souls, this is not a very appropriate comment.
Click to expand...
I don't know about souls, but I believe in PSP. I've been enjoying Megaman: Maverick Hunter X, mp3s, and the web browser.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I certainly think I'm very intelligent at philosophy. But there again it's a life long passion of mine which I've thought about a hell of a lot. It is perhaps not therefore altogether surprising that I do not learn anything in this area on this board.

It is philosophy which ought to determine our worldview as to what is possible or likely/unlikely. Certainly it ought not to be the prevailing intellectual fashion or what your immediate peer group believes.

Think about it. How can I learn from people who merely spout forth their blind prejudices?? That's all you get on here, at least either that or the very obvious stuff

That's precisely the opposite to me. I know nothing. Skeptics apparently "know" everything. It's always the same. They never seem to question their beliefs -- quite the opposite to the way they claim to perceive themselves.
Click to expand...

Philosophy can be attributed to anything that is unbelievable and I think anyone can claim to be intelligent at philosophy...but whats the measure? Isn't it mearly just a creative streak? I can sit here and fathom 5000 'what ifs' about the universe but really what will it do? Perhaps provide some discussion but if its just free to fly in any direction without some basis of boundary how can it lead to further progression of humankind as you state - 'Philosophy to determine a worldview' You cant seriously believe this? All sorts of woo start at this level, someone makes some philosophical slant and without any rules or at least simple border surrounding it its free to perpetuates to being believable.

I understand philosophy and its purpose but its meaningless banter when its not constrained by a basic level of fact. This may take science somewhere for you but so far its evidence that takes science further as far as I can see.

If philosophy was to determine the world view we would surely have witch doctors and psychics running the show.

thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Interesting Ian said:
I completely disagree.

You see this is simply more intellectual fashion. We should never generalise about people but take each individual as they come? Well we should certainly take each individual as they come, but it's simply flat out ridiculous to say that generalising does not have it's uses.
Click to expand...

Some generalisations have their place, I agree. "Most Australians are descended from Europeans", (at one time quite true), is a valid generalisation. "All skeptics claim they know everything" is a wild generalisation, (which is the term I used), and has no value.

Not that I was generalising anyway since I tend to use the word skeptic to refer to those people who have a particular family of beliefs represented by the contemporary western metaphysic. For good old fashioned scepticism I use the word sceptic.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your interpretation I still believe it was a wild generalisation.


I'm simply stating the way things are. It must be a pretty piss poor feeling of superiority you claim I feel given that most skeptics completely fail to understand the most elementary arguments imaginable. They don't even try. They just assume they are correct about everything. It's tedious beyond belief.
Click to expand...

What makes you so certain that they are incorrect and not you, or that they are unable to understand and not that your arguments are poorly constructed?
 
Interesting Ian said:
Yes that's right. At one stage almost everyone got their post number knocked down. My post count was knocked down by 6500 posts -- vastly more than anyone else. I suspect that this was not just coincidence. I suspect they didn't want a non-skeptic to top the list for being the most prolific poster. I also have about 1000 - 2000 posts using sock puppets.
Click to expand...

Ah, a man with a size problem, why am I not surprised ;)
 
Rodney said:
neither Randi nor anyone else has debunked the many cases where Cayce's treatments resulted in cures where conventional medicine had failed.
Click to expand...

What cases? Have these cases been verified? Have these treatments withstood scientific scrutiny? Cayce was a quack, pure and simple.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Obviously they don't advance my argument. I'm simply stating the way things are. It must be a pretty piss poor feeling of superiority you claim I feel given that most skeptics completely fail to understand the most elementary arguments imaginable. They don't even try. They just assume they are correct about everything. It's tedious beyond belief.
Click to expand...
They: prefered pronoun of the paranoid.
 
A lot of people on here are just bullies. Just pity them for their close mindedness.
Click to expand...
By and large, it is refreshing compared to others, even if it often doesn't represent the ideal character of skepticism. You do have a point when someone has no interest in speculation, or can't understand how someone can "magically" arrive at a conclusion without a "factual basis". My only real disagreement is that the same arguing points used for ludicrous claims are used in the same manner for long-shot assumptions, or invalidity of suspicion of cooincidence, as you put it ("A person can see cooncidences anywhere.."), which is false (obvious cooincidences merit interest, even subtle ones).
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Lol, Ian, you are naive in your philosophical ramblings. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing of importance.
Click to expand...
You just described Zen!

Do you honestly think that believing in PSI and souls makes you more intelligent than anyone here??????
Click to expand...
Teaching moral relativism is not very smart in any rational or sensible context. Whatever is responsible for "belief in consequence after death and superhuman abilities" also keeps one's base human urges in check, and is a more highly developed version of a lower lifeform's motive to survive. Animals, while having no comprehension of human belief, care for their young, motivated by a mysterious and invisible self-defining purpose arising out of the enviornment the interactions of which they are the result of. Either laws exist which accomodate the moral implications of greater intelligence (power) humans posess, or you embrace oblivion. One seems obviously in accord with nature, while another seems to be in accord with hell. Nature provides both ways, adjacent and identical.

"If balance didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent it."

Pick a wishful thought, it is better than the alternative.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I certainly think I'm very intelligent at philosophy.
Click to expand...

You don't have the intelligence to realise that philosophy != reality.

But there again it's a life long passion of mine which I've thought about a hell of a lot. It is perhaps not therefore altogether surprising that I do not learn anything in this area on this board.
Click to expand...

All I see is you spouting a lot of crap.

As far as you're concered your crap is correct so we're wrong and so of course you can't learn anything from us.

It is philosophy which ought to determine our worldview as to what is possible or likely/unlikely.
Click to expand...

No, what ought to determine our worldview is not dicussion but actually looking at the world: for a view.

Certainly it ought not to be the prevailing intellectual fashion or what your immediate peer group believes.
Click to expand...

Fashion? What humbug.

But you know what ever makes you feel better about us not buying your crap.

Think about it. How can I learn from people who merely spout forth their blind prejudices?? That's all you get on here, at least either that or the very obvious stuff
Click to expand...

Humbug.

People spend a lot of time explaining their positions, you know citing evidence and going through the whole process of forming an argument.

You're the one doing the spouting.

That's precisely the opposite to me. I know nothing. Skeptics apparently "know" everything. It's always the same. They never seem to question their beliefs -- quite the opposite to the way they claim to perceive themselves.
Click to expand...

This same old line.

Could you give some evidence for this? I've not seen anyone claim to know everything. Just because no-one's going to buy your crap doesn't mean everyone's claiming to know everything.

That's all it boils down to really.

You're all upset that skeptics won't accept your personal philosophical musings on your say so, even though you know just how great they are because you know just how many years you've been thinking about them. Oh you silly skeptics, why won't you just realise just how great I am?
 
Good lord this is going to get mercilessly off topic now.

Let's please not recap our analyses of Incredible Interesting Indelible Ian's schtick for the thousandth time.
 
Last edited:
Astral Projection are probably the best psychadelic trance band around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom