To Turtle:



I don't think I write beyong my age really. Maybe I am fourty five.
Argh I am not defending the article! I am defending the research of OBEs by scientists at Manchester University who have come up with a theory relating to something to do with brain sensors and self opinion, something like that anyway.
I am defending it because it is scientific research. Their research is more valuble than all of your opinions on the matter, when talking about finding an answer that is.
Their answers are much more likely to be correct than your answers.
I am not saying that they are right, I am saying their theory makes the most sense and is much more likely to be correct than your theories.



NOT THE ARTICLE. The research. You don't have a clear cut answer and you never will unless you look to science. This latest theory is saying that OBEs are real, for you. Like a very vivid dream. They aren't saying you literally float out of your body though.
I put stock in this theory because it is the best one so far. Much better than any theory that suggests you actually leave your body.

I am not so keen in refuting OBEs. I am keen on trying to get my points across. I have made my points about fifty times now.




I don't particularly care what other people on this forum think of me, as it is the internet and I don't know anyone here and I will never see them in my real life. Therefore social edicate is not my top priority.

Ask people for their experiences? No thankyou. I have seen enough written about them to know that most accounts go something like this, 'I had an OBE and it was real and I left my body, anyone can do it and if you don't believe me then you are ignorant, naive and close minded!'

Exactly. First hand knowledge. The scientists who came up with the theory have been talking to people who have had OBEs, they have questioned them and probably worked with them at some point.
And on top of this they have their academic knowledge, lab equipment and common sense.



I am not interested enough to bother doing research.
Thanks for the points of interest though.

I figured that much out already.
Go with what works for you then.

I don't need research to argue against the points that you are making.

What is science?
Is there not research in science?

Yes, science is about research. I am saying that I don't need to research myself to draw up a counter argument to what you are saying...sorry, I thought it was obvious what I meant.

It is now, and I need not say anything more for your post sais it all.

Blessings

Ah good good. One down.

Edit-before criticism of arrogance and wrongness, that statement was simply meant to annoy.
If you don't want to continue this then that is fine by me turtle.

Mr Ed why bother starting a thread if you don't care what other people think and don't take in their opinions? Man your the most argumentative guy ever, but hey it's good entertainment.

I love to argue, especially when I think I can win.

Skeptics have a way of NEVER believing anything unless it agrees with their own view of what the "truth" is. In this case, you think everything paranormal is either a lie or has a very "scientific" explanation. (Science changes over time as new theories and proofs are found and established; all of the paranormal phenomena surely have "scientific" explanations, but they do not seem to now because our science hasn't reached that level of understanding the laws of the Universe).

BTW, this doesn't explain anything, it just shows a tendency. And was that quote taken literally from the source? Because it had several misspellings. "Brian", or "brain"?

That comment puts the validity of your "arguments" in here right there with the "blind believers". You post here for the sake of contradicting the people that actually believe in the paranormal. Your great "argument" for saying that article has a better theory than anyone in here has is that it was made by scientists, but on the article itself you have zero opinion because you don't even understand it. Doesn't that make you as blind as those you are arguing against? Your blind faith rests with science. If you weren't blind you would give in to the fact that these phenomena might be real and that serious research on it should be made (and I am not talking only about the OBEs, I'm talking about all things paranormal).

Thats exactly what I was saying before, but I don't think ED got it...
Mabey he will now though.

EDIT:
As I said...

No, what you say about skeptics is bs.
From my experience, you get believers and skeptics.
Skeptics are normally more intelligent, I am not even a skeptic really so this is not about arrogance, but fact.
Skeptics tend to be older and more intelligent.

Maybe you should consider that when putting down skeptics.

No, I don't post here 'for the sake of contradicting the people that actually believe in the paranormal'.
I post here for the sake of contradicting the people that actually believe they can do these things.
And it is not about simple contradiction, I really do disbelieve everything these people say. Therefore I am again and again expressing my views in the immature manner that I prefer to write in when not at school.
I don't do it for the sake of contradiction silly.

Thanks, I think my argument is great too. Well when compared to what it has met.
Hmm, it seems that I do have an opinon on the research, not the article, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing in favour of it silly.

For your information, I have only read the opening sentence of the research. And that I understood perfectly. It was pretty obvious what entalied, most articles of research and articles in general say what they are going to say in the opening sentence.

For god sake I am supporting serious research here. I am glad serious research into the paranormal is taking place. This is serious research.
I will throw in one more serious research just to make it clear to you that that is what I am supporting, not the 'research' that suggests it is a phenomenon...

I got it...
I discarded it because it was rubbish.

I don't know why you have put in a quote from a few pages ago.
I already responded to it or something very similar to it...

Ed you are just a contradiction in terms young man. Leave it to you to argue over something you haven't even researched.

Of course I haven't researched it, I never made that claim...I said I read the opening sentence and that told me the bare bones of the theory.
Quite frankly, looking at the arguments given against mine, it doesn't look as if I needed to research in detail.
That isn't even arrogance as my online arguing skills aren't great, that is just...

You're deluding yourself dear boy. Back away slowly so you don't get poked in the head. HAAAAA just kidding!

I know, thankyou for complimenting my arguing skills. I shouldn't be deluding myself. They are fabtastic.

Don't you mean your arguing skills are fauxtastic!

No. I was making an ironic joke.
I don't need someone else to poke fun at me when I am doing it myself...

You can't keep all the fun for yourself.

Oh I can, and please stop turning this thread into a chatroom with your useless posts!
For some people I don't bother making fun of them, they already damage themselves with every word...

Back on topic.

Just following your lead.
back on topic!

Goodness, are you for real? You read only the first sentence of the article? And then you have the nerve of saying you don't post things in here for the sake of contradicting other people and that "skeptics are more intelligent". No, skeptics are not more intelligent, skeptics are skeptics, they need proof always. Some can be very bright, and some can be very dumb. Believers are the same: some can be very intelligent and have their scientific curiosity actually explore the possibility that these phenomena are real, and some are idiots that will swallow any story whole. If you want us to take you seriously, then first of all take yourself seriously, because posting something you just assume is great and right by reading the first sentence only is incredibly dumb.

Yes, I agree with Macedonian

You have no actual scientific proof that OBEs are real, fake, or whether the people claiming to have them are deluded idiots. You obviously started this thread to pee other people off. Like you usually do

To answer your first inquiry, yes I am for real.
This is part of my arm, just incase you weren't sure.


Ah I think you have just contradicted your own statement about skeptics not being, generally, more intelligent. As you say, they ask for proof...
It is true, skeptics tend to be more intelligent. That in my opinion is an undeniable fact. For this site anyway.

I know some can be bright and some can be dumb, but for believers in these abilities, those who say they can do them etc, it tends to be some can be bright and many can be dumb.
Just something that I have noticed on this site. Don't get me wrong, there are some very, very intelligent believers.

I never said that I wanted you to take me seriously. I don't care what you think about me...
Also, if I wanted to be taken seriously I wouldn't make jokes and offend people...
That is where you are mistaken...

I have not been constantly saying that it was great or right. Funny how you seem to be speaking for me. Please continue though, I find it very amusing.

Ah, so that is incredibly dumb (something I didn't do, but let's go with this), yes, believing in areokenisis isn't dumb at all. No where near as dumb.

Yes, I know you never said that before you make a witty retort.

Gee, thank you. I think that was probably the nicest compliment the SC has gotten.

Okay, this was such a complete and total waste of precious life minutes, that I just can't leave without saying something. I absolutely refuse to take sides AT ALL, but feel the need to make a couple of points.

First off, scientists. When an article is published on theories or even things that have been proven or studies or whatever, all you see is what they want you to see. Hear me out here. As with theories, they publish them for many different reasons. Because someone wants people to believe it, to encourage funding for research, all kinds of reasons. You want to talk about blind belief. That's what a theory is, until it's proven. Scientists are right more than others??? Not so. What you see in research results, like I said, is the end product. In quite a lot of cases, that end product occurs after years of false starts, incorrect theories, and plain old mistakes. Let's say, Ed, that this theory is eventually proven to be incorrect. I can almost 100% guarantee, you're not going to see an article on how that theory was wrong.

Second, "dumb believers". Okay, here on UM it does sometimes seem like a lot (not all) of the believers are, how shall I put it, er, scholastically challenged. Thing is, there are a couple of things that I believe, but I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who just doesn't really want to have a conversation at all. So, I leave it. Thus, you have one intelligent believer who was here, but just did not post. Sometimes, I don't post because what I've read is just so unbelievable, that it just leaves me bewildered and speechless. How many others have been turned off for similar reasons?

Yes so.
They are 'more right' than most of the people here concerning certain issues.

Like I said, scientists go through a lot of "wrongs" before they get to the "rights". I'm not saying scientists are stupid or anyone is smarter than anyone else.

Anyone can have a theory. The difference is, scientists are the ones that do the hardcore legwork to prove the theories. When you hear a "theory", it's fine to agree or disagree. Does it make sense? Probably Is it true? We don't know until all the legwork has been done. Ask any scientist in the world if they're always right. If they're honest, they'll laugh at you and admit they are wrong sometimes. This is the beauty of science. The first theory is usually not the right one. You do whatever you need to do, it fails, you find out what you did wrong or adjust your theory, and start over again. In papers, articles, textbooks, etc, you don't see all this. What you see is the end result when the theory has finally been proven. So, if you're not aware of these things I've been saying, then yes, scientists do seem like they're right more often than not. But, in reality, that's just not the case.

Argh everyone is missing the point I was making. Probably due to my own fault, but now I have officially given up on getting that point across.

Most of what you are saying is true wannabe, but that is not what I meant, I should have phrased it better.

And that^^^would've been the perfect time to do it.

Basically, I think what you're trying to say, is that this theory from a scientist is more plausible than some of the theories floating around here on UM. Is that kind of close?

Good to know. So you are a troll. No witty retorts anymore, I'll just ignore your ridiculous posts from now on. No sense in wasting time with someone who has nothing of value to say.

Well said.