Was Technology in the Past Greater Today's?

[Aquila King]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

All I do is consider the words of those who I believe after serious consideration may have experienced more than me and form my best personal judgment of what I believe is going on. And you can do the same and form your position which may be rejection/disinterest/whatever. And then we can discuss differences of positions. So, what is wrong with that approach?

Do you know why I rely on things like scientific studies? Papers? Records of each Paranormal/Metaphysical account?

Because I care about the evidence itself, not the words of anyone.

You're making an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I can actually read the studies themselves, and form my own opinions based on the evidence collected, rather than rely on the conclusions made by someone else. I can use my own head using logic and rationality to examine the evidence surrounding a paranormal eyewitness account, and then discover whether or not the account is trustworthy or not. I commend you papa for at least trying to think for yourself, seriously I do. However you aren't thinking for yourself when you base all of your beliefs on the conclusions of others. Your conclusions may very well be right papa, but they aren't arrived at by the correct means.

I know, you'll probably talk about psychics and their abilities that allow them to 'know' things without any of that. But I'm not psychic, and as far as I know you aren't either, therefore the only thing that we know we can rely on is our thinking brains. So let's use it for collecting and examining the evidence ourselves, rather than simply trust some teacher through word of mouth.

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're lucky I responded to you. Considering you're the one who gave terrible advice concerning a woman's ill mother. That's why no one should ever take you seriously. 

You forgot about the other time he gave terrible advice to a mentally ill young person......

[BorizBadinov]

Stuff like the Russian "nanotech" items are intriguing but the biggest problem to them being manufactured is what were they doing? They are not part of a machine and not found with any other ancient technology or artifacts to validate them being a manufactured part. If you cant prove that well you really cant say they are not naturally formed. Nature does some crazy stuff like the Klerksdorp spheres.

Think about who figured out steel could be made stronger by thrusting a red hot blade into the body of a human? Now that had to be quite a story. Did they understand the nitrogen bubbles in the blood were responsible? I doubt it. Probably some blacksmith got really p***ed at someone and later realized "Hey this sword is pretty awesome. Wonder what I did different on this one? Oh yeah! Lets try that again..." That would really suck wouldn't it?

The antikythera mechanism is technically beyond what most humans today could personally accomplish in math or craftsmanship, and yet its still a box of wood with metal gears that had to be hand operated. Likely wouldn't even surf the web. Good luck taking a selfie with that thing. Pretty advanced when you consider most of the worlds population at the time was walking everywhere without even a compass but honestly its on par with a cuckoo clock technology wise. What I want to know is the story behind its creation an what else did they make? 

Want to compare what Texas Instruments made in 1954 to a box of wood with metal gears made 2000 years ago? One might help you figure out when the next Olympics is and the other one now lets you buy plane tickets to and reserve a room in the city where the Olympics are being held, or even stay home and watch it live.

 

   

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

You forgot about the other time he gave terrible advice to a mentally ill young person......

I don't remember that one. I remember the ill mother thread, even pm'd the OP to wish her the best. 

[+Hammerclaw]

He believes in faeries, too he just draws the line when it comes to them leaving quarters for teeth under your pillow. After all, the rates have gone up.

[freetoroam]

29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Not worth addressing.....

It is actually, someone started a thread about scratches on a door and you dived straight in there with it being paranormal.

Just saying.

[Swede]

40 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

All I do is consider the words of those who I believe after serious consideration may have experienced more than me and form my best personal judgment of what I believe is going on. And you can do the same and form your position which may be rejection/disinterest/whatever. And then we can discuss differences of positions. So, what is wrong with that approach?

 

The "approach" is quite valid. However, as of this writing, you have submitted some 2,600 contributions. Quite a number. And it would appear that amongst this number of contributions there has been a notable dearth of credible or testable information/data. Instead, there are perpetual vagaries and allusions to highly questionable sources.

Thus, are you willing and able to present and intelligently discuss specific cultural/technological/environmental factors and provide credible information that would support your apparently substantial belief in "channelers"?

It would be suggested that you begin with a single or tightly confined topic and progress from that point. These pages are blessed with numerous individuals who may be willing to assist you in your understandings.

Edit. Phrasing.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Swede

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

It is actually, someone started a thread about scratches on a door and you dived straight in there with it being paranormal.

Just saying.

Yes, possibly paranormal. Sounds logical.

[XenoFish]

15 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

It is actually, someone started a thread about scratches on a door and you dived straight in there with it being paranormal.

Just saying.

I keep getting a mental image of Zac Bagins from ghost adventures.

 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

therefore the only thing that we know we can rely on is our thinking brains.

My thinking brain examines the evidence and argumentation from all sides in judging the qualities of sources and what I think is most likely to be true. It is called objective reasoning.

It sounds like your argument is heading towards scientism that says if we can't prove it, we shouldn't believe it.

[Aquila King]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

My thinking brain examines the evidence and argumentation from all sides in judging the qualities of sources and what I think is most likely to be true. It is called objective reasoning.

It sounds like your argument is heading towards scientism that says if we can't prove it, we shouldn't believe it.

You're throwing out all sorts of fancy pants words making it sound intellectual whilst defending the absurd.

Imagine if I said:

Quote

 

"My thinking brain examines the evidence for horned leprechaun fairies that live in my butt, and I listen to and thoroughly examine the argumentation from all sides in judging the qualities of sources and what I think is most likely to be true. It is called objective reasoning.

If you don't think horned leprechaun fairies live in my butt, then it sounds like your argument is heading towards scientism that says if we can't prove it, we shouldn't believe it."

 

You see? You can make it sound as intellectual as you want, but at the end of the day you're believing every single paranormal account or video, and every little absurd thing these 'teachers' say, while acting like you're making deeply rational judgments when clearly you're not.

You're having me spend my time debunking your BS while I would normally be spending it debunking the arguments from skeptics against the paranormal. Dammit man, you're hurting my cause.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

You're throwing out all sorts of fancy pants words making it sound intellectual whilst defending the absurd.

Imagine if I said:

You see? You can make it sound as intellectual as you want, but at the end of the day you're believing every single paranormal account or video, and every little absurd thing these 'teachers' say, while acting like you're making deeply rational judgments when clearly you're not.

You're having me spend my time debunking your BS while I would normally be spending it debunking the arguments from skeptics against the paranormal. Dammit man, you're hurting my cause.

All I can say is I believe in gifted mediums and I don't believe in horned leprechaun fairies living in your butt. 

That sounds like a capacity to discriminate.

[Aquila King]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

All I can say is I believe in gifted mediums and I don't believe in horned leprechaun fairies living in your butt. 

That sounds like a capacity to discriminate.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to prove a point.

I believe that mediums exist as well, however I go about determining that by means other than just taking their word for it.

[papageorge1]

Just now, Aquila King said:

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to prove a point.

You don't think I was aware of that?

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

I believe that mediums exist as well, however I go about determining that by means other than just taking their word for it.

So do I. I need evidence.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

48 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

You're throwing out all sorts of fancy pants words making it sound intellectual whilst defending the absurd.

Imagine if I said:

You see? You can make it sound as intellectual as you want, but at the end of the day you're believing every single paranormal account or video, and every little absurd thing these 'teachers' say, while acting like you're making deeply rational judgments when clearly you're not.

You're having me spend my time debunking your BS while I would normally be spending it debunking the arguments from skeptics against the paranormal. Dammit man, you're hurting my cause.

Of course that’s crazy, we all know that horned leprechaun faeries live in the ankle, not the anus.

[jaylemurph]

2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

It is actually, someone started a thread about scratches on a door and you dived straight in there with it being paranormal.

Just saying.

A little part of Papa dies every time he's not able to hector us all with how much a better, more thoughtful, more open-minded he is. Without introducing the paranormal, he can't get to the hectoring part. 

--Jaylemurph

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

I took some books out of the library by Cayce's Foundation. I'll start a thread and show you had twisted his history of North America is.

Are you aware of stuff like this from the Cayce foundation: Ancient America and Genetic DNA Research

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Are you aware of stuff like this from the Cayce foundation: Ancient America and Genetic DNA Research

Are you aware of stuff like Piney being a Native American?

or the Mathematics of the statement “In Mound Builders: Edgar Cayce’s Forgotten History of Ancient America (2001), his 68 readings on ancient America were extensively analyzed. From these readings, 30 specific statements were found which could be verified by scientific evidence. Of the 30 statements by Cayce, 23 (or 77%) of them have enough support to be considered accurate” meaning 2/3 of his statements on the past being “unverified” (23 out of 68). 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

All I can say is I believe in gifted mediums and I don't believe in horned leprechaun fairies living in your butt. 

That sounds like a capacity to discriminate.

A belief in mediums that talk about Lemuria and a capacity to discriminate are mutually exclusive. 

[Harte]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

All I can say is I believe in gifted mediums and I don't believe in horned leprechaun fairies living in your butt. 

I had his horns removed, so you're right.

Harte

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are you aware of stuff like Piney being a Native American?

Oh, he knows. But that doesn't stop him from "educating" Piney about Piney's own people.

--Jaylemurph

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are you aware of stuff like Piney being a Native American?

or the Mathematics of the statement “In Mound Builders: Edgar Cayce’s Forgotten History of Ancient America (2001), his 68 readings on ancient America were extensively analyzed. From these readings, 30 specific statements were found which could be verified by scientific evidence. Of the 30 statements by Cayce, 23 (or 77%) of them have enough support to be considered accurate” meaning 2/3 of his statements on the past being “unverified” (23 out of 68). 

Well, that makes sense. There is no way to verify some claims at least at this time which means they can not be shown to be right or wrong at this time. Doesn't sound damning as you seem to imply.

[papageorge1]

 

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are you aware of stuff like Piney being a Native American?

Yes. (I don't doubt it)

He is also an expert on British accents too. I'd be curious to hear more about the interesting chap at this point.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, that makes sense. There is no way to verify some claims at least at this time which means they can not be shown to be right or wrong at this time. Doesn't sound damning as you seem to imply.

Channeling the existence and detailed life on an island/continent that has been geologically proven to have never existed isn’t a condemnation of the truthfulness of the psychic?

 

one of three claims Cayce made about the America’s can be proven. How many of them were known facts at the time? 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[papageorge1]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Channeling the existence and detailed life on an island/continent that has been geologically proven to have never existed isn’t a condemnation of the truthfulness of the psychic?

I thought we were talking about the article I linked.

Atlantis has never been proven to never have existed without someone making a bunch of assumptions about how/what/where it was.