Creating Our Own Reality

[papageorge1]

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

Why is it, that when people who believe in intangibles are asked for, if not proof at least evidence for what they believe in, we get doublespeak and pseudo-technobabble?

Actually, these are merely assertions made by self-proclaimed "masters", without producing even a single shred of tangible evidence, so that YOU @papageorge1 are merely repeating unsubstantiated claims, and avowing that those claims are factual and true.

 

That is because we are speaking of things intangible to the physical senses. The paranormal has provided much corroborating evidence for higher planes. The paranormal is typically cases where for a brief moment the higher planes effect the physical directly but once over with leave no trace for later study by the scientific method. The models presented by these masters/clairvoyants has presented a working model for these events that actually makes sense of the paranormal.

The consistency of the model across many clairvoyant sources is to me an impressive part of this.

 

[freetoroam]

15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually the knowledge I present of the higher planes comes to us from many masters/clairvoyants claiming direct knowledge of the super-physical with their psychic (super-physical) sensing. We all have super-physical components and senses but for the common man they are latent and undeveloped.

Oh pleeease!!! 

How about you get one of these alleged masters/ clairvoyants on here and let us put their claims to the test? 

Would like to discuss this further, but directly with the claimants. 

Your hearsay means jack to me, no offence.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, freetoroam said:

Oh pleeease!!! 

How about you get one of these alleged masters/ clairvoyants on here and let us put their claims to the test? 

Would like to discuss this further, but directly with the claimants. 

Your hearsay means jack to me, no offence.

Plus it's off topic. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The paranormal has provided much corroborating evidence for higher planes.

Has it now?

Then there is no problem with providing links to peer review journals or studies that corroborate your claims, yes?

 

And before anyone states this is off topic, I present it as a perfect example of someone creating their own reality. This reality needs no evidence, no proofs, is unfalsifiable, and makes the believer feel good.

The fact that it is total horsebollocks, means nothing to the believer.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Jodie.Lynne

[papageorge1]

Just now, freetoroam said:

Oh pleeease!!! 

How about you get one of these alleged masters/ clairvoyants on here and let us put their claims to the test? 

Would like to discuss this further, but directly with the claimants. 

Your hearsay means jack to me, no offence.

Have you familiarized yourself with the material out there from say Theosophical Societies?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Theosophical Societies

@Piney. Your assistance is required. Maybe @eight bits as well.

[freetoroam]

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Have you familiarized yourself with the material out there from say Theosophical Societies?

Oh blooming heck ! Not her again.

Here you go PapaG, have a butchers at this. 

Quote

 

Further investigations, as we have seen, led the Cambridge Society of Psychical Research to conclude otherwise. Blavatsky was a fraud, pure and simple.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-unmasking-of-the-19th-centurys-seance-queen.amp

Please read the article, she was proven to be a fraud, they even describe how she was doing the frauds.

We have been here before. Not going through this rubbish again about a proven fraud who created a society for the gullible

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by freetoroam

[papageorge1]

34 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

@Piney. Your assistance is required. Maybe @eight bits as well.

Those gentlemen are both rather prejudiced and uniformed in my estimation. Been there .

[Hankenhunter]

3 hours ago, lightly said:

no,  I guess I'm wondering about awareness?   A flower is alive.    Is it conscious?  Nope, I guess not.

   Does it interact with it's environment .  Yes.   Could that be called..Awareness ?   When does awareness become conciousness?   There are different sorts of brains and sort of brains?   

Plants are somewhat aware. Studies prove they react to certain stimuli like fire, herbivores, and drought.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://qz.com/1294941/a-debate-over-plant-consciousness-is-forcing-us-to-confront-the-limitations-of-the-human-mind/&ved=2ahUKEwiL56rOuprlAhXVIDQIHYV2CL0QFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2sU9INW87OGe2PMtneellu&cshid=1571011744478

Interesting thread

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Yep, little to no creative power at all. 

I wouldn't call that creative. Destructive is the word I'd use. I get your drift though. Create to destruct? Oxymoron?

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Those gentlemen are both rather prejudiced and uniformed in my estimation. Been there .

You're spiritual philosophy is based around lies. I know accepting that is difficult. 

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're spiritual philosophy is based around lies. I know accepting that is difficult. 

Very constructive to the thread. You just embarrass yourself again and again.

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

 

Why is it, that when people who believe in intangibles are asked for, if not proof at least evidence for what they believe in, we get doublespeak and pseudo-technobabble?
 

Actually, these are merely assertions made by self-proclaimed "masters", without producing even a single shred of tangible evidence, so that YOU @papageorge1 are merely repeating unsubstantiated claims, and avowing that those claims are factual and true.

Yes they are assertions, but then so are yours. He cant prove it and neither can you disprove it. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yes they are assertions, but then so are yours. He cant prove it and neither can you disprove it. 

Until such time as there is sufficient evidence to believe a claim, the burden lies with the one claiming something exists.

I and others have repeatedly asked for evidence to support bold assertions, to no avail.

In light of a complete lack of evidence, disbelief is the proper response.

[Hankenhunter]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Until such time as there is sufficient evidence to believe a claim, the burden lies with the one claiming something exists.

I and others have repeatedly asked for evidence to support bold assertions, to no avail.

In light of a complete lack of evidence, disbelief is the proper response.

Disbelief is fine, as long as it doesnt morph into a scientific conclusion with out absolute proof. Neither side can prove their point.

Open mindedness is the key. If you worked together, mayhaps a solution can be found that would have both sides in agreement instead of at each others throats to gain points over your opposite.

[freetoroam]

8 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yes they are assertions, but then so are yours. He cant prove it and neither can you disprove it. 

Time and time again it has been pointed out, it is down to the claimant to provide the proof. 

We do not have to provide evidence that something does not exist to disprove a claim which has absolutely no proof to back it up, our proof (not that we need any)  is in the non existing evidence given to us by the claimant. 

 

[Hankenhunter]

1 minute ago, freetoroam said:

Time and time again it has been pointed out, it is down to the claimant to provide the proof. 

We do not have to provide evidence that something does not exist to disprove a claim which has absolutely no proof to back it up, our proof (not that we need any)  is in the non existing evidence given to us by the claimant. 

 

Yes. Both sides have supplied their proof. Nether side is wrong or right as proof either way doesn't exist. Arguing in this context is a waste of oxygen.

[Jodie.Lynne]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Open mindedness is the key.

There is open mindedness, and downright gullibility.

If I told you that I could fly, like superman, would you accept that assertion as true and factual? Or would you reserve belief until I provided some evidence?

If you didn't believe me, is there a way for us to work together to reach an agreement?

[freetoroam]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Disbelief is fine, as long as it doesnt morph into a scientific conclusion with out absolute proof. Neither side can prove their point.

Open mindedness is the key. If you worked together, mayhaps a solution can be found that would have both sides in agreement instead of at each others throats to gain points over your opposite.

The point starts with the claimants.

All we do is ask a question which generally is "prove it". This is when it all goes pear shaped and the claimant become defensive.

2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yes. Both sides have supplied their proof. Nether side is wrong or right as proof either way doesn't exist. Arguing in this context is a waste of oxygen.

What are you on about? Only one side needs to provide proof and that is the claimant. 

If the claimant can not provide it, then there is no case. 

 

[XenoFish]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Very constructive to the thread. You just embarrass yourself again and again.

Nope. I've added more constructive talking points than you ever have. All you've done is spout unfounded nonsense. Stuff that only leads to further inane questions. 

[Habitat]

16 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

our proof (not that we need any)  

And what does that mean ? That you have already made up your mind ?

[Hankenhunter]

38 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

There is open mindedness, and downright gullibility.

If I told you that I could fly, like superman, would you accept that assertion as true and factual? Or would you reserve belief until I provided some evidence?

If you didn't believe me, is there a way for us to work together to reach an agreement?

Before or after you hit the ground?  You're comparing apples to oranges. You cant compare physics to spirituality. If you could, scientists would have been all over it. My apologies for going off topic.

[Piney]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

@Piney. Your assistance is required. Maybe @eight bits as well.

I'm no longer wasting my fingertips. 

Hindus are like Natives and practitioners of Shinto. They don't accept converts. You have to be born into it.  He can claim all he wants but no real guru or Temple would accept him. His Theosophy is all he has. Let him have it even if it is tripe.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Those gentlemen are both rather prejudiced and uniformed in my estimation. Been there .

I'm uninformed allright. Paul even more so. 

[Hankenhunter]

43 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

The point starts with the claimants.

All we do is ask a question which generally is "prove it". This is when it all goes pear shaped and the claimant become defensive.

What are you on about? Only one side needs to provide proof and that is the claimant. 

If the claimant can not provide it, then there is no case. 

 

Seems to me that they are stating opinions, not facts. You are the ones demanding facts and proof. You need neither to have an opinion. 

[Piney]

53 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yes. Both sides have supplied their proof. Nether side is wrong or right as proof either way doesn't exist. Arguing in this context is a waste of oxygen.

So stop doing it.