Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

Poltergeists: A Problem for the Materialist

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

Poltergeist: The Problem With Lack Of Evidence.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

It looks like an interesting read from my quick glance.

Of course don't expect anything but negativity from the materialists here. They are not in open-mind mode, LOL. This looks to contain much evidence they CLAIM to be looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
25 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Poltergeists: A Problem for the Materialist

by Herbert Thurston

 
click the FREE READ button (to read PDF) via your Browser.
 

In my opinion mind has primacy not the big bang.

But we divide our minds in two. The socially acceptable part we embrace and identify with. Then the other half we supress because its dark and we have been told we are bad people if we act it out.

So the acceptable part is us, the poltergeist or shadow person is the unacceptable part and a separate entity. Both have primacy and create. When we encounter stressful situations when we should be using our dark sides then it does things such as putting in appearances or moving things about.

The shadow people give off some serious negative vibes because our dark sides are. They turn up to watch us sleep and the poltergeist activity comes form them. They are trying to get our attention, they want re-integration with us to make us whole.

They disappear when we accept ourselves in our totality. That doesnt mean acting out evil, but to stop denying that side to ourselves. Of course, there is a right time to use our dark sides such as being abusive towards someone who is being a moron towards us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@papageorge1

I've learned (my years here) people don't want to listen, read, do there own research.  They want "show me, show me , show me."  It's defend your 'world view' at all costs. People don't listen to learn, people listen to interrupt.  Its all about 'gotcha moments.'

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

They'll be plenty of 'gotcha' moments in this thread. I'd almost bet on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
12 minutes ago, macqdor said:

I've learned (my years here) people don't want to listen, read, do there own research.

The problem with "doing your own research", that many woo and conspiracy people always encourage others to do, is that you get to assess and choose what you consider valid, so your conclusion can never be reliable. The sources in a self-study are almost always contaminated with known frauds, so they're compromised from the start.

Instead of doing your own research, you should check your sources, and save yourself the inevitable rejection. Maybe even learn that there is no evidence, only frauds.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, zep73 said:

The problem with "doing your own research", that many woo and conspiracy people always encourage others to do, is that you get to assess and choose what you consider valid, so your conclusion can never be reliable. The sources in a self-study are almost always contaminated with known frauds, so they're compromised from the start.

Instead of doing your own research, you should check your sources, and save yourself the inevitable rejection. Maybe even learn that there is no evidence, only frauds.

It's best to often look in the opposite direct of what the individual wants the thing to be. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Instead of doing your own research, you should check your sources, and save yourself the inevitable rejection. Maybe even learn that there is no evidence, only frauds.

to believe everything is fraud is in my opinion part of the problem.  Its the main reason why sincere dialogue never advances.  

@zep73

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
5 minutes ago, macqdor said:

to believe everything is fraud is in my opinion part of the problem.  Its the main reason why sincere dialogue never advances.  

@zep73

 

It's not fraud to be mistaken. It's superstitious maybe, but not fraud.

I've seen many post here on UM, looking for real answers, and thanking the skeptics for giving them a natural explanation. I respect them, because they're not predetermined for it to be woo. Woo should always be the last resort, never the first.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

"Don't know" should be the last resort not woo. Woo implies truth, there is no true in woo. It has yet to be proven. Simple acknowledging that all current research has been exhausted the answers becomes; an unknown. Meaning that what it is, is still up for speculation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

natural explanation

we have to understand "natural explanation" or the term rational explanation doesn't mean that explanation is true.  Some might be. But not all.  It's supposition. Conjecture. Guesswork?  Grasping at the straws intellectually. 

I think skeptics cling to or better yet leap to the idea that all they have to do or offer the experiencer is a rational explanation.   That the problem - is solved.  Many adopt the mindset "nothing new here, move along, move along."   IMO the mystery is not solved.  Rational explanation can be in some cases a part of the problem.  Are we really applying critical thinking when we offer knee jerk 'explanations.'   Meaning we care more about our world view and our desire to be right.

IMO

 

@zep73

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I don't want really want to do a long read.

OP do you got a TLDR or can you synthesize the points in it you would like to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

In my opinion mind has primacy not the big bang.

But we divide our minds in two. The socially acceptable part we embrace and identify with. Then the other half we supress because its dark and we have been told we are bad people if we act it out.

So the acceptable part is us, the poltergeist or shadow person is the unacceptable part and a separate entity. Both have primacy and create. When we encounter stressful situations when we should be using our dark sides then it does things such as putting in appearances or moving things about.

The shadow people give off some serious negative vibes because our dark sides are. They turn up to watch us sleep and the poltergeist activity comes form them. They are trying to get our attention, they want re-integration with us to make us whole.

They disappear when we accept ourselves in our totality. That doesnt mean acting out evil, but to stop denying that side to ourselves. Of course, there is a right time to use our dark sides such as being abusive towards someone who is being a moron towards us.

I think that is often true, but it can be manifested for other reasons, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, macqdor said:

we have to understand "natural explanation" or the term rational explanation doesn't mean that explanation is true.  Some might be. But not all.  It's supposition. Conjecture. Guesswork?  Grasping at the straws intellectually. 

I think skeptics cling to or better yet leap to the idea that all they have to do or offer the experiencer is a rational explanation.   That the problem - is solved.  Many adopt the mindset "nothing new here, move along, move along."   IMO the mystery is not solved.  Rational explanation can be in some cases a part of the problem.  Are we really applying critical thinking when we offer knee jerk 'explanations.'   Meaning we care more about our world view and our desire to be right.

IMO

 

@zep73

What we need to ask, when a claim of the incredible is made, is:

Can it fit within the universe, as we know it?
Or do we need to make a totally new model of reality, to make it fit?
Does anything else indicate that a new model is needed?

The answers are always: Yes, No, No.

Show me proof that gives a: No, Yes, Yes, and you might change the world as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 hours ago, macqdor said:
click the FREE READ button (to read PDF) via your Browser.
 

Read free but you have to sign up. Lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@XenoFish

 

Ah didn't you have to sign up for this group?:lol:   seriously?

Quote

Excuses are the tools of the weak and incompetent. They build bridges to nowhere and tunnels to nothingness... Those who excel in them seldom do in anything else, therefore, there are no excuses.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@XenoFish

 

Ah didn't you have to sign up for this group?:lol:   seriously?

 

 

It makes it look like you're shilling for that site. That's what it does. Plus you haven't offered what exactly do you want to discuss. You've basically posted a link without context. Though it isn't the first time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

word to the wise. take this advice for what its worth.

cynicism, skepticism? Dialogue i.e. learning something. Don't make good fellows.  You're far too guarded to engage in an intellectual conversation.   Its a link. A topic. Nothing more. Nothing less.  You read too much into things (pun intended). 

Why are u here? Meaning why do u belong to Unexplained Mysteries?  U had to sign up for that? Offering your email address and first name just to read a 12 page PDF?  If that's too much to ask then you're in the wrong thread.

but u make my case for me(stated in another thread).   So, I guess u contributed something.  

 

@XenoFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Guys, got anything to add that doesn't involve insulting one another ?

@macqdor - I notice that the article is actually from 1935, was there a specific point you wanted to make by posting it now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, macqdor said:

You're far too guarded to engage in an intellectual conversation. 

If I had a reason. Not just a link. Plus it is very difficult to discuss anything with you. You know why as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

 I notice that the article is actually from 1935, was there a specific point you wanted to make by posting it now ?

@Saru

Quick answer:  None of us were around then to read it?  

Long Answer: the contents therein, seem relevant to the discussion today (overall) about the phenomena known as poltergeist.  I'm not raising the question. Herbert Thurston is.  Rather professionally I might add. 

12 page PDF.    Not a long read in my opinion.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

What we need to ask, when a claim of the incredible is made, is:

Can it fit within the universe, as we know it?
Or do we need to make a totally new model of reality, to make it fit?
Does anything else indicate that a new model is needed?

The answers are always: Yes, No, No.

Show me proof that gives a: No, Yes, Yes, and you might change the world as we know it

@zep73

You said something very interesting ..."the universe, as we know it."

Man's man-made model had to evolve at the advent of new data. At the advent of new evidence. Some of that new data might not fit well with man's models.  IMO man's models should never be the definition of whats real.  

The terms paranormal and supernatural are often used interchangeably and thus cause confusing and where’s there’s confusing there’s no consensus.   But they’re actually two separate terms.  In my opinion “paranormal events are phenomena described in popular culture, folk, and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described to lie beyond normal experience or scientific explanation.  A paranormal phenomenon is different from hypothetical concepts such as dark matter and dark energy. Unlike paranormal phenomena, these hypothetical concepts are based on empirical observations and experimental data gained through the scientific method.”

 The supernatural?  “Supernatural refers to a phenomenon that is beyond our capability to understand, now and simply forever, because it just doesn’t operate under our rules.”  It can’t be tested with man-made models – talk about a total disregard of our understanding of the laws of physics.   Doesn't make it less real.  Doesn't mean it's a fraud.

This is where it gets interesting. From a poltergeist’s point of view - poltergeist are not disregarding anything.  They just simply exist and therefore have capabilities that exceed our own. What we label supernatural is for lack of a better word their nature of existence.  Ask any scientist to tell you what percentage of this universe they think they know or figured out and they'll give you a low number.  Who feels comfortable disavowing something based on a low percentage of knowledge?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
6 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Man's man-made model had to evolve at the advent of new data. At the advent of new evidence.

But there is none. There is only anecdotes. Anecdotes that you've chosen to trust, for unknown reasons. Probably because you need it, to feel better and make sense of it all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

@zep73

"anecdotes" such a relative term. most people believe based on sight.  I bet if you asked people here in this community why they believe something most will say their belief is due a personal experience.  I know mine is.  They saw something.  Unfortunately the thing they saw doesn't lend itself to large audiences or allow itself to be captured which is where the debate dwindles down into oblivion of 'agree to disagree.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.