Please provide the URL for your claim about Bush.
I already have found several websites repeating the claim, but the text they quote contain no references to remote viewing.
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
55
My wife I love her but?
by skyking ini just posted this on another thread and decided to post my own thread about it.. a few posters here that know me personally know about my amazing wife.
i had a very hard time accepting what i have learned about her.
she has a gift she has kept from the world until she was in her 30's.
-
-
-
44
If you experienced a supernatural event, could you convince anyone?
by free2beme ini can not remember anything in the bible, that said the book of revelations would be the end of god's word to man.
at the same time, i know there are many parts to the accounts in the bible, that were not put in or are not accepted as inspired by god.
with this in mind, what if your morning started like this;.
-
-
Abaddon
Oh come skyking, it's not fun if you avoid doing anything to back your claims other than unreferenced mumbles. I know when you DO post a link it tends to go a little dreadfully wrong if someone actually goes to the bother of reading it and thinking about it, but unless you back up your claims with some substance you risk falling into the 'Macbeth 5:5' trap;
... a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothingYour lack of evidence is not my problem!
-
44
If you experienced a supernatural event, could you convince anyone?
by free2beme ini can not remember anything in the bible, that said the book of revelations would be the end of god's word to man.
at the same time, i know there are many parts to the accounts in the bible, that were not put in or are not accepted as inspired by god.
with this in mind, what if your morning started like this;.
-
-
Abaddon
skyking
Well? Go on... I am waiting. If you want the paranormal powers you believe to be genuine to be accepted as a proper science, you know what to do. The fact the are NOT accepted as 'proper' science is down to 'believers' who've never bothered supporting their claims in a decent fashion.
I have the Remote Viewing training manual somewhere (it's easy to find online). Why don't you download them and try? Here's some; http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote_viewing_manuals.htm
Just tell me what I have on the window ledge next to my desk at work. Or if that is too difficult, describe the row of buildings I am in as viewed from the air. Tell me what 'beacon' you need.
Or I can send someone I think most people would regard as unimpeachable, say Ross (LittleToe) an envelope with a picture in it (although I promise as I would LIKE someone to PROVE the paranormal just telling me what's on my window ledge would convince me and I would say so) and one of you spooks can tell me what the picture is.
As you might guess by me having the manuals already RV is something I am fascinated by. The proof is sadly lacking, for all the grandiose claims.
But as it is obviously uncontestable, well, prove it. And don't do it just for me; Randi has put up $1,000,000!
-
3
US evangelist preacher admits battle with 'dark side'
by jstalin ini think the saddest part of this whole situation is that rev.
haggard is only going to perpetuate the hate and intolerance of homosexuality amongst the evangelicals he used to represent.
one important quote from him:.
-
-
Abaddon
Now, given the 'fundy line' on homosexuality is that is 100% CHOICE and caused by ENVIRNONMENT...
... obviously the upper hierachy of this organisation must be crammed full of homosexual's whose 'gay vibes' made this man fall into temptation.
Or is Satan to blame?
I mean it is obviously nothing to do with any inbuilt inclination... just like dogs raised to be vegetarians by stupid owners will not eat meat from any inbuilt inclination but as a result of sniffing a carnivourous dog's bottom...?
I feel sorry for the poor sod. He is so conflicted and must loathe himself. Pity that those around him want him the way they want him, not the way he is.
Has the good stuff he's done for other people changed one iota because of this? No; unfortunately the sex-obsession of fundamental religions (Motto; control their sex life and everything else is EASY) criminalises people who have committed a victimless 'crime'.
-
44
If you experienced a supernatural event, could you convince anyone?
by free2beme ini can not remember anything in the bible, that said the book of revelations would be the end of god's word to man.
at the same time, i know there are many parts to the accounts in the bible, that were not put in or are not accepted as inspired by god.
with this in mind, what if your morning started like this;.
-
-
Abaddon
Six
No, no, it is 'OUR' fault for having high standards of evidence. Isn't it obvious to you that ghosts should have different standards of evidence to cheeseburgers?
Hehe; basically; if someone wants a portion of the supernatural to be treated like a proper science, then there's a great opprtunity for them to be in at the ground floor.
Yup, all you paranormal experiencing people could be the Galileo or Newton of the paranormal; the one who actually harnesses the great good our hidden supernatural powers have by an unimpeachable and thorough series of investigations showing the existence of such powers beyond reasonable doubt, and how they can utilised in a reliable and consistent fashion for man's good. You would be spoken of in the same way as Einstein and Darwin.
Given how common the occurance of such power is just on this board (in the past we've had remote viewers too!) I'm a little unsure why it's so difficult if it is so real. Or is that me being a nasty little skeptic?
Nah... don't blame me... blame all the people who are making false claims of paranormal powers who are obviously the ones responsible for the level of credibility of the paranormal... I think the practisers of genuine paranormal powers need to get their own house and flush out the charaltans before they play the 'blame' card.
First thing that needs to be done is for the practisers of paranormal powers to get together and agree on what would be satisfactory evidence. Fortunately they don't have to re-invent the wheel;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Just as science was born from natural philosophy so to I expect, any day now (nah, I'm not prophecying, just stands to reason with so many people doing it it won't take long) a new science or sciences to be born from the paranormal/supernatural.
-
55
My wife I love her but?
by skyking ini just posted this on another thread and decided to post my own thread about it.. a few posters here that know me personally know about my amazing wife.
i had a very hard time accepting what i have learned about her.
she has a gift she has kept from the world until she was in her 30's.
-
-
Abaddon
Ross
Oh, I didn't take it personally, you know I regard these discussions as mostly humourous fun. I was just playing with words.
I'm quite content with the concept and practice of healthy scepticim. What I object to is hyper-scepticism, where something is discounted without even considering it.
Mmmm.... I use the word in the defintion of 'the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt'. I don't see that as excluding consideration, and I know what you mean about there being a tendancy in some (inc. me at times) to EXCLUDE consideration. I think this comes from the duck paradigm; if no event of the supernatural has ever been proved it is not suprising that one assumes a supernatural event cannot be proved... it is very unlikely we will see the first proof of mediumship on this board... so when such claims are piled high and sold cheap, they get tarred with the same brush. Sloppy, yes. But as this sloppy approach doesn't result in people actually going and proving the paranormal to confound the skeptics, sloppy works quite well as a first approximation.
Maybe the best approach is 'sorry, all previous claimants of this power were unable to prove it so were either experiencing something we cannot measure directly or indirectly (i.e. even if means and method are unknown we cannot even measure the claimed effect), lying, mentally ill or mistaken'. But that doesn't really sweeten the pill, does it?
For example, what's so objectionable about the following statement?
Nothing, but there's nothing wrong with being more interested in probable than possibles.
-
44
If you experienced a supernatural event, could you convince anyone?
by free2beme ini can not remember anything in the bible, that said the book of revelations would be the end of god's word to man.
at the same time, i know there are many parts to the accounts in the bible, that were not put in or are not accepted as inspired by god.
with this in mind, what if your morning started like this;.
-
-
Abaddon
If I experienced a supernatural event I SHOULDN'T be able to convince anyone, as if the event was supernatural then it would not be recorded in an unambiguous fashion or repeatable, because it was SUPERnatural.
If I DID experience a supernatural event I WOULD be able to convince some people, as per Barnum, even though there would be no way for them to determine if I was mistaken, mentaly ill, fraudulent or telling it like it actually was.
If I did not experience a supernatural event but CLAIMED I did, or that someone else did I WOULD still be able to convince some people, as per Barnum, even though there would be no way for them to determine if I was mistaken, mentally ill, fraudulent or telling it like it actually was.
What seems to happen in these kind of discussions is this; supernatural event E gets spoken of;
- Some people say 'E has happened to me'. We will call this group A.
- Others say 'I believe that E could happen'. We will call this group B.
- Others say 'no one has yet proved in a scientifically respectable fashion that E could happen or has happened'. We will call this group C.
Group A feel that group C are saying group A lies. This is untrue. Group C is saying that group A could be lying, mentally ill, mistaken or otherwise unable to prove in a scientifically respectable fashion that E could happen or has happened.
Group A then enters various arguments, like 'E is not measurable or provable with current technologies'. This typically makes group C point out something along the lines of 'you can observe the effect of gravity and could do prior to Newtonian physics, let alone modern Quantum Mechanics, why is the EFFECT of E not demonstrable in a scientifically respectable fashion'. The different paradigms; the experiential paradigm of the supernaturalists or the evidential paradigm of the skeptics, essentially make the claims and evidences offered by group A totally unsatisfactory for group C, and the evidential demands of group C irrelvent to group A.
If I had had a premonition it would be hard to pursuade me otherwise. But I haven't and no one has ever proved in a scientifically respectable fashion that they have had one.
free2beme
I to have a problem with people who will spend their life disproving it, in a almost "I can not get it to work, so I will ruin it for others" fashion.
If it IS real, how can someone saying it isn't real 'spoil it for others'? You can tell me you don't believe in sex or alcohol. My enjoyment of sex or alcohol will not be diminished one iota by your disbelief. Anyway, why do you want people of a differing opinion to be silenced?
I have seen and felt amazing things, believe in the spirit realm, the after life, spirit, energy and a like.
Yes, and so what? Millions of people have made such claims over history, and many of such experiences are not compatable with yours. Is the paranormal what you WANT it to be, so everyone is right? Like a after-life smorgasboard; "I'll have Valhalla please!" Or were are THEY wrong? Or are YOU wrong? Or all you ALL wrong?
I have issues with people who want to disprove them to me. As I never asked them too, or for their information, they just seem so angry and hell bent frustrated about it, that they explode on the issue.
First of all if you don't present your claims for approval or validation they don't get criticised. If you do enter them into lay in a discussion board they will get DISCUSSED. Doh!
If you cannot PROVE what you claim then why should people's reaction towards your claims be any less critical than their reaction towards someone asking for belief in some un-orthadox get-rich scheme they cannot prove?
Not me, I am calm about it, live with it and live by it each and every day. I do not try to convert anyone to a thinking, but I enjoy talking with people who enjoy the subject.
Great for you; do so. If you want discussion in an uncritical environment then you need to seek a forum where this is possible. In a forum such as this it is unreasonable for you to expect uncritical acceptence of all claims - as it wouldn't just be your claims we'd have to be uncritical of.
It would be the claims of Nessie humters, the UFO-spotters, the 9/11 Conspiracists, Jehovah's Witnesses... if one accepts the idea of uncritical acceptence of all claims then we'd also have to be uncritical about NAMBLA and Holocaust Denial!
At the same time, I am very private about it and do not share it with most people. I have seen to many "head exploders" which is what I call skeptics who freak out on the subject and get hostile. Acting as if I am in some sort of proof war with them, where they lay their thoughts out and I am suppose to counter. Most of the time, if I see a thought is heading that way, I ignore them. That is the wonderful part to boards, and the Internet, you can read what you want and leave the rest behind.
If you are asserting something is possible or something happened that defies logic or known phenomena, even if you personally are the most honest person in the known Universe it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask for proof of your claims. Why?
Because if you WERE the most honest person in the Universe you would STILL be making claims exactly like other less honest people in the Universe. It's not as though the less honest people tell you if they lie, is it?
We can't just take your word for it, although I am sure you can find places where you can find people who will just take your word for it.
You also seem to feel that your opinion of what happens to you and why it happens to you is by definition right. Why do you feel confident enough to exclude you being mistaken for some reason?
I might be a skeptical bastard but at least I know I can be mistaken about stuff; why are claimants of paranormal activity any different?
-
55
My wife I love her but?
by skyking ini just posted this on another thread and decided to post my own thread about it.. a few posters here that know me personally know about my amazing wife.
i had a very hard time accepting what i have learned about her.
she has a gift she has kept from the world until she was in her 30's.
-
-
Abaddon
jimbo
Abaddon!!!
Good try!!! What you called the Conclusion of said article was really no conclusion at all. You could call it inconclusive information though.Actually, you'll find the WRITERS of the article came up with the utterly innovative and brilliant idea of calling the summary at the end of an article 'Conclusions'. I just call it what they call it. My point was that skyking had used a reference in a misleading way. I am sure it was totally accidental and not an attempt to deliberately deceieve - i.e. carelessness instead of fraud, but quoting the person who was studied own estimation of their work as an illustration of a skeptical viewpoint when the skeptical viewpoint is the one I quoted fom the Conclusions of the article could give people the wrong idea.
The jury is still out. The possibilities are still there.
The idea that everything is theoretically possible is effectively meaningless, I'm far more interested in the 'probables'. Ross
...as the hyper-sceptical enter stage right.
The 'hyper-skeptical' would enter from stage LEFT. Don't buy the counter-revolutionary claptrap of the pseudoscience brigade. Skepticism is revolutionary. Untrammeled belief is conservative; it is believing in the same class of thing for the same lack of reasons that the traditonal structures overturned by skeptical enquiry believed in.
-
92
There is no such thing as Agnosticism. Agnostics do not exist!
by nicolaou inmany here seem to believe that the position of agnosticism is somehow more reasonable than theism or atheism.
nonsense!
it is a misconception to believe that belief or non-belief in the existence of god/s are the two extremes which glare at each other over the fence of agnosticism.
-
-
Abaddon
ackack
You have given me a new word. Thank you.
~
I have increasingly viewed the term 'agnostic' as a polite way of avoiding farting in someone else's soup. It is the conversational equivalent of responding to the question "What would you like to drink?" with "Whatever you are having".
As commented on, no atheist really worth talking to will claim that the existence of god can be disproved. Thus the measurable difference is vanishingly small. It is a less controversial label to a certain group of theists than atheist is, as they feel less insulted when someone says they are agnostic (whereas atheist they take as a personal insult).
-
-
-
Abaddon
The availability of firearms has little to do with the high number of gun deaths in the USA. There are other countries with high access to firearms that don;t have such high level of gun deaths.
American's don;t have a high rate of gun deaths because they have lots of guns, they have a high rate of gun deaths because lots of Americans kills lots of other Americans.\
It really is that simple.
The reason WHY American's are so disproportionately likely to kill when compared to other cultures with high levels of firearm availability is the one that warrants looking at.