IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ndes , obes

Reply
Old 7th September 2015, 01:23 PM   #601
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
It is not the beginning of a scientific journey. Evidence for an afterlife sought for centuries, but nothing has been found. The question is when do people call it quits and stop looking?
Another question would be, what do you call it when people can't call it quits but stop looking with science, when they say that it can't provide the evidence but want the answer anyway? Certainly not a scientific journey- more like one of faith.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 02:49 PM   #602
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
[...]
Stop being preposterous. There can never be too much evidence, and more people should be asking for it.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 02:52 PM   #603
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Then I won't bother reading what I linked if it isn't applicable. Thanks, you saved me some time.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2015, 12:19 PM   #604
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,931
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Tsk, tsk.

Actual lyrics:

"When I go into the woods,
I see the little bunnies,
Eating porridge as they should,
Those clever little rabbits."

Mother Goosery Rinds, 1958
That would be a separate but equal version. Mine is from a story line, not the Mother Goosery Rinds.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2015, 04:55 PM   #605
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
That would be a separate but equal version. Mine is from a story line, not the Mother Goosery Rinds.
Ah. The "Unreal-er McCoy", like Bark Us All Bow Wows of Folly,
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2015, 08:39 AM   #606
MaartenVergu
Illuminator
 
MaartenVergu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
Physicists are desperately searching for extra dimensions. And when people finally tell you that they experienced another dimension, you're biased and interprete these eyewitness testimonies in such a way that it is not something valid. That's called: being biased.
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht)

Last edited by MaartenVergu; 14th November 2015 at 09:08 AM.
MaartenVergu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2015, 09:54 AM   #607
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Physicists are desperately searching for extra dimensions.
No. They have all the dimensions they need, and the conceptual space to which those multiple dimensions apply have nothing to do with mythical spatial dimensions at right angles to reality. Fringe theorisst do not use "dimension" the way physicists do.

Quote:
And when people finally tell you that they experienced another dimension, you're biased and interprete these eyewitness testimonies in such a way that it is not something valid. That's called: being biased.
When someone passes off a farfetched claim as fact, and makes vague, handwaving references to "other dimensions" or "higher dimensions" to try to back it up, that's called begging the question. Oh sure, we give the babble a fair hearing. But when it never progresses past the handwaving stage, and frequently devolves into chastising critics for not being as smart as the proponent, then the real purpose becomes evident.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2015, 05:47 PM   #608
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Physicists are desperately searching for extra dimensions. And when people finally tell you that they experienced another dimension, you're biased and interprete these eyewitness testimonies in such a way that it is not something valid. That's called: being biased.
I think there's a difference between the sort of "extra dimension" that science may be able to objectively demonstrate and the sort that can only be subjectively "experienced" and witnessed to. Judgments of validity would depend on what you want the dimension to prove; you probably shouldn't mix what science can show with what you need the testimonies to believe in. No bias involved, just recognition of category error.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2015, 08:25 PM   #609
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I think there's a difference between the sort of "extra dimension" that science may be able to objectively demonstrate and the sort that can only be subjectively "experienced" and witnessed to.
That's what I was getting at. When people try to explain an extraordinary experience as involving "another dimension" or a "higher dimension," that's a particular usage. It really only has that meaning in a new-age context -- especially the paradoxical "parallel dimension."

Physicists use "dimension" in any of several very well defined ways, none of which indicates some sort of alternate realm or mode of perception. It most often refers to a basis in a vectorized problem formulation. So it's quite unfair to try to make physicists somehow accountable to a blatantly amphibolistic claim.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 02:38 AM   #610
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's what I was getting at. When people try to explain an extraordinary experience as involving "another dimension" or a "higher dimension," that's a particular usage. It really only has that meaning in a new-age context -- especially the paradoxical "parallel dimension."

Physicists use "dimension" in any of several very well defined ways, none of which indicates some sort of alternate realm or mode of perception. It most often refers to a basis in a vectorized problem formulation. So it's quite unfair to try to make physicists somehow accountable to a blatantly amphibolistic claim.
I looked that one up, and, not only did I not know what it means, I don't even understand the definition either!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibolic
I am only a humble (albeit cosmic) yak: would you mind explaining this is layman's (or lay-yak's) terms?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 03:51 AM   #611
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I looked that one up, and, not only did I not know what it means, I don't even understand the definition either!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibolic
I am only a humble (albeit cosmic) yak: would you mind explaining this is layman's (or lay-yak's) terms?
I'd understand this as the current claimant using two pathways towards their claim. In the case of the current claimant basis in science and speculation.

Something like that. I'm sure JayUtah will explain
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 05:58 AM   #612
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,838
I am pretty sure it means frog balls.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 06:03 AM   #613
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I'd understand this as the current claimant using two pathways towards their claim. In the case of the current claimant basis in science and speculation.

Something like that. I'm sure JayUtah will explain
That's kind of what I get out of it. The terminology of science gets hijacked to simulate the validity of its methodology, but the methodology itself is abandoned when it doesn't validly advance the speculation.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 07:16 AM   #614
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. They have all the dimensions they need, and the conceptual space to which those multiple dimensions apply have nothing to do with mythical spatial dimensions at right angles to reality. Fringe theorisst do not use "dimension" the way physicists do.



When someone passes off a farfetched claim as fact, and makes vague, handwaving references to "other dimensions" or "higher dimensions" to try to back it up, that's called begging the question. Oh sure, we give the babble a fair hearing. But when it never progresses past the handwaving stage, and frequently devolves into chastising critics for not being as smart as the proponent, then the real purpose becomes evident.

One needs evidence that the critic actually knows what they are talking about instead of regurgitating something that they've read, which isn't necessarily the latest research on the topic. It's an easy out for the critic to question motive when arguments like this reach an inevitable impasse. As I've said in the other thread, there is nothing fundamentally wrong in entertaining how life after death might exist.

After rereading the research on NDE's and considering other sources, I tend to agree that the experience is strictly limited to what is going on as a result of a dying brain and not indicative of what awaits us after we lose our bodies. I still think that non corporeal conscious, or core consciousness, exists elsewhere outside of the body. The fact that there is no evidence for it at the moment doesn't concern me since we don't have physical evidence for 75% of what exists in the universe, or at least what should be there to make what we can actually see work.

In no way do I ascribe to the Christian version of an afterlife such as pearly gates, angels playing harps, demons or devils, a giant man sitting on a throne judging us all, or that there is any kind of entity there waiting on our arrival. What I do think is that our consciousness/spirit/soul or essence coexists in other dimensions. In other words, you're meeting the rest of yourself when you die but I have no idea what form, or how that would happen, other than to visualize a being pulling something like an appendage back to the central body out of this level of reality. IN this concept, time would be irrelevant, and would allow for multiple experiences here in this reality. What you live through would depend on where "your" perception was focused in the moment.

Whatever encompasses life after death it won't be like anything we could visualize no matter what version of faith you choose to follow. That said, I want to know why it bothers some of you to even consider the notion? It's almost as if the thought of it is frightening based on how hard you argue against the idea. So what is the problem if you start the debate stating that it's strictly speculation? Why all the handwaving on the skeptics part?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 15th November 2015 at 07:27 AM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 07:45 AM   #615
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I think there's a difference between the sort of "extra dimension" that science may be able to objectively demonstrate and the sort that can only be subjectively "experienced" and witnessed to. Judgments of validity would depend on what you want the dimension to prove; you probably shouldn't mix what science can show with what you need the testimonies to believe in. No bias involved, just recognition of category error.
This is my problem. in order to explain what I have in mind, I'm using the only terminology that I have to get the idea across. Soul/spirit/consciousness may all be separate things with different meanings here when in fact they may be terms that describe different aspects of a whole. I use the word "dimension" to describe a space that we can't perceive with our senses, or measure for the same reason, as equivalent to where the rest of our "consciousness" resides. That may not be an adequate descriptor or even accurate.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 15th November 2015 at 07:49 AM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 08:21 AM   #616
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Yes Jodie, thanks, got it. Ad infinitum. Yolo. Etceterasaurus.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 09:05 AM   #617
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... So what is the problem if you start the debate stating that it's strictly speculation? ...
You engage in fantastical speculation about something of which you can not show or meaningfully argue that it actually did occur but have absolute certainty it did occur.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
This is my problem. in order to explain what I have in mind, I'm using the only terminology that I have to get the idea across. Soul/spirit/consciousness may all be separate things with different meanings here when in fact they may be terms that describe different aspects of a whole. I use the word "dimension" to describe a space that we can't perceive with our senses, or measure for the same reason, as equivalent to where the rest of our "consciousness" resides. That may not be an adequate descriptor or even accurate.
Hilite by Daylightstar
.... of something which has not been shown to actually exist.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 09:08 AM   #618
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... As I've said in the other thread, there is nothing fundamentally wrong in entertaining how life after death might exist.
...
No amount of 'entertaining' allows you to demonstrate that such a thing would exist.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 10:14 AM   #619
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
No amount of lack of evidence can state unequivocally that it doesn't exist simply because scientists that are looking at NDE's are probably looking at the wrong thing, no one has decided definitively what constitutes consciousness, and multidimensional reality isn't testable at this point. It's a far cry from other woo topics, such as alternative medicine, where there is concrete evidence to refute the woo.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 10:42 AM   #620
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No amount of lack of evidence can state unequivocally that it doesn't exist ...
It doesn't need to. The persistent lack of evidence speaks for itself. If you'd want to change that, you'd need to provide proper evidence.
Fantastical speculation won't get you there.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... because scientists that are looking at NDE's are probably looking at the wrong thing, no one has decided definitively what constitutes consciousness, and multidimensional reality isn't testable at this point. It's a far cry from other woo topics, such as alternative medicine, where there is concrete evidence to refute the woo.
Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain. There is no evidence that consciousness is brain independent or non corporeal in nature.
'Multidimensional reality' has not been shown to be a reality.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 10:43 AM   #621
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No amount of lack of evidence can state unequivocally that it doesn't exist...
Shifting the burden of proof. As was pointed out to you earlier, that argument also justifies belief in leprechauns.

Quote:
...simply because scientists that are looking at NDE's are probably looking at the wrong thing...
Then why, in your other thread, did you try to invoke physicists and other scientists' work to support claims of transcending and/or permeating death? You may have let that thread slip down the index page unnoticed, but I and several others quite clearly recall your vaguely-formulated and admittedly uninformed efforts to justify claims of mortality-transcending experiences by appeals to physics and other sciences. Are you now reversing your position?

Quote:
...no one has decided definitively what constitutes consciousness...
Correct. Therefore it is improper for you or anyone else to suggest that what physicists do has anything to do with what fringe theorists claim.

Quote:
...and multidimensional reality isn't testable at this point.
That's just the same incompleteness argument that failed in your other thread.

Quote:
It's a far cry from other woo topics, such as alternative medicine, where there is concrete evidence to refute the woo.
You forget that the materials you cited in your other thread to support your belief actually ended up refuting it. You just didn't understand the refutation.

And vagary does not cure the basic problem in this claim. In fringe medicine one can say, "Eating this root will cure your cancer," and that's testable not only because we have the ability to measure cancer, but also because there is a well-defined claim: the root. The claimant can't later say, "Ah, sorry, you must also wear this hat," and then keep selling the root as a curative.

You started off telling a ghost story and then morphed your claim into your own consciousness talking to you via some other "dimension." In other words, you simply move the goalposts and claim no one can hit it. In that respect these sorts of claims are far worse than other woo claims whose claimants at least allow themselves to be pinned down for testing. Consciousness transcending death either through brief visitation from the living side or prophetic returns from the dead is nebulous bunk.

Last edited by JayUtah; 15th November 2015 at 10:49 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 11:42 AM   #622
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 9,008
NDE's are merely our brains final attempt at making things better.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 12:10 PM   #623
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
It doesn't need to. The persistent lack of evidence speaks for itself. If you'd want to change that, you'd need to provide proper evidence.
Fantastical speculation won't get you there.


Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain. There is no evidence that consciousness is brain independent or non corporeal in nature.
'Multidimensional reality' has not been shown to be a reality.
I know, but there are theories based on mathematics that do state that other dimensions are possible. They are just mathematical representations of a "maybe" and sometimes those "maybe's" are wrong.

To me consciousness is self awareness. That awareness can include animals such as great apes, dogs, cats, whales, dolphins, and many other animals but no other species can contemplate the existence of their own consciousness that we know about. That must mean that self awareness is tied into intelligence, which is a brain based process. That said, perception is also a process of the brain. I don't think any research has been done to distinguish what consciousness actually is, other than how it manifests via the brain through processes.

Look at cetacean brain morphology compared to our brain morphology. Dolphins are self aware, they have an extra lobe in their brain that allows them to stay aware of their surroundings while the rest of their brain sleeps. That's a type of dual consciousness, to them, we must always appear to be sleeping. At any rate, there is enough evidence related to cetacean consciousness for a number of people to propose "personhood" for cetaceans.
However the fundamentalists are up in arms over whether the dolphin has a soul....so to sum it all up, no one has a clear handle on what consciousness represents other than a physiological means of interpreting the environment.

How would you test for non corporeal consciousness, what kind of evidence would you look for? If you can't adequately define what consciousness is here how would you look for it in other dimensional space? It hasn't been tested, therefore it doesn't fall into the same category as some of the other woo topics, therefore you can't lump it all into one category. For there to be no evidence, one would have to design a study to look for said evidence, and that hasn't happened.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 12:16 PM   #624
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Physicists are desperately searching for extra dimensions.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."*



*When it is being used by physicists.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 12:19 PM   #625
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No amount of lack of evidence can state unequivocally that it doesn't exist simply because scientists that are looking at NDE's are probably looking at the wrong thing, no one has decided definitively what constitutes consciousness, and multidimensional reality isn't testable at this point. It's a far cry from other woo topics, such as alternative medicine, where there is concrete evidence to refute the woo.
Scientists are not looking at alt-med the right way either. It obviously works because no one has definitively decided what constitutes health. Multiplacebo reality isn't testable at this time.

It's a clone of other woo topics, such as NDE and dimensional consciousness — you see this; but that's your game.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 12:22 PM   #626
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
… how would you look for it in other dimensional space?
Keep dragging the corpse out. One day it'll stand.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 12:48 PM   #627
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Shifting the burden of proof. As was pointed out to you earlier, that argument also justifies belief in leprechauns.
Wrong, people have researched the origin of certain myths, leprechauns being one of those myths.

Quote:
Then why, in your other thread, did you try to invoke physicists and other scientists' work to support claims of transcending and/or permeating death? You may have let that thread slip down the index page unnoticed, but I and several others quite clearly recall your vaguely-formulated and admittedly uninformed efforts to justify claims of mortality-transcending experiences by appeals to physics and other sciences. Are you now reversing your position?
There wasn't anything in their ideas that referenced NDE research as a part of the basis for their conclusions. I gathered that they were basing it strictly on how they interpreted the implications of their theories.

Quote:
Correct. Therefore it is improper for you or anyone else to suggest that what physicists do has anything to do with what fringe theorists claim.
Define improper? There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't promote that as truth or some kind of new religion. Their is room for belief in this world whether it is right or wrong.

Quote:
That's just the same incompleteness argument that failed in your other thread.
The failure lies on both sides of the argument. There is no evidence because no one looked for the evidence, or tested for it, therefore categorical denial isn't rational.

Quote:
You forget that the materials you cited in your other thread to support your belief actually ended up refuting it. You just didn't understand the refutation.
I don't see it as a refutation of my belief.

Quote:
And vagary does not cure the basic problem in this claim. In fringe medicine one can say, "Eating this root will cure your cancer," and that's testable not only because we have the ability to measure cancer, but also because there is a well-defined claim: the root. The claimant can't later say, "Ah, sorry, you must also wear this hat," and then keep selling the root as a curative.
I agree, that is concrete evidence to the contrary, we don't have that for the existence of consciousness outside of our physical body.

Quote:
You started off telling a ghost story and then morphed your claim into your own consciousness talking to you via some other "dimension." In other words, you simply move the goalposts and claim no one can hit it. In that respect these sorts of claims are far worse than other woo claims whose claimants at least allow themselves to be pinned down for testing. Consciousness transcending death either through brief visitation from the living side or prophetic returns from the dead is nebulous bunk.
Perhaps to you it is, but if my theory is correct we would never be visited by dead relatives from the other side since we would co-exist simultaneously in multiple dimensions. That discussion in the other thread brought that into focus for me. There would be no need for ghosts, seances, or any other cliche interpretation of supposed paranormal type of activity that people commonly claim. You would simply receive ideas or intuition from other parts of yourself through your subconscious via dreams or inspiration if what I propose is correct.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 01:50 PM   #628
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I know, but there are theories based on mathematics that do state that other dimensions are possible. They are just mathematical representations of a "maybe" and sometimes those "maybe's" are wrong.
...
You were already explained why this notion is incorrect. Why do you persist in forcing this notion down our throats?


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... If you can't adequately define what consciousness is here how would you look for it in other dimensional space? ...
Why would one want to 'look for consciousness' in 'other dimensional space'?
In other words, why would you look for consciousness in a place for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists and/or that consciousness could exist in 'such a place'?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 01:58 PM   #629
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Wrong, ...
You meant, absolutely right.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't promote that as truth ...
Fantastical speculation is what you engage in. You do present it as truth from behind the claims for speculation with a science basis, which it hasn't. See your wrong use of dimensions.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... ...
I don't see it as a refutation of my belief.



I agree, that is concrete evidence to the contrary, we don't have that for the existence of consciousness outside of our physical body.
...
Always relying on the reversal of the burden of proof.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 02:29 PM   #630
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Wrong, people have researched the origin of certain myths, leprechauns being one of those myths.
Why can't ghosts and out-of-body experiences also be examples of such myths? You miss the point entirely. People have for years attributed their one-off observations to various things they though might exist. You can't seem to see that you're doing essentially the same thing. People who believed in leprechauns justified their beliefs according to their knowledge of the natural world. Centuries earlier, belief in demonic possession was considered as scientific as beliefs could be. Just because you advocate your attributions today by allusions to modern science doesn't mean they are somehow less susceptible to just being myths.

"You can't prove it's not interdimensional contact" is exactly no more probative than "You can't prove it's not demonic possession." That's precisely why shifting the burden of proof as you've attempted to do is irrational.

Quote:
There wasn't anything in their ideas that referenced NDE research as a part of the basis for their conclusions.
You drag dimensionality into all these discussions. Ghosts, NDEs -- you think some sort of "multiple dimensions" theory is the answer to them all. No, these scientists don't research your half-baked ideas by name. They do real science instead. But my point is that you can't invoke them allegedly on your behalf and then turn around and dismiss them as suddenly irrelevant when it turns out they don't support your belief. That's cherry-picking.

Quote:
Define improper?
Improper in this sense means it doesn't apply. Asked and answered at length in your other thread.

Quote:
The failure lies on both sides of the argument.
No. When you twist and turn your claims to keep them untestable and attempt to shift the burden of proof, it's pretty much all on you. You clearly don't want your ideas to be tested.

Quote:
I don't see it as a refutation of my belief.
But you admitted you have no suitable expertise, and you ignored the refutations given by those who do. Your unwillingness or inability to deal with refutations does not invigorate your claim.

Quote:
Perhaps to you it is, but if my theory is correct...
The problem with all this argumentation is that you assume your theory is plausible, and you suggest that as soon as real science "catches up" with your claims, it will vindicate you. You pay little if any attention to real science that exists today and what it has to say about your theory.

So it boils down to the same rhetorical tap dance. You know you can't prove your theory correct, so you recast it as needed from day to day in order to make sure it can't be refuted. You obviously intend to make your entire case on nothing more substantial than the alleged incompleteness of science and the supposed untestability of your claims. It's a completely unscientific ploy to hold out hope for a cherished belief, and you can't seem to realize that all your critics here see through it pretty easily.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 02:32 PM   #631
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."*



*When it is being used by physicists.
Correct. As I explained at length in the ghost-story thread, the fringe concept of "higher dimensions" or "multiple dimensions" has absolutely zero to do with how physicists use the term.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 02:42 PM   #632
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
One needs evidence that the critic actually knows what they are talking about instead of regurgitating something that they've read...
No, Jodie. Your critics are not ignorant wretches no matter how vigorously you intend to poison the well. I explained the scientific view at length in your ghost-story thread. This led to your belated admission that you were not properly schooled in these sciences. I asked you then to justify your continued accusation there that your critics didn't accept your argument because they were not informed enough to understand it.

I note that you resurrect that accusation here without having justified it there. Please justify it now.

Quote:
...there is nothing fundamentally wrong in entertaining how life after death might exist.
Invoking science you don't understand to pretend to support it as more than speculation is wrong.

Quote:
The fact that there is no evidence for it at the moment doesn't concern me since we don't have physical evidence for 75% of what exists in the universe...
Another vague allusion to general incompleteness. You were shown how your own sources disagreed with your claims. Specifically, that one model of consciousness was not incompatible with one model of material existence. You speculate the existence of a cause unneeded to explain the proffered effects.

Quote:
That said, I want to know why it bothers some of you to even consider the notion?
Rail split. Your critics would be eager to consider any evidence you could present for multidimensional existence. But you have none, and you know it. And you consider science's purported inability to disprove your chimeric hypothesis as some sort of vindication or justification for continued belief.

You insist on portraying your critics as somehow ideologically crippled or intellectually stunted. You don't seem to consider that what bothers your critics is your blatant misuse and misunderstanding of scientific principles as if they favored your claim.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 02:50 PM   #633
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
That's kind of what I get out of it. The terminology of science gets hijacked to simulate the validity of its methodology, but the methodology itself is abandoned when it doesn't validly advance the speculation.
That's essentially it. An amphiboly is primarily an equivocation. If a physicist says, "Space is composed of multiple dimensions," that isn't the same use of "multiple dimensions" as when a fringe theorist hypothesizes that invisible realms exist to explain various paranormal claims via a supposed manipulation of time and space within those realms. Fringe thinking trades upon the use of pseudoscientific terms and phrases to led it the illusion of authority.

Maartenn100's post well above is probably the most succinct expression of just such an amphiboly. The ambiguity of physics rendered in natural language as opposed to mathematics engenders the equivocation.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 03:03 PM   #634
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Wrong, people have researched the origin of certain myths, leprechauns being one of those myths.
Leprechauns exist in the fifth dimension beyond the event horizon of the formless. Prove me wrong.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
There wasn't anything in their ideas that referenced NDE research as a part of the basis for their conclusions. I gathered that they were basing it strictly on how they interpreted the implications of their theories.
Mathematics can define as many dimensions as one might wish. M-theory goes as far as 26. That they can be defined mathematically says nothing about what may or may not exist in them, it is simply the latesst "gap" which woo-peddlers like to hang their hat.

Of course, you would not sink so low, I assume.



Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Define improper? There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't promote that as truth or some kind of new religion.
Yet that is exactly what the woo-peddlers do. Would you like to ascend to the fifth dimension? then send $99.99 to...blah, blah. The Wooniverse is replete with such nonsense.

If you wish to speculate, fine, but this thread is about evidence that NDE's are real experiences of trips to another dimension and any such speculation will be interpreted as de facto support for such a proposition. Maybe you dislike getting lumped into that box but it is your own self who has done the lumping so please do not complain to anyone about the results of your own actions.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Their is room for belief in this world whether it is right or wrong.
Have you reserved space for violent jihadism and it's inevitable consequences as witnessed in Paris. Is there room in your world for those beliefs right or wrong?


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The failure lies on both sides of the argument.
Like violent jihadism.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
There is no evidence because no one looked for the evidence, or tested for it, therefore categorical denial isn't rational.
Like violent Jihadism.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I don't see it as a refutation of my belief.
Nor do jihadists.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I agree, that is concrete evidence to the contrary, we don't have that for the existence of consciousness outside of our physical body.
Yet you believe in it despite the lack of evidence. That is faith.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Perhaps to you it is, but if my theory is correct we would never be visited by dead relatives from the other side since we would co-exist simultaneously in multiple dimensions.
Non-sequitur. Explain why any deceased person on the fifth or higher dimension should be precluded from interaction with the prior four. How is it that you came by such knowledge?

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That discussion in the other thread brought that into focus for me. There would be no need for ghosts, seances, or any other cliche interpretation of supposed paranormal type of activity that people commonly claim.
There has never been any need for such childish diversions beyond a very human fear of death. Extra dimensions are no different, simply a wishful security blanket with a different colour.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
You would simply receive ideas or intuition from other parts of yourself through your subconscious via dreams or inspiration if what I propose is correct.
What you propose is yet another superstition to replace the old and untenable ones, nothing more.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 03:08 PM   #635
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
What you propose is yet another superstition to replace the old and untenable ones, nothing more.
Pseudoscience is the new religion. And many religions are promoted by showing their perceived advantage over outmoded superstitions. "Leprechauns? Bah! They don't exist. They're just manifestations of interdimensional distortion." No different than Paul of Tarsus, 2000 years ago, showing people how Christianity superseded the "unknown god, whom [they] ignorantly worship."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 03:53 PM   #636
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Pseudoscience is the new religion.
And Jodie is pretending to be a true believer, here, where she knows her song and trance act can disrupt the most.

It would not be so bad if she showed change, some evolution in her thought, but she's just like Maartten and has no intention of doing anything but batting her paws at us now and then to see what chaos she can cause.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 03:59 PM   #637
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You were already explained why this notion is incorrect. Why do you persist in forcing this notion down our throats?
Because it isn't proven to be wrong.

Quote:
Why would one want to 'look for consciousness' in 'other dimensional space'?In other words, why would you look for consciousness in a place for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists and/or that consciousness could exist in 'such a place'?
Why wouldn't you? If the question is "What is it that survives after our physical bodies die/" then it would be relevant to look. Of course no one is going to do that because the religions of the world have so distorted the perception of what an afterlife would be like it makes it seem ridiculous. However, I don't think science will advance much further without at least trying to find out if these other dimensions exist and how they are integrated into our reality.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 04:31 PM   #638
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why can't ghosts and out-of-body experiences also be examples of such myths? You miss the point entirely. People have for years attributed their one-off observations to various things they though might exist. You can't seem to see that you're doing essentially the same thing. People who believed in leprechauns justified their beliefs according to their knowledge of the natural world. Centuries earlier, belief in demonic possession was considered as scientific as beliefs could be. Just because you advocate your attributions today by allusions to modern science doesn't mean they are somehow less susceptible to just being myths.
OBE's aren't the same as NDE's. In OBE's you are supposedly leaving your body to visit somewhere else but the somewhere else is usually here on earth. An OBE would be an extension of your consciousness, not non-corporeal since your body that is left behind is still living.

Ghosts wouldn't be dead people that you know, they might be something else already here that assumes that form. Most likely it's something affecting perception in some way as was suggested earlier in the other thread like infrasound.

The difference between what I'm doing is that a dimensional reality theoretically exists. If it is proven to be more than theory, then these other dimensions would affect our reality. A couple of examples that I listed in the previous thread was the expansion affect of the universe that's been observed and the missing matter. They really shouldn't exist.

Quote:
"You can't prove it's not interdimensional contact" is exactly no more probative than "You can't prove it's not demonic possession." That's precisely why shifting the burden of proof as you've attempted to do is irrational.
Probative is relative, I never claimed that what I think is in anyway true. It's a belief. To say that my belief lacks evidence is irrational since no one has seriously looked for evidence of an afterlife. When they do they are looking at brain function during death, a death that obviously didn't happen

Quote:
You drag dimensionality into all these discussions. Ghosts, NDEs -- you think some sort of "multiple dimensions" theory is the answer to them all. No, these scientists don't research your half-baked ideas by name. They do real science instead. But my point is that you can't invoke them allegedly on your behalf and then turn around and dismiss them as suddenly irrelevant when it turns out they don't support your belief. That's cherry-picking.
Sure you can, it's called weighing the evidence. You've decided that since there is no evidence for my stated belief it follows that it can't be possible. I don't see any fundamental difference.

Quote:
Improper in this sense means it doesn't apply. Asked and answered at length in your other thread.
Rational skeptics decide what doesn't apply by following a line of logic that states that if you can't test it, don't ask. In other words, I have no control over it, no hope of understanding it, so I just won't ask the question or even bother to speculate therefore it doesn't exist. That is not rational and I've also explained that to you at length.

Quote:
No. When you twist and turn your claims to keep them untestable and attempt to shift the burden of proof, it's pretty much all on you. You clearly don't want your ideas to be tested.
My stated belief has been untestable since the conversation started. It is speculation. It's not that I don't want them tested, it's a matter of no one knowing how to test it. There is no burden of proof for either side of the argument where anything can be decided definitively, nothing has changed.

Quote:
But you admitted you have no suitable expertise, and you ignored the refutations given by those who do. Your unwillingness or inability to deal with refutations does not invigorate your claim.
All I ignored was that you and a few others stated that I was incorrect in my understanding but nothing was forthcoming to demonstrate why that was. Until I can see it, I won't accept what you are saying.

Quote:
The problem with all this argumentation is that you assume your theory is plausible, and you suggest that as soon as real science "catches up" with your claims, it will vindicate you. You pay little if any attention to real science that exists today and what it has to say about your theory.
I would say that you chose what interpretation of the implications you would accept from what real science had to offer.

Quote:
So it boils down to the same rhetorical tap dance. You know you can't prove your theory correct, so you recast it as needed from day to day in order to make sure it can't be refuted. You obviously intend to make your entire case on nothing more substantial than the alleged incompleteness of science and the supposed untestability of your claims. It's a completely unscientific ploy to hold out hope for a cherished belief, and you can't seem to realize that all your critics here see through it pretty easily.
All of my critics here tend to be hidebound to a rigid interpretation of what science has to offer. Not all scientists agree that it's impossible that other dimensions can't exist and not all scientists agree on what constitutes consciousness much less if it is plausible that it could be non corporeal. Those are the facts as they are today, I might be wrong or I might be right, but we will never know if no one ever asks the questions.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 04:52 PM   #639
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Because it isn't proven to be wrong.
...
Like I said:
Always relying on the reversal of the burden of proof.
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
...
Always relying on the reversal of the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
...
Why wouldn't you? ...
My question already answered that.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
... these other dimensions ...
There is no data to support the notion of 'other dimensions' as you claim to 'understand them'.
Why aren't you looking for fire spitting dragons?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2015, 04:55 PM   #640
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
And Jodie is pretending to be a true believer, here, where she knows her song and trance act can disrupt the most.

It would not be so bad if she showed change, some evolution in her thought, but she's just like Maartten and has no intention of doing anything but batting her paws at us now and then to see what chaos she can cause.
I suspect that the depth of her irrational belief requires her to actively proselytize.
She's got nothing else to 'live' her belief.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.