Random Acts of Kindness, or God?

[WiredIncorrectly]

Before you have a good chuckle and my lunacy hear me out a second. I've had many occasions where "good luck" has blessed me.

One time a friend sent me a valuable musical instrument at one of my lowest points. Another time a friend sent me £300 to help me out financially. And today a friend helped me out of a financial pickle. There's been more occasions.

But, with every one of these "good luck" occasions it's been when I've been practicing religion. When I've felt a connection to God, and I've felt like I'm on the right track spiritually.

I have read prayer can change energy levels, and in turn influence good things to happen to you. There has been studies on this.

Today was another one of those good acts. I had some issues with finances, work is obsolete at the moment. I was doing my Salat al Asr prayer and while I was doing it my Telegram messenger was going "ding, ding, ding". I let it wait. I got to the computer to see a friend had put money into my bank.

I didn't ask for it, or expect it. It was a random act of kindness.

Meditation is also said to do the same thing and boost positive energy.

Over and out.

[Lolalee1]

Are you Muslim,Wired :yesyes:

[NoraB]

Before you have a good chuckle and my lunacy hear me out a second. I've had many occasions where "good luck" has blessed me.

One time a friend sent me a valuable musical instrument at one of my lowest points. Another time a friend sent me £300 to help me out financially. And today a friend helped me out of a financial pickle. There's been more occasions.

Don't know about luck mate but you've definitely been blessed with great friends. :yesyes:


But, with every one of these "good luck" occasions it's been when I've been practicing religion. When I've felt a connection to God, and I've felt like I'm on the right track spiritually.

I don't do religion. Too complicated. Too open to negative interpretation and abusive gits. I respect people's faith though. I do consider a higher power - call it God or whatever you like - and I always feel on the right track when I do stuff for others, and also when I take better care of myself. Even stepping aside to let somebody go before me at Tescos makes me feel all fuzzy inside (and that aint when I've taken me meds) :w00t2:


I have read prayer can change energy levels, and in turn influence good things to happen to you. There has been studies on this.

Indeed. Give it all over to a higher power, I say. :yesyes:

Or do the manifestation thingy?


I didn't ask for it, or expect it. It was a random act of kindness.

When this happens, it certainly helps to put back some faith in humanity because it can get very dark out there..


Meditation is also said to do the same thing and boost positive energy.

There are certain things which affect us as a whole (on a physical, mental, and spiritual level) and I think we know when this happens. It's like we're connecting into something much bigger than what we can see or hear. Mediation is a way of connecting to the universe as is prayer. There are many ways to connect. I like it when I feel plugged into the bigger picture.

P.S if you're a loon, then so am I. :winks:

[WiredIncorrectly]

Are you Muslim,Wired :yesyes:

Yup :)

[WiredIncorrectly]

Don't know about luck mate but you've definitely been blessed with great friends. :yesyes:

Indeed. I thought I had no friends. I've not met up with this friend in over 2 years. Those friends that reached out to me have very kind hearts.



I don't do religion. Too complicated. Too open to negative interpretation and abusive gits. I respect people's faith though. I do consider a higher power - call it God or whatever you like - and I always feel on the right track when I do stuff for others, and also when I take better care of myself. Even stepping aside to let somebody go before me at Tescos makes me feel all fuzzy inside (and that aint when I've taken me meds) :w00t2:
Indeed. Give it all over to a higher power, I say. :yesyes:

Or do the manifestation thingy?


Religion can be very complicated. I don't get into the politics of religion. The life journey is a very personal one and we do what we feel is right to make it through.



When this happens, it certainly helps to put back some faith in humanity because it can get very dark out there..

There are certain things which affect us as a whole (on a physical, mental, and spiritual level) and I think we know when this happens. It's like we're connecting into something much bigger than what we can see or hear. Mediation is a way of connecting to the universe as is prayer. There are many ways to connect. I like it when I feel plugged into the bigger picture.

P.S if you're a loon, then so am I. :winks:

You hit the nail on the head there Nora.

I'm not sure if I'm correct, but medication came from the Buddhists? Or was it the Sikhs? I don't know. But, it's very interesting non the less.

AnxietyJoe does meditation I believe. Maybe he can post something relating to that.

Do you meditate?

[TimetoTurn]

Hi Wired, I'm a Christian, and my thoughts are that yes -God wants to bless you because He loves you! I don't believe in energies, but I do believe there are certain 'laws' that God put there, and I believe the good people do to us is all essentially from Him! Prayer is also said to help stress levels -I personally believe it's because we're not made to go solo, but to give our cares to a God who loves us. So I suppose when people meditate (even though I don't do it in that way) it's a case of perhaps forgetting those worries. Anyway, going off subject now! Interesting post!

[MyNameIsTerry]

Yes James, meditation branched out from it's origins in India. We commonly know of the form in Buddhism and there is Transcendental too which fell out of fashion years ago due to internal squabbles in the West. But there are lesser known forms around you come across involved in the practices of other nations.

Logically I could argue against the receipt of gifts in this manner but I don't think it matters if you have faith. It's not hurting anyone to believe in a higher power in such a positive way and you're not arguing it means you sit & wait for such gifts. The person giving receives thanks and you find more faith from it.

So, if you want to believe the good in people springs from a higher source that's a lot more positive than believing nothing. I'm not religious but I have faith in what we can do because my experience is filled with people who are good. The bad is always less on the whole and no matter what religion or beliefs I think most people will do something for loved ones or a stranger when the time comes. It's why we have so many caring professions. Whether some higher power put it there or not means less to me than the fact as a species we do work together.

Like Nora I find it very helpful to do something for someone else. A simple act of kindness or decency like opening a door for someone gives me a boost. It's healthy for our mental health which we really need.

I've always been someone who likes watching others open presents than getting them myself. To see people you care about happy is one of the best feelings and as a dad I bet you know that one very well.

[WiredIncorrectly]

A very thoughtful post Terry, thank you. I follow your sentiments too.


Whether some higher power put it there or not means less to me than the fact as a species we do work together.

I love this this bit. Humans together can be more positive, more caring, which leads to an increase in global happiness over all. In my opinion what stops us doing this is the race divide, the religion divide, the wealth class divide, the political divide, the gender divide. The more divided we are the less we can work together.


which fell out of fashion years ago due to internal squabbles in the West

Do you mean like less people doing meditation, less people doing positive spiritual activities, and less people praying?

[ankietyjoe]

I'm not sure if I'm correct, but medication came from the Buddhists? Or was it the Sikhs? I don't know. But, it's very interesting non the less.

AnxietyJoe does meditation I believe. Maybe he can post something relating to that.

Do you meditate?

MediTation came from Buddhists....or Sikhs, depends on your definition.

Even now, I'm still trying to figure out what meditation does. It's basically just 'awareness'.

I'm not religious at all, I don't believe in any God. However, meditation has taught me that I have a connection with the Universe that I cannot explain, and things happen that I cannot explain that cannot be dismissed as coincidence. This is related to literature I have been reading lately about quantum physics (which I cannot even begin to full understand).

My brain has made a parallel between 'woo-woo' law of attraction/manifestation theories and prayer. Is religion just the observation of the law of attraction at work, explained away as a divine being? I have no idea, but the parallel is there. The idea that what you need is within your grasp if you 'believe' hard enough. I'm on the fence, but I do believe there is more to life than just cause and effect.

The problem with science is that it only proves what it can describe. The rest we have to just 'believe' in. For example gravity, it's undeniable right? But science still can't describe the process, we don't know how it works.

Oh, meditation, right.....

So...if we CAN have some control over our destiny by our thoughts alone (we are what we think etc), then meditation is possibly the best mental tool to put you in a space where you can accurately assess what your current 'reality' is.

[WiredIncorrectly]

I misspelled "meditation" 3 times and auto correct put it as medication. I went through each one replacing "medication" with "meditation".

Good post Joe. Thank you :yesyes::shades:

[ankietyjoe]

Another way of looking at meditation is a training to find the gap between stimulus and learned response. Something happens, we see something or feel something that our brains find familiar. It's normal for people to respond out of habit, because our subconscious reacts to it before our conscious mind can even process the event. Meditation attaches a 'pause' to that subconscious reactions and allows the conscious to get involved. This is one of the reasons it's so powerful in combating anxiety, given enough practice and acceptance of the now.

[NoraB]

You hit the nail on the head there Nora.

The most recent time where I felt 'plugged in' was standing standing on a carpark in Exmoor. I got out of the car, looked up, and found it hard to breathe. THE STARS!!! :ohmy: I was still standing there long after my husband and son had got back into the car on account of it being freezing! Like an idiot, I tried to take a picture of the sky on my phone, but of course it didn't have the technology to capture what I could see. It's in my head though. So many stars and the overwhelming feeling that I am part of something so BIG I couldn't possibly comprehend it with the 10% of the brain that we only use.


Do you meditate?

I do visualisation mediation (guided imagery) I'm a very visual person so this mediation works for me. It takes me to my happy place - which is generally a beach in North Wales. I was there the other day and I met my deceased mum and dad and two of my dogs. Or I go to the home I was born in or the house that my mother died in, but was also my home for 7 years. I go to my deceased nan's house too and I can smell the roses in the garden and the coal fire. Jim Reeves on the record deck and the smell of damp that comes with a house that isn't centrally heated which wasn't unpleasant to me..

Sometimes, when my mind is busy, I visualise standing under a waterfall and it's washing away the negativity. :yesyes:

For some bizarre reason, I start off as me with my visualisations, but end up poncing about in a white dress as I go deeper into them. I don't wear dresses! :shrug:

Stands to reason that I can visualise all sorts of scary crap, so I figured I'd use my ability to visualise positive stuff. Also, I naturally did this as a young child - before school messed with my head.

[WiredIncorrectly]

I was reading the Qur'an today. In the second part (The Cow) verse 62 says:


Those who believe (The Qur'an) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians ans the Sabains - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This seems to say that any who follow Allah (which means God) will have their reward with their Lord. To me this reads as "Whether you're Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Sabain you will go to heaven?".

I'm not sure if it means that. Will have to look into it. Interesting. Link here to the verse with different English translations: https://quran.com/2/62?translations=18,84,85,21,22,95,101

[WiredIncorrectly]

OK I got that wrong. The verse is referring to the times before Muhammad. Those that lived righteously before Muhammad and Islam.

[ankietyjoe]

Try not to read religious texts too literally. They've had thousands of years of editing, interpretation and bias baked into them.

[pulisa]

I often revisit my happy places mentally..I wouldn't call it guided imagery, just recalling memories of better times.

[NoraB]

I often revisit my happy places mentally..

That's what I do! Except mine are more than memories. I use that imagination that I'm not supposed to have...:roflmao:

[WiredIncorrectly]

Try not to read religious texts too literally. They've had thousands of years of editing, interpretation and bias baked into them.

I believe the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God. I believe that with my heart and I believe Allah to be God of creation and the Universe.

I'll take a verse from one of my raps ...

If the majority are religious, does that make the minority correct or idiots?

[ankietyjoe]

I believe the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God. I believe that with my heart and I believe Allah to be God of creation and the Universe.

I'll take a verse from one of my raps ...

If the majority are religious, does that make the minority correct or idiots?


4 years ago, the majority voted in Trump.

I don't believe in God, I'm starting to believe in 'The Field'.

God is an interpretation of what science currently cannot describe.

[pulisa]

That's what I do! Except mine are more than memories. I use that imagination that I'm not supposed to have...:roflmao:

Oh yes..Don't tell anyone about that! They'll have to rewrite the manuals and that will send the experts into a flap!:D

[MyNameIsTerry]

Try not to read religious texts too literally. They've had thousands of years of editing, interpretation and bias baked into them.

Yes, and these books were produced at a time when science had yet to flourish and superstition was rife. If they were written much later they would be very different.

They purport to be from God but wouldn't this deity have some concept of what we now take for granted in our knowledge? I'm not trying to argue they don't exist but I may be more open to an argument that little was given to man and a lot he improvised with based on the knowledge levels of the time.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Yes, and these books were produced at a time when science had yet to flourish and superstition was rife. If they were written much later they would be very different.

They purport to be from God but wouldn't this deity have some concept of what we now take for granted in our knowledge? I'm not trying to argue they don't exist but I may be more open to an argument that little was given to man and a lot he improvised with based on the knowledge levels of the time.

But, Terry you do understand that both religion, and science require the same blind faith? Take the theory of the big bang, which other theories sit on top of. It requires blind faith or a time machine to back to the beginning of the universe to find out what actually happened.

People forget for the most part science is just discovery of what is already there. Science is the measurement and observation and study of everything around us. Put there and created by the grand maker of the Universe, God.

Big bang, it's a theory. Evolution, it's a theory. And give it 100 years Newtonian physics will be on it's backside and Quantum Physics will be the new. 100 years from then they'll probably be manipulating quarks on screens to produce real life objects. Our theories of today will be nothing but fossils of the past.

My point is your belief in a theory isn't anything different from a belief in God. You can appreciate and understand and marvel and the works of science ... and still be religious. Like me.

:shades:

[WiredIncorrectly]

4 years ago, the majority voted in Trump.

I don't believe in God, I'm starting to believe in 'The Field'.

God is an interpretation of what science currently cannot describe.

Or Science is the observation of what is already around us put there by God :shades:

Trump is human. He is flawed from birth. I don't put my trust in other humans with power. The only power I put my trust in is the Universe/God.

The Field is a great book. Are you reading it at the moment. I've got that one. I'll dig out all of my philosophy and spiritual books and list them. I've got loads if you're getting into this. These books led me to God believe it or not.

[ankietyjoe]

But, Terry you do understand that both religion, and science require the same blind faith? Take the theory of the big bang, which other theories sit on top of. It requires blind faith or a time machine to back to the beginning of the universe to find out what actually happened.

People forget for the most part science is just discovery of what is already there. Science is the measurement and observation and study of everything around us. Put there and created by the grand maker of the Universe, God.

Big bang, it's a theory. Evolution, it's a theory. And give it 100 years Newtonian physics will be on it's backside and Quantum Physics will be the new. 100 years from then they'll probably be manipulating quarks on screens to produce real life objects. Our theories of today will be nothing but fossils of the past.

My point is your belief in a theory isn't anything different from a belief in God. You can appreciate and understand and marvel and the works of science ... and still be religious. Like me.

:shades:

I think you have a fundamental (and somewhat surprising) lack of understanding of what's behind scientific theory. The big bang theory is based on solid observation and mathematics. It DID happen, but the only part that was theory was why/how. The only theoretic part of it was the idea that it 'just happened' out of nothing.

Evolution is absolutely not a theory, you can see it happening throughout time, but again the mechanism was slightly misunderstood. Animals don't change to suit the environment, it's the environment that selects the fittest and most adaptive to IT'S whims.

Science does not require a blind leap of faith at all. Science is based on predictable and measurable phenomenon. If it can't be measured, weighed or repeated etc, it's not science, it's just an idea. It's the ideas that turn into science that require a leap of faith. This is a different kind of faith than believing in a God, because the latter has never been seen or proven. It exists based on endless faith.






Or Science is the observation of what is already around us put there by God :shades:

The Field is a great book. Are you reading it at the moment. I've got that one. I'll dig out all of my philosophy and spiritual books and list them. I've got loads if you're getting into this. These books led me to God believe it or not.


That's only the interpretation of somebody who believes in a God, and I don't.

I'm not really getting into the field now. The idea of something that explains religion has always been there for me. In my mind I 'know' that anybody with a religious faith is barking up the wrong tree, but I also know that religion isn't there for nothing. There is 'something' out there, but I just don't know what.

One thing that I am starting to see merit in is the idea of manifested creation, but not in the way that it's presented in some of the frankly nonsensical law off attraction books. Take America for example. In some respects you look at America in the same way that you look at an episode of Gotham. It seems to exist in it's own bubble of insanity, but is that because of the collective psyche of the population there? Are they creating the reality that happens around them? I have no idea, but I do know that there was a reaction to the film 'The Matrix' from the Buddhist community as they say there peacefully screaming 'we've been saying this for centuries'.

I remember having a conversation with my physics teacher in 1985 and telling him the big bang simply couldn't have happened, and he had no answer. I read 'Brief History of Time' a decade later, off my tits on skunk. It was then that I KNEW that it didn't happen as described. And here we are another 25 years later and science is pretending they never suggested that it did. I'm still not sure what happened (well duh), but it's quite enjoyable finding out.

But, there ain't no God out there ;)

[MyNameIsTerry]

I don't believe science requires blind faith. Science may not be able to explain and draws some potential conclusions but for the most part it applies testing to remove it.

I do agree that much is there for discovery, and still is, but why it's there? I'm not ruling out the possibility of a creator, I'm a soft agnostic, but I'm just not convinced by religion. The creator might be onto it's billionth new build and we are long forgotten about. It might check in from time to time and be shaking it's head over our lack of movement towards electric vehicles after being impressed by our Sinclair C5.

But I also can't rule out a Bill & Ted with religion. If in the future we invent a time travelling phone box our future selves might have gone back and set up religion. Couldn't modern man be perceived as a God in times where we knew little of science?

I think if God had appeared in more recent centuries man would have applied more scientific reasoning. Magicians perform illusions like walking on water. Healing would be examined using medical journals that contain illnesses that are psychosomatic. Noah's boat might have a casino in it :yesyes:

[WiredIncorrectly]

I think you have a fundamental (and somewhat surprising) lack of understanding of what's behind scientific theory. The big bang theory is based on solid observation and mathematics. It DID happen, but the only part that was theory was why/how.


I have a great understanding of Science Joe. I'm an monthly subscriber to New Scientist. I love Science.

The Big Bang theory remains a theory. It is absolutely not fact and to take is as defacto truth would be go against Science. The earliest evidence is based on hubbles law, which itself is questioned by scientists: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-debate-seriousness-problems-hubble.html



The only theoretic part of it was the idea that it 'just happened' out of nothing.


See, you've just proved there is something questionable, and something unsolved about the idea of something coming from nothing. But, you'll chose to believe the Big Bang Theory and hope one day science will solve it.

A theory relies on other theories to support its conclusion. If one of the theories are wrong, and it's very possible they could be, then the entire theory collapses.



Evolution is absolutely not a theory, you can see it happening throughout time, but again the mechanism was slightly misunderstood. Animals don't change to suit the environment, it's the environment that selects the fittest and most adaptive to IT'S whims.


You'll only know this to be true if you yourself had a time machine. Otherwise you are relying on the knowledge of others without knowing the knowledge yourself and trusting them.


Science does not require a blind leap of faith at all. Science is based on predictable and measurable phenomenon. If it can't be measured, weighed or repeated etc, it's not science, it's just an idea. It's the ideas that turn into science that require a leap of faith. This is a different kind of faith than believing in a God, because the latter has never been seen or proven. It exists based on endless faith.


You rely on the knowledge of others. You read. You think "oooh yeah that makes sense". And you follow. Unless you have extensive experience in the areas you believe you are left to believe that the observations, measurements and conclusions are correct.



That's only the interpretation of somebody who believes in a God, and I don't.


And that's perfectly fine.

Just to add, I am not questioning the big bang, I am not questioning evolution. You can believe both are true, but are acts of God :)



I'm not really getting into the field now. The idea of something that explains religion has always been there for me. In my mind I 'know' that anybody with a religious faith is barking up the wrong tree, but I also know that religion isn't there for nothing. There is 'something' out there, but I just don't know what.

Nobody knows what. It's guesswork. We all believe differently. And that's perfectly normal.


But, there ain't no God out there ;)

In your opinion. In my opinion there is :p

All love buddy. In the ring we shall fight to the death. Out of the ring we are good buddies. :bighug1:

[ankietyjoe]

You rely on the knowledge of others. You read. You think "oooh yeah that makes sense". And you follow. Unless you have extensive experience in the areas you believe you are left to believe that the observations, measurements and conclusions are correct.





Science isn't individual theories, it's a process of repeated measurement. It's the process that's more or less indisputable. Your argument here is that the process or the individual could be flawed, therefore science is flawed and just as much a blind leap of faith as all of religion, and we both know that's b0ll0cks.

As I said, science requires faith until experiments and measurements prove something as 'fact'. Religion requires faith 100% of the time, with no ending.

Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Science isn't individual theories, it's a process of repeated measurement.

The conclusions of which are the theories (or the disproving of one).



Your argument here is that the process or the individual could be flawed, therefore science is flawed and just as much a blind leap of faith as all of religion, and we both know that's ********.


Actually my argument is science requires faith.



As I said, science requires faith until experiments and measurements prove something as 'fact'. Religion requires faith 100% of the time, with no ending. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

A theory isn't fact. Ask any scientist "Is a theory fact", and they will tell you no. Are you aware the Big Bang Theory is actually "The Big Bang Hypothesis"? And we both know a hypothesis isn't fact.

Some scientists believe other theories (there's numerous, you can check yourself). Simulation theory is widely entertained in acedamia. What about black hole theory? Are you going to call those theories wrong and BBT to be true?

IMy point remains science does require a leap of faith. Is simulation theory testable? ... No, but a lot of scientists are leaning towards the idea.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Joe, ask Google "Is a theory a fact". Your argument is flawed because you assume that a theory is fact.

[NoraB]

Science is based on predictable and measurable phenomenon.

Science is also hugely flawed. Studies are biased, and this is dangerous when it comes to health.


But, there ain't no God out there ;)

To my knowledge science has been excellent in working out what happened to the universe after it came into being but not before - which leaves the window wide open for a designer/creator or 'God'.

[ankietyjoe]

Joe, ask Google "Is a theory a fact". Your argument is flawed because you assume that a theory is fact.


We could dance around this for decades. You know what you mean, I know what I mean.

For example, I already said somewhere else up there ^^^^ that I questioned the Big Bang theory. We know 'it' happened', we just don't know exactly how, let alone why. But we do know it happened.

You're assuming that I think a theory is a fact, and I didn't even hint that's what I thought.

And Nora, I'm not talking about studies, I'm talking about repeatable and measurable scientific tests with predictable results. Studies are 'let's see what happens here' based on a random/control set of criteria.

We live in an age where the word 'opinion' has more gravitas that fact. Facts are still powerful, especially when they are actually facts. Yes, facts DO exist.

[WiredIncorrectly]

But we don't know the Big Bang happened. It isn't fact. If it was defacto there wouldn't be other theories. You only have to do a Google search to find out the problems with the Big Bang Hypothesis.

I'm not arguing God vs. Science. I am not trying to prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory. But you can be religious, and still trust science. There's a deep misconception in the world that people feel it has to be science vs. God. Both can and should co-exist.

Interesting fact ... the algebra and a lot of math we use in science came from a Muslim scholar called Al-Khwarizmi.

[WiredIncorrectly]

To my knowledge science has been excellent in working out what happened to the universe after it came into being but not before - which leaves the window wide open for a designer/creator or 'God'.

Very well put.

[ankietyjoe]

But we don't know the Big Bang happened. It isn't fact. If it was defacto there wouldn't be other theories. You only have to do a Google search to find out the problems with the Big Bang Hypothesis.

I'm not arguing God vs. Science. I am not trying to prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory. But you can be religious, and still trust science. There's a deep misconception in the world that people feel it has to be science vs. God. Both can and should co-exist.

Interesting fact ... the algebra and a lot of math we use in science came from a Muslim scholar called Al-Khwarizmi.

You have too much faith in Google......

Anyway, I've made the same point several times. Me saying 'the Big Bang happened' is me saying 'something happened'. That really is indisputable. I have already stated several times that I didn't pay much credence to the idea that an explosion of matter happened out of nothing.

And as for the 'nothing' that occured before, so it 'must' be God....well I don't go for that either. I genuinely thought over 20 years ago that the only real explanation was that the bang/expansion was cyclical.

This is what I consider to be closest to a 'truth', with not a whiff of divine intervention involved.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqjA5ekmoY&ab_channel=CloserToTruth

[WiredIncorrectly]

You have too much faith in Google......

Joe, Google is akin to a library, except it's all in one place. As humans we have the advantage of being able to quickly Google things. Where else should one obtain their data given libraries are closed? If you don't Google search you're missing out mate.

Most of the time when I say "search Google" I mean Google Scholar. Which, if you didn't know is a source of scientific papers.

Anyway it's clear we disagree in our beliefs and we shall no longer kick this can down the road. This argument exists in many forms on millions of forums and has existed for uncountable centuries before us.

If that truth is in fact false than what has it cost me? At worst it's cost me time during prayer ... but prayer is as helpful to me as meditation is to you, so it's not waste. What else? I gave up pork. That's not something I miss. I don't drink alcohol anyway.

If it's false at the very least, I can say that since I became Muslim I've lead a good, clean, life.

But I don't doubt Islam. I'm 100% committed to my faith. Arguing against that is futile Joe.

[ankietyjoe]

I'm not arguing against your faith. I see value in prayer and a common belief of something bigger than yourself.

However, I just don't believe in a 'God'.

Personally, I don't need religion or text to do what I believe is the right thing. I have a big mouth sometimes and I shout a lot, but everything I do is designed to help for the good or stop something for the bad. Here, and IRL. I've always felt uneasy that people en masse (no pun) require constant guidance not to be assh0les.

If anything religion should be nothing more than an agreed upon set of moral values (which it claims to be but rarely is) and a celebration of the bigger Universe. I don't know where the idea of a God started, as we really don't have proof that one exists. Anecdotal stories in books that are thousands of years old aren't proof.

[WiredIncorrectly]

I'm not arguing against your faith. I see value in prayer and a common belief of something bigger than yourself.

However, I just don't believe in a 'God'.

Personally, I don't need religion or text to do what I believe is the right thing. I have a big mouth sometimes and I shout a lot, but everything I do is designed to help for the good or stop something for the bad. Here, and IRL. I've always felt uneasy that people en masse (no pun) require constant guidance not to be assh0les.

If anything religion should be nothing more than an agreed upon set of moral values (which it claims to be but rarely is) and a celebration of the bigger Universe. I don't know where the idea of a God started, as we really don't have proof that one exists. Anecdotal stories in books that are thousands of years old aren't proof.

I hear you Joe. I'm somebody who takes things the wrong way, and sometimes to heart. I do it both here, and in real life.

I'm slowly learning how to debate properly without letting emotions get to me. I can be a stubborn a$$ at times. I stay away from the COVID forum :roflmao:

On another note if you fancy doing a collab on a beat I'm up for it. You send me your MIDI and samples and I'll utilize them. I ditched Ableton for Fruity Loops and I feel like a noob now. I knew Ableton inside out. I like the piano roll on FL. I've got to take the novation apart to fix that clunky key, it works fine but it does my head in ha ha.

[WiredIncorrectly]

I'm still working on creating a VST. I started with JUCE but wasn't happy with their licensing and pricing so I'm currently learning iPlug2. The documentation can be a bit terse and difficult to understand. You've mostly got to look through the source code and figure it out.

I'm working on an 808 plugin. 808 basses seem to be very popular in Trap, Drill, Grime. I don't think you can really call them "808's" anymore as most basses people call 808's are actually sine waves thrown at a brick wall limited and distortion to bring out the mid harmonics. Programming that is a different story. There are code libraries that already implement this but I'm trying to do it from scratch.

[ankietyjoe]

Haha, I would rather accept God than accept FL Studio. Hate, it.

An 808 plugin might do well if you can get it out quick enough. It's the post/support side of things that you'll really need to keep on top of though. The plugin community are like attention hungry jackals.

[NoraB]

Bringing this back to the original topic (coming from me - the Queen of digression) and because I literally have no idea what you and Joe are on about in the above posts!

Anyhoo, in my time, I've dipped my toe in the atheism pool. I've read Dawkins et al but my unwillingness to accept 'God' was born out of the struggle to comprehend that this 'all loving' creator could allow terrible things to happen to good people. I had a proper wobble after 9/11. But atheism never sat right with me because there are so many questions that it cannot successfully answer - the fine-tuning, and sheer complexity of this universe and everything in it for a start.

It's also interesting how many atheists are not really atheists. My father and father-in-law for starters. Both 'atheists' but when it came to them knowing they were dying - my dad had my mother go out and buy a bible and my FIL had a conversation with a hospice nurse where he said to her. 'I'm worried that I've made a big mistake with God'.

In my FIL's case, atheism was understandable because he served in Northern Ireland in the 70s and what he witnessed there was enough to shake anybody's belief in a 'loving' creator. I don't know about my dad and how he came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist but he definitely didn't die an atheist. This suggests that both of them, deep down, believed in 'God'. So how many people are like this and how many genuinely do not believe in God? :unsure:

When it comes to the scientific method and people not believing in God because science cannot prove 'his' existence - there are other things which we accept, but which cannot be scientifically measured.

Also, when people say that science is the only way in knowing the truth - how can that statement be proved by science? :unsure:

Just because some things are beyond the realm of science and it's limitations, it doesn't, by any means, disprove their existence - nor does it make them any less important.

[ankietyjoe]

When it comes to the scientific method and people not believing in God because science cannot prove 'his' existence - there are other things which we accept, but which cannot be scientifically measured.





The significant difference here is that we can observe certain things that we don't understand (gravity for example) and have no choice to accept it. We can see and feel it's presence.

You cannot say the same about a God. One has never been felt or observed. Even if you think you feel or see God, that's just an interpretation of an experience. When every single person that has ever lived has seen and felt the effects of gravity, it's hard to make a case against it.

[Lolalee1]

I saw God at a fancy dress party a couple of weeks ago a lovely looking woman with long brown hair wearing what looked more like a toga than a robe.:roflmao:

[ankietyjoe]

I saw God at a fancy dress party a couple of weeks ago a lovely looking woman with long brown hair wearing what looked more like a toga than a robe.:roflmao:

That was Keanu. Easy to confuse tbf.

[Lolalee1]

He is god but unfortunately he is looking old like,I’m no dyke but the god I had seen,shit she was a looker.:D

[WiredIncorrectly]

That was Keanu. Easy to confuse tbf.

Could have been Johnny Depp tbh.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Haha, I would rather accept God than accept FL Studio. Hate, it.

:roflmao: actually laughed out loud Joe. I avoided FL on my entire musical journey, until my brother started using it and showing me. I miss Ableton though. I'd offer to do a license exchange but you hate FL lmfao.


An 808 plugin might do well if you can get it out quick enough. It's the post/support side of things that you'll really need to keep on top of though. The plugin community are like attention hungry jackals.

This is true. I've just got the soundtoys plugin bundle on the black Friday deal and one of them is already crashing in FL so I've been hounding their emails this morning.

[Lolalee1]

What is a soundtoy plugin,it sounds rude.

[WiredIncorrectly]

What is a soundtoy plugin,it sounds rude.

:roflmao:

Omg, NMP is having me in stitches today. I see how that sounds.

It's a piece software used for music production :)

[Lolalee1]

Oh okay :D That’s good you are laughing it’s better than howling
By the way I am playing some old Rolling Stones CDs at the moment it’s “Sticky Fingers”:yesyes:

[ankietyjoe]

Go back to Ableton Live ffs.

/shudder

[WiredIncorrectly]

Go back to Ableton Live ffs.

/shudder

It's going to need a repurchase :roflmao: I might save up and get a push and Ableton mid next year. I wish I didn't sell it now.

[ankietyjoe]

Push is fantastic. Expensive, but build quality is superb.

Luckily the job allows me 50% 'artist' discount.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Push is fantastic. Expensive, but build quality is superb.

Luckily the job allows me 50% 'artist' discount.

The push 2 is solid yeah. I shall order via you then :roflmao:

[ankietyjoe]

Sadly no can do unfortunately. Only one allowed, I already checked lol.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Sadly no can do unfortunately. Only one allowed, I already checked lol.

Joe we should run a music blog reviewing hardware, software and sample packs. I did it before with sample packs and earned commission from Loopmasters. In total was £1700 but I ended up in HMP at the time and haven't done it since. But on the plus side you get to review hardware and software for free and sometimes you'll even get to keep it :) At the time I could get any Loopmaster pack I wanted for free.

I knew a girl that write a travel blog. She'd go on holiday and write about her time, the hotel etc. She had 3 articles on her site and she was picked up by numerous travel agencies, hotels, restaurants etc. She now travels the world for free and most things on her trip are free too. It was a complete accident, that turned into a lucrative business.

[ankietyjoe]

Joe we should run a music blog reviewing hardware, software and sample packs. I did it before with sample packs and earned commission from Loopmasters. In total was £1700 but I ended up in HMP at the time and haven't done it since. But on the plus side you get to review hardware and software for free and sometimes you'll even get to keep it :) At the time I could get any Loopmaster pack I wanted for free.

I knew a girl that write a travel blog. She'd go on holiday and write about her time, the hotel etc. She had 3 articles on her site and she was picked up by numerous travel agencies, hotels, restaurants etc. She now travels the world for free and most things on her trip are free too. It was a complete accident, that turned into a lucrative business.


That's pretty much what I do for one of the online portals. I haven't really paid for software for years, and I get the odd bit of hardware gratis too.

There's a lot of mileage in you doing this on Youtube though.

I have video work lined up well into the new year and I've just finished a bit of sound design for them too. I'm so busy I've had to print off a bloody day to day task scheduler lol.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Fair play Joe! I've got a Rode NT that's sat here since I got it with so many videos to voice over. Remember I was banging on about getting one for ages, then I finally get it and it doesn't get used. I don't even use my camera anymore.

Brother, your studio is thee best one I've seen.

Do you write a lot? I really struggle to stay motivated to write regular. I was planning to do the Loopmasters idea with producersamples.com but I let the domain drop and did nothing with it. Fairly busy myself this past week or 2. I really need to start planning my days to get things done.

Any tips on not procrastinating would be useful. Sticking to the task at hand. Any ideas?

[ankietyjoe]

Fair play Joe! I've got a Rode NT that's sat here since I got it with so many videos to voice over. Remember I was banging on about getting one for ages, then I finally get it and it doesn't get used. I don't even use my camera anymore.

Brother, your studio is thee best one I've seen.

Do you write a lot? I really struggle to stay motivated to write regular. I was planning to do the Loopmasters idea with producersamples.com but I let the domain drop and did nothing with it. Fairly busy myself this past week or 2. I really need to start planning my days to get things done.

Any tips on not procrastinating would be useful. Sticking to the task at hand. Any ideas?


Really one of the best things you can do is establish a morning routine. I'm not the best at this myself tbh, but it's something I've been trying to reconcile recently. I have a day to day planner printed out with tasks set in 30 minute blocks. But the morning routine is key, and for me it's mostly about a combination of visualisation and meditation. I'm still on the fence about the law of attraction stuff, but I'm completely open to the idea that visualising a goal as if it had already happened is likely to be a form of pre-programming of the brain. In other words you're pre-warming your tyres for the task at hand.

In terms of writing, not so much. Since it became a job the muse kind of left me. I do a lot of demo stuff for the sound design, but that's often to spec, and not really creative in the way I'd like it to be.

I think a Youtube channel from you would be good, especially based around music. You have a solid fundamental talent for it, and you could really play on the 'mad *******' aspect of your personality. I know I do.....

I've actually got rid of a lot of the hardware as is was proving to be a massive distraction. I focused on getting the monitors set up in exactly the right spot to get the best mixing position....

5236

[WiredIncorrectly]

The law of attraction is very interesting. I need to continue with my reading on that. I do agree a morning routine really helps to kickstart the day but I struggle to get up before 10am most days. I sleep late. I'm trying to restart my sleeping pattern. Oddly when I don't take my meds my sleep pattern returns.

I feel the same way with writing. I enjoy doing it when there is no goal in mind. But, when there's a deadline attached, or money, it does feel like a bit of a chore. Realistically I could write all day and probably make good money in the long run, but my brain just doesn't want to do it. I prefer talking to a microphone. It's easier.

You're right. A music channel would be fantastic. Most of the youth are on Fruity Loops so I'm all set. Just need to spend a while with it and learn it.

It's the theory I'm interested in teaching. Teaching chord progressions for lofi hip hop, or how to write neo soul progressions in the piano roll. I think stuff like that could work. I'm going to get on with doing this. You've just reminded me. Thank you for positive words, it really helps my confidence.

Although you've slimmed down that still looks beautiful. Those monitors are worth more than my entire setup! fml.

[ankietyjoe]

The law of attraction is very interesting. I need to continue with my reading on that. I do agree a morning routine really helps to kickstart the day but I struggle to get up before 10am most days. I sleep late. I'm trying to restart my sleeping pattern. Oddly when I don't take my meds my sleep pattern returns.

I feel the same way with writing. I enjoy doing it when there is no goal in mind. But, when there's a deadline attached, or money, it does feel like a bit of a chore. Realistically I could write all day and probably make good money in the long run, but my brain just doesn't want to do it. I prefer talking to a microphone. It's easier.

You're right. A music channel would be fantastic. Most of the youth are on Fruity Loops so I'm all set. Just need to spend a while with it and learn it.

It's the theory I'm interested in teaching. Teaching chord progressions for lofi hip hop, or how to write neo soul progressions in the piano roll. I think stuff like that could work. I'm going to get on with doing this. You've just reminded me. Thank you for positive words, it really helps my confidence.

Although you've slimmed down that still looks beautiful. Those monitors are worth more than my entire setup! fml.

If I were you I'd focus on one thing at a time, and practice getting that one thing into a routine. Start by getting up a 9am every day, and get ready straight away. Don't look at your phone or switch any computers on. Get up, have a crap, brush your teeth, have a wash/shower and get dressed. It's such an important mental message for the rest of the day, even if the day ends up being unproductive.

In terms of music, you have to start by creating an identifiable 'brand'. I don't mean the vomit inducing forced branding you see on Youtube all the time (Andrew Huang for example), but just be yourself. Content doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be fun to watch. One of my favourite Youtube channels is Vegetable Conspiracies, the guy has a 'health' channel but he is absolutely hilarious. He also has a secondary camera channel called....you guessed it.......Camera Conspiracies. The first 10 seconds of this tells you all you need to know about why I adore him....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8i8_LQZJuY&t=10s&ab_channel=CameraConspiracies


And, about my studio. I think the thing to consider is this...two things actually....I'm nearly 50 and I don't drink, smoke, gamble or drive expensive cars. Also....it's literally my job. If I were a plumber my van and equipment would cost waaaaay more than this studio. If you turn it into an income, it's not expensive.

[WiredIncorrectly]

If I were you I'd focus on one thing at a time, and practice getting that one thing into a routine. Start by getting up a 9am every day, and get ready straight away. Don't look at your phone or switch any computers on. Get up, have a crap, brush your teeth, have a wash/shower and get dressed. It's such an important mental message for the rest of the day, even if the day ends up being unproductive.

In terms of music, you have to start by creating an identifiable 'brand'. I don't mean the vomit inducing forced branding you see on Youtube all the time (Andrew Huang for example), but just be yourself. Content doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be fun to watch. One of my favourite Youtube channels is Vegetable Conspiracies, the guy has a 'health' channel but he is absolutely hilarious. He also has a secondary camera channel called....you guessed it.......Camera Conspiracies. The first 10 seconds of this tells you all you need to know about why I adore him....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8i8_LQZJuY&t=10s&ab_channel=CameraConspiracies


And, about my studio. I think the thing to consider is this...two things actually....I'm nearly 50 and I don't drink, smoke, gamble or drive expensive cars. Also....it's literally my job. If I were a plumber my van and equipment would cost waaaaay more than this studio. If you turn it into an income, it's not expensive.

Cheers Joe that was some sound advice there. Thank you. Going to check out this guy now.

You remember the early "boy in a band" on Youtube? He was cringe worthy to listen to but now he's milking the cash cow.

I've been thinking of a persona. I don't want to show my face, but having my face on cam would be better. I thought about playing a character as a "hoodlum" wearing those full face masks they wear. Popular in UK Drill music. Like I'm hiding my identity.

I love that puppet that teaches music, mixing and mastering. What's his name now. It's on the tip of my tongue. You've most likely definitely seen his videos. The realist puppet or something. They're also milking the cash cow.

I think a unique identity/character is important.

[ankietyjoe]

Cheers Joe that was some sound advice there. Thank you. Going to check out this guy now.

You remember the early "boy in a band" on Youtube? He was cringe worthy to listen to but now he's milking the cash cow.

I've been thinking of a persona. I don't want to show my face, but having my face on cam would be better. I thought about playing a character as a "hoodlum" wearing those full face masks they wear. Popular in UK Drill music. Like I'm hiding my identity.

I love that puppet that teaches music, mixing and mastering. What's his name now. It's on the tip of my tongue. You've most likely definitely seen his videos. The realist puppet or something. They're also milking the cash cow.

I think a unique identity/character is important.

Reid Stefan lol, yes, funny guy, great idea.

I do remember boy in a band too and he was exceptionally cringeworthy, but that was part of his charm.

As for caricatures of yourself, I wouldn't. Get your face on cam and just ease yourself into it. You'll get used to it fast enough. Thinking longer term ahead, the hoodlum character will never generate sponsored videos. You won't get any paid work, and you'll paint yourself into a corner (literally) with any future genre changes.

Being yourself IS the unique identifier. It's a cliche, but a true one. It might take you 50 videos to get used to being on camera, but nobody will watch the first 50 you make anyway lol.

[NoraB]

Even if you think you feel or see God, that's just an interpretation of an experience.

Regardless of any scientific proof that God is real - he/she/whatever is very real to the experiencer.


When every single person that has ever lived has seen and felt the effects of gravity, it's hard to make a case against it.

Obviously, I've experienced the full force of gravity many times when I'm pissed and I faceplant the floor lol, but experiences are very powerful Joe.

The way I see it is this: we are all 'receivers', but not all of us are tuned into what's beyond our five senses. Aside the world we are convinced of - because we can all see and touch it - there are other dimensions which all of us are capable of tapping into (and it not being due to drugs :w00t2:)

When we die we cease to become 'solid' as in a body - but we still exist because we are energy and energy cannot be destroyed - it changes form. Think ice, water and steam. So, really, you are basing your beliefs (or disbeliefs) on a physical world that isn't what it appears to be because everything on this planet is energy.

When you realise that we, and everything about this universe is energy - my experiences make sense, no? :yesyes:

I had a paranormal experience when I was a teenager where my deceased grandmother visited me. I couldn't see her or touch her, but I didn't need to do those things to know it was her. Truth be told, I probably would have shit myself if she'd appeared in her human form! :scared15: All my other senses were fully engaged - including the sixth. I've since been informed by 'sceptics' that I was '100%' dreaming, sleep walking, or having a psychotic episode. What these people fail to understand is that dreams are fragmented, and easily forgotten, and olfactory dreaming is rare and not likely to be a one off thing. My grandmother's perfume filled the room like, but this was after I saw the rocking chair (which I'd inherited from her) moving by itself - despite there being no obvious explanation like an open window or central heating. (I checked) I was wide awake, fully present, and I remember every detail 37 years later because it's a memory. Also, I've yet to come across a psychotic episode which removes the fear of death and the experience fills the experiencer with joy. Unless I'm a serial killer and I haven't realised it? :huh: So, to me, these people are talking ********.

Another one for you: My mother died when my son was 2 years old. He's autistic (we didn't know it at the time) and he was exhibiting echolalia - which is common with autism. This, if you don't know, is when a person repeats what someone else says after they've said it. We would speak to our son and he would repeat everything we said, word for word, and in the tone in which we said it. My mum called my son 'sweet pea' and she was the only one who did that. A few months after she died, I was bathing my son and I'd forgotten the towel. The airing cupboard was seconds away so I made sure the lil dude was safe and I quickly nipped out onto the landing to get a towel. As I was reaching for the towel, I clearly heard my son say 'Hello sweet pea' exactly as Mum used to say it to him and he was saying it as if repeating what he was hearing - except that he was hearing something that I wasn't. My son was reacting as if his grandmother was there, and I believe she was.

What I do know is that you don't have to see or touch something to know it's real. This applies to dead mothers, grandmothers, and the Big G.

I can't prove any of my experiences, but it doesn't matter. It changes nothing for me because they happened and it was real. We're all capable of experiencing this stuff if we're tuned into the higher frequency, and the problem is that most of us are not. As humans we are more stressed than we've ever been, and more materialistic than we've ever been, and that means that we vibrate at a lower frequency. It's no surprise to me that my paranormal experiences stopped after my nervous breakdown. I know I'm on a lower frequency and I can feel it. It's like wading through mud. This is another reason why I'm working hard to 'defrag' my mind to improve my performance, because I miss those experiences and this also debunks the 'wishful thinking' theory because there's nothing I'd want more than to experience this stuff again, but I can't. :weep:

Joe, have you ever had any experiences like the ones I've mentioned?

[MyNameIsTerry]

.

The way I see it is this: we are all 'receivers',

Shh...it was only the once. You experiment when you're young :biggrin:

[NoraB]

Shh...it was only the once. You experiment when you're young :biggrin:

You know when people say they read something and spat tea all over their keyboards?

Well I literally just did.

I will bill you for a new laptop! :roflmao:

[ankietyjoe]

When we die we cease to become 'solid' as in a body - but we still exist because we are energy and energy cannot be destroyed - it changes form. Think ice, water and steam. So, really, you are basing your beliefs (or disbeliefs) on a physical world that isn't what it appears to be because everything on this planet is energy.

When you realise that we, and everything about this universe is energy - my experiences make sense, no? :yesyes:


This is a pretty large presumption about me, and actually 100% incorrect. J and I were talking at length in another thread about everything being energy, the 'field' and life basically being an illusion of perception. You could speculate that YOUR bias is being cultivated here because I don't adhere to your beliefs, so therefore I just 'don't get it'.

Just because I have faith in science (not blind faith), it's because I studied the process. At college I took statistical mathematics and astrophysics. My faith in it is based on my education in it, but also my scepticism of a lot of it's conclusions. Again, I have debated the idea of the big bang theory for literally decades and speculated myself that the big bang did not happen the way it was detailed in my education, and that it was most likely cyclical and our own perception of time has biased our understanding of it for decades......

Anyway.

Fundamentally I get that everything is energy, or matter, which is the same thing.

In terms of supernatural experiences, no. Not for me. However, that doesn't mean to say you're not experiencing something and that something isn't very real to you.

Something else I've never mentioned here before is that I have also been studying psychology for the last 7 years. More recently I have been having weekly 'lessons', learning about DID (a severe form of schizophrenia) because that's what my partner has. I have a weekly session with a DID specialist to better understand and help her. What all this studying has taught me is the sheer complexity of the human mind, the interactions between the conscious and the subconscious and how different people can experience exactly the same thing, but come to completely different conclusions, because the psyche is so subjective. My partner works as a teacher for early years, and her DID actually helps her in some respects. She works with a lot of autistic children and has a knack in communicating with them because some of her identities are autistic too. The autistic brain doesn't perceive the world the same way as we do, so their reality is not the same as ours, which you obviously know. For me, the reaction your son had in the bath was because of a triggered memory. Perhaps your mother bathed him once and he remembered something specific, I have no idea what the trigger was, but MY training has shown multiple examples of this being the case. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's my interpretation.

In terms of your experience I have another theory too. I have seen my partner literally turn into a completely different person before my eyes. Certain stimuli will cause her to default to a discreet identity, and she will often see, hear, feel, smell the outside world as it was 5, 10 years ago. She will be a different person, and she will perceive different things around her. We know now that the body can store memory just as well as the mind, and in fact the two cannot really be separated as the brain/body connection works on a feedback loop. Thoughts and emotions are fundamentally the same thing. What I think happened (and again, my opinion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things) is that certain triggers can create a kind of critical mass in a persons psyche and in effect 'replay' emotions, thoughts and feelings from the past. DID is the ultimate incarnation of this, it's a completely lucid re-enactment of the past. The person doesn't think they are there, they are there.

So does this discredit your experience? Well no, absolutely not. For all I know your Grandmother could have wafted through the room as an energy field and interacted with your own physical state and triggered a replay in you. Maybe THAT is what ghosts are. I don't believe that to be the case but I can't tell you that it didn't happen either. But it does go back to the point about DID, where sufferers absolutely KNOW something is happening that isn't actually happening.

Then, finally. We have the Multiverse. The idea that ALL possible outcomes of ALL possible scenarios are happening simultaneously, all the time. Is it possible that these different dimensions have some crossover points and interfere with each other? This is heavily into quantum mechanics, but the mathematics (a useful, if not definitive tool) shows to be the case. The question is really if science has an explanation for supernatural experiences, does that make them any less supernatural? I don't think it does, because as I mentioned our entire perception of reality is pretty much an illusion anyway, based on our brains cross referencing multiple experiences of the past to make sense of what's happening this very second.

[WiredIncorrectly]

You know when people say they read something and spat tea all over their keyboards?

Well I literally just did.

I will bill you for a new laptop! :roflmao:

Terry has a knack of doing that. Many times I've burst out laughing at his comments.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Reid Stefan lol, yes, funny guy, great idea.

I do remember boy in a band too and he was exceptionally cringeworthy, but that was part of his charm. :roflmao:

As for caricatures of yourself, I wouldn't. Get your face on cam and just ease yourself into it. You'll get used to it fast enough. Thinking longer term ahead, the hoodlum character will never generate sponsored videos. You won't get any paid work, and you'll paint yourself into a corner (literally) with any future genre changes.

Being yourself IS the unique identifier. It's a cliche, but a true one. It might take you 50 videos to get used to being on camera, but nobody will watch the first 50 you make anyway lol.

Joe, if you could drop some ideas on some video topics I will do one today. I really need somebody to help guide me in the right direction for videos. I know so much theory I don't know where to start so I can't think like a beginner. It's hard to think from the consumers perspective.

Can I ask you a favor? Could you put together maybe 10 video topics for me that you think would make good videos? I don't want to consume much of your time so if you want a few beers in return let me know.

Not to worry if you can't do it.

[ankietyjoe]

Joe, if you could drop some ideas on some video topics I will do one today. I really need somebody to help guide me in the right direction for videos. I know so much theory I don't know where to start so I can't think like a beginner. It's hard to think from the consumers perspective.

Can I ask you a favor? Could you put together maybe 10 video topics for me that you think would make good videos? I don't want to consume much of your time so if you want a few beers in return let me know.

Not to worry if you can't do it.


No, and I'll tell you why......


Instead of doing 10 different topics, do 10 videos of you just making stuff in FL. Doesn't matter what it is, but the most popular videos on the portal that I work for are always 'how to make' X kind of music.

Also, live performances on the Elektron could generate views too, especially if they're shared across social media. Get yourself into some Facbook production groups and (non spam) share the videos you make.

Once you have a defined identity, people will start telling you what they want to see you do/create.

[WiredIncorrectly]

No, and I'll tell you why......


Instead of doing 10 different topics, do 10 videos of you just making stuff in FL. Doesn't matter what it is, but the most popular videos on the portal that I work for are always 'how to make' X kind of music.

Also, live performances on the Elektron could generate views too, especially if they're shared across social media. Get yourself into some Facbook production groups and (non spam) share the videos you make.

Once you have a defined identity, people will start telling you what they want to see you do/create.

Ah that's means I have to use Facebook. I guess for "business" it's ok. I don't have an Elektron, but I'm fairly good with finger drumming.

I'll give this a shot, thank you :D

[ankietyjoe]

Ah that's means I have to use Facebook. I guess for "business" it's ok. I don't have an Elektron, but I'm fairly good with finger drumming.

I'll give this a shot, thank you :D


Take the tinfoil hat off. Facebook is fine lol.

Do you not have the Model Samples any more?

[NoraB]

In terms of supernatural experiences, no. Not for me.

Interesting that Joe, because every sceptic I've personally 'spoken' to says that they've never had a paranormal experience. Then there are people who've been sceptics for years, then they've had experiences which caused them to waver in their belief. I'd say it's easy to disbelieve and presume non-paranormal causes minus a paranormal experience, whereas it's much harder to disbelieve after such an experience and for a number of reasons - but the main ones are the transformative and comfort factors. People can be close to taking their own lives - spirit 'intervenes' - and they are able to carry on - enjoy life even - because they know that their loved ones are ok. Can science offer this kind of comfort? Nope. Science offers the 'grieving brain' theory as one of many etc - only I was 6 when my grandmother died. I hardly remember her, and it was 7 years later when she came to visit me - so the grieving brain theory doesn't fit.

[/QUOTE] For me, the reaction your son had in the bath was because of a triggered memory. Perhaps your mother bathed him once and he remembered something specific, I have no idea what the trigger was, but MY training has shown multiple examples of this being the case. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's my interpretation.[/QUOTE]

My mother never bathed my son as she was pretty much off her tits on codeine for the majority of those 2 years (hip pain) - interesting theory though.


In terms of your experience I have another theory too. I have seen my partner literally turn into a completely different person before my eyes. Certain stimuli will cause her to default to a discreet identity, and she will often see, hear, feel, smell the outside world as it was 5, 10 years ago. She will be a different person, and she will perceive different things around her. We know now that the body can store memory just as well as the mind, and in fact the two cannot really be separated as the brain/body connection works on a feedback loop. Thoughts and emotions are fundamentally the same thing. What I think happened (and again, my opinion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things) is that certain triggers can create a kind of critical mass in a persons psyche and in effect 'replay' emotions, thoughts and feelings from the past. DID is the ultimate incarnation of this, it's a completely lucid re-enactment of the past. The person doesn't think they are there, they are there.

That's actually very interesting!


So does this discredit your experience? Well no, absolutely not. For all I know your Grandmother could have wafted through the room as an energy field and interacted with your own physical state and triggered a replay in you. Maybe THAT is what ghosts are. I don't believe that to be the case but I can't tell you that it didn't happen either. But it does go back to the point about DID, where sufferers absolutely KNOW something is happening that isn't actually happening.

What you've said is very interesting - so thanks for that.

When it comes to 'ghosts' - I saw a child (seemingly a girl) at the bottom of our stairs, only I couldn't see her legs. A few weeks later, my brother and I watched someone walk across the landing and there was nobody there, so, if I'm a nutter - so is he lol. A year later, we moved house and my mum told me that a little girl had died in our house - in my room most likely - because she fell down the stairs and hit her head on the tiled floor. For some unknown reason, her mother put her to bed and the child, sadly, never woke up. To my knowledge, that was the first I knew of this, but it's entirely possible that I did know on a subconscious level. However, that does not explain what my brother and I saw at the same time. I've spoken to my other brother about it recently and he told me that he saw someone reflected in his bedroom window when he was a child, and it freaked him out, so he told my dad who laughed the whole thing off, but I wonder if he saw that little girl too? Obviously you will have a different theory...


Then, finally. We have the Multiverse. The idea that ALL possible outcomes of ALL possible scenarios are happening simultaneously, all the time.

Yeah. Brain melting stuff. But I'm talking about the spirit world which is all around us (like air is around us) and it's why my gran was able to 'waft' (love that, if you knew my grandma you'd understand why this made me giggle) into my bedroom one December morning - 3am to be exact - which is why sceptics generally go with the 'you were asleep, you daft cow' theory. Only I wasn't asleep because something woke me up, and that in itself was a one off 'malfunction' that never happened again.


The question is really if science has an explanation for supernatural experiences, does that make them any less supernatural?

Science can only come up with theories as to why these things happen but experiences are what changes opinions and lives. :shrug:

[WiredIncorrectly]

Take the tinfoil hat off. Facebook is fine lol.

Do you not have the Model Samples any more?

I just don't like to support companies that have foul business practices. But I realize it's a source of traffic and there's no avoiding that.

And yeah of course. Most of my drums are done with it. But sometimes if I'm in the DAW and its not connected I've got loads of resampled drums I've done with it. Very useful. Haven't figured out how to configure it with FL yet.

Next on my list is a Tempest. I need to make some money from my hobby to invest.

[ankietyjoe]

Science can only come up with theories as to why these things happen but experiences are what changes opinions and lives. :shrug:

I just have to pick up on this one line, and say that this just isn't accurate. Science can come up with theories AND stone cold facts. The idea that science is just one opinion just isn't accurate at all. And experiences don't alter those facts. When science turns a theory into a fact it does so under controlled, repeatable and measurable conditions. Variables are taken out of the equation to the best possible accuracy. This isn't usually the case with an experience, which may be interpreted in several different ways.

This is why we have televisions and antibiotics, to name but a few things. Oh, and RNA vaccines....






I just don't like to support companies that have foul business practices. But I realize it's a source of traffic and there's no avoiding that.

And yeah of course. Most of my drums are done with it. But sometimes if I'm in the DAW and its not connected I've got loads of resampled drums I've done with it. Very useful. Haven't figured out how to configure it with FL yet.

Next on my list is a Tempest. I need to make some money from my hobby to invest.

Dude, all companies have foul business practices on one level or another. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In terms of the Samples, live performance videos are pretty popular on Youtube, assuming you can get them posted to the right places.

[NoraB]

I just have to pick up on this one line, and say that this just isn't accurate. Science can come up with theories AND stone cold facts.

Of course, but I'm talking about the paranormal which by definition means impossible to explain by science.

However, there have been (and continue to be) many experiments conducted by prominent scientists - many of whom have accepted that there is an afterlife after investigating the evidence for it.


When science turns a theory into a fact it does so under controlled, repeatable and measurable conditions. Variables are taken out of the equation to the best possible accuracy. This isn't usually the case with an experience, which may be interpreted in several different ways.

Witness statements count in a court of law which means that someone's experience counts. I witnessed these things - visually and with my other senses. On one occasion there were two eye-witnesses, me and my brother who saw the same 'person' at the same time. Were we both having a psychotic episode? Or having an identical 'real, but only real to us' experience?

The difference between you and me, Joe, is that I understand that the most profound aspects of life do not require scientific validation to be real, and real as in real - not just real to me. The fact that experiences like mine happen to people all over the world, and from all walks of life, suggests something much bigger is going on.

Some prominent doctors and surgeons (people of science) have risked their careers because they've spoken publicly about the near death experiences which completely changed the way they look at death and dying. It was their profound experiences which changed them - and what they experienced goes against everything that science has taught them. So it would appear that experience trumps science?

Maybe the evidence of doctors with a load of letters after their name holds more weight? :shrug: What I do know is that it is one in the eye for those hard-line (and somewhat deluded) sceptics who think people who believe in the afterlife, or in ghosts etc are intellectually 'challenged'.:whistles:

As you can probably guess, I've locked horns with a few such people in my time - and mostly because I was pissed off that there were 'sceptics' on a spiritual forum. I wanted to talk to like-minded people - not to have defend my beliefs to someone who called me stupid because I believe that consciousness survives death. Then again, there were sceptics like yourself who offered thought-provoking arguments and were not at all abusive. I came to appreciated their input. I still can't work out why a sceptic would want to join a spiritual forum, but I also think that it was, in general, a plus. Certainly not boring lol.
I tell you something... some of those 'love 'n' lighters' can't half swear! :ohmy:

[ankietyjoe]

The difference between you and me, Joe, is that I understand that the most profound aspects of life do not require scientific validation to be real, and real as in real - not just real to me. The fact that experiences like mine happen to people all over the world, and from all walks of life, suggests something much bigger is going on.



And that's why this conversation (and that's all it is) must stop. This isn't the first time you've made a presumption about the way I see things and that I MUST have a scientific explanation for something. I have mentioned it in this thread AND declared in other threads that I'm starting to believe in 'the field', and that there is a greater force at work than we can currently detect, let alone understand or describe.

Given that your standpoint about my perspective is fundamentally flawed, I respectfully retreat from the debate. :yesyes:

[WiredIncorrectly]

Here here folks. Within this thread all debate and thrashing is allowed. Outside this thread (or any debate thread) we're all homies and love each other as fellow human beings. It's super important a differing of opinions does not damage friendships.

Spread the love.

[ankietyjoe]

There's no hard feelings here J. I just can't partake in a conversation where my standpoint is presumed different than it actually is. It's pointless, so I bow out.

No feelings have been hurt. Hence the big fat smiley.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Next article for my blog "How to argue constructively". This one will require some learning and self introspection :roflmao:

[NoraB]

And that's why this conversation (and that's all it is) must stop. This isn't the first time you've made a presumption about the way I see things and that I MUST have a scientific explanation for something. I have mentioned it in this thread AND declared in other threads that I'm starting to believe in 'the field', and that there is a greater force at work than we can currently detect, let alone understand or describe.

Given that your standpoint about my perspective is fundamentally flawed, I respectfully retreat from the debate. :yesyes:

That's quite a reaction Joe..

I'm responding to your own words on a thread where you've stated that 'there ain't no God' and you've given me non-paranormal theories on my experiences - which I have clearly said that I appreciate. Food for thought and all that. If I've misinterpreted your comments then I apologise, but I have to say that I'm surprised you've backed out of what could have been a decent debate. However, your call and all that. :shrug:

[AntsyVee]

Maybe it’s all me and my voodoo dolls...

[ankietyjoe]

Next article for my blog "How to argue constructively". This one will require some learning and self introspection :roflmao:

Would that book also be titled 'The definition of Irony'? :shades:


That's quite a reaction Joe..

I'm responding to your own words on a thread where you've stated that 'there ain't no God' and you've given me non-paranormal theories on my experiences - which I have clearly said that I appreciate. Food for thought and all that. If I've misinterpreted your comments then I apologise, but I have to say that I'm surprised you've backed out of what could have been a decent debate. However, your call and all that. :shrug:

It's not really an overreaction on my part, and I sincerely mean no hard feelings.

I'll elaborate a bit -

My perception is that you think I don't see ghosts because I'm not in tune with them, that i'm blinded by science, that I'm not open to the unexplained. It's simply not the case, and having made the point myself several times we cannot have a discussion or debate about this because the platform it is based on is already biased.

To put it as simply as possible, I believe (know) that anything paranormal has an explanation that could be described by a scientific process, but that perhaps doesn't make it any less paranormal to the person experiencing it. You don't :D

[Gary A]

Of course, but I'm talking about the paranormal which by definition means impossible to explain by science.

However, there have been (and continue to be) many experiments conducted by prominent scientists - many of whom have accepted that there is an afterlife after investigating the evidence for it.

Most interesting. Can you tell me which experiments these were and which scientists carried them out? I’m sure if there were scientifically validated evidence of an afterlife then it would be front page news across the globe.

If something is impossible to explain by science then it’s untestable and therefore might as well not exist. If I told you there were an Invisible Pink Incorporeal Unicorn that only I could see living in my bathroom, you’d want proof of that wouldn’t you? However, there’s no way for me to prove it, as it’s invisible, incorporeal and only I can see it, and no way for you to disprove it so it’s basically just a story at that point. It’s not testable, can’t be explained by science, so I guess that would be labelled “paranormal” as well? However, by slapping that label on it have I now made my claim more valid? Of course I haven’t.

As for your experience, I’m not about to sit and tell you that it didn’t happen or that your perception is wrong. What I will say is that it’s far more likely that you had a dream, hallucination or that you were just plain mistaken than it is that the literal spirit of a dead relative came to visit you. In the absence of any testable evidence, the various other explanations of what might have actually happened and the fact that your claim is completely untestable, for me it’s just a story.

That’s what a sceptic does, looks for testable real life evidence. After my grandad died in 2009, I spent weeks swearing that I could hear his voice when I put my bedroom lights out. For me, it’s more likely that because he’d recently died I was thinking about him a lot, I was grieving and perhaps just wanting to hear his voice so much that my brain played a trick on me. Again, it’s just far more likely than it being the ghost of my dead grandad actually talking to me.

[NoraB]

"However, there have been (and continue to be) many experiments conducted by prominent scientists - many of whom have accepted that there is an afterlife after investigating the evidence for it."


Most interesting. Can you tell me which experiments these were and which scientists carried them out? I’m sure if there were scientifically validated evidence of an afterlife then it would be front page news across the globe.
Off the top of my head - take the recent AWARE study (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) - Sam Parnia (Professor of Medicine aka scientific dude) but maybe you should read what I wrote again because I clearly said many prominent scientists have accepted the afterlife based on the EVIDENCE for it.

Afterlife evidence makes newspaper stories, but not the headlines. You bet your arse that the papers would have a field day if science was to unequivocally prove that the afterlife is real, but even then, certain 'sceptics' (and their ever-moving goalposts) would still try to debunk it!

The problem is with trying to scientifically measure something that is spontaneous in nature but in order to get a 'hit' visual targets have to be reported. Hits as in, being able to see an object that's been purposely placed on a high level shelf that is not visible from any other perspective other than high up. The fact that some people who took part in the study were able to describe what was happening to them, or things going on in other parts of the hospital while they had no brain activity - doesn't count as proof, so it's a miss, but it does count as evidence - and one NDE in the study was validated.
Then again, if you do read the papers you might have seen the story where a top NASA scientist believed in the afterlife? This bloke was a highly intelligent scientist and he believed in the afterlife. :ohmy:

Or how about Dr Eban Alexander who is a neurosurgeon who 'knew' that the soul is 'really the result of brain chemistry' - that's until he had a near death experience while he was in a deep coma. Even as a believer, I find his story a little 'out there' but the dude is as scientific as it gets and he is totally sold on the afterlife because of his experience. This is very much one of those cases I've talked about where experience trumps science because it blew apart everything he'd known to be true.


If I told you there were an Invisible Pink Incorporeal Unicorn that only I could see living in my bathroom, you’d want proof of that wouldn’t you?

Gary, nobody is talking about unicorns - pink or otherwise. This is one of the most trawled out sceptic 'arguments' and it's ridiculous. I saw a human form standing at the bottom of our stairs, not My Little Pony!

Actually, pink unicorns DO exist and you can buy them for £20 on Amazon! :yesyes:


As for your experience, I’m not about to sit and tell you that it didn’t happen or that your perception is wrong.

Waaaaaaaait for it.....


What I will say is that it’s far more likely that you had a dream, hallucination or that you were just plain mistaken than it is that the literal spirit of a dead relative came to visit you.

There it is! :yesyes:

You are suggesting that it didn't happen, or that my perception is wrong - even though you weren't there and you don't know me.


In the absence of any testable evidence, the various other explanations of what might have actually happened and the fact that your claim is completely untestable, for me it’s just a story.

To you, and everybody else, they are anecdotes - yes. Of course they are, as are other people's experiences to me. The difference is that I don't dismiss people's experiences as psychotic episodes or hallucinations.

If evidence counts for something in a court of law, then it does elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. :shrug:


After my grandad died in 2009, I spent weeks swearing that I could hear his voice when I put my bedroom lights out. For me, it’s more likely that because he’d recently died I was thinking about him a lot, I was grieving and perhaps just wanting to hear his voice so much that my brain played a trick on me. Again, it’s just far more likely than it being the ghost of my dead grandad actually talking to me.

People who have paranormal experiences are generally in no doubt that what they've experienced was real, so I'm inclined to agree with you on that basis, but, who knows?

I'd be interested in the words that you heard, though...

"Again, it’s just far more likely than it being the ghost of my dead grandad actually talking to me."

And this is why I'd be interested to know what he 'said' because there is a difference between your mind playing tricks on you and meaningful communication.

In all my experiences, I've only ever heard one voice - and it wasn't one I recognised - but it ordered me to slow down when I was in my car and seconds later a lorry pulled out on me. Had I have carried on at the speed I was going - I would have smashed into it. As it was, slowing down gave me time to react. I heard a voice - loud and clear - and for no apparent reason. (good weather - visibility etc) Psychotic episode? I don't think so, but give me a theory as to why I heard this voice seconds before I was about to slam into a lorry - but not before that day, and not since?

[Gary A]

Off the top of my head - take the recent AWARE study (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) - Sam Parnia (Professor of Medicine aka scientific dude) but maybe you should read what I wrote again because I clearly said many prominent scientists have accepted the afterlife based on the EVIDENCE for it.

I don’t care what they accept, I care about what they can prove. Just writing “EVIDENCE” in block capitals doesn’t make it so.


[Afterlife evidence makes newspaper stories, but not the headlines. You bet your arse that the papers would have a field day if science was to unequivocally prove that the afterlife is real, but even then, certain 'sceptics' (and their ever-moving goalposts) would still try to debunk it!

What’s wrong with that? The more a theory stands up to scrutiny the closer it gets to being fact. If you’re worried about it being tested and scrutinised then it must be a pretty flimsy argument in the first place.



The problem is with trying to scientifically measure something that is spontaneous in nature but in order to get a 'hit' visual targets have to be reported. Hits as in, being able to see an object that's been purposely placed on a high level shelf that is not visible from any other perspective other than high up. The fact that some people who took part in the study were able to describe what was happening to them, or things going on in other parts of the hospital while they had no brain activity - doesn't count as proof, so it's a miss, but it does count as evidence - and one NDE in the study was validated.
Then again, if you do read the papers you might have seen the story where a top NASA scientist believed in the afterlife? This bloke was a highly intelligent scientist and he believed in the afterlife. :ohmy:

Again, I don’t care what he believed, I care what he can prove. If we’re just going to make it a game of appealing to argument from authority then I’m fairly certain I’ve got the weight of the vast majority of scientists batting my corner. Of course there are scientists who believe in the afterlife. Look hard enough I’m sure there’ll be scientists who believe Elvis is still alive or that the moon landings were filmed in a studio. Again, believing is one thing, proving is quite another.


how about Dr Eban Alexander who is a neurosurgeon who 'knew' that the soul is 'really the result of brain chemistry' - that's until he had a near death experience while he was in a deep coma. Even as a believer, I find his story a little 'out there' but the dude is as scientific as it gets and he is totally sold on the afterlife because of his experience. This is very much one of those cases I've talked about where experience trumps science because it blew apart everything he'd known to be true.

Good for him. It still proves absolutely nothing and is once again just appealing to authority. The guy was in a coma and nearly died, perhaps you’re not so wrong in that experience made him turn against science, but perhaps that’s more to do with the nature of his experience, ie his life almost ending, rather than how much of a place it had in the realms of reality.


Gary, nobody is talking about unicorns - pink or otherwise. This is one of the most trawled out sceptic 'arguments' and it's ridiculous. I saw a human form standing at the bottom of our stairs, not My Little Pony!

I’m sorry but the only ridiculous argument here is yours. What does it matter if it’s a pink unicorn, the tooth fairy, a giant marshmallow ninja that only eats gummy bears or an apparent “human form”? They’re all untestable stories and they all have the same evidence of actually being real. Namely, zero. I think it’s ironic that I’m apparently the closed minded sceptic yet rather than try to explore other explanations for your “experience“ you’ve leapt right on it being proof of the afterlife. I don’t think it would matter at all what evidence or other possibility was provided to you on the contrary, you’ve made your mind up and that’s that, apparently.


You are suggesting that it didn't happen, or that my perception is wrong - even though you weren't there and you don't know me.

I’m suggesting that’s it’s far more likely that either it didn’t happen or your perception is wrong. I’m suggesting either of those are far more likely than you literally seeing the spirit of a dead relative. Is that an outrageous statement, somehow? It’s got nothing to do with knowing you, it’s just that you’re a human being with a brain that can deceive them very easily. Do I honestly need to say that given the forum that we’re having this discussion on. Look around you, folks brains are playing tricks on them every day around here.



To you, and everybody else, they are anecdotes - yes. Of course they are, as are other people's experiences to me. The difference is that I don't dismiss people's experiences as psychotic episodes or hallucinations.

Nor do I, but what I do actually do is at least explore the more rational possibilities before I leap to the “OMG that’s evidence of the afterlife” conclusion based on nothing more than an unverifiable story.

[ankietyjoe]

I would just like to add that the Mother of my children had a near death experience (like...seconds from death) during the birth of our youngest. I was there, watching it. She was talking absolute nonsense as they wheeled her into the operating theatre and later relayed the experiences she was having at the time, none of which was actually happening.

She now lives with a condition that forces her brain to re-live situations, create alternate realities, identities and even people inside her head. To her, every single microsecond of it is real. She's not able to differentiate what her brain is telling her is happening, and what is actually happening. It's not like a dream to her that she wakes up from, she is there, it is happening.

The brain is MORE than capable of making your conscious mind absolutely, 100% believe something is happening that isn't happening. Period. That's all there is to it.

[fishman65]

I'm no expert on this subject but do find it fascinating. I also probably lean towards the scientific explanations, but that's only based on my personal experiences. I've never had any kind of supernatural event either, or witnessed one. But I do know people who have. One chap I knew who has since died was in the army. It was a hot summer's day and he and his fellow soldiers were relaxing in their barracks. There were three or four had set up a ouija board and were doing whatever you do with one of those, when all the windows, which were open due to the heat, slammed shut.

Now either 1 - he's a liar 2 - he thinks it happened but it did only in his brain 3 - it was some kind of freak weather or 4 - something unexplainable. I can think of lots of similar stories and think that its important to keep an open mind.

That said, as anxiety people we all know about the power of suggestion. Two years ago during an obsession that I had heart disease, I had googled symptoms of which one was extreme tiredness. The following morning on a trip to our local Asda, I had to leave the trolley and return to the car because I felt so tired. Subsequent ECGs and blood tests etc at our hospital's cardio unit showed no sign of heart problems. My symptoms vanished and I've never had them since. But at the time it was so real. This example is just one of anxiety's many tricks of course.

Derren Brown knows all about suggestion because he's made a career from it.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Could have been an 'act of beans', Fishman :winks:

The thing is science changes. If the answer is it can't prove or disprove a later study may do so. Therefore you are left to belief. Or scepticism, something which I tend to view as a form of belief in its own. Two sides of the same coin: the firm believer and the hard sceptic. Both are butting heads using similar points. Can't that be seen in the above posts alone?

[pulisa]

Does it actually matter if there is a "right" or a "wrong" answer to this when belief is such a comfort and harms no one?

[ankietyjoe]

Does it actually matter if there is a "right" or a "wrong" answer to this when belief is such a comfort and harms no one?

When people disregard science as just an 'opinion', it kinda does matter. Especially in the current global climate.

[fishman65]

Could have been an 'act of beans', Fishman :winks:

The thing is science changes. If the answer is it can't prove or disprove a later study may do so. Therefore you are left to belief. Or scepticism, something which I tend to view as a form of belief in its own. Two sides of the same coin: the firm believer and the hard sceptic. Both are butting heads using similar points. Can't that be seen in the above posts alone?LOL Terry!! But wouldn't the windows have blown out, not shut?

[MyNameIsTerry]

Does it actually matter if there is a "right" or a "wrong" answer to this when belief is such a comfort and harms no one?

All I know is some hundred years back the same argument was raging over the existence of big lizards that once roamed the earth. Then science found proof. Until then there was none but that doesn't rule out existence.

That's what I mean about two sides of the same coin. Arguing about evidence of the afterlife is like arguing over the existence of god. Believe or don't. Proof is beyond science at this point.

I don't recall science has determined there is no afterlife. Therefore I think your point is very valid. What damage does it do to the person?

[MyNameIsTerry]

LOL Terry!! But wouldn't the windows have blown out, not shut?

But if that happened what truly would be spooky would be if they were watching The Italian Job and at that exact moment the windows blew out Michael Caine came on and reprimanded them.

[Lolalee1]

Today myself and 10 other riders donated 50 hampers to the Salvation Army,that was a Random act of Kindness.
I know it has nothing to do with unicorns or hearing voices just thought I would throw it in.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Today myself and 10 other riders donated 50 hampers to the Salvation Army,that was a Random act of Kindness.
I know it has nothing to do with unicorns or hearing voices just thought I would throw it in.

Excellent work, Lola! :yesyes:

Highlighting the point it doesn't matter as much as it does getting done to help someone.

[Lolalee1]

Thank You Terry :hugs:

[NoraB]

I’m sorry but the only ridiculous argument here is yours. What does it matter if it’s a pink unicorn, the tooth fairy, a giant marshmallow ninja that only eats gummy bears or an apparent “human form”?
Challenge accepted. :dribble:

1. Pink unicorns, gummy bear scoffing marshmallows (giant or otherwise) is a belittling tactic, rather than a logical argument.

2. What people experience (and believe in) isn't the same thing as something that's clearly (and ludicrously) made up.

3. Where are the millions of credible people who've seen pink unicorns (minus the price tag) or giant marshmallows (and not happen to be watching Ghostbusters)? Whereas in a recent study (2018) three out of five people believe they've seen a 'ghost'.

4. I was 9 years old when I saw the human form/ghost at the bottom of our stairs, not 19, listening to Jimi Hendrix, and off my face on magic mushrooms.

5. To compare a human form (regardless of whether you believe me or not) to a giant gummy bear scoffing marshmallow is ridiculous and insulting.


They’re all untestable stories and they all have the same evidence of actually being real. Namely, zero.


I think it’s ironic that I’m apparently the closed minded sceptic

The sentence that I've put in bold is why you are a closed-minded 'sceptic'.

You cannot use the word 'zero' and be considered a sceptic because zero leaves no room for doubt, and the last time I checked, sceptical means having reservations or doubts - not a raging case of bias.

Your attitude (and that of many other 'sceptics') seems to be that unless science can prove the afterlife - it does not exist. So, in that case, everything that science has proved so far mustn't have existed until it was discovered and proven. :yesyes:


yet rather than try to explore other explanations for your “experience“ you’ve leapt right on it being proof of the afterlife

Why do you presume I haven't explored other explanations, Gary? Is it because you see me as many 'sceptics' see people like me - as in gullible and 'a bit thick'? :huh:


I don’t think it would matter at all what evidence or other possibility was provided to you on the contrary, you’ve made your mind up and that’s that, apparently.

What fascinates me is why it should matter to you if people believe in the afterlife or not?

I've seen people leave spiritual forums because of 'sceptics' who felt it was their duty to debunk those profound experiences which gave them their lives back after losing a spouse or child. Who does that? :lac:

What is it to you if I believe that my deceased grandmother visited me that morning?

I do accept the possibility that what I experienced was only real to me - except the time where my brother saw the ghost at the same time - which sceps usually try to ignore because it's not as easy to debunk the identical experience of two people as it is one. You, however, clearly do not accept the possibility that what I experienced was real in the true sense of the word, and for whatever reason, you are compelled to belittle my profound experiences by making comparisons to giant marshmallows. :huh:


Do I honestly need to say that given the forum that we’re having this discussion on. Look around you, folks brains are playing tricks on them every day around here.

Ok, well riddle me this one Gary: I had a mental breakdown (due to a severe case of HA) in 2016 and I haven't had a single paranormal experience of any kind since.

What gives? I went full loon and lost the ability to 'hallucinate!' :shrug:


but what I do actually do is at least explore the more rational possibilities before I leap to the “OMG that’s evidence of the afterlife” conclusion based on nothing more than an unverifiable story.

You're presuming that I haven't explored rational possibilities - as do most 'sceptics' when talking to people who believe in the afterlife..

Actually, as the experience was happening (grandmother) I was looking for rational explanations such as open windows or the air vents (rocking chair) - anything logical that could explain what was happening. There wasn't an obvious one. I also don't know how to explain a battery operated keyboard turning itself on at 3am when it was clearly turned off. Or that it hadn't happened before that day, or after. Or that my dad couldn't find a reason for it. Seeing as the batteries I'd removed to shut the damn thing up were still on my set of drawers the following day - I'd say that it suggests I didn't dream of taking them out. Those were visual things - the rest were olfactory and whatever part of us that feels love. 'Real' or not, it was one of the most joyous experiences of my life, and the memory of it keeps me going on my bad days. And that's what really matters...

[Lolalee1]

Good ol’ Magic Mushies or Gold Tops,now they were something else I remember seeing ET riding a Harley through the sky.
I thought I was Wonder Woman tried to fly lucky it was only off the roof,I don’t remember that the nurse in hospital told me. I don’t touch em now.

[NoraB]

I would just like to add that the Mother of my children had a near death experience (like...seconds from death) during the birth of our youngest. I was there, watching it. She was talking absolute nonsense as they wheeled her into the operating theatre and later relayed the experiences she was having at the time, none of which was actually happening.

The near death experience (NDE) as IANDS explains it is a 'recognisable event' which happens when someone is close to death or in a situation of emotional or physical stress.

What kind of things did your wife say?


She now lives with a condition that forces her brain to re-live situations, create alternate realities, identities and even people inside her head.

Schizophrenia?


The brain is MORE than capable of making your conscious mind absolutely, 100% believe something is happening that isn't happening. Period. That's all there is to it.

Out of interest, how much research have you put into near death experiences?

Maybe you could explain how almost every near death experiencer reports a reluctance to get back into their body (and live) given that we are hardwired for survival?

Also, could you explain to me why many people come back with information that they didn't previously know - like a brother or sister that had been kept secret out of shame. Or news of events to happen - and they do happen.

Organisations like IANDS exist because there is a LOT more to it than you claim.

[NoraB]

Good ol’ Magic Mushies or Gold Tops,now they were something else I remember seeing ET riding a Harley through the sky.
I thought I was Wonder Woman tried to fly lucky it was only off the roof,I don’t remember that the nurse in hospital told me. I don’t touch em now.

E.T on a Harley? Beats the BMX. :roflmao:

My brother gave me some Amyl Nitrate once and I had a bad reaction. He shit himself. Mum threatened to kill him if I died and I never dabbled again. :yesyes:

[Gary A]

1. Pink unicorns, gummy bear scoffing marshmallows (giant or otherwise) is a belittling tactic, rather than a logical argument.

You’re missing the point. The point is to show that when trying to bring a claim such as yours into the realms of science, each one is comparatively illogical.


2. What people experience (and believe in) isn't the same thing as something that's clearly (and ludicrously) made up.

Really? A lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens. They swear blind and say they absolutely experienced. Does that prove that aliens exist and visit us regularly? Hardly. A lot of people believe in all sorts of things that are clearly (and ludicrously) made up.


3. Where are the millions of credible people who've seen pink unicorns (minus the price tag) or giant marshmallows (and not happen to be watching Ghostbusters)? Whereas in a recent study (2018) three out of five people believe they've seen a 'ghost'.

There’s that word again. “Believe”.

Believing you seen something gets you nowhere in science. This is the point to my whole argument. This isn’t a new thing, it’s not like people haven’t been claiming to witness paranormal activity for as long as anyone can remember, but for all those stories and all those people “believing” in seeing ghosts there is still not one shred of credible scientific evidence to back any of it up.


4. I was 9 years old when I saw the human form/ghost at the bottom of our stairs, not 19, listening to Jimi Hendrix, and off my face on magic mushrooms.

Regardless of age or whichever hallucinated states you were or weren’t in, there are still far more logical explanations to your experience than it being a literal ghost. This is another point I think you’re missing, I can’t say you absolutely didn’t see a ghost, I don’t have the evidence to do that. On the other side of that, though, you don’t have the evidence to say that you did. So all we’re really left with is what is the most logical explanation? Even you must agree that “it was definitely a ghost” isn’t that.


5. To compare a human form (regardless of whether you believe me or not) to a giant gummy bear scoffing marshmallow is ridiculous and insulting.

It’s not my intent to insult you so I apologise if I have. All I’m saying is that claims of something “paranormal” should be treated with the same scepticism as any other “out there” claim. My examples are extremely ridiculous, of course, but it’s more tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to insult or degrade so again, my bad for coming across that way.




The sentence that I've put in bold is why you are a closed-minded 'sceptic'.

You cannot use the word 'zero' and be considered a sceptic because zero leaves no room for doubt, and the last time I checked, sceptical means having reservations or doubts - not a raging case of bias.

Well I can use that word when talking of the existence of scientific evidence. You’ve used examples of lots of people “believing” they’ve seen a ghost as evidence of the afterlife. You’ve used examples of scientists believing the same. It would only be scientific evidence if there had been proper scientific tests and scrutiny carried out in order to prove or disprove the idea. So yes, when saying that there is zero scientific evidence of the afterlife or ghosts, I’m not wrong. If there were scientific evidence, you wouldn’t need to “believe” anything, it would already be proven.


Your attitude (and that of many other 'sceptics') seems to be that unless science can prove the afterlife - it does not exist. So, in that case, everything that science has proved so far mustn't have existed until it was discovered and proven. :yesyes:

Nonsense. My position is that there’s no point in “believing” in something unless it’s testable. Where does it end if that’s not the case? I don’t believe in the afterlife because I have no reason to. There’s no scientific evidence for it. It’s for those same reasons I don’t believe in numerology, astrology or someone being able to see my future by looking into a ball. If evidence becomes available then sure, I’m all ears, but it never does. It all, once again, boils down to “belief”.


Why do you presume I haven't explored other explanations, Gary? Is it because you see me as many 'sceptics' see people like me - as in gullible and 'a bit thick'? :huh:

I see it more as perhaps wanting to believe in something rather than trying to reach the most logical explanation. Hey, that doesn’t make you gullible or “thick”, it makes you human. That’s kind of my larger point, you’re a human being with emotions, all kinds of ways that your brain can trick you and all kinds of ways that your emotions can confirm that trick. That’s indeed been proven by science. It just makes you normal, I guess.



What fascinates me is why it should matter to you if people believe in the afterlife or not?

For the same reasons it matters to you that people believe your version of events. It’s not like this debate is a one way street.


What is it to you if I believe that my deceased grandmother visited me that morning?

You made the original argument that there was evidence of the afterlife. You used your experience as this evidence. It was you who brought this up. I can’t argue against it using an example of something you didn’t bring up, can I? I defend the idea of scepticism because I believe it’s a good life skill. Other than that, I couldn’t really care less if you believe in whatever you want. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’m not changing your mind here.


'Real' or not, it was one of the most joyous experiences of my life, and the memory of it keeps me going on my bad days. And that's what really matters...

Something I can’t and won’t disagree with. This isn’t about me trying to take that away, I’m merely defending a position. I hope this does continue to bring you joy.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Good ol’ Magic Mushies or Gold Tops,now they were something else I remember seeing ET riding a Harley through the sky.
I thought I was Wonder Woman tried to fly lucky it was only off the roof,I don’t remember that the nurse in hospital told me. I don’t touch em now.

Must have been powerful drugs, I didn't think Harley could do bikes that worked on roads let alone the sky? (Or so I've seen a far few bikers say about Harley).

You are a Triumph gal aren't you, Lola? Whenever I go into town someone has a Tiger parked up. A right beast!

[ankietyjoe]

The near death experience (NDE) as IANDS explains it is a 'recognisable event' which happens when someone is close to death or in a situation of emotional or physical stress.

What kind of things did your wife say?



Schizophrenia?



Out of interest, how much research have you put into near death experiences?

Maybe you could explain how almost every near death experiencer reports a reluctance to get back into their body (and live) given that we are hardwired for survival?

Also, could you explain to me why many people come back with information that they didn't previously know - like a brother or sister that had been kept secret out of shame. Or news of events to happen - and they do happen.

Organisations like IANDS exist because there is a LOT more to it than you claim.

With respect Nora, I'm not getting into this with you again.

The idea that people come back with 'information' they didn't know before is ridiculous, and I'm not even going to entertain a response to it.

I respect your position, I just won't get into a debate about something you believe in.

[fishman65]

Guys, I think there comes a point where we need to cut some slack. Debunking for the sake of it or for some misplaced sense of pride gets tiresome. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with Nora's claims, she's not doing any harm. It reminds me of my bricklaying days when we took on a chap as a labourer who was also a committed born again Christian. I spent hours gleefully debunking the Bible, asking him why it makes no mention of dinosaurs etc. And in the end all I felt was guilt that I'd tried to undermine something that was an integral part of his life.

[fishman65]

I respect your position, I just won't get into a debate about something you believe in.Sorry Joe didn't see this.

[ankietyjoe]

I wasn't ever trying to debunk Nora, I was merely offering my views on things she was posting. It was science that was being debunked (heavily) so I just backed out. I found it quite ironic that the 'open minded' side of the argument was so rigid in opinion, so any further discussion became pointless.

[pulisa]

Well I think that this is a very interesting debate and no one is going to back down. I'm learning a lot.

[ankietyjoe]

It is an interesting debate.

Consider my back downed though lol.

[Lolalee1]

Must have been powerful drugs, I didn't think Harley could do bikes that worked on roads let alone the sky? (Or so I've seen a far few bikers say about Harley).

You are a Triumph gal aren't you, Lola? Whenever I go into town someone has a Tiger parked up. A right beast!


Howdy Terry, I bought a Harley a Soft Tail it’s a nice bike.
Gold top mushies are powerful and deadly I have never had them since that episode,bloody scary.:scared15:

[NoraB]

Really? A lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens. They swear blind and say they absolutely experienced. Does that prove that aliens exist and visit us regularly? Hardly. A lot of people believe in all sorts of things that are clearly (and ludicrously) made up.

Of course it doesn't PROVE it. It does SUGGEST it though, eh?


but for all those stories and all those people “believing” in seeing ghosts there is still not one shred of credible scientific evidence to back any of it up.

Paranormal definition: Events of phenomena which are BEYOND THE SCOPE OF NORMAL SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. :D

Just because science hasn't been able to prove these things yet doesn't mean they do not exist - as was my point about things 'not existing' until discovered and proved.

With the paranormal, we are dealing with something that isn't within our control in order to measure it scientifically. However, your life is full of personal experiences which you 'know' to be real but have not been proven by the scientific method.. :shrug:

My theory is that humans do like to be in control. I'm autistic, and I understand that more than most, but the difference with me is that my paranormal experiences formed my belief that consciousness survives biological death. There is a wealth of evidence to support this, but I guess it depends on what you define as evidence. You require something that's solid and tangible, and science relies on this in order to measure something, but ghosts are not solid, so we have a problem. Except that my idea of evidence differs to yours. Having had the paranormal experience of seeing a ghost - I am unable to dismiss it as easily as you can.


Regardless of age or whichever hallucinated states you were or weren’t in, there are still far more logical explanations to your experience than it being a literal ghost.

Except that you are making those presumptions without knowing me.


On the other side of that, though, you don’t have the evidence to say that you did. So all we’re really left with is what is the most logical explanation? Even you must agree that “it was definitely a ghost” isn’t that.

Have I ever used the word definitely? :unsure: I try to be mindful of terminology. Definitely leaves no room for doubt, and, despite my obvious bias, I am not so biased that I work in absolutes.

I saw the human form of what I perceived to be a girl around my own age. She had long hair - down to her waist - and also, no legs- which struck me as odd. The landing light was on. The hall light wasn't, but the kitchen door was open and so the hall was sufficiently lit so that I could easily see everything - including this child who appeared to be looking up at me and I saw her as I stepped onto the first step on the half-landing as there were two other steps above that and to the right. I also remember not feeling scared. I was curious more than anything. I could hear the TV in the background and it was early evening. Of course I accept that it could have been my mind playing tricks on me, except that this 'ghost' isn't what I expected going on ghosts depicted on TV. Why would my brain summon her up without any legs? There was also a sense of sadness which came from nowhere. I remember not feeling scared, but the atmosphere was of a low vibration - in comparison to a vibration which was off the scale with my Grandmother. This was my experience and it's as vivid today as it was all those years ago, and I believe that It's because it's a memory, rather than imagined..


It’s not my intent to insult you so I apologise if I have.

It's ok cocker. Truth be told, it's been a while since I got to tango with a sceptic and I'm enjoying myself in a weird sort of way. :winks:


My examples are extremely ridiculous, of course, but it’s more tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to insult or degrade so again, my bad for coming across that way.

I appreciate that, but maybe bear in mind that when people like me talk about our experiences, they are often connected to people we loved, and who loved us. Unicorns, marshmallows etc are a cheap shot and they're always going to rub people up the wrong way.


So yes, when saying that there is zero scientific evidence of the afterlife or ghosts, I’m not wrong. If there were scientific evidence, you wouldn’t need to “believe” anything, it would already be proven.

I don't think it would actually. Given that when science comes anywhere near being able to prove something paranormal using the scientific method - sceptics raise the bar, debunk, or ridicule.


I don’t believe in the afterlife because I have no reason to. There’s no scientific evidence for it.

What I'm saying is that, if you'd had experiences like mine, it's possible that you would think differently and your experience (and the more profound the better) would override your scientific thinking. You are seriously underestimating the power of experience. Experiences can be the difference in wanting to live or wanting to die - that's how powerful they can be.


It’s for those same reasons I don’t believe in numerology, astrology or someone being able to see my future by looking into a ball.

I've never been to see a psychic who gazed into a ball, wore a turban, or who call themselves Gypsy Rose and charge a fortune for the pleasure. If you understand anything about psychics - most work off people's energies and psychometry or they use cards. It doesn't matter what they use - it's just a way of connecting. And before you start on about fakes etc - yes, there are lots of those, and I'd imagine them to be the majority because it's a money maker and it's rife for exploitation. Give me your name and phone number and I can tell you what you already know about yourself. Yes there are some poor gullible sods who fall for this. But there are cowboys in all walks of life. I know all about hot reading and cold reading. I haven't seen a psychic (or a medium) for many years but I was always careful about not giving details of any kind. No bank details, not even my own phone number or real name. In the end, the best piece of mediumship I've ever had came when I walked into a spiritualist church ten miles from my home - and I'd never been there and I didn't know anybody (first time ever in one of these churches) and I'd hoped my dad would show up via the platform medium. He didn't, and I was a bit gutted. Anyway, I bought myself a cuppa and a cake and was standing there when an elderly bloke walked up to me and asked if he could pass a message to me. I said yes, obvs, but nothing else. Over the next ten minutes, this guy (a medium) accurately described my dad - the fact that we look the same only with different coloured eyes (his brown, mine green) - his cancer and how he had to use a walking stick to get about (my dad was 58 when he had cancer) - my first dog (who he'd loved and she loved him) that he (Dad) knew I was struggling (marriage) but all would all be ok in the end. He also asked if I wanted to be a nurse. I said no and laughed. I was a school caretaker and cleaner at the time. He said he saw me working with medicines. That made no sense to me. Finally he asked me to sing some lyrics to my mother - and the song title - he gave me some lyrics which I didn't recognise - and told me to pass it on which I did and my mother said that this was the first song my dad ever played to her and it was a record that got nicked on a train station platform not long after which explains why I couldn't place the record. She said they'd found a copy at a record fair not long before my dad died, only she couldn't bring herself to play it. When she died, we found it hidden under a bed, and there was the song which the medium had told me about. Finally, the school where I was working closed down and I had to get another cleaning job. I went for an interview with a contract cleaning service with no idea where I would be placed - they covered schools, offices, factories, surgeries - everything. I got the job and the supervisor took me to my placement there and then - it was a pharmaceutical warehouse. I later remembered what the medium had said but I figured he was a bit off because my cleaning didn't involve being anywhere near the drugs and medicines. It was offices, bogs and the canteen. But a year later my marriage broke down and I had to find work which paid more money. The manager of the warehouse heard about me handing my notice in with the cleaning company and he offered me a job working for him - picking and packing pharmaceuticals. Everything the medium had told me was accurate and came true. There were no misses and no making things fit. I also said nothing except 'no' to his nurse question. And also, it occurred to me that my dad was a very private man, so it makes sense that he chose to communicate through an older gent instead of in front of an audience. I haven't seen a medium since. I don't need to because I've had the best evidence I could be given, and it was free.

I know, full well, what you're thinking. That it had to be a trick? Well, all I can say that if it was a trick - it was a bloody good one!


I see it more as perhaps wanting to believe in something rather than trying to reach the most logical explanation.

The problem I have with that is that I was 9 years old when I had my first paranormal experience. I had no interest in ghosts whatsoever. I was music obsessed. And it wasn't even this experience which convinced me of the afterlife. It was four years later when I believe my grandmother visited me. Seven years after her death. I wasn't grieving. I know I loved my Granma, and she loved me, but I hardly have any memories of her - only being 6 when she died. So, unlike your 'voices' that sounded like your grandad when you were actively grieving - the same cannot be said of me. I wasn't looking for this experience - it just happened. It's the reason I believe in the afterlife because science cannot adequately explain the most important aspect of it - which is feeling something so intense which is indescribable because the words do not exist that would do it any kind of justice. Since then I've had many more experiences - and everything stopped when I had a mental breakdown - as I've said to Joe.


Hey, that doesn’t make you gullible or “thick”, it makes you human.

Unfortunately I've had many experiences with pseudo-sceptics whose sole intention is to ridicule and abuse people like me and one way is by bringing intelligence into question. I'm happy to say that you're not one of them. You've had the decency to apologise for making the comparison of my experience to a marshmallow, and a pseudosceptic wouldn't do that.


It just makes you normal, I guess.

Normal? Outrageous claim Sir!!! :ohmy:


For the same reasons it matters to you that people believe your version of events. It’s not like this debate is a one way street.

You're wrong here. It doesn't matter if people believe me. I just like talking about it. The paranormal became an interest when I was in my mid-twenties, and I'm autistic, which means I can literally 'talk' forever about my interests lol


I defend the idea of scepticism because I believe it’s a good life skill. Other than that, I couldn’t really care less if you believe in whatever you want. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’m not changing your mind here.

It is a good life skill. And maybe you can see how scepticism played a part when I was seeing mediums and psychics? But I also think that there is so much more to this universe than we can comprehend and it requires a somewhat open-mind to explore the possibilities...

No mate. You haven't changed my mind. Nor has any sceptic before you. Not because I'm closed-minded or that what you or Joe has said isn't interesting or food for thought - it's because my experiences were too profound and transformative to be explained away by mistakes or wishful thinking etc


I hope this does continue to bring you joy.

So far that has been the case, and it has been a light in some VERY dark times. We will know who is right one day, so if you are waken up at 3am one morning by a scary lookin' bird in rollers wearing an 'I TOLD YOU SO, COCKER' t- shirt - that'll be me. :winks:

[NoraB]

With respect Nora, I'm not getting into this with you again.


The idea that people come back with 'information' they didn't know before is ridiculous, and I'm not even going to entertain a response to it.

Except that you have responded. ^^^^^^

Fair enough Joe. I won't interact with you again, in this thread or any other, because we seem to rub each other up the wrong way don't we?

[ankietyjoe]

because we seem to rub each other up the wrong way don't we?


Erm, not at all.

If I rub YOU up the wrong way I apologise, I was trying to be as diplomatic as possible. I'm just suggesting there is no debate or conversation to be had for me about God or the supernatural so I won't interact in this thread any more.

[NoraB]

I'm just suggesting there is no debate or conversation to be had for me about God or the supernatural so I won't interact in this thread any more.

With respect Joe, why did you find it necessary to comment on this thread about God in the first place if that's how you feel? :shrug:

I have an issue with you saying that there is no debate or conversation to be had for you about God or the supernatural and this declaration comes after you've made your personal beliefs abundantly clear. :unsure:

I don't think it's very fair for you to have your say, and ultimately shut me down (dressing it up as 'diplomacy') because I don't agree with you.

For my part, I probably shouldn't have asked you about your wife. You had already told me you didn't want to engage with me anymore but you started talking about NDEs and that is an interest of mine, and it's like catnip to a cat. I was genuinely interested in what you were saying about your wife but, yeah, I should have left it. But then you dangled the line back in with your response. You said the 'ridiculous' word about something that means a lot to people and all my chest hair stood up. You get me? :redcard:

Look, I believe in the afterlife and a creator. You don't. There is no right or wrong here. Let's move on eh?

[ankietyjoe]

Let's move on eh?

I'm trying to....

Just to be clear, I didn't say I didn't want to engage with YOU, I said I was out of THIS particular conversation. You're taking this incredibly personally for whatever reason, but I think it's important you actually read what I write, not read INTO what I write.

I have NO problems with you. Period.

[Solarbind]

Hi Wired, I'm a Christian, and my thoughts are that yes -God wants to bless you because He loves you! I don't believe in energies, but I do believe there are certain 'laws' that God put there, and I believe the good people do to us is all essentially from Him! Prayer is also said to help stress levels -I personally believe it's because we're not made to go solo, but to give our cares to a God who loves us. So I suppose when people meditate (even though I don't do it in that way) it's a case of perhaps forgetting those worries. Anyway, going off subject now! Interesting post!

I am a Christian too and I do agree with @TimetoTurn. God created us. And God is love so the actions of humans that loves God do reflect of who He is. Great post!

[WiredIncorrectly]

I understand how you feel NoraB, and I've felt the same way about Joe before. Joe's a good guy, and I've learned he's passionate about his feelings and debates just like we are about ours. He'd be excellent on a debate panel.

Whenever I enter a thread and debate with Joe, and anybody else, I leave my empathy at the door. Is that the right word empathy? I don't know lol. But in debate mode personal feelings are not considered. This is what happens in philosophical debates. It's like a war zone in a room full of philosophers debating on an idea. Then you see them all drinking coffee together in the café having a laugh.

I guess my tip is to stand your ground in debate and not let emotions come to surface.

<3 to all

[NoraB]

I'm trying to....

Just to be clear, I didn't say I didn't want to engage with YOU, I said I was out of THIS particular conversation.

Sorry, I'm confused. By 'conversation' do you mean this thread? The God bit? Ghosts? The whole thing? What?


You're taking this incredibly personally for whatever reason,

When you comment on my personal experiences by suggesting that it's all been in my head or whatever - I am entitled to respond. :huh:


but I think it's important you actually read what I write, not read INTO what I write.

I respond to what you've written.

"The idea that people come back with 'information' they didn't know before is ridiculous"

When you make comments like this, I'm going to respond because this has been documented time and time again with NDEs if you've ever bothered to research them in any kind of depth - which I have, and for 25 years.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't make it untrue or ridiculous, Joe.

[NoraB]

I understand how you feel NoraB, and I've felt the same way about Joe before. Joe's a good guy, and I've learned he's passionate about his feelings and debates just like we are about ours. He'd be excellent on a debate panel.

Well we might have to glue him to the chair and lock the exits if the debate is anything to do with God or the supernatural eh?:roflmao:


I guess my tip is to stand your ground in debate and not let emotions come to surface.

Well that's boring. :winks:
I get that you're playing peace keeper here WIC, but I'm absolutely fine. If Joe wants to stop poncing about and get back into the supernatural convo - I'm up for it. :dribble:

[Gary A]

Of course it doesn't PROVE it. It does SUGGEST it though, eh?

Suggesting something isn’t evidence. It’s just a story.


Paranormal definition: Events of phenomena which are BEYOND THE SCOPE OF NORMAL SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. :D


Well, my argument is that your experience IS explainable using normal scientific understanding. So perhaps, if we’re using dictionary definitions, your experience actually isn’t paranormal.


Just because science hasn't been able to prove these things yet doesn't mean they do not exist - as was my point about things 'not existing' until discovered and proved.

That’s just a never ending story that is utterly meaningless in science. There’s no scientific evidence of ghosts, spirits or the afterlife, so for me that’s where the story begins and ends. Narnia hasn’t been proven to exist, maybe that means it might exist? It makes no logical sense.


With the paranormal, we are dealing with something that isn't within our control in order to measure it scientifically. However, your life is full of personal experiences which you 'know' to be real but have not been proven by the scientific method.. :shrug:

Maybe yours has, mine certainly hasn’t. As I said earlier, I had what you might call a “paranormal experience” by thinking I heard my dead grandads voice as a child. Science tells me it was probably a product of my own mind. There’s a lot of scientifically validated evidence and research to suggest that’s exactly what it was. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that it may actually have been my dead grandad speaking to me. I’ll go with the one that’s actually got evidence behind it rather than throwing faith at it.


Except that you are making those presumptions without knowing me.

No, I’m putting forth the most logical explanation. I of course could be wrong, it’s just that I’m far far more likely to be right, based on the evidence, or lack thereof.


I don't think it would actually. Given that when science comes anywhere near being able to prove something paranormal using the scientific method - sceptics raise the bar, debunk, or ridicule.

That means that it’s debunkable, then, doesn’t it? So therefore not true. You seem to be more concerned with wanting it to be true rather than the story actually standing up to scientific scrutiny. Why is that? Surely if you’re so confident in a belief you’d have no problem having that belief scrutinised? If you’re annoyed at someone having a go at “debunking” it then perhaps the story doesn’t quite have the rock foundations you think they have.


What I'm saying is that, if you'd had experiences like mine, it's possible that you would think differently and your experience (and the more profound the better) would override your scientific thinking.

Maybe it would. That still wouldn’t be scientific evidence, though.

[AntsyVee]

Have any of you read the book Contact by Carl Sagan?

[WiredIncorrectly]

Well that's boring. :winks:
I get that you're playing peace keeper here WIC, but I'm absolutely fine. If Joe wants to stop poncing about and get back into the supernatural convo - I'm up for it. :dribble:

:yesyes:

I see you're big on NDE's. Me too. I think the most famous case is Pam Reynolds where her heartbeat was stopped, and her body temperature lowered, so they could perform the operation without her cells breaking down quickly. She was clinically dead yet was able to recall everything as she was watching it while it happened; while dead.

NDE's helped me accept death when my Dad died. I believed they were real long before then.

[WiredIncorrectly]

Have any of you read the book Contact by Carl Sagan?

I haven't. There's a film, but I think I'll check the book out. I love a good novel.

[AntsyVee]

Yes, you all should read it. It is extremely relevant to this discussion. The film isn't bad either.

[fishman65]

Narnia hasn’t been proven to exist, maybe that means it might exist? It makes no logical sense.
Narnia might not exist?? :ohmy:

[fishman65]

Yes, you all should read it. It is extremely relevant to this discussion. The film isn't bad either.Just read wikipedia about it Vee. That's my kind of film and book. I've always been fascinated by the wormhole theory, that time and space can be 'bent' by gravity so that vast distances are reduced to 'nipping next door'. Einstein proved (or theorised) that light is bent by gravity when a star on the other side of the sun was visible from Earth when it shouldn't have been. The Sun's gravitational field was bending that star's light. I've typed that from memory, Gary will probably be along later to pull it apart.

[Gary A]

Have any of you read the book Contact by Carl Sagan?

Yes. My favourite Sagan book, however, is “a demon haunted world”. I read it when I was around 15 and it utterly changed the way I view the world. I would encourage anyone to read that book, it’s jaw dropping and humbling all at the same time.

If you get a chance, watch the series “cosmos” presented by Sagan. A true ambassador for science, logic and reason.

[AntsyVee]

Yes. My favourite Sagan book, however, is “a demon haunted world”. I read it when I was around 15 and it utterly changed the way I view the world. I would encourage anyone to read that book, it’s jaw dropping and humbling all at the same time.

If you get a chance, watch the series “cosmos” presented by Sagan. A true ambassador for science, logic and reason.

Yes he was Gary. But he also knew that there are things that exist which we can't see and have no empirical evidence for yet. It's that dichotomy which I truly appreciate.

[Gary A]

Yes he was Gary. But he also knew that there are things that exist which we can't see and have no empirical evidence for yet. It's that dichotomy which I truly appreciate.

If I thought that the only things that existed were things that had only been discovered then I would be utterly undermining science.

Remember, just because I’m saying there’s no evidence of something doesn’t mean I’m categorically stating it doesn’t exist. People around here would do well to learn the difference.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Yes, you all should read it. It is extremely relevant to this discussion. The film isn't bad either.

Good film. I haven't seen it for years so can't remember much of it. Some similarities to the film, Interstellar?

I've read some books with similar themes such as Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds and Proxima by Stephen Baxter. Not the same as Contact but both feature wormhole and split reality themes.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Just read wikipedia about it Vee. That's my kind of film and book. I've always been fascinated by the wormhole theory, that time and space can be 'bent' by gravity so that vast distances are reduced to 'nipping next door'. Einstein proved (or theorised) that light is bent by gravity when a star on the other side of the sun was visible from Earth when it shouldn't have been. The Sun's gravitational field was bending that star's light. I've typed that from memory, Gary will probably be along later to pull it apart.

You would like the book Proxima, Fishman. That theme runs through it but I won't spoil how. I've still got the follow up to read. I would say Baxter, for me, is an author that doesn't always explain things but they are good reads (I've read several he co wrote with the late great Terry Pratchett). I felt Pratchett was held back compared to his Discworld series but his influences were very obvious. Worth a read though (The Long Earth et all) and even includes a schematic to build your own 'jumping' device (to travel between different earth realities) with the most important component being a potato.

Pushing Ice is more interstellar travel through the slipstream of a much more unknown and advanced alien technology.

One book I have read by Alastair Reynolds is very good, Terminal World. More a sort of old advanced world leaves remnants behind with the story set in future generations who no longer understand how they got what they have.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Oh, and Fishman, how could we forget Red Dwarf? Plenty of episodes for you there whether Timeslides, the parallel reality one, Angels & Demons, the Ace Rimmer theme and the infamous Rimmerworld! :roflmao:

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast" :yesyes:

Edit: and not forgetting Backwards. Earth running backwards in time. "In a few decades WW2 will start and suddenly millions of people will suddenly spring to life", "yeah but what about the bad things like at Christmas Santa Claus is the evil b@stard who sneaks down the chimney and steals all the kids toys." :roflmao:

[AntsyVee]

If I thought that the only things that existed were things that had only been discovered then I would be utterly undermining science.

Remember, just because I’m saying there’s no evidence of something doesn’t mean I’m categorically stating it doesn’t exist. People around here would do well to learn the difference.

Im not implying you said anything specific Gary, I’m just pointing this out for the discussion in general. I personally think science and religious/spiritual beliefs can coexist.

[NoraB]

Well, my argument is that your experience IS explainable using normal scientific understanding.

Science has several theories for why I saw a ghost, but it still doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist and that my experience wasn't real.


There’s no scientific evidence of ghosts, spirits or the afterlife, so for me that’s where the story begins and ends.

Well that's a very small world you have there, Gary!

Again, just because something hasn't been scientifically 'proven' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Science is a game changer, for sure. It's helped to shape our world as we know it, but it has limits..

Science cannot make moral or aesthetic judgements but we accept that these things exist anyway and these things are an fundamental part of life.

NO scientific theory has ever been proved beyond any doubt, or ever will be unless robots take over the planet - because scientists tend to have a pulse, and to be human is to make mistakes.

Also, science has drawn NO conclusions about the supernatural and some people (like you) take that to mean that ghosts and the afterlife doesn't exist whereas these things do exist to billions of people all over the world. What makes YOU right, and all those people wrong? :huh:

You put your faith into science which has been proved to be wrong time and time again because science isn't infallible. Scientists gave the thumbs up to a wonder drug called Thalidomide in the late 1950s in Germany. The drug was promoted to help with morning sickness, amongst other things, but turned out to be toxic to the developing foetus and the results were catastrophic!


Narnia hasn’t been proven to exist, maybe that means it might exist? It makes no logical sense.

Sorry to break this to you Gary, but Narnia is a fantasy world created by a dude called C.S Lewis...


I’m putting forth the most logical explanation. I of course could be wrong, it’s just that I’m far far more likely to be right, based on the evidence, or lack thereof.

My issue is that this is the obligatory 'of course I could be wrong' sandwiched in-between 'the most logical' and 'I'm far far - more likely to be right. :unsure:

And you could also be very very wrong, because, you know what? NOBODY REALLY KNOWS!


You seem to be more concerned with wanting it to be true rather than the story actually standing up to scientific scrutiny. Why is that? Surely if you’re so confident in a belief you’d have no problem having that belief scrutinised? If you’re annoyed at someone having a go at “debunking” it then perhaps the story doesn’t quite have the rock foundations you think they have.

Debunking is a pseudoskeptic tactic and it would seem that you don't understand the difference between this and scrutiny. :shrug:

There's no substance to your arguments, Gary. No meat. It's all veg and by that I mean that you keep trawling out the same old 'no proof', 'scientific method' la la la la la la comments that I've seen a thousand times - throwing in ridiculous comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now the fictional Narnia as way of argument?

Have you heard of Hayley Steven's? She's a prolific paranormal investigator and sceptic - critical thinker - humanist - all that jazz. However, her mother died three years ago and that changed her attitude somewhat. Maybe you'd like to read her blog post and understand how experience changes perspective? You'll find it on Hayley is a Ghost posted in 2017.

“When you’re lying in the dark alone, in a strange room, in an old house, it is comforting to hold on to science, to find sanctuary in physics, and to reassure yourself that ghosts probably don’t exist. But when you have just lost a person you loved, when you are that kind of alone in the dark, it is comforting to know, that they might.” Danny Robins

I don't know if you still have your mum and dad, but I don't. I haven't had a dad for 25 years or a mum for almost a decade. I miss them. I miss being a daughter. I haven't spoken about my most personal experiences with my mother after she died because her death hurt me the most, and still does. I don't want those experiences debunked or ridiculed. It doesn't matter if my mind played tricks on me. It doesn't matter if science - in general - thinks it didn't happen because it cannot measure and replicate it. There are scientists who do think the afterlife is real, just as there are scientists who believe in God. What matters is that my experiences comfort me because my mother is no longer around in the physical sense. Miss Stevens understands this now because she'd had an experience which she hasn't been able to find a logical reason for, but also because she doesn't want to. Of course I want my experiences to be true!

Bottom line: I am comfortable in my belief. Mine brings me hope, joy and comfort - things which science cannot prove but which humans universally accept - and it doesn't matter if what's beyond death is oblivion because there will be no part of me left to comprehend it - so it's a win-win situation for me. My belief gives me a warm feeling inside. I hope yours does the same for you cocker.

[Gary A]

Science has several theories for why I saw a ghost, but it still doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist and that my experience wasn't real.

You’re just repeating the same thing over and over now. I’ve said quite clearly that I can’t categorically say it was not a ghost but when faced with no evidence directly for or against an idea then surely you look for the simplest and most likely explanation? Again, that’s just simple logic is it not?




Well that's a very small world you have there, Gary!

Again, just because something hasn't been scientifically 'proven' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Again, just the same argument worded slightly differently. Again, I don’t and cannot say categorically that these things don’t exist, all I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence for it.


Also, science has drawn NO conclusions about the supernatural and some people (like you) take that to mean that ghosts and the afterlife doesn't exist whereas these things do exist to billions of people all over the world. What makes YOU right, and all those people wrong? :huh:

Now you’re blatantly putting words in my mouth and it’s getting slightly tiring. Please point out anywhere in this debate where I have said that ghosts and the afterlife categorically DO NOT exist? You can’t, because I haven’t said it. To repeat myself, all I’ve said is that there is no scientific evidence. Why don’t you try having a go at that without trying to put words in my mouth and arguing against them instead.


You put your faith into science which has been proved to be wrong time and time again because science isn't infallible. Scientists gave the thumbs up to a wonder drug called Thalidomide in the late 1950s in Germany. The drug was promoted to help with morning sickness, amongst other things, but turned out to be toxic to the developing foetus and the results were catastrophic!

Ah, so we’re now at a stage of being unable to dispute the lack of scientific evidence and now in the “let’s discredit science” part of this debate. Awesome. Science is very fallible, yes. Some of the biggest discoveries in history were made by mistake. Some of the most horrendous things, like neutron bombs, for example, have come from science. I’m not here to make science an angel, but science is a process of trying to test something until it either falls apart or stands up. It corrects itself when it’s wrong and constantly reviews itself.

The whole “I put my faith in science” part of your argument is an oxymoron. Science deals in evidence, it deals in fact and scrutiny. There is no such thing as faith in science, the idea is to prove or disprove based on evidence or lack thereof. You’ve already made it quite clear that you don’t like the idea of anyone “debunking” the paranormal, which tells me that you’re happy to put your faith in it rather than have it scrutinised.



Sorry to break this to you Gary, but Narnia is a fantasy world created by a dude called C.S Lewis...

It’s an idea put forth by a human being. As per your idea of human stories equating to evidence of existence, I’m not quite sure how there’s much of a difference between the two.



My issue is that this is the obligatory 'of course I could be wrong' sandwiched in-between 'the most logical' and 'I'm far far - more likely to be right. :unsure:

And you could also be very very wrong, because, you know what? NOBODY REALLY KNOWS!


Again it hinges on what’s most likely. We aren’t dealing in absolutes here because neither of us have the evidence to do so. So when that’s the case the most logical thing to do is go for the most likely explanation. It’s more likely, based on what we know about the brain and how it works, that your experience was a product of your own mind rather than it actually being a true paranormal experience.



There's no substance to your arguments, Gary. No meat. It's all veg and by that I mean that you keep trawling out the same old 'no proof', 'scientific method' la la la la la la comments that I've seen a thousand times - throwing in ridiculous comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now the fictional Narnia as way of argument?

The whole “no scientific evidence” part is about as meaty as it can get. It’s a fact that you simply can’t overcome but you’ll keep trying anyway.


Have you heard of Hayley Steven's? She's a prolific paranormal investigator and sceptic - critical thinker - humanist - all that jazz. However, her mother died three years ago and that changed her attitude somewhat. Maybe you'd like to read her blog post and understand how experience changes perspective? You'll find it on Hayley is a Ghost posted in 2017.

Speaking of arguments with no substance, here’s yet more anecdotal “evidence” from someone who’s clearly allowed their emotions to overcome their logic....


“When you’re lying in the dark alone, in a strange room, in an old house, it is comforting to hold on to science, to find sanctuary in physics, and to reassure yourself that ghosts probably don’t exist. But when you have just lost a person you loved, when you are that kind of alone in the dark, it is comforting to know, that they might.” Danny Robins


Again, no evidence, just a tug on the old heart strings.


I don't know if you still have your mum and dad, but I don't. I haven't had a dad for 25 years or a mum for almost a decade. I miss them. I miss being a daughter. I haven't spoken about my most personal experiences with my mother after she died because her death hurt me the most, and still does. I don't want those experiences debunked or ridiculed. It doesn't matter if my mind played tricks on me. It doesn't matter if science - in general - thinks it didn't happen because it cannot measure and replicate it. There are scientists who do think the afterlife is real, just as there are scientists who believe in God. What matters is that my experiences comfort me because my mother is no longer around in the physical sense. Miss Stevens understands this now because she'd had an experience which she hasn't been able to find a logical reason for, but also because she doesn't want to. Of course I want my experiences to be true!

And again, I’m not trying to take that away. However, if you bring that idea into a public forum and declare it as evidence of the afterlife then surely you must accept that someone might just have something to say about that? My only argument with you is that you said there was SCIENTIFIC evidence of the afterlife. That’s what I’m arguing against here, not about how good your belief makes you feel.


Bottom line: I am comfortable in my belief. Mine brings me hope, joy and comfort - things which science cannot prove but which humans universally accept - and it doesn't matter if what's beyond death is oblivion because there will be no part of me left to comprehend it - so it's a win-win situation for me. My belief gives me a warm feeling inside. I hope yours does the same for you cocker.

Reality makes me feel warm. Family, friends, all the things anyone really needs. I miss my dead friends and relatives, I’d give anything for a 5 minute chat with my grandad who I miss severely. When I dream about him I feel happy when I wake up. I have an old video on my phone of him laughing at a joke. I play it when I’m sad. I’m not an emotionally closed off robot, I would love nothing more than to believe that we will meet again. However, I feel that I cannot artificially believe in something in order to make me feel better. I feel better when I think of how good our relationship was in life, that he loved me and every time I was with him I made him happy. That might not be good enough for some, but it is for me.

[pulisa]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

[fishman65]

Oh, and Fishman, how could we forget Red Dwarf? Plenty of episodes for you there whether Timeslides, the parallel reality one, Angels & Demons, the Ace Rimmer theme and the infamous Rimmerworld! :roflmao:

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast" :yesyes:

Edit: and not forgetting Backwards. Earth running backwards in time. "In a few decades WW2 will start and suddenly millions of people will suddenly spring to life", "yeah but what about the bad things like at Christmas Santa Claus is the evil b@stard who sneaks down the chimney and steals all the kids toys." :roflmao:I'm going to confess Terry, I've never seen a single episode of Red Dwarf :blush:

[Gary A]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

See, this is where I’m failing to get my point across. I’m happy to see another person happy. If you’ve grieved for a loved one and you find something to blunt that grief, power to you I say.

However, when bringing that into a public forum I think it’s very important, also, to hear people who find comfort without having to invoke that type of thing.

This debate had seemed to be good natured and respectful, but at this point I’m out. Too much emotion and “feeling” involved for me. I fear I’m coming across as some cold hearted robot and that’s not what I am.

Whatever brings you comfort, keep it. God knows there is so much out there to make us all uncomfortable, so when you find a flip side to that then by all means cling on to it.

[fishman65]

See, this is where I’m failing to get my point across. I’m happy to see another person happy. If you’ve grieved for a loved one and you find something to blunt that grief, power to you I say.

However, when bringing that into a public forum I think it’s very important, also, to hear people who find comfort without having to invoke that type of thing.

This debate had seemed to be good natured and respectful, but at this point I’m out. Too much emotion and “feeling” involved for me. I fear I’m coming across as some cold hearted robot and that’s not what I am.

Whatever brings you comfort, keep it. God knows there is so much out there to make us all uncomfortable, so when you find a flip side to that then by all means cling on to it.Fair play to you Gary. Nobody thinks you're cold hearted, you're just a logical thinker. And like you say, it's important we have counter argument otherwise a debate becomes unbalanced through bias. And right now it's science, via vaccination, that is giving us all hope.

[Gary A]

Fair play to you Gary. Nobody thinks you're cold hearted, you're just a logical thinker. And like you say, it's important we have counter argument otherwise a debate becomes unbalanced through bias. And right now it's science, via vaccination, that is giving us all hope.

Probably why I’m on my science soap box right now. Nature has given us a virus that’s killing thousands of people a day, it’s wreaked havoc on all of our lives. Science has found a way to fight back and there’s a heartbreaking amount of us choosing pseudoscience over science. I honestly have a passion for science but the past few months have made me realise I’m alarmingly alone in that regard.

[AntsyVee]

Probably why I’m on my science soap box right now. Nature has given us a virus that’s killing thousands of people a day, it’s wreaked havoc on all of our lives. Science has found a way to fight back and there’s a heartbreaking amount of us choosing pseudoscience over science. I honestly have a passion for science but the past few months have made me realise I’m alarmingly alone in that regard.

I’ve been feeling this way as well. I good coworker of mine, two degrees, is saying she won’t get the vaccine. I don’t understand. Another coworker of mine is spouting conspiracy theories. These are people with years and years of education.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Probably why I’m on my science soap box right now. Nature has given us a virus that’s killing thousands of people a day, it’s wreaked havoc on all of our lives. Science has found a way to fight back and there’s a heartbreaking amount of us choosing pseudoscience over science. I honestly have a passion for science but the past few months have made me realise I’m alarmingly alone in that regard.

I think it's worth keeping in mind the vast majority of the human race has made no comment on Covid and vaccines. Protesters will always be loud and out there.

It's just the same as not judging all customers based on a few shouty ones.

[MyNameIsTerry]

I’ve been feeling this way as well. I good coworker of mine, two degrees, is saying she won’t get the vaccine. I don’t understand. Another coworker of mine is spouting conspiracy theories. These are people with years and years of education.

But would you consider them intelligent or good at passing qualifications? Education is an indicator but there are many with degrees that really aren't clever people.

Some of the part time (and full time) staff I've worked with made me despair. One once referred to some big bomb in a war when trying to talk about the ending of WWII by you guys. Another, studying law, was going to Belgium for a holiday but asked if it was in Europe.

No disrespect to your colleagues Vee.

If I really wanted to point out the lack of a connection between degree level education and common sense I would point out all those politicians we laugh at daily have excellent educations much of the time.

[AntsyVee]

But would you consider them intelligent or good at passing qualifications? Education is an indicator but there are many with degrees that really aren't clever people.

Some of the part time (and full time) staff I've worked with made me despair. One once referred to some big bomb in a war when trying to talk about the ending of WWII by you guys. Another, studying law, was going to Belgium for a holiday but asked if it was in Europe.

No disrespect to your colleagues Vee.

If I really wanted to point out the lack of a connection between degree level education and common sense I would point out all those politicians we laugh at daily have excellent educations much of the time.

True, just very frustrating. My higher power is education most of the time.

[NoraB]

Again, just the same argument worded slightly differently. Again, I don’t and cannot say categorically that these things don’t exist, all I’m saying is that there is no scientific evidence for it.

"There’s no scientific evidence of ghosts, spirits or the afterlife, so for me that’s where the story begins and ends."

It's the latter half of the sentence which I have a problem with, Gary.


Now you’re blatantly putting words in my mouth and it’s getting slightly tiring. Please point out anywhere in this debate where I have said that ghosts and the afterlife categorically DO NOT exist?

The comment you're on about is a response to you repeatedly banging on about science and how your belief is based on there being 'no scientific proof'. I have pointed out to you that science makes mistakes - it's made a LOT of mistakes - and as a result has done some major U-turns - and this imperfect system is what you've put your belief in. You don't believe in the possibility of an afterlife - that's clear to me. When you say things like ' This is where the story 'ends'' - in other words - Conclusion. Termination. Finish. Close. You don't need to say that the afterlife categorically does not exist for me to see that. Also, you know you can't do that and have any credibility as a 'sceptic', but that doesn't mean it's not what you think, and it's other things you say which make me think this is the case.


You can’t, because I haven’t said it. To repeat myself, all I’ve said is that there is no scientific evidence. Why don’t you try having a go at that without trying to put words in my mouth and arguing against them instead.

See bolded comment Your words, not mine. :unsure:


Ah, so we’re now at a stage of being unable to dispute the lack of scientific evidence and now in the “let’s discredit science” part of this debate. Awesome. Science is very fallible, yes. Some of the biggest discoveries in history were made by mistake. Some of the most horrendous things, like neutron bombs, for example, have come from science. I’m not here to make science an angel, but science is a process of trying to test something until it either falls apart or stands up. It corrects itself when it’s wrong and constantly reviews itself.

Science is wonderful. No argument. I'm not a moron. But it's also infallible and limited in what it can measure - the afterlife etc is one of those things it cannot currently measure. To you, that means that there is nothing to measure, end of. End of story and all that. That's what I'm saying Gary.


You’ve already made it quite clear that you don’t like the idea of anyone “debunking” the paranormal, which tells me that you’re happy to put your faith in it rather than have it scrutinised.

Already explained that, but sod it, I'll have another go..

A sceptic is someone who is undecided as to what is true. Going by your own words - which do not have to include that the afterlife categorically does not exist - you are obviously NOT undecided - otherwise 'the story' wouldn't have ended would it? Come on!!

By using comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now, Narnia - you have already shown yourself as a debunker, rather than a sceptic. Even if it wasn't your intention to ridicule my experiences by using such idiotic comparisons - that is a tactic of the pseudoskeptic. :shrug:


We aren’t dealing in absolutes here because neither of us have the evidence to do so. So when that’s the case the most logical thing to do is go for the most likely explanation. It’s more likely, based on what we know about the brain and how it works, that your experience was a product of your own mind rather than it actually being a true paranormal experience.

Gary, I honestly see your point, but it's a lot easier for you - who hasn't had my experiences - to conclude that I imagined them. I was there and the most likely explanations just didn't fit. I couldn't even make them fit. So that leaves imagination - only I have a witness to one experience (who saw the same thing) and if my mother and father were alive today - they would confirm that I asked my dad to check my keyboard over and the reason why. This makes it less likely that I imagined the whole thing, and to be honest, I'd like to think that my brain would have coughed up something far more exciting than it did. So, sleep walking? I've considered it, but if that was the case it was an isolated case because there is no evidence to suggest that I've ever sleep-walked. The major aspect of my experience that science cannot explain is why I felt something that I'd never felt before, or since - not even when I had my children - who I love more than anything on this planet. Nothing any sceptic has ever suggested comes close to being able to explain that - given that I wasn't on medication, and was fit and well. Even so, I have to accept the possibility that my brain, for some reason spaffed out this incredible and overwhelming sensation, feeling, whatever - of which the words DO NOT EXIST that would do it any kind of justice. But, to me, who does accept the possibility of an afterlife, it means that what I experienced could have been because consciousness survives biological death.


The whole “no scientific evidence” part is about as meaty as it can get.

With respect Gary - it really isn't. It's a shutdown statement. Science can't prove or disprove it so it 'doesn't exist'. End of. Whereas beyond that obstacle of the scientific method it is a wealth of information, theories, studies, anecdotes etc - and I find that very exciting.


Speaking of arguments with no substance, here’s yet more anecdotal “evidence” from someone who’s clearly allowed their emotions to overcome their logic....

When it comes to God or afterlife debates there has to be a for and an against and those who are 'for' will generally have had profound personal experiences which led them to their belief, so emotion is always going to come into it on my side.


Again, no evidence, just a tug on the old heart strings.

My point - which has seemingly bypassed you - is that experience changes perspective. As I pointed out with Hayley. Her experience might not have made a believer out of her, but I imagine her attitude towards believers is a little kinder for having had it?


And again, I’m not trying to take that away. However, if you bring that idea into a public forum and declare it as evidence of the afterlife then surely you must accept that someone might just have something to say about that?

Except that I responded to a thread which was clearly about God started by someone who clearly has faith and beliefs similar to my own.

I'm not saying that you don't have as much right to comment on this thread as I do - like you say - it's a public forum - but it interests me why you feel the need to.


My only argument with you is that you said there was SCIENTIFIC evidence of the afterlife. That’s what I’m arguing against here, not about how good your belief makes you feel.

There is scientific evidence for stuff like telekinesis and other paranormal stuff, and also for NDEs, but none which science as a collective accepts - which is how theories and ideas come to be accepted, yes? It's scientists arguing against other scientists with the ball spending the majority of time in your half because of the issue of using the scientific method to try and prove something that is beyond what science can currently measure. However, when I use the word evidence, I mean personal evidence - anecdotes - which are compelling enough for scientists to want to plough money into trying to be able to prove the afterlife via the scientific method. If the concept was so ridiculous, do you really think people would bother?


Reality makes me feel warm. Family, friends, all the things anyone really needs. I miss my dead friends and relatives, I’d give anything for a 5 minute chat with my grandad who I miss severely. When I dream about him I feel happy when I wake up. I have an old video on my phone of him laughing at a joke. I play it when I’m sad. I’m not an emotionally closed off robot, I would love nothing more than to believe that we will meet again. However, I feel that I cannot artificially believe in something in order to make me feel better. I feel better when I think of how good our relationship was in life, that he loved me and every time I was with him I made him happy. That might not be good enough for some, but it is for me.

I never said you were emotionally closed off, Gary. And if your belief comforts you - I am genuinely pleased for you - because we all have to get through life somehow don't we?

Perhaps, my reality - which has at times bordered on the horrific, means that I need something other-worldly to hang onto? I don't know cocker. All I know is that something happened to me when I was 13 which took away my fear of death - and even if everything else I believe is wrong, that is real in anyone's book - even yours.

[NoraB]

:yesyes:

I see you're big on NDE's. Me too. I think the most famous case is Pam Reynolds where her heartbeat was stopped, and her body temperature lowered, so they could perform the operation without her cells breaking down quickly. She was clinically dead yet was able to recall everything as she was watching it while it happened; while dead.

Yes. Some of what she said was verified by those who were doing the operation. It's an interesting one for sure..


NDE's helped me accept death when my Dad died. I believed they were real long before then.

I find them fascinating. Have you read any of Dr Penny Sartori's books on NDEs?

Also, Chris Carter's Science and the Afterlife Experience. That's another good one...something for you to get your teeth into rather than books which trawl out anecdote after anecdote - interesting as they are...

[NoraB]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

Excellent comment P.

[Gary A]

The comment you're on about is a response to you repeatedly banging on about science and how your belief is based on there being 'no scientific proof'. I have pointed out to you that science makes mistakes - it's made a LOT of mistakes - and as a result has done some major U-turns - and this imperfect system is what you've put your belief in. You don't believe in the possibility of an afterlife - that's clear to me. When you say things like ' This is where the story 'ends'' - in other words - Conclusion. Termination. Finish. Close. You don't need to say that the afterlife categorically does not exist for me to see that. Also, you know you can't do that and have any credibility as a 'sceptic', but that doesn't mean it's not what you think, and it's other things you say which make me think this is the case.

Ok, so not only are you putting words in my mouth you’re now telling me what I think as well?

Here’s a simple way of me saying it. Until testable evidence becomes available for ANY claim, there’s no reason for me to “believe” in it. No, I’m not saying that these things categorically don’t exist, despite your bizarre insistence that I have. I’m just saying there’s no evidence and until some becomes available, the story is over for me. That’s me, not you. That’s how I treat it. I never said you had to do the same.


A sceptic is someone who is undecided as to what is true. Going by your own words - which do not have to include that the afterlife categorically does not exist - you are obviously NOT undecided - otherwise 'the story' wouldn't have ended would it? Come on!!

Again, utterly determined to insist I’ve said something that I haven’t. I’m not even “undecided” either, I just don’t have any reason to believe in it. You’re so insistent on personal experience being a deciding factor but apparently my own personal experience doesn’t matter a jot to you.


By using comparisons like pink unicorns, giant marshmallows and now, Narnia - you have already shown yourself as a debunker, rather than a sceptic. Even if it wasn't your intention to ridicule my experiences by using such idiotic comparisons - that is a tactic of the pseudoskeptic. :shrug:

Now being told what I am. Bit of a pattern emerging here. You know what I think and now you’ve apparently managed to slap a label on me as well. I wonder, how would I look right now if I slapped a label on you? A few posts back I was being chastised for making assumptions as I didn’t know you. I guess your own rules don’t apply to you.


With respect Gary - it really isn't. It's a shutdown statement. Science can't prove or disprove it so it 'doesn't exist'. End of. Whereas beyond that obstacle of the scientific method it is a wealth of information, theories, studies, anecdotes etc - and I find that very exciting.

I’ll repeat it again. There is no scientific evidence of the afterlife. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

If there is, please provide it.


My point - which has seemingly bypassed you - is that experience changes perspective. As I pointed out with Hayley. Her experience might not have made a believer out of her, but I imagine her attitude towards believers is a little kinder for having had it?

No, it didn’t bypass me, it’s just not evidence. If I had one of these “profound” experiences and turned into a believer, it still wouldn’t be based on science.

As I said above, I’m done now with this. It’s a hell of a long way to go to just say “there’s no scientific evidence” of something.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Comfort and belief mean different things to different people. So. what if there isn't a scientific explanation? Not everything is black and white and those grey bits are significant and valid to many people. Emotion can't be quantified or qualified in a scientific context thank goodness. Whatever makes you happy and gives you strength is so important in life I feel, with or without a scientific seal of approval

This reminds me of my experiences with vitamin D in helping stop the mood swings caused by my antidepressant. I don't get the swings as much or the same now despite not taking vitamin D for a while (need to restart :doh:) but my experience of the time overrides science in my opinion for me.

Studies were mixed. Some show it works, some couldn't prove it. The answer was until they get a clear answer they can't say for sure but also didn't dismiss the possibility that could change and the scientific community agree on it. It was pointed out it was up to individual choice and experience until then.

Within a month my swings greatly decreased. Forgot to take it at Xmas and within weeks I deteriorated. Restarted and within weeks I rebalanced. All anecdotal but the change was very noticeable and several years of suffering them wasn't wiped out by me being susceptible to the power of suggestion with a placebo.

Now science might have since proved it. But science also tells me antidepressants work and many of us know that is a very uncertain proof. Such proof is often based on short term study with dirty data (anyone more complex than basic anxiety) removed. So, again we have possibility of efficiency over any guarantee. Measure that against a BP med which just does it's job and the science becomes more concrete.

[WiredIncorrectly]

I've got something to share. Since I made this thread I've observed the views of others and shone my torch down those rabbit holes.

It caused me to become disconnected from Islam. My prayer alarms would go off and I'd dismiss them. "I'm too tired for prayer", or "Allah will forgive me anyway". I stopped reading the Qur'an. I stopped learning Arabic. I stopped watching Arabic comedy (which is great by the way!).

It's like, for a good few days I became lost from my beliefs. And I whole heartedly felt the disconnect. I really struggled with anxiety and depression during this period too. My motivation was gone. I became moody and agitated.

I didn't know what it was that was causing this. I didn't feel any guilt for not praying. I didn't feel any fear for not praying. Allah knows my heart before I know it myself. But the change, and the desire, and the flame ... it must come from within.

My alarm went off today and I dismissed it again. And then I stopped and thought: "James, what is it you believe? If it's Islam and Allah you have to the steps towards your faith". A "can't be bothered", or "half heartedly bothered", attitude doesn't suffice for something you truly believe in. That goes for all things in life.

I prayed. As I prayed I felt the weight of depression lift from me. I feel that connection with the Universe again.

What a wonderful day today :bighug1:

[pulisa]

It doesn't matter what you believe in....If it improves the quality of your life and doesn't harm anyone then it's valid.

[AntsyVee]

It doesn't matter what you believe in....If it improves the quality of your life and doesn't harm anyone then it's valid.

Amen

[fishman65]

Within a month my swings greatly decreased. Forgot to take it at Xmas and within weeks I deteriorated. Restarted and within weeks I rebalanced. All anecdotal but the change was very noticeable and several years of suffering them wasn't wiped out by me being susceptible to the power of suggestion with a placebo. Terry this was the same story for me after starting on citalopram in 2001. I had come out of a very rotten few years before this. Losing a close aunt, mother, brother and step-mother within a 5 year period. Fathering a daughter too, all of this had a significant impact on my mental health.

I was switched from dothiepin to the citalopram early 2001 and I noticed an immediate improvement. I put this down to citalopram, not just in part but totally. Looking back now, I firmly believe the almost total recovery from anxiety/depression between 2001 and autumn 2008 was at least partly the placebo effect. The question is, does it really matter whether this improvement was purely chemical or down to my belief that it was? Science and belief running parallel and yet interwoven.

[WiredIncorrectly]

It doesn't matter what you believe in....If it improves the quality of your life and doesn't harm anyone then it's valid.

I love this.