My theory about "skeptics"

[Chester]

I believe a skeptic is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their life, they pathologically search for security during this one lifetime. They perceive with their mind that if they figure out well enough the physical realm they are currently living in that this provides them the safety and security they require “to live knowing it all ends” but also that this assists them to live their whole life avoiding the facing of their fear. “Miraculous events” either never occur, because they do not open to the possibility they actually play a role in their generation, or worse, they create that that they don’t (at least for them).

Can a being choose this path in life? Of course. And many do and I make the odds high that we all possess a creative ability and in these types the experience of skeptics reflect back proof that “they are right” in their view we live in some randomly occurring, disconnected reality.

Meanwhile, folks like me live in a truly magical kingdom and no money or power over others could ever provide an experience anywhere near the one I have daily.

EDIT - added for clarification

This was not the most well thought out post and was in part, emotionally inspired. In this post, I took some giant leaps and made some massive assumptions which took the thread down the wrong road initially.

So I need to clarify a few things - One is that the primary target I had in mind when writing this thread are those who are almost militantly skeptical about the possibility that life is connected in more ways than what are observed and measured by and through the 5 senses. That there may be a field where various levels of our consciousness could be connected in a way we have yet to be able to explain (and reproduce consistently) scientifically. Some call this the 6th sense, some call it psi abilities. Some scientific minded folks I know refer to it as the phenomena that gives them support to the idea we are all connected in some quantum way.

Where I went wrong in this OP was that I implied others should then come to a similar conclusion to what I have come to, which is that whatever "i" am... this "i" appears to be non physical and even unbound to time. In fact, this "i" I have discovered appears to be nothing but awareness that I am aware. Thus the very first step "awareness itself" takes into "form" in any way. My primal "identity." And that because of the one tiny OBE I have had and the various experiences I have had in my dream state, I concluded that there is something beyond just this simple awareness and then that first step where something is aware of being aware that appears to remain in tact beyond localization within my waking state physical body and the world it appears to reside in - something that still retains individuality and identity... perhaps this is what folks call "the spirit."

And so with all of my experiences in mind and all the conclusions I have drawn from it, what I have found is that the egoic I that "i" might have derived, that 'i" might inhabit, that "i" might operate may indeed disappear and in fact may simply be an illusion I dreamed up... but because of all my experiences, I am completely fine with this possibility.

Let me restate. I have reached a stage in my experience where my ego appears to be fine and happy with the possibility of its own demise. In fact, it accepts the argument that it may very well be nothing but an illusion and thus most likely has an end.

This has allowed "me" (whatever that may be which may actually be "no thing" or "nothing") to be absolutely free of fear.

So I can see how a primal identity can extend beyond the life of my body and yet I can also see how even that is perhaps simply an illusion and that one day I may bet tired or bored with even that whereupon this "that" reabsorbs into the nothingness from which it came.

None of this has anything to do with any religion nor should then lead anyone to think it implies some "God" or "gods" or "creative source" exists unless you consider that I might consider all those things to possibly exist within the illusion, that we are these things and they are us, that it can be seen (in a way) as all one living organism within which our individual, illusory spirits manifest in various forms and that we are intrinsically connected with all within this illusion and that we, at some level of our consciousness, even perhaps at only our very first step into consciousness, play a conscious role in how this illusion rolls out.

Hopefully this clarifies things... (although I am concerned it may confuse some even worse!!)

[RMorgan]

Hey brother,

Your theory could easily be reverted to "believers" by just changing some words:

I believe a believer is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their lives, they pathologically search for security by inventing a place where they'll be happy forever and ever after their bodies perish. They perceive with their mind that if they figure out well enough about the spiritual realm it will provide them the safety and comfort they require to bear out with the idea that there might be no life after physical death but also that this assists them to live their whole lives avoiding the facing of their fear.

You see, no one has the answer, my friend.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Dorjezigzag]

no one has the answer

This is from Osho-

Life is not a problem. Rather, it is a mystery to be lived not a problem to be solved. But it becomes a problem; and it becomes a problem because you go on postponing things, postponing them for tomorrow.

That which can be done today, that which should be done today, cannot be done tomorrow. That which would have been a beautiful phenomenon today – a mystery to be lived – tomorrow will become a very hard and cold problem to be solved.

Life in itself, if lived here and now, is not a problem. Postponement creates problems, and then you go on piling up. Then so much gathers around you that it becomes almost impossible to live – you are paralyzed, crippled, in a straitjacket, imprisoned. First try to understand this, then it will be easy to enter into the sutra.

I was saying, just a few days before, that even a genius, a very talented person – he may be a Nobel Prize winner, a great intellectual, world-known – still may behave in a childish way.

[naste.de.lumina]

Hey brother,

Your theory could easily be reverted to "believers" by just changing some words:

I believe a believer is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their lives, they pathologically search for security by inventing a place where they'll be happy forever and ever after their bodies perish. They perceive with their mind that if they figure out well enough about the spiritual realm it will provide them the safety and comfort they require to bear out with the idea that there might be no life after physical death but also that this assists them to live their whole lives avoiding the facing of their fear.

You see, no one has the answer, my friend.

Cheers,

Raf.

Look for this perspective for a moment

We are already in this place . The Universe .
We are made of it and it is in us .
There is no outside .
The universe is a single consciousness.
When we understand this, our consciousness will merge ( phase , frequency ) with the universal consciousness . And we ' will be ' this happy place forever .
Our brain ( embodied ) energy emits on average 13-20 cycles (frequency ) per second .
An atom emits 3 trillion cycles per second .
We must raise our vibration too (frequency ) to get inside in phase with the greater consciousness of the universe .
And only the feelings derived from love, are able to raise these vibrations .
No use just thinking about love.
It is necessary to really feel love.
When our individual consciousness is elevated to the point of getting to this union , we will think and feel as the 'All' , then we are co - creators of the universe .
And it all comes down to frequency of consciousness.
This is not belief. It is not fancy.
The quantum physics supports this perspective.
Science honest , not science tailored to increasingly controls the paradigm

There is a huge difference between believing and knowing .


Raf friendly hug .

I've posted this video on another topic.
But for anyone who has not seen it is worth, is four minutes that will make you think.

hkyRFkowWkA

[RMorgan]

Well... My point is that I'm an atheist. I'm a skeptic.

I live a very happy life. For me, life is beautiful by itself, independently of the existence or non-existence of a god or an afterlife.

I've witnessed inexplicable phenomena first hand, but for me, they're not miracles; they simply can't be explained yet, just like many things that can be explained now couldn't be explained a hundred years ago...Does it make life less fascinating? Not at all. Life is beautiful.

Do I have anything against believers? Not at all, as long as they don't try to shove down their beliefs down my throat.

What matters in people, from my perspective, is their word, their character. There are many believers or unbelievers of many beliefs or "unbeliefs" out there who simply fail to follow the most simple ethical principles, required to coexist peacefully with everyone and everything on this planet.

Of course, many people, believers or skeptics, hide behind masks made of dogmas, whether scientific, religious or spiritual ones. I don't hide behind anything...I'm just humble enough to admit that some things can't be known in the present time, and I don't mean to find any excuses to fill this gigantic hole left by many unanswered questions. Instead of inventing something to artificially answer my many doubts and be done with it, like most people do through religions and beliefs, I simply go and try to figure them out giving the best of myself in the process.

Regarding life after physical death, I challenge anyone to tell me with sincerity and certainty, if they have the answer. It could be something, it could be anything or it could be nothing...I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

All I know is that I am perfectly peaceful and tranquil regarding my current convictions.

I don't fear death, but I hope my death to be natural and painless, of course. Does it really matter what will happen or what will not happen after it? I don't think it does.

Anyway, I'm ok with your beliefs and I'm always ready to listen and dialogue about their foundations, just like I'm ok and I really enjoy when intelligent people question my own.

Life is this. We don't know many things, but we already know a lot and we must always keep looking for more answers. That's the process, and if we have the chance, we may be able to answer the really big questions with certainty somewhere in the future...For now, I just hope we all could deal with our doubts, which are very natural, transparently, peacefully and compassionately.

All the best, my friends,

Raf.

[greybeard]

A skeptic has very strong belief in their opinion.
They live by that belief.
Chris

[Chester]

Hey brother,

Your theory could easily be reverted to "believers" by just changing some words:

I believe a believer is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their lives, they pathologically search for security by inventing a place where they'll be happy forever and ever after their bodies perish. They perceive with their mind that if they figure out well enough about the spiritual realm it will provide them the safety and comfort they require to bear out with the idea that there might be no life after physical death but also that this assists them to live their whole lives avoiding the facing of their fear.

You see, no one has the answer, my friend.

Cheers,

Raf.

Interesting twist - and how I resolved that is by accepting I don't know. But what has transformed my life into a magical kingdom where a third party observer who is also an utmost skeptic finds their eyebrows raised is because of the bet I made and because I live my life as if I won that bet.

Specifically the bet I made is that I (as all of us likely are) am an eternal being connected to all.

Try it. Your entire world view might just change.

[Vitalux]

a truly magical kingdom and no money or power over others could ever provide an experience anywhere near the one I have daily.


Wonderful outlook!

It is amazing, the amount of work and dedication that Source did, just to create such a beautiful sky, yet most fail to notice it as often as they might.

http://cs301508.userapi.com/v301508540/5293/hQY_06t-h0M.jpg

[Chester]

Well... My point is that I'm an atheist. I'm a skeptic.
I live a very happy life. For me, life is beautiful by itself, independently of the existence or non-existence of a god.


I don't believe in "God" or a "god" unless that thing someone wants to call "God" is us - both individually and collectively or as Tim Freke coined - "paralogically."

I nice bi-product of my view is the logical conclusion that to be at war with anyone is to be at war with myself... thus, love for all, including oneself has the best prospects for a lasting, invigorating, enriching future for all which also includes my expression called - Chester.

[naste.de.lumina]

Some considerations.

It was proved in laboratories around the world (double-slit experiment) that through awareness of an observer, one wave energy possibilities transforms into probability, and then a reality in the form of a particle, according to the conscious desire or unaware of the observer.
This fact proves that the atom is aware of the desire of the consciousness of the observer.
We are also composed of atoms.
So we are all made of the same consciousness.
After acquiring this information there is no way back to not knowing.
Can we ignore it? Do not like how the universe works will not change it.
When skepticism starts to ignore an aspect of reality proven, it can become a belief also.
Cognitive dissonance occurs.

We must ask ourselves.
Why such important information as this does not spread immediately throughout the world (viral)?
Because understanding the meaning of this experiment by the people, would change everything. As a snap.
It's more of the same, control and power.

Mass = energy = information.
The experiment that made teleportation of an atom, means what?
That the electromagnetic field of the atom, implicitly contains all the information about that atom. Past, present and future.
The electromagnetic field of a book contains all the information from that book.
And so forth.
All your information is implicit in the electromagnetic field.

So consciousness is information and energy at the same time.
All thoughts and knowledge that occurred in the universe is written in the form of energy. Just find a way to access it.
It's like the universe is to know.

The organized form of trillion trillion trillion atoms electromagnetic fields, as is becoming more complex acquires self-consciousness by accumulation of energy and information exchange. In ultimately are pure information. An idea to develop own self-consciousness.
But we can easily put all this information in a context more stylized, calling these consciousnesses (energy packets) of spirits and changing the names of frequencies reality for threshold or purgatory, hell and so on.

And these frequencies are for real, not fantasy.
Therefore I seek to learn about them to not get lost in an ocean of energy that attract each other according to their vibrational frequencies.
Ie your body of thoughts and feelings.
To escape unite with low frequencies is necessary to raise your frequency.
There is no other way.

Understood that it is possible to access the information that allow review every millionth of a second movement of energy and information (history) of the universe.
What is not possible to do with this information = energy?
For good or for evil.

Realize the power of expanded consciousness?
And the responsibility?
Because an electromagnetic field bigger and more powerful attracts emanating proportionally. Law of action and reaction. There is no proof vest anti-matter.

My conscience compels me to repeat certain contexts as often as needed because we can not keep you pair information. Knowledge can not be owned. My intention is also recorded in the magnetic field of the information they are reading now.

[Agape]

Contrary to our common convictions , I'd say ..more than 90% of our human understanding is based on believe , trust, faith ..no matter what you call it.. rather than otherwise .
While every authority in your life is trying to convince you that THEY KNOW because they were taught to believe this , and whole generations of people were organised to paternally, principally controlled society or forms of society , religious or scientific that was run by people convinced that THEY KNOW ,
at the bottom of every scientific theory , religious dogma, esoteric school and so on ..
your few percents of scientific honesty and personal credibility and ultimate purity, whatever you have, stands witness to admitting that THEY DON'T.

This isn't to be another absolutistic hypothesis or statement , it's a simple observation and matter of fact ,
and it should be , more openly , honestly presented in such a way whether in science or philosophy classes , not to mention spiritualists and religious interpretations of cosmic laws .

Simple as that, all you do at this moment or any other moment in your life is based on belief . You have to believe the person you talk to is still there,
there is no proof I have at the moment that you are still there ,
yet , I have to believe it.

As someone has nicely put it to me at long hours of waiting for train at Benares train station,
lawyer and philosopher by profession who had long while ..and time to talk,
all of our empirical understanding , including the one we collect proofs of and are so proud of those proofs , is a belief .
He said ''why do you think of your parents as of your parents'' , because you've been told about it, you adopted the belief . You have no proof they are or not . It's a faith.

He knew nothing of 'my parents' and my ET encounters , and what was going in my head that time, not that of I'd tell.

You eat this food because you believe it's good for you and contains no poison, my teachers used to say, it means you trust the cook. You also trust the person who planted the seeds and the bakery and the serve .

Most things we do , automatically, we have no proof for .. this includes most standing 'scientific' theories and if you ask honest scientists , medical practitioner or mathematician how much they truly understand their 'science' ,
they smile and say 'I know nothing personally' . All we have is guesses, theories and we have to believe they are right.

Those more advanced dare to add that most of the current theories / beliefs will be disproved in next 500 years ( about 90% ) ,
but we have no chance and way than to believe in what we do , and repeat the experiments .. till it holds little better .. even if at the end it may also prove totally false .


That's why .. GOOD FAITH ... is so important .. it will be important till the end and beyond .. this earth . Certainty and what you call 'truth' is very fragile flower on earth and very rare .

:tea:


Empirically again, the only thing reliable is memory .. even though it can be doubtful and faulty in many ways ..
if you remain honest to your memory , it won't deceive you .

[johnf]

In order to be skeptical about something I need to believe that there is a more correct
reality that needs to be defended.
Whatever is behind that is my belief.
I am horrified at how many times I have tried to defend something I have offered as a way to look at things.
The more I practice looking at what I really think is real, the calmer I become on the battlefield of belief.
This alleviation of fear, and compulsive arguing, seems to be the real purpose of my life, behind the more obvious chores that are there to be done.

Didn't Benjamin franklin say neither a convincer nor convincee be?
Lol, well someone should have.

jf

[ceetee9]

I believe a skeptic is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their life, they pathologically search for security during this one lifetime.I think you're painting with too broad a brush here justoneman.

A person can be skeptical about many things, not just about whether or not there is anything after this life. For example, I question many things not because I fear death or what may or may not happen when I die, but because I have a genuine desire to understand the subject matter of a claim and wish to find sufficient evidence to either support or refute that claim; particularly when I have little or no knowledge or experience regarding the claim. I question things because I believe it is paramount for everyone to base their life on truth and knowledge and not on lies and falsehoods.

Unfortunately, far too many people appear to have little or no desire to question most anything—particularly certain beliefs; especially if the discovery of the truth, or, at least, ample evidence pointing toward the truth, may go against the indoctrination of their belief. IMO, this is one of the primary reasons why the world is as screwed up as it is. The majority of people would rather let others do their thinking for them for whatever reason.

I have beliefs just like everyone else, but I also have an open mind and do not fear having those beliefs challenged. I don't pretend to know all there is to know about anything and I welcome new knowledge. But if there's anything I can say with no fear of contradiction it is that the more I learn, the more I realize just how precious little I actually do know. But I still enjoy life and the search for truth, knowledge and wisdom.

[johnf]

someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness

I find that part of that sentence to be the most interesting thing here, it is an extreme example of something more subtle.
If we can look at this imaginary self, we can find it does not really exist.
Trace down any fear long enough, with the proper tools it will turn into something else.
I have never found anyone who will argue that the body doesn't die.
So any sense of concern over the existence or non existence of the self
now, or after death can be looked straight at and converted into something more helpful.
The theory is that the end product is pure consciousness, but the practice shows We can become more relaxed, and have more attention to live life with.

jf

[rgray222]

My view is that skeptics are extremely necessary, particularly in the world of alternative news, alternative world theories and even alternative medicine. We should welcome their words and we should honestly read and listen to what they have to say.

If they can put forward honest and valid research, about why they do not believe something, then we should strongly considered their case. In the event that they put forward a well thought out, logical case and it is not enough to change your mind than they have done you a true service. In a way they have confirmed your belief. Theories, ideas, beliefs and concepts without intelligent skepticism is meaningless. In many ways a good skeptic validates a point of view that we hold as important.

Putting any thing up for review is never easy and we should always be ready for people to take shots, but if what you are putting forward holds water there is nothing better than to have it reviewed by a team of skeptics. If a skeptic changes your mind, attitude or behavior than he/she has once again provide you with an important service.

Now, there are naysayers, professional debunkers, simply put, idiots, that challenge everything without so much as an intelligent thought. This group does not deserve attention or to be given a stage for their unwanted and unwarranted behavior.

[Shezbeth]

I find proper skepticism as being equatable to a thorough analysis and testing based on the qualifiers of possibility, plausibility, and probability, but that only determines the most likely case; Yet there comes a point where the case is well established. Still, I continually find myself commenting that "One cannot yet rule it out" or "It is well within the threshold of possibility" when engaged in social deliberation.

[Mike]

hey Raf,

first off, you're rebuttal in post #2 was worded perfectly, was relentlessly logical...and is basically what I was going to write myself before you beat me to the punch, so damn you:)

I do recall you writing once that your extended family is very religious, not very shy about it, and quite aggressive with lecturing you on your atheist philosophy (that is you, right?) I wonder if this might play a role in your thinking. a subconscious rebellion, perhaps?

not so much in your thinking regarding religious dogma (perfectly understandable), but in your thinking regarding the possible existence of a "God", or creator. I wonder if you're confusing the idea of a creator with the idea of religion, or religious dogma. or maybe I don't really understand atheism at all, and should do a little research before I begin blabbering:o

because if you are at least open to the idea of a creator, but are willing to admit you're not too clear on the details, perhaps you are closer to being an agnostic. on the flip side, if you are stubbornly opposed to the idea of a God or creator, then I might suggest that this type of belief/blind certainly is no less dogmatic than that of a religious fundamentalist. in fact, I might argue that an atheist, in many ways, requires more "faith", or just as much blind faith as a dedicated religionist, as both profess to know the ultimate truth. it's quite a bold stance. the only difference is that one believes in a God and the other doesn't, but the modus operandi of thought is nearly identical.

simply put, the odds of intelligent, biological life forming on any planet are infinitesimally small. I am not religious, and do not profess to know all the answers - not by a long shot - but with this in mind, I find it easier to have "faith" in an intelligent force...a creator. it seems only logical.

anyway, nothing is more annoying than religious debate, and I am certainly not trying to convert you. I wouldn't even know what to convert you to!..as my beliefs change almost daily. I do appreciate your humble approach, and believe if everyone lived with this mentality then the world would be a much better place. but I have to say: I would have never taken you for an out and out atheist! i'm glad it works for you mate, but it doesn't suit you somehow;)

[DeDukshyn]

Hey brother,

Your theory could easily be reverted to "believers" by just changing some words:

I believe a believer is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness that after this life, there is nothing more. Because this fear dominates their lives, they pathologically search for security by inventing a place where they'll be happy forever and ever after their bodies perish. They perceive with their mind that if they figure out well enough about the spiritual realm it will provide them the safety and comfort they require to bear out with the idea that there might be no life after physical death but also that this assists them to live their whole lives avoiding the facing of their fear.

You see, no one has the answer, my friend.

Cheers,

Raf.

Valid point.

Let's try this one.

A "skeptic" is terrified of being wrong, therefore no belief (or often even consideration) is issued that is not either "prove-able" (which is in itself actually sometimes subjective), or is not the consensus of the masses - whether right or wrong it doesn't matter, because the fear of being wrong is alleviated when everyone else is also wrong.

A "believer" (from your perspective) is terrified that there is nothing more than the "prove-able" and mass consensus - obviously there is more, but these people most often grasp to any belief that might alleviate that fear, rather than to do any actual searching beyond the prove-able and the mass consensus.

All extremes are caused by the need to alleviate these fears. This is what begs the change that humans need to change this world. To not be controlled by these deep subconscious fears ... (another topic perhaps)

That about sums it up for me ;)

[DeDukshyn]

I find proper skepticism as being equatable to a thorough analysis and testing based on the qualifiers of possibility, plausibility, and probability, but that only determines the most likely case; Yet there comes a point where the case is well established. Still, I continually find myself commenting that "One cannot yet rule it out" or "It is well within the threshold of possibility" when engaged in social deliberation.

Since proving the impossible is not possible - keeping that door open is always a good idea ;)

[Chester]

I am not the best with words and left my comments open to challenge. I am 'skeptical" about all sorts of information all the time. What I am no longer skeptical about is the likelihood at a quantum level all is connected to all.

This does not mean to imply I "believe in" some "God" or worse, would ever subscribe to any sort of religion unless that religion was the religion of eternal open mindedness.

The main point I was hoping to convey, a point I cannot prove nor need to prove but like to bring up for the sake of discussion is the same point the infamous "double slit" experiment suggests which is that the observer appears to affect the appearance of the observation.

Due to the fact I am a decent odds maker (my profession) I am reasonably decent with probability analysis.

I have analyzed the probability of thousands of various synchronicities (and the more profound synchronicity strings) that I have experienced, many which are documented (or at least able to be documented), many which have been observed by a plethora of other beings where many of those beings previously having little to no open mindedness about the phenomena of synchronicity yet because of their experiences have opened their mind more and more to the phenomena and found that by doing so, the phenomena greatly increased.

I have been apprised of studies regarding psi phenomena where groups were studied such that one group was comprised of skeptics and the other group made up of open minded to psi phenomena subjects. The third party observers discovered that the psi experiments involving the skeptics produced statistically expected results whereas the other group produced anomalous (outside of realistic statistical range) results which suggests one's consciousness is linked to the experience.

This does not then suggest there is some "God" or "creator god" third party though there very well may be further evolved beings that played a role in how the human being came into being.

While many folks like to apply meaning to their synchronicity experiences, I have discovered for myself there's no meaning to my own synchronicity experiences other than what may be the most important conclusion to consider as "true" which is that we are all connected at a quantum level and that perhaps the deeper we go within a single beings sub conscious, the closer we get to one single, infinitesimally small point which may be the center of the metaphorical universe, the all that is, was and ever will be.

Again though, I conclude that a skeptic to psi phenomena will not experience much psi phenomena and if they did, they would likely not recognize it.

On the other hand, one who is not only open minded to psi phenomena but is able to bring forth enthusiasm that they can experience psi phenomena and perhaps even consciously effect their reality experience through this field some call the 6th sense appear to be able to experience this phenomena.

Why all this is important to me is that, as an odds maker, I make robust, invigorating life for more and more folks in a shorter time span a much bigger favorite directly proportional to how open we are to this phenomena coupled with not then drawing superstitious conclusions much less derive some sort of religious meaning from the psi experiences.

One could say I am an atheist unless it can be accepted (as I "believe") that we are and all is "god."

[DeDukshyn]

So ... the lack of meaning in your experiences is the meaning, due to the un-randomness of the meaninglessness? I think you nailed what you were trying to say with that (heh, at least for me) -- and yes, there is far more value in that understanding than many will be able to understand.

A story only experience can tell ...

Nice one. ;)

[DeDukshyn]

A skeptic has very strong belief in their opinion.
They live by that belief.
Chris


This is the point I always try to make with atheists. Their belief is just as strong or stronger than any religious fanatic or even extremist, and they also often try to shove that belief down others' throats. Same ****, different pile.

Atheism is an unorganized religion the same as all others to me.

Now, not having any belief on the topic of this type of belief is the control -- not the belief in one - or its opposite, yet we as humans are programmed to always "have a belief of one, or the other".

Saying the same stuff as you Chris,
I'm just not in a diplomatic mood today though ;)

My latest kick was an atheist trying to prove her point on a youtube video; her words: " ... there is no evidence of God, and I don't believe anything that has no evidence because I am not an idiot!" -- yet she failed to be able to provide any evidence that God didn't exist ... ;)

Her own logic declared herself an idiot. Just a specific musing of mine -- I have nothing against atheists whatsoever.

Sorry, topic for a different thread perhaps ;)

:focus:

[13th Warrior]

The main point I was hoping to convey, a point I cannot prove nor need to prove but like to bring up for the sake of discussion is the same point the infamous "double slit" experiment suggests which is that the observer appears to affect the appearance of the observation.

"Each atom an evolving life, each blade of grass a potential soul"-The Gorchan Maeldrew

[Agape]

This does not then suggest there is some "God" or "creator god" third party though there very well may be further evolved beings that played a role in how the human being came into being.

Nope to Mr Skeptic ;) ( hypothetical ) As a matter of fact , ''creationism'' and 'intelligent design'' have as many valid points as ''Darwinian evolution'' with the overall problem in them being half-baked and therefor , contradicting each others perspective .

If there's something to stand to the name of Truth it has to contain and explain other truths as well , not only itself . Yet, we live in very immature period of humanity ,
so all these truths and theories often fail to find common denominator ,
and rise beyond contradictions to sphere of understanding where all fits in well .

I think it's stupid .. but people tend to be scared of letting go of their convictions,
and prejudice .
My understanding of that is that learning pains . It should not actually but unless learning means consuming information well eschewed by someone else forwards ,
and getting approved for agreeable opinions ,
which is what most of our education systems were based on for centuries ,

many people tend to remain with old approved dogma even if new solution is obvious .

:sleep:

[naste.de.lumina]

One of the biggest difficulties that I realize is when the individual realizes that the change of scenery from your great figure, must inevitably result in a huge change in attitude and consequently will leave the comfort zone in which it is.
You can not stay on the fence when we understand the complete notion that we are directly responsible for everything that we consider wrong.
On a planet where this type of consciousness is ridiculously small compared to the whole, get off the fence will not be comfortable. But it is necessary.
There is no other way. No one will come to rescue someone from their own ignorance.
Can not do this. Law of Free Will. There is universal law. The universe has an owner.
The skeptical about the existence of something more after this life has to understand a detail only (explained by proven science). We are energy. Energy does not disappear. Energy is eternal.
We have to help us as a whole.

[Bubu]

In my view, we already knew too much of the things we should not. I keep my life simple and happy no explaining or problem solving "just do it" unless the problem solving is a challenge that keeps my but off the chair in excitement. don't care must what tomorrow will bring and live for today.

Skeptics or not they have the right be what they are and I will not make judgement or shall I say make problem.

[Chester]

In my view, we already knew too much of the things we should not. I keep my life simple and happy no explaining or problem solving "just do it" unless the problem solving is a challenge that keeps my but off the chair in excitement. don't care must what tomorrow will bring and live for today.

Skeptics or not they have the right be what they are and I will not make judgement or shall I say make problem.


My goal in starting this thread was to suggest through facts that the skeptic may play a direct role in the creation of the data set from which they are then able to use to conclude that everything that "happens" happens purely randomly and that anything that appears coincidence is just the rare circumstance where two or more events connect in a meaningful way to two or more observers yet can be explained by statistical analysis that these events could happen in the time and place they occurred - randomly.

In as few words as possible - if the skeptic wants the result to appear random, it will. But that this occurs because the depths of their consciousness wants it to appear this way and thus it does.

Yet the one who believes (enthusiastically) in the connectivity of all, is given the gift of experience which verifies the perception they desire to be true.

This is how skeptics can be right and "believers that there is more to the big picture than just the 5 sense (random) world" can be right simultaneously.

If this is true then my hope is that the skeptics would open up to the possibility they play a role in creating the reality they experience.

If that happens (enough ala the 100th monkey) perhaps then they might suspect their connectivity to all may mean we might be one single being, experiencing itself in an illusory separate form (through this lovely matrix). And then finally from that possibility, the skeptic may take the leap towards the possibility they (as the individual) effect themselves (the entire single being) which then in turn effects all the rest of us.

Thus that eventually leads one to the possibility that what I think, speak and write and do effects each of us, effects the entire single being and effects me.

This is why I modified the age old phrase, "You are your own worst enemy" to -

"You are you only enemy," which implies if I end my waring ways with everyone, including myself, I have no enemies. Because I know longer have war within me (the single, all there is being - "god" perhaps to some folks.

I have implemented that philosophy for some time now (though not perfectly) and the results have been simply astounding.

[naste.de.lumina]

Days ago I commented on a forum about a person 'realistic' (skeptical).

The realist is actually a dreamer trapped by concepts that others convinced them to be true.
The realist is not free.
It is a slave to his own limits of perception.

The dreamer does not accept current enforcement possible.
The only possible to impose on us, it is a prison.
The arrest of consciousness. The limits of knowledge.

Bind us in chains of illusion as possible that is not ours.
Dreamer is impossible to be the one who imposes the reality as possible.

Meet the unforgettable dreamer Raul seixas.
U_pQqkcWwyY

Understanding the meaning of being, automatically brings me joy. Inevitably.
It is a great journey. All, repeat, all that can be imagined is impossible.
Can not achieve while incarnated here.
As our frequency increases we realize this fact. It is also inevitable.

[Shezbeth]

I'm sorry 1Guy, but what you are describing is inconsistent with a true skeptic. What you are describing appears to be a person with rigid bias to question similar to skepticism, but with an interest that the analytical result fit a predisposed conclusion. This is the antithesis of skepticism, and a skeptic is opposed to predisposition except to identify the truth.

[Bubu]

Am I an skeptic? Do I have free will? Is there life after death? What dimension are we in what's the best? For years I have been trying to find answers believing that it is gonna make my life beautiful. But every time I came to only one conclusion. "I'm not sure" as Raf Puts it "no one has the answer".

Skeptics non skeptics are simply labels it promotes categorizing and division. I try to spend time on something worthwhile than labels. This is only an opinion and as good as anyones. I hope expressing a different opinion is not disrespect. We are here to learn.

A metaphor would be, people standing on different sides of a huge mountain each one seeing the view from his vantage point, say differ from the others. If we express what we see from our vantage and listen to the description of others each one of us will have a more accurate description of the whole mountain.

[naste.de.lumina]

You have chosen or are choosing this for you? .......


As Leo said in the movie Matrix: 'I chose this'.

[Shezbeth]

Am I an skeptic? Do I have free will? Is there life after death?
Skeptics non skeptics are simply labels it promotes categorizing and division. I try to spend time on something worthwhile than labels.

Maybe, maybe, and maybe.

Skeptic - A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. This is not conjecture, this is observable. If a person is observably skeptical, they can be said to be - to some degree - a skeptic. This does not define them as a skeptic, this is simply another observable characteristic. Is observation categorizing? Is experience categorizing?

To observe phenomena and to ignore the observation is observably ignorant.

[Abhaya]

Contrary to our common convictions , I'd say ..more than 90% of our human understanding is based on believe , trust, faith ..no matter what you call it.. rather than otherwise .
While every authority in your life is trying to convince you that THEY KNOW because they were taught to believe this , and whole generations of people were organised to paternally, principally controlled society or forms of society , religious or scientific that was run by people convinced that THEY KNOW ,
at the bottom of every scientific theory , religious dogma, esoteric school and so on ..
your few percents of scientific honesty and personal credibility and ultimate purity, whatever you have, stands witness to admitting that THEY DON'T.

This isn't to be another absolutistic hypothesis or statement , it's a simple observation and matter of fact ,
and it should be , more openly , honestly presented in such a way whether in science or philosophy classes , not to mention spiritualists and religious interpretations of cosmic laws .

Simple as that, all you do at this moment or any other moment in your life is based on belief . You have to believe the person you talk to is still there,
there is no proof I have at the moment that you are still there ,
yet , I have to believe it.

As someone has nicely put it to me at long hours of waiting for train at Benares train station,
lawyer and philosopher by profession who had long while ..and time to talk,
all of our empirical understanding , including the one we collect proofs of and are so proud of those proofs , is a belief .
He said ''why do you think of your parents as of your parents'' , because you've been told about it, you adopted the belief . You have no proof they are or not . It's a faith.

He knew nothing of 'my parents' and my ET encounters , and what was going in my head that time, not that of I'd tell.

You eat this food because you believe it's good for you and contains no poison, my teachers used to say, it means you trust the cook. You also trust the person who planted the seeds and the bakery and the serve .

Most things we do , automatically, we have no proof for .. this includes most standing 'scientific' theories and if you ask honest scientists , medical practitioner or mathematician how much they truly understand their 'science' ,
they smile and say 'I know nothing personally' . All we have is guesses, theories and we have to believe they are right.

Those more advanced dare to add that most of the current theories / beliefs will be disproved in next 500 years ( about 90% ) ,
but we have no chance and way than to believe in what we do , and repeat the experiments .. till it holds little better .. even if at the end it may also prove totally false .


That's why .. GOOD FAITH ... is so important .. it will be important till the end and beyond .. this earth . Certainty and what you call 'truth' is very fragile flower on earth and very rare .

:tea:


Empirically again, the only thing reliable is memory .. even though it can be doubtful and faulty in many ways ..
if you remain honest to your memory , it won't deceive you .


Wow couldn't agree more! So nicely put. We are all operating on faith. There is no definitive knowing, at least in the material logical mathematical sense, of anything. It is our very nature to operate on faith. Quoting a dear friend, " I long to enter a land of faith, where doubt is cast out like shadows in the light and anything is possible".

[transiten]

A skeptic has very strong belief in their opinion.
They live by that belief.
Chris

"A fanatic has a very strong belief in their opinion.
They live by that belief"

The current belief in "Western science" is a s fanatic as any spiritual fanatic dogma.

Also the pressure and fear from being ostracized from "the group" that holds the same belief as you can override any ethical, political or spiritual argument.

[RMorgan]

Hey Henry ;)

It's always an immense pleasure to have a dialogue with you. You're always respectful, open minded and always making intelligent observations.



I do recall you writing once that your extended family is very religious, not very shy about it, and quite aggressive with lecturing you on your atheist philosophy (that is you, right?) I wonder if this might play a role in your thinking. a subconscious rebellion, perhaps?

Well...Not at all. My stance as an agnostic, or as an early atheist (questioning the idea the if there is a god, he simply doesn't care to interfere in our lives) started when I was a kid, when I read about the Epicurean Paradox, also known as the Problem of Evil, on an old encyclopedia. It goes along these lines:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing

Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil.

If He is neither able nor willing

Then why call Him God?

You see, the existence of evil is a big problem for those who believe in the existence of an almighty benevolent god. It's the Achilles Heel of Theologians, even the most sophisticated ones.

So, back then, I was already quite convinced that IF there´s a god, it doesn't care. I mean, just remember the Holocaust, or one of the many others extremely evil genocides that happened on Earth along history. Those people, the victims, were religious; They believed in god; Most of them were good people;They prayed for help desperately. Still, they have died and suffered in the most terrible ways.

If there's an almighty god, who knows it all and loves human beings as their creator, why he didn't interfere? Because of freewill? Would an almighty god be rendered powerless by a rule that he himself allegedly created in the first place?

No. If there's evil, it's either because god doesn't know about it, or doesn't care about it, or is powerless to change it, or because there's no god at all.

Then it all goes back to Epicurus.

Have in mind that I'm currently talking about the idea of a benevolent almighty god, only. First things first.


I wonder if you're confusing the idea of a creator with the idea of religion, or religious dogma. or maybe I don't really understand atheism at all, and should do a little research before I begin blabbering:o

No. I know these are distinct concepts.

Theists believe in the idea of a god which listens to prayers and interfere with their lives.

Deists, on the other hand, believe in the idea of an unbiased and indifferent creator.

Agnostics stay on the fence. They believe the existence or non-existence of god is equiprobable, on a 50/50 ratio.

Atheists, on the other hand, also believe that the existence or non-existence of god is currently, but not forever equiprobable, but the possibilities of one or the other are not presented on a 50/50 ratio, which means that, by carefully analyzing history and knowledge, the chances of the non-existence of a god or creator are greater than 50%.


...if you are stubbornly opposed to the idea of a God or creator, then I might suggest that this type of belief/blind certainly is no less dogmatic than that of a religious fundamentalist.

I am not stubborn. I'm completely open minded and ready to be convinced otherwise by anyone who's able to present me coherent enough arguments which are able to solidly refute my convictions. I'm not a radical nor ignorant person.

I possess a really rare quality. I'm unbiased and cold when it comes down to analyses of information. I've read and studied hundreds of religious books and also read hundreds of books presenting ideas which are conflicting with the hypothesis of a god or creator. I read each of them carefully and slowly, looking for answers, not looking to confirm my current stance. So far, I'm far more convinced by the second kind.

You know, I feel sickened about people who are quick to give their strong opinions without actually knowing what they're talking about. This goes both for atheists who never read the bible and similar texts, or for creationists and proponents of intelligent design who never even read The Origin of Species and the many impressive scientific studies that followed such magnificent piece of work. Most people, unfortunately, form their knowledge base according to what they wish to believe, not according to what is...People choose to neglect and ignore important information with potential to move them out of their comfort-zone...This is called confirmation bias, and it's one of the most relevant factors blocking human evolution. This is not good and it certainly can't be defined as learning.


...simply put, the odds of intelligent, biological life forming on any planet are infinitesimally small. I am not religious, and do not profess to know all the answers - not by a long shot - but with this in mind, I find it easier to have "faith" in an intelligent force...a creator. it seems only logical.

Odds are funny things my friend...What's the point of talking about infinitesimally small odds regarding an universe which is potentially and conceptually infinite? Odds are meaningless in this context.

Being pessimistic, chances are that one in fifty billion planets may have had the exact conditions to developed intelligent life after countless years of natural selection. Still, the universe is probably crowded with those planets. Everything is mostly made out of empty space and lifeless matter; The universe is no exception and I can't think of any reason to attribute such condition to a supra-natural force.

Anyway, the way I see it, the hypothesis of god is of reductionist nature. Let me explain. God was much bigger in the past. Along the millennia, most phenomena that were once attributed to god, were gradually being studied and had their core attributes transferred to the field of knowledge, of perfectly natural and explained phenomena. I perceive this as an undeniable, solid and steady trend. Statistically, if we have the chance to keep evolving and surviving indefinitely as a species, the ultimate fundamentals of the god/creator hypothesis will also be demystified, though I have no idea how long it will take.

So, in my humble opinion, the concept of god or supreme creator is simply a byproduct of the persistent and severe difficulty that human beings have regarding the intellectual acceptance of whatever may be considered unknown at any moment in history.

All the best my friend,

Raf.

[greybeard]

Hi Raf
You bring to Avalon a balance and an opinion which is based on the facts.
I value and respect your contribution.
Chris

[ceetee9]

Now, there are naysayers, professional debunkers, simply put, idiots, that challenge everything without so much as an intelligent thought. This group does not deserve attention or to be given a stage for their unwanted and unwarranted behavior.Amen brother! I couldn't agree more with this statement. These are the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" people.

[ceetee9]

I have been apprised of studies regarding psi phenomena where groups were studied such that one group was comprised of skeptics and the other group made up of open minded to psi phenomena subjects. The third party observers discovered that the psi experiments involving the skeptics produced statistically expected results whereas the other group produced anomalous (outside of realistic statistical range) results which suggests one's consciousness is linked to the experience.Yes, I believe it does. Does this not validate, at least to some degree, that we create our own world? Perhaps this is why like-minded people tend to congregate. Their collective consciousness reinforces each others beliefs and thus the world they have created for themselves.

And then along comes those pesky truth seeking skeptics who introduce new ideas into the group that then causes those members who have not completely closed their minds to begin contemplating: "what if?" This then upsets the status quo which is not welcome by those in the group who "know" the new idea is false ipso facto it goes against the group think/belief. This then begs the question: is this why people who think outside-the-box or dare question accepted norms/beliefs are generally frowned upon, discredited, or ignored (at least until a critical mass of those who aren't so certain of the group belief) is reached?

[ceetee9]

Am I an skeptic? Do I have free will? Is there life after death? What dimension are we in what's the best? For years I have been trying to find answers believing that it is gonna make my life beautiful. But every time I came to only one conclusion. "I'm not sure" as Raf Puts it "no one has the answer".I too have been searching for answers to those questions (and more) most of my life and the only conclusion I've arrived at thus far is "I haven't a clue." Yet I keep searching for answers; not because I believe that finding the answers (if that is even possible) is going to make my life better or beautiful because my life is already beautiful. I have been blessed (not from a religious connotation) to be surrounded by loving family and friends, good health, and a very comfortable life style. I guess I just enjoy the search.


Skeptics non skeptics are simply labels it promotes categorizing and division. I try to spend time on something worthwhile than labels. This is only an opinion and as good as anyones. I hope expressing a different opinion is not disrespect. We are here to learn.I dislike labels too and they do promote division, but they also provide at least some semblance of understanding between people when we attempt to communicate with one another. And expressing a different opinion than someone else is not disrespectful--unless, of course, you do so in a mean-spirited way. The only way we can truly learn, grow, and move forward as a species is to question things that don't appear right to us and move in the direction of a "truer" path when the answers to our questions warrant a change in direction.


A metaphor would be, people standing on different sides of a huge mountain each one seeing the view from his vantage point, say differ from the others. If we express what we see from our vantage and listen to the description of others each one of us will have a more accurate description of the whole mountain.Yes indeed. Thank you Bubu.

[Mike]

Hey Raf, (nice touch with 'Henry'. i'm sure I few folks are scratching their temples, ha!;)...."and here I thought his name was Mike this whole time???"

in response to the Epicurean Paradox, I might simply say that it's not God's job to create or uncreate events that have been created by humans. if I were playing devil's advocate (which I s'pose I am, as i'm still not entirely sure where I stand on the matter) I might evoke the concept of free-will, and the dichotomy it presents when one expects God to show up and resolve all the problems of the earth. i wouldn't necessarily call what we think of as God's non-interference 'malevolent'. granted, I wouldn't call it benevolent either;). but I think the Epicurean Paradox is inherently flawed, as it supposes "God" is an old man in the sky saying "yes" to this request and "no" to that one. it also supposes God is over here, and we're over there. separate. apart. my belief, or best guess, based on my understanding of the Bible, Creationism, and what I feel to be true, is that the old spiritual aphorism of "we are all one" isn't the abstract, pie-in-the-sky notion I used to think it was, but is actually a very practical and literal statement. if you can accept the notion that "we are all God", or parts of God incarnate, then the statements in the paradox fall apart. in other words, we are all responsible for the circumstances on earth, and are therefore responsible for resolving it's most pressing issues.

I have to admit, I never considered the concept of equiprobablity when considering atheists. I appreciate you bringing it up. I obviously have a thing or 2 to learn about atheism!:o of course, this is the problem when adding suffixes like "ism" or "ist" onto the end of words that profess virtually no dogma or ideology at all - it suggests a belief system, rigid and unmovable. I honestly had no idea that atheists were open to the idea of God; I thought they stubbornly opposed it. I had you all wrong there mate. apologies.

note: i'm at the public library, and my time is about to expire on this computer. will log into another momentarily, as I have a few more things to add.

[Kryztian]

I believe a skeptic is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness.

I know a few skeptics, and one thing I don't see them as "terrified". Many of them have become skeptics because they have been surrounded and sometimes threatened by fundamentalism of one form or another. Skepticism is a very logical reaction when you are surrounded by religious fundamentalist and told you have to adopt a world view based on things you can not perceive with your five senses. But skepticism itself can become a kind of fundamentalism - it is based on the unshakeable belief that reality as described by our 5 senses, by scientific measuring equipments, and by the laws of science textbooks, is all there is.

They are not so much afraid of consciousness, but they just regard consciousness and something suspect and wayward (except for their own) as it is the mere byproduct of neurons firing off in the brain. If my conscious experience contradicts the laws of physics, chemisty, etc. then a skeptic can only assume that my consciousness is flawed or misled, as the current laws of textbooks tell it all.

I think skeptics see the rest of us as terrified. We are afraid of death, which will be the end of our consciousness, the end of that non material reality that we might refer to as a "soul" or "spirit". Therefore, in there opinion they are the brave ones to look at the hard edges of reality - the rest of us are terrified, and come up with fanciful notions to convince ourselves that part of us continues to live after our body dies.

[Mike]

ok..back again;)

I think being unbiased and cold can work well in laboratories, but not necessarily when analyzing the supernatural. it has it's merits, of course, but unfortunately at the expense of any sort of intuition or heart-level knowing. I know this likely sounds ironic given my recent stance on the various "psychic" threads, but contrary to popular belief: I am not a robot;) I don't think we'll ever find God in the clinical calculations of the intellect; he resides in the heart (oh sh!t, i'm beginning to sound like f#cking Eckert Tolle here;))

regarding the odds of life in the universe, and the universe being infinite therefore calculating odds makes little sense etc, I see your point. it's a sound one. but let's take it a step further and consider the creation of the universe itself, and all the elements that were required in the proper proportions and at just the right time for it to pop into existence. how did it all get there? where did it all come from? randomness hardly suffices when considering the delicacy of this type of creation, in this posters' opinion anyway.

as far as reductionism goes, I think of that bit about chopping the atom apart countless times and still not arriving at an absolute. you can chop the damn thing forever, into infinity - you'll never really reach a finite destination. and that's God, isn't it?

admittedly, i'm not nearly as well read as you on the topic, though I might suggest that the more you read about God the less you know about Him/Her. it's the old Buddhist thing. I know it flies in the face of logic, but it's the best I can do;)

[RMorgan]

Hey Raf, (nice touch with 'Henry'. i'm sure I few folks are scratching their temples, ha!;)...."and here I thought his name was Mike this whole time???"

in response to the Epicurean Paradox, I might simply say that it's not God's job to create or uncreate events that have been created by humans. if I were playing devil's advocate (which I s'pose I am, as i'm still not entirely sure where I stand on the matter) I might evoke the concept of free-will, and the dichotomy it presents when one expects God to show up and resolve all the problems of the earth. i wouldn't necessarily call what we think of as God's non-interference 'malevolent'. granted, I wouldn't call it benevolent either;). but I think the Epicurean Paradox is inherently flawed, as it supposes "God" is an old man in the sky saying "yes" to this request and "no" to that one. it also supposes God is over here, and we're over there. separate. apart. my belief, or best guess, based on my understanding of the Bible, Creationism, and what I feel to be true, is that the old spiritual aphorism of "we are all one" isn't the abstract, pie-in-the-sky notion I used to think it was, but is actually a very practical and literal statement. if you can accept the notion that "we are all God", or parts of God incarnate, then the statements in the paradox fall apart. in other words, we are all responsible for the circumstances on earth, and are therefore responsible for resolving it's most pressing issues.

I have to admit, I never considered the concept of equiprobablity when considering atheists. I appreciate you bringing it up. I obviously have a thing or 2 to learn about atheism!:o of course, this is the problem when adding suffixes like "ism" or "ist" onto the end of words that profess virtually no dogma or ideology at all - it suggests a belief system, rigid and unmovable. I honestly had no idea that atheists were open to the idea of God; I thought they stubbornly opposed it. I had you all wrong there mate. apologies.

note: i'm at the public library, and my time is about to expire on this computer. will log into another momentarily, as I have a few more things to add.

Hey brother,

Like I said on the previous post, the Epicurian Paradox just shows the obvious incoherence of the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent god, confronted by the existence of evil; These are the variables involved in the paradox.

It was written by a man who lived from 341 BC to 270 BC, so you must take it in context.

It had quite an impact on my 11 years old mind...It made me question things and motivated me to study the subject.

And yes, regarding atheism, no proper atheist or skeptic would proclaim with certainty that there is no god, because atheism is rational by nature, and it's currently impossible to prove such claim. Atheists are, by definition, those who have found solid and coherent reasons to think that the chances of the non-existence of a creator are greater than the opposite.

It's impossible for me to go much deeper on this subject. Internet forums are not the ideal platform to have discussions of this complexity and, anyway, it would be a waste of time, because there are excellent books written about the subject already. I´ll name a few, in case you're interested:

The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. (Anyone should start here)
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett.
Atheism: The Case Against God, by George Smith.
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism, by David Mills.
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, by Dan Barker.
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. (Impeccably well written book. Good for starters)

(There are many other incredibly well written and concise books about the subject, but these are already a good start for anyone who wants to start taking it seriously)


ok..back again;)

I think being unbiased and cold can work well in laboratories, but not necessarily when analyzing the supernatural.

That's exactly the point. Just because something is not yet known, doesn't mean this thing is super-natural. Thinking like that, in my opinion, is reducing the intellect to a cave man's level, who used to believe that everything was supernatural, like the sun, the stars, the moon, thunders, earthquakes, storms, natural predators, etc...


regarding the odds of life in the universe, and the universe being infinite therefore calculating odds makes little sense etc, I see your point. it's a sound one. but let's take it a step further and consider the creation of the universe itself, and all the elements that were required in the proper proportions and at just the right time for it to pop into existence. how did it all get there? where did it all come from? randomness hardly suffices when considering the delicacy of this type of creation, in this posters' opinion anyway.

How did everything get there/here? I frankly have no idea (there are many promising theories about it, though) but I'm convinced that if we have the time, we will be able to answer all these questions rationally and beyond any doubts, just like we could answer many previously mysterious and apparently unsolvable questions before.


as far as reductionism goes, I think of that bit about chopping the atom apart countless times and still not arriving at an absolute. you can chop the damn thing forever, into infinity - you'll never really reach a finite destination. and that's God, isn't it?


Well, just because science has allowed us to find increasingly small parts, it doesn't mean it's infinite at all, and even when we find its smallest functional part, it really doesn't mean it will be god.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Chester]

If there be “God” why does “God” have to be “good?”

I can’t answer that as I don’t think “God” necessarily would have to be “good.”

But if “we” (all life for that matter) is “God” then it surely is possible for “God” to exist as we demonstrate we can do good and evil all day long.

If we are “God,” we demonstrate that most of us either have forgotten the fact or have chosen to place the knowledge of that fact in the most remote region of our consciousness. It is my view that “realization” of this possibility is the foundation of true transformation. From my recent experiences, I have discovered all sorts of proofs that I (as well as each of us) have “God power” from the perspective of creating our individual and collective reality experience with tools that are not included within the physical/material realm experience but certainly appear to manipulate this experience.

I also have discovered that by willfully holding back my own intentions, I seem to provide the space for an amazing intelligence to manifest in my reality experience such that the results far exceed my wildest imagination.

I call this action, The manifestation of the Wisdom of the Universe simply because I like to apply labels to things that no label could ever do justice.

I see this wisdom depicted metaphorically in many myths though my current favorite is the Sophianic creation myth found in Gnosticism.

[Chester]

If I could rewrite the OP, I would edit it to - "some skeptics of psi phenomena..."

Apologies to anyone who concluded I meant "skeptical" about "God" or some third party "Prime Creator" type thingie...

I am happy though that this thread has explored the concept of "God" in the manner it has.

A toast to the outstanding membership of the Avalon Forum!

[Chester]

I have been apprised of studies regarding psi phenomena where groups were studied such that one group was comprised of skeptics and the other group made up of open minded to psi phenomena subjects. The third party observers discovered that the psi experiments involving the skeptics produced statistically expected results whereas the other group produced anomalous (outside of realistic statistical range) results which suggests one's consciousness is linked to the experience.Yes, I believe it does. Does this not validate, at least to some degree, that we create our own world? Perhaps this is why like-minded people tend to congregate. Their collective consciousness reinforces each others beliefs and thus the world they have created for themselves.

And then along comes those pesky truth seeking skeptics who introduce new ideas into the group that then causes those members who have not completely closed their minds to begin contemplating: "what if?" This then upsets the status quo which is not welcome by those in the group who "know" the new idea is false ipso facto it goes against the group think/belief. This then begs the question: is this why people who think outside-the-box or dare question accepted norms/beliefs are generally frowned upon, discredited, or ignored (at least until a critical mass of those who aren't so certain of the group belief) is reached?

Yes - and I see this group right next to the group I attempted to identify (and that I attempted to come up with what may motivate them to this way of viewing life) in the OP. What then hit me sideways was Raf. I do not see Raf fitting into the group I tried to identify as Raf comes across to me as all but 100% fearless - a point I have now (finally) reached myself.

What i wish to know and what I am now asking Raf directly is this - have you had (do you have) synchronicity experiences which your rational mind clearly knows is far beyond any realistic probability to occur?

If the answer is, "Yes," what have you concluded from experiencing this phenomena?

I will gladly share my own experiences and thoughts as to what this all implies and have done so in the past and even recently in a few threads involving psi phenomena.

[Mike]

hey Raf,

http://manhattaninfidel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/caveman_2.jpg

in this caveman's opinion:), after science is finished doing it's bit, or after it's evolved to an almost god-like complexity, there will still be some mystery. and some people will call that mystery God. some will call it Yahweh. others will call it Jehovah. and so on.

it's true of course that primitive man equated all unknowns with the supernatural. but to tack what most of us think of as "God" to the end of what is at first a logical progression, doesn't make sense to me. it's a massive leap, in my opinion. but you're an atheist, so me making that statement is a bit useless, isn't it?;)

and therein lies the problem of this type of dialogue...

oh well, i'm still having fun...

[RMorgan]

What i wish to know and what I am now asking Raf directly is this - have you had (do you have) synchronicity experiences which your rational mind clearly knows is far beyond any realistic probability to occur?

If the answer is, "Yes," what have you concluded from experiencing this phenomena?



Hey Chester, my friend,

Yes, I have synchronicity experiences, some of them apparently inexplicable from a rational point of view at first.

However, in my case, none of those experiences passed a rigorous rational examination later on as mysterious or miraculous.

The human brain is a very tricky mechanism. We're naturally pattern seeking animals, some more than others.

This thing is called Apophenia, which is our ability to find patterns everywhere and make apparently rational connections out of meaningless data.

When you focus on finding patterns, your brain already has all the necessary tools to find them, so you certainly will find them anywhere, anytime...This, in fact, may become an obsession for some persons.

In my case, strictly, I haven't experienced any synchronicity event that could astonish myself after a careful examination.

I must say that this is just me. I'm not discarding the possibility that legitimate inexplicable synchronicites may happen to someone else, though I think it's unlikely.


oh well, i'm still having fun...

I'm having a lot of fun as well, my friend.

See, people can disagree and still be friends...If only the rest of the world could get it...

I still recommend you to read those books, though. The worse thing they could do is to raise some serious internal questions that, if you manage to honestly answer, will just make your faith more coherent. It's always beneficial to get out of our intellectual (in this case, spiritual) comfort zone as frequently as possible.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Chester]

I believe a skeptic is someone who is terrified in the depths of their consciousness.

I know a few skeptics, and one think I don't see them as "terrified". Many of them have become skeptics because they have been surrounded and sometimes threatened by fundamentalism of one form or another. Skepticism is a very logical reaction when you are surrounded by religious fundamentalist and told you have to adopt a world view based on things you can not perceive with your five senses. But skepticism itself can become a kind of fundamentalism - it is based on the unshakeable belief that reality as described by our 5 senses, by scientific measuring equipments, and by the laws of science textbooks, is all there is.

They are not so much afraid of consciousness, but they just regard consciousness and something suspect and wayward (except for their own) as it is the mere byproduct of neurons firing off in the brain. If my conscious experience contradicts the laws of physics, chemisty, etc. then a skeptic can only assume that my consciousness is flawed or misled, as the current laws of textbooks tell it all.

I think skeptics see the rest of us as terrified. We are afraid of death, which will be the end of our consciousness, the end of that non material reality that we might refer to as a "soul" or "spirit". Therefore, in there opinion they are the brave ones to look at the hard edges of reality - the rest of us are terrified, and come up with fanciful notions to convince ourselves that part of us continues to live after our body dies.

Yes - Great Post and I regret I did not spend more time properly wording the OP.


But skepticism itself can become a kind of fundamentalism - it is based on the unshakeable belief that reality as described by our 5 senses, by scientific measuring equipments, and by the laws of science textbooks, is all there is.

That is the exact type of skeptic I was going after. It is my conclusion that many who end up with this view do so because deep down they want badly to get a hold of something, to be certain of something... and that science restricted to the 5 sense world can and does provide that security. Clearly this is just a guess as to what may be behind the sub conscious motivations of a few folks who then adopt and freeze that view. I did a poor job in the OP by making my "accusation" way too broad. Apologies.

[Chester]

to Raf and his post # 48 - I agree with everything within your post regarding human beings and Apophenia.

Would you be open minded to believe that there's another form of synchronicity experience that is not looking back upon data and finding patterns, but that inserts a data point into the now moment where from that point in time forward comes forth an all but impossible set of synchronicities clearly related to the initial data point that any decent mathematician would say that the odds for these events to have occurred... well - there's not enough space on the page to place all the zeros?

Let me bring it into practical terms as an example -

What are the odds of hitting the US Powerball lottery? Just under one chance in 200 million. So let's say Joe Blow wins the Powerball and we discover he only bought one ticket. Then, the next week, the same guy, Joe Blow, buys only one ticket again and wins again. Let's say this same Joe Blow does this 10 times in a row. At what point do we begin to wonder how this could be possible without there being some undiscovered component to the nature of a living being that must be connected in some way to these results?

So if, in advance, a being pointed out to a subject a defined object (the best type is a number) and then, over the next hour, that number came forth in the experience of the subject way beyond any statistical probability. And that same being was able to generate these same anomalous results well beyond any realistic statistical probability, would that not then raise some eye brows?

And a note to readers - do not then conclude I am in any way implying anything to do with "God" or some "Creator God" and so forth.

Now let's consider a musical prodigy. Most of us have heard of musical prodigies, some of us may know a musical prodigy or two, many of us have gone to musical concerts featuring musical prodigies.

Now, let's say that within each of us is the possibility we could be a musical prodigy... surely there is the mathematical possibility of such, yes? But the odds that each of us manifest being a musical prodigy is all but impossible.

Now, let's again consider the results of the double slit experiment (a repeatable experiment) where clearly the observer is intimately linked with how the observation manifests.

And so now consider that it could be possible that a being demonstrates prodigiousness when it comes to being present during the manifestation of form such that a third party observer could witness and report on what is clearly a continual anomalous manifestation of that form as to that form's detail.

What I am getting at is that I have developed this talent and I have a massive amount of documentation, witnesses, etc. that will verify that somehow and for some reason, I seem to be a catalizer to the manifestation of obvious, clearly defined, beyond almost all odds, profound synchronicities. I am unsure if I would be called a prodigy in this regard, but there are dozens of folks who have had these experiences where I seem to kick start the occurrence of the phenomena. I know how I do it as I am now able to do this all the time and with just about anyone I meet BUT... there is a big BUT to this -

It takes an open minded to the phenomena being for the synchronicities to arise.

I can share several, documentable examples of this phenomena - one which was written about and published on the Integral World website back in 2010 by Dr. Elliot Benjamin that involved the number 23.

If requested, I would do so by creating another thread.

Apologies for so many words, so let me summarize the gist of what I am writing about.

If I told you in advance that this particular object - lets say a blue ball that had the number 777 written on it would somehow come forth in various synchronistic ways in one's experience over the next 24 hours and so watch for how it does and note the instances such that an unbiased 3rd party expert in probability could then calculate the odds that these synchronicities could arise randomly and that these odds came out to 1 in a billion trillion, would that then be enough for the psi phenomena skeptic to consider perhaps there may be something to the realm we call "the 6th sense?"

[RMorgan]

Hey Chester,

I do believe you, my friend.

I admit that fascinating and currently inexplicable things happen, and you might very well be part of one of such cases.

I'm completely open minded to carefully listen to whatever you have to say and teach.

If you have developed a methodology allowing you to freely reproduce these occurrences, as well as teach people how to experience them, I'll be honored to be a test subject.

I do believe in extra sensory perception, though I don´t enjoy the label and I'm aware that all extraordinary claims about such phenomena that I know about which were seriously tested under controlled conditions were either inconclusive or unsuccessful.

Although, minor so called extra sensory events do occur rather commonly, but I prefer to classify them as simply sensory, without the "extra", because it's already proved that our normal senses, besides being able to combine with each other, do vary in intensity and accuracy under specific or even random situations and can be further developed with the correct stimulus.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Chester]

Hi Raf and all who are following this thread. I want to provide a comprehensive response to Raf's post #51 but am loaded up with some dead lined deliverables.

As soon as I can put my heart and head back into this thread, I will - likely no later than Monday October 28th.

Best to All - Chester

[Shezbeth]

Lately I have had a series of synchronistic events that were co-created. I say that because A. the circumstances were entirely a product of probabilities, circumstances, and inevitabilities playing themselves out naturally in a quantum structure involving individuals I have never met acting out their lives naturally and B. precisely what I had openly voiced, meticulously planned, and by virtue of my actions forced to manifest given my understand of hierarchy, timing, showmanship, psychology, etc. I cannot decide if this was a matter of precognition, conscious creation, or what.

I appreciate the clarification that this thread is about skeptics of psychic phenomena, because that changes the game entirely. For an individual to be skeptical of 'something' implies direct opposition to that particular thing which is inherently a bias. I get where you're coming from now. ^_^

Anyway, my initial point is that I often cannot rule either in favor of metaphysical/psychic phenomena and playing a good hand of cards even in hindsight. In lieu of concluding, I like to think that it is both.

[AxisMundi]

Interesting thread here. Just some thoughts here for my first post here as it's a topic I'm interested in. The problem as I see it is that the majority of people who regard themselves as being skeptics are not true skeptics but rather pseudo skeptics. True skepticism necessitates that one is willing and able to evaluate ALL the data on a given subject with no pre-conceived ideas or emotional investment in the outcome of the investigation. This is extremely difficult in reality but I believe it's possible. Unfortunately, the actual Skeptics movement (which has about 60,000 members worldwide) has aligned itself with a belief system, as a few have mentioned here which is no different from Religious fundamentalism.

The vast majority of Skeptics are Materialist-Athiests and are staunch defenders of the absolute veracity of 'Science', that being pretty much anything mainstream and widely accepted. Here lies the danger though. Skeptics are generally very impressed by majority opinions and consider this 'consensus' as proof of their correctness. A huge problem is that many in Western Society today seem to have become skeptics (or least aligned themselves with the Skeptics dogma) by default. ie they have never read Darwin or Dawkins work but see Religion as false and so assume the opposing paradigm must be 'true'.

It seems to me that the Skeptic movement have become huge tools and mouthpieces for the PTB. Visiting their site, we find they are anti 'conspiracy', particularly keen to debunk anything other than the official story on 911, pro Vaccine, anti holistic health and extremely ridiculing of anything in the realm of the paranormal or any notion of a Universe which may be derived from or influenced by consciousness.

Whilst I'm not Religious in the traditional sense, I'm a strong believer in the reality of the soul which is simply consciousness that is currently experienced through a 3D body and which is entirely capable of leaving that body. I believe in reincarnation due to my own experiences and because the evidence is compelling. And so I see Scientific reductionism as a huge control system no different to Religion. If you can convince people that they are no more than Biological machines who are here due only to sheer dumb luck you can can convince them of anything. At the core of the philosophy is one of randomness and chaos and one which essentially denies that we are true co-creators in the reality in which we live. Of course this randomness ties in nicely with rejecting the idea that a global elite may exist. Just as regarding the origins of life, the Geo-Political playing field is also seen as random and chaotic with no architect in the driving seat of all the madness we see on this planet. If it's random and nobody's really in charge, hey, what can I do right?

When I first started looking into the NWO I'd always read about the plan to introduce a new world religion but to my mind it's already been done to an extent. As traditional religious beliefs dwindle, in scientific reductionism we now have a kind of global 'cult of the body', a brute materialism which denies the existence of soul and espouses that this randomness and chaos is at the the heart of existence. And of course just as with the false and illusory left/right party political paradigm the Religious types and Skeptics are kept in eternal debate whilst the the real truth of existence contains elements of both and a whole lot more besides......

[RMorgan]

Interesting thread here. Just some thoughts here for my first post here as it's a topic I'm interested in. The problem as I see it is that the majority of people who regard themselves as being skeptics are not true skeptics but rather pseudo skeptics. True skepticism necessitates that one is willing and able to evaluate ALL the data on a given subject with no pre-conceived ideas or emotional investment in the outcome of the investigation. This is extremely difficult in reality but I believe it's possible. Unfortunately, the actual Skeptics movement (which has about 60,000 members worldwide) has aligned itself with a belief system, as a few have mentioned here which is no different from Religious fundamentalism.

The vast majority of Skeptics are Materialist-Athiests and are staunch defenders of the absolute veracity of 'Science', that being pretty much anything mainstream and widely accepted. Here lies the danger though. Skeptics are generally very impressed by majority opinions and consider this 'consensus' as proof of their correctness. A huge problem is that many in Western Society today seem to have become skeptics (or least aligned themselves with the Skeptics dogma) by default. ie they have never read Darwin or Dawkins work but see Religion as false and so assume the opposing paradigm must be 'true'.

It seems to me that the Skeptic movement have become huge tools and mouthpieces for the PTB. Visiting their site, we find they are anti 'conspiracy', particularly keen to debunk anything other than the official story on 911, pro Vaccine, anti holistic health and extremely ridiculing of anything in the realm of the paranormal or any notion of a Universe which may be derived from or influenced by consciousness.

Whilst I'm not Religious in the traditional sense, I'm a strong believer in the reality of the soul which is simply consciousness that is currently experienced through a 3D body and which is entirely capable of leaving that body. I believe in reincarnation due to my own experiences and because the evidence is compelling. And so I see Scientific reductionism as a huge control system no different to Religion. If you can convince people that they are no more than Biological machines who are here due only to sheer dumb luck you can can convince them of anything. At the core of the philosophy is one of randomness and chaos and one which essentially denies that we are true co-creators in the reality in which we live. Of course this randomness ties in nicely with rejecting the idea that a global elite may exist. Just as regarding the origins of life, the Geo-Political playing field is also seen as random and chaotic with no architect in the driving seat of all the madness we see on this planet. If it's random and nobody's really in charge, hey, what can I do right?

When I first started looking into the NWO I'd always read about the plan to introduce a new world religion but to my mind it's already been done to an extent. As traditional religious beliefs dwindle, in scientific reductionism we now have a kind of global 'cult of the body', a brute materialism which denies the existence of soul and espouses that this randomness and chaos is at the the heart of existence. And of course just as with the false and illusory left/right party political paradigm the Religious types and Skeptics are kept in eternal debate whilst the the real truth of existence contains elements of both and a whole lot more besides......


Hello my friend,

I agree with part of your reply. Indeed, since there are a lot of ignorant people in the world, some of them adhere to skepticism or atheism, just like some of them adhere to religious beliefs.

There are, indeed, a lot of completely cynical skeptics out there, just like there are completely mindless religious persons as well. Ignorance is not exclusive to a single group and mindset; It's everywhere, withing every possible kind of group or sub-group of people.

As always, generalization is never a wise choice, in this case, the generalization of scientists as dogmatic guard-dogs of the system is extremely unwise. Just look around you. The benefits of science outweighs its harms by far. The misuse of incredibly brilliant scientific discoveries for destructive purposes is mostly caused by greedy politicians, mega-corporations and governments, not by scientists themselves. How many scientists there are among the super-rich, after all? In fact, at least in my world, in my country, I don't know any real rich scientist, contrary to pastors and preachers and all sort of gurus.

How the world would look like without science? Probably it would look like a steam-punk dark age or something like that?

How the world would look like without skeptics? Well, after all, the skeptics have contributed infinitely more to knowledge than believers. They are the ones who make the hard questions, using their inquiring minds to solve problems, instead of simply accepting the bogus answers included in religious dogmas.

Now, how the world would look like without religion? Well, in my opinion, much better than it looks now. We would probably be at least a few hundred years ahead in terms of technology, a lot of precious lives would be preserved since their would be no religious conflicts. People would be more awake, since they would learn how to look for answers from childhood, instead of being brainwashed since they were babies to accept illogical fundamentals promulgated by religious books as supreme truths.

Have in mind that, contrary to what most people think, there's moral outside religion, and most important, there's ethics which is basically morals that make sense.

Contrary to what you say, and I'm quite sure this is beyond proven, religions are tools invented by the dominant elite. Not skepticism. No government in the world wants their citizens making inconvenient questions and achieving more than inconvenient conclusions, which is exactly what skepticism promotes.

On the other hand, governments have invested incalculable amounts of resources into religions along the millennia...Religion discourages people to make questions, because all the answers they need are already in their books. Of course, we cannot forget that religious people, ideally, don't even need to worry about living terrible and unjust lives, because if they behave themselves, they will go to heaven, right?

The goal of religions is to transform people into passive sheep, while the goal of skepticism is to make people question everything, not just religion or the so called paranormal. Which one is wiser and more productive for the human kind?

If the PTB are launching a campaign to promote skepticism, they are shooting their own toes, because besides neutralizing all the brainwash done through religion which they have invested so much to perfect, skepticism encourages people to look for answers and be proactive instead of living in a fantasy world where questioning the norms is a mortal sin that will send them to hell and where if they behave themselves and be obedient, they´ll live in paradise for ever and ever.

I think some of you guys have no idea what skepticism really is and confuse it for cynicism or arrogance.

Skepticism, above anything, is not the science of truth. It's not claiming to know the truth about everything. It's knowing that there's doubt in anything. It's knowing that true knowledge is always uncertain, not the contrary. Skeptics dedicate their lives to look for answers, instead of accepting the conventional. Skepticism is embracing the unknown, not denying it or fabricating fictional answers to feel comfortable and comforted.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Curt]

Try not to kill the gadfly. He's mighty useful!

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/files/2012/07/imgres-2.jpeg

http://yalebooks.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/socrates.jpg?w=640

And from our good 'ole trusty source, wikipedia:

Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."

:p

[AxisMundi]

Hello my friend,

I agree with part of your reply. Indeed, since there are a lot of ignorant people in the world, some of them adhere to skepticism or atheism, just like some of them adhere to religious beliefs.

There are, indeed, a lot of completely cynical skeptics out there, just like there are completely mindless religious persons as well. Ignorance is not exclusive to a single group and mindset; It's everywhere, withing every possible kind of group or sub-group of people.

As always, generalization is never a wise choice, in this case, the generalization of scientists as dogmatic guard-dogs of the system is extremely unwise. Just look around you. The benefits of science outweighs its harms by far. The misuse of incredibly brilliant scientific discoveries for destructive purposes is mostly caused by greedy politicians and governments, not by scientists themselves.

How the world would look like without science? Probably it would look like a steam-punk dark age or something like that?

How the world would look like without skeptics? Well, after all, the skeptics have contributed infinitely more to knowledge than believers. They are the ones who make the hard questions, using their inquiring minds to solve problems, instead of simply accepting the bogus answers included in religious dogmas.

Now, how the world would look like without religion? Well, in my opinion, much better than it looks now. We would probably be at least a few hundred years ahead in terms of technology, a lot of precious lives would be preserved since their would be no religious conflicts. People would be more awake, since they would learn how to look for answers from childhood, instead of being brainwashed since they were babies to accept illogical fundamentals promulgated by religious books as supreme truths.

Have in mind that, contrary to what most people think, there's moral outside religion, and most important, there's ethics which is basically morals that make sense.

Contrary to what you say, and I'm quite sure this is beyond proven, religions are tools invented by the dominant elite. Not skepticism. No government in the world wants their citizens making inconvenient questions and achieving more than inconvenient conclusions, which is exactly what skepticism promotes.

On the other hand, governments have invested incalculable amounts of resources into religions along the millennia...Religion discourages people to make questions, because all the answers they need are already in their books. Of course, we cannot forget they religious people, ideally, don't even need to worry about living terrible and unjust lives, because if they behave themselves, they will go to heaven, right?

The goal of religions is to transform people into passive sheep, while the goal of skepticism to make people question everything. Which one is wiser and more productive for the human kind?

If the PTB are launching a campaign to promote skepticism, their are shooting their own toes, because besides neutralizing all the brainwash done through religion which they have invested so much to perfect, skepticism encourages people to look for answers and be proactive instead of living in a fantasy world where questioning the norms is a mortal sin that will send them to hell and where if they behave themselves and be obedient, they´ll live in paradise for ever and ever.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hi and thanks for your response.

I suppose what I was really trying to get at was that true skepticism is extremely rare and actually isn't to be found with the Skeptics movement which is rife with confirmation bias. ie they start with the premise that certain things must be false and then seek to gather data which confirms their pre existing belief. There's then the issue of the huge corruption in science and how it's been fully annexed by political and economic interests. I disagree with what you're saying about the powers that be not wanting to promote skepticism. For instance, take a look at this Skeptics site here:

http://conspiracypsych.com/

The guy who runs this blog is a Phd student who has all the usual Skeptic movement's agenda on his site: anti-vaccine campaigners are conspiracy theorists, so are 911 truthers, so are supporters of Homeopathy etc etc. His research is funded by a body called the Economic & Social Research Council here in the UK whose director just happens to be a guy called Alan Gillespie, a former Goldman Sachs partner who is also the chairman of an organization called the International Finance Facility for Immunization. Their job is to push vaccines on third world countries on behalf of Big Pharma. You see the problem here? This is just a small example but this kind of thing is rife in both scientific funding and research. Skeptics are always screaming for evidence from 'peer reviewed journals' but the truth is that the Peer review system is utterly corrupt and limiting because anything that falls outside the remit of the accepted mainstream paradigm is very difficult to get out there. It works on a kind of 'I'll quote you in my paper if you quote me in yours, lets agree and further our careers'. Nobody wants to rock the boat too much because scientists don't get funding if they want to challenge anything that may threaten the dominant paradigm.

I'm not sure how the world would look without science. I studied Anthropology as an undergraduate and when I think about how tribal societies used to live it was reasonably harmonious. Somewhat of a generalization as there was still war, famine and woe but looked at alongside the materialist dystopia we find ourselves in today, I know which one I'd pick.

I completely agree with what you say regarding religion as a control system created by the elite. Mind you, I still think there are some deep esoteric truths buried even in the monotheistic religions, but then again, probably so far buried that very few have managed to discover and utilise them effectively due mainly to the very control system which still proliferates and dominates them.......

[RMorgan]

I suppose what I was really trying to get at was that true skepticism is extremely rare and actually isn't to be found with the Skeptics movement which is rife with confirmation bias. ie they start with the premise that certain things must be false and then seek to gather data which confirms their pre existing belief. There's then the issue of the huge corruption in science and how it's been fully annexed by political and economic interests. I disagree with what you're saying about the powers that be not wanting to promote skepticism. For instance, take a look at this Skeptics site here:

http://conspiracypsych.com/


I understand your point of view, my friend, but the elite is not promoting skepticism by itself.

They are infiltrated everywhere. People nowadays use the internet as their main source of information and, of course, the elite knows that and act accordingly.

The internet is mostly a huge counter intelligence operation...You might find some fragments of truth here and there, but most of it is deliberately crafted.

This includes, of course, a lot of real nonsense conspiracy theories and a lot of real incoherent rebuttal to the few factual conspiracy theories. This is simply logical.

Target the people who tend to believe any conspiracy theories: There are real conspiracy theories, so overwhelm them with a lot of fake ones so they don't know what's real and what's not. Make them blindly believe anything and let naivety to its thing.

Target the people with real inquiring minds: Overwhelm them with easily "debunkable" made up stories and conspiracy theories, so most of them gradually absorb the belief that everything of this sort is fake, after so many successful debunkings. Make them blindly doubt anything and let arrogance do its thing.

You see? They separate people into groups that could potentially uncover their lies even if through different paths, then they make these groups run around in circles.

They do that because they know most people tend to get trapped by beliefs and routines; People become addicted to think in a certain way specially when they are part of a homogeneous group where individuals tend to agree with each other because they are naturally connected by common interest subjects and themes, like internet forums . By overwhelming people with disinformation, they lose the ability to discern. This principle works for for believers, skeptics or every other group that may be potentially dangerous to the system.

Don't think for a second that there are less disinformation and lies in forums like this, skeptics forums or any other forum of investigative nature, or less disinformation in the alternative media than in the mainstream media. There's disinformation everywhere, in all kinds of flavors, in all kinds of taste, for every single kind of people.

These folks know what they're doing because they understand human psychology more than anyone else.

So, don't let any idea about any organized movement solidify already calculated pre-conceptions in your mind. That's exactly what they want and it's the oldest trick in the book. Most likely, any so called organized movement is not actually organized by people from within such movement. Whenever a movement is organized, there're leaders and there are followers, in a way that one can easy manipulate the many followers by easily manipulating the few leaders.

So, every movement or any group which follows figures of leadership is potentially prone to manipulation.

Isolate possibly interesting arguments and judge them by their own merit.

If people start to look at skeptics as useless and blind arrogant persons, and look at believers as useless blind gullible persons, then quickly every other kinds of mindsets will be turned into useless junk and suddenly everyone in the world becomes useless...That's pretty much what they want.

Don't fall for it because it's a trap. Judge ideas individually, that's my opinion.

Anyway, the most common underlying reason for people to join internet forums such as this one or a skeptic forum, is because they want to have their beliefs confirmed. That's why people form groups. It brings them security and comfort, so confirmation bias is simply a natural byproduct of such kinds of social interactions.

Oh, and another VERY important thing: The best way to approach the investigation of ANY theory or subject is by trying to prove it and disprove it simultaneously. In this sense, skeptics and believers should be allies, not enemies, since if both kinds equally work hard to prove their points regarding a common question, the conclusion will be most likely closer to the truth than if they had approach it unilaterally.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Skeptics are those who are interested enough in a subject to study it, but are missing the final piece it will take to convince them...

they aren't looking for others to join them in disbelief as much as finding unknown answers...

[Carmody]

ok..back again;)

I think being unbiased and cold can work well in laboratories, but not necessarily when analyzing the supernatural. it has it's merits, of course, but unfortunately at the expense of any sort of intuition or heart-level knowing. I know this likely sounds ironic given my recent stance on the various "psychic" threads, but contrary to popular belief: I am not a robot;) I don't think we'll ever find God in the clinical calculations of the intellect; he resides in the heart (oh sh!t, i'm beginning to sound like f#cking Eckert Tolle here;))

regarding the odds of life in the universe, and the universe being infinite therefore calculating odds makes little sense etc, I see your point. it's a sound one. but let's take it a step further and consider the creation of the universe itself, and all the elements that were required in the proper proportions and at just the right time for it to pop into existence. how did it all get there? where did it all come from? randomness hardly suffices when considering the delicacy of this type of creation, in this posters' opinion anyway.

as far as reductionism goes, I think of that bit about chopping the atom apart countless times and still not arriving at an absolute. you can chop the damn thing forever, into infinity - you'll never really reach a finite destination. and that's God, isn't it?

admittedly, i'm not nearly as well read as you on the topic, though I might suggest that the more you read about God the less you know about Him/Her. it's the old Buddhist thing. I know it flies in the face of logic, but it's the best I can do;)

I get and have gotten past the skeptic stage via the required method:

Full involvement and risking of self, in the act of exploration and discovery. To step into the poo fully and often, and find which chunks sink or float.

To always 'seek detachment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4)', so my ideas on 'what is what' does not interrupt, color, or alter my logic process.


skepticism is a false function.

it is an emotional bastardization and self feeding/reflective feedback loop that is emotionally designed to foster comfort in the face of emotionally uncomfortable situations, a disruption of the scientific process. A disruption that 'brick walls' (terminates in a dead end) at the limits of the logic function of those involved in it. An emotionally derived coloration of logic function, a near epileptic stutter in mental function, a short circuit in logic function.

I file it in the same spot that I put murder - as another method of one (or a group) finding a method of 'having their way'.

I have created a situation here that can give rise to an emotional response in people, and that will disallow some to see the logic in what I'm saying. A catch 22 and full loop of the very thing that the skeptical mind and ideal lives by. 'Negative proofing' is of a similar mindset.

[Curt]

So then you're skeptical of skepticism, Carmody? Lol. Sorry, couldn't resist the cute phrase.

[Mike]

hi Carmody, I think if you'd said 'cynicism' is a false function I might have agreed with you. I believe we are all "skeptics" before we are thoroughly convinced of a certain truth. and I think it's a healthy thing, emotionally or otherwise. I would certainly consider remaining stubbornly skeptical after something becomes blatantly obvious (ex: ufo's) a false function, and no doubt an unhealthy approach - one that might fit into your self feeding/reflective loop explanation.

I think the mistake here is in the canning and labeling of those who relentlessly inquire. I don't know if I really like the connotations of the word 'skeptic'. it suggests rigidity. in other words, I can be skeptical at times, but I wouldn't necessarily regard myself as a skeptic. simply put: sometimes I am skeptical and sometimes I am not - it all depends on the issue at hand and the existence/strength of the proof/evidence provided/observed. but to simply say all skepticism is a mechanism by which one avoids emotionally uncomfortable situations is, in my opinion, nuance deficient.

I am in full agreement with you regarding getting one's feet a bit wet, stepping on the poo and so on. admittedly, this is an area where I am deficient. but i have been experimenting with energy work and astral projection lately, so stay tuned. I may have something experiential to report. and I may have some questions of you too!:)

[DeDukshyn]

This thread turned out rather interesting, and enjoyable.


At the end of the day, whether each of us are labeled as skeptics, cynics, atheists, believers, religious, or extremists of some type, there is a quote, I believe by Einstein, that is something we all need to keep in mind and respect in order for us to best get along and being productive (not a comment on anything in this thread - just a quote I like that I am sharing ;))

"Condemnation without investigation IS the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein

EDIT: Einstein confirmed as author ;)

[RMorgan]

This thread turned out rather interesting, and enjoyable.


At the end of the day, whether each of us are labeled as skeptics, cynics, atheists, believers, religious, or extremists of some type, there is a quote, I believe by Einstein, that is something we all need to keep in mind and respect in order for us to best get along and being productive (not a comment on anything in this thread - just a quote I like that I am sharing ;))

"Condemnation without investigation IS the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein

EDIT: Einstein confirmed as author ;)

That's cool, my friend!

We should add this one, to form a bigger picture:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence" - Aldous Huxley

So, could we say that both blind belief and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race?

In my opinion, we could.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Eram]

This thread turned out rather interesting, and enjoyable.


At the end of the day, whether each of us are labeled as skeptics, cynics, atheists, believers, religious, or extremists of some type, there is a quote, I believe by Einstein, that is something we all need to keep in mind and respect in order for us to best get along and being productive (not a comment on anything in this thread - just a quote I like that I am sharing ;))

"Condemnation without investigation IS the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein

EDIT: Einstein confirmed as author ;)

That's cool, my friend!

We should add this one, to form a bigger picture:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence" - Aldous Huxley

So, could we say that both blind belief and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race?

In my opinion, we could.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hi Raf,

I agree that blind believe and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race, but the quote that you brought to the conversation is a bit too harshly stated don't you think?
I wouldn't say it is the deepest sin around :)

Any way, about believing in things without prove...

What if you find books that contain detailed explanations about reality, on all levels of existence and the explanations are of such a profound undeniable order that there is no way around it, but much of it is beyond your reach of finding evidence for it (yet)?
There would be explanations in it that you can go out and prove to yourself, with the use of objective observations, but much of it is just beyond the range of perception.

I would file that which I can not prove as (unproven), but since all else that I have been able to go out and prove for myself has turned out valid, I would accept them as truth to build a picture of reality and our place in it, but under the notion that at some point, when I'm able to, I would still have to prove it to be true.

btw: Everything that is written in those books don't rule out your claims about the entities that are out there and have control over humanity (to a certain extend) and have little interest in us, other then the attention that we may provide if they conduct certain occult events in order to find their way out of here (in a nutshell that is how I remembered your references to it). Better yet, much that is said about those entities in the books corresponds to your posts that you made about them. Would you ever want to reveal how that information got to you and is there more that you can say about the subject?

[RMorgan]

Hi Raf,
I agree that blind believe and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race, but the quote that you brought to the conversation is a bit too harshly stated don't you think?
I wouldn't say it is the deepest sin around :)

Hey brother,

Well...Try looking deeper into that quote.

What has the act of believing without evidence done to the human mind along the centuries?

It trapped people...It conditioned people...It made us inherit second hand beliefs so many times, generation after generation, that we have become conditioned to believe...I'm not talking about religion exclusively here; I'm talking about believing in the news, the institutions, all the empty ideologies, government, political systems, authority, obedience, patriotism...

We were conditioned to believe anything and a lot of things, without even knowing where such beliefs came from and without even questioning why do we believe them...We didn't have a choice. Beliefs are handed down to us when we're kids, and they just become stronger when we grow up, and during the whole process we're never asked if we want those beliefs in the first place...It's mental slavery.

The greatest part of beliefs aren't even our own, to sum up...A kid born in the Middle East will most likely be a Muslin...A kid born in the west will most likely be a Christian...A kid born in North Korea will most likely be socialist...A kid born in the US will most likely be capitalist...The fact is, we never ever get the chance to make a choice, except in those rare cases where people really start questioning; Even though, in most belief systems, questioning is either a sin, a crime or denominated as anti-social behavior, so it has consequences.

Man, why would people believe in a book written thousands of years ago, by who knows who, claiming that some guy was born from a virgin, walked on water, resurrected the dead, then died himself, then came back from the dead himself, then ascended to who knows where, then this guy is listening to their prayers and fulfilling their desires, and this same guy would allegedly come back one day in flesh and blood to rule the planet and save us from ourselves? WHYYYYY?

I'm sure about one thing, though: People wouldn't believe this it if they weren't brainwashed with it since they were kids.

Damn...Even Santa Claus! A kid is barely able to interpret the world and the first thing they do is make them believe in a magic fat old man flying around in a magic sled pulled by magic reindeer who then goes down everyone's chimney simultaneously all over the world...And this guy only brings gifts if you behave and be obedient...You see? They work hard to ruin our minds since we're kids! Do you think it doesn't leave scars?

Same goes from all the other belief systems...Moral of the story: Be like this or that and you'll get rewarded. Ever try being yourself and you'll be punished...That's the way dogs and horses and even mice are trained, by the way.

The whole belief based system punishes those who dare to question and rewards those who don't...This is tyranny of the mind. It's the invisible chains of slavery disguised as freedom.

Beliefs aren't harmless...The content of the belief doesn't even matter. What matters is that we're born predisposed to believe anything, like blank sheet of papers, and the controllers take advantage of it and fill this paper with whatever may be convenient to them before we even learn how to hold a pencil...Then we take this drawing as ours...Then we defend and protect it like it was our most precious gift...Then we kill and die for it.

Now, just try to picture this: If along the millennia we were born free to think and question whatever we want...If we are allowed to make our own drawings on our own mental blank sheet of paper...If we were allowed to be ourselves since we were newborn babies, with no outside pressure forcing us to fit any kind of model. Ask yourself: Would you be the same person, would you believe the same things you do right now, if you were born into a society that, for millennia, had encouraged people to be free instead of turning people into intellectual and spiritual slaves through belief systems for thousands of years? How would this society would look like? Would even our brain's structure be the same?

So, do you really think your beliefs are yours? That you did get the chance to choose them? No man, you didn't.

We were conditioned to absorb, not to process information, by being conditioned to believe...Like a guy said, we´re born like this...into this...and I would complement saying that, eventually, we become this.

So, in my opinion, if you at least try to let go of beliefs, which is almost impossible by the way, and try a fresh beginning, questioning the apparently most basic questions, looking for your own answers (if that's even possible), at least you are doing yourself a favor by giving yourself a chance to find out who you are so you can try to be whatever you really want to be.

I guess that's what Huxley was trying to say when he said that believing things without evidence is the deepest sin against the human mind, brother.


Any way, about believing in things without prove...

What if you find books that contain detailed explanations about reality, on all levels of existence and the explanations are of such a profound undeniable order that there is no way around it, but much of it is beyond your reach of finding evidence for it (yet)?
There would be explanations in it that you can go out and prove to yourself, with the use of objective observations, but much of it is just beyond the range of perception.

I would file that which I can not prove as (unproven), but since all else that I have been able to go out and prove for myself has turned out valid, I would accept them as truth to build a picture of reality and our place in it, but under the notion that at some point, when I'm able to, I would still have to prove it to be true.

btw: Everything that is written in those books don't rule out your claims about the entities that are out there and have control over humanity (to a certain extend) and have little interest in us, other then the attention that we may provide if they conduct certain occult events in order to find their way out of here (in a nutshell that is how I remembered your references to it). Better yet, much that is said about those entities in the books corresponds to your posts that you made about them. Would you ever want to reveal how that information got to you and is there more that you can say about the subject?

Yeah...If there are such books, I didn't get the opportunity to read them so far.

Anyway, is there such thing as beyond the range of perception? In existential terms, I mean, since we're the protagonists of our own lives and we only experience life and consciousness through perception?

About my experiences with entities, I'd say it's quite complex...I'm still processing.

Such experiences are so subjective and so open to external interpretation interference, that trying to interpret them directly most likely wont deliver accurate results...I'm trying to approach them from several angles, to see if I can get something solid about them, but so far, no success...I need to get rid of all the noise before I can interpret them without using external conceptualizations and ideas...This is hard, but it's the only way to get a honest, legitimate and sincere answer.

So, I don't have the answers, but it doesn't mean I'll invent some bogus explanations to feel better about myself, or look for answers on books written by people who most probably just invented their own answers to feel better about themselves as well...

All the best, my friend,

Raf.

[Chester]

Hi folks - I have updated the thread title and then edited the OP - here is the link back (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?64675-My-theory-about-skeptics&p=747592&viewfull=1#post747592)to the OP.

Raf - I am working on a good response to Post #51. I hope to be done before the middle of the day, Tuesday... but perhaps sooner - Chester

[Alekahn2]

This thread turned out rather interesting, and enjoyable.


At the end of the day, whether each of us are labeled as skeptics, cynics, atheists, believers, religious, or extremists of some type, there is a quote, I believe by Einstein, that is something we all need to keep in mind and respect in order for us to best get along and being productive (not a comment on anything in this thread - just a quote I like that I am sharing ;))

"Condemnation without investigation IS the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein

EDIT: Einstein confirmed as author ;)

That's cool, my friend!

We should add this one, to form a bigger picture:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence" - Aldous Huxley

So, could we say that both blind belief and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race?

In my opinion, we could.

Cheers,

Raf.

Adding yet another view to this dynamic spectrum which ranges from (blind) skepticism to (blind) belief, which I agree are equally detrimental as Raf stated.
As in all things, there must exist a ~middle ground~ between these two poles
and extremes. Perhaps this is where gnosis comes into play. Tricky ground that.

(parenthetical words and bolding added by me):

"I don't believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of brain damage,
the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity, the atrophy of imagination.
I have opinions, but no Belief System...as soon as anyone believes a doctrine (dogma)
of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking (critically, imaginatively)
about that aspect of existence. Only the madman is absolutely sure."

~Robert Anton Wilson

[DeDukshyn]

 
 
"Believe Nothing, Consider Everything"

Another valid quote for the topic ;) Not sure who's this originally is ... it might even be mine ;) But it's intent is keep the extremes of both skepticism and belief in a reasonable arena.

[AxisMundi]

"I don't believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of brain damage,
the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity, the atrophy of imagination.
I have opinions, but no Belief System...as soon as anyone believes a doctrine (dogma)
of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking (critically, imaginatively)
about that aspect of existence. Only the madman is absolutely sure."

~Robert Anton Wilson

He also said of Skeptics (referring to those who deem themselves part of the Skeptics movement) in an interview:

"but they're not skeptical! They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college, which was about 1948-53, somewhere in that period. If you go back and study what was being taught in college in those days as the latest scientific theories, you find out that's what these people still believe. They haven't had a new idea in 30 years, that's all that happened to them. They just rigidified, they crystallized around 1960.”

~Robert Anton Wilson

[Mike]

great quotes from everybody!

I've always loved Bill Maher. his documentary "Religulous" is among the best and funniest I've ever seen. Raf, I think you in particular would really appreciate it. I believe it can be downloaded in it's entirety if youre interested. it's loaded with great quotes and one liners, but one in particular stands out, as it rendered a staunch religionist speechless. after the usual spiel about "faith" was given, Maher said: "but why is faith good? why is believing something without evidence a good thing?" the guy had no response.

he also said: "faith makes a virtue out of not thinking." perfectly put.

here are a few highlights. I hope this isn't too off topic Chester.

8uqiv3tCghA

[Bill Ryan]

-------

My favorite definition of 'skeptic'. (And by this definition, I certainly count myself as one. :) )




Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.
Bernie Haisch --- http://ufoskeptic.org

The problem is this: although there's are a lot of sheer nonsense on the internet, and a lot of unbelievable information -- SOME of the unbelievable information is true.

[Chester]

Warning - monster post - This post is primarily in response to Raf's post #51

Here is what I see is the problem with proving that consciousness effects the manifestation of reality. There appears to be no room for the actual “reality” itself to have a role in what the observer observes nor any room that consciousness alone could be a participant in what comes forth in the observable and/or measurable reality.

So when i run an experiment, actions are performed and results occur. Here is a simple example – the mixing of paint colors. If I mix yellow with blue, I get green. And I can repeat this. And any unbiased, unknowing third party could be shown the green, be asked what color it is and they will say green.

But what I have observed regarding the introduction of the possibility consciousness may play a role in what manifests in the reality we now introduce new components to what could still be seen as a scientific process albeit a different one than the current standard which is regarded by many as the only acceptable method and that there never can be another method that could become acceptable.

So back to the point I am hoping to make.

I have found a way to... a way that I can repeat - to generate the manifestation of odds against phenomena.
So what then are the components.

I am a being – and being a living being, I appear to have a changing consciousness - something we can intellectually conceive of but which (as of now) cannot be measured in any form.
So the first component is my own consciousness – I can then perform an action such as speak or write some words.
Those words can be read or heard by another living being.
This in turn may make an impression upon their own consciousness.
And then, in short order (in a brief moment after the first two actions have occurred) observable events may arise. Where events get labeled as “synchronistic” is when the events that then arise, even though they appear to arise independent of any direct action from me or the other being, what they possess is some type of property which can be connected in a meaningful way to the subject that was originally spoken or written about and which was shared with the other living being.

And that either of the two participants as well as possibly other observers would recognize the high degree of improbability that the event now labeled as synchronistic could occur at the time it occurred just after context was established by the first living being.

I am sure I may have lost some folks here, but let me bring it back to the paint mixing analogy. In the physical realm, if we mix yellow paint with blue paint, we always get green.

In the realm of synchronicity, you can mix two components but you can never be assured you will get green, yet... under the right circumstances, you can be assured that what you get will be seen as uncannily, meaningfully connected to the yellow and blue paint.

So in this case, metaphorically you cannot always add two numbers and achieve the same result – like 3 plus 5 equals 8 and always will equal 8... but what 3 + 5 will get you, under the right conditions, is a result which causes the participants and attention paying observers to say, “Wow,” because they see the improbability of the manifestation that soon came forth.

I have studied this phenomena in a serious way for over two decades. I made terrible errors along the way which I will write about in due time. Errors that very nearly cost me my life. But the first thing I want to share is this –

I found two key ingredients that must exist for the phenomena to come forth.

The first ingredient - That the participants have, in the depths of their consciousness (perhaps well below their waking state consciousness... what psychologists estimate is only about 5% of a being’s entire consciousness) an open mindedness to possibility that currently unexplainable phenomena can occur.

The second ingredient – And this applies foremost to the actual participants but is not necessarily required of any third party observers is that the participants be very much physically alive (in good, lively health) and have an enthusiasm for life, a current positive attitude, a motivated and energized state of being.

Of course, there’s no black or white to this just like there are all sorts of grades to gasoline... that the higher octane gas generates more umph in the engine... yet even low octane gas may still be able to run an engine – but what I found is that the there is a direct proportionality of these ingredients to the actual properties of a synchronicity.

What are the key properties of a manifested synchronicity that I have identified so far?
Timing – at what precise moment does the recognizable synchronistic event(s) arise?
Recognition power – how easy was it for participants and observers to recognize the synchronistic event(s)
Profundity – how powerfully the symbol(s) of the event appear to relate to the precursor circumstances.
Probability of all the components happening as they happened and when they happened.

So back to the various participants in the manifestation of a synchronicity.
There must be one living being who has the cognition capability to discern (to some reasonable extent) the properties of a synchronicity event.

That being must be alive and possess an active conscious field (regardless of how aware they are of their full consciousness from the point of view of that beings waking state consciousness)
That the reality participates - it is from within the perceived reality which the event must spring forth.
So we have added two components that do not appear to play a role on the standard scientific method – consciousness and the reality.

Now, if we can get past the fact that green paint will not always (nor hardly ever) be the result, but can accept the possibility that when a result is analyzed, that that result appears quite profound, all but impossible (thus incredibly highly improbable) and that other conscious, cognizently developed beings are able to observe this same result and see it in the same physically manifested way (others can be direct participants as well as observers who played no clear participatory role), a way which can be described and that the description can be agreed upon then we can be considered a candidate for discovering our own ability to participate in the creation of these types of experiences and even develop, as I have... what I guess you could call a talent where I metaphorically am able to fertilize the ground from which clear, profound synchronicities arise and that these synchronicities can be deemed as clearly “strange and unexplainable and even spooky” to other participants and/or passive observers and agree that we don’t need green paint itself for us to agree that indeed a phenomena is occurring which indeed appears to have an intimate relationship to consciousness (especially those of the participants) and that the result is clearly profound as to the timing, degree of agreeably connected meaning, etc. – then we now have not only a new form of scientific method but the possibilities of where this could all go and what we might find ourselves able to experience in our near future is simply off the charts.

Wow – was my last sentence really that long?

Anyways – none of the above is meant to insinuate that there is any third party, external “deity” involved.

If I had to guess about it – my guess would be “we are the creators of the reality experience which includes this physical realm we refer to as the material realm but that also, there are realms of form not relegated to this specific material realm which we have also created and that the single implication one can draw from all this – to speak metaphorically – is that we are the creator of all, all our experience, all realms of form.

Since that is something I may never be able to prove, I don’t try. What I have done though, which has resulted in a massive transformation of my own life experience is that I bet that this is true and I live my life as if I have made a bet on the right side.

So to all and Raf - I cannot "teach" this to anyone. I can only share my experiences and my observations and my speculations. But I bet that if anyone finds themselves further inspired by my own expression of enthusiasm, they will experience a rise in synchronistic events as well as a rise in the degree of profundity of these events... and if we all begin to experience this rise, we might find we let go of our rigid "religious" type beliefs and instead open up to the possibility that this is simply a property of a living being and that if then we can open up to this possibility more and more, we might then logically conclude we are all (to some extent) far more connected to each other than we previously thought and that if we draw that conclusion, we don't need third parties to "teach us" to "Love our neighbors as ourselves," we naturally begin to do so because it makes practical sense.

WoW! I beat my promised deadline – which is a rare feat.

[Chester]

So ... the lack of meaning in your experiences is the meaning, due to the un-randomness of the meaninglessness? I think you nailed what you were trying to say with that (heh, at least for me) -- and yes, there is far more value in that understanding than many will be able to understand.

A story only experience can tell ...

Nice one. ;)

Actually what I was trying to say was that the elephant in the living room is the phenomena itself. That is the profound derivative of the synchronicity experiences I have had.

When I was younger, I would have a synchronicity experience and would (in my current view erroneously) conclude that "God" or some "divine third party" had chosen me as some "special agent" related to the current religious leanings I happened to have at that time. But when I started to experiment with the various traditions from all over the world including the pagan traditions and including the darker religions such as Satanism and in some folk's view, Luciferianism and even in the view of others - Gnosticism... when I would come upon a tenant of one of those traditions which I felt in my heart I agreed with (which then generated enthusiasm), I would then experience profound synchronicities.

Again, my error was concluding that i was some special chosen being by the "deity" or "deities" behind those traditions to be their agent and that it was through synchronicity (as well as telepathic communication) that "they" were able to deliver their messages to me.

I now conclude these synchronicities arose solely due to my openness to this form of what I then thought was "communication" and due to my enthusiasm for a specific tradition at a specific point in time and that I possessed an active, healthy body which seems integral to the experience of profound synchronicities.

For me now, it is the phenomena itself that provides "meaning" if you will... or maybe I might better call it - vast experience that provides enough "proof" for me that life is all connected in a way we have yet to be able to scientifically describe (or control... which might be a mistake to try and do or may never be able to be done - but I digress).

My experience has led me to a profound change in my world view. The result is that I am at peace with myself and peace with all far more of the time that passes each day than I was before this shift in my world view.

My conclusion is that the more folks have these types of experiences, the greater chance the collective experience we have is improved and in an accelerated fashion.

[Chester]

Raf and others are continually making great posts in this thread - but I had to pull this one line out of a post by Raf on page 3, Post #55 - here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?64675-My-theory-about-skeptics&p=748401&viewfull=1#post748401)


Now, how the world would look like without religion? Well, in my opinion, much better than it looks now.

Agree 100% - and is, in fact, my greatest wish for the future of our planet.

EDIT: (Added - another good one from Raf in Post #66)


Beliefs are handed down to us when we're kids, and they just become stronger when we grow up, and during the whole process we're never asked if we want those beliefs in the first place...It's mental slavery.

and another -


The whole belief based system punishes those who dare to question and rewards those who don't...This is tyranny of the mind.

[Chester]

...and in fact... the last few paragraph's of Raf's post #55 prompted me to see this -

It was due to my own skepticism that I was able to transcended the complex where I derived "meaning" from my synchronicity experiences! PoW! Funny how this thread (which I started and did so on the wrong foot) came back to slap me in my own face!! haha

But this is why I love this forum and why I participate and why, though my ego might resist, I do my best to allow honesty (meaning self honesty above all) to prevail.

[Carmody]

So then you're skeptical of skepticism, Carmody? Lol. Sorry, couldn't resist the cute phrase.

More that I'm aware of the mis-application/misuse of the word 'skepticism', by those who do understand what it really means to be 'skeptical'.

The kind of people who are really unwilling to move from where they are, into anything new, they refuse to investigate with clear and well founded intellect. The kind who have shifted the use of the word skeptic to a place where it should not be. As Bill has abundantly shown, a few posts back, via illustrating the proper definition and use of the word 'skeptic'.

[Chester]

The word "skeptic" has meant to me - someone who wants to disprove something.

Whereas someone tagged with the label "open minded" seems to be someone who hopes to experience the miraculous and/or what they cannot explain but are happy to experience it and perhaps don't require an explanation.

Like the paint mixing again - I am sure there is a scientific explanation as to why yellow paint mixed with blue paint makes green paint, but I don't need to know that scientific detail when I want to make green paint and only have yellow and blue paint available.

Sorry for the posting flurry - off to the store so I give ya'll a break.

Perhaps we should see folks that question and inquire but not for the goal of disproving as folks who enjoy investigating and could be seen as "enjoyers of sound discernment."

[RMorgan]

Hey Chester,

I have to confess that I didn't fully comprehend what you were saying in your post 73#.

However, I just saw a billboard while driving back from lunch, with a big fat Chester on it, you know, that GMO bird most humans eat on Christmas.

Needless to say, it reminded me of you...Not that people eat you on Christmas...I don't think you look like a bird, as well...Just the name, you know. :)

Call it Apophenia, which is more likely, since there are Christmas adds everywhere now, or call it synchronicity...It was quite fun, either way.

Cheers,

Raf.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPU3Xej1r0AaQ0FQCd9VSj_Q_XNeMP8aG1Cncw8KRvDF_XclzO

[Chester]

This thread turned out rather interesting, and enjoyable.


At the end of the day, whether each of us are labeled as skeptics, cynics, atheists, believers, religious, or extremists of some type, there is a quote, I believe by Einstein, that is something we all need to keep in mind and respect in order for us to best get along and being productive (not a comment on anything in this thread - just a quote I like that I am sharing ;))

"Condemnation without investigation IS the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein

EDIT: Einstein confirmed as author ;)

That's cool, my friend!

We should add this one, to form a bigger picture:

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence" - Aldous Huxley

So, could we say that both blind belief and blind skepticism are equally detrimental to the human race?

In my opinion, we could.

Cheers,

Raf.

I can't leave this alone...

As some know, I am an odds maker by trade. In odds making, nothing is ever certain... at least when it comes to outcome prediction. So to be a professional handicapper and for business owners that have businesses that accept wagers on propositions that are only resolved at some point in the future to want to employ someone as their resident handicapper, that business owner must have confidence that the handicapper will generate pricing which over the long run, and reasonably consistently attracts more money from the bettors to be placed on the losing sides than to the winning sides.

Only track record can establish that confidence from the owner guy.

Yet, as we can see, I have no way of being able to know, with 100% certainty the outcome of any specific proposition.

The line I make is based on my best guess. Which is also the same thing as a belief. I cannot know Dallas will beat the Redskins by more than 3 next Sunday, but maybe other handicappers have the line at 2 and so maybe my 3 gets more Redskin action than the other joints might get... but if I am right more than I am wrong and we get more losing money wagers than winning money wagers, I believe but cannot know for sure that I have a good chance I have the same job next Monday.

We sometimes have to make guesses in our lives. We sometimes have to believe in our guesses. What would life be like if a being has no confidence in their guesses? Sounds like a fear filled life to me. Isn't that one of the goals of at least Western religions? Instill fear that one might go to "hell?"

My handicapping says I won't... in fact, my handicapping says Hell doesn't even exist.

[shadowstalker]

The theory can be imposed upon the skeptic and believer, but only for the ones are are in the extreme beliefs system..
Course this is just my theory as well and nothing more,
Just like when it come to symbolism People will see what they are afraid of and see what they supposedly have faith in as in religious beliefs system or government belief systems and so on and so forth.

[Agape]

MpmF3QvF96A

A heated debate on the role of faith and feminism has taken place at the BBC's inaugural 100 Women conference.

Atheist Kate Smurthwaite says all major religions have a "deeply misogynistic" history but radical Spanish nun Teresa Forcades says she is working, as a Catholic, to change that.


I thought this is illustrative extrapolation of wo(man) opinion , and the madness of e(man)cipation . And how it's going to look like here in the next century ..or two ( and why Islam is so much against ..)

:haha:

[Chester]

Such experiences are so subjective and so open to external interpretation interference, that trying to interpret them directly most likely wont deliver accurate results...I'm trying to approach them from several angles, to see if I can get something solid about them, but so far, no success...I need to get rid of all the noise before I can interpret them without using external conceptualizations and ideas...This is hard, but it's the only way to get a honest, legitimate and sincere answer.


What if one can never discover the exact "how" of something, but based on the experience of applying many different approaches to a problem, one discovers one of the approaches consistently produces, clear and perhaps even measurably better results?

Here is what has been working for me better than any approach I ever tried regarding "the dark forces" (perhaps we might call them the Archontic forces).

I have come to view these influences as... (get ready)

within me

...implying they are my own creation (in so much as they impact my own life).

In other words, I take responsibility for them relative to how they impact my own life - but not anyone else's.

I have experienced a profoundly different experience since I have "tried on" this view. This is leading me to gain more confidence I may be on the right track - but just for myself and would have no idea nor would I make any assumption that if something proves to be true for me that it would be true for any other living being.

This borders "belief" in my view... can I use that word here? It is tricky... Fortunately I am just as able to cast aside something "I believe in" at any moment and sometimes based on the tiniest bit of knew information. I think that's the secret to my modus operandi in the material realm.

[Chester]

Hey Chester,

I have to confess that I didn't fully comprehend what you were saying in your post 73#.

However, I just saw a billboard while driving back from lunch, with a big fat Chester on it, you know, that GMO bird most humans eat on Christmas.

Needless to say, it reminded me of you...Not that people eat you on Christmas...I don't think you look like a bird, as well...Just the name, you know. :)

Call it Apophenia, which is more likely, since there are Christmas adds everywhere now, or call it synchronicity...It was quite fun, either way.

Cheers,

Raf.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPU3Xej1r0AaQ0FQCd9VSj_Q_XNeMP8aG1Cncw8KRvDF_XclzO

This experience appears to support exactly what I am saying... "the reality" provided exactly what your deepest sub conscious likely desired - this is just my assumption and only make it an odds on favorite. That Chester is just some turkey! hahaha I love it. You gotta admit - the timing and the profundity are there, but are you able to be in touch with your deeper self to know if this is perhaps what your sub conscious desire might be? It doesn't have to be a black or white, want or not want desire. It is more about "which way do you lean?" That Chester is a turkey or that Chester may actually be onto something that's more than the convenient explanation called apophenia. What are the chances? What was your mind thinking about just before you saw the billboard?

So if you can say, Yes... I sorta think that Chester may be a bit goofy (a turkey), was this manifestation enjoyable to your deeper self? Maybe even enjoyable in your waking consciousness? If this is the case, then perhaps you have cracked open the door. If you allow the door to swing open more and more, then you will begin to have the same questions I have that I have suggested possible answers for in this thread - specifically that we (the observer) play a key role in creating our observations.

Isn't it strange that a brand of Turkey sold exclusively in Brazil is named "Chester?"

[Chester]

And now that I have succeeded in losing everyone, I synchronistically stumbled on a post by Eram of an interview Russell Brand has with "Quantum Physicist," Dr. John Hagelin.

LRgu3V6Ex_A

Quantum physicists "think" they have figured out the connectivity of all. The double slit experiment strongly suggests the observer plays an intrinsic role in the appearance of the observation. This suggests to me consciousness likely influences the perceived reality. Thus it is no great leap for me to consider my own subconscious could influence what arises in my experience, no matter the form of manifestation.

It is then no great leap to consider we create, together, a reality background within which our individual and group experiences arise.

My life experiences have proven well enough to me that enthusiasm acts like gasoline on a fire when it comes to generating synchronicity experiences and that this phenomena is contagious.

[Chester]

Even Wikipedia sometimes uses words to accurately portray "something."

The double-slit experiment - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)


The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

"fundamentally probablistic"

Here is what I discovered about most skeptics - if probability is involved, then what someone may postulate, regardless of the degree of probability... that specific postulation is argued to be "unproven" with a massive, underlying implication that it is false.

They won't come out and say that they want the specific postulation to be unprovable but you can tell that is "the way they roll."

Note, I said, most "skeptics."

I once had a friend who was a huge "human caused global warming" militant. His basis for his view was all the "science" put forth through "trusted media." I worked on him for a few years and finally - after showing him data that suggests weather changes are more likely coming from non-human involved natural causes, such as changes in the sun and that just because you read or hear something on some "trusted" mainstream news source, does not make it true when he finally, one day, said he was starting to open his mind. But I could see the blow this caused to his world view. It revealed his deeper fears and he spoke of those with me as we went further along in our relationship.

Now, in defense of skepticism (though I would find another set of words to describe what I am about to write up)...

If someone is rather equally skeptical and yet open minded... as close to equal in the balance of those two poles as possible, it could be said that that person was "healthily discerning."

Healthy for those they may affect in some way as well as healthy for themselves.

So if we break the labels down into more than just black and white, we can have -

a.) skeptic

b.) healthily discerning

c.) dominated by their desires, dreams, fantasies

I strive to be part of group b graced with a teensee, tinesee lean to group c as a weapon against boredom.

[Chester]

One more - Russell Brand interviews physicist John Hagelin at David Lynch Foundation

OtuLnwy_L5k


"You could say that the long term result of meditation is living the scientific truth of the unity of life. Experiencing it momentarily and then stabilizing it and living the unity of humanity as a living reality in daily life."

So I am hopeful (as opposed to skeptical) of the possibility that my open mindedness as to what may be a factor (my own consciousness as well as our collective consciousness) in what makes my reality experience as it comes forth to my perception in my outer world... simply, inexplicably but ever so observably magical may be true and odds are that it is true and that I am fortunate enough to have functioning cognition ability that I can weigh the odds well enough to draw the conclusion that I am at the very least, a co-creator of my own reality experience at every level of that experience.

[Chester]

Mind Blowing... I just learned over the last few days about David Lynch and his role in creating the Transcendental Meditation Foundation, his support for Russell Brand and how this all connects with the above noted quantum physicist, Dr. John Hagelin. And though I have ruined most of my brain cells with "self-destructive behavior," somehow the name David Lynch started to ring a bell. So I looked at the films he did as shown on the Wikipedia link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynchhttp://) and there it was - The Elephant Man. Why that stuck out to me is I recall my Mom once mentioned she was friends with the maker of that film - so I just e-mailed my Mom and asked her. Note she is about to turn 76. Here was her response -


Well, let’s see. I was friends with him and wife Peggy. Noel {my Mom's second husband} and I used to baby sit daughter Jennifer who was in braces for I believe double club feet. Marli {my sister and who happens to be next to me in my profile pic} was in one of his first 'backyard’ movies, I think called "The Grandmother". He was always way ahead of all his friends at that time, and sometimes hard to talk to. I doubt he would remember me though. My impression at that time was "he is going somewhere", and I guess I was right.

Hope this helps.

Love,
Mom


apophenia? sybcronicity? What are the odds?

EDIT: Update - I spoke with my sister. She recalls being auditioned. She was about 10 years old or so at the time. She says she does not recall being in the film. She said she remembers that the film was already in process and what she still remembers to this day is that they showed her some of the film that had already been shot and she remembers some actors had rubber bands around their mouths. Early in the film can be seen the actors with weird smiles. Now I know how they did it.

QLIxS7Bdz10

[DeDukshyn]

And now that I have succeeded in losing everyone, I synchronistically stumbled on a post by Eram of an interview Russell Brand has with "Quantum Physicist," Dr. John Hagelin.

...

Quantum physicists "think" they have figured out the connectivity of all. The double slit experiment strongly suggests the observer plays an intrinsic role in the appearance of the observation. This suggests to me consciousness likely influences the perceived reality. Thus it is no great leap for me to consider my own subconscious could influence what arises in my experience, no matter the form of manifestation.

It is then no great leap to consider we create, together, a reality background within which our individual and group experiences arise.

My life experiences have proven well enough to me that enthusiasm acts like gasoline on a fire when it comes to generating synchronicity experiences and that this phenomena is contagious.

This Is IT.

This identifies both the reward and the danger of the power of the collective consciousness -- my evidence of the importance of this is the mainstream media -- constantly trying to align our thought forms to their dictations. At the same ... think of the potential - how much power we really have due to this "hard to see" reality? (there is a cheap, low budget movie that tried to touch on a small aspect of this called "Branded") HInOg12jMiY .

Bill Ryan posted somewhere here that the military in general is most afraid of human collective potential, above all things.

The elite fear this because they get brought down to an equal level; when everyone is powerful - no one is.

Then they lose their power. It IS this simple ... hence "info wars" being replaced with the "belief wars" -- in modern "Elite" efforts -- they care about your beliefs because that creates this "background" - upon which (modern and thus hijacked) religion is based upon -- this is what gives religions their powers ...

I hope with this others can see what is actually happening here ... ;) With this info "creating our collective reality" is very attainable ... we all just need to get on the same side ...

Thank you Chester.

[Chester]

To get the full gist of this post, one should first follow this link (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?860-Enlightenment-The-Ego-what-is-it-How-to-transcend-it.&p=751361&viewfull=1#post751361) to another post I made in greybeard's thread.

So... the Unified Field. One can have a golf ball sized awareness and have a golf ball sized experience.

Or one can expand their awareness and have an expanded experience, expanded creativity.

That's what happens when one or more open to an enlivened experience and that is what catalizes synchronicty experiences and this, to me, and others... David Lynch, Dr. John Hagelin, Russell Brand, Jerry Seinfeld, and all sorts of folks from all walks of life see simply as the science of being a human being. Does not have to have anything to do with any God or "gods" nor any religion.

It is just the science of being.

It is increasing ones awareness of and expanding the capabilities of enlivened, invigorated, enthusiastic life.

It is my opinion that those amongst us who experience far more than reasonably probable synchronicity experiences (like myself) are able to accomplish this because they have expanded well beyond the average human being, their awareness and that can only happen if one is open to the idea in the first place and that sometimes means "believing" to some extent in what the mind might reject as unbelievable.

That's part of the process I used to harness and grow this psi ability which involves creating the environment from which observable, measurable synchronicities can and do arise and do so way beyond random odds.

[transiten]

I live a life of daily synchronicities since the 1980:ies. Just finished "The Synchronicity Key" by David Wilcock. I know he is not held in high regards among many on Avalon but it's a pity if they won't even open his books because of his failed predictions, his "Ego bigger than the universe" high placements on the New York Bestseller list and making his living from this.

Wilcock is not my "guru" and i'm not a "fan", i never believed in the 2012 "instant ascension" which he doesn't either anymore after re-reading reevaluating the channelings of Ra (whether one believes in these or not) and i'm sceptical about the "Russian/Putin thingy", i read lots of other stuff. Since synchronicity is such a hughe issue in my life of course i also wanted to read his book, having read everything i could find on this issue.

Wilcock connects the dots from other pples research and the findings are mindblowing. esp the synchronizing old religion calendars tracking planetary cycles reflecting history. And of course the synchronicities that happened to me while reading the book and posting on Avalon could fill up a forum all by themselves:bigfish:

Yours in Sync transiten:jester: day, life was such an easy game to play...

[Chester]

I love Wilcock and have only one beef with him - that he uses the threat of employing the very system - a system he capitalizes upon by proclaiming he is intentionally striving to taking down... uses this same very system to "protect" his "property" which is simply his own unique way of expressing the nature of life and spirit and in almost all cases, nothing new.

How does one "own" any aspect of (or form of expression of) what we all enjoy - ie. our spiritual nature - anyway?

Still, he is human just like most of us and I love him as I love all and I still get something out of things he comes up with and the way he presents it, albeit far less than I would if he did not also maintain this horrific hypocrisy.

As far as David Wilcock's knowledge and experience goes with the synchronicity phenomena, I am concerned he is prone to interpreting the experiences as "signs from God" (implying a third party 'god almighty' type thingie) which is not my theory as to how, why these experiences come forth. I do not know if I am right, that they are simply eruptions into the reality brought forth by a high energy enthusiasm of an individual's (or a collective's) sub conscious emanating from the Unified Field. But that's the way my handicapping leans at this time.