It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spirit Material?

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moongirl
Would anyone know what are spirits made out of?

Spirit, by definition, would be immaterial.

It's funny, cos for all of Woodcarver's boasting of being a Material Analyst, this would make him the VERY LEAST qualified on the subject...




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
How many people here are in favor of accepting people’s claims at face value?



I have a similar question

How many people here are so arrogant that they deny every claim that interferes with their worldview



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

So what do you think about the well documented scientific methods of Sheldrake and the results of those studies?

Rupert sheldrake? You would have to be more specific. He makes a lot of claims.


Very nice deflection. You appear to be an intelligent person so I hope you are utilizing laziness instead of falseness.

Here is one of the studies that might meet your scientific criteria for 'proof':

[url=]https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations[ /url]


Many dog owners claim that their animal knows when a member of the household is about to come home. Typically, the dog is said to go and wait at a door, window or gate while the person is on the way home (Sheldrake, 1994, 1999a). Random household surveys in Britain and the United States have shown that between 45 and 52 per cent of dog owners say they have noticed this kind of behavior (Brown & Sheldrake, 1998; Sheldrake, Lawlor & Turney, 1998; Sheldrake & Smart, 1997).


.
.
.

If I may ask, what is your religion? I would almost bet you don't believe in the soul and lean towards the path of the atheist.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I fully agree. But sometimes you have to use their methods against them hoping to discover some form of critical thought. I am starting to realize that method doesn't produce very good results.

I just wish they could see their own hypocrisy. That they are just as religious as those who follow the abrahamic religions.

But I wonder with their steadfast denial and entering into the realms of complete theoretical science, that they are doing more harm than good.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

Not trolling at all. What I compose, I fully believe in.

I just realize that to these 'scientists', they believe I am speaking falsely and I think that is funny.

Speaking falsely is probably against the rules of this reality.
Do you claim to have some ability that others do not possess? Or maybe a heightened sensitivity that is useful to you someway?


When you say abilities, do you mean controlled or random?
Again, just curious. : )
Random equates to coincidence. I say this For several reasons.

1) it is not reliable and could just as easily be a coincidence. You would not know beforehand to react to it.

2) it is not useful in that you would not otherwise react to every random thought that pops into your mind.

3) it is not testable, and therefor not interesting


Also we have reasons to disbelieve these claims. Such as our inherent ability to succumb to confirmation bias. Those who believe they have abilities see every coincidence as confirmation of their beliefs. Although there is not a single credible example of someone who can perform these abilities.

Multitude of claims that are being made right here on this site should make this a hotbed of scientific inquiry. But if you Notice when people are pressed for descriptions of their abilities, we are only met with hemming and hawing. Claims that they are being attacked. And questions about why do I care? And let’s not forget the thing that comes up every thread is that if I don’t Believe why do I come here? If these people were really interested in understanding these things that I would believe they would be more forthcoming with their descriptions. What I do find is a lot of people making excuses. And not a single person presenting their abilities.


edit on 7-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

So what do you think about the well documented scientific methods of Sheldrake and the results of those studies?

Rupert sheldrake? You would have to be more specific. He makes a lot of claims.


Very nice deflection. You appear to be an intelligent person so I hope you are utilizing laziness instead of falseness.

Here is one of the studies that might meet your scientific criteria for 'proof':

[url=]https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations[ /url]


Many dog owners claim that their animal knows when a member of the household is about to come home. Typically, the dog is said to go and wait at a door, window or gate while the person is on the way home (Sheldrake, 1994, 1999a). Random household surveys in Britain and the United States have shown that between 45 and 52 per cent of dog owners say they have noticed this kind of behavior (Brown & Sheldrake, 1998; Sheldrake, Lawlor & Turney, 1998; Sheldrake & Smart, 1997).


.
.
.

If I may ask, what is your religion? I would almost bet you don't believe in the soul and lean towards the path of the atheist.
Asking for clarity is not a deflection. Dr. Sheldrake was a bio chemist. He used to do legitimate science. But his work in parapsychology is laughable. No one who employs critical thinking can except his theories about telepathy and that resonance thing.

His methods have holes in them. He is literally used as an example of how not to do science



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

And your attacks on this subject material from the very beginning don't give you pause as to why people 'hem & haw' when confronted with the likes of you?

Those that know will just smile at you. Maybe there are no benefits from these sensations that you would understand. But there is one thing that has about 50/50 chance of making this reality GREAT for the individual.

Would you know what that could possibly be?

Also, since I possess no tact, do you believe in the soul? Are your personal beliefs closer to those of an athiest?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Woodcarver

"Are you asking me to prove a negative?"

Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?

Because the concept of a null hypothesis is used differently.

There you go attempting to introduce derogatory interjections into what should be a meaningful debate.

Have you ever been tested? As it may be an idea considering the narcissism you have displayed in spades in this thread alone. x
You say you were an electrical engineer but you don’t know how to use the quote function on these boards?


Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?
I don’t know, you’re the one asking me to prove a negative? It’s your question.

Pointing out that you should know better than to ask me to prove a negative is not a derogatory remark. It is pointing out that your grasp of logic should be much higher if you are actually an electrical engineer.


Apparently you've never studied the ability of human errors and typos... Human errors are strong, I guess you missed that through not paying attention in life.
I make typos all the time I’m not worried about it. Most of them are due to me using a voice to text function on my phone.


Then dont bash others for doing the same and I dont care for your excuse to why they happen.


Using the quote function is part of t&c. Neglecting to use it is not a typo. Will you please get back to the topic at hand?


And why do you care so much?
Do I really need to justify my curiosity to you?

Why am I curious? Because I would like to know. Maybe I’m interested in people who claim to have abilities that seem to defy our understandings. Maybe I want to find somebody who can help me be the first to explain it in scientific terms. Perhaps I just don’t like it when people tell lies to manipulate others into believing they are special. Either way you look at it, the only way to come to any valid confirmation of these abilities whether they be magic or physiological in someway, is to study them. It is to find people who are willing to come forward and present their claims for testing. Are you against that in someway? Do you think this isn’t worth studying? Do you think I should accept everyone’s claims at face value without something to back them up?


Wow, you really are like talking to a rock. I asked "Why do you care" for "Why do you care so much about someone using quotes or their typos" not about spirituality or why your curious, I never asked you that. Stop cutting out what others write and giving an answer to a question that was never asked. Idc why your curious into spirituality. And why dont you create your own thread and make it more aware to ATS'rs instead of someone elses thread.
edit on 7-7-2018 by xBWOMPx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I can see why you dismiss random abilities, could it be because someone who has random abilities pass your test? : P

I think most humans have some form of random para-ability, and that should be tested. Anyway, confirmation bias works both ways, you create your own reality... right?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

And your attacks on this subject material from the very beginning don't give you pause as to why people 'hem & haw' when confronted with the likes of you?

Those that know will just smile at you. Maybe there are no benefits from these sensations that you would understand. But there is one thing that has about 50/50 chance of making this reality GREAT for the individual.

Would you know what that could possibly be?

Also, since I possess no tact, do you believe in the soul? Are your personal beliefs closer to those of an athiest?
I do not believe in people‘s claims about souls or gods. And unless you are prepared to demonstrate the validity of any of those claims, I will not be discussing Your speculations on the matter.
edit on 7-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Woodcarver

I can see why you dismiss random abilities, could it be because someone who has random abilities pass your test? : P

I think most humans have some form of random para-ability, and that should be tested. Anyway, confirmation bias works both ways, you create your own reality... right?
No confirmation bias does not work both ways.Employing the proper use ofthe scientific method makes sure of that.

Lol, And no, nobody has ever passed even a preliminary evaluation of their claims that they have abilities.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Woodcarver

"Are you asking me to prove a negative?"

Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?

Because the concept of a null hypothesis is used differently.

There you go attempting to introduce derogatory interjections into what should be a meaningful debate.

Have you ever been tested? As it may be an idea considering the narcissism you have displayed in spades in this thread alone. x
You say you were an electrical engineer but you don’t know how to use the quote function on these boards?


Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?
I don’t know, you’re the one asking me to prove a negative? It’s your question.

Pointing out that you should know better than to ask me to prove a negative is not a derogatory remark. It is pointing out that your grasp of logic should be much higher if you are actually an electrical engineer.


Apparently you've never studied the ability of human errors and typos... Human errors are strong, I guess you missed that through not paying attention in life.
I make typos all the time I’m not worried about it. Most of them are due to me using a voice to text function on my phone.


Then dont bash others for doing the same and I dont care for your excuse to why they happen.


Using the quote function is part of t&c. Neglecting to use it is not a typo. Will you please get back to the topic at hand?


And why do you care so much?
Do I really need to justify my curiosity to you?

Why am I curious? Because I would like to know. Maybe I’m interested in people who claim to have abilities that seem to defy our understandings. Maybe I want to find somebody who can help me be the first to explain it in scientific terms. Perhaps I just don’t like it when people tell lies to manipulate others into believing they are special. Either way you look at it, the only way to come to any valid confirmation of these abilities whether they be magic or physiological in someway, is to study them. It is to find people who are willing to come forward and present their claims for testing. Are you against that in someway? Do you think this isn’t worth studying? Do you think I should accept everyone’s claims at face value without something to back them up?


Wow, you really are like talking to a rock. I asked "Why do you care" for "Why do you care so much about someone using quotes or their typos" not about spirituality or why your curious, I never asked you that. Stop cutting out what others write and giving an answer to a question that was never asked. Idc why your curious into spirituality. And why dont you create your own thread and make it more aware to ATS'rs instead of someone elses thread.
It’s not my fault that your words were too vague for me to get the right impression of what you were asking.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Moongirl
Would anyone know what are spirits made out of?

Spirit, by definition, would be immaterial.

It's funny, cos for all of Woodcarver's boasting of being a Material Analyst, this would make him the VERY LEAST qualified on the subject...
Your claim is that spirit is immaterial. How did you come to this conclusion?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Woodcarver

And your attacks on this subject material from the very beginning don't give you pause as to why people 'hem & haw' when confronted with the likes of you?

Those that know will just smile at you. Maybe there are no benefits from these sensations that you would understand. But there is one thing that has about 50/50 chance of making this reality GREAT for the individual.

Would you know what that could possibly be?

Also, since I possess no tact, do you believe in the soul? Are your personal beliefs closer to those of an athiest?
Do you have abilities? That’s really the only question I have.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Woodcarver
How many people here are in favor of accepting people’s claims at face value?



I have a similar question

How many people here are so arrogant that they deny every claim that interferes with their worldview
Do you want to talk about me? Or do you want to talk about the subject matter?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Isn't it possible that science, or preliminary evaluation tests could be setup to look for data that confirms a desired result?

If so... then, confirmation bias exist both ways
edit on 06070631pm312018Sat, 07 Jul 2018 15:06:51 -0500 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Woodcarver

Isn't it possible that science, or preliminary evaluation tests could be setup to look for data that confirms a desired result?
that would depend completely on the tests and how well suited they are to evaluate. We would literally have to take it by a case by case process.

It is very common for people to do bad science. There are lots of examples of it. Fortunately for us we can evaluate whether their methods are valid. If you would like to talk about a particular case I’m down for that. But if you were talking in general, or overall. I think that we would agree that there are far more cons out there then there are people who can demonstrate some ability.

First off, we need to find someone who is willing to demonstrate an ability. Do you know anyone? It’s really pointless to start anywhere else.
edit on 7-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


I am always open to suggestions for ways to trashed such claims. If you have any ideas I would be happy to hear them.
edit on 7-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Moongirl
Would anyone know what are spirits made out of?

Spirit, by definition, would be immaterial.

It's funny, cos for all of Woodcarver's boasting of being a Material Analyst, this would make him the VERY LEAST qualified on the subject...
Your claim is that spirit is immaterial. How did you come to this conclusion?

By it's definition. It's generally thought to be non-physical, therefore immaterial.
You disagree?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Woodcarver

"Are you asking me to prove a negative?"

Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?

Because the concept of a null hypothesis is used differently.

There you go attempting to introduce derogatory interjections into what should be a meaningful debate.

Have you ever been tested? As it may be an idea considering the narcissism you have displayed in spades in this thread alone. x
You say you were an electrical engineer but you don’t know how to use the quote function on these boards?


Philosophically, In law, or from a statistical sense?
I don’t know, you’re the one asking me to prove a negative? It’s your question.

Pointing out that you should know better than to ask me to prove a negative is not a derogatory remark. It is pointing out that your grasp of logic should be much higher if you are actually an electrical engineer.


Apparently you've never studied the ability of human errors and typos... Human errors are strong, I guess you missed that through not paying attention in life.
I make typos all the time I’m not worried about it. Most of them are due to me using a voice to text function on my phone.


Then dont bash others for doing the same and I dont care for your excuse to why they happen.


Using the quote function is part of t&c. Neglecting to use it is not a typo. Will you please get back to the topic at hand?


And why do you care so much?
Do I really need to justify my curiosity to you?

Why am I curious? Because I would like to know. Maybe I’m interested in people who claim to have abilities that seem to defy our understandings. Maybe I want to find somebody who can help me be the first to explain it in scientific terms. Perhaps I just don’t like it when people tell lies to manipulate others into believing they are special. Either way you look at it, the only way to come to any valid confirmation of these abilities whether they be magic or physiological in someway, is to study them. It is to find people who are willing to come forward and present their claims for testing. Are you against that in someway? Do you think this isn’t worth studying? Do you think I should accept everyone’s claims at face value without something to back them up?


Wow, you really are like talking to a rock. I asked "Why do you care" for "Why do you care so much about someone using quotes or their typos" not about spirituality or why your curious, I never asked you that. Stop cutting out what others write and giving an answer to a question that was never asked. Idc why your curious into spirituality. And why dont you create your own thread and make it more aware to ATS'rs instead of someone elses thread.
It’s not my fault that your words were too vague for me to get the right impression of what you were asking.


Actually, you said this EXACTLY

Using the quote function is part of t&c. Neglecting to use it is not a typo. Will you please get back to the topic at hand?

and I responded back with EXACTLY

And why do you care so much?

Now, please elaborate on which part you did not understand and was sooooo vague? We were arguing over another member here on ATS that couldn't use quotations to your liking, do you not remember?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Moongirl
Would anyone know what are spirits made out of?

Spirit, by definition, would be immaterial.

It's funny, cos for all of Woodcarver's boasting of being a Material Analyst, this would make him the VERY LEAST qualified on the subject...
Your claim is that spirit is immaterial. How did you come to this conclusion?

By it's definition. It's generally thought to be non-physical, therefore immaterial.
You disagree?


Generally thought to be? Is that a good path to understanding? Accepting things because it is the way they are generally thought to be? I’m Skeptical of your claims. Can you support them in any meaningful way?
edit on 7-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join