It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Call for Truth

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:04 PM
I don't think that anyone here has said that "their word" entirely supports what they say without proof. Anybody who has talked about their word on here has said that they have proved it to themselves and that is all that matters.

Let the flaming begin? Why is it the people who are so sure that they are right that can't sit down and talk calmly.

Gormly, I wouldn't mind hearing in detail about the research you said you have done into the paranormal, and what specific areas. I don't really consider a few hours surfing the web an adaquate amount.

My God makes things rattle and hum, he changes the TV channel with thought. he has explained to me the ways of the world and proclaimed I cannot speak one wit of it to anyone. Once this Cats body dies my God will transfer in to the next Cat I buy at the store. (he likes to meow)
My God is true.

How could you disprove that?
This is my essential point.

If you alleged it was true... I guess come to your house and ask you to ask 'God' to flick the TV on and off a couple of times, after making sure the TV doesn't have some weird altered wiring going on. Then I would point out how you broke your promise because you spoke about it, so God must be pretty angry

I don't know what else I can say to pursuade my point. I'm not going to go all evangelical or anything. It is really up to the person. I was skeptical but open enough to give it a chance. I don't believe any of this 100%, but I care enough to give it a chance and humor the idea of "what if". You are closed off to the idea altogether almost (although you consider yourself open, in all likelyhood you wouldn't give anything a chance). I'm sure someone else can look up a bunch of other boards and quotes that give "proof", but I don't really want to go to the effort because I know you won't believe it anyway.

Raideur probably said it best. How can we prove any of this if:

we have no valid, controlled, and scientifitcally accepted tests of anything

I have nothing left to say really, since I am wasting my breath. I will answer any questions, and point out incorrect statements, and reinforce ideas, but that's about all that is left

I'd just like to know why people who are so convinced that this is all "baloney" are wasting their time making posts like this here. Clearly we won't change you, and you won't do much to change anyone here. So why are you wasting your time 'preaching to swine', when you might just get yourself entrapped into this madness yourself. Are your hopes really to try and get convinced that there is more to life than just having a miserable job and no money and paying bills all the time, or are you just here to be a downer on every single board.

I am sorry that millions upon millions of people 'believing this nonsense' isn't hinting to you that quite possibly there could actually be something going on here, but it is enough for me.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Yarcofin]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Yarcofin]

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:25 PM
The paranormal looks below the surface of physical reality. If all you're looking at is the logic of the physical world, then I understand why you think the paranormal is all "baloney". But that's okay.
We're all individuals who look at reality in our own unique ways.
No need to get angry about it though. I don't get mad at people who don't believe in ghosts or ufo's...that's their perogative.

I don't believe in bigfoot at this point but I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:15 AM

Do statistics count?
Check out the experiments by Dr. J. B. Rhine at Duke University.
There are plenty of contemporary experiments using random number generators that PROVE the existence of Psi.
However even with these controled experiments, and their statistical proof,I don't expect you to change your mind.

I don't know why but some folks are exteremly threatened by things that they feel they have no control over. There is more to this universe than we will ever understand or even CAN understand.

It's a brave new world, and we're not in Kansas anymore Toto!!

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:30 AM

do you reject the existence of extraterrestrial life entirely, or do you simply not believe that any of the denizens of deep space have visited Earth?

I only ask because the former is quite a leap of faith, for a skeptic.

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by gormly

I think this is within the terms and conditions.

I read all you had to say and I'm just wondering what you think of organized religion? Does that time-honored institution warrant the title of Paranormal?

I'm aware my opinion is far less than 2 cents but I'm just wondering if you might as well be describing a religion except with a few of the key words changed.

You seem to have your feet on the ground about your beliefs that "nothing unreal exists". That was, I believe, Gene Roddenberrry's Spock character being quoted.

And what do you think of death and the cessation of an individuals life?

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:30 AM
Firstly, I would like to say that it's great to hear your opinion, Gormly. The good thing about forums like this is that it can give everyone a chance to speak their mind and communicate as equals.

As said above, there have been many scientific tests carried out over the years on different aspects of esp and telepathy, as well as many other "paranormal" subjects, and although the results are usually not common knowledge, if you do some research I'm sure you will find that there are some exceptions to the rule.

In my own experience, it seems to me that most of the people on this planet are so sure of themselves and their own viewpoint that they totally forget it's really a product of their own brain. The problem comes down to semantics in my opinion because if people stopped saying what something "is" and instead were truthful to themselves, and admitted that their brain is the instrument they are using to observe "reality" with, there wouldn't be so many beliefs and opinions around.

If someone like Hitler had said "It seems to me that some, but not all Jews are plotting against us", or if fundamentalist Christians said "It's our opinion that Jesus could be the only way to heaven" then belief systems wouldn't be able to have such a hold over so many people, and the world would be a much more tolerant place.

The path I have chosen is to not believe or disbelieve in anything and to be open to any new information that comes along without forming any opinions on it either way, and although this is not for everyone, it does seem to work for me.

You are obviously interested in new information though, because you if you weren't then you wouldn't have spent so much time reading posts on here, so my 2 cents of advice is to keep questioning, and to keep thinking for yourself, and move towards learning more about how your own brain works, and hopefully to reprogram step by step, bit by bit, the conditioning that is embedded in there that all of us have.

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:49 PM
Geez, I really killed this thread didn't I! It seems to happen to every thread I post in for some reason...

Gotta say Gormly, of all the DOA crew I've seen come over here recently, you're the only one that's actually had something relevent to say, instead of just trolling for a bit and getting banned, so big ups to you m8!

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:52 PM
My advice for all the critics of all things paranormal would be to look first at the most famous cases - they are typically the ones that have been most thoroughly investigated.
True a lot turned out to be complete hogwash but others still remain unexplained. Catholic miracles are usually thoroughly investigated - in particular look at uncorupted bodies of saints. Totally creepy and completely unexplainable.

One of the reasons we don't have more scientific investigations and reports into the paranormal is because science demands conclusive results. A paper that doesn't provide any kind of difinitive conclusions is most often completely ignored.

It has been my experience that most people who believe in the paranormal are searching for the truth, most ghost hunters for example are desperately seeking conclusive scientific evidence that ghosts and hauntings are real - regardless of their cause. We use scientific equipment to attempt to verify what our senses have already shown us.

Almost all people that believe in the paranormal do so because of their own experiences, up until that point they were also skeptics, this is one of the reasons that many people provide personal examples of paranormal experiences. It's not so much about validating their claims as it is explaining their faith.
No one wants to be thought of as a fraud or a scammer, but we also want others to realise that we are not fools and not crazy - we didn't 'jump on the bandwagon' simply because the whole idea of paranormal events sounds cool, we believe because we have experiened these things in our own life.

Religion needs to be accepted on faith and the writings of long dead prophets whose identity and integrity can't be verified. The paranormal is something that we can investigate for ourselves, research and explore, and just maybe discover that we humans don't have all the answers, that life is full of wonder and mystery as well as horror and sadness.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:28 AM

Gormly, I like your character. And although my truths don't agree with your truths, I know you speak the truth, and an admirable quality that is.

GREAT Post, and I'm glad someone vented these ideals out in this fashion.
I'm not trying to discredit you, change you, or take anything from you. I just request that you incorporate some new information. I believe you posted this for a purpose, or 2.
1) Vent, nicely by the way.
2) Ask for some reason, any to believe.

See this movie/DVD: "What The Bleep Do We Know"

Look at this sight: ""

If the person providing so called "paranormal" services is in any way recieving anything for it, don't believe them.

Have you ever awoken to find yourself staring directly into the eyes of another. How did you know you would be looking in thier eyes? Or, what were the chances? Coincidence, perhaps.

Have you ever known you were being stared at from behind?

If I were to tell you the oldest living organism on the planet is currently 2 million years old (YES: 2,000,000 yrs), and still alive, would you believe me?

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:15 PM
Yes, brain chemistry changes during mystical experience. However, that doesn't rule out the mystical experience as false nor does it mean it is authentic. It means that there is some physiological connection with what is being experienced. That's it. One cannot know whether the mystical experience is being caused by the change in brain chemistry or vice versa.

If someone were to touch you on the head, and you suddenly have a mystical experience, it could be the power of suggestion. Or it could be real. How do you determine the truth?

To rule out either possibility is intellectually dishonest, IMHO, and anyone who rules out either possibility automatically is not worth listening to. They have made up their own minds and are not truly interested in an intellectual discussion.

However, what we believe is not reflective of our intelligence. Even the greatest minds of our era know there is more to this universe than what is known already. Some are theists, some are atheists, some believe in miracles and mysticism and others don't. My point is, it's a fool who believes that the intelligence of a person and their belief system are inextricably linked.

It is also naive to, IMHO, assume automatically that whatever you experience or whatever other people experience is not genuine, or is genuine. It's healthy to question it, but I do not think anyone has a definitive answer as to the veracity of the experience. There will always be doubts, in other words, and it's up to the person to make the conscious choice of believing in his experience or disbelieving it.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by bhagavadgita]

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by bhagavadgita
How do you determine the truth?

I assume to determine the truth just like everyone elses assumes that they determine the truth.

Everyones brain works the same way. Our brain cells form relationships with one another to form neuro-nets. Neuro-nets are cells that have formed a long-term relationship with one another to integrate and make easier the skills of recalling that "data", because of the process of patern recognition. Pattern recognition is very similar to the concept of "Law of Association.

What this is telling us is that WE CAN NOT even witness or experience something that is if we can not attach it to pre-existing accepted conscious truths.

In other words:
If you have not consciously accepted that ONE, TWO, and THREE are real and true, then you won't even be able to experience or comprehend FOUR at all. That information will not be integrated consciously, but only sub-consciously, because consciously you don't believe in ONE, TWO, or THREE. But, that does not make FOUR any less true, does it?

My point is, it's a fool who believes that the intelligence of a person and their belief system are inextricably linked.

Then, I am a fool.

I believe a persons belief system dictates what truths they limit themselves to.

My point is, I believe intelligence (accepted truths, not processing speed) and their beliefs are linked.

Case and Point:

1) The Roman Catholic Church is a belief system.
2) Galileo said the planets rotate around the sun.
3) The Roman Catholic Church placed him under house arrest and ex-communicated him from the church, for over 400 years.
4) People who truly believed in the Roman Catholic belief system were more ignorant because they believed the planets could not rotate around the sun.
5) If your belief system does not permit you to believe your own senses, then you believe you must ignore your own senses. By ignoring your own senses and sensory stimulis you take in about your environment ..... doesn't that directly effect your intelligence?

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
See this movie/DVD: "What The Bleep Do We Know"

Sorry, but I think this is the same bad science thats pissing him off. It states some strange things about quantum physics and the proceeds to make up their own brand of science, complete with fake scientists, hoaxed experiments and plenty of propaganda for their Ramtha cult. Absolute BS, through and through. Not to mention the worst acting ever.

But check this out:

This guy agrees that nothing paranormal can be proven, and is putting a cool mil where his mouth is. So far, nobody's collected.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by jacquio999

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
See this movie/DVD: "What The Bleep Do We Know"

Sorry, but I think this is the same bad science thats pissing him off. It states some strange things about quantum physics and the proceeds to make up their own brand of science, complete with fake scientists, hoaxed experiments and plenty of propaganda for their Ramtha cult. Absolute BS, through and through. Not to mention the worst acting ever.

I'll give you Ramtha. Although I liked a lot of what She/HE had to say (just the words).

But these people are not fake scientists, and I fail to see hoaxed esperiments. I tried the water crystal thing. It worked for us, which impressed me.

Are these fake scientists with Ph.D.s?



William Tiller, Ph.D.
Amit Goswami, Ph.D.
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
Dr. David Albert


Dr. Masaru Emoto
Stuart Hameroff M.D.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D.
Dr. Daniel Monti
Dr. Joseph Dispenza


Dr. Candace Pert


Miceal Ledwith, Ph.D.

But check this out:

This guy agrees that nothing paranormal can be proven, and is putting a cool mil where his mouth is. So far, nobody's collected.

I believe a persons belief system dictates what truths they limit themselves to.

My point is, I believe intelligence (accepted truths, not processing speed) and their beliefs are linked.

Truth is it can't be witnessed by people who cannot experience what is going on around them. Their belief systems restrict them from experiences.

Thanks for the link, by the way. I'll look more into it. I could use the $$$ to buy new ATS shirts

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:07 PM
Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean its not true. All it means is that you don't believe in it.

Yes, this world is full of trickery and people making a fast buck off the gullible, It's always been that way and I suspect it shall always be.

You asked for the truth, here it is. I was driving thru the forest one night and I saw a bigfoot. Can i prove it? Nope, I was alone. Does it bother me one bit that you are laughing right now and don't believe me? No, You're free to believe what you choose to.

The problem that arises for me, well actually its really not a problem, is that if someone now tells me they saw a ghost all I can say back is, "Not a problem. I saw a bigfoot once." If they say they spoke to the dead I keep on with, "That sucker was huge too." and that aliens sucked them out of their car and gave them the red arse, I go on with, "It's hair was all matted and nasty looking."

You see, it doesn't really matter if you believe or not. Other people believe and you can't change that. Your grandmother is going to keep right on paying the psychic and people are going to continue believing in ufo's and ghosts.

You've stated your opinion, you've changed nothing.

Then again, with the argument you've made so far its very obvious that your mind is closed. You've stated your opinion and no one or no thing can change what to you is unchangeable. Thats how it goes sometimes.

Still, it was a nice thread you got going.


posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:08 PM
Im really sorry dude, but I have to argue with you on this one. I have a vendetta against JZKnight. Ill leave the crystal thing alone because I cant tell the difference between good and bad crystals, though if I could Im sure I could find them in any frozen water. However,

This site debunks the crime-reduction experiment.

PhDs can be quacks too, but Im not the only one who doubts the credibility of these experts. Here are some newspaper reviews:

There’s little to no accurate science in the film, and, as a physicist pointed out recently, the individuals who are quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum mechanics. Case in point: One of the persons expounding on causality and quantum physicsis a chiropractor.
--Roger Ebert

Several viewers have felt hoodwinked that the identities and affiliations of "The Bleep's" "experts" are revealed only at the end of the movie. Several scientists have piped up to say that the filmmakers mangle quantum mechanics into an unrecognizable mishmash, and at least one of the film's on-screen sources, Columbia University philosophy professor David Albert, has distanced himself from the film, accusing the filmmakers of distorting his views. Meanwhile, the DVD of "The Bleep" continues to do brisk business, not to mention the T-shirts, hats and "Dr. Emoto Water Crystal" merchandise for sale on the "Bleep" Web site. The Post's Style section never did run a review of the film because this critic found it too stylistically lame and intellectually dotty to pass serious muster. But what the bleep do I know?

Ann Hornaday-- Washington Post

The film claims to be a serious study of the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and Matlin's story is intercut with interviews from people who seem to be scientists. At first, they simply point out some of the extraordinary things that have emerged from the study of matter at a quantum (sub-molecular) level. But gradually the film begins to stir in unscientific (and absurd) extrapolations from quantum physics. The movie's 'scientists' begin to claim that discoveries in quantum physics provide proof for a whole range of fantastical New Age claims. They say you can walk on water if only 'you believe it with every fibre of your being'.

The real scientist Richard Dawkins summarises the film's assumptions: 'Quantum physics is deeply mysterious and incomprehensible. Eastern spirituality is deeply mysterious and incomprehensible. Therefore they must be saying the same thing.' Sadly, Dawkins' reaction is an exception; many newspapers have lauded the film as a 'brilliant scientific study'.

Okay, so it's a dumb movie, you might think, but what harm does it do? On its own, very little. But What the Bleep ... bears all the hallmarks of the new pseudo-sciences. One typical tactic is to take a gap in scientific evidence and fill it with faith-based claims. For example, geologists have discovered a gap in the fossil record which makes it hard to explain how evolution worked at certain periods. The neo-creationists seize on this and claim it as 'proof' that evolution didn't happen at all. (Incredibly, over 40 per cent of Americans believe them). The New Agers do the same with the gaps in quantum physics.

The Independent, May 25, 2005

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:20 PM

Some good quotes. I enjoyed reading your post, always love learning.

The statement about a new pseudo-science, though? It seems to be consistent, although sometimes slightly angled perspective, but consistant with other quantum research I've read, and the "String Theory" books I've read that started coming out in the early 80s.

What they are saying in the movie is not far off from what I've learned from other sources, just put into more lamen terms. But, admitingly I have much to learn, and do not know everything.

Good post.

You have seen the movie, right?

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:19 PM
I think you are all right.
There is no such thing as "paranormal".
If it happens, it is normal.
It is only our perceptions that determine what an event actually is.
We do not see with our eyes but rather our brains, that is where we perceive.
Our concept of reality is based on only what we are capable of perceiving.
If there are items/events/life-forms/etc. out of our range of perception(as limited as it is) then we are hardly capable of distinguishing it as reality. However, that does not mean that it is not there, or that it is there (are you picking up what I'm laying down?)
Anything tangible is symbolic of what we perceive it to be, no more, no less.

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by DruidTek
Geez, I really killed this thread didn't I! It seems to happen to every thread I post in for some reason...

hehe, that seems to happen to me too.
i think you would make a good diplomat or something like that, because you can stop people arguing by posting something nobody has an argument with

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 05:18 PM
Pardon me for simply saying this, but I believe it is in the best interest of everyone if people do one thing, and dont take it as a direct attack on their beliefs.

Please think about what your posting from a rational view and consider the plausibility as well as the logic behind your topic or claim before you post it here for us. It will make the forums less cluttered with random claims and endose the more valid questions.

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by wu kung
It is only our perceptions that determine what an event actually is.
We do not see with our eyes but rather our brains, that is where we perceive.
Our concept of reality is based on only what we are capable of perceiving.

Great quote wu kung. Generally speaking, the problem with our concepts of what reality is, is that our brains automatically set out to prove or classify our perceptions. Our conditioning or "beliefs" tend to focus on a certain set of signals and disregard the rest, to label and classify them into pre-determined neural networks, thereby creating an abstraction in the process, and this happens subconciously and automatically.

The words we use have a lot to do with limiting our perceptions. For instance take a look at the word "reality" itself. The word denotes a singular and block-like "object" that is "outside" of us, but if we were to use "realities" instead, we would be more concious of our brain being the center of our own universe, ie; we are the writer, director, editors and star in our own movie that everyone else is playing a supprting role in.

If we were to start talking and thinking in E prime. ie; to avoid using words like "is" and "all" etc. and instead used terms like, "seems to me" and " some, but not all" (even though it may seem overly pedantic for everyday life) we will begin to reprogram our conditioning and beliefs, and be more open to information and be able to communicate as equals.

The search for absolute truth is in many ways a dead end, because to obtain absolute certainty about anything would require an infinite amount of testing, and that's why science (specifically quantum mechanics) is heading towards using "probabilites" rather than having to be limited to the outdated "true or false" parameters. Every new breakthrough is now just a model, not an absolute truth, and is able to be improved or superceded when more accurate information is obtained.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by DruidTek]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in