A challenge to all "sceptics"

Originally posted by The Scientist

As an atheist I do not believe spiritual energies and quite frankly there is no reason for me to either.

I tend to think that the mere existence of the universe and the miracle of my existence is reason enough to believe in a supreme source. When I was at school I didnt buy the line that all of it is coincidence, chemical reaction, and basically pointless. But I may be wrong, alright?

You speak of science well there is no evidence that spiritual energy exists outside of the personal belief for some that it does.
In this regard I can say the same thing about believers in regards to God and an after life etc who refuse to accept that it is very possible such things do not exist.

I am considering that I may only perceive 1% of all that is. THAT is what I am doing. And I am questioning those who walk around "knowing" everything. You can not honestly and sincerely tell me that you are 100% sure that "X is the way the world works".

This makes you somewhat hypocritical doesn't it. The scientific view is to find evidence and then even more evidence to support that evidence and so on until it is solid.

Maybe I am hypocritical. But I dont only rely on laboratory evidence but also on first-hand-experience. Let me provide an example: My first hand experience is, that I am not my body or mind, but the observer of my body and mind. In other words, the thing and the observer are seperate. I cannot at the same time Observe AND Be something. The eye cannot see itself. Since I can observe my body and my mind, I cannot be them. What am I instead? I am consciousness, awareness. I did not derive this from school, but from sitting here and thinking about what I am experiencing. From this vantage point it is not too far-fetched to believe in myself as a spirit.

You who would talk about people being closed minded to 'spiritual' whooey yet you are closed minded to the possibility that you are wrong.

Not at all. As I said, maybe I am wrong. I appreciate your contradiction and the discussion. Discussion is the point of this Forum. In no way would I enjoy everyone having the same views. And since you discuss without the insults of some of the other posters, I am willing to consider your views.

I believe what the evidence and proof supports. I hate to break it to you but there is not one single shred of acceptable evidence to support a God, Spiritual energy, ghosts, afterlife and so on and so fourth.

Well...you really "break it to me", dont you. I used to practice out of body travel. I have lost the ability in the meantime, but the experience gave me sufficient confidence in my position. Of course I considered the possibility that my OBE is only a hallucination created by my brain. But when you can witness conversations in another building without being present with your body and afterwards confirm the correctness of those perceptions theres really no case to talk about hallucinations.

For example i hear a lot about telekinesis and so on from people who claim to be ale to do this yet when I ask for a demonstration or for them to prove it exists they always refuse or blow me off.

Yes, charlatans.

You are NOT a skeptic you just claim to be but you are actually just as bad as those who will fight tooth and nail against you.

I am not a skeptic, I am skeptical towards what I was taught at school.

Those who make claims should have to prove those claims and validate them. You just can't make a claim and say believe it and if you say it's BS your closed minded.

Thats the whole issue I am trying to talk about in this thread: The type of PROOF needed for validation requires other methods, other approaches. This proof cannot be gained by looking purely at the physical realm.



[edit on 19-9-2007 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Thanks for the text sources. So you want to deny that atheism is a response to religion? Fine. But I would say that especially nowdays many people who become atheists, become atheists because they see the madness practiced in the name of religion. But some of them, originally attempting to resist closed-mindedness become closed-minded in their own special way.

And one more response to all those who say "there is not a shred of evidence for a spiritual reality" or "only what can be measured, seen, touched is real":

What about your thoughts? Can you touch, see, measure them with your senses and tools? I dont think so. I think thoughts are indeed non-physical and yet more evidence of non-matter realities.

Sky,
I think it's quite apparent that you
and I have totally different views
on the perception of reality.

Neither are correct or incorrect in
my mind.

We just think differently.

I've offered my opinion of the sub-
ject, crass as I may seem.

I've read your opinions and have
the utmost respect for them, and
you.

Informative and pleasurable
debate.

Thank you,
Lex

reply to post by Lexion


Nice post. Interestingly, once a debate becomes too friendly, there is nothing left to discuss. Thats probably the reason the most inflammatory threads get the most responses.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And one more response to all those who say "there is not a shred of evidence for a spiritual reality" or "only what can be measured, seen, touched is real":

What about your thoughts? Can you touch, see, measure them with your senses and tools? I dont think so. I think thoughts are indeed non-physical and yet more evidence of non-matter realities.

Personal experiences outside of controlled environments, especially when not duplicated, are highly unreliable. Near death experiences, for example, could very easily be simple phenomena created by the brain (there are a few theories). Since it's one person experiencing things while unconscious (and dead, sort of), you're limited by that one person's unreliable perception. There's no evidence.

Thoughts, consciousness, and whatnot, can't be measured (at least not yet?) and are therefore within the realm of philosophy. But you can't make wild claims, only speculate.

A true skeptic believes that a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, plain and simple. The problem arises when a person believes their beliefs are also facts. Let’s say you state the fact that you can fly, and I would say ok prove it. You then show me a picture of yourself two feet above the ground and tell me that is the proof. Now this is where it all starts for each of us considers what compelling evidence is needed before we believe.

For some, compelling evidence can be just a photograph or a story a person tells, and this doesn’t fit the skeptic’s mould of what a fact is, and so the debate is on. The funny part is if you could actually fly all you would need to do is fly or float in a controlled environment for an independent group. That controlled environment doesn’t need to be some sterile room, but it does need some control to prevent bias and confounding.

So that is it, and so very simple, but in EVERY case when the skeptic asks for some tangible proof they never get it, but they do get 100s (1000s) of posts as to why this factual thing cannot be proven with even the most simple but controlled methods.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Thoughts, consciousness, and whatnot, can't be measured (at least not yet?) and are therefore within the realm of philosophy. But you can't make wild claims, only speculate.

I was saying "thoughts" are not measurable matter as an example that other stuff than measurable matter exists. This is not a wild claim but a common sense observation that you can confirm, that anybody can confirm. I am not asking for textbook information but for common sense gained from observation. Earlier on I posted a few other common sense observations, but the only response I get from you and countless others is the textbook mantra on "is no evidence, is no evidence". No offense, but just because its not touchable, physical, measurable matter doesnt mean its not valid, not true.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Yes, evidence and proof. So I have been told by many answering to this thread.

I appreciate your answers guys, but I feel that the statements I have been posting are being evaded.

Here are some common sense observations that point to the validity of the theory that a spiritual reality/dimension does exist:


* My thoughts are not physical, measurable matter, they are something else.

* I can observe my mind & body, therefore I cannot BE them (please think about this)

* Any species perception is limited. Even a dog hears more sounds than a human and some insects me see more/differently than a human. Therefore we can say that there is more out there than we can perceive, see, measure with our senses.

* The tools with which we study reality are therefore limited (our senses our limited). Thats why our results of research will be limited.

* When someone standing at a distance stares at me, I can sense that. Sometimes I even turn around to spot the person staring at me. Why? Because attention is a non-physical type of energy.

Now, if you want to debunk this, fine. But it would be nice if you dont use textbook-talk but your own thinking and your own words to do so.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Here are some common sense observations that point to the validity of the theory that a spiritual reality/dimension does exist:

ok, i'll take a look

* My thoughts are not physical, measurable matter, they are something else.

you're right and you're wrong. they are a combination of electrical impulses and chemical releases...
so they are partially matter based, but they are energy, which is equivalent to matter.

* I can observe my mind & body, therefore I cannot BE them (please think about this)

i thought about it... yes you can.
provide a line of reasoning here that shows you can't instead of saying "please think about this"

* Any species perception is limited. Even a dog hears more sounds than a human and some insects me see more/differently than a human. Therefore we can say that there is more out there than we can perceive, see, measure with our senses.

true.. but we can measure those things with instruments... and we've yet to measure anything spiritual.

* The tools with which we study reality are therefore limited (our senses our limited). Thats why our results of research will be limited.

but the tools we use aren't our senses, they extend well beyond our senses. sure, they will be limited because we don't have an infinite amount of resources to construct infinitely powerful instruments... but that in no way lends validity to your points
just because our research is limited doesn't mean the thing you claim exists.

* When someone standing at a distance stares at me, I can sense that. Sometimes I even turn around to spot the person staring at me. Why? Because attention is a non-physical type of energy.

...no. read into psychology before you make this assumption. when someone looks behind them to see if someone is watching, they commonly find nobody there... and many times nobody is watching and people turn around. however, when you do catch someone... you're whipping your head in a large angle and catch them in the process of the arc. in a crowded area it is a safe assumption that someone will be looking at you at some point... so there really isn't an argument here

Now, if you want to debunk this, fine. But it would be nice if you dont use textbook-talk but your own thinking and your own words to do so.

...so i have to shun the entirety of previously collected thought to suit your needs?
yeah, that makes sense.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Here are some common sense observations that point to the validity of the theory that a spiritual reality/dimension does exist:


* My thoughts are not physical, measurable matter, they are something else.

They are electrical impulses across your neurons. Now we need to learn a lot more about the brain, but if you physically/chemically interrupt those electrical impulses you stop thinking, and so it is physical.

* I can observe my mind & body, therefore I cannot BE them (please think about this)

The old "I think therefore I am". This too has physical limitations therefore why we are any different than bacteria since it just has more limitations.

* Any species perception is limited. Even a dog hears more sounds than a human and some insects me see more/differently than a human. Therefore we can say that there is more out there than we can perceive, see, measure with our senses.

Very true, but until there is some way we can perceive then we have nothing more than a speculative thought, and so it cannot be called a fact. When you look at the 1000s of posts on this site the majority are just speculative thoughts of the OPs, but they still insist they are facts. I have a thought right now that there are 100s of fairies around me invisible, but a thought doesn’t make them real in anyway.

Also, 99.9% of all skeptics speculate there is life throughout the universe just from the shear chance that there would be, but that doesn’t mean they also believe grays are running around on earth since that would require hard proof to make it a fact. They are also not saying that they don't, it just means it is not factual yet.

* The tools with which we study reality are therefore limited (our senses our limited). Thats why our results of research will be limited.

* When someone standing at a distance stares at me, I can sense that. Sometimes I even turn around to spot the person staring at me. Why? Because attention is a non-physical type of energy.

Now, if you want to debunk this, fine. But it would be nice if you dont use textbook-talk but your own thinking and your own words to do so.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. A true skeptic is the most open minded person you will find for they believe BOTH true and false are equal, and they look at ALL possibilities with both outcomes in mind. This is not something you can say about many posters on this site.

And again

Originally posted by Skyfloating
* My thoughts are not physical.

The operations of your thinking brain can be viewed on an MRI scan, EEG and various other physical devices.

* I can observe my mind & body, therefore I cannot BE them

Illusion. There is no 'I' observing anything. By the time 'you' have observed your body doing something, it is already doing something else. 'Mind' and 'will' are linguistic conveniences, not real objects. Your mighty 'consciousness' is just a by-product of automatic processes taking place in your brain and body. Free will does not exist. Like all living creatures, you are an automaton, reacting in preprogrammed ways to external stimuli.

* Any species perception is limited... Therefore we can say that there is more out there than we can perceive, see, measure with our senses.

How do we know it's there if we can't perceive it with our senses?

* The tools with which we study reality are therefore limited (our senses our limited). Thats why our results of research will be limited.

Our senses cannot detect vast swathes of the electromagnetic spectrum, but we have constructed instruments to do so and study these frequency bands without much difficulty. We can detect sub-atomic particles in cloud chambers. Such devices extend the range and power of our senses in all directions. Short of the event horizon of a black hole, there is no obvious, insurmountable limit.

Furthermore, we can predict from the evidence of our senses (mediated by these devices) that there are other phenomena which we cannot yet detect (dark matter is an example of this). I say again: our speculations regarding the necessary or probable existence of these phenomena are still based, ultimately, on sense data.

* When someone standing at a distance stares at me, I can sense that. Sometimes I even turn around to spot the person staring at me. Why? Because attention is a non-physical type of energy.

No, it's because you're still wearing that hat.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you're right and you're wrong. they are a combination of electrical impulses and chemical releases...
so they are partially matter based, but they are energy, which is equivalent to matter.

it is your belief that these electrical impulses and chemical reactions are the CAUSE of thoughts, while it is my observation that they are not the cause, but the EFFECT of thoughts. I imagine sex (cause), my body feels aroused (effect).

i thought about it... yes you can.
provide a line of reasoning here that shows you can't instead of saying "please think about this"

Alright: The eye cannot see itself because it IS itself. You can either BE something or you can observe something. You cant do both at the same time. Therefore what I can observe I cannot be. The mere act of observation implies that I am seperate from what I am seeing.

true.. but we can measure those things with instruments... and we've yet to measure anything spiritual.

The term "spiritual" means (to me) "non-physical". While it is difficult to measure or perceive the non-physical with physical tools, our tools have measured some interesting phenomena (on sub-atomic levels) that cannot be explained by newtonian laws.

but the tools we use aren't our senses, they extend well beyond our senses. sure, they will be limited because we don't have an infinite amount of resources to construct infinitely powerful instruments... but that in no way lends validity to your points
just because our research is limited doesn't mean the thing you claim exists.

yes, it doesnt mean my claim exists but it does mean my claim is at least worth consideration.


Thanks for the debate though. I have to admire you skeptics and atheists for your stubborness.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

A true skeptic is the most open minded person you will find for they believe BOTH true and false are equal, and they look at ALL possibilities with both outcomes in mind. This is not something you can say about many posters on this site.

See my statements to "madnessinmysoul" for responses to your other points. As for this point you are making: Looking at ALL possibilities with both outcomes in mind is indeed open-minded...a true scientific attitude.
And indeed not many posters on this site are willing to look at all possibilities. But this doesnt only go for believer-types it also goes for hardcore-skeptics.

Originally posted by Astyanax

The operations of your thinking brain can be viewed on an MRI scan, EEG and various other physical devices.

Not the operations of my thinking can be viewed, the effects of my thinking can be viewed. Again: Imagine sex. Can that nude body be viewed on the MRI and EEG? No. Imagine sex. Whatever happens after you imagine that (cause) is an effect (body-feeling, electical impulse, etc.)

Illusion. There is no 'I' observing anything. By the time 'you' have observed your body doing something, it is already doing something else. 'Mind' and 'will' are linguistic conveniences, not real objects. Your mighty 'consciousness' is just a by-product of automatic processes taking place in your brain and body. Free will does not exist. Like all living creatures, you are an automaton, reacting in preprogrammed ways to external stimuli.

I know this is what you guys believe but it doesnt match first-hand experience. I am standing at a crossroads. I can choose (free-will) if I go left, right, straight, backwards. And once I choose, I can change my decision. Furthermore I can now close my eyes and observe my thoughts. Who is doing the observing? I am. Thats not an illusion or a linguistic convinience but a first-hand-experience.

How do we know it's there if we can't perceive it with our senses?

We dont know. But we can say: Since our perception is limited, we are not really sure how valid all of our "facts" are. But for now we will work with these facts, until we find something better. That is far away from saying "This is true. Other realities are untrue".


I can agree with the rest of what you said and will therefore not quote and re-hash it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Before I deconstruct so-called "sceptisism" let me say that there is nothing wrong with being sceptical, critical, doubtful. If we loose that ability we`d be grinning at the prospect of jumping off a roof in the mistaken belief that we can fly. A sceptical viewpoint is an appropriate protection against charlatans, con-men, hoaxers, liars. Being doubtful of some things means you have good discernment and can form an opinion based on evidence, common sense, experience and intuition.

This is different to the growing group of people who label themselves "sceptics" and have set out to disprove, debunk and ridicule anything that goes beyond the materialistic, mechanistic, "I only believe what I see with my limited senses" Newtonian worldview. It is an established fact that our senses can only perceive a very small amount of the totality of reality. A dog perceives more sound-frequencies and an intuitive person may perceive more energy-frequencies. The motto of the "sceptic" is that anything that cannot be physically perceived and demonstrated must be untrue. From this vantage point, anything that doesnt fit into the limited confines of this view, must be distorted to fit. Sceptics will go to ridiculous lengths to prove that there are no paranormal and spiritual phenomena so that everything remains safe for them.

This type of attitude is NOT a scientific attitude. A scientific attitude looks at something and says: "This is interesting. Lets see if its true or not". A "sceptics" attitude looks at something and says: "This must be untrue" (because it doesnt match what was previously established). With this type of attitude, we wouldnt have had any new discoveries because everything would have been based on what used to be true. Nevertheless pioneer scientists establish new facts every day, making the old "facts" look stupid.

The problem with the "hardcore-sceptics" is that they will never be able to perceive or experience anything beyond their limited view, because their belief filters out anything to the contrary. What will they do instead? They will keep confirming their old views, day by day, month by month while discovering very little brand new information.

In my view, these types of sceptics use their philosophy to mask and supress insecurity. They feel insecure and fearful in life and, similar to the people who hold on to a religion, they hold on to the view that they know what most things mean, that physical reality is the prime reality and so forth. You have to be courageous to say "I really dont know whats true".

In this sense, materialist science and its promoters are like mommy and daddy to them. Often, rather than relying on their own common sense, their own ability to think, their own inner authority, their own intuition, they instead rely on what papa-scientist said. The open-minded curiosity of a child has been replaced with a rigid, close-minded need to be right about things because thats what papa-scientist said.

I will close in saying, that I am sceptical myself....but I am not sceptical towards paranormal and spiritual realities, I am sceptical towards the worldview spoon-fed by some scientists and "sceptics" posing as authorities.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Skyfloating]

You don't understand what real ''skepticism'' really is.
Look up the philosophic defintion and you'll see that it dosent distinguish between empirical info or info with no proof.

The base bones of it is that a skeptic will question all he does not know for sure. But your saying that relying on ''newtonian'' facts allows us to know for sure....your getting into a bigger philosophic debate on what really constitutes knowledge and if rationalism is a way to really know something.

I think it might have been the famous philosopher Diogenes that actually had to be restrained a few times because he had tried to walk off a cliff to see if he really would fall.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The operations of your thinking brain can be viewed on an MRI scan, EEG and various other physical devices.

Not the operations of my thinking can be viewed, the effects of my thinking can be viewed. Again: Imagine sex...
What you call 'effect' is actually a side effect. Just because your thoughts can't be made visual with current technology is no gurantee that they will ever be. Learn the lesson religious resistance to scientific thought teaches us; whatever the fairytale, science -- ie reality -- will catch up with it sooner or later.

Illusion. There is no 'I' observing anything.

I know this is what you guys believe but it doesnt match first-hand experience. I am standing at a crossroads. I can choose (free-will) if I go left, right...
That's the illusion. Actually your choice is determined by your inheritance, your history and the circumstances of the moment. There is no space left for free will.

Who is doing the observing? I am. Thats not an illusion or a linguistic convinience but a first-hand-experience.
No, it's an illusion. We call it the url=http://www.imprint.co.uk/theatre.htm#1]Cartesian Theatre[/url]. More here.

reply to post by Skyfloating

everyone believes in that which they cannot see: wind-heat-cold-many gases-direct current-radio waves-radiation-atoms-gravity-magnetism-time-inertia-black holes-the laws of thermodynamics-etc.-------we only see their effects but we cannot see them or the G-D that made them Who exist in another dimension -that we also cannot see.

reply to post by Astyanax


here is some science you might find interesting:the periodic table of matter-it is a provable law that there is a gradual transition from metallic to non metalillic properties of matter-so what does this mean?----it means that the universe is running down-----in other words there had to be a time when it started----it could not have always existed.if you want to go for the big bang to bring matter into existence------where did all the energy come from out of nowhere?to become matter and the laws by which matter conforms to-there is only 1 logical conclusion i can think of and that is revealed by Yahvah G-D to moses when he asked the Being that spoke to him what is Your name?-answer I Am that I Am= I Exist (Forever) which is G-Ds name simplified as Yahvah in the hebrew language.They live in another dimension where time never ends because there is not time there as we know it in this universe.