The 2012 shift that DID and DO happen

reply to post by Raud

I did not make nor lose a single dime because of 2012.
I think you paint a picture of me that is totally inaccurate. I don't know any of those "prophets", or whatever to call them, that you refer to (other than, in some extent, Calleman).
I think that stuff is a typical american phenomenon where such scams are big business.

I never stated that you did anything associated with 2012. I simply pointed out what 2012 was all about and here you appear to acknowledge an understanding of what is and is not 2012 according to the forum.

To call it typically "american" is a bit off base since many of the players in the game were from Europe and many "americans" traveled to Europe to fleece that continent as well. There were also claims across Asia, Central and South America that were prominent.

The inside of peoples minds... Well, I guess I just have to take their word for what they say, or maybe read between the lines. Anthropology is a very useful tool as well, just as insight in social constructivist theories. Listen, see, analyze, conclude...

This is a forum in which matters are discussed. This is not a place to expect people to fawn over claims, especially odd ones.

There is a concept in math that two numbers are equal if the difference is 0. If you want to show that something is happening you can simply show a difference between two times. Show that two times are different and explain why. Tossing out a word or two from this week's reading really does not cut it.

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by vkey08

 

What would count as "real world verifiable evidence" when treating a mainly metaphysical issue?

I could give you some things that I treat as parts of major importance of the process:
> Shift from unipolar to multipolar (in)balance of power in the world
> The approaching end of capitalist market economy as we know it
> Women's rights movements take major steps towards equality
> The advance of quantum science, giving us a whole new perspective of how reality is constructed
> Major movements of civil rights, globally
> Awareness of the fragility of our earthly existence and the emerging holistic view of the planet as one organism
> Decline of a dualistic world-view, challenges for our most deeply rooted core values and the rising of new alternatives in creating social structures globally
> The technological advance (in communication particularly) that make the above gain massive speed
> Climate change that affects nearly all aspects of human life (and all other life as well for that instance)

Those are the things I can think about straight off. Give me some time and I can surely bring up more (as if it was ever needed).

Womens rights? Are you kidding me? that's evidence of a shift in consciousness? Civil Rights globally? Obviously you haven't been to 90% of the nations of the world. Tech advance, is a normal part of the process of being alive, people innovate, it's just normal, it's not evidence of a shift...

Climate change has been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, we go through cycles of cooling and warming, it's just the natural cycle of the Earth..

End of capitalism? Hardly.....

None of the things you mention are evidence of anything happening other than the normal progression of life, the planet goes through cycles, it's been proven, it's a fact. There are ice ages and there are warming periods.

Women's rights? I don't know what planet you live on, but there's no equality, especially in the two fields I am in, so I see no change from 20 years ago.

I don't see an end to a free market economy any time soon, I see a correction in it, one that's overdue but as long as there's something to use as barter, the free market will continue.

I don't get you at all.. you are trying to claim that normal progression is akin to shifting to another dimension of thought or ascension to another plane, it just simply is not so. And I was right, you cannot prove your point, and you continue to be hypocritical about it, I will explain.

You claim all of this is evidence of something, you belittle the other side of the coin, stating that people simply can't understand you which is about as good as saying everyone is just stupid and you're smart. Well newsflash for you.. I've been starting on the Global Climate Changes research ahead of the research group being formed, and I was assigned historical trends, I can show at least 5 in the planets history that correlate to modern day, almost exactly, this is not some major man made thing, this is not because humans have abused the planet, this is nature plain and simple, and as humans we adapt to it as it happens, we adapted to the last ice age, we will adapt to this ice age that we are beginning, and as all of them begin, there's a period of warming and change in the global weather patterns.

So before you start pulling out things that happen and try to fit them to your theory, you may wish to do some historical research into it, the correlation becomes thin when you look at it all as a whole..

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by stereologist

 

... but discussing the topic at hand with an agnostic is a waste of bandwidth.

..., but I struggle here to meet your demands on credentials.
..., something you clearly do not possess at the moment. ...

Hmm, you seem to be quite angry for such an advanced being. I personally believe in god, so I guess I meet your criteria there. But I also believe in science, because it is measurable and logical. It is not a matter of faith, I have to agree with Stereologist there.

And I not see where he went on the rude path like you just did btw. And I also do not see where he steered the topic to you and not the matter at hand, something you do quite a bit here.

You just described that your path to your wisdom was a long one, and the sum of your upbringing and years of work in that field.

The question has to be allowed how the 2012 date has influenced that process. And it also has to be allowed to mention in this forum in which we discuss things from different points of view, that only a few "hardcore" 2012 guys still hang on to the change effect.

I think it is great that you are happy and content with your spiritual progress, but as you said yourself, that didn´t happen over night. And it surely din´t happen last december.

Couldn´t it be, that 2012 was just another year, in which your progressed just like you will progress in 2013?

Or do you think your done now with developing?

I do think a certain part of spiritualism can be very healthy, and as I said I do believe in a god. But we shouldn´t forget to take a step back from time to time and try to see the bigger picture.

And that is that it goddamn hurts to let 2012 go. Because the concept and idea of it nurtured a lot of people here for years. So there has to be something to it right? And others feel it too? Well that just has to be proof enough.

The true wonders in this world are in front of our very eyes all the time. Family, loved ones, friends that is what matters. That is where the real beauty in this world is. Have you ever ever heard a dying man worry about his shakras? No, it is about his family, his wife, his children maybe. That is what counts in life.

Wow, sorry for going so way off topic here.

Seems like people (righteously) have quite different outlooks on what truth is. For some it is something personal, for others it is more about consensus and replicability. For some it is something that can be grasped, for others it is something that should be measured. For some it is something that comes from within, for others it is something that comes from outside observation. In some cases truth is something to be avoided (this mostly happens at an unconscious level), in other cases it is something sought after.

Must a truth be exclusive? I don't think so. Coexisting truths is truth in itself. While you can hold it true that you are sitting in front of your computer reading this, I hardly can. In this example you are the primary source, and I am the secondary.

It is true for me that I am sitting in front of my computer typing, but you cannot know this. As far as you can tell right now, I might actually be sitting on an ipad or maybe my girlfriend is writing by dictation. It is true for me that I am actually sitting in front of my PC and it is true that I am telling you this, but how true is this for you? Would you bet 500$ on it? Probably not, because you cannot know for certain. For you it is only half true.

For me, something can be true, but it does not have to be. From where I stand, I cannot prove that helium have two electrons spinning around the nucleus. Now, this has been proven by many different people and is a consensus truth, but I hold it that I cannot know for sure.

If intelligent extra-terrestrials where to land on my lawn tomorrow and ask me if I hold it true that helium has two electrons, I would say yes. If they then asked me if I would be willing to bet on my life that it was true, I would state certainly not! A physicist might be willing to do it.

For monkeys to speak of truth is hubris of the highest degree. Where is it writ large that talking-monkeys should be able to model the cosmos? If a sea urchin or a racoon were to propose to you that it had a viable truth about the universe, the absurdity of that assertion would be self-evident, but in our case we make an exception.
-Terence McKenna

The difference between me and this scientist is that it is not particularly true for me, but it is particularly true for him. And this is the point I am making; something can be true for you, and something can be true for me. But what I hold as true does not have to be true for you and vice versa.

People, we have different truths. Different truths are truth. Something does not become objective truth because many or nearly everyone perceive it to be. The truth is the truth, no matter how many or how few see and understand it. Truth is but unveiled mystery.

Can we in this thread at least acknowledge and maybe even respect that since we hold such different truths at the very base of how we look at reality, we understand almost everything differently? And if we understand almost everything differently, we share but a fleetingly small common ground.

If someone state something that is not true for you, that does not make him in the wrong. As long as it is true for him, you cannot demand that he make it true for you. He does not have an obligation to transmute his viewpoint into something that fits your viewpoint. What was stated might be irritating, demeaning, "dangerous", conflicting, untrue, unjustified or controversial, it might have been stated in the wrong place, time or board, but subjective truth will quite possibly always be untrue for someone else. We don't have to bicker, let's just agree to disagree. If it is totally unbearable that this thread resides in the 2012 part of this forum, let's just ask an admin to put it somewhere else.

We are all obviously drawn to what we can hold true, and the manner of which we do this are widely different. So let's just do it in our own way, and respect that others do it another way. No one is in the wrong. Different truths only converge when accepted as coexisting.

There is no religion higher than truth (this is my view), so let's all just strive for it in our own manner.

reply to post by Nightaudit


No, I am not very angry. I think it is more of a frustration that gets to me sometimes. I don't recall addressing myself as more advanced that anyone, that would be an interpretation I cannot answer for. Fact remains though that some of us gets our mental development hindered by exogenous factors. That could be a more accurate description of things. Sometimes.
I have never intended to "belittle" someone here, in fact I have actually struggled with that by trying to deliver a message of equality between people, that we all have the same potential. If I may say so, it is I (and others who has carried the same values) that has been belittled with no mercy. Maybe you should search the thread for words like "baloney" or "hypocrite" (which are located well within the spectrum of outright insults).
On the other hand, as a person I am not your typical turning-the-other-cheek kinda guy...so I might have been guilty of some rather direct comments on things. I know I have a pretty "strong" personality with quite the tendency for self-ignition and that sometimes there might be some collateral damage because of that. I know this and I am working on it. Still, I don't think my manners are totally taken out of the blue either; it's not like some members active in this thread doesn't engage on a regular basis in slandering this kind of topic. Maybe I just wanted to show that this time they wandered off into a minefield I think they can handle it, taken all aspects into consideration...
Or, maybe I should work on letting things go (and by that; not to my head)? If that is so, that phase is still in progress :duuh: So clearly, I am not "done developing" (nor will I ever be, I most dearly hope anyway).
Whatever, enough with the defense speeches and back on topic

I have no hard time at all letting go of 2012 however since I didn't expect anything major to materialize into the physical world. It was none the harder to let go of 1987, 1992 or 2009... Time is such a misunderstood concept (under this topic especially). I tried to explain that earlier; 21st 2012 wasn't the main focus, that is just what the collective hysteria made us think. That date is of no bigger importance than what dates we set on the beginning of the middle ages, the renaissance or fall of the Roman empire. The process is the focus here, and by that the culmination of a major shift, like we went from understanding our world from being flat to being a celestial body among many others in a vast universe... Can you imagine how large the next leap will be?
Part of this thread is about how our views of 2012 has reduced it not only to a year but to a single day even. Something I consider to be totally "out".

I kinda lost track on what I was replying to here, but I had a much more comfortable vibe from your response, Nightaudit. First of all, if you believe in god, no matter how you do it, you have much better tools of understanding how I build my arguments. The technicalities obviously differ here but that's just the way it is; some people vote red, others blue. I can totally live with that.
What I react on is that discussions between those who believe and those who don't rarely get anywhere and are not interesting to me at all unless they step into my domain (i.e. my thread) and starts peeing in their territory there as well. That kind of stuff just won't stand according to me.
That is sort of what I meant with the "waste of bandwidth" statement; it will all be circular argumentations because at least I know for sure I won't back down this time.

Spirituality is the part we must take into consideration to get the "bigger picture" you talk about. It is very easy to think of it the other way around when you already possess an opened spiritual side of your conscience. Some people totally disregard all spirituality and gives only room for what they call "logic" and by that hold this "logic" as the superior way to behold "reality". This kind of thinking has served humanity much good through the ages but now it must merge with the right half of the brain- only through unity can we find balance.
"Logic" is a very difficult term. It is much more biased that we think (too bad we rarely think of that at all).

The wonders in front of us are great, most surely. But I have always looked at the horizon and beyond. I want to rise and come closer to everything, to make the "far" come near and make it all come together

Thank you for your post.

reply to post by vkey08


Alright, so we make totally different analysis of the sate of world affairs (and related topics).
No biggie, these kind of differences in opinions happens all the time and keeps the world a complex, multi-layered and interesting place

I won't go into detail on each topic though because that would be OT for the thread and I have most likely already been discussing them in thousands of threads during the years at ATS...

Don't diminish the effects of the women's rights movements, however! Just think of how bad it was 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. That time, viewed through the eyes of the universe is but a spark, barely noticeable. The process is moving ahead, full steam. Surely there is much to be done before we can kick back but there is no signs of a reversal either. Keeping up the fight for equality in all aspects is uniting what as split in to, the reunion of a blade that was broken
Since gender inequality is only taking place inside our minds, I see this as a major part of the convergence.

I guess it boils down to: you think everything is "normal". The concepts of what is "normal" is based on your values which may be shared by some and seem alien to others.
I, too, think this process is "normal" but from whole 'nother perspective. I think that the universe is pulsating with different types of energies that reach our part of it at different times. Sometimes these energies are more powerful that at other times. I also hold the idea that these energies affect our minds and our reality.
But, most of all (and I guess this is the definite divide), I think not that these pulses are random. I think that there is some sort of "thought" behind it; what some may call "God".

You see how this discussion won't result in anything? Or maybe I am not totally aware of what you and Stereologist where up to in the first place?

reply to post by OleMB


Ole MB, your replies capture the essence of my OP, but in your unique way. With the same pallet we draw different pictures. Mine might be seen as bit clumsy and dramatic sometimes but I guess one could hang the two in the same room without the colors clashing

Thank you for giving this thread an alternative status other than "discussions-at-each-others-throats"

reply to post by OleMB

People, we have different truths. Different truths are truth.

I disagree. People can have different thoughts on what is true, but that is not the same as these things being true.

The issue is this thread and its contents.

reply to post by Raud

it will all be circular argumentations because at least I know for sure I won't back down this time.

That's not true at all. The issue was that you claimed something to be real in the OP. Later on you also repeated a claim by another poster that many people are experiencing.

1. I wanted to know how you knew this was real.
2. I also wanted to know how you knew many people were experiencing this

In the case of #2, I believe you realized that the issue was due to a sampling problem. You were using a biased sampling methodology and inferring from that there must be many people experiencing something similar to what you felt. I would point out that the deafening silence in the 2012 forum suggests otherwise. I also suggest that the lack of articles in the MSM also suggests otherwise. Finally, the lack of commentary from fringe authors on 2012 also suggests they have moved on to other ways to fleece their audiences.

Nothing was resolved on the issue of how you know this is real.

reply to post by Raud

I think that the universe is pulsating with different types of energies that reach our part of it at different times. Sometimes these energies are more powerful that at other times. I also hold the idea that these energies affect our minds and our reality.

These "energies" you speak of, are they EM or gravity of something else?

I hear this sort of thing all of the time especially here in the 2012 forum where it was claimed that all sorts of energies were bombarding us from a nearby interstellar cloud, the Pleiades, the Sun, the galactic center, planet Nibiru, Hercolubus, and even from comets.

So what are these "energies" you speak of?

But, most of all (and I guess this is the definite divide), I think not that these pulses are random. I think that there is some sort of "thought" behind it; what some may call "God".

How are these detected?

You see how this discussion won't result in anything? Or maybe I am not totally aware of what you and Stereologist where up to in the first place?

We are asking questions. This is a discussion forum.

reply to post by stereologist


It is real because I perceive it as real. I don't know of any other reality than my own (back to the old "inside the mind" discussion). This reality of mine, in the case of my claim, is built up on observing, analyzing and concluding. Add to that intuition. It seems like others make other conclusions. That will stand for them while mine will stand for me. I know I am not the only one on my side of the argument, far from it.

I also wanted to know how you knew many people were experiencing this

Because I listen to them. If they are not out right expressing it or giving expression of it, I analyze and conclude, "read between the lines", make understanding of, put into context, relate to structures... Man, I am running out of synonyms here!
Sampling problem, sure, that might be the case sometimes. Not sure if it is this time though. If the 2012-forum has been silent for some time couldn't matter less to me. For those up for it, I am happy to discuss. We are all in this universe and all are under the same cosmic influence anyhow
MSM never knew how to treat this whole thing to start with. Them being silent maybe is for the better...
Fringe authors can be interesting (of not outright challenging) sometimes. And no, my bookshelves are not teeming with their works either. I prefer to get my influences from the non-fringe sector.

I am sorry man, but I don't think I can come up with much more resolve than this.

These "energies" you speak of, are they EM or gravity of something else?

All of the above. Extra "else" on the side
Believe it or not, but I actually do think that we haven't yet explored every single aspect of the universe or all the types of energy bouncing around out there. Heard of "dark matter"? That kind of sums it up how far we are from understanding the basic building blocks of the universe. The Cern complex, you think they build that because they already knew everything? The stuff these scientist are after is understanding the basis of the physical world.
We have much to learn yet. We are probably slowed down due to starting our research from the wrong end.

How to detect these energies that I refer to as "God"? MAN, are you for real? I actually thought earlier: "man, I hope it won't come to anyone asking how to prove 'God' because if, I'm gonna explode"
Sorry but that question is just pure hallmark for how far away we are from each other on this issue. No offence, I just find it hilarious.
Hate to disappoint you but I have no "God-o-meter" ready at the moment, not even a prototype. I usually just use my heart & soul. Don't worry though, I am sure you have those as well But on the other hand, just because I have that, how do I know anyone else has?

Yeah, you keep asking questions... I have now switched feelings from seeing your alias in my list of subscribed threads. At first I could become a little agitated sometimes, but now it has become familiar. It feels strange if I don't see it there every day. If you feel like you have the time for this thread, please add to it. If nothing else, I might score some flags even

What does bother me a bit is how you take on replies that where intended for other members. Now there might be unnecessary confusion on whether a question has been replied to or not. Please wait your turn or write in the manners of: "I am also interested in knowing about X that Y just asked about".
OK?

reply to post by Raud

It is real because I perceive it as real. I don't know of any other reality than my own (back to the old "inside the mind" discussion). This reality of mine, in the case of my claim, is built up on observing, analyzing and concluding. Add to that intuition. It seems like others make other conclusions. That will stand for them while mine will stand for me. I know I am not the only one on my side of the argument, far from it.

So you think it is real. That's not the same as being able to determine if it is real or not. Sounds to me like you haven't make any effort to determine it is real.

Add to that intuition.

That's the issue isn't it? You just want something to be real and thus you claim it is real.

Because I listen to them. If they are not out right expressing it or giving expression of it, I analyze and conclude, "read between the lines", make understanding of, put into context, relate to structures... Man, I am running out of synonyms here!

I understand what you did. You employed confirmation bias and biased sampling to affirm your decision.

We are all in this universe and all are under the same cosmic influence anyhow

Sorry. I don't believe in a cosmic influence. Such a suggestion makes your claims look weak, i.e. not real.

MSM never knew how to treat this whole thing to start with. Them being silent maybe is for the better...
Fringe authors can be interesting (of not outright challenging) sometimes. And no, my bookshelves are not teeming with their works either. I prefer to get my influences from the non-fringe sector.

Never claimed they influenced you. I suggested the actions of these groups suggests that few are experiencing what you are experiencing.

All of the above. Extra "else" on the side
Believe it or not, but I actually do think that we haven't yet explored every single aspect of the universe or all the types of energy bouncing around out there. Heard of "dark matter"? That kind of sums it up how far we are from understanding the basic building blocks of the universe.

Obviously you missed the point. You claimed that "energies" were affecting us. How do you know that? Why do you elieve that? Where are these "energies" causing effects?

The Cern complex, you think they build that because they already knew everything? The stuff these scientist are after is understanding the basis of the physical world.
We have much to learn yet. We are probably slowed down due to starting our research from the wrong end.

The LHD and other devices are built to explore the nature of the subatomic world. These devices have not detected any other "energies".

How to detect these energies that I refer to as "God"? MAN, are you for real? I actually thought earlier: "man, I hope it won't come to anyone asking how to prove 'God' because if, I'm gonna explode"

You can chortle like a fool all you want. The fact is that there are no "energies" affecting the Earth. That is something rather silly you've made up.

There are no energies that you speak of just as there are no changes happening as you suggest. You claim it is real and you step into the world of fantasy and think it is funny. You are right. It is funny to use fantasy when asked how you know something is real.

What does bother me a bit is how you take on replies that where intended for other members. Now there might be unnecessary confusion on whether a question has been replied to or not. Please wait your turn or write in the manners of: "I am also interested in knowing about X that Y just asked about".
OK?

If you want to make up rules then start your own forum.

It is rather clear that your claims that something is real are just a delusion.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OleMB

 

People, we have different truths. Different truths are truth.

I disagree. People can have different thoughts on what is true, but that is not the same as these things being true.

The issue is this thread and its contents.

I respect that, and I agree. There are the truth, but you and me - we ain't got it
So until we have grasped the truth, which cannot be assembled alone with lesser truths, at the very least not some lesser truths which all we can really admit to have gained in our evolution as of yet. Since we still able to discuss and disagree on what the truth is, we can understand that we don't have all the parts.

There would surely be no reason to bicker over the different truths which we hold in our hearts. When (if) we come to know the entirety of it all, then no parts remain unseen. And I even dare to say that if we were even remotely close to grasping the truth most people would agree on most of the lesser truths.

Now, I hold it that if we are truly interested in all truths, about ourselves, about our existence, about consciousness, about communication, about evolution, about information, about history, then we deny nothing. Then we scrutinize absolutely everything, we establish no higher ground. We keep looking upwards and inwards, striving to find the very source that correlates everything.

We illuminate absolutely everything, we look in every corner. Since there are aspects of the truth which demand experience to grasp (of course there are, truths are everywhere and the truth is everything) experience is the only way you can tell you if it is true or not. Denying it to be true without having even put the effort into having the experience for yourself is not a striving for truth; the highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about. Without experience, how can you possibly know? Does it matter that you are in company with a majority of people who have not experienced it as well and also denies it? I don't think so.

Science has ironically discovered that everything has a Cause, and everything has an effect. Still it is hell-bent on only really putting any effort into understanding the effect of creation (with the refreshing exception of quantum mechanics), and little to the cause of it all. And even effect which most all science is meassured after is a grand mystery in itself; the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. As McKenna then often added about modern science; give us ONE free miracle and we will explain everything.

Spirituality does what science has yet to do. Instead of denying, it tries to incorporate. And it has discovered that as we unveil truths, bigger questions and bigger mysteries appear. Science operate from a point of view that the more truths are gained, more aspects can be denied. Spirituality tries to go further, it stretches always towards the source. Most esoteric and occult writers, and most mystery schools throughout time are quite content being aware that there are always more mysteries to be discovered. We must seek the truth no matter how satisfied we are with what we already know, we must discover the truth, or else it stays unveiled.

When I speak the truth I in no way mean to offend you. I love you with all my heart, and I would not wittingly offend you. When dealing in truth, it can often show itself to be a sour, sour fruit rather than being a sweet candy ready to be sucked on. I also want you to know that I am not assuming anything about you or your life. The only truths I can know you by, are those you choose to convey here.

Originally posted by stereologist
That's the issue isn't it? You just want something to be real and thus you claim it is real.

Just like you want something not to be real and therefore claim it not to be.

I understand what you did. You employed confirmation bias and biased sampling to affirm your decision.

How to avoid being biased? Everything is bias. This thread had a certain target group. At least initially I attracted some. Then they where scared off.

Sorry. I don't believe in a cosmic influence. Such a suggestion makes your claims look weak, i.e. not real.

Hallmark #2.

Never claimed they influenced you. I suggested the actions of these groups suggests that few are experiencing what you are experiencing.

If you ask me, I'd say they/we were all looking in the wrong place, looking for the wrong thing. Might very well be few (contextual), but I am not alone.

You claimed that "energies" were affecting us. How do you know that? Why do you elieve that? Where are these "energies" causing effects?

Since I am a student in humanities and not natural science I won't venture into that field risking to get lost. I know some about ULF though and that electromagnetism can influence the mind. I guess it has something to to with that.
You missed my point on the LHC but that doesn't matter.

You can chortle like a fool all you want. The fact is that there are no "energies" affecting the Earth. That is something rather silly you've made up.

Hallmark #3. You are not open for the thought and by that this discussion soon becomes pretty dull. I took you for an agnostic earlier but I must have been way off, at least then you would have been indifferent to what was indeed "real" or not.
"Chortle like a fool" was not a very nice way to put it, however. Please refrain for that since it makes you look like the real "fool" in question.

There are no energies that you speak of just as there are no changes happening as you suggest. You claim it is real and you step into the world of fantasy and think it is funny. You are right. It is funny to use fantasy when asked how you know something is real.

Hallmark #4, the gap is wider than ever and it just keeps gaping. I hope you find all this worthwhile

It is rather clear that your claims that something is real are just a delusion.

How can you prove that it is real? Just kidding
Yeah, you won't adopt my views and I don't ask you to either (think I made that clear early on in this thread). Delusional as it may be, I'd chose this version of reality 100 times out of 100. Personally, I prefer more than one dimension to things. I am more interested in what lies beyond rather with what I am being served with up front.
You can drop the "belittling" right there please, some other posters complained over such behavior earlier

My suggestion on how to reply to replies of specific concern or not was just that- a suggestion. You don't have to all sour over that.

reply to post by OleMB


Outstanding input!
I totally starred that

Did you take theoretical philosophy or theology classes (or something similar)? Have a diploma even?

reply to post by OleMB

Science has ironically discovered that everything has a Cause, and everything has an effect.

That doesn't sound like science. Where did this come from?

Spirituality does what science has yet to do.

Sorry. Not buying any of that paragraph.

None of that has any bearing on the claim in the OP that this is real.

reply to post by Raud

Just like you want something not to be real and therefore claim it not to be.

The onus is on you to support your claim.

How to avoid being biased? Everything is bias. This thread had a certain target group. At least initially I attracted some. Then they where scared off.

That is false. It is possible to perform unbiased sampling.

If you ask me, I'd say they/we were all looking in the wrong place, looking for the wrong thing. Might very well be few (contextual), but I am not alone.

Your anecdotal evidence only suggests that a few at best are interested. I provided evidence that very few are interested.

Since I am a student in humanities and not natural science I won't venture into that field risking to get lost. I know some about ULF though and that electromagnetism can influence the mind. I guess it has something to to with that.
You missed my point on the LHC but that doesn't matter.

I did not miss the point that you misrepresented the LHC. Furthermore if these energies were EM then they could be detected. There is no evidence for these "energies" you speculate about. There is no evidence for that, or this thing you claim is real.

You are not open for the thought and by that this discussion soon becomes pretty dull. I took you for an agnostic earlier but I must have been way off, at least then you would have been indifferent to what was indeed "real" or not.
"Chortle like a fool" was not a very nice way to put it, however. Please refrain for that since it makes you look like the real "fool" in question.

You were the one placing the laughing emoticons in the post, not I. If you place the laughing emoticons where you post foolishness then I will call you on it.

Yeah, you won't adopt my views and I don't ask you to either (think I made that clear early on in this thread). Delusional as it may be, I'd chose this version of reality 100 times out of 100. Personally, I prefer more than one dimension to things. I am more interested in what lies beyond rather with what I am being served with up front.
You can drop the "belittling" right there please, some other posters complained over such behavior earlier

It is quite clear that there is no evidence that this is real. You've allowed your imagination to run amok.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OleMB

 

Science has ironically discovered that everything has a Cause, and everything has an effect.

That doesn't sound like science. Where did this come from?

Spirituality does what science has yet to do.

Sorry. Not buying any of that paragraph.

None of that has any bearing on the claim in the OP that this is real.

My mistake, I was wrong in stating that science work after that simple but natural truth. You do whatever you want to do Stereo, but you are blatantly showing your colours when it comes to truth; you either buy it or deny it. Have you read up in (not about) spirituality? Have you made an effort into trying the practices? Have you sought after the experience? I won't assume anything, but you stated it yourself; you don't buy it, as if truth is something you can pick and choose at your liking.

Originally posted by OleMB
My mistake, I was wrong in stating that science work after that simple but natural truth. You do whatever you want to do Stereo, but you are blatantly showing your colours when it comes to truth; you either buy it or deny it. Have you read up in (not about) spirituality? Have you made an effort into trying the practices? Have you sought after the experience? I won't assume anything, but you stated it yourself; you don't buy it, as if truth is something you can pick and choose at your liking.

I don't think anyone in their right mind should be trying the "practices" that you put forth in your signature, you are asking people to lay down common sense and use substances that are very harmful to the human body in order to "see what you see"

So how is that "showing true colors" to want to not fry one's brain? Personally I think if you need to do anything that is not natural to see changes, then the changes aren't really there. And don't try to use the argument that all the stuff is natural, it is not natural to try and change your brain chemistry...

reply to post by OleMB

My mistake, I was wrong in stating that science work after that simple but natural truth. You do whatever you want to do Stereo, but you are blatantly showing your colours when it comes to truth; you either buy it or deny it. Have you read up in (not about) spirituality? Have you made an effort into trying the practices? Have you sought after the experience? I won't assume anything, but you stated it yourself; you don't buy it, as if truth is something you can pick and choose at your liking.

Trying to decide which straw man argument you want to use?

I never made any of those claims and you know that to be the case.

The issue is not me. The issue how can the OP tell if their experience is real or a delusion.

Every post avoiding the question and bringing spirituality into this just reinforces the position that this is a delusion.