Really? Even if we provide really strong factual evidence and logical arguments against your “common sense”? Okay, this is what I meant when I said we were using the same words to mean different things. If you’re already committed to believing in something regardless of how it’s discredited, that’s not “common sense”; it’s what pretty much everybody in the world calls “blind faith” or “irrational belief”. That’s fine; just don’t pretend you arrived there through deductive reasoning.
So, you’re essentially witnessing; again, that’s fine, but we usually use the Great Debates forum for that.
Actually, you haven’t made any points; you’ve simply made unsupported statements. If you’re not trying to convince people of anything, that’s fine. But you appear to be trying to get an audience to engage, to do something, and frankly, you’re not making a very good case for it.
No one is defending themselves from you or your ideas. You haven’t presented anything to defend against. I feel the same way about what you’ve said as I do about random guys on the subway spouting gibberish about aliens in cahoots with the CIA. They make interesting stories but very unsupported arguments.
If all you want to do is talk about Cayce without providing any substance, then I’d agree that you will find your time here unproductive and disappointing. But if you were willing to actually engage people you’ll find that we don’t attack posters even though we are very adamant about making sure evidence and logic are used to present ideas.
Try it. Pick one single prophecy or prediction that you think illustrates Cayce best and present it clearly and succinctly. Let’s see where the discussion goes.
Nothing, really? I’m almost offended, since I was making a deliberate effort not to be dismissive. In conjunction with Telemark’s (and others’) request (pick a good single example of Cayce’s work for detailed discussion), I’ll restate mine (describe something Cayce did and consider if he could accomplish that feat through means other than having psychic powers).
If we’re going to stage a thoughtful analysis of Cayce’s abilities, aren’t these good places to start? If not, please suggest some.
Again, no one here has anything objective to add. The topic is how David made a mistake. The issue is Cayce being a fraud in his trance condition, as David went to great subjective detail in pasting quotes from a debunker society text. Anything I have added was just to go into detail as to show more info into Cayce’s readings.
So, it is obvious that the “straight dope” technique has nothing to do with science or objectivity, or fairness. You guys simply make “hit and run” jabs trying to play games. I call this politics, and this is obviously an unfair website. It doesn’t qualify as a political website because you guys only defend your personal agendas.
So, the “straight dope” method is to constantly paste and joke. You take one sentence out of context, change the subject, and display your human weaknesses. David did only that, and nothing he said was original or even based on his observations. He simply pasted out of a subjective text, solely to do exactly as all of you guys are doing, to display to the world that you guys are hypocrites.
But the world doesn’t come here odes it? It appears that this site is intended to give you guys a place to share your limited opinions. Are the only people who come here members of your “club”, or “society”, which seems to be a better term?
So now, since no one cares to reply to the topic, why not defend the website against my observations? Do your paste and attack technique to show again that none of you are qualified to ever talk about honorable principles.
The only good thing I have seen is the Jesus H Christ joke thread.
I’ve tried twice now with no result. I understand you disagree with with staff report. That’s fine. Can we ignore it and start a new analysis of Cayce? A good place to start would be for you to describe one of his accomplishments and we’ll analyze it and see if it comes from psychic abilities or possibly by other means, and how we might design a test to indicate one or the other.
I came here because I am studying Edgar Cayce. I searched his name and clicked on all the hits. One was David’s “straight dope” reply to an honest question. He botched it up as I have shown. So, I go by the procedures given to me by this website, which asks for comments to be posted on thiis forum. That is the first subjective stuation created by this site.
I started out very polite and right to the point. Go back and reread this thread. If you guys have anything to add, try to have 1/10th of the integrity I have displayed, or forget it. If there is no way to reply to an error, other than to play the “set yourself up for attacks” method, then why even have this site. This site has the ball in its court.
Another thing I find amusing is that you guys have the opportunity to make your “paste and slam” subjective attacks and then wait for a reply, then go back and edit your attack. The “guest” has a disadvantage. And still you guys find no need to display honor.
Do you guys know anything about psychology, and the word shame?
Give it up, folks. People like this are incapable of linear thought. They sincerely believe that they, and only they, know the complete meaning of life, and that all the rest of us are infidels unless we agree 100% with their tinfoil hattery. And why are they right? Because they read it in a book, or on the internet, or god or og or zuban the elder spoke to them personally and revealed all. People like this generally have a chemical imbalance, but feel so good about their beliefs that they don’t seek medical intervention.
You can’t win an argument or even have an intelligent discussion with a deluded person, because they are incapable of escaping the looping thoughts in their heads. So continue at your own peril.
Sorry guys, I’m not going any further until I get something. I’m not wasting anymore of my time.
We have this website. We have Edgar Cayce. I am a third party. I came here under the modst ordinary of conditions, and this is what I get. I am not an advocate for Cayce, I am a student of spiritualism. I am learning.
What I have learned is that this site has this to offer. Shame.
No you haven’t shown anything. You’ve mostly done some handwaving, sidestepping, and now refuse to answer any questions. If you believe that all of us have missed your proof then take the time to restate the part you think is wrong in the Staff Report and re-present the evidence that supports your point.
Otherwise you are right, there’s nothing for you here. But I think that reflects more on you then on the Straight Dope or Cayce.
A student of spiritulasim would be willing to accept evidence for and against it. You are an advocate. You came here claiming that mistakes were made in a staff report, but refuse to point out exactly what those mistakes are, believing that we should just take you at your word even though you have no history here.
This is not one of those message boards where you can post anything you want and people will fawn all over you, hoping that you will fawn over whatever stories they put forth. Every poster here, no matter how long she/he has been here, could have gotten away with posting as you have here without being questioned as you have been.
Wow, a moderator. Thanks for telling me what I am. OK, I got what I came for. Now that a moderator has confirmed what I thought. I am right about this sight.
