Most spiritual people have no desire to demonstate anything to the scientific community. Let them play their games, all people find out about their spirituality eventually.
You seem confused about this point.
Skeptics aren’t looking for proof there are not spiritual experiences, (which is a broad off topic category).
Instead, skeptics are actively seeking proof that there are paranormal psychic phenomena.
Are you somehow opposed to looking for proof of paranormal psychic phenomena?
What do you have against looking for truth?
Search relentlessly for truth and help expose liars, cheats and fakes.
Nobody is talking about not believing “your own personal experience”. What is being discussed are ways that accurate conclusions can be drawn from personal experience.
Who do most spiritual people desire to demonstrate things to?
Spirituality is a very broad, category of things, most of which are off-topic. This thread is about paranormal abilities.
Just a small point. I’m on the side of the skeptics and I support Randi’s work, but just as a minor point of fact - I believe it is not the case that someone could apply for the million dollar prize anonymously. To the best of my recall, the JREF reserves the right to publish and publicize full details of any claimant and experiments where the million dollar prize is concerned.
I think it has always been an openly-stated fact if, speaking hypothetically, someone did win the prize, the JREF would seek to exploit their knowledge and proof of this earth-shattering pice of news in order to earn back the million (or more!). I don’t have cites to hand, and, given the quality of debate here, I’m not going to spend the time finding them, but I think I’m correct. Randi has said several times that he’d just LOVE to see genuine psychic or paranormal powers proved once and for all, and he knows that if this ever happened, the million dollars prize would be peanuts compared to the money that could be made out of such a discovery.
Hey, I’d LOVE to see hard evidence of paranormal abilities, too, simply because it opens up whole new exciting branches of physics and physiology, and I don’t have any financial interest.
Aside from displaying your cynicism, what’s your point.
Well, people who like a hard, methodical, well-reasoned approach to problems made it possible for you to use a computer and the internet, for example. If we depended solely on spritual insight, human communication would still be limited to telling folk-tales around a campfire.
Gah- for Pete’s sake. It’s called proof, lekatt. For once in these threads, provide some, or stop insulting people who have the common sense not to believe every bit of hokum that some charlatan puts forth.
I will put this as simply as is humanly possible.
Since you are saying that there is such a thing as psychic abilities, it is incumbent upon you to provide proof, or else you will be disregarded.
Why are you incapable of understanding this? It isn’t that complicated.
Lekatt seems to have confused a belief in religion (I’m Anglican) with the ability to be skeptical on matters of the paranormal (which I also am).
Personally, with what I’ve seen, while some people may perform a little better on ESP test and what-you-will than others, there is no evidence that there are psychics among us.
P.S.- Anyone who claims to be a psychic and practices this mostly on TV is about as reliable as one of those TV psychologists or judges.
They work to prevent con artists like John Edward from exploiting people, among other things.
But as I suggested previously, wishful thinking is often more powerful than rationality, which makes it something of an unwinnable battle.
The only battle against ignorance you can win is within yourself. The only person you control is yourself. As Jesus said: “First remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from your brothers.”
Practice this and you will begin to understand your own spirituality.
Love
Leroy
I am not confused. I was a religious person once. And I was an Agnostic before my near death experience. When I was a religious (Christian) person, I didn’t know how close to God’s Love I actually was, if I had practiced the teachings of Jesus, I would have discovered my spirituality long before my NDE.
Unfortunately most religious people have never felt God’s Love and Light and great knowledge. Those who have are usually older and more experienced in the realities of life, but not always.
Love
Leroy
If you are insulted by psychics, just don’t watch them, they have been around for thousands of years and not likely to go away to please you.
Now, as for proof, there are thousands of books full of it, dozens of scientific studies showing psychic ability, hundreds of NDEs, many of them veridical NDEs, those that can be shown to be real.
Many have been offered here on this board and are quickly dismissed by the skeptics, But that’s what skeptics do, they dismiss anything that is spiritual.
I won’t be offering any more evidence, it is a waste of time, with closed belief systems such as science and skepticism.
Those who have a genuine interest in this subject will read the material, not the skeptical material, but the material offered by those who are actually spiritual people. They are not just the high school dropouts, there are many doctors, Phds, even Psychiatrists that are spiritual and believe psychics do what they claim to do. If anyone decides to really study the subject. Good luck.
Love
Leroy
Are you telling me that none of these people believed in God and/or were spiritual. Very funny.
Actually, the first computer I bought was built by a teenager in his garage.
Not to put words in BE’s mouth, but I don’t believe that’s even close to what he’s TRYING to tell you… the point is, it doesn’t matter whether the computer engineers were spiritual or not, but that spiritual insight alone would not provide the knowledge base required to build a computer. That kid who built the computer in a garage didn’t consult any holy scripture to put it together, instead, he’d have needed logical and methodical step by step plans, in other words, fact.
S’okay, Jimmy, you got my point perfectly, even if lekatt refuses to.
A few posters had suggested that someone trying for Randi’s prize could do so anonymously, if they wished not to profit from their ‘success’ . I was just pointing out that I don’t actually think this is the case. That’s all.
And by the way, there’s no need to float unsubstantiated accusations of ‘cynicism’ around. I’m not a cynical person, and I haven’t stated anything cynical. Maybe you’re confusing ‘cynical’ with ‘skeptical’. There’s a difference. Maybe you could buy yourself a dictionary and learn how to use it?
Now, you can’t really say whether spiritual insight helped or not, can you. Where is your research data.
Not saying this to provoke you. Just to point out that neither me nor thee really know where that inspiration came from.
So, science gave you a computer, God gave you life. Much more important.
Love
Leroy
Once again, irrelevant. If you want to say that anything anyone does is contingent on God’s creation of man before the fact, congratulations, you’ve won the most ridiculous argument of all time. The point, which has already been made and now is being translated again and again for you, is that non-spiritual, scientific if you like, pursuit of answers has a verifiable quality to it that spiritual insights never will. It’s this same lack of verifiability, incidentally, that you keep hiding behind, lekatt. When you say that no one can prove that paranormal abilities don’t exist, you are correct. But you can’t prove to me that, for example, leprechauns don’t exist. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive statement of existence if he wants to be taken seriously. It’s really all very simple: lack of deniability (if that’s a word) does not equal proof of existence.
Lekatt: our resident credophile.
Sems to me you were stating (or at least strongly implying) that while James Randi claims to want to find evidence of paranormal ability, his motive is in fact to profit from the publication of such evidence. This implies a certain mistrust of Randi’s motives and falls well into the definition of “cynical” supplied by Merriam-Webster, which I will not trouble you with at this juncture becuase people who post dictionary definitions annoy me.
Hrmm, that’s not what I got from his post at all. All I thought was that he was pointing out that you couldn’t do this anonymously. As a side effect, Randi would of course want to publish, study, and recoup costs of this fantastic discovery. It didn’t imply (to me)that there were cynical motives at all. No mistrust at all, just a simple explaination.