Thread: OOBE's proved wrong

Originally Posted by TheSixthSide

It wasn't predicted after it happened. The bible has been around a lot longer than 9/11.

and to the guy who told me to take interest in evolution. I have I've been taught it, but don't believe it. The **** if I came from a stupid monkey. And if we came from monkeys shouldn't we still be seeing this happening today? How come it's not happening among us?

I can always say "the green one will attack, and all those who once hid their riches will regret having lived".

Pretty abstract sentece it is. Actually, it's completely abstract. Any interpretation can be taken out of it (just like in astrology or numerology articles). That is not a prediction to my eyes eyes. I can say that "the green one" is a plane that had a green letter on it, and that the WTC was "the one who hid their riches".


Bible (nor Nostradamus lol) did not predict anything, unless the bible said that:

"In 9/11, the World Trade Center in new York, United States of America, will fall, after planes hitting them."

THAT is a prediction

----------


You did not come from a monkey. Actually, you and the monkey are cousins. Humans and monkeys had the same "grandfathers".

Saying that you came from a monkey is saying that monkeys didn't evolve at all in so many years. That is not what evolution theory says.

If you say that, then for sure yo udidn't pay much attention to science classes at school.

Evolution doesn't happen in 3 hours, nor in 7 days, nor in 1 year, nor in 10,000 years for that matter. Saying you lived long enough to see evolution is ridiculous. Again, go read something abotu evolution, an you'll see that most of what you condene in evolution is actually not what it says.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Well, there really are multiple ways to get explanation of things. What I say is that some of the mis rather wrong.

Another thing: science is almost never wrong. It bases on hypothesis, just like anything else. If the hypothesis is real, then the thesis is real.

An example of hypothesis-thesis:
Hypothesis: All women are fat. Jane is a woman.
Thesis: Jane is fat.

That thesis is based on the hypothesis that all women are fat. If that hypothesis proves false, then the thesis proves false. But still, if the hypothesis was true, the thesis would also be true.

If you don't think science has gotten us far, compare the belief of a square earth to the possibility of finding water in other planets by using light. I believe that's pretty much an advancement.

---

To me, prejudicial judgment is pretty much wrong. If you do it consciously, it makes you a bad person. Again, that's my belief, you don't have to agree with that.

What I say is that you defend people who prefer to believe in something convenient, rather than fight ignorance.

---

Finally, I do not yet know of a situation in which science was blatantly wrong. If you mind to point an example, I'd be really glad.

It seems we agree on most things. Like, i don't believe every explanation is a right one. And i do believe science is almost never wrong. But it does change to become right.
Science may have gotten us somewhere, but if there is room for infinite improvement without a comparison of experiences i can't say whether it is really one of the best or one of the worst approaches to getting where we want. This shows a big difference between our two views. You might say, there are comparable experiences approaching objective truth. And to me that is all still part of just one experience.

I can understand You believe prejudicial judgment to be bad. I only like getting a grasp on what prejudicial judgment is true to someone though, i don't just approve any kind of prejudicial judgment.
I do defend people who believe in something convenient as i think anything can be believed, but i hate ignorance as it distances someone from the truth. But again from Your point of view it's very understandable You don't like the look of it.

When i give an example of science being wrong, You can always state it was the people behind science who were wrong, not a true scientist or science itself. That is, if You look at science as never letting people drawing a fairly sure conclusion but as always adjusting hypothesis. That would mean science never gets us closer to truth but that it's the scientists themselves who sometimes do, sometimes don't, without being based on science. If You do believe science means something in regard to truth, i think things like the Newton incident springs to mind, or any court of law drawing a wrong conclusion based on science.

The developed difference between our views is interesting. Where it all starts though, is that You perceive, i think?, us as being part of the world, experiencing a coloration of objective truth.
And in my eyes, there is nothing but and nothing outside our one experience. Which makes us just as much part of the world as the world itself, our experience a reflection of ourself, equal to what we perceive.
They are both based on different realizations, and science can't prove either one of us right easily, since in both cases science would show us the truth as long as we view it that way. But both versions do state science can prove either one of us wrong, which in my point of view would be a shame as it may throw away a lot of possibly true, more wished for, approaches.

Originally Posted by Bear

Prove me wrong!!!!!

You are not unique, everyone has a unicorn that whispers to them at night, but the purple ones dont cause dreams, they just make the dreamer think it's causing dreams when its really just you thinking in your sleep with no cognition of the conscious world so your mind can make up any environment and situation. i know this because the pink unicorn that talks to me (the only truth-telling colored unicorn) told me so.

congratulations.

Originally Posted by Mocari

It seems we agree on most things. Like, i don't believe every explanation is a right one. And i do believe science is almost never wrong. But it does change to become right.
Science may have gotten us somewhere, but if there is room for infinite improvement without a comparison of experiences i can't say whether it is really one of the best or one of the worst approaches to getting where we want. This shows a big difference between our two views. You might say, there are comparable experiences approaching objective truth. And to me that is all still part of just one experience.

I can understand You believe prejudicial judgment to be bad. I only like getting a grasp on what prejudicial judgment is true to someone though, i don't just approve any kind of prejudicial judgment.
I do defend people who believe in something convenient as i think anything can be believed, but i hate ignorance as it distances someone from the truth. But again from Your point of view it's very understandable You don't like the look of it.

When i give an example of science being wrong, You can always state it was the people behind science who were wrong, not a true scientist or science itself. That is, if You look at science as never letting people drawing a fairly sure conclusion but as always adjusting hypothesis. That would mean science never gets us closer to truth but that it's the scientists themselves who sometimes do, sometimes don't, without being based on science. If You do believe science means something in regard to truth, i think things like the Newton incident springs to mind, or any court of law drawing a wrong conclusion based on science.

The developed difference between our views is interesting. Where it all starts though, is that You perceive, i think?, us as being part of the world, experiencing a coloration of objective truth.
And in my eyes, there is nothing but and nothing outside our one experience. Which makes us just as much part of the world as the world itself, our experience a reflection of ourself, equal to what we perceive.
They are both based on different realizations, and science can't prove either one of us right easily, since in both cases science would show us the truth as long as we view it that way. But both versions do state science can prove either one of us wrong, which in my point of view would be a shame as it may throw away a lot of possibly true, more wished for, approaches.

What I stated by science based on hypothesis is that it studies every possibility.

Hypothesis: All women are fat. Jane is a woman.
Thesis: Jane is fat.

What I tried to explain here is that science never stated that all women are fat. What it states is that, if all women are fat, and Jane is a woman, than there is the logical assumption that Jane is fat.


Now a religious case (christian to be mroe specific):

Hypothesis: God exists. He sent his son to earth.
Thesis: The son of god is Jesus.

That is not a logical assumption. Actually, science also tries to prove their hypothesis true with facts, but religion doesn't. Actually, nothing ensures that the son of god is Jesus, even if the hypothesis is true. It could be me, or you, or Judas, or George W. Bush.



The line of thought you follows gets me feel like everything I see or feel is only inside me. Even you, are only inside my perception. Saying that there is nothing apart from perception is foolish (and selfish). There are many things we do not perceive that do actually happen. Science studies that, its causes and outcomes.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I stated by science based on hypothesis is that it studies every possibility.

Hypothesis: All women are fat. Jane is a woman.
Thesis: Jane is fat.

What I tried to explain here is that science never stated that all women are fat. What it states is that, if all women are fat, and Jane is a woman, than there is the logical assumption that Jane is fat.


Now a religious case (christian to be mroe specific):

Hypothesis: God exists. He sent his son to earth.
Thesis: The son of god is Jesus.

That is not a logical assumption. Actually, science also tries to prove their hypothesis true with facts, but religion doesn't. Actually, nothing ensures that the son of god is Jesus, even if the hypothesis is true. It could be me, or you, or Judas, or George W. Bush.



The line of thought you follows gets me feel like everything I see or feel is only inside me. Even you, are only inside my perception. Saying that there is nothing apart from perception is foolish (and selfish). There are many things we do not perceive that do actually happen. Science studies that, its causes and outcomes.

Yet as it studies everything new based on what we are familiar with (what we believe to know is true), it only studies the possibilities that are true according to what we currently believe to know is true. It seems to be based on something unscientific and it doesn't show us the entire picture of truth, in that something more than the truth we perceive, can be true in due time.

Well can You name me something that You do not perceive to be, that actually happens or is? I can't imagine You don't perceive everything there is to You. If something is not a part of Your perception, how can it be of importance to You? If it has some meaning to You, or is there to You, it is already part of Your perception. Without a connection between You and something else, i don't see how that something else can be existent, or anything, to You.

Actually, science does study the every new possibility that shows up. Of course, it's not possible to study electrons without having already studied atoms, but eventually science can reach every level of complexity there is.

And only because i do not perceive something doesn't mean it does not exist. We cannot see air, and a lot of philosophers from the past took time to consider it real.
The opposite may also happen: I can see something tha tdoes not exist, or misundertand somethign real for something untrue.
Only because I do not know you, it doesn't mean you do not exist, and thinking you don't is extremely silly and ignorant.

What I mean is that, no matter how many times science explains OOBE's etc they're still considered to be very mistical and all that "boring stuff" (read BS).


Saying that your perception is the world is idealistic. And since I believe i nmaterialism, I completely disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Actually, science does study the every new possibility that shows up. Of course, it's not possible to study electrons without having already studied atoms, but eventually science can reach every level of complexity there is.

And only because i do not perceive something doesn't mean it does not exist. We cannot see air, and a lot of philosophers from the past took time to consider it real.
The opposite may also happen: I can see something that does not exist, or misunderstand something real for something untrue.
Only because I do not know you, it doesn't mean you do not exist, and thinking you don't is extremely silly and ignorant.

What I mean is that, no matter how many times science explains OOBE's etc they're still considered to be very mystical and all that "boring stuff" (read BS).


Saying that your perception is the world is idealistic. And since I believe in materialism, I completely disagree with you.

That's exactly my point. Not every possibility shows up. And it's that selection of possibilities that do show up, that we call truth, that science covers. But that's just the part we call truth right now, and is still open for change.

To me it's obvious i don't exist if You don't know me. But You do know me, to some extend. I exert influence on You, You focus on me partially, therefor i exist. You believe i'm here, right? So You see i'm here. You believe there is air, You experience air. You believe the dream wasn't real, and the dream is not real to You. If You believe i'm ignorant and idealistic, well then i am, to You.

without reading the rest of the posts (just read a few)
and without seeing the video

I tell ya: it's bullsh*t
Why?
As somebody suggested: Search for `god proved wrong'

It is simply impossible to prove that OBEs are impossible
You can prove that many of them are dreams, ofc, but maybe you just never catch the real ones?

Originally Posted by Mocari

To me it's obvious i don't exist if You don't know me.

If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise. But I don't see how people can use the philosophical argument that "what I don't know must not exist." Sure, to the one who is unaware, it's not there for consideration. But, just because you aren't aware doesn't make it not so.

Originally Posted by Mocari

That's exactly my point. Not every possibility shows up. And it's that selection of possibilities that do show up, that we call truth, that science covers. But that's just the part we call truth right now, and is still open for change.

To me it's obvious i don't exist if You don't know me. But You do know me, to some extend. I exert influence on You, You focus on me partially, therefor i exist. You believe i'm here, right? So You see i'm here. You believe there is air, You experience air. You believe the dream wasn't real, and the dream is not real to You. If You believe i'm ignorant and idealistic, well then i am, to You.

Well, what *I* perceive is unimportant in scientifical matters. What matter is that, no matter if I perceive it or not, you do exert influence on me. Your breathing could eventually change somehtign tha taffects me. A simple initial change evolves in geometrical progression. As I always say, a butterfly could be the differential factor that created a hurricane.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise. But I don't see how people can use the philosophical argument that "what I don't know must not exist." Sure, to the one who is unaware, it's not there for consideration. But, just because you aren't aware doesn't make it not so.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise. But I don't see how people can use the philosophical argument that "what I don't know must not exist." Sure, to the one who is unaware, it's not there for consideration. But, just because you aren't aware doesn't make it not so.

How doesn't it make it not so?
There is simply nothing to base the assumption on that i don't perceive there to be, everything there is to me.
Never has there been any indication whatsoever that there is something You Yourself don't see as being there.
That assumption itself = Your point of view, and proves itself to You by seeing things that way. Which only approves my point of view.

Originally Posted by Mocari

How doesn't it make it not so?
There is simply nothing to base the assumption on that i don't perceive there to be, everything there is to me.
Never has there been any indication whatsoever that there is something You Yourself don't see as being there.
That assumption itself = Your point of view, and proves itself to You by seeing things that way. Which only approves my point of view.

What??? Anyway, just because I don't see or become effected by something doesnt mean it's non-existent. It still effects those who are exposed to it.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

Mocari is just messing around at concepts I guess.


Most of the time I do not feel my heart beat, but it affects me doesn't it? That proves you wrong. Period.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

What??? Anyway, just because I don't see or become effected by something doesn't mean it's non-existent. It still effects those who are exposed to it.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

I don't understand how it doesn't mean it's non-existent. If You are aware it effects those who are exposed to it than of course that's the way it is. But if You aren't, i don't see how it can be existent.

What i initially was getting at is that we shouldn't believe so easily, or hold on to so often, to what science shows us as credible.
I wanted to show one of its limitations. And in doing so i stumbled upon a different view on the world. After this i tried to clarify and grasp the small difference in thinking, that splits up into these two almost opposite views.
But that's harder to show than i had hoped.

Congratulations :bravo:

I see the astounding members of DV have managed to muster another [SIZE=5]5 [SIZE=2]page topic into existence I knew it would happen again, but I didn't think this topic would actually go that far.


Now I am sure that many of you have noticed this with all arguements on this forum as I am sure it is everywhere that there are TWO SIDES to every arguement. For instance in this case there are those who believe in Out Of Body Experiences & Those Who Do Not.

I seriously doubt you will ever get the other side to see your view on things and as you can see 5 Pages Later you are still arguing about the same thing nobody has accepted the others side take on things and I doubt this post will make any difference.

But nobody is going to go "Oh that's a good point I think I will agree with you now."

So really I don't see the point in arguing this topic any further. I do believe this is called "Arguing For The Sake Of Arguing" or something to that effect.

Yours Truly,

Brandon Heat

i'll proved it right IF and only if i have OOBE and i heard that u can wander around in RL?? if that's true i'll wander to a new neighbour hood n remember all the detail! then when i wake up i'll visit it to see if it matches.

If yes> yeah souls and hell n heaven is all real n i'll do gd deed but other ppls wont believe nvm i alone know the ans will be enough xD

Originally Posted by Mocari

I don't understand how it doesn't mean it's non-existent. If You are aware it effects those who are exposed to it than of course that's the way it is. But if You aren't, i don't see how it can be existent.

What i initially was getting at is that we shouldn't believe so easily, or hold on to so often, to what science shows us as credible.
I wanted to show one of its limitations. And in doing so i stumbled upon a different view on the world. After this i tried to clarify and grasp the small difference in thinking, that splits up into these two almost opposite views.
But that's harder to show than i had hoped.

I understand that you're using a philosophical argument. But it only works in the realm of philosophical thinking. That concept holds no water when considering real life. Awareness has no bearing on ultimate reality.

Originally Posted by MrDeJaWu

i'll proved it right IF and only if i have OOBE and i heard that u can wander around in RL?? if that's true i'll wander to a new neighbour hood n remember all the detail! then when i wake up i'll visit it to see if it matches.

If yes> yeah souls and hell n heaven is all real n i'll do gd deed but other ppls wont believe nvm i alone know the ans will be enough xD

I sometimes wish people would use WORDS when they post.

Yeah. That's not proof.
That's like saying that you have found proof that aliens don't exist.
Whether they do or don't, you can never prove their INexistence.

The words "I know..." are best spoken by fools.

Hey I love Penn and Teller. I just don't claim that anything they say is proof. They are comedians; they make money off of mixing the truth with lies in order to entertain. Some of what they say is true but its up to you to research their claims and separate out; the bullshit.

Personally I would be a little skeptical of anyone who makes a living off of you sitting in front of your television telling you their 'message' is "don't be on the sofa."

Originally Posted by Brandon Heat

Now I am sure that many of you have noticed this with all arguements on this forum as I am sure it is everywhere that there areTWO SIDES to every arguement.

Well actually there are at least three sides to this discussion, as I don't believe in NDE's exactly, but I don't think Penn and Teller is a good source for proof.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

...but I don't think Penn and Teller is a good source for proof.

True. I wouldn't say they could supply proof of anything except that jerks who go out of their way to ruin magic and to piss off the magic community can actually make a very good living doing magic shows and being annoying pr!cks. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I understand that you're using a philosophical argument. But it only works in the realm of philosophical thinking. That concept holds no water when considering real life. Awareness has no bearing on ultimate reality.


I sometimes wish people would use WORDS when they post.

If You see that as truth, i'm not arguing that it isn't. The same way science only works in the realm of scientific thinking, the same way God exists in the eyes of the Christian. Philosophical thinking is very much a part of my reality.

Originally Posted by Mocari

If You see that as truth, i'm not arguing that it isn't. The same way science only works in the realm of scientific thinking, the same way God exists in the eyes of the Christian. Philosophical thinking is very much a part of my reality.

It doesn't mean philosophy is always right.

Science is trustworthy because of the scientifical method. It exludes almost every possibility of a wrong thesis.
Even for that reason, psychology took years to become a science. Nowadays, it's limited to concepts, since psychological theses always involuntarily touch the concepts of perception, awareness, ethics, and all that's related to it. That is mostly social science: social science is the study of how society developped and how it functions to us. That's why I still think psychiatry is better (although I do not agree with a lot of it).

my god dont get me started on this video. penn and teller spread propaganda. they didn’t give raymond moody a decent interview. you notice how they only allowed the scientists that agree with them to awnser any questions.... and raymond moody has compelling evidence against the dying brain theory. penn and teller also didnt mention the 6 year prospective study done by pim van lommel and peter frenwick. i guess they forgot about that one because it doesn’t support their theories.
sorry if i sound angry but i feel very strongly about this topic

ive read alot of NDE's and they are truly fascinating if you look into them. some of the most fascinating NDE's are of blind people that become sighted for the first time.

the whole lack of oxygen theory falls apart when you get one NDE where the experience happens when there are no brain waves. i think the case of Pam Reynolds is that case that really cuts deepest into that theory

well you have heard penn and teller and their scientists. now hear from the NDE’ers and open minded scientists...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RsV2oWL0bK0