Yes. Why bother with a concept that is undefined or possible non-definable. Isn’t that useless?
And actually if there is no proof possible for you, then why bother to be here - because you know subconsciously that you don’t know, and no it’s not a reduction. It is the very same as when Socrates said " I only now that I don’t know", not a quoting to prove my whole point but that specific part of it.
Tell me something, IF what I said happened is true would it not constitute proof for you? What does constitute proof for you then? I can’t make you OBE, you have to OBE yourself.
And just as to do my skepticist part here, to be more annoying all that thinking is a double negation on itself.
You are answering to rhetorical question, you are fun for this.
You are maybe a Christian and you think that god exists, You lose your funny part for this and I think that it explains why you don’t want to give proofs.
Sorry if I said something wrong, I don’t want to hurt ones who believe in god, it is only for Remember tomorrow" Also don’t quote what I said previously it will be worst than quoting rhetorical question.
Now the serious part: We do prove to you that OBE isn’t possible even if you didn’t succeed to prove the contrary. So this topic is waiting for more proofs and more discussion on this I think, but we know where it will end…and how .
And I don’t bother. I didin’t adress to you. I adressed my comment to those people who are being deluded by your total open-mindness.
Where did you get that nonsense from?
How did you calculate the 50 percent? What formulas of probability do you use? OBE’s aren’t heads or tails, you know.
And I know that I know that you might possibly know that someone knows that knowing the known might be knowing that you are pretty confusing.
You mean anecdotal evidence? “Oh hey, I just had an OBE and I physically left my body, OMG, I have proven that souls exist!”.
You might have missed an article about OBE’s I have put in my comment. Please read the research section. It clearly states with good references that OBE’s are simple hallucinations.
Sorry if I totally make no sense here, but it should be you that should define stuff. You have a “theory”… Oh, maybe not a theory, I’d rather say - speculation or assumption, that you can litteraly have an OBE. It is you who should supply evidence and define everything, since what is on the table atm is your beliefs and your anecdotes, not OBE’s.
Actually I think that if a god exists or not it doesn’t matter. Atheism is basing itself on religious books, and tries to disproves such concepts that have no value by themselves, it is really a masked “religion”. I can go in an indepth explanation of why people think they are atheists, I don’t criticize, but I assert my uncomfortable ( to all of us) points, that is my job as a religious non-cognitivist. But to take a book and dismiss even basic details THAT is a dogmatic. It is because people tend to see fundamentalism, theistic or atheistic where none exists there. There are no singular religions, just a collection of thoughts and philosophies at various places, categorize them how you like, it is completely irrelevant. I don’t know if you grasp my point. I tend to be nondualistic. Actually I would like a hard debate if I am to be given points to doubt my previous way of thinking or so but a human can only decide to stick by a type of thinking, mine now is uncertainty, empiricism and nondualism. I can take that whole last text of yours and revert it and this will continue infinitely, I am a real skepticist, I am always skeptic, you just stop at convenient points. Tell me, did you understand what I did with the experiment, ok not to trust me and believe me is ok by me, but to tell me that this is not empirical proof is simply false. For instance, to be more precise, on what you want exact proof, there can be no exact proof in science, we move with current data always.
WRONG, you bother on “stupid threads” such as this one, so you address to all here. If you are sure for what you say why bother here? Did you not just address me now? lol
How did you get that now, care to explain?
The laws of science and skepticism, the law of the law, how did YOU calculate the 0 or 100% percent ( which are the different sides of the same coin) , you’re subconsciously drooling on dogmatic-soul type matter, I dont know if I can criticize you, but I have to assert that.
Yes the article I’ve read offers assertations not proof. Even if your mind creates all that, as I also stated as a possibility does it lessen the value of it?
Alright guys. We all have our own opinions. Let’s not argue. You’ve both stated your points. Remember Tomorrow, if they don’t want to accept your research as truth, then don’t worry about it. You know what you know. What does it matter what anyone else thinks?
I’m not taking sides. I just don’t want to see anyone get frustrated and leave the site over a little argument. We’re here to enjoy the site. You guys know this.
Thanks for your assertation, the answer is simple despite what would most perceive. I simply don’t care for the persons, I care for the debate, the individuals I don’t know personally and I wouldn’t care to do so. I am simply too bothered to care about trolling. I don’t criticize their defense mechanism, because that’s what it is, and gifs do not affect me, they might think they affect me, but why they should they? People lack knowledge of how their psychology works, and in the outside world reactions could possibly be proven to be violent, no exaggeration, when faced with evidence that defies whole previous ways of thinking, I don’t know at an ethical level how I can judge that. It is a mental/psychological defense mechanisms, it exists for a reason, to break it. I am not commenting on myself, I just assert my opinion.
You call it research? Collection of anecdotical evidence is NOT research. Research is going into a laboratory and with the help of external devices proving that you in fact did leave your body. He doesn’t do that, so it is not research.
I wouldn’t call a discussion like this as any threat to the site. In fact, the discussions this site offers are often interesting and contribute to people knowledge, provided that the party which claims something to be true provides evidence as well. And I’m exitedly waiting for RT’s evidence on the existence of OBE’s. And I can’t wait .
First and foremost at first level anecdotal evidence was asked, you have to wonder why that was done. OK, that is respected if you don’t accept anecdotal evidence, why bother then and not just leave? I won’t bother to explain why what you said is not false but irrelevant, you seem to be facing new data and can’t cope with the amount and quality of it, that is not a self evaluation but I don’t have at any rate to agree with you. “Attacking the messenger” is simply dismissed by me, you have to go by other methods to disprove me. If you observed, and can comprehend, I am never absolute in my assertations, by NATURE scientific observations are not “absolute” as commonly meant, theories step on previous ones, take another level, disprove certain parts previously thought as true, evolve in their concepts etc, not accepting anecdotal evidence is OK by me, I didn’t refer to you as a person, but I referred to your way of thinking. And btw, irrelevantly, but how much respect someone gives to other individuals shows his self-respect aswell, and GIFs etc show your level at any rate, it is extremely tiresome rather than offensive. If you don’t have the mental/psychological capacity to debate at least on logical grounds and not insults, there is no intrinsic value in such a thing as you just stated.
He who understands what is going on, would simply correlate my “anecdotal” data to his empirical data and be able to progress, also, no one has observed yet it seems, that I wrote down how to OBE, if that is not intriguing, then what is the place of people in an LD site?
note: no one seems to deny the existence of OBEs, just the value of it because by definition none such proof can exist. You cannot be tutored, and that by definition, to “believe” or so in anything of such type, EMPIRICAL data is… empirical.
Say I didn’t even exist, you can neither disprove OBE nor prove it ofc at the point. Also anyone can check my first post here and how it somewhat stank pseudo-skepticism, unknowingly when it was typed.
“If you don’t have the mental/psychological capacity to debate at least on logical grounds”
“LOGICAL grounds”
Isn’t you who talked about the capacity of being a ghost in real life during the sleep time ?
The message wasn’t reffering to you but Paulius. But nonetheless it fits the same to you.
“yes”, you’re doing circles all the time, you aren’t faithful to science, no matter how much you will alterate that fact. In all due respect, considering that, why you bother? If you haven’t noticed I am not the only person in the forum to assert OBEs value.
note: I wrote down how to do an OBE, I had continues ones this summer, they exceed 10, whatever their very basic nature is, don’t be foolish and try it, then come back and I will be glad to hear your opinion, now THAT is real empiricism/science, this is a a test, I don’t want or need to convince you, I tell “you” to take it by yourself, that is my job here, I don’t care about your individual life, if it does not succeed then it changes nothing.
“The message wasn’t reffering to you but Paulius. But nonetheless it fits the same to you.”
If you are talking to Paulius in that kind of way, you will have to deal with me I’m affraid.
““yes”, you’re doing circles all the time, you aren’t faithful to science, no matter how much you will alterate that fact. In all due respect, considering that, why you bother? If you haven’t noticed I am not the only person in the forum to assert OBEs value.”
Science needs to have some fun when he is bored
Yes I can very well deal with you, no problem. My opinion is that, unknowingly or not, you don’t have the mental and psychological capacity in the storming of new data faced no offense, and you develop a defense mechanism. I am extremely precise in all my assertations, where I am sure, where I am not sure. I am extremely precise when I say that the fact alone that someone may not accept anecdotal data is OK, I wouldn’t accept aswell, but I could very well grasp ideas through what I hear and relate it to my own ideas. The thing is what exactly is your conflicting point? Leave all the petty insults appart, you don’t have the integrity when “pressed” and in a respectful way by your co-commentator to assert your opinion on grounds of non-attacking the messenger. I don’t know you in real life and at any level I wouldn’t care to do so, if you experience hard times or so in your personal life and result to “trolling the nets”, I could care less. I think I am very specific, don’t tell me otherwise now. Either debate on debate terms or don’t debate at all, is there anything that you are not capable to see here?
No offence taken, we are here Paulius and me, well I don’t know about Paulius but we are here to enlightened you, to open your eyes. But you are saying “no my eyes are open, go away >_<”.
I know that some persons refuse to realise the reality so we know that some may be aggressive but I am used to so it’s ok don’t worry
I don’t know why you don’t realise it … hmm … The proofs that OBE doesn’t exist is here … The standard model is here to tell you “believe in me” … And some gentlemen is offering you the truth … everything is here
No I don’t agree on your perception of me or my way of thinking, not because I have anything against you on a personal level, but just because it is absolutely not-real. It is simply false, if what you said about me was correct your criticism on me would be correct aswell, but the basis of it all is simply wrong. I won’t go in detail, I can simply prove completely my assertations through that simple method - take it one by one:
Paulius already said that our body possibly can’t permit a kind of telepathy.
Paulius already mentioned the wiki fact but obviously you didn’t read it : rationalwiki.org/wiki/Obe
Paulius already said that some tests confirmed that this kind of theory was not viable because nobody can prove it exists and more importantly can’t argue about it because nobody has a proof
Paulius is a god
Tell me if you want another proofs oh wait no just scroll up the topics you forget plenty of them…
.
.
: 
