It's not really a good idea to engage in spritualism or the supernatural, especially when you don't know what your messing.
Ah, but, both Derren and I do believe we know with what we're messing. The way a ouija board works is through tiny involuntary muscle spasms which move the glass according to your subconsious.
A group of researchers did an experiment with a mixture of believers and non-believers. First they did a seance "normally", and everyone was surprised when it worked. Next, they showed everyone the board, blindfolded them, and continued. Again, it worked. Then they did the same but after blindfolding the volunteers they turned the board round by 180 degrees. It spelled out gibberish. However, upon playing the tape back (it was all being recorded), they saw that had they not turned the board round, the movements of the glass would ahve made sense. They then did the same, except they turned the board upsidedown. Again, the glass moved to where the letters
were before the people were blindfolded.
And, lest you forget, the spirit that Derren's subjects contacted and "channeled" the details from was actually an actress, not a medical student who had died 30 years ago. The entire story was ficticious, and that they got the made-up details right from the minor clues and suggestions that they were given is further proof that it's all bunk.
I cannot emphasise it enough - what they did was the equivalent of channeling the spirit of Darth Vader and revealing details such as his real name being Annikin and that he's an orphan. If it proves anything, it proves that seances are bunk.
I have heard of that show, but I haven't the chance to watch it.
I seriously suggest you try to seek some of it out. Here is a page with some video clips on it.
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/video/
The one I'd seriously recommend is the second one, the voodoo doll. It's utterly astonishing, and makes quite an eloquent critique of a lot of "New Age" beliefs.
But the centuries of practice must have some touch of supernaturality in it[...]
You say this, but
why must it? For centuries, it was thought that the way to good health from infection was to open someone's vein and bleed the demons out of them. Merely because this happened for centuries, does that mean that this must also have an element of truth to it? If so, why do antibiotics work?
In my country, buddhism here is pretty widespread and chinese mediums are everywhere and can be easily found.
Just out of interest, where are you from?
Example being Metaphysics can be linked to geomancy or feng shui, the method of feng shui is seeking supernatural forces to guide them and give them answers for the balance of yin and yang.
Feng Shui is an interesting example, as it's got to be the most misunderstood peice of spiritualism in the west. People think it's all about where you put your sofa, and don't know that 50% of it is about where and how your ancestors are buried. Also, it's not just what hte inside of your building looks like, but the outside, where it's located, what the landscape is like...etc.
I think it's a wonderful example of appropriation of an idea that seems "cool" without actually having any understanding of the ideas and beliefs behind it. Quite a good metanym for a lot of New Age beliefs, in fact.
First thing we don't understand how it works, secondly we don't understand why it happens.
You can say that about any mental function though. Including sleep, dreams, fear, abstract thought...and so on. Just because we don't necessarily understand the minutae of the workings of something doesn't make it dangerous, nor does it mean that those minutae
cannot be understood or don't have an explaination.
So far people who practise it, do not have any recollection or accounts of being hypnotised and what they said.
That's simply not true. I've witnessed people who have been under hypnosis remembering everything countless times. On Derren Brown's show, for one.
They also seem to have strange vivid memories they never had in their lives. For example, this bloke was put under hypnosis and he recollected memories of his birth and the conversation the doctors had. Strange enough, we understand that babies under 3 years of age do not have the ability to store memories let alone a birth.
Same as abductions and regressions - suggestability coupled with a huge tendency for confabulation.
I have no claims but from a book, that some people who has practised extensive yoga and meditation has been diagnosed with personality problems. From what I have read, there are hotlines to help people who suffer split personalities and disturbing voices in the head after an extensive practice of yoga.
Hmm, I can find some things about "Kundalini Syndrome", but the only thing I can find from a credible source is saying that yoga can be an effective treatment to help combat a split personality. I certainly can't find any hotlines about anything of this nature.
Have you heard of the ancient Priory of Sion and Illuminati?
Heard of, yes. Believe in the power of, no.
I believe that you know of the cashless society plan?
Not really.
We will be slaves by then as when he implements his mark on the forehead or right hand, we cannot buy or sell if we do not have this mark.
You could say that we're slaves now, as we cannot buy or sell if we don't carry cash. Or a credit card. Or a debit card. You cannot buy or sell without legal tender - this is true. But it's not a question of this making us into slaves. How will we be "slaves" more than we already are?
Ah, but our every detail and location and be traced just by this mark and we would become slaves to him.
As I've said, this is exactly what they said about credit cards, laser scanner at checkouts and Cashpoints when they first arrived. Is this true? Or was it just paranoia back then?
The UN charter does not say such a thing, but their goal is simple. They want to unite the world in order to solve all world problems.
Well, forgive me if I don't see uniting the world or solving global problems as a cause for concern. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Yes you can say that, I do not have basis in my claims.
I didn't say that. I said that you hadn't shown me the basis for your claims, and that I agreed with what you said, but my data was only anecdotal data, and, as such, that I had no real basis for my claims.
But what I say is quite obvious.
What's obvious to one person is not at all obvious to another. We all have personal bias that colours our thinking, no matter how impartial we like to think of ourselves as. This is one of the many reasons why anecdotal data is not, well, it's not actually data, really.
We can go back to the Victorian era and say as such, but this modern world has reached a pinnacle in technology and yet, we are still skeptical beings and we fear things that we don't comprehend. Especially when it comes to the end of the world, people fear it but never do anything about it. That thought amuses me how we ignore something right on our faces.
Actually, I think the majority of people aren't skeptical at all. I think they're credulous. People tend to believe things they are told, especially if they're written down or told to them by a trusted authority figure. If I could teach the world one skill, it would be to objectively eveluate the source of everything that they hear, and to be more skeptical.
As for fear, that's an entirely natural emotion. what has changed is how people think the world will end. At this moment in time, people fear that
their world will end because of terrorism, not because of a rain of fire.
It may not seem like a conspiracy for all. But this is done to prepare the future generations to embrace the New Age unknowingly.
Done by who and how? The main cause of the spread of Eastern mysticism to the West was the Beatles going to India. At the time they were very anti-establishment, and the establishment were trying to suppress them. Are you trying to say that the Beatles were manipulated into this, or that they were part of the conspiracy themselves?
But since we are a modern society do we really need such things to interfere with progress?
I would say that the use of drugs in spiritualism has gone down massively in recent times. Compare modern LSD usage to that in the 60s. Also note that LSD in the 60s was much, much stronger than what there is today.
We invent, we progressed, we have power, but something overlaps all this, we have more problems instead. What seems good seems to be overwhelmed by cons instead.
Naturally technology is not the answer to all of mankind's problems. It would be naieve to think that it was. Mankind's problems are down to the fact that, essentially, we are all animals that, while we have a highly developed herd and social instinct, we are still ultimately concerned with our personal dominance over others, and the propogation of our own personal genes. We have enough reason to not act instinctively all the time, but these instincts are undeniably the basis for almost everything that we do.
I deeply apoglogise for my lack of evidence.
You have absolutely no cause to apologise to me whatsoever.
I am only concerned with people really objectively examining their beliefs and, as I said, evaluating their sources correctly. If you realise that you're trusting your sources without examining them critically enough, then it is my belief that you owe it to yourself to do so. Of course, whether you do or not is entirely up to you. If you're happy with what you believe and the evidence that you feel it is based on, then who am I to argue? All I can do is offer my perspective on issues you bring up, and tell you what level of evidence I would find acceptable.
I'm a rather lazy person, and I write my evidence based on what I read both online and books. Sadly, I ofter do not remember to record my links down. I'm sorry.
Again, there's no need to apologise. It's just that if you want me to accept what you claim about respected scientists holding these opinions, then I'm going to need to see evidence. I've tried many searches based around what you've said, but can't find anything. I simply thought that as you know what you're talking about more than I dod that you might be able to find a cite more easily.
Yeah it works, but the comfort could be part of a placebo effect?
I think you have a very valid point, yes. I'm also of the opinion that a lot of alternative medicines are, at least partially, down to a placebo effect. I'm not sure I'd count massage amongst them, but I'm definately in agreement with you in general.
However, the placebo effect itself is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Even if these things are, then that doesn't completely devalue it.
Now we see many youths who were intitially straight and are now influenced to engage in this homosexual lifestyle and a struggle for gender identity.
I think it's a very dangerous thing to say that people can be influenced to be gay. It's the age old question, if you believe that it's a choice, then when did you choose to be straight?
This again is another step to embrace the New Age.
I don't see how the two have any connection at all.
From my personal experience, in girl's schools in my country. I have known many girls who were straight but later became lesbians and it shocked me really.
I would suppose that these girls either pretended to be straight, or you didn't notice that they weren't straight, or they themselves didn't know. Teenage years are ones of great upheval and hormonal changes. Just because someone discovered that they were a lesbian after they left school does not in any way indicate that they were straight and have been somehow "corrupted".
They were friends of mine and they were rather normal and it was appalling to accept their new preference.
And maybe this attitude is exactly the reason that they felt they couldn't confide in you in school?
Thus accepting homosexuality would only mean that it is right for anyone to do it, under peer influence and media.
Again, I don't believe the "peer pressure" or the "media influence" theory (in fact, the media influence theory for anything gets my goat. There have been numerous studies, and they have all, without fail, shown that to be a load of nonsense.
As for it being okay for anyone to be gay...sure. Why not? There's nothing wrong with being gay, so why shouldn't people be free to be who they are?
Not accepting homosexuals doesn't make people not be homosexual, it just drives it underground, causes them misery, and leads to discrimination and people getting hurt. I cannot see a single one of those things as being a good thing.
Combining this with homosexuality, we can't tell what a person thinks just by watching TV.
Okay, would it make you think that my opinion was more informed if I told you that I was friends with Erik "The Lizardman" Sprague's wife?
http://bmeworld.com/amago/ I don't get all my information from the TV.
This people are definitely disturbed to adopt such a lifestyle.
This is your opinion, and in my experience is completely wrong. It's rather closed-minded, in fact.
I wonder what you would make of me? I'm nowhere near as extreme as Erik or Tom, but I've got long, multi-coloured hair, 8 earrings in my left ear, a nose ring, and a labrette (middle of bottom lip) peircing. I also have two tattoos of my own design on my left arm, and have nearly decided on my 3rd.
At what point, I wonder, do you personally believe that normalcy ends?
After all as a child, we do not have such dreams and is this what we call 'maturity'?
I'd also be very careful of presuming to know what other people wanted as children. You say that these people didn't have such dreams as children. Do you know this for a fact? Or are you really saying that
you didn't have such dreams as a child, and so you presume that everyone else must be of the same mindset?
It degrades morals and values, don't you think so?
Define what "morals" and "values" are teh correct ones, and which are also so fragile as to be undermined by someone having their tongue split.
No, I don't think it undermines anything, except maybe the irrational xenophobic prejudice of not accepting what is not considered "normal". Especially by people who, themselves, would not be considered "normal" by others. Who decides what is normal? Would you change your lifestyle if you were told it wasn't "normal"? Are non-permanant body-modifications, such as cutting or dying your hair, or having braces to straighten your teeth "normal"? Is dying your hair to a shade of brown "normal", but dying it green abnormal?
If you lived in India, it would be normal for you to have your nose peirced. If you were a memebr of certain African tribes, it would be normal for you to have your face permanantly scarred as you became an adult.
How do you define "normal"?
What was right and appropriate is now twisted into 'acceptance'. I would rather people discourage such lifestyles instead of criticising it.
And I would rather that people were free to be how they feel comfortable without criticism, as long as they didn't hurt anybody else doing so.
So, altering yourself to look like a lizrd is far, far more acceptable in my book than speeding in your car. For example.
I have a personal close friend who under the influence of such dark music has led herself to self-infliction of pain and thoughts of suicide. Many personalities are also affected.
Or is it that she is attracted to such music because she is depressed for other reasons?
What you're saying here is the old censorship argument. It's alright for
you to listen to Linkin Park, as they didn't influence
you. It's all of those
other people who are succeptible.
Finally, you ask great questions and I find pleasure in answering your questions.
I'm enjoying talking to you, too. It's nice to converse with someone who doesn't get defensive or offended if I question their beliefs, rather takes it in the spirit in which it's intended.
Live life happy, with purpose.
id you find him?
lease describe it mam?