Irrational Precepts #6 - Many Questions on a disbelievers standpoint.

JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
Irrational Precepts #6 - Many Questions on a disbelievers standpoint.

I am an interested in hearing what manner of things have been included in supernatural disbelief or IP #6. I have been a practitioner of Goetia and a few other techniques of ceremonial summing of entities for many years. Yet I have people continually claiming such things could not possibly exist. I find this very interesting and have presented such experiences as would convince these people of the deities’ existence. Many claim this does not exist and then conveniently back this up by stating they would not like a demonstration or anything to disprove the fact they do not believe. I do not personally believe any of the religious deities’ exist as they are portrayed in the religious texts, but have still come to find myself at odds with the deities I have communicated with. I would mainly like input from others with an open mind in reference to the things listed below.

If you believe these are not deities, then what are they?
If you do not believe in them at all, what manner of personal experience would be necessary to persuade you? This does not imply that I have to know you or even communicate with you in any way. An experience can be constructed with few enochian words and can be made to happen at any time in any place. I do not need to be present, so this should discount any of your theories of appearance due to certain psychological triggers. But please respond anyway...
Aside from the fictional divinations, psychic readings, improvable abilities granted, etc... What sort of proof is needed to show such existence? Many things are able to be produced without a scientific explanation, which is what drew me to the practice. I currently have masters in Biochemistry and so I understand the proper scientific mindset and would be glad to reference such occurrences and allow explanation...
Why is it many of you will attribute the belief in a religious Icon to the existence of certain "deities"? Can not a being of this nature not exist without religion? More importantly why would you choose to not believe in this just to back up a stance on disbelief in religious icons?
I have many more questions for anyone interested......


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I currently have

Quote:
I currently have masters in Biochemistry and so I understand the proper scientific mindset and would be glad to reference such occurrences and allow explanation...

Well maybe we should start there. What sort of scientific test have you done to prove the existence of these entities and could you share your results?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
No manner of "personal

No manner of "personal experience" will convince me, because personal experience is not valid evidence.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


moleboy
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
I suppose the first thing I

I suppose the first thing I would need to know is what measurable verifiable effects have you encountered?
I've encountered many wiccans who claim that they know a spirit has contacted them because of feelings of peace, empowerment, etc.
But none have been able to show "if X then Y" where both X and Y are quantifiable phenomena.
Personally, I'd be happy to see a demonstration by anyone who said they could meet that standard.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
reply to experiments

That is the question of the day. while many things can be done to show you it's existence, or done to you presonally, or even having it make you do something. any of these things lack an ability to scientifically prove an existence. as you may already be aware there iss an ongoing challenge presented by Dr. Randy. this challenge presented from the james Randi foundation http://www.randi.org/research/index.html is asking the same sort of question. however he does not allow the person or persons involved to cause change by means of spirit. I have messaged him before asking if harm to himself would be evidence of such paranormal activity, and he stated only if done by myself. so it seems a proper scientific experiement has yet to be generated. when one is no doubt the person who creates it will win the million dollars.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
experience

I would be interested in having you define what would classify as verifieable experience. since personal experience is the only thing that you as a person can have, what do you proclaim to be other menas off experience. without one form or another you can experience nothing.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
Verifiable effects

Certainly more people exist that claim they have communication with a spirit than those that can prove it. I mentioned the Rhandi challenge in another post an interestingly enough he hhas had the same experience you have. not even one of the most famous psychics or mediums has ever even attempted to prove their abilities to him. if they had the communication they say they do they could easily win the million dollars. however communication with the dieties I speak of through goetic means are not designeed to achieve those mentioned effects such as peace, etc... they have many purposes and could be deomnstarted or as I usually recommend to others experienced by yourself. you would want to present a problem to the spirit that you know for certain could not be accomplished by yourself. things such as movement of objects and the such. this excludes spiritual movement as AP and RV have long been around and do not constitute a verifiable limitation of your being. rather have something like you cat moved to yourr friends house or whereever could be verified. this movement will occur immediatly and can e verified directly by communicating with the friend. don't move yourself!!! you may be thinking well why have you not won the prize for telekenisis, well Rhandi is very familiar with enochian and knows when you are not using your mind to move the object.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
JHOOK wrote:That is the

JHOOK wrote:
That is the question of the day. while many things can be done to show you it's existence, or done to you presonally, or even having it make you do something. any of these things lack an ability to scientifically prove an existence. as you may already be aware there iss an ongoing challenge presented by Dr. Randy. this challenge presented from the james Randi foundation http://www.randi.org/research/index.html is asking the same sort of question. however he does not allow the person or persons involved to cause change by means of spirit. I have messaged him before asking if harm to himself would be evidence of such paranormal activity, and he stated only if done by myself. so it seems a proper scientific experiement has yet to be generated. when one is no doubt the person who creates it will win the million dollars.

I don't understand, then what was the purpose of you bringing up your degree and your understanding of the scientific method if you are incapable of applying it? It seems you asserted you understood what it would take to properly prove your claim and were willing to provide evidence. Are you claiming you can prove these entities exist, and to do it you must hurt someone?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
JHOOK wrote:I would be

JHOOK wrote:
I would be interested in having you define what would classify as verifieable experience. since personal experience is the only thing that you as a person can have, what do you proclaim to be other menas off experience. without one form or another you can experience nothing.

Again, refer back to your understanding of science. Apply it. One doesn't need to experience evolution in order to understand the scientific explanations behind it. I don't need to have the personal experience of lung cancer in order to have evidence of it's existence.

Your questions seems to be asking, please explain the scientific method to you, several posts after you explained you have a masters in the field and are well versed in this area.

Please understand I mean no offense, but the method in which you are attempting to prove these "entities" is rather perplexing. It so far seems no different than how someone would prove leprechauns, blue trolls, and gods.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
reply

I shall approach your points in a more better way, since they are heavily abreviated above. certainly as mentioned an experience of evolution can be said to be provided in evidence rather than personal experience, but truly every thing encountered in life whether livingg or not is a product of evolution and so can be said to have been personally experienced. but taking it from the common point of view that it is not I present these topoics in a manner that requires a personal experience as evidence. this may sound like I have contradicted you statement about cancer, but indeed I have not. at some point in order for diagnosis and for study someone had the personal experience of having had the disease, as well as the doctor that had the personal expeience of not only studying the patient but also the research performed. it must be present in some level in order to results to be generated as evidence, further elaboration would be the archeological records that are used to minor extent in representing evolution without the personal experience of having dug up the bones their existence would be purely opinion. to be breif you mentioned the scientific method and true I do understand this too much some might say. the trouble does not lie in my lack of understanding of it but rather in the material I am working with. to make an analogy would help me explain. today we take for granted the field of genetics, we understand that genes regulate all cellular activity and such the function of all living things. not too long ago it was known that something was regulating cellular activity and while many theories existed nothing truly showed the mechanism. So I say to you I can have this entity do such and such for you, to you, or to someone else and you agree and such thing occurs to you. well we have only reached the point of understanding that something is occuring but it has unknown origin. so you would have me present the object exacting the change and this is the problem. true I can have the being show up, communicate with you, interact with you, present itself in many ways but no manner of proof of succh being can be presented other than personal experience. So I make this happen to a group of people and I get to the question above, what would be the appropriate manner of conducting such a thing in order to convince people that they are not being psychologically tricked? I just ask the questions above so that Ican hear from a variety of sources the reply to such a question. as far as those that woudl try to prove things such as blue trolls exist, well if I can be presented with one I would believe as well. this woud follow most logic. the presentatoin of the blue troll most likley couloccur in many ways but personally I woudl have to experience it existence whether it be though seeing touching or other usual methds of determination. this can be done with teh diety but it is not a living organism or even an object that occupies space. so how would one with an understanding of the scientific method present a viable argument that it exists. the existence of a fourth dimension may have be hinted at by many physicists but they have yet to truly show it's eistence with anything but an atom.


ellechero
ellechero's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
This doesn't add up

This doesn't add up Jhook.

Time is typically named the fouth dimension and it's hardly been "hinted" at. Look at a clock. I think you're talking about string theory or something similar in a roundabout fashion but it doesn't really fit what you're saying.

If something is influencing the dimensions of which we're typically conscious then it clearly occupies those dimensions. For example, if one of your entities moves a cup upward from a table then it clearly occupies the up-down dimension.

>archeological records that are used to minor extent in representing evolution

You mean biological? A clovis point might show technological evolution but it doesn't represent biological evolution beyond, perhaps, thumbs.

If I saw a blue troll the logical conclusion would be that I'm having a hallucination or a physchotic break or, perhaps, that someone spiked my drink. I wouldn't question that someone actually saw it but I'd address the issue in the same fashion which I did with a schitzophrenic friend I once had: "I'm sorry, Bob, I don't hear the voices."

Truth be told, if I were to witness the sort of phenomena of which you're speaking my inclination would be to investigate them more throughougly and to keep an open mind to my being tricked, either maliciously or voluntarily.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
Yes indeed you are correct

Yes indeed you are correct and noticed the error. I am indeed referring to string theory, but since it has not been approached from a paranormal angle I am unable to attribute one such dimension to the existence of such things. this would be nice but has not been examined in any way. I will address the commentary on technical evolution very briefly. I would be primarily referring to speciation. to be even more specific you can take modern horse.the evolution from hyracotherium to the modernhorse was not predicted by any sort of technological evolution but rather by determined changes due to more than one form of speciation. it would not be possible to define which form had the greater impact. but also to mention these records and determined changes recorded occured long before any ability to examine by means other than visual recognition. there is no way to back up the evolution of the horse by newer technology.

as far as seeing the troll, I mentioned this as an example for personal experience as a verifiying factor in proof of existence. the troll theory would still stand as your friend says to you I have a blue troll so you go an see. here is the troll in front of you and eny theories of hallucination must be discounted as two independant individuals encountering the same hallucination with no known drug to be administerd will discount theories of psychology. the same hallucination to be encountered by two individuals in teh same settings at the same time without any outside cause would be mathmatically impossible. so you interact with this beeing and use all five senses to test its existence and you have discounted theories of abnormal brain function, as a person with all senses affected at one time by same brain misfunction would liley render a person dead. so it would still hold true to testing.


ellechero
ellechero's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
>the same hallucination to

>the same hallucination to be encountered by two individuals in teh same settings at the same time without any outside cause would be mathmatically impossible.

Not at all. People claim to see Mary in tortillas and related things all the time. People claim to see UFO's en masse. Groups claiming to have the same fictional experience is neither surprising nor new and it doesn't discount psychological theory at all. In fact, most psychologists/sociologists would find such and event intriguing but no reputable practitioner of either discipline would say that such an event consitutes a verification of blue trolls as much as it implies that shared experience, whether real or imagined, is a part of human psycology.

If you were to be scientific about it, you could start by seperately questioning both individuals with querys such as:

1. What color were the troll's eyes?
2. In what direction was the troll looking?
3. How tall was the troll?
4. Did the troll appear to be breathing?

And so forth.

>as a person with all senses affected at one time by same brain misfunction would liley render a person dead

I've seen people on LSD with all five senses clearly affected and they were just tripping. The five senses rely on each other as much as they function independently. All five senses are frequently involved in dreaming and it hardly renders people dead. That seems to be a false crisis to me.

If there are such entities so solidly involved in your experiences, why is it such an esoteric matter? Shouldn't you just be able to call them up anywhere? Shouldn't your means of doing so function anywhere at any time and, if not, why? If they're so obviously affecting the world around you, shouldn't you be able to demonstrate this clearly to skeptical minds? Why haven't you subjected all of this to scientific inquiry? If it's indeed the case, it would vastly change our understanding of the universe and would possibly constitute one of the greatest discoveries in a hundred years. If these entitiies are real and their influence over our world is so obvious, it would seem easy enough to prove it.

If you have the solid evidence, why are you arguing the theory?


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
I hardle count pareidolia as

I hardle count pareidolia as a credible outlook. while it may be used by psychologists to bring about certain desirable mental states for analysis. but mass pareidolia is considered to be nothing more than weakness of the human mind.
I suppose the LSD would just have magically entered the body. edema and or seratonin irregularity are not natural occurance in the body, rather they are caused or induced by something acting on the body. so to say yes it is common for all senses to be misguided this would be a false statement. in me trying to present a point of proof by personal experience these things have no relavence. as the user woudl have had to ingest them or by affected by a body malfunction. for two such people to encounter such an experience without taking your acid would not be possible. seeing objects due to pareidolia is not a natural phenomenon with scientific backing and is likley a person could be easily brought into such a state with little or no effort. but cannot bee attributed or related to paranormal experiences in any way. as far as you mentioning why can these things not be made to occur anywhere anytime. they can I already mentioned that previously. the bringing about of such occurances has been around for centuries and has never been a basis for dispute. but rather the nature of what is being summoned. therin lies my questions above. what bee the most appropriate method of summation that such questions could possibly be answered. my expertice in biochem has no relevance in deriving such a proof of existence. so I ask others that might have some insight. arguing over pareidolia and drug use is irrelevant the existence of a an entity when summoned in a room of one or many cannot be denied and is not related to pareidolia. these entities are not something that you can attribute to a vague or faint stimulus of which has been given greater signifigance than due. nor can an entire room or seperated rooms in different unrelated locations seeing and all communicating with an entity with or without the understanding of others cannot be attributed to psychological explaination as well. Lon Milo Duquette has attempted to explain such things from a subconscious pcyshological response stand point and was immediatly disproven, as modifiying a test group will usually disprove a theory and the group being tested can be modified in any way you choose and the same entity can be interacted with. so once again I do not argue the theory of existence as I understand this already. I simply ask for impute from other disciplines as to manner of testing such existence as wouold prove viable.


ellechero
ellechero's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, if that's all you want

Well, if that's all you want to know that's easy enough:

1. Get a group of people who don't know what you're trying to do.
2. Do whatever it is you do to summon your entities.
3. Establish that it worked or didn't worked.
4. Share your results and your methods and allow others to try them.

As for paradolia being unscientific, that's simply not true. It's been established by observation, it is a real effect and it does happen frequently. Arguing over it is hardly irrelevant because it would seem to be the most likely cause in that, if you were to come to me personally with this story, my first inclination would be that you're seeing what you want to see and to ask you to repeat your process to verify or negate my hypothesis.

>the bringing about of such occurances has been around for centuries and has never been a basis for dispute.

The earth was flat for centuries, too. Something being ancient gives it no credibility. Everything is open to dispute and there are no questions that should not be asked.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
JHOOK wrote:I am an

JHOOK wrote:
I am an interested in hearing what manner of things have been included in supernatural disbelief or IP #6.

There are no supernatural things

Quote:
I have been a practitioner of Goetia and a few other techniques of ceremonial summing of entities for many years.

No one can practice that which cannot be performed.

Quote:
Yet I have people continually claiming such things could not possibly exist.

They are either lying or deluded.

Quote:
I find this very interesting and have presented such experiences as would convince these people of the deities’ existence.

Getting goose bumps is not evidence of demons.

Quote:
Many claim this does not exist and then conveniently back this up by stating they would not like a demonstration or anything to disprove the fact they do not believe.

That is simply stupid. No one has to prove something does not exist. The individual who makes the claim that something does exist is the one who has to cough up the evidence.

Quote:
I do not personally believe any of the religious deities’ exist as they are portrayed in the religious texts, but have still come to find myself at odds with the deities I have communicated with.

What evidence do you have that you communicated with anything?

Quote:
I would mainly like input from others with an open mind in reference to the things listed below.

There is a big difference between being open mindedness and being delusional.

Quote:
If you believe these are not deities, then what are they?

They are the hairs on the back of your neck that stiffened up from self induced fear.

Quote:
If you do not believe in them at all, what manner of personal experience would be necessary to persuade you?

Go to a morgue and pull out a body that has been lying on the shelf for 2 weeks and make it sit up and walk around and say “hello”.

Quote:
This does not imply that I have to know you or even communicate with you in any way. An experience can be constructed with few enochian words and can be made to happen at any time in any place. I do not need to be present, so this should discount any of your theories of appearance due to certain psychological triggers. But please respond anyway...

burp…oop sorry. Is this what you mean?

Quote:
Aside from the fictional divinations, psychic readings, improvable abilities granted, etc... What sort of proof is needed to show such existence?

You don’t even have any evidence yet, let alone proof.

Quote:
Many things are able to be produced without a scientific explanation,

Like what?

Quote:
which is what drew me to the practice. I currently have masters in Biochemistry and so I understand the proper scientific mindset and would be glad to reference such occurrences and allow explanation...

Perhaps you haven’t been getting enough sleep and studying too hard. Lack of sleep causes hallucinations. Also studying too hard can cause mental exhaustion.

Quote:
Why is it many of you will attribute the belief in a religious Icon to the existence of certain "deities"? Can not a being of this nature not exist without religion? More importantly why would you choose to not believe in this just to back up a stance on disbelief in religious icons?
I have many more questions for anyone interested......


There is no evidence of any of this shit.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JHOOK
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
reply

A funny stance of ignorance you take in posting such comments. obviously you have not heard of what I practice, and should take some time to look up things before posting comments on that which you know nothing. before you go and say I have read and know, think twice comments such as hairs on my neck stnding up and goose bumps these are the comments of a moron. I would wonderfully challenge you all by yourself without assistence from an experienced practioner to undertake this goetia. it would be very funny as you find out news sensations like wait is that hair standing up all over my body, no it could not be it just got burned off with fire. if you going to post at least be knowledged on the mentioned topic. if I wanted stupid comments like yours I would talk to the wall.

In reply to AIIA in which no comments where worth my time to paste in this note.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Did a guy with a masters

Did a guy with a masters degree say "more better?"

I know typos happen, but... damn.

The scientific method observes phenomenon, proposes a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and then attempts to disprove the hypothesis through empirical evidence. Empirical means that an observer can verify it through repeatable physical means.

Soooo...

For you to prove that spirits exist, you have to find a test for them that involves influencing the physical world in a way that is documentable by an outside observer, and cannot be explained in another way.

Is that sufficient explanation?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I did a bit of looking

I did a bit of looking around online regarding goetia. You honestly believe that you summon demons and bind them to your will? Like, seriously?
Regarding this hairs burned off thing, that could be evidence. IF it happened in a control situation... if there was CERTAINTY that you had not done this yourself, or any other possible cause.
Have you ever taped yourself performing one of these "rituals"?
Because, honestly, I do find this hard to swallow, as I'm sure many on this forum do.

I had a friend in high school who was UTTERLY convinced that he contolled stuff through demons. That he read out the words from a book, and black clouds rolled in and started raining. Keep in mind, that I came out of the school right as it started pouring and he was standing in the middle of the field laughing maniacally.

I just thought he was nuts. It's the freakin' pacific northwest, it would be weirder if he made it NOT rain! LOL


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Anyone ever played World of

Anyone ever played World of Warcraft? (Don't. Man, what a waste of time.) This guy is a warlock! "I have never had sexual relations with that demon."


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Excuse me, Goetia? Summoning

Excuse me, Goetia? Summoning of entities? Wha-- ?

Shocked

Puzzled

wtf