Ok, I have a question. This is aimed at anyone who might be a skeptic on this website. Humans only have five known senses, namely: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. To understand more click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses

^^ If you click down on the non-human senses, it shows a HOST of things humans can't sense. Now, why would it be so hard to believe that some humans can sense spirits, astral bodies, or God? Humans can't even see radio waves, TV waves, gamma rays or the wind. Yet when someone says they see spirits or astral bodies... skeptics don't believe them. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate skeptics, but most skeptics won't accept anything that seems to be against the known laws of Nature.

Just today, our two dogs started barking LOUDLY at a stray dog walking around in our driveway, and our two dogs weren't even outside, they just sensed him/smelled him in the driveway and jumped up barking at him through the windows. It's almost like dogs are psychic when compared to humans.

Also, I don't understand how laws of Nature = anti-spiritual. That doesn't make any sense. Spirits and Nature might coincide with each other and bind the universe together from the spirit world and physical world. It seems everytime a scientist finds a snail darter on the beach, some yahoo jumps up and says spirits aren't real. Please. Spirits and God probably created Nature, the universe, and the spirit world. Period.

Opinions?

You see.

We cant see radio waves, but we can construct devices which can, We can see the affects of radiowaves - aka voices coming through a reciever.

Thus we can actually sense the affects of radio waves, we can reproduce radio waves, therefore it physically exists.

We can sense wind, we feel it on our skin. We see it's affects, we can reproduce it.

Dogs have better hearing, better smell, better sight, then humans - it's only natural they would sense things before us.

Laws of nature does'nt = anti spiritual. Lack of evidence = anti spiritual.

the evidence for the afterlife sucks, it's not easily reproducable. 99% of all psychics are complete talentless frauds who cant achieve anything without lieing.

obe's/nde's all sound like dreams. Which are constructed based upon the beliefs of the person under the experience.

Science works through reproducable experiments.
Psychics work off psychology, they mess with ur mind. Slap them in an experiment and they crumble.Just like most who claim to visit the afterlife.

So in the entire world theres a few hundred people with ability's which question science.... and only a couple of them who step forward to be tested.

Thus the evidence sucks, thus scientists dont believe in it.

And btw, if you like god, check out this website

www.evilbible.com

Most people forget to read the small print on the bottom of there bible.

Thanks for the reminder. I read once to set up your camcorder when you go to bed and turn it on and in the morning watch the tape and sometimes spirits will appear. Also, sometimes us leaving our bodies appear. I always forget to do this. I am going to try it just to see if I get anything.   Setting Intent would help too.

Love, Mairlyn

Like any good skeptic, Spitfire has pointed out the big lump in the psychic couch of contentment, that psychic phenomena are not readily reproducible.  That doesn't mean that they can't be treated experimentally, but rather that the experimental treatment has to be exceptionally sophisticated.

The current paradigm is that everything is either a chemical reaction or a matter of conditioned response learning. "Modern psychology" generally does not believe in free will, nor the ability of the "mind" (in which they don't believe) to "think" since that's just chemicals. So regardless of the approach, nature has already provided a host of fervent, even if poorly informed, critics.

Proving that you have an idea about the computer screen in front of you is the same kind of problem. The approach has to be one in which lots of people agree on a common language, a set of symbols by which they can designate various classes of events. Then, using this common language it is necessary to put lots of people in front of a data screen. The next thing is to ask what is going on, which means that you totally avoid asking questions that might be leading, such as, "Are you thinking about what you see." Finally, all the answers are totaled up, and compared to other people whose situation involves something different from the data screen. That's the control group. WEe then compare them statistically to see if the presence of a readout caused the report of a thought or not.

The errors in such experiments that arise by alternative ways to get the same response are called "confounding".  Confounding in psychic or even the data screen experiments usually involves a tendency for people to have a preconception about the purpose of the experiment, so that they intentionally make up the answer that they think is desired. 

As an example, I do lots of regression work. I have never told anyone that I expect them to be like everyone else, nor have I told them what to expect. Thus, when I get a lot of similar respomses, I assume that these arise from the valid experiences of my regressees. BUT it is possible that they read these respnses in a book - major confounding! In fact, I can tell whether people have read Michael Newton's books because they stylize their responses to fit those expectations. So critics would ask what I'm atually I'm testing.

The worst cases are those who look at the very well run ESP experiments at Duke and simply deny them. "I refuse to believe in tht stuff, and you can't make me." There are none so blind as those who WILL not to see. 

I'm  pretty good methodologist. I used to teach graduate research methodology classes, together with the statistical analysis that goes with experiments. But I am still looking for a good way to test for this stuff.

If anyone has an idiot proof idea (and there's a bunch of powerfully idiotic critics out there) I'm open to learning and willing to try.

d

Quote:


It's not true that you have to open your mind to experience spiritual things. An example is this:

http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/astral/astralp1_rbruce.htm#7

I've astral projected before when falling asleep, and looked at my astral hand 'melt' infront of my desk. I thought I was simply lucid dreaming while wide-awake. A few years later, I got my computer and the internet, and come to find out I read spiritual.com, and I found out I've been astral projecting quite a bit by accident.

The oddest part is my girlfriend and I hold each other quite a bit when sleeping next to each other in bed (many times when we fall asleep in our arms), and I've astral traveled many times before like that. It seemed very odd (and cool) that my astral body projected right through my girlfriends physical body, jolting me awake after the projection.

See, I believe many people have spiritual experiences. They just don't know that what they are experiencing is of a spiritual/astral Nature. Many people have never even heard of astral travel, much less know that we do it every night (to a degree) when dreaming or lucid dreaming. Astral travel is a perfect example of the spirit and physical body interacting with each other right on the physical plane.