-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
God- Real Or Not?
- Thread starter SomeCrazyPerson
- Start date
Tarin Maria
TS Member
Okay, you guys are just being too clever for me now.
I personally don't believe in God, but I kinda think that what TheMan was saying is true, if there are souls they are probably, I guess, recycled? Unless, and this is where I think I'll open up a whole new debate, they somehow end up trapped here. But at the same time, a residual haunting (or ghost) doesn't require a lost soul being there, because that is just the energy the person has given out over there life time repeating something over and over again. Intelligent hauntings (or spirits) is where this might get interesting.
Reading the previous replies, I have a feeling a couple of the more 'sciency' guys will disagree and tell me its all in the mind. To which I ask how they can get it on camera, and we go around in circles.
But yeah, white bearded dude in the sky? Can't say I believe. Although, if you do, good for you! If that's what gives your life meaning, keep doing it. Just when I'm walking down the highstreet, don't shove it in my face...
I personally don't believe in God, but I kinda think that what TheMan was saying is true, if there are souls they are probably, I guess, recycled? Unless, and this is where I think I'll open up a whole new debate, they somehow end up trapped here. But at the same time, a residual haunting (or ghost) doesn't require a lost soul being there, because that is just the energy the person has given out over there life time repeating something over and over again. Intelligent hauntings (or spirits) is where this might get interesting.
Reading the previous replies, I have a feeling a couple of the more 'sciency' guys will disagree and tell me its all in the mind. To which I ask how they can get it on camera, and we go around in circles.
But yeah, white bearded dude in the sky? Can't say I believe. Although, if you do, good for you! If that's what gives your life meaning, keep doing it. Just when I'm walking down the highstreet, don't shove it in my face...
Martin
TS Member
I accept that my comment about drugs was too much of a generalisation. There's lots we can learn from old societies, especially 'primitive' hunter-gatherer ones, they knew to respect the earth and to take care of each other and share resources, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", that kind of thing. Doesn't mean they were right about everything because they were great at astronomy. We're even better and still don't really know all that much about our physical brain, let alone a soul.
But I don't think we need a soul to be spiritual, look at the example of southern baptist churches, they're designed to make you feel certain ways, and the singing and stuff causes a very physical response, it can be explained without a soul. Maybe the soul exists, but I don't think we need one to experience those feelings of oneness, of awe, of love, or anything like that For me, being spiritual is about feeling those things and being in tune with them.
But I don't think we need a soul to be spiritual, look at the example of southern baptist churches, they're designed to make you feel certain ways, and the singing and stuff causes a very physical response, it can be explained without a soul. Maybe the soul exists, but I don't think we need one to experience those feelings of oneness, of awe, of love, or anything like that For me, being spiritual is about feeling those things and being in tune with them.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Wonderful way of thinking.
As for the astronomy thing, totally agree, in fact I do agree with everything else you wrote. The thing we disagree on I guess is what is at the core. And I totally agree about certain places being designed to make you feel a certain way, in fact, I put much of how we behave including our "good" emotions and behaviour to chemical reactions in the brain.
See although I have my beliefs now based on personal experiences, quite remarkable ones as well, that took me from skeptical but inquisitive and curious, to believer (remember that), I have still worked with people who've studied the brain patterns and emotions, and behavioural habits closely, so I do separate the two.
What I believe, is what drives us, or who we really ARE is often hidden BEHIND those emotions/behaviours/expectations.
When you drive down to the very core of what our purpose here is, that's when I think we meet the soul.
Martin
TS Member
I do totally get that, I completely respect that, and thinks it's a valid position, but I still need evidence, or at least something tangible, answers to just things like where is it, how did it get there, what is it for, that sort of thing. I'm not dismissing the possibility, I'm just sceptical, but I'm not so sceptical that I'm not willing to change my views.
There's of course the possibility that our daily lives inhibit us being 'at one' with our soul. Things like how fluoride is really bad for the pituitary gland, I'm not completely buying in to everything that's said about it but it does seem important and experiments have confirmed it, so maybe to access our 'souls', we have to do something and it can't be accessed by our usual selves with our clouded minds?
There's of course the possibility that our daily lives inhibit us being 'at one' with our soul. Things like how fluoride is really bad for the pituitary gland, I'm not completely buying in to everything that's said about it but it does seem important and experiments have confirmed it, so maybe to access our 'souls', we have to do something and it can't be accessed by our usual selves with our clouded minds?
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
I think skepticism is healthy. I use it a lot, and I had a similar position, until proof came my way - I guess that's the point I am making here, I was open to being given proof and I've been fortunate to receive it in a painless way but that took a lot of effort and a very difficult period to attain. For me, I have received undeniable proof and I've tested it now over and over and it's pretty remarkable to say the least. My first instinct though was wrong, it was to come on and shout I RECEIVED MY PROOF and want to share what I found in the hope of helping a few people feel a bit better, genuinely.
What does that mean to everyone else though? Nothing. It needs to come to everyone if they really want it. I received the answers I needed. It wasn't in some at night dream of meeting God or something odd like that, I am not really willing to say much more in a public forum.
I do still wonder though, based on theory of multi-verses, is this just MY world? Maybe in my world we do have souls, I do get the proof and answers I need, maybe in yours we don't have souls we exist purely in a way that your wish and drive to unselfish work is purely that of you being a genuinely top bloke.
Basically I watch a bone fide, fully fledged miracle, and Derren Brown was no where to be seen lol!
Martin
TS Member
I do find it interesting, I had to stop myself in my last post from just going on and on, I'd like to know more about your proof and how you obtained it, but as it's a deeply personal thing it's not my place to ask you to in a public forum, as you've said, so I haven't asked. I am curious, but respect your privacy.
Aware that we are taking over the thread so I'll disappear until tomorrow.
Aware that we are taking over the thread so I'll disappear until tomorrow.
Sorry if this upsets anyone....
The day that there is solid proof that a god exists, is the day I will believe. But there is no proof... Never has been. If anyone can give me solid 100% proof then please feel free to share it. I am talking scientific truth rather than faith stories.
People who believe will say its faith..... But I have a faith, a faith to be a good person without the threat of going to hell.
I dont need a a book to tell me whats right and wrong.
I dont need the threat (and thats what it is) of going to hell to know what rights and wrong.
I can make up my own mind. I am a good person, I know whats right, I know whats wrong.
When I die that will be it. No pearly gates, no-one to come and collect me to take me to heaven or another dimension. I will die. My brain will die, which may cause a near death experience if I am revived during the process due to lack of oxygen to the brain.
But when the end comes, when I die, that will be it.
The funny thing is, no one can ever prove this.... so in a way its a pointless argument.
Please dont get me wrong, if people want to believe in a god or an afterlife, then thats there prerogative, however, I am not going to waste my life or time on that. I will live my life to the fullest that I can, doing the right things.
The day that there is solid proof that a god exists, is the day I will believe. But there is no proof... Never has been. If anyone can give me solid 100% proof then please feel free to share it. I am talking scientific truth rather than faith stories.
People who believe will say its faith..... But I have a faith, a faith to be a good person without the threat of going to hell.
I dont need a a book to tell me whats right and wrong.
I dont need the threat (and thats what it is) of going to hell to know what rights and wrong.
I can make up my own mind. I am a good person, I know whats right, I know whats wrong.
When I die that will be it. No pearly gates, no-one to come and collect me to take me to heaven or another dimension. I will die. My brain will die, which may cause a near death experience if I am revived during the process due to lack of oxygen to the brain.
But when the end comes, when I die, that will be it.
The funny thing is, no one can ever prove this.... so in a way its a pointless argument.
Please dont get me wrong, if people want to believe in a god or an afterlife, then thats there prerogative, however, I am not going to waste my life or time on that. I will live my life to the fullest that I can, doing the right things.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
For those interested, one of many cases of kids coming back with past life memories.
Seriously, this is a fascinating subject, if not a bit weird at times. Open your minds a bit guys, if you take the total of weird phenomena that exists, rather than each case, and realise the "coincidences" that would need to take place it can be pretty staggering.
"The boy who lived before"
I await the standard "skeptic" (read, uncomfortable disbeliever, not true skeptic, whom is open to possibility) that the parents brainwashed the kid, did it for money, and the usual bull bereft of any actual considered thought.
Is it true? I don't know. But this case is certainly not isolated, by any means.
This isn't to closed minded debunkers who would deny a fish if it slapped them around the face, it's for those again, who like me, approach with a fascinated intrigue as to what's going on.
Seriously, this is a fascinating subject, if not a bit weird at times. Open your minds a bit guys, if you take the total of weird phenomena that exists, rather than each case, and realise the "coincidences" that would need to take place it can be pretty staggering.
"The boy who lived before"
I await the standard "skeptic" (read, uncomfortable disbeliever, not true skeptic, whom is open to possibility) that the parents brainwashed the kid, did it for money, and the usual bull bereft of any actual considered thought.
Is it true? I don't know. But this case is certainly not isolated, by any means.
This isn't to closed minded debunkers who would deny a fish if it slapped them around the face, it's for those again, who like me, approach with a fascinated intrigue as to what's going on.
I have just sat through this documentary and I hate to say it, but it doesn't prove anything to me.
Why did the simple facts fit, but the more complex facts didn't? Here is what I immediately picked up on.
A white house on the island of Barrow next to a beach and he had a dog is pretty vague isn't it? All the houses looked white to me, a lot were on the beach and there are a lot of dog owners. So yes, there was a surname. Is that 100% proof?
But other questions come to mind. Why did he get his fathers name wrong? Why didn't he know that the Robertson family was from the mainland. Why didn't Cameron say that the house was on the north of the island? Why didn't he mention the name of the dog?
Then when he goes into more detail it goes even further wrong. No one died in a car accident and there were no deaths of children in the family as confirmed by the living relative.
Kids make stories up. Kids are like sponges, and he could have got this from anywhere at the age of two. A family friend, a TV program anything. When I was a kid, there was a monster living under my bed and I used to describe it in great detail to my parents. Did that make it real? Of course not, it was simply my imagination.
By the way, that documentary first aired in 2006 and was filmed in 2005 when he was 6, so that would make him 15 now. Would be interesting to see if he still maintains this or if and I quote his mother from 2006
"We didn't get all the answers we were looking for - and apparently, past life memories fade as the person gets older"
Convenient that isn't it !!
But anyway, as mentioned in my post above, people will believe whatever they want too, this video is not scientific proof and has so many facts which are wrong. But then again its like someone visiting a psychic, they could say 100 things, 98 wrong, but two match and the believer only remembers the "hits" and not the "misses".
Why did the simple facts fit, but the more complex facts didn't? Here is what I immediately picked up on.
A white house on the island of Barrow next to a beach and he had a dog is pretty vague isn't it? All the houses looked white to me, a lot were on the beach and there are a lot of dog owners. So yes, there was a surname. Is that 100% proof?
But other questions come to mind. Why did he get his fathers name wrong? Why didn't he know that the Robertson family was from the mainland. Why didn't Cameron say that the house was on the north of the island? Why didn't he mention the name of the dog?
Then when he goes into more detail it goes even further wrong. No one died in a car accident and there were no deaths of children in the family as confirmed by the living relative.
Kids make stories up. Kids are like sponges, and he could have got this from anywhere at the age of two. A family friend, a TV program anything. When I was a kid, there was a monster living under my bed and I used to describe it in great detail to my parents. Did that make it real? Of course not, it was simply my imagination.
By the way, that documentary first aired in 2006 and was filmed in 2005 when he was 6, so that would make him 15 now. Would be interesting to see if he still maintains this or if and I quote his mother from 2006
"We didn't get all the answers we were looking for - and apparently, past life memories fade as the person gets older"
Convenient that isn't it !!
But anyway, as mentioned in my post above, people will believe whatever they want too, this video is not scientific proof and has so many facts which are wrong. But then again its like someone visiting a psychic, they could say 100 things, 98 wrong, but two match and the believer only remembers the "hits" and not the "misses".
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Hang on @PeteA - the kid described a heck of a lot, and (taking the documentary as true of course, I did do a little cursory research into it's legitimacy before I posted it and found nothing odd which after this time, is not usually the case) you are focusing on the things he got wrong.
He described the setting the house was in, the position relevant to the airports, the rockpools, even the back gate, the name of the people who owned it (for whom there was NO record on the island), the Island itself, the dog - down to it's specific colour (which, if memory serves, is not backed by the normal colours children draw dogs as according to research I cannot typically find right now). I do believe, children commonly draw dogs as Brown, Rabbits as white, and cats as ginger - so from such an early developmental age, to be discussing the dog outside of the normal colour range only adds another depth of curiosity (if indeed, I have remembered that correctly).
What he DID NOT get right, was the incident with the father, and his FIRST name, and indeed the child death - which is peculiar.
This kid started talking about this at 3, if you have children, you will know that would freak you RIGHT out. It's well beyond normal stage developmental process, totally without logic.
Taking EVERYTHING into account as I suspected would not happen, the balance over all, taking the documentary itself and associated qualified professionals (remember them?) on the program, the balance is inconclusive but of high intrigue. As I believe the psychologist, you know, that professionally trained man who has researched 2500 thousands cases empirically, also said.
I find you post to not be skeptical, but to be "debunking".
He described the setting the house was in, the position relevant to the airports, the rockpools, even the back gate, the name of the people who owned it (for whom there was NO record on the island), the Island itself, the dog - down to it's specific colour (which, if memory serves, is not backed by the normal colours children draw dogs as according to research I cannot typically find right now). I do believe, children commonly draw dogs as Brown, Rabbits as white, and cats as ginger - so from such an early developmental age, to be discussing the dog outside of the normal colour range only adds another depth of curiosity (if indeed, I have remembered that correctly).
What he DID NOT get right, was the incident with the father, and his FIRST name, and indeed the child death - which is peculiar.
This kid started talking about this at 3, if you have children, you will know that would freak you RIGHT out. It's well beyond normal stage developmental process, totally without logic.
Taking EVERYTHING into account as I suspected would not happen, the balance over all, taking the documentary itself and associated qualified professionals (remember them?) on the program, the balance is inconclusive but of high intrigue. As I believe the psychologist, you know, that professionally trained man who has researched 2500 thousands cases empirically, also said.
I find you post to not be skeptical, but to be "debunking".
^ and that is you opinion.
Please do tell about these qualified professionals? Qualified professionals in something which the scientific community hasn't proven.
Did you not see the behaviour of the mother change when Chris French was talking to her. Talk about an aggressive stance and did you see / read her body language?
Did you not notice how even though they didn't apparently tell the kid they were going to the house. They stopped the car outside it and walked up to the gate, therefore insinuating that it was the house.
This program was an entertainment program and not a scientific experiment, therefore it holds no credit to me. As far as I am aware no real scientific protocols were in place during the making of this.
How does anyone know that the parents didn't fill the kids head with this kind of thing when he was a kid. We don't. We were not there when he first started talking about this topic, so we cannot comment about what really happened. You are taking it as gospel, I am looking at the big picture saying that it could be something else.
Why do kids believe in the tooth fairy or father christmas. Ask a kid about Santa and they will swear blind he is real and explain in great detail where he lives. Does that make them his elves in a previous life.
Anyhoo, you posted a video and I have responded with my rational comments and thoughts. If you believe that I am debunking the story that is your prerogative, but I am merely commenting on the things which I picked up on after wasting 46minutes of my life
Please do tell about these qualified professionals? Qualified professionals in something which the scientific community hasn't proven.
Did you not see the behaviour of the mother change when Chris French was talking to her. Talk about an aggressive stance and did you see / read her body language?
Did you not notice how even though they didn't apparently tell the kid they were going to the house. They stopped the car outside it and walked up to the gate, therefore insinuating that it was the house.
This program was an entertainment program and not a scientific experiment, therefore it holds no credit to me. As far as I am aware no real scientific protocols were in place during the making of this.
How does anyone know that the parents didn't fill the kids head with this kind of thing when he was a kid. We don't. We were not there when he first started talking about this topic, so we cannot comment about what really happened. You are taking it as gospel, I am looking at the big picture saying that it could be something else.
Why do kids believe in the tooth fairy or father christmas. Ask a kid about Santa and they will swear blind he is real and explain in great detail where he lives. Does that make them his elves in a previous life.
Anyhoo, you posted a video and I have responded with my rational comments and thoughts. If you believe that I am debunking the story that is your prerogative, but I am merely commenting on the things which I picked up on after wasting 46minutes of my life
Last edited:
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
I did warn everyone of what the video contained @PeteA - and yes you are correct in certain assertions you are making there, such as background etc, the professionals I referred to are the psychologists involved.
As I say, it is based on there being nothing coming to light since the docu that is obvious to find that would suggest fraud. That was my basis of intrigue, again I am not saying it is true by the way, what I am saying, is taking the presented evidence it is of certain interest and to literally dismiss everything as possible fraud is where I draw the line at healthy debate, it's not like they made out everything was confirmed which if there was bias, could have been the case.
Likewise if you take the disappointment that the trail went cold at the surname, only for it to actually be confirmed later on by other people involved, you have to start dismissing a lot of people and circumstances as fraudulent. That's where I guess I will give benefit of doubt and be left intrigued if not convinced by it's entirety.
As I say, it is based on there being nothing coming to light since the docu that is obvious to find that would suggest fraud. That was my basis of intrigue, again I am not saying it is true by the way, what I am saying, is taking the presented evidence it is of certain interest and to literally dismiss everything as possible fraud is where I draw the line at healthy debate, it's not like they made out everything was confirmed which if there was bias, could have been the case.
Likewise if you take the disappointment that the trail went cold at the surname, only for it to actually be confirmed later on by other people involved, you have to start dismissing a lot of people and circumstances as fraudulent. That's where I guess I will give benefit of doubt and be left intrigued if not convinced by it's entirety.