Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 > Yes, that's always an awkward one. Especially true of seances I believe. The > psychic blames the failure on the presence of a sceptic, whilst the sceptic > blames the failure on the evidence before him that seances don't work, and > says the psychic is using his presence as an 'excuse'. So essentially you > have something that can never be scientifically proven, since the presence > of a scientific observer causes it to fail. I think Peter was talking more of laboratory experiments. I don't think many psychic mediums hold seances do they? They don't normally need to. They see people (sorry spirits) all the time, and usually have many sceptics around. > > > And in the case of bumble bees, um, I'm not sure scientists > > > ever denied their existence... > > According to all the laws of aerodynamics they can't fly. > Yes, but I'm not sure many scientists deny that they do. Ah I see, scientists can have some right, some wrong - but sceptics are all wrong because some are!!!! Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 John When you have had personal experience of these unproven phenomena you don't need the scientists to agree with you. You are quite happy to know these things and feel a little sad that not everyone knows them. Jo > Fair enough. And 'science' pretty much agrees, simply saying that there is > no evidence for psychic phenomena, not that it doesn't exist. Of course, > that said, the main difference is that you believe it exists despite this > lack of scientific evidence, whilst science, in theory, witholds judgement. > But that isn't the same as science stating it does not exist. Not quite the > same, anyway. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 20, 2003 I meant to say psychics in the last sentence!!! Jo - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:33 PM Re: Religion > > Yes, that's always an awkward one. Especially true of seances I believe. > The > > psychic blames the failure on the presence of a sceptic, whilst the > sceptic > > blames the failure on the evidence before him that seances don't work, and > > says the psychic is using his presence as an 'excuse'. So essentially you > > have something that can never be scientifically proven, since the presence > > of a scientific observer causes it to fail. > > I think Peter was talking more of laboratory experiments. I don't think > many psychic mediums hold seances do they? They don't normally need to. > They see people (sorry spirits) all the time, and usually have many sceptics > around. > > > > > And in the case of bumble bees, um, I'm not sure scientists > > > > ever denied their existence... > > > According to all the laws of aerodynamics they can't fly. > > Yes, but I'm not sure many scientists deny that they do. > > Ah I see, scientists can have some right, some wrong - but sceptics are all > wrong because some are!!!! > > Jo > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi Peter, > This makes me wonder if Randy is actually a very powerful psychic - > deliberately scuppering the attempts of anyone who attempts his challenge. I > don't doubt that there are some people who would like the feeling of power > that such a tactic would give them! I'm sure he'd love to hear that! > > Yes, but I'm not sure many scientists deny that they do [bees - fly]. > > No - they just ignore the evidence that their theory is incorrect - which is > exactly my point! I don't think that is quite right. They don't ignore the evidence that their theories on flight are incorrect when it comes to bumble bees - they do admit that, but just aren't able to come up with a theory that explains it. And, as their theories on flight do 'work' and allow other forms of flight, they are useful enough to 'keep around'. Actually, as a PS I vaguely recall reading an article in News Scientist which did put foward a theory as to how they fly. It went straight over my head though, so I couldn't tell you anything more about it. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi Peter, > Let's make this real simple. Have you ever walked into an empty room and > known that there has been an argument - even though there are no physical > signs? If not, you are in a very small minority (most people have, at one > time or another, used the phrase " you could cut the atmosphere with a > knife " )! Yes, I have. But I don't put that down to telepathy or psychic ability. I put it down observation, both conscious and unconscious. Something you'll have heard before entering the room, shifts in furniture, the reaction of people you have passed outside the room, etc. Do you know of Derren Brown? His show consists of feats which seem must be achieved through psychic ability. (He'll apparently read minds, control the thoughts of others, etc.) But they are achieved through hypnotism, suggestion, observation, persuasion, etc. - nothing psychic or supernatural. Mind you, I guess it comes down to definitions. If you choose include such things as achieved psychically, whilst science includes them as achieved through suggestion, observation, etc, we're only talking semantics. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi Jo, > > > > And in the case of bumble bees, um, I'm not sure scientists > > > > ever denied their existence... > > > According to all the laws of aerodynamics they can't fly. > > Yes, but I'm not sure many scientists deny that they do. > > Ah I see, scientists can have some right, some wrong - but sceptics are all > wrong because some are!!!! Well, all right, I think I'd be bold enough to state that no scientists deny that bumble bees do fly. But flippancy aside, there is a valid distinction to be made between science, as a philosophy and pursuit, and scientists, who, being human, are flawed, and possessed of frequently large egos. Often the two are confused - someone criticises science, when what they are meaning to criticise is an individual scientist, or body of scientists. Personally, I have a problem with many scientists, and they way they conduct themselves. But science as a concept and way of investigating the world? That I think is a very powerful tool. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 John Vry true - but the same also applies to psychics etc. Some deserve criticism some don't. Jo > But flippancy aside, there is a valid distinction to be made between > science, as a philosophy and pursuit, and scientists, who, being human, are > flawed, and possessed of frequently large egos. Often the two are confused - > someone criticises science, when what they are meaning to criticise is an > individual scientist, or body of scientists. Personally, I have a problem > with many scientists, and they way they conduct themselves. But science as a > concept and way of investigating the world? That I think is a very powerful > tool. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 John I think Peter meant if there was no one in the room, coming out of the room and you had not been waiting outside hearing anything. When you come to a place and enter an empty room you will feel the mood - anger, despair, happiness, love - whatever. Jo > Yes, I have. But I don't put that down to telepathy or psychic ability. I > put it down observation, both conscious and unconscious. Something you'll > have heard before entering the room, shifts in furniture, the reaction of > people you have passed outside the room, etc. > > Do you know of Derren Brown? His show consists of feats which seem must be > achieved through psychic ability. (He'll apparently read minds, control the > thoughts of others, etc.) But they are achieved through hypnotism, > suggestion, observation, persuasion, etc. - nothing psychic or supernatural. > > Mind you, I guess it comes down to definitions. If you choose include such > things as achieved psychically, whilst science includes them as achieved > through suggestion, observation, etc, we're only talking semantics. > > John > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi John > But flippancy aside, there is a valid distinction to be made between > science, as a philosophy and pursuit, and scientists, who, being human, are > flawed, and possessed of frequently large egos. Often the two are confused - > someone criticises science, when what they are meaning to criticise is an > individual scientist, or body of scientists. Personally, I have a problem > with many scientists, and they way they conduct themselves. But science as a > concept and way of investigating the world? That I think is a very powerful > tool. Is that not exactly what many people would say about any other religion? That it's not the basic concept of the religion that is wrong, but some of the people who use it for their own means? BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi Jo, > I think Peter meant if there was no one in the room, coming out of the room > and you had not been waiting outside hearing anything. When you come to a > place and enter an empty room you will feel the mood - anger, despair, > happiness, love - whatever. Yes, and in such cases I'm not sure why you get that sense. Mind you, I'll also get the mood wrong fairly often, so perhaps some of it is guesswork, and selective memory in remembering when one gets it right. Perhaps it is evidence of some kind of psychic ability inherent in us all. But, having watched Derren Brown do the same - and more spectacular feats - through other means, I'm not certain. I would be willing to say that psychic ability is one possible explanation though. John - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:23 PM Re: Religion > John > > I think Peter meant if there was no one in the room, coming out of the room > and you had not been waiting outside hearing anything. When you come to a > place and enter an empty room you will feel the mood - anger, despair, > happiness, love - whatever. > > Jo > > > Yes, I have. But I don't put that down to telepathy or psychic ability. I > > put it down observation, both conscious and unconscious. Something you'll > > have heard before entering the room, shifts in furniture, the reaction of > > people you have passed outside the room, etc. > > > > Do you know of Derren Brown? His show consists of feats which seem must be > > achieved through psychic ability. (He'll apparently read minds, control > the > > thoughts of others, etc.) But they are achieved through hypnotism, > > suggestion, observation, persuasion, etc. - nothing psychic or > supernatural. > > > > Mind you, I guess it comes down to definitions. If you choose include such > > things as achieved psychically, whilst science includes them as achieved > > through suggestion, observation, etc, we're only talking semantics. > > > > John > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi John > Yes, I have. But I don't put that down to telepathy or psychic ability. I > put it down observation, both conscious and unconscious. Something you'll > have heard before entering the room, shifts in furniture, the reaction of > people you have passed outside the room, etc. Several hours after the incident, when there is no-one else around? > Do you know of Derren Brown? His show consists of feats which seem must be > achieved through psychic ability. (He'll apparently read minds, control the > thoughts of others, etc.) But they are achieved through hypnotism, > suggestion, observation, persuasion, etc. - nothing psychic or supernatural. Of course, this can be done - but just because that is his method does not mean that all people with psychic abilities are fakes, or using " tricks " such as this. If it were, then why would our government continue to employ psychics? > Mind you, I guess it comes down to definitions. If you choose include such > things as achieved psychically, whilst science includes them as achieved > through suggestion, observation, etc, we're only talking semantics. I don't think we're talking semantics at all. What you are talking about is, basically, entertainment - I'm sure we've all seen Paul McKenna or something similar - I wouldn't say that is anything more than a particular way of using psychology to entertain people. I'm talking about telepathy (there's no way that my experience could be " suggestion " since I was 10 miles away from the resipient at the time), seeing or hearing non-corporeal beings (be they people who have passed on, guides, angels, or whatever), sharing dreams, magick, etc. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi Jo, (last one!) I don't think I was criticising psychics, just defending science. Which I feel comes in for as much 'science is blinkered' knee-jerk reactions from the non-scientific community, as psychics doubtless come in for in terms of 'its unprovable fakery' in scientific communities. Both of which reactions are at best unhelpful, and at worst harmful to understanding. John - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:16 PM Re: Religion > John > > Vry true - but the same also applies to psychics etc. Some deserve > criticism some don't. > > Jo > > > But flippancy aside, there is a valid distinction to be made between > > science, as a philosophy and pursuit, and scientists, who, being human, > are > > flawed, and possessed of frequently large egos. Often the two are > confused - > > someone criticises science, when what they are meaning to criticise is an > > individual scientist, or body of scientists. Personally, I have a problem > > with many scientists, and they way they conduct themselves. But science as > a > > concept and way of investigating the world? That I think is a very > powerful > > tool. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 - Peter Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:45 PM Re: religion Hi Simon > I can see your point about the IRA...their probably the best example of loving followers of Christ. Like meat-eaters could be fine > examples of Vegans. I was in no way attempting to suggest that the IRA (or any of the other groups) follow the ideals of Christianity - simply that they use a particular religion as an "excuse" for their violence.> Much the same as the larger military groups that can kill people.. they haven't even met. Simon ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 John > Yes, and in such cases I'm not sure why you get that sense. Mind you, I'll > also get the mood wrong fairly often, so perhaps some of it is guesswork, > and selective memory in remembering when one gets it right. Perhaps it is > evidence of some kind of psychic ability inherent in us all. I think it is intuition, which probably isn't explained by science - so must probably be considered pshycic. Jo >But, having > watched Derren Brown do the same - and more spectacular feats - through > other means, I'm not certain. I would be willing to say that psychic ability > is one possible explanation though. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 21, 2003 Hi John > (last one!) I guess we'll have to find something else to discuss then. > I don't think I was criticising psychics, just defending science. Which I > feel comes in for as much 'science is blinkered' knee-jerk reactions from > the non-scientific community, as psychics doubtless come in for in terms of > 'its unprovable fakery' in scientific communities. Both of which reactions > are at best unhelpful, and at worst harmful to understanding. I agree. Now - what sports do you participate in or like to watch :-) Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 I think this is worth typing out. Article in the Dailymail.. Mon: 19th..... by Sean poulter. The thin end of the veg Quote:- The traditional roast and the full English breakfast will be consighed to history in less than 50 years if Britons continue to turn vegetarian at the current rate. Dining tables will be dominated by pasta, vegetables and meat-free proteins by 2047, statistical analysis suggests. Just 6 per cent of the population is vegeterian now. But researchers at the Consumers Analysis Group say 2000 people are converting every week. It claims that maths points to the population being prodominantly vegetarian by 2047,which it believes is good news for the nation's health. It is suggested that the average vegetarian visits the hospital 22% less often the a meat-eater, saving the NHS 220 pounds ( sterling ) per person per year. However, the notion that vegetarians are healthier is highly contentious. While red meat is associated with heart disease and other conditions, some dietary experts suggest that a vegetarian can often be short of key nutrients, such as iron, which has it's own consequences for health. Jan Walsh, of CAG ( Consumer Analysis Group ),said:'It seems like we will be entering an age where the nation as a whole has finally begun to understand and respect the environment. If we look back over the years, people have taken up the meat-free life as a result of many different principles -- from morality and ethnics, culture, taste and health, through to dieting,cost, peer pressure, celebrity and concern for the environment. 'You can almost imagine that in the future it will be the norm to be vegetarian and people will have to consciously opt to eat meat,rather than the other way around.' The study, which was supported by Safeway, was released yesterday to coincide with National Vegetarian Week. A spokesman for the store said:' Supermarkets have had a positive impact on the number of peple becoming vegetarian in the last 50 years -- especially by increasing the number of products available. 'Our task for the future is to provide a total vegetarian solution: not just more fresh fruit and vegetables, but more innovative meal ingredients that offer customers choice and a sound nutritional balance. ' We predict that supermarkets will become more like hubs of the world foods, with flavours, smells and textures to tempt every taste bud.' CAG and safeway suggest a normal meat-eater will consume the equivalent of 760 chickhens, five cows,20 pigs,29 sheep and half a ton of fish in a life time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 >Quote:- The traditional roast and the full English breakfast will be consighed to history in less than 50 years if Britons >continue to turn vegetarian at the current rate. That would be good Simon. Jo ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 22, 2003 It would wouldn't it Jo..I hope to be around in 2053. - Heartwork Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:14 PM Re: religion >Quote:- The traditional roast and the full English breakfast will be consighed to history in less than 50 years if Britons >continue to turn vegetarian at the current rate. That would be good Simon. Jo ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 Simon I suppose there's a very small chance I could be around then, but doubtful. Jo It would wouldn't it Jo..I hope to be around in 2053. ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 Jo, I'd be 85 yrs in 2053-- 2043--might make it easier on everyone visiting this site. Simon I suppose there's a very small chance I could be around then, but doubtful. Jo It would wouldn't it Jo..I hope to be around in 2053. ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 So will I, Simon. I'm hoping there's a significant percentage in the US before I turn 60 in 2028. Danielle " This is your American dream Everything is simple in the white and the black You will never need to see the grey anymore You will never have to be afraid. " --Everclear ----Original Message Follows---- " simonpjones " <simonpjones Re: religion Fri, 23 May 2003 12:11:07 +0100 Jo, I'd be 85 yrs in 2053-- 2043--might make it easier on everyone visiting this site. Simon I suppose there's a very small chance I could be around then, but doubtful. Jo It would wouldn't it Jo..I hope to be around in 2053. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 > I suppose there's a very small chance I could be around then, but doubtful. You'd only be 105 BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 Hi Tom > The IRA (I'm not a supporter, by the way) is primarily against British occupation of Ireland, something which, over the centuries > has been distrastrous for the Irish (I'm assuming we all know about the Potato Famine, bans on practising their religion, speaking > Gaelic etc.). It is more an extreme political organisation than a "religious" one, and does not represent most Catholics, either in > Ireland or out of it. Sure, the Ku Klux Klan are white-supremicsist Christians, but they burn down christian churches (black ones, > of course) as well as other dirty deeds, so they're are more a declared racist organisation than religious in intent. Plus the fact > that they're denounced and reviled by most other Christians. I thought Mossad was the Israeli version of the CIA or secret service > - doesn't quite count for an upfront religious organisation, or one that operates on behalf of the Jewish faith, does it? That's exactly the point - none of these organisations represent the majority of people who follow the same religion - just as the Islamic terrorist groups don't represent the majority of Muslims. Just to take the currently most famous Islamic terrorist organisation... Al Qaeda: they are primarily against Israeli occupation of Palestine, and US occupation of middle east countries - exactly like the IRA against British occupation of Ireland. Al Qaeda does not represent any more than a handful of Muslims. They have been known to attack Muslim sites if it suits their purpose (not unlike the KKK burning churches), and they are denounced and reviled by most Muslims. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release 19/05/03 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 23, 2003 Tom I don't think any terrorist group really represents the religion it claims to be. One point about the Irish potato famine. At that time all the English people were poor as well. Don't forget history is written by the leaders and richest people. Jo - Vegecentric Saturday, May 24, 2003 8:14 AM Re: religion The IRA (I'm not a supporter, by the way) is primarily against British occupation of Ireland, something which, over the centuries has been distrastrous for the Irish (I'm assuming we all know about the Potato Famine, bans on practising their religion, speaking Gaelic etc.). It is more an extreme political organisation than a "religious" one, and does not represent most Catholics, either in Ireland or out of it. Sure, the Ku Klux Klan are white-supremicsist Christians, but they burn down christian churches (black ones, of course) as well as other dirty deeds, so they're are more a declared racist organisation than religious in intent. Plus the fact that they're denounced and reviled by most other Christians. I thought Mossad was the Israeli version of the CIA or secret service - doesn't quite count for an upfront religious organisation, or one that operates on behalf of the Jewish faith, does it? Tom - Peter Monday, May 19, 2003 9:53 AM Re: religion Hi Tom > I'm not overly concerned with the intricate differences between Sunni Muslims or Shiites, but can you show me one organised > terrorist Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. group that dedicates itself to killing and maiming people not of it's faith (infidels), or issues > "fatwahs" (read death warrants) on them for perceived insults, such as in Salman Rushdie's case? Oh dear, oh dear. Try the IRA, Ku Klux Klan, Opus Dei, P2, Mossad. There's plenty in every major religion (although I admit that you may have me stumped on Hindu). As for Salman Rushdie and fatwahs.... a "fatwah" is the Islamic term for "a religious order" - exactly the same as a Papal Bull in Christianity (and there have been a good few of them that have demanded the deaths of individuals and groups). Salman Rushdie was not condemned to death for "perceived insults", but for renouncing and denouncing Islam, and for portraying the Satanic Verses as a valid part of Islamic religion - thereby horrifically denigrating Islamic religion (the Satanic Verses are not recognised as a part of the Koran, and there is considerable debate on whether they were a part of the original teachings of Mohammed). Is it right that he should be condemned for this? Not in my opinion, but blasphemy against Christianity is still a crime in the UK. BB Peter ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 24, 2003 Actually, it doesn't matter even if we " prove " what happens to food animals, because (in my experience) most people don't want to know about it anyway. Tom - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Monday, May 19, 2003 12:19 PM Re: Religion > Tom > > >James Randy, > > agree with him or not, is not a con-artist. He is a magician, and is > > offended when people like Uri Geller pretend to bend spoons etc. by " mind > > power " , without stating it's a magic trick (no con there). > > I have never heard of Randy, but Uri Geller, twat though he may be, does > bend spoons. We can all bend spoons - don't you do it? > > > When he came out > > to Oz many years ago one of our tonight show hosts (a Doris Stokes fan) > > almost punched him out (pretty funny) for saying " medium " Doris Stokes was > a > > fraudster. Some people just will not see the truth, because they prefer > > their own reality. > > This is where you are closed minded. You say people prefer their own > reality - and will not see the truth. Truth is personal - my truth is not > your truth and your truth is not mine. If your experience is different to > mine then it is different. It doesn't make yours right and mine wrong, or a > load of rubbish. It would be extremely conceited of you to think that way. > > >Fair enough, I suppose, but there are many people who > > make a very handsome living predicting the future or talking to dead > > relatives etc. One of our " psychics " , Athena Starwoman, lives in Trump > > Towers in NY and is mega-rich. Do I think she genuinely believes her > > schtick? Not for a second. > > There are frauds in all walks of life. There are frauds in the insurance > business. It does not mean that insurance does not exist! > > >That's not to say many people obviously sincerely > > believe in fortune telling etc etc., but when people are making big bucks > > (why did L. Ron Hubbard devise Scientology? He wasn't exactly a classic > > sci-fi writer but could see religion was a money-spinner) I have to be > > skeptical. > > The psychics and mediums I know are not rich. In fact, they are mostly > worse off than me. Sometimes I wonder why they don't get an office or shop > job to subsidise their income. Usually they try to help people. > > > > As for " proof " , I don't want to get bogged down in sophistry, but if it is > > so hard for some of you to prove physical things like countries and > > buildings exist, then I don't see how you can hope to " prove " your reasons > > for veganism to any non-believer (most people). I mean factory farms? > > Experimentation? Animal exploitation? Prove it! > > I don't hope to prove anything. I cannot understand why this is your only > line of argument. > > Jo > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03 > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
