- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Who believes in auras?
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:Hi all
I've been studying the use of complementary therapies in palliative care for a research project at Uni. I've been looking at how these often clinically unproven therapies are being integrated into conventional medical care for the dying, the reasons for it and the benefits of it e.t.c.
One of the things I've been up to is watching a therapist give reiki treatments to patients. I started talking to the therapist afterwards about the 'energy body' and if she can see it. She says she just feels the energy, but cannot see it.
I personally would like to believe that we each have an aura or 'energy body', but at the same time I don't like buying into things without a healthy dose of scepticism also. So I was wondering what you guys all think...
If anyone also wants to argue for or against auras, or give their personal experiences with 'energy', I'm interested in whatever you guys have to say.
Cheers.
I've been studying the use of complementary therapies in palliative care for a research project at Uni. I've been looking at how these often clinically unproven therapies are being integrated into conventional medical care for the dying, the reasons for it and the benefits of it e.t.c.
One of the things I've been up to is watching a therapist give reiki treatments to patients. I started talking to the therapist afterwards about the 'energy body' and if she can see it. She says she just feels the energy, but cannot see it.
I personally would like to believe that we each have an aura or 'energy body', but at the same time I don't like buying into things without a healthy dose of scepticism also. So I was wondering what you guys all think...
If anyone also wants to argue for or against auras, or give their personal experiences with 'energy', I'm interested in whatever you guys have to say.
Cheers.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)
A personal agenda? I think we are descending well into the realms of the absurd. I've repeatedly said I would not take any money for myself, and that anyone could take you to Randi or the Nobel prize committee.
Jeff we were wading through the absurd when you were claiming that I had subconscious doubts about my abilities. I was quite taken aback by that and espically amused you would even claim to understand the complexities of my cognitive reasoning, and process' better than myself.
Now I have suggested to you that I understand your reasoning behind your need to test and that there would be personal gain for yourself from those tests, and your up in arms about it.
If you cant handle your argument being turned around on yourself, don't dish it out to others in the first place.
The boy G... all of the above.
Rob... perhaps this experiment wouldnt work, as you have suggested that people who read auras are actually very good at reading body language.... If you were correct in that suggestion, then that experiment would be tainted from the get go, cause peoples body language entirely changes when they lie... eg fidgety, sweating, their eyes look to the right, they elaborate too much etc etc.
I don't know if science would really think that test was um... well, 'controlled well'... with an easy 'out' for the scientist if people were getting it right too often
maybe I'm wrong?
(thats not getting at you either, I'm just saying that properly wouldn't work)
A personal agenda? I think we are descending well into the realms of the absurd. I've repeatedly said I would not take any money for myself, and that anyone could take you to Randi or the Nobel prize committee.
Jeff we were wading through the absurd when you were claiming that I had subconscious doubts about my abilities. I was quite taken aback by that and espically amused you would even claim to understand the complexities of my cognitive reasoning, and process' better than myself.
Now I have suggested to you that I understand your reasoning behind your need to test and that there would be personal gain for yourself from those tests, and your up in arms about it.
If you cant handle your argument being turned around on yourself, don't dish it out to others in the first place.
The boy G... all of the above.
Rob... perhaps this experiment wouldnt work, as you have suggested that people who read auras are actually very good at reading body language.... If you were correct in that suggestion, then that experiment would be tainted from the get go, cause peoples body language entirely changes when they lie... eg fidgety, sweating, their eyes look to the right, they elaborate too much etc etc.
I don't know if science would really think that test was um... well, 'controlled well'... with an easy 'out' for the scientist if people were getting it right too often
maybe I'm wrong?
(thats not getting at you either, I'm just saying that properly wouldn't work)
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
Delete
Posted: Written by: the boy g
I would like to ask the believers what else they believe in.
Astrology?
life after death?
re-incarnation?
Ley-lines?
communicating with the dead?
faeries?
palmistry? (readng your the future from tha palm of your hand)
tarot cards?
all of the above?
All of the above!!!
It's impossible to explain the 'feeling' that comes with each...it's just a matter of whether you are in touch with your inner self that allows you to feel and believe...
I've tried to explain...and failed miserably...
But it does not change my belief...and as long as that fulfills my life, makes me a loving and caring person, and leads me to want to help others, then what difference does it make???
That's what it's all about, after all!!!
( Oh...as far as the palmistry goes...it's not so much reading the future as it is telling you about who you are...just like astrology.)
I would like to ask the believers what else they believe in.
Astrology?
life after death?
re-incarnation?
Ley-lines?
communicating with the dead?
faeries?
palmistry? (readng your the future from tha palm of your hand)
tarot cards?
all of the above?
All of the above!!!
It's impossible to explain the 'feeling' that comes with each...it's just a matter of whether you are in touch with your inner self that allows you to feel and believe...
I've tried to explain...and failed miserably...
But it does not change my belief...and as long as that fulfills my life, makes me a loving and caring person, and leads me to want to help others, then what difference does it make???
That's what it's all about, after all!!!
( Oh...as far as the palmistry goes...it's not so much reading the future as it is telling you about who you are...just like astrology.)
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
Posted:if you both believe "All of the above"
how do dead people communicate with the living if they've been re-incarnated? Surely I'm a re-incarnation of a previous being (of which I have no memory) and I'm pretty sure I don't talk to the living relatives of my previous incarnation.
How do you allow your dead former selves to speak? I mean their parents must be worried sick. First they died and then they didn't call in ages.
Do you have to stand on a Ley-line or enlist the help of the faerie folk?
I'm confused. There's just so much I don't understand at all.
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166182171)
how do dead people communicate with the living if they've been re-incarnated? Surely I'm a re-incarnation of a previous being (of which I have no memory) and I'm pretty sure I don't talk to the living relatives of my previous incarnation.
How do you allow your dead former selves to speak? I mean their parents must be worried sick. First they died and then they didn't call in ages.
Do you have to stand on a Ley-line or enlist the help of the faerie folk?
I'm confused. There's just so much I don't understand at all.
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166182171)
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
Delete
Posted:boy g
what is the point of that post dude?Its just what everyone in this thread is trying to avoid. Its worked, real progress has been made.
plus, your off topic, why not start a new thread instead of provoking people. Its not helping or contributing in any way...
what is the point of that post dude?Its just what everyone in this thread is trying to avoid. Its worked, real progress has been made.
plus, your off topic, why not start a new thread instead of provoking people. Its not helping or contributing in any way...
Love is the law.
DeletePosted:ado-p
I was genuinely curious as to what else believers in Auras believed. I was trying to get a handle on their world-view. It would help me understand auras and why people believe in them if I could understand that belief as part of a wider world view that perhaps encompassed other phenomena and a belief in other energies.
I suspected that a believer in auras would be predisposed to believe in other spiritual phenomena. The phenomena I listed are drawn from a variety of religons, folk traditions e.t.c.. I did not expect anyone to say that they believed "All of the above", yet that was the response from the only two respondants so far.
Faeries are a folk tradition, appearing in many tales, and re-incarnation is a recurrant concept in eastern religons. The two are not incompatible per-se but seem out of place together, to me at any rate.
my last post was a little rude, I felt guilty posting it, but I couldn't resist. There was a serious point though; Some of the concepts seem incompatible. To take the example I gave above how does re-incarnation- the notion that the soul goes on to live another life in another body, fit with the notion that the souls of the dead can communicate with psycics and mediums. Surely the dead are living another life?
In a way I think believing everything makes sense. Having accepted that things outside scientific understanding exist how do you decide which ones exist and which ones don't? it makes sense in a way to say that they all exist, thus removing the conceptual difficulty of justifying your beliefs while simultaneously rejecting others.
I still feel that some of these concepts are mutually incompatible.
maybe this should be a new thread
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166188728)
I was genuinely curious as to what else believers in Auras believed. I was trying to get a handle on their world-view. It would help me understand auras and why people believe in them if I could understand that belief as part of a wider world view that perhaps encompassed other phenomena and a belief in other energies.
I suspected that a believer in auras would be predisposed to believe in other spiritual phenomena. The phenomena I listed are drawn from a variety of religons, folk traditions e.t.c.. I did not expect anyone to say that they believed "All of the above", yet that was the response from the only two respondants so far.
Faeries are a folk tradition, appearing in many tales, and re-incarnation is a recurrant concept in eastern religons. The two are not incompatible per-se but seem out of place together, to me at any rate.
my last post was a little rude, I felt guilty posting it, but I couldn't resist. There was a serious point though; Some of the concepts seem incompatible. To take the example I gave above how does re-incarnation- the notion that the soul goes on to live another life in another body, fit with the notion that the souls of the dead can communicate with psycics and mediums. Surely the dead are living another life?
In a way I think believing everything makes sense. Having accepted that things outside scientific understanding exist how do you decide which ones exist and which ones don't? it makes sense in a way to say that they all exist, thus removing the conceptual difficulty of justifying your beliefs while simultaneously rejecting others.
I still feel that some of these concepts are mutually incompatible.
maybe this should be a new thread
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166188728)
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
Delete
Posted: Written by: Valura
Jeff we were wading through the absurd when you were claiming that I had subconscious doubts about my abilities. I was quite taken aback by that and espically amused you would even claim to understand the complexities of my cognitive reasoning, and process' better than myself.
Your writings have been completely synonymous with that hypothesis so far.
Written by: the boy g
I was genuinely curious as to what else believers in Auras believed. I was trying to get a handle on their world-view. It would help me understand auras and why people believe in them if I could understand that belief as part of a wider world view that perhaps encompassed other phenomena and a belief in other energies.
I suspected that a believer in auras would be predisposed to believe in other spiritual phenomena. The phenomena I listed are drawn from a variety of religons, folk traditions e.t.c.. I did not expect anyone to say that they believed "All of the above", yet that was the response from the only two respondants so far.
At UFO conferences they sell books about big foot and Atlantis. It is an observed phenomenon that people who believe in one supernatural thing are predisposed to believing in other supernatural things, even if they are unrelated or contradictory. This has lead to the suggestion that there exists a predisposition to credulity.
Jeff we were wading through the absurd when you were claiming that I had subconscious doubts about my abilities. I was quite taken aback by that and espically amused you would even claim to understand the complexities of my cognitive reasoning, and process' better than myself.
Your writings have been completely synonymous with that hypothesis so far.
Written by: the boy g
I was genuinely curious as to what else believers in Auras believed. I was trying to get a handle on their world-view. It would help me understand auras and why people believe in them if I could understand that belief as part of a wider world view that perhaps encompassed other phenomena and a belief in other energies.
I suspected that a believer in auras would be predisposed to believe in other spiritual phenomena. The phenomena I listed are drawn from a variety of religons, folk traditions e.t.c.. I did not expect anyone to say that they believed "All of the above", yet that was the response from the only two respondants so far.
At UFO conferences they sell books about big foot and Atlantis. It is an observed phenomenon that people who believe in one supernatural thing are predisposed to believing in other supernatural things, even if they are unrelated or contradictory. This has lead to the suggestion that there exists a predisposition to credulity.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:The boy g raises some good points, it would seem that some aspects of New Age spirituality are incompatible with others.
For instance, every ghost or spirit in the movies that I've ever seen has appeared fully clothed, leading me to formulate the question " why do ghosts wear clothes?". Now that may seem like a stupid question at first, but I'm curious as to just how inanimate objects ( like shirts and belt buckles )can cross over into the spirit world,,,and why.
I know it's the movies, but, never having seen a ghost myself, you can understand how I could be influenced by what I've been exposed to ( a gazillion fully clothed, and sometimes physically mangled ) spirits.
So I'm sincerely curious when I ask people who claim to be able to see spirits are they seeing naked ones, or clothed ones. and just which clothes are they wearing ? The clothes they died in ? the clothes they were buried in ? Does the spirit world have a wardrobe department ?
Once reincarnated, does a spirit still have the ability to communicate with the living ? Suppose I wanted to communicate with the spirit of Liberace, but he'd been reincarnated as someone else, would ( through the help of a medium ) I get his voice mail ?
For instance, every ghost or spirit in the movies that I've ever seen has appeared fully clothed, leading me to formulate the question " why do ghosts wear clothes?". Now that may seem like a stupid question at first, but I'm curious as to just how inanimate objects ( like shirts and belt buckles )can cross over into the spirit world,,,and why.
I know it's the movies, but, never having seen a ghost myself, you can understand how I could be influenced by what I've been exposed to ( a gazillion fully clothed, and sometimes physically mangled ) spirits.
So I'm sincerely curious when I ask people who claim to be able to see spirits are they seeing naked ones, or clothed ones. and just which clothes are they wearing ? The clothes they died in ? the clothes they were buried in ? Does the spirit world have a wardrobe department ?
Once reincarnated, does a spirit still have the ability to communicate with the living ? Suppose I wanted to communicate with the spirit of Liberace, but he'd been reincarnated as someone else, would ( through the help of a medium ) I get his voice mail ?
Delete
Posted:Let's just say that I believe that anything is possible...not that all of the phenomena that G brought up are exactly compatible but just that I believe that any of them could be feasable...
Faeries, for instance...in a very real sense to me...butterflies, dragonflies and any of the other beautiful little flying creatures(not birds...they're in a class all their own) that we all can see on our lovely Mother Earth...are faeries...as I would consider any lizard to be a dragon...
Myth...which is not fiction...but life models...gives us fantastical creatures, but if we look around us we can see the very real models wherever we are...
Just a bit of an example of my ways of thinking...
My idividualism...which is my right and my joy...just like it is the right of anyone else to not believe the things that I do.
Faeries, for instance...in a very real sense to me...butterflies, dragonflies and any of the other beautiful little flying creatures(not birds...they're in a class all their own) that we all can see on our lovely Mother Earth...are faeries...as I would consider any lizard to be a dragon...
Myth...which is not fiction...but life models...gives us fantastical creatures, but if we look around us we can see the very real models wherever we are...
Just a bit of an example of my ways of thinking...
My idividualism...which is my right and my joy...just like it is the right of anyone else to not believe the things that I do.
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
Posted:What about
U.F.O.'s,
Bigfoot,
a Christian God,
the Greek Gods
Santa Claus
the tooth fairy
Does everything potentially exist in your world?
Stout (and myself)
I think maybe ghosts can appear as they choose to the living (or not appear at all). And maybe some people are re-incarnated but some wander the ether. I wonder how it's decided. Is it an extracorporeal lottery to decide what happens? Maybe what we believe happens to us actually happens because we beileve it. If I believe in re-incarnation I get re-incarnated but if I believe in ghosts I become a ghost.
Fortunately for me I believe I'm God.
U.F.O.'s,
Bigfoot,
a Christian God,
the Greek Gods
Santa Claus
the tooth fairy
Does everything potentially exist in your world?
Stout (and myself)
I think maybe ghosts can appear as they choose to the living (or not appear at all). And maybe some people are re-incarnated but some wander the ether. I wonder how it's decided. Is it an extracorporeal lottery to decide what happens? Maybe what we believe happens to us actually happens because we beileve it. If I believe in re-incarnation I get re-incarnated but if I believe in ghosts I become a ghost.
Fortunately for me I believe I'm God.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
DeletePosted:I should have taken my own advice and stayed out of this thread...
And now I will.
And now I will.
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
Posted:Oh dear....I've upset someone. I guess I have been flippant about peoples deeply held beliefs.
I think if you believe something unconventional then you have to grow a thick skin because people will often label you as crazy or a freak.
It's a bit diffrent on HOP because unconventional beliefs are actually in the ascendancy here.
I'll be honest....I think all you Aura believers out there and spiritualists e.t.c are mad as hatters but I love you all anyway
it's a bit annoying really because I did want to know if you believed in U.F.O.'s and all the things on my second list.
I think if you believe something unconventional then you have to grow a thick skin because people will often label you as crazy or a freak.
It's a bit diffrent on HOP because unconventional beliefs are actually in the ascendancy here.
I'll be honest....I think all you Aura believers out there and spiritualists e.t.c are mad as hatters but I love you all anyway
it's a bit annoying really because I did want to know if you believed in U.F.O.'s and all the things on my second list.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
Delete
Posted:you have suggested that people who read auras are actually very good at reading body language.... If you were correct in that suggestion, then that experiment would be tainted from the get go, cause peoples body language entirely changes when they lie... eg fidgety, sweating, their eyes look to the right, they elaborate too much etc etc.
I don't know if science would really think that test was um... well, 'controlled well'... with an easy 'out' for the scientist if people were getting it right too often
i think you've missunderstood the purpose of the test. the purpose of this test is to determin if aura readers are actualy better at reading people than non readers. wether that be though body lanugauge or supernatural meens. the way i designed the experiment was to alow people to use body language as a posable way of doing the readings.
this test wouldn't make a distinction between natural and supernatural methods of reading it would only show that aura readers are infact better (or not) at reading information and intent from other people than non-aura readers are. no matter how they were actutualy doing the readings.
the purpose of this test is to eliminate hypothisis 1 that aura readers actualy have no special abilitys what so ever and are no better than the average person. but it wouldn't tell the diffrence between hypothisis 2 and 3.
to tell the diffrence between hypthosis 2 and 3 we would need to use the curtain test. this test will determin if the information is been collected by perceveing actual auras or not. Once we have got results from both tests we can determin which of the 3 hypothises the results support.
to summerise because we have multipul hypothises and we need multipul tests and while one test in isolation can't give us a definate answer the combined results of both tests can.
test 1 just checks if doing anything at all.
test 2 checks if your doing it through supernatural meens or not.
hypthoises
1. doesn't work at all
2. aura readers see are subcontous interpretations of information around them displayed as auras alowing them to read people with much better acuracy than the average person
3. aura readers can see supernatural energys eminateing from people which they can interprate to gain information about them.
Test
1. lie detecting test
2. curtain test
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166203167)
I don't know if science would really think that test was um... well, 'controlled well'... with an easy 'out' for the scientist if people were getting it right too often
i think you've missunderstood the purpose of the test. the purpose of this test is to determin if aura readers are actualy better at reading people than non readers. wether that be though body lanugauge or supernatural meens. the way i designed the experiment was to alow people to use body language as a posable way of doing the readings.
this test wouldn't make a distinction between natural and supernatural methods of reading it would only show that aura readers are infact better (or not) at reading information and intent from other people than non-aura readers are. no matter how they were actutualy doing the readings.
the purpose of this test is to eliminate hypothisis 1 that aura readers actualy have no special abilitys what so ever and are no better than the average person. but it wouldn't tell the diffrence between hypothisis 2 and 3.
to tell the diffrence between hypthosis 2 and 3 we would need to use the curtain test. this test will determin if the information is been collected by perceveing actual auras or not. Once we have got results from both tests we can determin which of the 3 hypothises the results support.
to summerise because we have multipul hypothises and we need multipul tests and while one test in isolation can't give us a definate answer the combined results of both tests can.
test 1 just checks if doing anything at all.
test 2 checks if your doing it through supernatural meens or not.
hypthoises
1. doesn't work at all
2. aura readers see are subcontous interpretations of information around them displayed as auras alowing them to read people with much better acuracy than the average person
3. aura readers can see supernatural energys eminateing from people which they can interprate to gain information about them.
Test
1. lie detecting test
2. curtain test
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166203167)
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted: Written by: fyrespirit
Faeries, for instance...in a very real sense to me...butterflies, dragonflies and any of the other beautiful little flying creatures(not birds...they're in a class all their own) that we all can see on our lovely Mother Earth...are faeries...as I would consider any lizard to be a dragon...
Right....but there is a big diffrence. Butterflies may have provided the inspiration for faeries but they're still butterflies. Faeries have magical powers and can perform all manner of tricks and spells.
Butterflies are amazing as they are, tiny creatures spending most of their lives as caterpillars and then, briefly emerging as butterflies. Why do you need to make them faeries?
the same goes for lizards, they are amazing creatures but they are not dragons. They are lizards. Dinosaur bones are widely believed to have been the inspiration behind dragons. Dinosaurs too are amazing but not dragons. Dragons can breathe fire and fly.
The world is an amazing place as it is, why do you need to embellish it?
Faeries, for instance...in a very real sense to me...butterflies, dragonflies and any of the other beautiful little flying creatures(not birds...they're in a class all their own) that we all can see on our lovely Mother Earth...are faeries...as I would consider any lizard to be a dragon...
Right....but there is a big diffrence. Butterflies may have provided the inspiration for faeries but they're still butterflies. Faeries have magical powers and can perform all manner of tricks and spells.
Butterflies are amazing as they are, tiny creatures spending most of their lives as caterpillars and then, briefly emerging as butterflies. Why do you need to make them faeries?
the same goes for lizards, they are amazing creatures but they are not dragons. They are lizards. Dinosaur bones are widely believed to have been the inspiration behind dragons. Dinosaurs too are amazing but not dragons. Dragons can breathe fire and fly.
The world is an amazing place as it is, why do you need to embellish it?
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Robnunchucks, what do you mean by the term "supernatural"?
I think that might be one of a few definitions that needs clarification. I for one don't believe in "supernatural-- I just think there are are likely some natural things we dont fully comprehend , yet.
Lots of work needs to be done to specify and refine your various hypothesis if you want a realistic scientific experiment.
Another example, simple one-- What do you mean in Hyothesis one, by the term "work"? what does this mean in aura perception? People that perceive them perceive them in all sorts of different ways, some only under certain circumstances and not others, and then do all kinds of different things with the experience. What does "work' mean?
The person behind a curtain exercise scientifically would demonstrate nothing about auras, just that some people may or may not have a non-visual means of knowing whether a person is present or not, and little to do with an aura...
Also, many auras readers do not get factual information about a person at all, in the sense you mean- a detail that could be determined by a verbal lie. Like I have two children, when I dont... Few aura readers I know would pick up on that, or be interested in trying. That is not the sort of information/sensation most get from an aura. (I could be wrong on this, I am just referring to the people know that are involved in this sort of thing.)
But it would make me think that that experimental structure would also not offer much useful info about auras.
Perhaps it could offer useful information about specific individuals who claim to have the ability to do such things. Or could reveal how many people who think they can determine whether someone is lying with no observation of body language, etc.actaully can... Maybe.But I dont think you can extrapolate too far about how they do, or do not, manage that.And make a clear connection to how perception of auras was related.
At any rate, I dont think your suggestions of experimental procedures and the three hypothesis presented are developed rigorously enough at this point. Maybe continue to refine them? Do other people have suggestions how to do this? Jeff?
I think that might be one of a few definitions that needs clarification. I for one don't believe in "supernatural-- I just think there are are likely some natural things we dont fully comprehend , yet.
Lots of work needs to be done to specify and refine your various hypothesis if you want a realistic scientific experiment.
Another example, simple one-- What do you mean in Hyothesis one, by the term "work"? what does this mean in aura perception? People that perceive them perceive them in all sorts of different ways, some only under certain circumstances and not others, and then do all kinds of different things with the experience. What does "work' mean?
The person behind a curtain exercise scientifically would demonstrate nothing about auras, just that some people may or may not have a non-visual means of knowing whether a person is present or not, and little to do with an aura...
Also, many auras readers do not get factual information about a person at all, in the sense you mean- a detail that could be determined by a verbal lie. Like I have two children, when I dont... Few aura readers I know would pick up on that, or be interested in trying. That is not the sort of information/sensation most get from an aura. (I could be wrong on this, I am just referring to the people know that are involved in this sort of thing.)
But it would make me think that that experimental structure would also not offer much useful info about auras.
Perhaps it could offer useful information about specific individuals who claim to have the ability to do such things. Or could reveal how many people who think they can determine whether someone is lying with no observation of body language, etc.actaully can... Maybe.But I dont think you can extrapolate too far about how they do, or do not, manage that.And make a clear connection to how perception of auras was related.
At any rate, I dont think your suggestions of experimental procedures and the three hypothesis presented are developed rigorously enough at this point. Maybe continue to refine them? Do other people have suggestions how to do this? Jeff?
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:jeff, I have done my best to be polite to you, and even extended the olive branch at Dave's request giving you the information you asked for.
You insist on being rude and condescending, you have again alienated another hopper.
I shall not post on here again.
*walks away shaking head in disappointment*
You insist on being rude and condescending, you have again alienated another hopper.
I shall not post on here again.
*walks away shaking head in disappointment*
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
Delete
Posted: Written by: faithinfire
well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.
The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"
well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.
The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Delete
Posted:Test conditions will affect the emotional and physiological state of the person who is being tested.
The awareness of another person's emotional and physiological state via any method is tied into ones own, as a relative set of values.
Science cannot control a sufficient number of variables in the tests for the results not to be biased by the test environment's affect on the subject. The human mind is simply too complex to have a base emotional state to work from for test purposes.
The complexity of the human brain goes far beyond any man made device (in the context of this thread in particular, those devices for detecting phenomena in our universe), and it is understood very little. It is entirely possible that within it's structure are mechanisms for the detection of phenomena that no man made device is capable of, due to their relative simplicity. It is entirely possible that the brain has senses built into it's structure, in addition to those that are on the outside of the body. Like any sense or response, acuity will be developed through use and focus on these sensations.
From a purely scientific standpoint these abilities can be explained.
In modern computer systems, a great deal of work must be undertaken to reduce the amount of radio frequency interference emanating from the processing devices withing the computer, as this interference can be picked up by other devices in the environment. This is why computers have metal cases to absorb the huge majority of radiated energy. Also the electrical pathways must be intertwined so that sources of radiated energy are placed next to pathways for the energy to be grounded and dispersed.
The entire system is several orders of magnitude simpler than a brain, yet operates on similar - electrical - priciples.
It is entirely possible that brains are capable of picking up on the radiated electrical energy from another body. There are no apparent measures taken to reduce energy radiated from the electrical functioning of the brain, and the structure is sufficiently complex that it easily surpasses that of man made brain scanning techniques.
Using processing within the brain, similar to that used to enhance the data available to us from limited visual information to produce our experience of sight, this seemingly random interference could be processed into usable data, and percieved in differing ways, depending on the focus of the individual. The sensing of the phenomena as colors within the visual field would be an obvious way for the mind to present information, as this is our most highly developed sense, and provides the majority of data that our minds process.
The awareness of another person's emotional and physiological state via any method is tied into ones own, as a relative set of values.
Science cannot control a sufficient number of variables in the tests for the results not to be biased by the test environment's affect on the subject. The human mind is simply too complex to have a base emotional state to work from for test purposes.
The complexity of the human brain goes far beyond any man made device (in the context of this thread in particular, those devices for detecting phenomena in our universe), and it is understood very little. It is entirely possible that within it's structure are mechanisms for the detection of phenomena that no man made device is capable of, due to their relative simplicity. It is entirely possible that the brain has senses built into it's structure, in addition to those that are on the outside of the body. Like any sense or response, acuity will be developed through use and focus on these sensations.
From a purely scientific standpoint these abilities can be explained.
In modern computer systems, a great deal of work must be undertaken to reduce the amount of radio frequency interference emanating from the processing devices withing the computer, as this interference can be picked up by other devices in the environment. This is why computers have metal cases to absorb the huge majority of radiated energy. Also the electrical pathways must be intertwined so that sources of radiated energy are placed next to pathways for the energy to be grounded and dispersed.
The entire system is several orders of magnitude simpler than a brain, yet operates on similar - electrical - priciples.
It is entirely possible that brains are capable of picking up on the radiated electrical energy from another body. There are no apparent measures taken to reduce energy radiated from the electrical functioning of the brain, and the structure is sufficiently complex that it easily surpasses that of man made brain scanning techniques.
Using processing within the brain, similar to that used to enhance the data available to us from limited visual information to produce our experience of sight, this seemingly random interference could be processed into usable data, and percieved in differing ways, depending on the focus of the individual. The sensing of the phenomena as colors within the visual field would be an obvious way for the mind to present information, as this is our most highly developed sense, and provides the majority of data that our minds process.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Posted:super interesting post, thanks Polarity!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by: Kathain_Bowen
Written by: faithinfire
well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.
The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"
not seeing how that applies in context
Written by: faithinfire
well,
i would say that embellishment is in the eye of the beholder
some say God is an embellishment and His angels
some can say the same about fairies and dragons
other people believe in them so they really aren't an embellishment but a fact of life
One of my teachers used to tell me "God is in the details" when it came to the subtle nuances of type, color, and layout. She would skulk around the room and say it in a chipper sort of know-it-all voice over our shoulders when any of us looked particularly stopped up on something like ragging type, kerning, or color matching.
The smarty-pants in my always wanted to blurt out, "How does he fit in there?"
not seeing how that applies in context
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted: Written by: faithinfire
not seeing how that applies in context
Mildly tangental joke referring to the inherent difficulty of humans to accurately convey abstract terms to one another. Sorry. Somehow, in my broken mind, the joke fit. In retrospect.... not so much. I have these total mental hiccups every now and again. Very sorry.
not seeing how that applies in context
Mildly tangental joke referring to the inherent difficulty of humans to accurately convey abstract terms to one another. Sorry. Somehow, in my broken mind, the joke fit. In retrospect.... not so much. I have these total mental hiccups every now and again. Very sorry.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:next time string us along on the tangent so we can all get it
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Kathain_Bowen i thought it was funny and i know how you feel
word to the wise though you gota be carfull on this thread some people are on edge because there beleafes are been questioned. not the best audiance for jokes
polarity ok a fair point there are afew problems with what your saying mainly regarding the relitive volatages of a computer and the human brain. but i see the point your trying to make.
in reply i'ed like to say that i would execept such a situation asumeing that was what testing supported as the cause but my point is your jumping the gun before we begin trying to explain why a phenominon occures we need to first estabilish if there is a phenominon to explain in the first place. As of yet no scientific test anyware thoughout human history has found any evidence that these abilitys exist. before we start trying to explain something i feel it would be prudent to demonstrate it exists at all.
as for the Test conditions affecting the emotional and physiological state of the person who is being tested. this is the purpose of the control group of non readers as both will be tested both will be effected equaly by the conditions. by rateing the performence of the readers relitive to a control group we can remove the results of this effect. this is why sicentific experiments routeenly use control groups.
regarding the experiment not been valid ok i see where your going with it so i would like to ask
what can aura readers do with there ability?
if someone can answer the above question we can design an experiment to test for that.
i would also like to prempt any suggestions that these abilitys for some reason can't be tested if something or its effects can be seen smelt touched heard etc. it can be tested. and if it can't be seen smelt touched heard etc or detected in anyway what so ever in what way can it be said to exist?
also though i can't speek for everyone as with most words they meen diffrent things to diffrent people. when i say supernatural i meen any beleaf that isn't supported by evidence.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166314986)
and i know how you feel word to the wise though you gota be carfull on this thread some people are on edge because there beleafes are been questioned. not the best audiance for jokes
polarity ok a fair point there are afew problems with what your saying mainly regarding the relitive volatages of a computer and the human brain. but i see the point your trying to make.
in reply i'ed like to say that i would execept such a situation asumeing that was what testing supported as the cause but my point is your jumping the gun before we begin trying to explain why a phenominon occures we need to first estabilish if there is a phenominon to explain in the first place. As of yet no scientific test anyware thoughout human history has found any evidence that these abilitys exist. before we start trying to explain something i feel it would be prudent to demonstrate it exists at all.
as for the Test conditions affecting the emotional and physiological state of the person who is being tested. this is the purpose of the control group of non readers as both will be tested both will be effected equaly by the conditions. by rateing the performence of the readers relitive to a control group we can remove the results of this effect. this is why sicentific experiments routeenly use control groups.
regarding the experiment not been valid ok i see where your going with it so i would like to ask
what can aura readers do with there ability?
if someone can answer the above question we can design an experiment to test for that.
i would also like to prempt any suggestions that these abilitys for some reason can't be tested if something or its effects can be seen smelt touched heard etc. it can be tested. and if it can't be seen smelt touched heard etc or detected in anyway what so ever in what way can it be said to exist?
also though i can't speek for everyone as with most words they meen diffrent things to diffrent people. when i say supernatural i meen any beleaf that isn't supported by evidence.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166314986)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Posted: Written by: faithinfire
next time string us along on the tangent so we can all get it
*grinning sheepishly*
Yeah.... sorry about that. Sometimes, my mind makes these logic jumps that, when I look back later, are like staring across the Grand Canyon. This could explain why I couldn't make a truly coherent thought to go along with that.
So, to try to bring both myself and everyone else down the tangental trail I took, I started with thinking very clearly about what the aura is which we are questioning. And, in a sense, it is a vaguely tangible and visible thing (that is to say, some people feel it and see it, but others don't,)
Why?
The constant theory seems to be that auras are just something which some people percieve and others don't. And that word hit me. Percieve. Reality itself is dictated by human perception of things. Before the discovery of microscopic organisms in the maginification of a water droplet, before the discovery of the electromagnetic specturm, the human mind counted things which we now know to be facts as matters of the imagination and nothing more. Wouldn't the aura fall into that category of things which, due to a lack of perception of some people, be something which could potentially be miscategorized by a failure of perception?
So, then, I started to think about perception some more. While thinking about it, I saw my PMS-books. No jokes. PMS is Pantone Matching System. These are books which call out colors by specific ink formulas printed directly to the paper. Monitors, CMYK printers, and even the human eye can distort color perception so much that the only way to accurately convey to another human the abstract concept of exact colors, that Pantone created these books to be a specific color selection. So what you see is PRECISELY what you get when you print. Case in point, the color orange is exceptionally difficult and almost impossible to accurately reproduce on CYMK printers and generally has to be added as a spot color. It's still orange as a composite CMYK color, but it's not the same, exact orange as a spot color.
Valura, for example, could explain all day what auras are like, just like I could explain all day what the color red is like, and we might get an idea of what each other is talking about, but not exactly. However, in my case, I can reference the wavelengths of light that produce red, and I produce a list of various PMS numbers that are considered to be in the red family. I have something to point to like apples and firetrucks. In the case of auras, there isn't really a concrete thing to reference, hence why we are basing things off of perception of a subjective thing.
"God is in the details" is just a quip addressing the differences in perception of aesthetic things. Where I saw annoyance in tweaking tiny nuances of design and the subtle aspects of kerning, my teacher saw the measure of a designer in their finesse and control of the tiny, almost imperceptable aspects of type and layout. We were still looking at exactly the same thing, but our perceptions of it were just so vastly different. I just made the jump to "God is in the Details" too fast.
That being said, for everyone who is a true believer, I hope you can maintain your belief and your faith; they are powerful things. For everyone who is skeptical, I hope you can find your own measurement system to better understand this subjective concept. Me, I'm going to continue to teeter on the fence and hope I don't fall on my face. But, for all, I hope we can all just get alone, enjoy a nice hug at the end of this thread/discussion, and get on well!
.... on behalf of the Kathain Bowen's Brain Tour Group, we hope you enjoyed your tour of KB's logic jump and ask that you be careful as you step off the tram.
next time string us along on the tangent so we can all get it
*grinning sheepishly*
Yeah.... sorry about that. Sometimes, my mind makes these logic jumps that, when I look back later, are like staring across the Grand Canyon. This could explain why I couldn't make a truly coherent thought to go along with that.
So, to try to bring both myself and everyone else down the tangental trail I took, I started with thinking very clearly about what the aura is which we are questioning. And, in a sense, it is a vaguely tangible and visible thing (that is to say, some people feel it and see it, but others don't,)
Why?
The constant theory seems to be that auras are just something which some people percieve and others don't. And that word hit me. Percieve. Reality itself is dictated by human perception of things. Before the discovery of microscopic organisms in the maginification of a water droplet, before the discovery of the electromagnetic specturm, the human mind counted things which we now know to be facts as matters of the imagination and nothing more. Wouldn't the aura fall into that category of things which, due to a lack of perception of some people, be something which could potentially be miscategorized by a failure of perception?
So, then, I started to think about perception some more. While thinking about it, I saw my PMS-books. No jokes. PMS is Pantone Matching System. These are books which call out colors by specific ink formulas printed directly to the paper. Monitors, CMYK printers, and even the human eye can distort color perception so much that the only way to accurately convey to another human the abstract concept of exact colors, that Pantone created these books to be a specific color selection. So what you see is PRECISELY what you get when you print. Case in point, the color orange is exceptionally difficult and almost impossible to accurately reproduce on CYMK printers and generally has to be added as a spot color. It's still orange as a composite CMYK color, but it's not the same, exact orange as a spot color.
Valura, for example, could explain all day what auras are like, just like I could explain all day what the color red is like, and we might get an idea of what each other is talking about, but not exactly. However, in my case, I can reference the wavelengths of light that produce red, and I produce a list of various PMS numbers that are considered to be in the red family. I have something to point to like apples and firetrucks. In the case of auras, there isn't really a concrete thing to reference, hence why we are basing things off of perception of a subjective thing.
"God is in the details" is just a quip addressing the differences in perception of aesthetic things. Where I saw annoyance in tweaking tiny nuances of design and the subtle aspects of kerning, my teacher saw the measure of a designer in their finesse and control of the tiny, almost imperceptable aspects of type and layout. We were still looking at exactly the same thing, but our perceptions of it were just so vastly different. I just made the jump to "God is in the Details" too fast.
That being said, for everyone who is a true believer, I hope you can maintain your belief and your faith; they are powerful things. For everyone who is skeptical, I hope you can find your own measurement system to better understand this subjective concept. Me, I'm going to continue to teeter on the fence and hope I don't fall on my face. But, for all, I hope we can all just get alone, enjoy a nice hug at the end of this thread/discussion, and get on well!
.... on behalf of the Kathain Bowen's Brain Tour Group, we hope you enjoyed your tour of KB's logic jump and ask that you be careful as you step off the tram.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:it sounds like one of my tangents
it seems as though our ability to prove or disprove auras as something people see and how this perception happens is limited by our scientific knowledge
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...and even when science and testing began to prove it, the proofs were considered questionable
because it was so removed from what the general population believed
the earth was flat because that is what people saw...auras don't exist because that is what people see
it seems as though our ability to prove or disprove auras as something people see and how this perception happens is limited by our scientific knowledge
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...and even when science and testing began to prove it, the proofs were considered questionable
because it was so removed from what the general population believed
the earth was flat because that is what people saw...auras don't exist because that is what people see
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted: Written by: faithinfire
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...
Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.
Relative perception is a fun and somewhat tricky thing (*and gets worse, to my understanding of an explanation I got, if you try to factor in superimposition)
Now, to the case of Valura and to others who see auras, their relative perception is that auras exist because they have experienced them (*using the color analogy, they have seen apples, firetrucks, or christmas ornaments.)
In the skeptics, their relative perception is that auras do not exist because they have no experienced them to say for certain, nor do they have a quanitative proof to believe that auras exist the way believers state they do (the designer searching for red in the measureable and definite bounds of a specific ink formula or CMYK composite).
When both relative perceptions get on the same page, then, we can all agree whether the aura is something of a divine and other worldly nature, or if it is a sort of trick of the mind, and illusion to a mental process we just don't happen to understand yet.
This is why I've been enjoying sitting on the fence for a while. I've seen things that dictate, based off of my relative perception and experience, that the aura *should* exist. However, in my studies and research, I've also experienced data that proves that they do not function in such ways. My relative perception is contradictory, and, as such, I'm just doing my best to stay on the fence.
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...
Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.
Relative perception is a fun and somewhat tricky thing (*and gets worse, to my understanding of an explanation I got, if you try to factor in superimposition)
Now, to the case of Valura and to others who see auras, their relative perception is that auras exist because they have experienced them (*using the color analogy, they have seen apples, firetrucks, or christmas ornaments.)
In the skeptics, their relative perception is that auras do not exist because they have no experienced them to say for certain, nor do they have a quanitative proof to believe that auras exist the way believers state they do (the designer searching for red in the measureable and definite bounds of a specific ink formula or CMYK composite).
When both relative perceptions get on the same page, then, we can all agree whether the aura is something of a divine and other worldly nature, or if it is a sort of trick of the mind, and illusion to a mental process we just don't happen to understand yet.
This is why I've been enjoying sitting on the fence for a while. I've seen things that dictate, based off of my relative perception and experience, that the aura *should* exist. However, in my studies and research, I've also experienced data that proves that they do not function in such ways. My relative perception is contradictory, and, as such, I'm just doing my best to stay on the fence.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
DeletePosted:Nice one! I like your wording
Is the only difference between TODAY and BACK THEN that our communicational/ rhetorical skills and methods get more sophisticated?
Guess the content is pretty much the same, no? Luckily those who see Auras and dare to tell don't get burnt anymore - that might be another progression...
Is the only difference between TODAY and BACK THEN that our communicational/ rhetorical skills and methods get more sophisticated?
Guess the content is pretty much the same, no? Luckily those who see Auras and dare to tell don't get burnt anymore - that might be another progression...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by: Kathain_Bowen
Written by: faithinfire
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...
Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.
fine that is what we understand now-that is not what we understood then...because of limited knowledge and because of relative perception
our knowledge can grow and prove our relative perception wrong about auras too
therefore same thing
valura is galileo or copernicus
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166375191)
Written by: faithinfire
by the same logic as is presented here, the earth was flat because our knowledge was that that could not prove or disprove the roundness...
Not necessarily that they don't exist, but that relative perception dictates to some people that they do not exist. The world was "flat" because the relative perception pointed this out due to the very tiniest of curvature to the earth, giving it the appearance of flatness. The earth was still round, despite relative perception, and continues to be round.
fine that is what we understand now-that is not what we understood then...because of limited knowledge and because of relative perception
our knowledge can grow and prove our relative perception wrong about auras too
therefore same thing
valura is galileo or copernicus
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166375191)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:valura is galileo or copernicus
hardly galileo was a scientist and baised is beleafes on messurement, repeatable tests and the scientific method. if you had read his publication the dialog you would see that his reasoning was baised on very strong logic and evidence. his theorys also produces predictions about the movements of the planets that were extreamly acurate. its is a far cry from valura who has out right refused to perform such testing.
this is not an argument between compeating scientific theorys where there is evidence supporting both sides. everyone repeately seems to avoid the point that there is no evidence at all for auras. doesn't this seem odd to anyone?
doesn't it strike anyone as strange that the abiltiys and skills aura readers clame to have can all be performed just as well by magicans who have no special powers what so ever. and that whenever they are tested under conditions that would prevent a magican from working they strangely disapear. also doesn't it concern anyone that some of the worlds most famous spiritualists have been revealed to be frauds. meening that it is definatly posiable to do this by fraudulent meens and that people have done as such. isn't it very odd that when we develop tests to distingush between genuin phycics and fakes everyone ether refuses to take the test or fails them out right? do these things not make you wonder about the validity of such clames. how do you acount for all these things?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166388340)
hardly galileo was a scientist and baised is beleafes on messurement, repeatable tests and the scientific method. if you had read his publication the dialog you would see that his reasoning was baised on very strong logic and evidence. his theorys also produces predictions about the movements of the planets that were extreamly acurate. its is a far cry from valura who has out right refused to perform such testing.
this is not an argument between compeating scientific theorys where there is evidence supporting both sides. everyone repeately seems to avoid the point that there is no evidence at all for auras. doesn't this seem odd to anyone?
doesn't it strike anyone as strange that the abiltiys and skills aura readers clame to have can all be performed just as well by magicans who have no special powers what so ever. and that whenever they are tested under conditions that would prevent a magican from working they strangely disapear. also doesn't it concern anyone that some of the worlds most famous spiritualists have been revealed to be frauds. meening that it is definatly posiable to do this by fraudulent meens and that people have done as such. isn't it very odd that when we develop tests to distingush between genuin phycics and fakes everyone ether refuses to take the test or fails them out right? do these things not make you wonder about the validity of such clames. how do you acount for all these things?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166388340)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:so now they're frauds...
if you followed the conversation the galileo comment was a JOKE from firetom's comment
if you followed the conversation the galileo comment was a JOKE from firetom's comment
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [believe* aura*] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Spirituality, sceptiscism and imposing your world on others [47 replies]
2. Forums > Who believes in auras? [470 replies]
3. Learn > Fire Training > Fire training and safety > Quick FIRE history *help/resource
4. Forums > The silly things that we are told as chidren! [67 replies]
5. Forums > current poll Auras [7 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.