---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 No, I don't "accept things at face value." I probably think as much about them 
as you do, except it's a different kind of thinking, that incorporates, to the 
best of my knowledge and understanding, the spiritual elements in life, which 
you appear to dismiss because they cannot be measured in any way that science 

 Exactly. There are many "instruments" through which to measure and weigh our 
experience, our world, our lives and what happens in those lives. Some of it 
involves known scientific findings about certain things, some involves using 
our knowledge as amassed over our years alive and some it is a combination of 
feeling, intuition and logic. 

 There is not enough "science" to answer all the questions I have throughout a 
single day. Why Salyavin is "speechless" at the assertion that science (as we 
know it and practice it) is purely man made is almost beyond me.

 Is that what you think I'm speechless about? Actually I'm speechless that 
anyone can know so little about something and still trumpet it like they are 
some sort of master who has both understood and gone beyond the knowledge. You 
don't give me any impression that you know how science works or what it's 
limitations might be. 

 Professor Poindexter, you might be dextrous with a test tube but your reading 
comprehension is severely lacking. I suggest you put the chemicals away and get 
some tutoring on your comprehension skills. The fact that you would write what 
you did is a classic case of exaggerating to the point of absurdity (grossly 
unscientific of you) or you are simply playing the same game that lummox who 
used to post here plays all the time. I, Ann, the "master who has both 
understood and gone beyond the knowledge" - guffaw. You wanna join my brethren 
and me and travel to the far corners of the galaxy on wings of supreme 

  He acts as if "science" is some absolute, perfect discipline that has existed 
and continues to exist as some separate entity and we have simply discovered it 
sitting there. 

 You are hallucinating really severely here.

 Nonsense. Humans created the concept of science, they have made all the 
scientific parameters and the rules for how they go about investigating the 
universe. Certain laws they are discovering seem to be absolute and true but 
the discipline itself is all man made. That is what I think Salyavin perhaps 
misunderstood about my statement. But then, he does consider him the Professor 
Peabody of the group and has little time for the other ignoramuses like myself 
who he doesn't like anyway.

 Don't worry, I'll stick around and offer my Ha'pporth on any subject I choose 
regardless of whether I like you or not.

 And here I was kind of liking the "speechless" part. You sure you want your 
buddies over yonder to know you're hobnobbing with the unscientific over here? 
(I lived in England when they still had halfpennies, BTW, how great were they, 

  (I think it has something to do with the fact I can't stand that blowhard 
bawee who he finds, personally, fascinating. I just see bawee as some crazy 
scientific experiment gone badly awry, LOL).


 You are hallucinating again.

 No, no take a look. The guy is an aberration of nature. He just has to be the 
result of some Dr Frankenstein getting a bit giddy with the cadaver parts. I 
think the great Dr must have replaced a brain with a turntable with a broken 
record on it and that needle just keeps skipping and skipping and skipping.

 This is fun, let's do it again. You didn't teach me anything scientific in 
this post but I'm a patient woman. Maybe next time you can explain why the 
Ouija board works.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 What I am interested in is the relationship between the visible and the 
invisible worlds -- how they interact. I doubt whether that would mean anything 
to you, but I find it fascinating. Since science does not acknowledge an 
invisible world, I doubt whether it can be of any help. I am talking about the 
interactions between humans and all the other beings that inhabit this universe 
in realms we do not see. Angels act at a distance all the time. Of course, as a 
fan of science you will think such a statement meaningless or absurd, but I 
encourage you to keep an open mind. The impression I have at the moment is that 
your mind is more closed than most. 

 Closed mind eh? Ok, luckily for us I've got a mind open enough to actually try 
and engage with the accusation rather than simply dismissing it.

 There's a belief round here that "science" is some sort of dogmatic statement 
about reality that refuses to consider alternative ideas and viewpoints. This 
is wildly in error but I see how you arrived at it, the trouble is you are 
joining the debate about what is and what isn't at a point when people who 
study psychology and parapsychology already have a rather good idea about what 
constitutes a reasonable explanation for things like angels. And it isn't 
invisible worlds. You may continue to believe in them if you wish but with no 
evidence other than "feelings" there's no reason for anybody else to.

 I think it's a problem of education that so many people these days are so 
ignorant of how science works. Ignorant isn't an insult BTW, it just means you 
don't know something. In order for me to persuade you there is merit in 
challenging beliefs and trying to work out what something means rather than 
taking it at face value I'd have to go through grade school education about 
physics, biology and chemistry and all the stuff that explains how the stuff of 
the universe actually works and extrapolate from that the likelihoods of their 
being angels and unicorns farting rainbows.

 It isn't narrow minded to dismiss something if it contradicts everything else 
you know, and this is exactly what scientists do not do! I didn't just dismiss 
Marshy when he said that consciousness is the unified field, I sat up because 
it isn't part of any mainstream thinking and asked for a further explanation. 
And I didn't get one. I read Marshy's books and sat through interminable 
lectures to no avail, if they know something deep about reality they sure 
aren't letting on what it actually is in a way it can be understood. The whole 
belief is explained only in wishy-washy terms in reference to other wishy-washy 
terms. This isn't the way physics works ad it's why nobody takes John Hagelin 
seriously. He has no argument to offer them that they can scrutinize. You'd 
think he would after all these decades.

 Not only that I've researched the whole story of unification and found that it 
was abandoned in the 70's by physicists because the only experiment anyone 
could think of to test it ended up disproving it. Even in Einstein's day the UF 
theory had been abandoned in favour of quantum theory but scientists (proper 
ones) never intended consciousness as an explanation in the first place! That's 
an entirely religious idea.

 That was a few years of work for me. Closed minded? I think not. 

 And while you may have an open mind I don't think it's a healthy one, like a 
lot of people round here you accept things at face value and lack any way of 
challenging, or maybe any desire to challenge. That's what science really is, 
the desire to work out what is actually out there in the world independent of 
what we think of it. 




Reply via email to