Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:45 pm

Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Plz read the posted http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html (2011)


Also, the links in this paragraph of the article you posted are dead (italics/emphasis mine):
https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/201 ... o-be-real/ wrote:There is also another skeptical paper published in the Psychological Bulletin that attacks the conclusion of the Tressoldi, Storm and Radin paper titled A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) and of course, the obligatory rebuttal: Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013). Basically the skeptical argument goes like this: IF you switch from standard to Bayesian statistics, AND IF you set the prior probability really low AND IF you omit a bunch of the the studies, (including the ones with the best results) well, see? There is no effect. The problem with this approach is that it requires too much manipulation of the data to be a useful evaluation. You could do this to any set of data and have a situation where no one ever proved anything.


Barrie Responds: We can have dueling articles all night long...accept whatever articles you wish.

Articles by some believer that pretend to, but do not link to the actual papers they are making apparently unfounded claims about are useless.


Evidence, Barrie, we've tried to explain to you already what acceptable evidence is...

I am not trying to prove anything to you...I had in a fit of silliness I suppose...

So it would seem.

tried to respond to Matt. IF you don't believe ESP or telepathy exists--that is fine with me. I disagree with you. I can point to books and examples that your belief system can't accept. I accept that, too. All you really need to know in regard to the Seth material, is that it accepts telepathy as real and it offers its explanations of how and/or why it is real. These explanations may not fit what you find acceptable as explanations--but if you want to know about what is actually in the Seth material--I can be of help. IF you just want to go on imagining what is in the Seth material--you don't need my help for that.

The Seth material has been studied by several users here and, to the best of my knowledge, been dismissed. We have been trying to tell you that - you chose to ignore that, too.

Sorry, dude, seems at this point you're merely proselytizing.


ETA Also to the best of my knowledge, so-called ESP (or certain parts of that encompassing term) has not been outright disproven for certain, but whatever was found to point to its possible existence also showed it would be so marginal as to be useless and not warranting the onslaught of claims by exited believers.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:52 pm

Curious that none of the local staunch believers and instructors are piping up here in support...
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:52 pm

Barrie1 wrote: I did not lie about anything.
Yes you did. You cited a paper claiming it replicated telepathy experiments and proved they were real. I read that paper and it said the exact opposite. Nice try :lol:

Barrie1 wrote: Haven't you got something better to do on a skeptic board whose mission is to investigate and understand things--
Barry, you have made an incorrect assumption. I am using your posts as examples for a future debunk. That's what we did using posts from the cult follower of "Ra the channelled alien" and our debunking of Carla Reuckert's phony cult. Did you read the debunk? It was pretty entertaining.

You came here to give me ammunition. The false citation was perfect. Thank you.
:D


Barrie1 wrote:Have you any questions about the Seth material?
Yes and you have failed to answer every question.
I thoroughly enjoyed it when you answered my science questions in the cult's own religious framework. It was like someone arguing that Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer had to lead Santa's reindeer sled or Santa couldn't find chimneys, to drop presents down.......and therefore Santa must really exist!



Barrie1 wrote:How do you know consciousness ends at death?
I clearly said when the neurons die, then so does consciousness.
Barrie1 wrote:How do know which came first, consciousness or physical reality?
Physical reality came first with the formation of atoms 13.2 billion years ago. Modern human consciousness evolved 195,000 years ago.

My turn. Your cult does not believe that animal souls can reincarnate in humans. So where did all the human souls come from, when homo erectus was being replaced by modern humans about 195,000 years ago? :D

Do you deny the theory of evolution?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:03 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Curious that none of the local staunch believers and instructors are piping up here in support...
I asked Freebill, the "Ra the 1970s channeled alien" cult follower to join. He refuses to talk to a "Seth the 1970s channeled alien" follower, for obvious reasons. He knows we'd set them both up for a comical debate between cult members, belonging to similar "copy cat" cults for profit.


Gorgeous, who does follow Seth, can't join because I busted her inventing and faking her own brand new Seth quotes. Considering she also follows David Duke's KKK radio podcast, she knows she will get shredded.

As we have always observed on this forum. Cult members will never converse with other cult members. They simply come here to justify their existence by talking to normal people and spamming their religious propaganda. It's all they can do. :D




.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:12 pm

...besides trolling, as our "all over the place" pimply basement dweller does extensively... :roll:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:33 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Plz read the posted http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html (2011)


Also, the links in this paragraph of the article you posted are dead (italics/emphasis mine):
https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/201 ... o-be-real/ wrote:There is also another skeptical paper published in the Psychological Bulletin that attacks the conclusion of the Tressoldi, Storm and Radin paper titled A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) and of course, the obligatory rebuttal: Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013). Basically the skeptical argument goes like this: IF you switch from standard to Bayesian statistics, AND IF you set the prior probability really low AND IF you omit a bunch of the the studies, (including the ones with the best results) well, see? There is no effect. The problem with this approach is that it requires too much manipulation of the data to be a useful evaluation. You could do this to any set of data and have a situation where no one ever proved anything.


Barrie Responds: We can have dueling articles all night long...accept whatever articles you wish.

Articles by some believer that pretend to, but do not link to the actual papers they are making apparently unfounded claims about are useless.


Evidence, Barrie, we've tried to explain to you already what acceptable evidence is...

I am not trying to prove anything to you...I had in a fit of silliness I suppose...

So it would seem.

tried to respond to Matt. IF you don't believe ESP or telepathy exists--that is fine with me. I disagree with you. I can point to books and examples that your belief system can't accept. I accept that, too. All you really need to know in regard to the Seth material, is that it accepts telepathy as real and it offers its explanations of how and/or why it is real. These explanations may not fit what you find acceptable as explanations--but if you want to know about what is actually in the Seth material--I can be of help. IF you just want to go on imagining what is in the Seth material--you don't need my help for that.

The Seth material has been studied by several users here and, to the best of my knowledge, been dismissed. We have been trying to tell you that - you chose to ignore that, too.

Sorry, dude, seems at this point you're merely proselytizing.


ETA Also to the best of my knowledge, so-called ESP (or certain parts of that encompassing term) has not been outright disproven for certain, but whatever was found to point to its possible existence also showed it would be so marginal as to be useless and not warranting the onslaught of claims by exited believers.


SCRM Writes: The Seth material has been studied by several users here and, to the best of my knowledge, been dismissed. We have been trying to tell you that - you chose to ignore that, too. Sorry, dude, seems at this point you're merely proselytizing.

Barrie Responds: From what I have read on this board about the Seth material, that is flat out wrong, Whatever has been studied has basically been ill reported and ill understood. You can go on believing it has been "studied" -- but its like a born-again Christian saying he has studied evolution and has dismissed it. I believe that those who have studied it have gotten it very wrong in very important ways.

If you don't wish to realize that, and want to go on believing that you "know" the Seth material and have dismissed it, you happen to be mistaken--you don't know it. You can dismiss it all you want--but at least dismiss IT and not some fantasy of what it is. In either case, you are free to dismiss it--understanding it or not.

But when I read people ignorantly dismissing something that doesn't exist--that they don't realize they are so mistaken about content--I feel if I can be of help to clarify, and I will--if anyone actually wants to know the truth concerning what is actually in the material. This is not proselystizing. I have no wish or need for anyone to agree with the Seth material; but at least know what IT actually is and THEN dismiss it.

Prove me wrong and mistaken: Describe some Seth few issues or concepts that you are so sure you understand--and let's see if you have them correct or not? Since you have discussed it with board members--what are some concepts you are aware of? As you say, where is your evidence of what you believe you understand?

I'm sure you have general beliefs concerning life after death--and since part of the Seth material is based upon the concept that there is life after death, that consciousness and personality survive death, and given that you would dismiss this idea--then it would be correct to say that you have dismissed an idea in the Seth material--but you certainly did not study what that idea is--and why Seth says there is life after death. But at least you ar dismissing a concept that is in the material.

As you know, being aware of the surface of an in-depth philosophy--is not quite the same as studying it. You may dismiss it, but there is little substance to your dismissal because there is little substance to your understanding. The ideas and concepts are not simple and one-liners do not correctly sum them up. There are inter-connected ideas and so forth--that build upon each other. Knowing the surface of something does not a study make.

For example, the idea that you create your own reality--does not involve blame or a few of the other things that person said about it. They reported it wrong to you--they were at fault in their interpretation--but you may not care to be aware of what it is you dismiss--and that is your right, of course.

There are multiple levels of reality creation--from creating the objects you see, to attracting the events and people you meet. There are explanations and reasons given as to the mechanism of how this all works--which does involve telepathy and communication ourside of liner time.

I strongly prefer that you pick a topic that you really believe you know and understand very well...and to see where that goes--for then I can at least gauge what you actually do understand. I will also provide a partial list of concepts BS ideas found in the Seth material...and you choose one or five or whatever to discuss to show how you or others have studied them and are aware of their content and substance:

1. Reincarnation exists but so does simultaneous time.
2. Consciousness does not end with death.
4. You create your own reality.
5. You create the physical objects you see.
6. You attract certain events and people to you based on your beliefs and expectations.
7. Free will exists on all planes.
8. There is no heaven or hell.
9. There is no karmic punishment.
10. The ends do not justify the means.
11.. There is no justification for violence or murder.
12. People are innately good, loving and compassionate.
13. If you were truly being your authentic self, you would naturally choose to help others because you would find to do so is joyful.
14. The very point of physical existence is that you realize that your thoughts become matter while you are here, and matter can be vulnerable.
15. Physical reality is one valid aspect of a greater reality.
16. You are here to use, enjoy, and express yourself through the body.
17. The race suffers when any of its members die of starvation or disease
18. The world needs every hand and eye, and cries out for expression of love and caring.
19. The physical world, sex and the body are good.
20. There are infinite numbers of probable realities (parallel universes).
21. The present is the point of power.
22. Because of telepathy and simultaneous time, it may be said that there are no accidents.
23. Everyone chooses their birth situations and their exact moment and method of death.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:37 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Curious that none of the local staunch believers and instructors are piping up here in support...


Barrie Responds: Curious, too, that none of those who have studied the Seth material on this board and who reported back to you to share in your dismissal--are piping up here in support of your dismissals--not including one-liners--which they haven't even made anyway. Ask some of them to join us in a discussion.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:58 am

Barrie1 wrote:How do you know consciousness ends at death?
I clearly said when the neurons die, then so does consciousness.

Barrie Comments: But you ignored my followup question: Where is your evidence that when neurons die, then so does consciousness? Where is your evidence that the consciousness ends when nuerons die. Do radio waves end when you turn off the radio or the radio breaks? I think, using your reasoning, you would be compelled to say yes.


Barrie1 wrote:How do know which came first, consciousness or physical reality?
Physical reality came first with the formation of atoms 13.2 billion years ago. Modern human consciousness evolved 195,000 years ago.

Barrie Responds: You are stating what you believe to be true. How do you KNOW that physical reality came first? You are saying basically, "I know it because it is true." No one even knows what consciousness is--let alone what came first--or IF there even IS a first.

My turn. Your cult does not believe that animal souls can reincarnate in humans. So where did all the human souls come from, when homo erectus was being replaced by modern humans about 195,000 years ago?

Barrie Responds: I do not have a cult. It seems to me, tho, that your attachment to skeptism has created quite a cult for yourself. Human souls create more human souls. It is not a physical creation sort of thing. It is more of a focus and energy sort of thing. It is closer to a person putting forth a new idea than like a woman giving birth to a child.

Do you deny the theory of evolution? [/quote]

Barrie Responds: I believe evolution tells part of the story, but not the whole story.

By the way, I notice that you have once again ignored most of the questions and followup questions that I put to you, while you falsely claim how I do not answer your questions. Often, conversing with you is like talking to a wall...or a filter...you only let thru to your mind that which you feel can be of use to you to further your own ends...and you ignore the rest. You throw accusations and misstatements against the wall--and cling cult-like to those you believe stick--and ignore all the rest--because they do not support the contentions you are trying to prop up.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Curious that none of the local staunch believers and instructors are piping up here in support...
I asked Freebill, the "Ra the 1970s channeled alien" cult follower to join. He refuses to talk to a "Seth the 1970s channeled alien" follower, for obvious reasons. He knows we'd set them both up for a comical debate between cult members, belonging to similar "copy cat" cults for profit.


Gorgeous, who does follow Seth, can't join because I busted her inventing and faking her own brand new Seth quotes. Considering she also follows David Duke's KKK radio podcast, she knows she will get shredded.

As we have always observed on this forum. Cult members will never converse with other cult members. They simply come here to justify their existence by talking to normal people and spamming their religious propaganda. It's all they can do. :D

.


Barrie Responds: Matt, your ignorance is almost nauseating because it is matched with a bravado based on that ignorance--along with such a lack of kindness, compassion and empathy. It is sad to witness...like observing a broken flower. It does seem that you treat other people as animals you would enjoy pitting against each other--getting some sort of pleasure at the discomfort you try to create. The fact that other skeptics don't even speak up about this--I find as possible evidence that skeptics don't feel much for other people--I hope I am mistaken. Perhaps this is something that is behind their skepticism, if it is true.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:44 am

Barrie1 wrote:... The fact that other skeptics don't even speak up about this--I find as possible evidence that skeptics don't feel much for other people--I hope I am mistaken. Perhaps this is something that is behind their skepticism, if it is true.


Once more, blatant BS. You appear to be suffering from an extreme form of acute amnesia, Barrie1.

I will remind you once again - the default position of a skeptic is to require evidence. You have supplied none at all, instead preferring your juvenile "but you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore I win" technique. That technique can be applied equally effectively to gods, fairies, Santa Claus, any alien visitation, UFOs, ghosts, Ra, etc. (note the common characteristics) and will get you equally as far here. All you have demonstrated so far is that you have no basis to even begin a discussion other than 'someone claimed something and I choose to believe it'.

My belief is that you are either an uneducated wannabe or a cynical charlatan. There is more evidence of that right here in the threads in which you have posted than there is evidence of Seth in the entire universe.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:41 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... The fact that other skeptics don't even speak up about this--I find as possible evidence that skeptics don't feel much for other people--I hope I am mistaken. Perhaps this is something that is behind their skepticism, if it is true.


Once more, blatant BS. You appear to be suffering from an extreme form of acute amnesia, Barrie1.

I will remind you once again - the default position of a skeptic is to require evidence. You have supplied none at all, instead preferring your juvenile "but you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore I win" technique. That technique can be applied equally effectively to gods, fairies, Santa Claus, any alien visitation, UFOs, ghosts, Ra, etc. (note the common characteristics) and will get you equally as far here. All you have demonstrated so far is that you have no basis to even begin a discussion other than 'someone claimed something and I choose to believe it'.

My belief is that you are either an uneducated wannabe or a cynical charlatan. There is more evidence of that right here in the threads in which you have posted than there is evidence of Seth in the entire universe.


Barrie Responds: The default position may be to require evidence...but what does this have to do with what I have just said. I talked about the joy Matt says he would receive treating people like animals and watching them fight. I spoke of a general lack of compassion and empathy on this board--is that a default response or position as well. And yes, I also understand the requirement of evidence--but my purpose here is clarify all the misconceptions people have about the Seth material--and not to prove the truth of the Seth material. I believe I have repeated this very often.

People on this board, those who have posted on this topic, claim to understand the Seth material--and have dismissed it. I fully believe they would dismiss it once they actually understood it as well. But as of now, they do not. I did believe that even a skeptic would want to be correct about what they dismiss--that is--dismiss something that exists--and not their famtasy of it.

Most of what I read on this board concerning the Seth material--is false, is fantasy, is error. I really thought a skeptic of all people would have the drive or curiosity to actually know what they are talking about and then dismiss something in an intelligent fashion based on facts of what they are actually dismissing.

Maybe if I put it to you with a very simple analogy: Let's say you dismiss Santa Claus. Fine. But in your dismissal you characterize Santa Claus as a tree that speaks French. I would say to you, "Hold on. That is not what Santa is supposed to be. IF you are going to dismiss Santa, then at least know what people believe about him--and dismiss the "truth" of what Santa is--and not some fantasy you have in your mind about Santa." Do you get it yet what I am saying?

Do you, poodle (I don't often get to say that), believe you actually have a meaningful grasp of what the Seth material says in ANY ONE area of anything? I strongly doubt it. Yet, you dismiss it. Again, I am not trying to disabuse you of your dismissal--just inform you of the actual truth of what "Santa" is--before you dismiss something you think is Santa, or the Seth material, when it is not.

You are fixated on me trying to prove or convince you of anything. I am not. I am trying to CLARIFY what is in the Seth material--so that your dismissal is actually more intelligent.

Also, none of this excuses the lack of compassion and empathy--and the enabling of behaviors based on that. My experience from this board--is the MOST of the posters I have dealt with--don't seem to see those who disagree with them as human or as normal...and treat the "other" as if they are less than human--like Matt who would actually enjoy creating discomfort in people and watching them argue and fight. Do you not find that a distasteful desire?

By the way, there is a great deal of evidence about the existence of UFOs--but I have no desire to try to convince you of that. I am not concerned about what anyone on this board believes about UFOs--even ignorantly. But there has been a great number of sightings--from different positions and also on radar--with evidence left on the ground like radiation--along with videos or pics of these specific UFOs--seen by many etc etc etc. Redacted government documents, etc. I know you can't accept any of that...and that is fine with me. My topic of interest here--is the ignorance displayed concerning the Seth material--which leads to an unintelligent dismissal. I seek for you to acquire an intelligent dismissal. Then, at least, you and others, would know what they/you are talking about in regard at least to the Seth material.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:28 pm

Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... The fact that other skeptics don't even speak up about this--I find as possible evidence that skeptics don't feel much for other people--I hope I am mistaken. Perhaps this is something that is behind their skepticism, if it is true.


Once more, blatant BS. You appear to be suffering from an extreme form of acute amnesia, Barrie1.

I will remind you once again - the default position of a skeptic is to require evidence. You have supplied none at all, instead preferring your juvenile "but you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore I win" technique. That technique can be applied equally effectively to gods, fairies, Santa Claus, any alien visitation, UFOs, ghosts, Ra, etc. (note the common characteristics) and will get you equally as far here. All you have demonstrated so far is that you have no basis to even begin a discussion other than 'someone claimed something and I choose to believe it'.

My belief is that you are either an uneducated wannabe or a cynical charlatan. There is more evidence of that right here in the threads in which you have posted than there is evidence of Seth in the entire universe.


Barrie Responds: The default position may be to require evidence...but what does this have to do with what I have just said ...


Well, sort of everything, Barry1. You claimed above that other skeptics a) don't even speak up about this b) don't feel much for other people. I could disprove both statements easily, just by reading the content of this forum. Your claims were made on this forum and so are readily available to examine.

So it has EVERYTHING to do with what you just said. Basically, you were lying in the hope that no one had read what you actually posted. I think that's indisputable, Barry1.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:19 pm

This is like talking to "Al senior", isn't it? :roll:


(...or CMurdock...)
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Monster » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:27 pm

Barrie1, regarding evidence, the default position to all claims is one of disbelief. "I have a million dollars in my pocket." Do you believe that right away or disbelieve it? Do you believe it without evidence or must you have evidence before you believe it?

Perhaps I'm not explaining that in the most succinct way, but I think you understand me.

Regarding the Seth material, I've read fragments of it. I found that there was nothing to latch on to. In other words, nothing is testable.

EDIT: Also, UFO = unidentified. If you want to say alien spacecraft have been visiting Earth, say it. Don't use "UFO" to mean "alien spacecraft".
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:15 am

Monster wrote:Barrie1, regarding evidence, the default position to all claims is one of disbelief. "I have a million dollars in my pocket." Do you believe that right away or disbelieve it? Do you believe it without evidence or must you have evidence before you believe it?

Barrie Responds: I don't put all claims in the same basket. It depends who says what and what the claim is. To me, everything is first based on beliefs. Those who love science--have certain beliefs about the nature of reality in the FIRST place--BEFORE they then love and accept the knowledge of science as the full answer. There is no proof to their initial belief that there is no nonphysical realm. They accept that as "fact" because they believe it so deeply. Only after the belief is accepted via a leap of faith that the nature of reality is only physical--can science THEN be accepted as the only source of answers about life and the nature of the universe.

"Evidence" is solely based on the belief systems of those searching for evidence. IF someone believes a nonphysical realm exists--it changes the nature of the evidence they will seek and accept. Thus, certain types of coincidence may be seen as "evidence" to one group of thinkers--while another group would not accept it as evidence. IF a child has knowledge of a past life that there is no way he could know--his family was never in the town he describes accurately, people the child talks about existed, etc etc--to a person who believes in life after death--THIS IS EVIDENCE. To someone else, they will come up with some other explanation because this "evidence" does not fit their beliefs concerning the nature of reality in the first place.

Getting back to your question, I question everything--based on my beliefs about the nature of reality. I accept nothing Seth says because he says it, for example. My belief that jane is sincere is based on my attendance at the Seth classes in Elmira, where I had first hand experience and observation of Jane and Seth, interacting with them. I have also read the books...and so I know the doubts they had and the tests they put themselves thru. According to my belief system about the nature of reality and the nature of Jane--who I met, and Seth, etc--I believe she is totally sincere and not a money-hungry phony and fake. Now, this does not mean that therefore automatically Seth IS what Seth and jane claim Seth is. But given the concepts, the philosophies, concepts and explanations of them--and my beliefs about the nature of reality--it makes sense.

My whole view of reality is such that I believe in the deepest sense--there are no facts--we speculate and assume we we are correct--that something is a fact--and then we act AS IF it is a fact. We do this in order to function successfully on the planet. I would not say I KNOW gravity exists or that there IS life after death...I speculate on them--I assume--and then I act as if. In many cases, the point is moot--for when you act as if there are facts--it is the same in a practical sense as there being facts.

Let's take gravity: I speculate, is there gravity? From what I've read about it, experience of it...I assume that there is gravity--and then I act as if gravity exists. When I drop a pencil, I will assume it will fall to the desk and not fly up to the ceiling. This is MY way of dealing with and interacting with reality and I see it. So, this is what I will call "knowing."

So, I would therefore say that no one really knows anything...what they all do and we all do...is speculate and assume...and act as if.

Monster Continues: Perhaps I'm not explaining that in the most succinct way, but I think you understand me.

Barrie Responds: I don't know. You tell me.

Monster Continues: Regarding the Seth material, I've read fragments of it. I found that there was nothing to latch on to. In other words, nothing is testable.

Barrie Responds: I guess you may correctly say that in the fragments you read, you found that there was nothing to latch on to; nothing testable. Of course, you also do imply that there are huge chunks and hunks of the Seth material that you have not read--and so you can't really speak concerning if anything testable is found in those areas or not. You know, there is that parable about the five blind men declaring they know what an elephant is.

What are the concepts found in the fragments of the Seth material you read? Do you believe you fully or meaningfully understood those concepts--even tho you found them untestable?

I haven't read any of his books, but I've heard there is a man named Norman Friedman who wrote about science or quantum physics and the Seth material.

Monster Continues: EDIT: Also, UFO = unidentified. If you want to say alien spacecraft have been visiting Earth, say it. Don't use "UFO" to mean "alien spacecraft".

Barrie Responds: Perhaps you are not aware, but Poodles is the one who used the term UFOs--and I just used the term that he used. I did not want to say alien spacecraft or not alien spacecraft. Poodles used the term "UFOs" and I kept with the term he used.

When it comes to UFOs--I believe they do exist and are a number of different things, not just one thing from one place. I do believe ONE of the things they are, are alien spacecraft. I believe that there is much more is going on with what we call UFOs.

But to get back to outright dismissal: Right now, there are lot of things in the Seth material--that many scientists and skeptics (not all) may readily agree with--or at least lean in that direction. Here are some brief examples, for there are more:

1. Free will exists
2. There is no heaven or hell.
3. There are infinite numbers of probable realities (parallel universes).
4. The ends do not justify the means.
5. The race suffers when any of its members die of starvation or disease
6. The physical world, sex and the body are good.
7. There is no karmic punishment.
8. Time is simultaneous.

This is the way I see time: I compare it to light. Light is "One"--it goes thru a prism and becomes "many" -- the many colors of the rainbow. Time is like that. It is One--or simultaneous--it goes thru the "prism" of physical reality and becomes linear with a past, present and potential futures.

Another thing, as I see it, there is a huge difference between dismissing something because you see it as untestable versus dismissing something as crap, etc--because it IS untestable -- as some proud skeptics do. Those are two very different things--and I'm sure over the years--as science has progressed--many things that were not testable at one time--later became testable and were proven as true--and before they were testable--they should not have been considered rubbish or crap--but just as untestable.

There are a strong displays of emotional outrage some skeptics display--which I believe is a very significant tip of a significant iceberg concerning an unspoken, intrinsic part of being a radical or cultish skeptic. There is actually nothing intrinsic to the healthful position of being skeptical and seeing the world as you see it--but strong outbursts and rants are red flags to me that there is much more going on here--that remains hidden and unspoken.

I also believe that one day--a great of what is now considered paranormal or supernatural will be proven by science. The tests have not yet been conceived because the imagination has not yet opened up to the true and full nature of reality. Instruments are being created which only test the "camouflage" reality--the physical objects and what is detectable via the five senses. I believe these answers are already being found in the quantum realm--and there is a connection between the "facts" of quantum reality and the experiences of the nonphysical realm. For example, in the quantum realm it is believed that time as we experience it linearly--does not exist; and things can be in two places at the same time...and many more things--that just "happen" to be true when it comes to things believed about the nonphysical side of existence.

Back to evidence and study: I believe that theoretical physicists would find a lot to study and try to figure out mathematically in regard to things found in the Seth material. Seth actually said that all he says will one day be proven mathematically.

This is a long quote, but you may find it of interest:

Seth (Session 410; May 8, 1968): “It goes without saying that as you create physical reality you also form the other planes of existence in which you operate. You do operate simultaneously within all levels of reality and if you become familiar with various coordinates, the self that you know could become aware of your own other existences.

“Your scientific fields of endeavor may stumble upon the MATHEMATICAL probabilities involved in such other fields within, perhaps, a 60-year period, but they will not recognize the significance of the discovery--which will probably be made in an attempt to obtain more data concerning an IDEA related to Einstein’s special field theory. This related idea will be developed by another scientist, based on the Einsteinean concept.

“It is very possible that physics rather than psychology will give the first hint that human personality is multidimensional and that the inner reality of the mind far surpassed the physical universe that is attempts to probe…

“New discoveries of the qualities INHERENT in the molecule will lead to an understanding of molecular consciousness, at least a rudimentary knowledge. The implications here, again, will not be recognized for some time.

“Together, psychology and physics could bring about a new understanding of the nature of man, but the hints and signs will remain dormant and unused.

“Physicists, however, will be forced to recognize that the energy within molecular structures HAS ITS ORIGIN ELSEWHERE. They will be forced to postulate the existence of an unknown force, ALWAYS EXISTING despite newer current theories. No postulated new force theory will be able to explain reality.

“I want to make this clear: no postulated new force theory will answer their questions until it is realized that no system is closed, and that the physical universe is not the origin of, but the result of, the energy that they seek.

“The physical universe is like a very poor photograph. As the pictures and representations in a photograph are only dim, complete symbols for the people and objects they represent, so the physical universe is but a dim image of the reality for which it stands.

“You would learn little of what it means subjectively to be a human being by simply studying a picture of one. And you learn little of basic reality by studying the physical universe AS IF IT WERE MORE than a symbol of what it represents.

“True identity is as much divorced from ego reality as the photograph is from the person. There are connections between an individual and his photograph, and there are connections between the physical individual and the inner self, but the person must recognize the image in the photograph, FOR IT WILL NOT RECOGNIZE HIM.”



Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:25 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... The fact that other skeptics don't even speak up about this--I find as possible evidence that skeptics don't feel much for other people--I hope I am mistaken. Perhaps this is something that is behind their skepticism, if it is true.


Once more, blatant BS. You appear to be suffering from an extreme form of acute amnesia, Barrie1.

I will remind you once again - the default position of a skeptic is to require evidence. You have supplied none at all, instead preferring your juvenile "but you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore I win" technique. That technique can be applied equally effectively to gods, fairies, Santa Claus, any alien visitation, UFOs, ghosts, Ra, etc. (note the common characteristics) and will get you equally as far here. All you have demonstrated so far is that you have no basis to even begin a discussion other than 'someone claimed something and I choose to believe it'.

My belief is that you are either an uneducated wannabe or a cynical charlatan. There is more evidence of that right here in the threads in which you have posted than there is evidence of Seth in the entire universe.


Barrie Responds: The default position may be to require evidence...but what does this have to do with what I have just said ...


Poodle Writes: Well, sort of everything, Barry1. You claimed above that other skeptics a) don't even speak up about this b) don't feel much for other people. I could disprove both statements easily, just by reading the content of this forum. Your claims were made on this forum and so are readily available to examine.

Barrie NOW Responds: No one has spoken up since I have come to this board and have been "greeted" by insults, emotional rants and rudeness, etc--and even the wish that a person had to sit back and watch other people fight--as if he was enjoying human discomfort. Perhaps in the past there have been times that skeptics confronted other skeptics about their behavior in response to those who disagree with them--but I have not experienced it here--and so I speak of my experience--as you do--when it comes to your understanding of the Seth material--and of me.

Poodle Writes: So it has EVERYTHING to do with what you just said. Basically, you were lying in the hope that no one had read what you actually posted. I think that's indisputable, Barry1.

Barrie Responds: That's a perfect example--you and some other skeptics I have been interacting with on this board--take a leap of faith to see those they disagree with in the worst possible light. You believe I am lying; you believe I hope no one actually reads when I post. Then, you claim that is indisputable. This is a joke I hope. You really believe I would spend hours writing on this board in the hope that one one reads it? That says so much more about your lack of faith in people than about me--and perhaps that is why you call yourself Poodle--altho dogs have much more faith in humans than you seem to display right now.


User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:58 am

You know, Barrie1 - your goalposts move faster than a dog after a rabbit.

Here's your technique as closely observed by yours truly ...

Barrie1 ... STATEMENT1
Others ... RESPONSEn
Barrie1 ... SIDESTEP and NEWSTATEMENT1
Others ... WTF? WHERESSTATEMENT1
Barrie1 ... NONO and BULLINTRO
Others ... EXPLAINSKEPTICISM
Barrie1 ... ACCUSE
Others ... REPEATWTF
Barrie1 ... COMPLAIN
Others ... RINSEANDREPEAT

You're defending inane rubbish on a forum dedicated to scientific skepticism. You have already changed tack and now claim to be explaining said rubbish rather than upholding it. It is your absolute right to believe in any old {!#%@} you like but that right does not extend to immunity from insult on such a forum as this - so stop whingeing.

Now - here's the thing you completely and utterly fail to grasp (and I can speak only for myself, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of members feel the same way to a greater or lesser degree) - your conceit and arrogance in coming here to attempt to explain what has already been completely debunked, followed by an attempted reclassification of the concept of evidence, followed by your accusations that we won't even give you a chance to explain, followed by your complaints about our insults quickly followed by insults of your own, is an all-too familiar pattern on this forum. It's what every charlatan who comes here does. So far, you have followed the pattern perfectly.

You are the Jehovah's Witness of the forum. continually knocking on the door with the same message despite being told to take your infantile stories elsewhere (and there I run the risk of insulting all infants). You will notice, I'm sure, that our resident Sethist (bless her cotton socks) has not rushed to your defence. I can't imagine why not, but I suspect that even she has spotted your boringly familiar technique.

Feel free to carry on if you really enjoy wasting your life. However, you will henceforth be completely ignored by me as I have better things to do (watching paint dry, painting grass green, and counting air all seem applicable).

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:10 am

Poodle wrote:You know, Barrie1 - your goalposts move faster than a dog after a rabbit.

Here's your technique as closely observed by yours truly ...

Barrie1 ... STATEMENT1
Others ... RESPONSEn
Barrie1 ... SIDESTEP and NEWSTATEMENT1
Others ... WTF? WHERESSTATEMENT1
Barrie1 ... NONO and BULLINTRO
Others ... EXPLAINSKEPTICISM
Barrie1 ... ACCUSE
Others ... REPEATWTF
Barrie1 ... COMPLAIN
Others ... RINSEANDREPEAT

You're defending inane rubbish on a forum dedicated to scientific skepticism. You have already changed tack and now claim to be explaining said rubbish rather than upholding it. It is your absolute right to believe in any old {!#%@} you like but that right does not extend to immunity from insult on such a forum as this - so stop whingeing.

Now - here's the thing you completely and utterly fail to grasp (and I can speak only for myself, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of members feel the same way to a greater or lesser degree) - your conceit and arrogance in coming here to attempt to explain what has already been completely debunked, followed by an attempted reclassification of the concept of evidence, followed by your accusations that we won't even give you a chance to explain, followed by your complaints about our insults quickly followed by insults of your own, is an all-too familiar pattern on this forum. It's what every charlatan who comes here does. So far, you have followed the pattern perfectly.

You are the Jehovah's Witness of the forum. continually knocking on the door with the same message despite being told to take your infantile stories elsewhere (and there I run the risk of insulting all infants). You will notice, I'm sure, that our resident Sethist (bless her cotton socks) has not rushed to your defence. I can't imagine why not, but I suspect that even she has spotted your boringly familiar technique.

Feel free to carry on if you really enjoy wasting your life. However, you will henceforth be completely ignored by me as I have better things to do (watching paint dry, painting grass green, and counting air all seem applicable).


Barrie NOW Responds: I’ve moved no goal posts and never changed tack at all. I’ve always maintained that my purpose here is to clarify what is in the Seth material—because everyone so far—has it mostly wrong and very shallow. This way, at least when you disagree with it—you know what you are talking about as to the substance of the material—and so your disagreements are more intelligently based.

People here are free to reject and dismiss whatever they want—with my support. I don’t believe that anyone should betray their own hearts and minds in regard to their beliefs about the Seth material. But my point is that you may as well dismiss what you at least understand—otherwise you end up debunking ideas that are not even there. Once you grasp what is actually in the Seth material, then debunk it to your heart’s content—while at least knowing what you’re talking about. By the way, the concept of “debunking” is a very subjective one.

There are plenty of concepts in the Seth material that people of science would not find rubbish and may actively be exploring—the idea of simultaneous time, of parallel universes, questions regarding the existence of free will, the full nature of electromagnetic waves and consciousness, what is consciousness and how did it actually come about? Did consciousness or physical reality come first? Was there a first in the first place? These questions are actively being explored by many in science—who I assume don’t believe they are wasting their time exploring rubbish. But if you see rubbish, then for you that is what it is. Rubbish is in the mind of the observer.

Before a person can discover mathematical formulas, they need the imagination to envision what they wish to explain. This is why Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge...but do skeptics even believe that imagination exists? And if it does, how valuable is it? Put it under a slide and find out.

Allow me to give you an example of how you misunderstand things or make things up...and it’s the tip of the iceberg:

You claim that I have said that this board “won’t even give (me) a chance to explain” anything. That is absolutely not true. I never said that, nor do I believe that. I’ve had every opportunity to explain and say anything that I have wanted to explain or say.

I have said that people’s behavior is very rude—which to me displays or exposes an insecurity about who they are and what they believe. Now, is that an insult? I don’t believe so. I also said that some people ask questions and then ignore the answers and pretend I never answered them. But I am and I feel totally free to express whatever I want—and never said or implied otherwise. Yet, here you are—making your false accusations.

When I mention how rude some active posters are on this board, I am not whining about it. I am reporting what I observe. It is sad to me—that people who I assume have some sort of intelligence find it necessary to so callously display such a lack of compassion and empathy. I see it as a sad microcosm of what is behind many problems in the world-at-large.

By the way, please feel free to ignore my posts or respond to them. That is always your choice; not mine. And enjoy whatever decisions you make.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29089
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Gord » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:26 am

Barrie, why do you believe in the Seth material?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:03 pm

Gord wrote:Barrie, why do you believe in the Seth material?


Barrie Responds: Gord, thanks for your question. I will fully answer it, but I wish to first give some background comments to explain that your question is not as black & white as you may believe. And remember, I will fully answer you.

First, it should be recognized that the Seth material is vast with much to it—that one answer does not fit. There are concepts found in the Seth material—that science has and does look into and accept—and there is much that is very much like psychology and is true on that level.

Then, the area your question alludes to, there is the expansive underlying foundation of the metaphysical concepts—which unfortunately, as I see it, prevents skeptics from seeing the full depth of the Seth material. This leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak...throwing out or refusing to look at or see the acceptable parts, because the other parts are seen as so repugnant, and not simply wrong or mistaken, that one must never look further, so to speak.

The following concepts and/or questions would not automatically be dismissed by scientists—quantum and otherwise: Do parallel universes (or probable realities) exist? Is time linear or simultaneous—everything happening at once somehow? Does physical reality itself blink or flicker in and out or on and off—and if so, where does it go when it blinks “off?” Can anything be in two places at the same time? What is consciousness and how is it related to electromagnetic energy? Is there a connection between consciousness and what we physically see? And there are more, these are just off the top of my head now. These are “legitimate” questions and concepts even to skeptics or scientists.

And then there are psychological issues and questions regarding the ego, the self, conscious vs subconscious, emotions and interacting with people—which are very much accepted in the field of psychology.

AND THEN, there are the “controversial” parts – to which your question probably concerns. Things like life after death, you create your own reality via your beliefs, there are no accidents, and so forth.

In my answer below, at some point, I will use the phrase...”because it rings true deep down inside.” This is a loaded comment with many tentacles and is much misunderstood—so I believe it best be explained. On one psychological level, this “ringing true inside” operates when you meet someone—and you get the feeling to trust or not trust the person, etc. Not that you are always correct—but that is how the “answer” comes to you—it rings true deep down inside concerning that person you met—or see walking toward you. This area involves intellect, intuition, imagination, associations, and so forth. Should you trust this person? Be afraid? And on and on?

The major foundation that separates skeptics from those who accept metaphysical concepts—concerns very deeply held beliefs about what actually IS the nature of reality or physical reality?

Is reality just physical or is there a nonphysical aspect to reality? Physics versus metaphysics. I believe the two are heading to the same place—but arriving there from opposite directions—heading toward each other where they will meet.

Meanwhile, whatever the the answer to the question, “What IS the nature of reality?” – is something that is FIRST accepted as true deep down inside—because it rings true deep down inside--based on tentacles of beliefs held. Only then, once that answer is accepted deep down inside, does the path become clear on how to find answers to it, what to look for, what to dismiss, what to accept, what instruments to make and what and how to test, what to include, what questions to ask and which answers to accept or reject, and why, etc etc.

The INITIAL acceptance of your answer concerning the question: Is there more to physical reality than meets the five senses? — Is FIRST accepted as true because it FIRST rings true deep down inside—whatever side you choose to join or believe in.

There is an allegorical hint of this when it comes to classic science and quantum science: Is the table solid (classic science) or totally not solid at all (quantum science). Their dual searches should model the way for “both” sides (skeptics and nonskeptics) to interact without conflict. Every disbelieved idea does not have to be ridiculed by the other side. Both religion and science have a long history of doing this. The concept of germs and meteors are but two examples. In religion, look no further than the Inquisition and the Crusades. The Seth material does not do so because the Seth material ACCEPTS both sides. It accepts science, but thinks there is more going on than science accepts at the moment.

SO, with that background, now to my answers to you question. And basically, your question has two parts:

1. Question: Do I believe whatever Seth says because he says it. Answer: No.
2. Question: Do I believe Jane is sincere and Seth is who they say he is? Answer: Yes.

But I will try my best to answer “both” your questions—and if I missed a third one couched in the original—then please ask:

QUESTION: WHAT DID IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU A BELIEVER IN SETH?
For me, it wasn’t a question of believing in Seth or not. I never would just blindly accept something because Seth said it. For me, it was more of choice to take him seriously or not. First, there was a sincerity that rang thru—Seth seemed serious—as in focused and intense and caring. And Jane sometimes seemed more spacey—with a much higher voice—but still, when she wanted--very serious, focused and intense. It was what Seth said that made me listen more to what he said. What he said simply rang true both when I first heard him and then also as I kept digging into it. Certain things just made sense to me on inner levels...about death, karma, time, compassion, sex, bodies, thoughts, beliefs, cellular memory, spiritual biology, etc. I then I figured—on one level—it mattered not what Seth was or was not—because the material was so good. But then, IF Seth was really a personality without a body—that in itself—meant a lot—that there is no death as we usually think of it, etc.

Seth had to word his concepts thru the filters and vocabulary of Jane's belief system. I took into consideration what Seth said, as I would with anyone. If you told me something, and it rang true, I'd say, "Yeah, that's right." Same with Seth. I must say, tho, he sure did have a lot of great things and viewpoints to discuss; and many innovative thoughts to bathe in and enjoy...many of which seemed to spring solely from him...with no buds or sprouts in any other philosophies I had read...about simultaneous time, dreams continuing after you wake up, you create your own reality (YCROR), and so forth.

Also, Seth always turned the power back to his readers—and shunned the idea of dogma and/or gospel—or any organized religious attachments to his concepts. For example, he never said that we need Seth; that we are somehow less or dumb, and that HE had the answers and so you must forsake yourselves and look to Seth for the answers. This attitude was an anathema to the Seth material. He always said that we already had the answers. And we needed no one but our selves.

QUESTION: DID YOU EVER SUSPECT JANE BEING A FAKE?
No. I didn’t have enough time to formulate the question. Immediately, upon meeting Jane & then Seth—they seemed very sincere without wanting anything in return. Initially, I knew I had to see and assess for myself what was going on...if I believed in what was happening or not. Short of being an out-and-out fake, it could have been that I did not believe her, altho i believed that she was sincere.

In any case, nothing ever struck me as fake or phony. No catch phrases, no pitches for money. She made money thru her books, and she did not need the class in order to sell books. She did not pursue fame or fortune. She shunned publicity and interviews. What was there to gain by being a fake and a recluse, too.

Remember, Rob and Jane devoted basically 21 years of their life to having sessions and documenting them, and so forth—along with years of what they called “classes” – and all for no pitch for money – or signs of some sort of scam—sucking people in and then charging lots of money—pushing how much they need Seth, etc.

The opposite was true. Seth’s main message was that you didn’t need him—that his voice was but a dim echo of our own voice—and if you ask a question—that is like a flag telling yourself that somewhere inside you have already found the answer—and so you are better off asking youself. He would say that if I answered your question, you would have only half the answer—while thinking you had the whole answer—and stop looking. Yet, he would often answer questions—but it ways that empowered the questioner.

Anyway, witnessing what Seth said and how he said it...the words, the pauses, the insights, the humor...it all seemed real & sincere to me. It’s the same thing with the books. And then, anyway, regardless of the true source, the information was so fascinating. If she got it from her unconscious, from a chipmonk, from a fire hydrant, or from a homeless guy who lived on the corner...it still rang true and had meaning; it still was breakthru material I heard no where else; and it still was very helpful and positive...turning me towards myself for the answers...not towards anyone or anything else.

Barrie Now Comments: If you have any follow up comments or questions, please feel free...

Be well & happy,
Barrie

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:19 pm

How many of you do you think there are in/with you?


Or should I ask, who do you think you're channeling?
Hi, Io the lurker.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:31 am

scrmbldggs wrote:How many of you do you think there are in/with you?

Or should I ask, who do you think you're channeling?


Are these questions asked of me? They don't quite fully make sense...but given our past discourse--I have to ask: Do you really want to know the answers or are you just looking for material to make fun of?

IF you sincerely wish to understand another perspective other than your own, then I would ask you to elaborate on your questions, if possible, and I will gladly try to answer you.

IF you really don't give care about the answers--and instead are just trying to instigate continued hostility...and asking questions in order to ridicule the answers..that is not so much fun, of interest or something to learn from...except maybe to choose to avoid...so what is your purpose? I ask because I am trying to learn from our previous interactions.

So...if you are attempting serious discourse, please elaborate your question...if possible. IF you can't elaborate but want serious, friendly discourse--just let me know and I'll answer your questions as they stand, the best I can.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:35 pm

That is a, um, novel answer. Can't decide if you're dodging or simply like to go on...


The question is, "How many Barries are in your head, Barrie1?" (And which one is touchiest and whinging the most about inquiry and disagreement being a form of attack after inviting him/herself to the party?)

Another question: Are/were you a disciple of the Aetherius Society? For you sure sound as pompous as their imaginary friends...


Edit: Added link for those inquiring minds. :-P
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:07 pm

Hello. Sorry to intrude into an area which I have forsworn, but I thought I felt the Earth move. Has someone in here performed any seismic sidesteps lately? I ask only in the interests of the safety of the forum members.

http://www.sethnet.org/directory/sethia ... ellis.html

http://www.oocities.org/athens/olympus/7723/w-view.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Barrie-Gellis/e/B002BM45K6

$219.99?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:25 pm

:beamup:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:46 am

Poodle wrote:Hello. Sorry to intrude into an area which I have forsworn, but I thought I felt the Earth move. Has someone in here performed any seismic sidesteps lately? I ask only in the interests of the safety of the forum members.

http://www.sethnet.org/directory/sethia ... ellis.html

http://www.oocities.org/athens/olympus/7723/w-view.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Barrie-Gellis/e/B002BM45K6

$219.99?


I have no idea why my poetry book is listed there at that price. It costs $12 and the Kindle is $9.

I just clicked on the Amazon link and you missed this one: $1,941.21 + $3.99 shipping
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing ... 259&sr=1-1
Last edited by Barrie1 on Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:05 am

scrmbldggs wrote:That is a, um, novel answer. Can't decide if you're dodging or simply like to go on...


The question is, "How many Barries are in your head, Barrie1?" (And which one is touchiest and whinging the most about inquiry and disagreement being a form of attack after inviting him/herself to the party?)

Another question: Are/were you a disciple of the Aetherius Society? For you sure sound as pompous as their imaginary friends...


Edit: Added link for those inquiring minds. :-P


You know that you don't give a monkey's fart concerning my answers to your questions. How about trusting my clear explanations as to why I hesitate to respond. I am not dodging or simply going on--but I am very surprised at the huge degree of dishonesty on this board--regarding those who have responded to my posts--and this fact does affect my motivation to answer questions that I know you really don't care about the answers--and you do enjoy a monologue of making fun just as much as if I did answer--so you don't even need me. The fact is, I came here very trusting--and sadly realize otherwise now.

IF ever you get the insults and need to insult out of your system--and some honesty comes back into your questions--I would be happy to answer them. IF you want to actually understand a perspective that is not identical to yours--I would be happy to answer them. But to answer such a deceptive and uncaring mindset that solely wishes to mock and make fun--seems pointless--as my purpose and goal here is to clarify all the misconceptions I have found here on this board. Luckily for you, you find it seamless to mock and make fun--if I answer or not. So, for you, it is a win-win situation. For me, it is an eye-opening sad situation--for a group I had respected--those who are skeptical of things--has so not met my expectations as being curious and caring human beings. Again, I speak of most of those who have responded to me. I cannot speak about all the board members.

Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states--but rather I feel like I'm back in junior high school overhearing bullies talk at the next table in the cafeteria.

Now, if someone thinks that my intention is to insult, he would be mistaken. I am not attempting to make fun. I am seriously attempting to express what I experience and witness on this board so far--in the responses to me. There have been a few honest people, but for the most part--people are just metaphorically drooling in order to find something to make fun of. What kind of a mental state is that to carry around? It is a sad one. I don't believe I read mocking bullying and intellectual stifling as part of your mission statement.

Yet, if you ever you do have any serious questions...please ask them...and I will happily answer them--and don't lie and pretend otherwise...if you can help it.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:23 am

Barrie1 wrote:... Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states ...


We do.

Please inform us when you've begun.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jul 03, 2016 3:38 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states ...


We do.

Please inform us when you've begun.


Barrie Responds: Ho ho ho, Poodle. How cleaver. Thanks for being such a model example of exactly what I have been talking about and experiencing on this board.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:35 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states ...


We do.

Please inform us when you've begun.


Barrie Responds: Ho ho ho, Poodle. How cleaver...



 
Spoiler:
 
Hi, Io the lurker.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:38 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states ...


We do.

Please inform us when you've begun.


Barrie Responds: Ho ho ho, Poodle. How cleaver...



 
Spoiler:
 


I should have wrote, "How cleavage..."

santa cleavage.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:04 am

Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... Sadly, I eagerly assumed that a skeptic group would welcome intellectual exploration and understanding--as the board's mission states ...


We do.

Please inform us when you've begun.


Barrie Responds: Ho ho ho, Poodle. How cleaver...



 
Spoiler:
 


I should have wrote, "How cleavage..."

santa cleavage.jpg



"... should have wrote ...". You claim to be a poet. I see that's probably a lie too.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:19 pm

It's her shoes... :-P
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Flash » Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:57 pm

Poodle reply to Barrie1:
You claim to be a poet. I see that's probably a lie too.

There is always a room for very bad poets...like Barrie and very bad philosophers...like Barrie, and believers with their "whole gut" into total BS...like Barrie.

:nea: Barrrrrrrrie! lay off philosophy and science. You are extremely bad at it. Take up basket weaving, that will keep you busy and will stop you from trying to sell your mental vomit books for over 200 dollars on Amazon. Take care, good luck with your basket works. :fsm:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:54 am

Barrie and Jane.JPG


Is that you?
Barry.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:06 am

Flash wrote:Poodle reply to Barrie1:
You claim to be a poet. I see that's probably a lie too.

There is always a room for very bad poets...like Barrie and very bad philosophers...like Barrie, and believers with their "whole gut" into total BS...like Barrie.

:nea: Barrrrrrrrie! lay off philosophy and science. You are extremely bad at it. Take up basket weaving, that will keep you busy and will stop you from trying to sell your mental vomit books for over 200 dollars on Amazon. Take care, good luck with your basket works. :fsm:


Pretty Flashy, flash. Keep up the cleaver--I see my original typo fits better than the intended "clever" -- I feel like I'm visiting an emotional leper colony-- very sad.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:46 am

Barrie1 wrote: I feel like I'm visiting an emotional leper colony-- very sad.
Well as a very happy leper, at least I can say I follow the scientific method, as opposed to people who base their life on "woo stories" of channelled reincarnated aliens, when those same people don't have a clue how the channelled alien actually communicates.

We have had more than fifteen cult followers on this forum claiming that the voices in their head, channelled aliens, talking statues, or the words of Jesus, must all be totally true because the message just makes sense to them, personally and subjectively.

We skeptics go the next step, because of our natural human curiosity and ask how was the message actually technically communicated? You people just accept things and are followers. We're different. :D

Try another forum.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: I feel like I'm visiting an emotional leper colony-- very sad.
Well as a very happy leper, at least I can say I follow the scientific method, as opposed to people who base their life on "woo stories" of channelled reincarnated aliens, when those same people don't have a clue how the channelled alien actually communicates.

We have had more than fifteen cult followers on this forum claiming that the voices in their head, channelled aliens, talking statues, or the words of Jesus, must all be totally true because the message just makes sense to them, personally and subjectively.

We skeptics go the next step, because of our natural human curiosity and ask how was the message actually technically communicated? You people just accept things and are followers. We're different. :D

Try another forum.


Matt Writes: We have had more than fifteen cult followers on this forum claiming that the voices in their head, channelled aliens, talking statues, or the words of Jesus, must all be totally true because the message just makes sense to them, personally and subjectively.

Barrie Responds: I'm not claiming any voices in my head and I am not claiming that anything is totally true. You have an amazing ability to make things up in your head and believe they are true. For example, Jane was a drunk alcoholic money-grubber and people in class were laughing at her. Total 100 percent fantasy on your part. And that is just the tip of your fantasy iceberg. Almost everything you say, you get wrong. You have no idea what I base my life on. You have no idea about the Seth material. You have no idea about me. All you have is your "believer" subjective beliefs about these things that you make up in your head (hearing voices?) that personally and subjectively make sense to you.

You have shown no intellectual curiosity at all to understand people or to explore ideas that you don't understand. I am not saying that you would agree with all of the ideas--but just that you don't understand them at all--and yet proudly reject them as if you did understand them--much like a religious zealot.

This is sad, to me, on a skeptic board--for I encourage all people to be skeptical, generally speaking, until they believe otherwise in and/or by one way or the other.

I have responded to you, Matt, personally and to others as well, and have asked you questions--and my words have fallen into an abyss of self-righteousness--sad to say. A few people have displayed some brave desire to explore outside of their box, in order to understand what is there--instead of operating in self-imposed darkness, like you---who engages solely in monologue with intent to ridicule. Very sad...in my opinion.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:03 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: We have had more than fifteen cult followers on this forum claiming that the voices in their head, channelled aliens, talking statues, or the words of Jesus, must all be totally true because the message just makes sense to them, personally and subjectively.
Barrie1 wrote: I'm not claiming any voices in my head and I am not claiming that anything is totally true.
You have reincarnated souls in your head and your religious text comes from a channelled alien. Did you forget? :D


Barrie1 wrote: For example, Jane was a drunk alcoholic money-grubber and people in class were laughing at her.
She was an alcoholic and no one has ever died of rheumatoid arthritis, as you claimed she did. That's just cult propaganda. :D

Barrie1 wrote: You have no idea what I base my life on.
Seth the fictional alien, channelled by an ex-science fiction writer. Did you forget again?

Barrie1 wrote: You have shown no intellectual curiosity at all to understand people or to explore ideas that you don't understand.
I have asked you five times to describe the physics of your ridiculous religious cult claims..........you ran away every time. It's what you cult followers do. :D


Jane roberts 2jpg.jpg
carla_rueckert_2.jpg
Zippy on sundays.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:31 am

Barrie, as you have probably picked up on, we have another Seth cult member on this very forum, called Gorgeous. She will not post in this thread. That's probably because I caught her faking her own Jane Roberts quotes and she knows I will compare her Jane Roberts quotes with yours, for our skeptic entertainment. Gorgeous also believes that alien lizards control Earth...and that the Illuminati also control the world.......simultaneously.

We also have a "Ra the channelled ancient alien spirit" cult member. He won't join this thread either.

In fact for the last ten years we can never get one cult follower to engage another cult follower in conversation.

So why do cult members who hear voices in their heads, or get info from channelled aliens, talking trees, magical statues and pixies all want to post on a science based skeptic forum, that debunks cults? Well it's probably all about their low self esteem. They can't justify their ridiculous belief systems at all, so they repeat and spam their propaganda, on this forum "to teach us scientists a lesson". In reality they give us insight into cult psychological behaviour.

Are you aware our forum host wrote a famous book?
Shermer.jpg


I suggest to you that offering your subjective feelings about following a 70's cult, without offering any physics for your claim, is not going to get you far on a science based forum that debunks cult claims.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests