Debunking The Ra Material

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:29 am

Intro:

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:I'd be interested if you could give me a once and for all refutation of the possibility that The Ra Materials authentic.


Done. First, you start a new thread and describe the Ra Materials and cite anything from that material that claims it is real. I and other skeptic members of this forum, will then systematically debunk the Ra Materials using standard Skeptic and critical thinking tools.

I think this is a good idea, as it will let members perform good old, basic and systematic debunking, using all tools. If any off us have gaps in our "tools boxes", then we can also discuss those. Let's do this by the book.


Background (from Wikipedia)

The Ra Material (known as the The Law of One in later editions) is a collected series of transcripts, of more than 100 sessions, reputedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra,claimed to be a group of individual souls at a "higher level of spiritual evolution" that were "channeled" by Carla L. Rueckert (McCarty) in the early 1980s.


Subject Matter

The substantial body of The Ra Material is available for free from:

http://www.lawofone.info/

and

http://www.llresearch.org/library/the_law_of_one_pdf/the_law_of_one_pdf.aspx


Methodology

I suggest as a starting point we focus just on the transcripts, not the authors/publishers/background to the channeling or the underlaying outlandishness of the claims and narrative - it is very obvious to almost all of us here that these channellings seem absurd/unscientific and deeply connected to NAW (New Age Woo), but that doesn't mean they are hoaxes or mistakes.

In terms of some kind of metric for evidence I can think of three initial scopes:

1) Internal contradiction: At t1 Ra says P and at t2 Ra says not P.
2) Scientific inconsistency: Ra says X but the known laws of nature say not X.
3) Historical/Contingent inconsistency: Ra says X happened like Y but historians etc say X happened like Z.


For example, when talking about the Nazca lines:

20.43 Questioner: I think I understand then. Then these lines are just the faint traces of what used to be there?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.


I think this seems inconsistent with the historical claim that the lines are just made by moving small surface rocks and not remnants of larger structures. This isn't an internal contradiction, but it does seem to contradict our current knowledge about the Nazca lines. Do we then conclude that the corpus of the Ra Material is bunk?

Love and Light and reason and rationality:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:34 am

Avoiding "Strawman" Debunking
I suggest what we first need to establish is if anyone claims the Ra Material is actually real. I say this because I am not allowed to argue against my own "strawman" argument, if no one has said actually this. Indeed, promoters of Ra Material may avoid claiming it is real to avoid scrutiny by skeptics.

Let's us read the books intro and see if anyone claims the aliens, talking through humans, are real.


http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=Intro
Don Elkins: This book is an exact transcript from tape recordings of twenty-six sessions of an experiment designed to communicate with an extraterrestrial being. We started the experiment in 1962 and refined the process for nineteen years. In 1981 the experimental results of our efforts changed profoundly in quality and precision. This book is simply a report of the beginning of this latter phase of our work.

... there was considerable confusion about the nature of our research.

....In recent years there has been much controversy about phenomena that were apparently incompatible with accepted methods of scientific research. I must recommend extreme caution in reaching a conclusion.

......so I will not attempt to defend its validity.


OK. No one is claiming the "Ra Materials" are real. Well that was fast.
:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:44 am

salomed wrote:...
For example, when talking about the Nazca lines:

20.43 Questioner: I think I understand then. Then these lines are just the faint traces of what used to be there?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.


I think this seems inconsistent with the historical claim that the lines are just made by moving small surface rocks and not remnants of larger structures. This isn't an internal contradiction, but it does seem to contradict our current knowledge about the Nazca lines. Do we then conclude that the corpus of the Ra Material is bunk?

Love and Light and reason and rationality:)



That excerpt doesn't necessarily have anything to do with larger structures. It could mean the "young" lines had been clearer/stronger a long time ago?

Which could be simply human reasoning by the "channel".
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:06 am

scrmbldggs wrote: It could mean the "young" lines had been clearer/stronger a long time ago?


Extremely good point.

How in hell are Aliens meant to convey human adjectives and adverbs using telepathy?


Telepathic Alien : "You will have a lovely time"
Human : "How do you know what's lovely to a human?
Telepathic Alien : "Well.....um....err... what do you think lovely means?"
Human : "That's cheating, you can't give me information and than say you are just telling me what I already know. That doesn't make sense".
Telepathic Alien : "I think giving people anal probes is lovely"
Human : "That's because you are an alien. I don't think it's lovely at all"
Telepathic Alien : "I told you telepathy doesn't work. I'll just ring you up and we can chat on the phone"

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:21 am

:lol:

For once I would like to hear a "channeller" say, "I have no clue what they meant by what they told me and neither I nor someone else could ever figure it out." :volume:


But there's a cop out for that:

The instructing entity automatically uses the vocabulary and meaning the channel can comprehend.



Or is it that the material originates within their own minds? ;)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Cadmusteeth » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:32 am

Give me enough time and I'll give you all the convoluted reasons for telepathy you can stand.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:19 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:Give me enough time and I'll give you all the convoluted reasons for telepathy you can stand.
I'd rather stand in the corner and stick pins in my own eyes.
:D

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Cadmusteeth » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:21 am

Noted

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Monster » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:39 pm

salomed wrote:Intro:

Background (from Wikipedia)

The Ra Material (known as the The Law of One in later editions) is a collected series of transcripts, of more than 100 sessions, reputedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra,claimed to be a group of individual souls at a "higher level of spiritual evolution" that were "channeled" by Carla L. Rueckert (McCarty) in the early 1980s.


I have a problem right there. You have these issues/claims:

1. Authored by a non-human intelligence.
2. Existence of souls.
3. What is a higher level of spiritual evolution?
4. Channeling.


I suggest as a starting point we focus just on the transcripts, not the authors/publishers/background to the channeling or the underlaying outlandishness of the claims and narrative - it is very obvious to almost all of us here that these channellings seem absurd/unscientific and deeply connected to NAW (New Age Woo), but that doesn't mean they are hoaxes or mistakes.

Ok, but I don't see why we should ignore that other stuff.

...

I just read the beginning of part 1. It's loaded to the brim with woo and evidence-less assertions.

...

I just skipped to part 11. This little thing is gobbledygook.

The most important of the entities are the questioner and the vibratory sound complex, Jim. The two entities additional aid the instrument’s comfort by energizing the instrument with their abilities to share the physical energy complex which is a portion of your love vibration.


...

I skimmed 44, 62, and 8. This is from 8.

Ra: I am Ra. The maximum speed of these craft is equal to the Earth energy squared. This field varies. The limit is approximately one-half the light speed, as you would call it. This is due to imperfections in design.

Earth energy squared? What in Satan's name is that?


Of what little I've seen so far in this Ra material, it leaves me nothing to latch on to. 100% of what I've seen so far is unfalsifiable assertions of silly crazy crap. So it's impossible to say if it's authentic for any meaning of the word "authentic". Since I have no reason to believe it's authentic, I feel perfectly fine saying it's not.

There are fifty billion tons of stuff that's mentioned that has no definition such as love vibration. Earth energy. Undersea craft, bases on the moon, and so forth. Perhaps these terms are defined someplace but I just didn't see them.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:28 pm

Monster wrote:I have a problem right there. You have these issues/claims:

1. Authored by a non-human intelligence.
2. Existence of souls.
3. What is a higher level of spiritual evolution?
4. Channeling.


Sure. Most of us here will have problems with the above and more. But to be truly skeptical we need to lay aside our initial assumptions and prejudgements and investigate it with a neutral and open mind. I take that to be the gist of Matthew's initial "invite".

Ok, but I don't see why we should ignore that other stuff.


It is not ignore it, it is put it on a lower level of significance. If we can find the material is contradictory then thats a kill shot, right there. We don't need to then go trolling into the background and lives of the participants etc.

I just read the beginning of part 1. It's loaded to the brim with woo and evidence-less assertions.


In the spirit of the investigation, and being open minded and neutral, you can't say its woo - you need to show its woo.


This little thing is gobbledygook.


Most probably, but let us not beg the question we seek to answer. When I first read it five or so years ago, I was very "WTF, this must be a joke." After my second recent reading, I'm not so sure I can be so certain.


Of what little I've seen so far in this Ra material, it leaves me nothing to latch on to. 100% of what I've seen so far is unfalsifiable assertions of silly crazy crap.


I imagine a hundred years ago there would have been scientists saying that quantum effects was silly crazy crap.

So it's impossible to say if it's authentic for any meaning of the word "authentic". Since I have no reason to believe it's authentic, I feel perfectly fine saying it's not.


We won't be able to say its authentically an alien intelligence etc. We might, and probably will, be able to say that it is a demonstrable hoax. That's the reason for the OP.

good old, basic and systematic debunking
Can you do any of that, Monster?:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Monster » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:28 pm

salomed wrote:
good old, basic and systematic debunking
Can you do any of that, Monster?:)

Regarding the content of the sessions, I don't think I can. The Ra material makes tons of statements, none of which I see is falsifiable.

For example, the Questioner asked Ra/Carla why did the dinosaurs go extinct. Ra/Carla said that they ran out of food to eat. What can I do with that? Nothing. Sure, the dinosaurs may have run out of food. They may have killed by some god. Maybe Ra killed them in some previous incarnation. Maybe they all got dinosaur-herpes. And besides, isn't something like "they ran out of food" incredibly easy to say and incredibly simplistic? If Ra/Carla knows how the dinosaurs went extinct, couldn't she have said something more specific? Like why their food ran out, or how long their extinction process happened once the cause of the food running out started?
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:39 am

Ok, so the first point you think we can establish is that there are no falsifiable statements. I'm not yet sure that's true.

If we compare this to say Urantia, that as I recall contains falsifiable claims about solar system dynamics?

This is the essence and potency of Cartesian doubt, one fracture and it's all fooked up. We are seeking fractures in the Ra material, not mere "this sounds wooooop implausible to
Me"
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:02 am

salomed wrote:But to be truly skeptical we need to lay aside our initial assumptions and prejudgements and investigate it with a neutral and open mind. I take that to be the gist of Matthew's initial "invite".


Indeed, however we encountered a problem with our first step. The authors of the books and materials do not claim anywhere that the Ra Material is "real". I read through the books, the introduction and the chapter openings for each book. At no point do they claim it is real. They say the exact opposite, as quoted above.

I now realise it is some members of the public who have chosen themselves to say the Ra Materials are real. This is a similar situation to the Pope saying the bible is not true and yet some Catholics choose to believe it is actual history.

I cannot debunk a book that makes no claim that it is real, without establishing a "Strawman argument" and critical thinking skills do not allow "strawman arguments".


Description of Straw Man Argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Avoiding "Strawman" Debunking
I suggest what we first need to establish is if anyone claims the Ra Material is actually real. I say this because I am not allowed to argue against my own "strawman" argument, if no one has said actually this. Indeed, promoters of Ra Material may avoid claiming it is real to avoid scrutiny by skeptics.

Let's us read the books intro and see if anyone claims the aliens, talking through humans, are real.


http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=Intro
Don Elkins: This book is an exact transcript from tape recordings of twenty-six sessions of an experiment designed to communicate with an extraterrestrial being. We started the experiment in 1962 and refined the process for nineteen years. In 1981 the experimental results of our efforts changed profoundly in quality and precision. This book is simply a report of the beginning of this latter phase of our work.

... there was considerable confusion about the nature of our research.

....In recent years there has been much controversy about phenomena that were apparently incompatible with accepted methods of scientific research. I must recommend extreme caution in reaching a conclusion.

......so I will not attempt to defend its validity.


OK. No one is claiming the "Ra Materials" are real. Well that was fast.
:D


Strawman alert, but not the one you purport, unless we have two.

The stance is this:

1) This is the phenomena. We do not know for sure what it is.

It is not:

2) This is fiction.

I suspect that, based on the speedyness of your reply, you already knew what your reply would be when you invited me to start this thread. Snakes and ladders.

But I'm happy to assume that the text itself remains internally consistent, so we could move on to a wider investigation in the spirit of your invite.

Have you heard listened to the transcripts? I have the first session, its pretty odd. Should we think that Carla was ad-libbing these alien wisdoms word by word, or do you think the three of them conspired to hoax this?

These are the options:

1) It is a three+ person hoax conspiracy (Don, Carla...).
2) It is a one person hoax (Carla).
3) Carla spoke the words believing them to be genuinely from outside herself. They might be from god/aliens/subconcious, that is unclaimed.

The authors are with 3, this is very different to saying the authors don't think the material is real.


Here are some pretty pictures from the sessons, just because.

Image

Image

Image
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19762
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:45 am

Why are BS filters so hard to install correctly?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:34 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why are BS filters so hard to install correctly?


Because as skeptics we know BS is as much outside as inside.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19762
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:05 pm

salomed wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why are BS filters so hard to install correctly?


Because as skeptics we know BS is as much outside as inside.

You, maybe. Probably. Probably definitely.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:45 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
salomed wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why are BS filters so hard to install correctly?


Because as skeptics we know BS is as much outside as inside.

You, maybe. Probably. Probably definitely.


Me certainly. I can be sure of that. Skepticism is knowing it could all be BS;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19762
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:49 pm

Except anything I post. That's pure {!#%@} gold and you lot should remember that!!!!
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:56 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Except anything I post. That's pure {!#%@} gold and you lot should remember that!!!!


Great comeback.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:35 am

salomed wrote: I suspect that, based on the speedyness of your reply, you already knew what your reply would be when you invited me to start this thread. Snakes and ladders.
No I didn't. That was the whole point. I wanted to offer a demonstration on the application of critical thinking, in a systematic manner, against a bizarre claim.

Unfortunately, our first test subject ( The Ra Material) hasn't actually made any claim and thus, it would be like assessing "Snow White" or "Santa Claus" where there is no actual claim. I suggest you pick another test subject, where someone has made a definite claim.


salomed wrote: Have you heard listened to the transcripts?
Yes and read the introductions. That's the whole point. If I tune into "Snow white" halfway through the movie, I don't know if I watching a fictional story or a recreation of a real story. I must also read the introductions in conjunction with the material.

It's the same in the business and tax world. Con Artists are careful not to say "you will definitely make a million dollars in this risky scheme" but use words to imply that will happen. I can spend weeks working on the "implied terms" used in a particular scheme to compile a brief for a prosecutor. It's the word games humans use.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:42 am

salomed wrote:Me certainly. I can be sure of that. Skepticism is knowing it could all be BS;)
I'm starting to use the "skeptic" word less and trying to use the words "critical thinking" more.

My gut feeling is that the general community doesn't really understand what the word "skeptic" means and thus think it has something to do with intellectualism. In theory a skeptic can be "thick as two planks" and still get the same results through systematic application of critical thinking.

I don't know what the Skeptic Society's goals exactly are, but I imagine it would be promoting critical thinking amongst the greater populace, rather than establishing an elite community of egotists who call themselves "skeptics".

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby clarsct » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:Me certainly. I can be sure of that. Skepticism is knowing it could all be BS;)
I'm starting to use the "skeptic" word less and trying to use the words "critical thinking" more.

My gut feeling is that the general community doesn't really understand what the word "skeptic" means and thus think it has something to do with intellectualism. In theory a skeptic can be "thick as two planks" and still get the same results through systematic application of critical thinking.

I don't know what the Skeptic Society's goals exactly are, but I imagine it would be promoting critical thinking amongst the greater populace, rather than establishing an elite community of egotists who call themselves "skeptics".


Well, I would agree that skepticism is a process, not an attribute. Most people could apply critical thought and maybe get to somewhat the same place. But I would also argue that there is a 'must be this smart to enter' requirement. At some point, one must be able to brace statistics unless one is to rely upon the analysis of others. Not very skeptical. On another, it would behoove anyone trying to get into, say, an anti-vaxx debate, to be able to read and comprehend a study, as well as being able to find faults in the methodology. Now these things are skills that will improve with practice. But these are also skills that some people simply don't have the mental means to master.

Nothing against them, mind. The average person should be able to do these things. But half the people in the world are dumber than average, assuming a bell curve. Doesn't mean they cannot function day to day. Although, I imagine it could be difficult for those in the lowest percentiles, but I am not speaking about them. There are millions of people who just below average enough that all of that is confusing, at best, and they simply do not, and never will have the means to figure it all out. They will listen to whatever person seems the most persuasive. There are also millions whom, though they could take the time, simply won't. Eventually, they may be convinced it is in their best interests, but I find when someone is simply unwilling to learn, that they do not, then, seem to learn from experience.

So in essence, it is those who are mentally capable and have the curiousity and will to learn that become skeptical. It is, at the core, an intellectual exercise. Given that, I would agree that being elitist is counterproductive. We should seek to be compassionate. There is a compassion fatigue that does happen, even to nurses and doctors. While I am not saying we experience it quite the same way, eventually, one does get sick of rehashing...again...

So intellectual, yes, elitist, no. I would also agree that if there is no claim, then there isn't a debate. It's a null syntax. WOMBAT, in colloquial terms. That is to say:
Waste
Of
Money,
Brains,
And
Time
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote: I suspect that, based on the speedyness of your reply, you already knew what your reply would be when you invited me to start this thread. Snakes and ladders.
No I didn't. That was the whole point. I wanted to offer a demonstration on the application of critical thinking, in a systematic manner, against a bizarre claim.

Unfortunately, our first test subject ( The Ra Material) hasn't actually made any claim and thus, it would be like assessing "Snow White" or "Santa Claus" where there is no actual claim. I suggest you pick another test subject, where someone has made a definite claim.


salomed wrote: Have you heard listened to the transcripts?
[color=#000080]Yes and read the introductions. That's the whole point.


So you paid for the audio files, good on you. In that short time you went through their backwards ordering process and listened to the files and read the introduction. Did you read all of the readings as well?

I have said this before, you are either remarkable or dishonest.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:Me certainly. I can be sure of that. Skepticism is knowing it could all be BS;)
I'm starting to use the "skeptic" word less and trying to use the words "critical thinking" more.

My gut feeling is that the general community doesn't really understand what the word "skeptic" means and thus think it has something to do with intellectualism. In theory a skeptic can be "thick as two planks" and still get the same results through systematic application of critical thinking.

I don't know what the Skeptic Society's goals exactly are, but I imagine it would be promoting critical thinking amongst the greater populace, rather than establishing an elite community of egotists who call themselves "skeptics".


To those of us who have been skeptics since before the internet it does get confusing.

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bullwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion doubt.

But good sport, good sport.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:31 am

salomed wrote:So you paid for the audio files, good on you. In that short time you went through their backwards ordering process and listened to the files and read the introduction. Did you read all of the readings as well?
No. I read the transcripts on a debunking website.

salomed wrote:I have said this before, you are either remarkable or dishonest.
On the contrary, it is you who has been dishonest, as you obviously never read the introductions which I have directly quoted earlier in this very thread.

Either you were already aware that there was no claim that the Ra Materials were authentic or you haven't actually fully read the material you asked us to debunk. Which is it? .

:D

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:58 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:So you paid for the audio files, good on you. In that short time you went through their backwards ordering process and listened to the files and read the introduction. Did you read all of the readings as well?
No. I read the transcripts on a debunking website.

salomed wrote:I have said this before, you are either remarkable or dishonest.
On the contrary, it is you who has been dishonest, as you obviously never read the introductions which I have directly quoted earlier in this very thread.

Either you were already aware that there was no claim that the Ra Materials were authentic or you haven't actually fully read the material you asked us to debunk. Which is it? .

:D



Which debunking site? I'm curious.


I asked you above if you had listened to the transcripts, you said yes.

I have read it it, listened to it, I even have the first paper book, my honesty is intact.

As for your point, there is no claim the contact us not real.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4997
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Monster » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:54 pm

salomed wrote:Ok, so the first point you think we can establish is that there are no falsifiable statements. I'm not yet sure that's true.

Can you provide me with one? It would take me a while to find some falsifiable thing in the Ra material.

If we compare this to say Urantia, that as I recall contains falsifiable claims about solar system dynamics?

This is the essence and potency of Cartesian doubt, one fracture and it's all fooked up. We are seeking fractures in the Ra material, not mere "this sounds wooooop implausible to
Me"

I haven't read Urantia, sorry.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:49 pm

salomed wrote:I have read it it, listened to it, I even have the first paper book, my honesty is intact.
You are now admitting you never read the introductions for the Seth books. You have only just discovered, from my quotes, that the authors make no claim that the Ra Material is real.
:D

salomed wrote: As for your point, there is no claim the contact is not real.

There is no claim in Snow White that the story is not real. Do you think "Snow White" is a real story?
:D

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:I have read it it, listened to it, I even have the first paper book, my honesty is intact.
You are now admitting you never read the introductions for the Seth books. You have only just discovered, from my quotes, that the authors make no claim that the Ra Material is real.
:D

salomed wrote: As for your point, there is no claim the contact is not real.

There is no claim in Snow White that the story is not real. Do you think "Snow White" is a real story?
:D



More dishonesty Matthew. I have never read Seth. I have read Ra twice. You are misrepresenting it, as often you do.


Hissss;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:18 am

salomed wrote: As for your point, there is no claim the contact is not real.
Matthew Ellard wrote:There is no claim in Snow White that the story is also "not real". Do you think "Snow White" is a real story?
:D


salomed wrote:More dishonesty Matthew. I have never read Seth. I have read Ra twice. You are misrepresenting it, as often you do.
I do apologise. I meant to write "The Ra Material". The "Seth material" is being discussed in another thread. I typed the wrong words

Now, tell me. Do you think Snow White is a real story because no one claims it isn't real?

Do you think the Ra Material is real, because no one claims it isn't real?

Set out the logical steps you use to reach your conclusion.

:D

User avatar
freebill
BANNED
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:25 pm
Custom Title: ufo - ra believer

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby freebill » Fri May 15, 2015 11:53 pm

I guess a believer -that would be me in this case- should lend a hand.

Matthew Ellard was a bit evasive in claiming that, book's intro does not assert aliens are real.

Let's look at what Don Elkins wrote in fact:

"It seems to me that the presently accepted scientific paradigm is less than
adequate. It is my opinion that our present natural philosophy is a very
special case of a much more general case yet to be unveiled. It is my hope
that our research is in the direction of this discovery. After assimilating
several million words of alleged extraterrestrial communication, it is also my
opinion that this book and the subsequent volumes of the Ra material
contain the most useful information that I have discovered. As a result of all
of this delving into the rather confusing subjects of UFOlogy and
parapsychology, I, of course, have formed my current opinion of how things
“really are.” This opinion may change at any time as I become aware of
future information. This book is not intended to be a treatise of my
opinion, so I will not attempt to defend its validity. The following is the
best guess I can make about what we think we are doing. Only time will tell
as to the accuracy of this guess.

Our research group uses what I prefer to call “tuned trance telepathy” to
communicate with an extraterrestrial race called Ra. We use the English
language because it is known by Ra. In fact, Ra knows more of it than I do.
"


As you see, Matthew cropped only one half of a sentence (the bold part above) from a whole paragraph.

Besides, Don Elkins and other two guys had invested many of their times in channeling, even since many years before the ra contacts. Don's suicide should also tell something about his sincerity.

Debunking the ra material is not an easy task, nevertheless, one might find some minor inconsistencies.

I would recommend the short analysis/synthesis in below link ("channeled wisdom" section);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logos

Throughout the book, "ra" refrains from answering a considerable amount of questions, in order not to "infringe" on the "free will"; which decreases the falsifiability inevitably. On the other hand, "they" were not reluctant in giving information about USA's ufo technology, or pinpointing the location of the bigfoot remains that may be found some day in future.

However, in general, there seems a correlation between falsifiability and "infringement upon the free will".
Last edited by freebill on Sun May 17, 2015 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8213
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Poodle » Sun May 17, 2015 12:42 am

freebill wrote:... Besides, Don Elkins and other two guys had invested many of their times in channeling, even since many years before the ra contacts. Don's suicide should also tell something about his sincerity ...


Suicide says very little about sincerity. Even if it did, there appears to be some doubt as to whether he committed suicide or not.

User avatar
freebill
BANNED
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:25 pm
Custom Title: ufo - ra believer

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby freebill » Sun May 17, 2015 2:19 am

Poodle wrote:
freebill wrote:... Besides, Don Elkins and other two guys had invested many of their times in channeling, even since many years before the ra contacts. Don's suicide should also tell something about his sincerity ...


Suicide says very little about sincerity. Even if it did, there appears to be some doubt as to whether he committed suicide or not.


I don't know what do you mean by "doubts", but many sources -including llresearch (his partners Carla and Jim in publishing the ra material, who are the other 2 guys in the photos above)- confirm that after a period of declining mental health he had committed suicide and had died of a gunshot wound to his head; http://projectcamelot.org/elkins.html
http://www.llresearch.org/authors.aspx
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/i ... ook_5.aspx (search the word "suicide" by ctrl+f)
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/i ... ook_5.aspx (search the word "suicide" by ctrl+f)


On the other hand, you might be right somehow that, many "believers" do not see it as an ordinary suicide. According to the books' narration, these 3 guys had become the targets of "negative supernatural entities" as the sessions advance.
Last edited by freebill on Sun May 17, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun May 17, 2015 6:53 am

freebill wrote: Don's suicide should also tell something about his sincerity.
He got caught lying and didn't want to face the music?
:D

freebill wrote:Debunking the ra material is not an easy task, nevertheless, one might find some minor inconsistencies.
Why don't you set out a claim and your evidence that the Ra Material is "real". I'll then shred it methodically.

User avatar
freebill
BANNED
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:25 pm
Custom Title: ufo - ra believer

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby freebill » Sun May 17, 2015 9:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
freebill wrote: Don's suicide should also tell something about his sincerity.
He got caught lying and didn't want to face the music?
:D


That's one of the possibilities; but the weakest one, to me. I wonder if psychology/psychiatry professions have any record of such an incidence: "committing suicide just because being caught lying". On the other hand, one may feel ashamed and may attempt to commit suicide if they discovers that their partners in channeling have been fooling them all along. Nonetheless, that's again a small possibility in american culture/society. That sort of suicides are highly likely in japanese culture.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
freebill wrote:Debunking the ra material is not an easy task, nevertheless, one might find some minor inconsistencies.
Why don't you set out a claim and your evidence that the Ra Material is "real". I'll then shred it methodically.


8-) I bet you are raring to shred it down to its molecules, but I don't have any evidence to present. That's why I am a "believer"; that is, there are no blatant proofs that the ra material is real but I feel/believe that it reflects the reality. I don't have a shortcut to your satisfaction. :earth:

User avatar
freebill
BANNED
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:25 pm
Custom Title: ufo - ra believer

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby freebill » Sun May 17, 2015 4:08 pm

"Ra" might had given some hints to Don's deteriorating mental health already, in "session 106" (book5) on march 15 1984, 7 months before his suicide. You know that, they had excluded portions of all sessions containing personal and "sensitive" (like american ufo) information from the first 4 books, and had published those as book5 later.

"..During this space/time the possibility for mental/emotional distortion approaching that which causes the entity to become dysfunctional is marked. Further, the yellow-ray, chemical vehicle of the questioner is aging and has more difficulty in the absorption of needed minerals such as iron and other substances such as papain, potassium, and calcium.

At the same time the body of yellow-ray begins to have more difficulty eliminating trace elements such as aluminum. The energizing effect has occurred in the colon of the questioner and the distortions in that area are increasingly substantial. Lastly, there is a small area of infection in the mouth of the questioner which needs attention.
"

I am not a subject matter expert, but there are sources claiming that aluminum may harm the mental health: http://www.naturalnews.com/046344_heavy ... ptoms.html
http://www.arltma.com/Articles/AlumToxDoc.htm
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-treatment
http://www.whale.to/a/alum.html

And prolonged low levels of calcium can again cause neurologic or psychologic symptoms, such as confusion, memory loss, delirium, depression, and hallucinations: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/hormon ... -the-blood

I don't know whether this papain ( http://www.psychiatrywithoutdrugs.co.uk/papain.htm ) is the same papain mentioned above.

Of course, we can't know for sure that Carla/instrument/medium hadn't had access to such information beforehand.
Last edited by freebill on Mon May 18, 2015 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 18, 2015 12:44 am

freebill wrote: I wonder if psychology/psychiatry professions have any record of such an incidence: "committing suicide just because being caught lying".

Yes. You could have simply looked it up. Jeremy Michael Boorda is a good example. Merv Jenkins did the same. It's common in the military.

freebill wrote:Debunking the ra material is not an easy task, nevertheless, one might find some minor inconsistencies.
Matthew Ellard wrote: Why don't you set out a claim and your evidence that the Ra Material is "real". I'll then shred it methodically.
freebill wrote: I bet you are raring to shred it down to its molecules, but I don't have any evidence to present. That's why I am a "believer"; that is, there are no blatant proofs that the ra material is real but I feel/believe that it reflects the reality. I don't have a shortcut to your satisfaction.


You are posting on a skeptic forum, where people produce evidence for their claims. You are saying you have no evidence. Where do we go from here?

Try the David Icke Forum. It doesn't require any evidence, to support weird claims at all.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 18, 2015 12:55 am

science has plenty of weird claims---called theories....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking The Ra Material

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 18, 2015 1:53 am

gorgeous wrote:science has plenty of weird claims---called theories....


These scientific theories are backed up with evidence.

You are an elderly Californian hippy who simultaneously believes that Alien Lizard overlords and the Human Illuminati control the world, because David Icke told you to say that.

Neither Seth nor Ra ever mentions Alien Lizard overlords, yet you also believe in Seth and Ra because David Icke told you to believe in them and you are a mindless follower of his instructions.

:D


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest