How do woos agree/discuss?

[DreadNiK]

I'm sure this has probably come up before, but I am curious as to any insight people can give me on how 'woos', particularly on internet forums, discuss and come to agreeement.

Obviously, agreement among any group of people can be difficult, but generally people here can agree on a necessary/sufficient amount of evidence to at least support an idea. But often on 'wooish' boards, you get differing levels of woo, some people will be perfectly rational except for one particular belief and they might defend better than most, whereas some will be raving nutjobs who seem to take the most insane speculation as factual or at least plausible.

Personally I believe everything is on a sliding scale so there are no 'woos' or 'skeptics' outright, but you can be 99% skeptic or whatever. But when you get down to <50% woo (what I feel would deserve classification as a woo) then how do they actually engage in productive discussion?

If a 9/11 CTer suddenly comes up with a completely new website filled with new and still ridiculous ideas, do all the CTers accept it? Does it depend how woo they are? Do they discuss it and ask for evidence? Same goes for any woo belief, if someone introduces a new and woo belief or take on an existing notion, what is the process by which they evaluate it?

I suspect I know the basic answer to this, but given that there are a lot of people on here who spend a lot more time dealing with these sort of people, perhaps they can offer some further insight...

One thing I've noticed is woos tend not to criticise each other's beliefs, and if they do, they treat each other with a great deal more respect than they do visiting/missionary skeptics (partly understandable).

[Soapy Sam]

Personally I believe everything is on a sliding scale so there are no 'woos' or 'skeptics' outright, but you can be 99% skeptic or whatever. But when you get down to <50% woo (what I feel would deserve classification as a woo) then how do they actually engage in productive discussion?


One thing I've noticed is woos tend not to criticise each other's beliefs, and if they do, they treat each other with a great deal more respect than they do visiting/missionary skeptics (partly understandable).

I presume we can agree that you actually meant > 50% woo?:D

Your last paragraph says much of the answer. There is a strong tendency, at least on wooboards, to display mutual support. That two woo beliefs may be mutually contradictory is somehow ignored by simply avoiding discussion and failure to seek evidence.

That's really the only diference between there and here. We have our irrational side too, but when pressed to defend it, we either do so with evidence- even if only anecdote- or we admit we are wrong. (Or everyone else admits it for us, in bold print.)

[elliotfc]

I'm sure this has probably come up before, but I am curious as to any insight people can give me on how 'woos', particularly on internet forums, discuss and come to agreeement.

I participate in a few...I guess you'd call 'em "woo" forums. The ones I'm down with are a bit more esoteric. We agree in general but never in specific. Most (I guess including myself) are madly in love with key pet theories that are borderline inviolable. All in good fun!

Obviously, agreement among any group of people can be difficult, but generally people here can agree on a necessary/sufficient amount of evidence to at least support an idea.

In my experience we also can come into general agreement on matters that aren't particularly precious to any individual, based on evidence.

But often on 'wooish' boards, you get differing levels of woo, some people will be perfectly rational except for one particular belief and they might defend better than most, whereas some will be raving nutjobs who seem to take the most insane speculation as factual or at least plausible.

Pretty nice summation, save for the loaded language, but you have to get by in life and hyperbolic characterization surely gets the job done for you, bwah hah.

Personally I believe everything is on a sliding scale so there are no 'woos' or 'skeptics' outright, but you can be 99% skeptic or whatever. But when you get down to <50% woo (what I feel would deserve classification as a woo) then how do they actually engage in productive discussion?

Depends how you view productivity, objectively or subjectively. Of course if there were no people there would be no objective discussion, but, as long as you have people you'll always have subjectively, so throw up yer hands on that one, or don't.

If a 9/11 CTer...

The fiends! I mean, those unfortuantely misguided persons.

///suddenly comes up with a completely new website filled with new and still ridiculous ideas, do all the CTers accept it?

No. Here's an example.
http://www.oilempire.us/

Deffo a conspiracy site. But, deffo zero tolerance for the "no plane" theories.

Does it depend how woo they are?

I've lost all tolerance for the "woo" word 8.23 seconds ago, so pass.

Do they discuss it and ask for evidence?

I recall a few years ago, in the days of heady exuberance, I followed up vociferously with some guy who said he had talked to a lady who was listed as a WTC casualty, and the lady was in...oh Singapore or somewhere I forget...and that it was just a matter of time before she'd reveal the true story of 9/11. I and many others asked for evidence and then it just fizzled out and I've forgotten about it til now.

Same goes for any woo belief, if someone introduces a new and woo belief or take on an existing notion, what is the process by which they evaluate it?

With whatever faculties one possesses, enter punchline here.

I suspect I know the basic answer to this,

Ubermensch that you are...

but given that there are a lot of people on here who spend a lot more time dealing with these sort of people, perhaps they can offer some further insight...

I hope mine was serviceable but a smartypants like you hardly is contingent on the opinion and experiences of others.

One thing I've noticed is woos tend not to criticise each other's beliefs,

Ach! You need to get out more often, but such "woo" beliefs are no doubt comfortable to you.

and if they do, they treat each other with a great deal more respect than they do visiting/missionary skeptics (partly understandable).

Boy are you wrong!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Your last paragraph says much of the answer. There is a strong tendency, at least on wooboards, to display mutual support.

To a certain extent, yes, but I have witnessed and participated in epic battles on what do you call them, oh yeah you call them wooboards tee hee, that make those that I've seen here seem like cotton candy.

That two woo beliefs may be mutually contradictory is somehow ignored by simply avoiding discussion and failure to seek evidence.

Bwah! Nice one! Thanks for confirming by beliefs about you people! Bwah!

-Elliot

[DreadNiK]

I hope mine was serviceable but a smartypants like you hardly is contingent on the opinion and experiences of others.



Ach! You need to get out more often, but such "woo" beliefs are no doubt comfortable to you.



Boy are you wrong!

-Elliot

How exactly am I a 'smartypants'? Why on earth would I make a thread specifically asking for other people's thoughts on the topic if I wasn't interested or 'contingent' on them?

Why do I need to get out more often?

Why do you think 'woo' beliefs are comfortable to me?

And finally, how am I wrong? All I have to go on is what I have observed. Of course, what I have observed could be unrepresentative, which is partly why I started this thread?

I don't like the term 'woo' much either, especially since I've had to use it so many times in my OP. If you have a suggestion of how to avoid using it and still getting the same point across, I'd appreciate it.

[DreadNiK]

I think I'm in danger of running into "no true woo/skeptic..."

[elliotfc]

How exactly am I a 'smartypants'?

You think you have "woos" and "wooboards" all figured out. And you don't. If you cringe at the word "smartypants", surely it's not a different species of word than "woo". Right?

You said, in your post, that you suspected that you already knew the basic answer to your question. That was specifically why I introduced the word smartypants.

Why on earth would I make a thread specifically asking for other people's thoughts on the topic if I wasn't interested or 'contingent' on them?

To confirm your suspicions, in my opinion.

Why do I need to get out more often?

Because if you've been on the boards I'm on, or I've been on, I don't think you'd have posted the post that you posted.

Why do you think 'woo' beliefs are comfortable to me?

Because you use the phrase "woo beliefs" so comfortably.

The only time I've ever seen the "woo" word, is here. That's why I think that. If I saw the "woo" word used in other mediums I wouldn't have said that.

And finally, how am I wrong?

The people you call woos criticize each others' beliefs constantly and often vitriolicly.

I don't like the term 'woo' much either, especially since I've had to use it so many times in my OP. If you have a suggestion of how to avoid using it and still getting the same point across, I'd appreciate it.

One way to avoid using it is to not use it.

-Elliot

[dogbite666]

Because if you've been on the boards I'm on, or I've been on, I don't think you'd have posted the post that you posted.

And which boards might they be?

[DreadNiK]

You think you have "woos" and "wooboards" all figured out.

Nope. That is why I'm asking for the opinions of those better informed than myself.



You said, in your post, that you suspected that you already knew the basic answer to your question. That was specifically why I introduced the word smartypants.

To confirm your suspicions, in my opinion.



Yes, how dare I have suspicions...


Because if you've been on the boards I'm on, or I've been on, I don't think you'd have posted the post that you posted.


I think you'll find that relates to me needing to get out less and not more...


Because you use the phrase "woo beliefs" so comfortably.


Nope.


The people you call woos criticize each others' beliefs constantly and often vitriolicly.


Fine. Well and good. What basis do they use for criticism?



One way to avoid using it is to not use it.

-Elliot

Doesn't answer my question.

[StewartP]

I spent a bit of time on Eric Julien's "Save Lives in May" forum. Over there nobody ever directly challenged or contradicted any crazy theories.

This resulted in a kind of woo "Unified Theory" of everything. This unified theory had to make space for Grey aliens, Blue aliens, Reptilian aliens. There were people who specialised in, and had written enormous amounts of info on "Exopolitics" about how all these various aliens were in power struggles over the Earth and over multi dimensions.

Because each woo's belief was ludicrous, no one had the right to denounce the others.

Have a look at:http://www.exopolitics.com/
http://www.exopolitics.org/
and be prepared for a descent into madness . . . .

[Bronze Dog]

One way I'm aware of for woos to "agree" if they bump into a contradiction: Relativism: A is true for the proponent of A, and B is true for the proponent of B. They move on to trying to pick out a paint color that goes with their aura.

[StewartP]

And thanks to quantum maechanics as applied by woos, what I believe may be real in 1 universe, while yours may be true in another. They are ALL right somewhere.

[juryjone]

I think I'm in danger of running into "no true woo/skeptic..."

One of two points you made that I think hit the nail on the head. All attributes that people attribute to woos and/or skeptics are not true across the board.

For example, one attribute skeptics attribute to conspiracy theorists is that they will never admit they were wrong. Not true. Even Killtown has said in at least one post that he was wrong (although I can't find it right now). Granted, he only admitted he was wrong on a detail, and that's not enough to deflect him from his insanity, but he did admit to being wrong.

Another example would be that skeptics are not treated well by woos. This is often said about religious believers, who are much more likely to come down on an atheist than on a believer of another stripe. Elliott would be but one counter-example. For the most part he treats skeptics with respect, only occasionally resorting to calling them "smartypants".;)

So Elliot can come up with multiple examples of woos who do not "fit the bill" (although I'd still like to see some of those boards he's talking about) and there are certainly multiple examples here of skeptics who are not cold, cynical jerks. So the "no true Scotman" fallacy may be in evidence.

However, each of us will have our opinion based on our experience. And it is my opinion, based on my experience, that in general people who believe in one "alternative" theory are more willing to believe in others. That if you can believe that Bush masterminded 9/11, then you will find it easier to believe that no plane crashed in Shanksville.

I think you'll find that relates to me needing to get out less and not more...


And that's the other. Truer words were never spoken.

[thaiboxerken]

As long as you don't challenge their beliefs, your beliefs will be accepted. That's pretty much how the woo-world works when it comes to discussion.

[Spindrift]

This resulted in a kind of woo "Unified Theory" of everything. .

I think that would be the "Woonified Theory of Everything"

which states that greys came to earth with a perpetual motion machine and gave it to the US government but they refused to use it because of the engine that runs on water invented by bigfoot. Big oil killed all the bigfoots (bigfeet?) to protect their business. Sylvia Brown had a vision about this but can't prove it to Randi because the Illuminati are holding her pet chupacabra hostage in Area 51. All the while the Geller has caused reptile aliens to create warning messages via crop circles because it is well known that reptile aliens worship the spoon.

And that's just the preamble.

[Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!]

There is a strong tendency, at least on wooboards, to display mutual support. That two woo beliefs may be mutually contradictory is somehow ignored by simply avoiding discussion and failure to seek evidence.

I think you've pinned the tail on the donkey! I have noticed there are far too many "yes people" for the "new age" movement's own good!

Is the term "new age" out of date now, or are they now calling it "Mind/Body/Spirit?"

[CLD]

This is an actual thread from the TAPS (The Atlantic Paranormal Society) board. There are dozens of others like it, some very sad and pathetic. The ones that really get to me are when it involves parents infecting their kids with ignorance and superstition. Someone sees a shadow or the wind closes a door and because they are so pumped up by the TV show, immediately they think the house is "haunted" so they sit their kids down and explain that they have to watch out for ghosts and demons.

As you can see, no one is skeptical, or offers the option of a rational explanation. The ONLY explanation is "paranormal".


Thread: "Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because..... "



little_mama61204
The Newbie

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3

Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« on: August 09, 2006, 11:10:41 AM »

My sister has seen it all her life and she is not the only one. So has my mom, 3 of my nieces, 2 of my nephews, and one of my friends. We last night the same sister that has seen it all her life had on of her nieces over to stay the night and the little girl saw it to. What is it? Can it hurt them? what can they do to get rid of it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------


lilkitties
Graduated Newbie

Offline
Posts: 41


Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2006, 11:21:34 AM »

It's probably just a Shadow Person. To my knowledge they can't hurt you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

dleroy
Graduated Newbie

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 17

Paranormal Research Society of New England

Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2006, 03:01:39 PM »

Sometimes shadow figures can be something on a negative level.* Just check and make sure no one has messed around with seances or ouija boards or other types of spirit communication without knowing what they were doing.*
However, it also sounds like it could be what lilkitties said though, and no they won't hurt you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sparrow
Sr. Member

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 349

Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2006, 09:59:09 PM »

There are quite a few theories about what a shadow person is. I had a rather unique experience of seeing one materialize in front of BOTH my friend and me as we were chatting in a busy chiropractic office. Some people, including Jason, ascribe to the theory that a shadow person is a ghost attempting to materialize but not having enough energy to turn into a full body apparition. On the other hand from what we witnessed with our shadow person, I am of the opinion that there very well may be "parallel" dimensions to our own reality. The figure that we saw seemed to "pop" into our own dimension by mistake, realized that it had been spotted, and ran at an inhumanly fast speed into a vanishing point. We weren't frightened by it.... merely shocked and puzzled.

Yes... sometimes shadow figures can mean the presence of something evil, but I would say that the vast majority of the ones I've heard on this site were completely benign.*


------------------------------------------------------------------------

spt120880
Graduated Newbie

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 15

i am in the middle

Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2006, 01:52:14 AM »

I am of the opinion that there very well may be "parallel" dimensions to our own reality.) from sparrow.

you are right to me and what i have seen on t.v. (the paranormal shows on travel channel, discovery and sci-fi.) and books i have read.* they say that the spirit world (heaven) and the realm that ghosts are on. are all on different dimensions of ours, but at different vibrant. in other words there is our world there is heaven, then the ghost realm is right in between reality and heaven.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vaire
Full Member

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 249


Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2006, 01:55:57 AM »

In our old house,we had a shadow person.He never harmed anyone.It was like he was standing guard.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything is possible
Aka: Katana
PROUD MEMEBER OF GUTTERVILLE!!!!
Gutter twin #2
Please see sister Celeste76 for other twin!
fledermaus
Jr. Member

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 60


Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2006, 10:56:34 PM »

Quote from: lilkitties on August 09, 2006, 11:21:34 AM

It's probably just a Shadow Person. To my knowledge they can't hurt you.
Isn't that what Custer said about Indians?*

------------------------------------------------------------------------


l0l2d_v3n0m
Jr. Member

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 90


what up every one


Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #7 on: Today at 09:27:41 PM »

i seen alot of shadow ppl and i seen harmful and not so harmful ones but i see then beacuse i into witch craft and the black arts

------------------------------------------------------------------------

tattoomacgyver420
The Newbie

Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3

Re: Can anyone tell me what a black shadowy figure is because.....
« Reply #8 on: Today at 09:48:03 PM »

WELL IVE SEEN SHADOW FIGURES FOR ALONG TIME NOW, YES THEY HAVE TRYED TO HURT ME, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO SHOW THEM WHOSE THE BOSS AND THEY USUALLY LEVE U ALONE

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[StewartP]

I think that would be the "Woonified Theory of Everything"

which states that greys came to earth with a perpetual motion machine and gave it to the US government but they refused to use it because of the engine that runs on water invented by bigfoot. Big oil killed all the bigfoots (bigfeet?) to protect their business. Sylvia Brown had a vision about this but can't prove it to Randi because the Illuminati are holding her pet chupacabra hostage in Area 51. All the while the Geller has caused reptile aliens to create warning messages via crop circles because it is well known that reptile aliens worship the spoon.

And that's just the preamble.

If only I saw arguments this lucid in the wooBoards.

[aggle-rithm]

I don't like the term 'woo' much either, especially since I've had to use it so many times in my OP. If you have a suggestion of how to avoid using it and still getting the same point across, I'd appreciate it.

I always preferred the word "creduloid" myself, but I believe it's now politically incorrect.

[DreadNiK]

I always preferred the word "creduloid" myself...

Ta, it still sounds like is a bit of a loaded term but at least I can use either one for a bit more variety.


....but I believe it's now politically incorrect.

Even better :D

[Meffy]

Is it just me? When reading woos-agreeing-with-whatever-absurdity threads, I picture the participants' eyes growing wide and developing anime-style multiple reflected highlights. "It's TRUE!"

[c0rbin]

I'm sure this has probably come up before, but I am curious as to any insight people can give me on how 'woos', particularly on internet forums, discuss and come to agreeement.


With an emphasis on not hurting eachother's feelings.

[aggle-rithm]

Is it just me? When reading woos-agreeing-with-whatever-absurdity threads, I picture the participants' eyes growing wide and developing anime-style multiple reflected highlights. "It's TRUE!"

We could call them "strews".

[Yoink]

Elliotfc: would you be willing to post an example from a thread on one of these paranormal boards you instance where people with competing paranormal beliefs argue back and forth.

In my personal experience of people with these kinds of beliefs I find that they tend to adopt ideas uncritically from a spiritualist smorgasbord (a dash of lay-lines, a sprinkle of kirlian photography, some comic-book-level Hinduism, some sub-comic-book-level Native American Great Spiritism etc). But occasionally they'll get particularly turned on to some new enthusiasm (past life regression, healing touch, whatever) and be quite willing to laugh off older enthusiasms as misguided nonsense. None of this, though, seems to involve any kind of systematic argument from evidence, however. I'd be really interested to see an example of something of the kind.

[Ashles]

It's probably just a Shadow Person. To my knowledge they can't hurt you.
But let's not forget that, to my knowledge, car wax is nutritious.

It's probably just a Shadow Person. To my knowledge they can't hurt you.
Isn't that what Custer said about Indians?*
Now that's funny.

i seen alot of shadow ppl and i seen harmful and not so harmful ones but i see then beacuse i into witch craft and the black arts
i rite spels good

WELL IVE SEEN SHADOW FIGURES FOR ALONG TIME NOW, YES THEY HAVE TRYED TO HURT ME, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO SHOW THEM WHOSE THE BOSS AND THEY USUALLY LEVE U ALONE
Yes, there's few things more guaranteed to make you feel macho and tough than winning a fight with a shadow.

[Meffy]

We could call them "strews".

The highlights? Or the woos?

[fishbait]

I'm sure this has probably come up before, but I am curious as to any insight people can give me on how 'woos', particularly on internet forums, discuss and come to agreeement.They "validate" one another in a candlelit cosmic circle-jerk.
Then they have green tea and hummus.

[Meffy]

Then they have green tea and hummus.
... Sam I Am.

[Outhere]

what is the most illogical woo statement you've ever heard?

Many years ago, a devout Catholic co-worker and I were looking at a reproduction of an El Greco painting, Mary nursing the infant Jesus. My friend snorted in derision--impossible she said, for this to happen, because Mary was a Virgin.

Back then, nobody used the term, "Hel-LO?" so I just had to stand there feeling my brain fry.

[The 3rd eye]

We agree to disagree :)

[RayG]

I'm sure this has probably come up before, but I am curious as to any insight people can give me on how 'woos', particularly on internet forums, discuss and come to agreeement.

A few years ago I searched far and wide for scientific evidence that would support the reincarnation hypothesis -- that people living now were once people that lived in the past. I read books, journals, magazines, and websites during my quest, and it became clear to me that scientific evidence was blatantly missing from reincarnation claims. I visited and became a member of a website forum entitled 'Scientific Evidence of Reincarnation', for what better place to find scientific evidence for their claims? My initial post to their forum was simply:

I've been checking out some reincarnation sources (books) and have yet to find any scientific proof that reincarnation even exists. Can anyone provide some sources to help me in my search?

http://www.childpastlives.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=282

After only 82 posts and some lively debate, the thread was closed by an administrator "due to length".

I initiated another thread (http://www.childpastlives.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=373) in an attempt to catch up with all the comments, and that one lasted 79 posts before, once again, it was closed for being too lengthy.

A third thread (http://www.childpastlives.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=399) was started by an administrator and lasted 40 posts before an administrator stepped in and threatened to edit my response. No further posts were made.

Obviously, agreement among any group of people can be difficult, but generally people here can agree on a necessary/sufficient amount of evidence to at least support an idea. But often on 'wooish' boards, you get differing levels of woo, some people will be perfectly rational except for one particular belief and they might defend better than most, whereas some will be raving nutjobs who seem to take the most insane speculation as factual or at least plausible.
In my journey for scientific enlightenment, I found there was no single explanation for reincarnation. The only thing reincarnation proponents seemed to agree with wholeheartedly was the idea of reincarnation, and certainly not the methods, modes, or inner workings of the phenomenon. In the hope that you'll accept reincarnation, supporters will offer up arguments, opinions, excuses, and anecdotes, but nothing that can be measured, and certainly nothing supported by science.

Here are just some of the arguments/excuses (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/reincarnation29.htm) I found or was given:

"...humans and other animals.... choose the embryo they will go to and then embue that embryo with a life force and consciousness. Before that, it was a collection of cells sustained by the mother's body or within an eggshell."
[Plants are] "...living, breathing, communicating creatures endowed with the personality and attributes of soul."
"Another possibility, maybe people are psychically tapping into some universal knowledge where they are getting this info."
"How this consciousness came to be is a mystery to me. But once it comes into existence it transfers itself to many bodies over the course of the centuries.""...the SPIRIT and intuition take their parts in the memory and in how these are stored and obstruct the present lifetime."
"It is an interesting chemical reaction that can cross time and space and return.""I find myself thinking increasingly of some intermediate 'non-physical body' which acts as the carrier of these attributes [memories and birthmarks] between one life and another ..."
"The mind is generally gone by the time of death..."
[Our consciousness is] "somehow separated off at the filaments of its attachment, and then drawn like an easy breath back into the membrane of its origin, a fresh memory for a biospherical nervous system, but I have no data on the matter.""My view is that there is a primal energy that is condensed to energies at C [speed of light], which are condensed into energies stored as matter.""My mind, like all others, is a discreet quanta of primal energy."
"The mind travels, of course.""The substratum in which this information is embedded is not necessarily a material substratum, and if non-material in the dualistic sense, does not use or depend on material-plane energy in any form."
[The student] "was in a mildly altered state of consciousness... [and had] tapped in to a probable future reality...""The mind would appear to be that which transfers from a deceased person to a very young living person who is still in the womb.""Reincarnation literature is full of conclusions that people come back in large groups. That you look alike within sexual and racial features. That your handwriting is similar. Of course your personalities are essentially the same exceot for different foci in different lives.""Ian Stevenson came up with a term, "psychophore", to refer to a thought bundle which can travel from a body after its death to a new body, occupy the body and embue it with consciousness.""...after organic death of the body, a life force/personality bundle moves on to a new embryo immediately at the speed of thought, or stays discarnate for weeks, months or even years. This life force/personality bundle in my model may indeed manifest as the "ghosts" people talk about in all cultures and countries.""It is my hypothesis... that the consciousness that you have in this lifetime is in fact your own consciousness, no one else's, that it is the same consciousness that you have always had. ...although you have occupied many, many bodies throughout time, you yourself are still you.""Thus, according to my model, there is no "storage" of the life force in an alternate universe where time is suspended. The life force that is now in your body has continually existed in real time since its inception.""No cells are involved in life force. We are not talking about anything organic. We are, as you surmised, talking about pure energy, the energy of thought." So, which explanation should we believe?

One thing I've noticed is woos tend not to criticise each other's beliefs, and if they do, they treat each other with a great deal more respect than they do visiting/missionary skeptics (partly understandable).
Yes, bad karma and all that you know. :D

RayG

[Tamazon]

Although I was never a hardcore believer my mom has some questionable wooeyness. A big part of why I became a skeptic is because of all the contradictions amongst believers. They each have different explanations and they all feel like they are RIGHT. So how do you know which one really is right? It just all made my brain hurt.

I also don't get why believers will believe in some things and not others. Like one guy will belive in psychics and ghosts but not astrology or UFO's. If you believe in one unfounded idea then you should logically believe in them all. If not then why not? Not enough evidence? Ha! Why pick and choose? I'm an equal opportunity skeptic. I believe in nothing. Unless proper proof is presented of course.

[thaiboxerken]

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=8410905#post8410905

Check out the weirdness of woo at this thread. The believers are citing intelligences from outerspace as evidence for their beliefs. They even claim that Einstein's scientific theories came from ESP.

[Orphia Nay]

There is a strong tendency, at least on wooboards, to display mutual support. That two woo beliefs may be mutually contradictory is somehow ignored by simply avoiding discussion and failure to seek evidence.


As long as you don't challenge their beliefs, your beliefs will be accepted. That's pretty much how the woo-world works when it comes to discussion.

They "validate" one another in a candlelit cosmic circle-jerk.
Then they have green tea and hummus.

We agree to disagree :)

I've seen all of the above.

I've found that wooism (having been a woo intensely for a short while 8 years ago) is like a drug that makes the mind vibrate and shimmer in a miasma of limitless possibilities, and exposure to more woo intensifies the trip.

In my experience, when one woo presents a more woo example to a woo conversation, woos usually add that dose to the mix and up the group experience by saying it's "interesting", and "thanks for the information". I've seen it happen time and again. The conversation gets into seriously loopy-loopy la-la land and once those words have been spoken, the thread soon dies, without any resolution of issues.

I like to think that deep down, somewhere, their subconscious knows that their belief structure is all built on a foundation of quicksand.

[TheBoyPaj]

I've read the "it's true for me" line so many times, I lost count.

With all the different "realities" these people seem to exist in, it's amazing that they all have gravity and oxygen.