Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
May 20, 2003
On Tuesday 20 May 2003 02:37 pm, Kat wrote:
>
> Ok, but for two things:
>
> 1) there are documented events that information was passed to people in
> various ways, with the only explaination being "out of body" or "seen i=
n a
> dream" reasons. Naturally, these are antithetical to xtian religions.
> Unless one rewrites most definitions of "real life", it's pretty far ou=
t.
> Especially out of body events witnessed by other people. Naturally, the=
re
> are fakes.
Ok. You know that the gov't can spy on what's going on in your computer b=
y=20
analyzing the electro-magnetic emissions from the pc or the monitor.=20
Call those emissions its "spirit" if you wish, but they still cease to ex=
ist=20
when the power plug is pulled. (Although in theory, someone a few light y=
ears=20
away might be able to detect the expanding emission "bubble" when it reac=
hes=20
them.)
I don't get the "antithetical" remark - aren't most mainstream religions =
based=20
on doctrines such as the survival of a 'soul', communication with 'depart=
ed'=20
humans (praying to saints, for example) and "miracles" such as aforsaid=20
saints levitating or appearing in two places at once, etc...?
> 2) Tiggr has *always* been spot-on with tarot and rune readings for a f=
ew
> select people, never off, for years. Given the number of cards, and the
> chances of picking the right one, even giving the same message repeated=
ly
> with different cards or picking the same cards repeatedly, makes chance
> seem unlikely. Naturally, there are fakes.
Isn't the 'rightness' of these readings a subjective thing? People tend t=
o=20
forget the predictions which *didn't* happen, and embroider the ones whic=
h=20
did so that they seem even more 'correct'. People want this stuff to be t=
rue,
and will happily ignore tons of evidence to the contrary.
Irv
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
