The Museum of Hoaxes
sylvia browne
Posted By:
padego
Apr 04, 2005
 Just thought I'd peruse Ms. Browne's site for news of the pope, oddly theres no mention....

http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm
Category: Prophecy-Psychic; Replies: 765

Comments
Page 6 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 05:53 PM
"To be born into poverty is of course not free will of the human, but maybe of the spirit. Perhaps the spirit had to learn what it was like to live that way. To learn also means to grow. That's why we are here on earth. To grow."

Rationalizing. I have no idea what "free will of the spirit" even means.

The sad fact is that the available evidence strongly suggests that there is NO God, let alone a "loving" God.

God exists and can do anything.

God created you and loves you.

God, however, allows innocent infants to be born crippled or otherwise handicapped. Infants, of course, have no "free will."

This is because He is "teaching you a lesson."
About being crippled, apparently.

This makes sense to you? Really?

To me, this is almost definitive proof of the non-existance of a "loving" God. A human parent who acted in a similar way would be reviled by everyone who knew of the story. Such behavior could also, in some circumstances, be deemed criminal negligence. (Ever seen the last episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and his friends get locked up because they don't help a fat guy who is being mugged?)

If there IS a God and He acts as you suggests, I think he's a sociopath. Why would you worship someone like that?
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 06:01 PM
oh yeah and kelly im sorry but i really cant just sit back and listening to ppl call the president a murderer. wether or not you like him, he is in authority over the country and you have to respect him. hes your leader like it or not. if you want to be a mature citizen then youre going to have to respect him.
and in case you didnt no more ppl were killed because of sudam hussien then the 6,000,000 jews in the holocaust. he tortured and raped ppl. what kind of a country straps bombs to children? im not saying that president bush didnt make mistakes, but how can you critisize him for helping save those ppl? and because of the laws that sadam had broken he actually had the authority to go in there. if we pull out now then irac will collapse, if we would have pulled out sooner they would have been bombarded by terrorist and collasped and fallen to rebellion, maybe end up under a tyranical leader again. bush didn't kill those babies. yeah, our soldiers have died and we should mourn and honor them. but dont blame it on president bush. there will always be war as long as the world exists. i think that a better solution is out there but i dont no of one so i really can turn into a pascifist. what should we have done? allowed sudam to continue torturing those poor ppl?

and as carter said

GO TROOPS!

sorry lol that just bugs me. i didnt mean to go on a tangent...
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 06:05 PM
"The sad fact is that the available evidence strongly suggests that there is NO God, let alone a "loving" God."

what proof would that be?

do you not see the basic explanation i gave? do you not understand it? idk how to make it any more simple. ifi need to go into more detail then i will...but i think its easy to understand
lindsay
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 06:09 PM
read what i wrote and tell me what you dont understand plz, i just read through that and i cant see what you wouldnt get.

these are opinions not facts cranky. and opinions dont consitute as proof. that goes by ur rules too. you should agree.

its simple to understand. haha i mean i get it, surely you can.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 07:48 PM
Cranky Media Guy,


Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa!!

Ok dude, what you said is nothing compared to what I said.

You said...

"I'll repeat this. A human parent who sat by while his/her child was in danger wouldn't be called "loving." Why is it supposedly a demonstration of "love" when we're talking about God? Occam's Razor, please."


I never said that sitting by as your child was in danger was Loving. You keep twisting, and turning everyones words. I was giving you a sense of what Free Will means. I said if that person were to watch that child crawl into danger then it is the FREE WILL of that person to make the right choice. For someone to actually do that means that THEY are the sociopath. Not God. It is called Free Will. Let me repeat that FREE WILL.

So for the record... I don't think that is LOVE.


"As for my talking about "glass houses," well, if, for whatver reason, you have a problem with the language, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack someone else for an occasional slip. If you insist on making that kind of criticism anyway, you have to expect that people will call you on YOUR mistakes."

What are talking about? I am so confused right now. Why would I have a problem with Glass Houses. The only time I insult people, is for the reason of retaliation. If someone attacks me, even if it's little, I will attack them at the same level or more. So what about MY mistakes.

I really don't know what you are talking about here Cranky, Please explain.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 08:07 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"Even if you don't love God, He loves you. Even if you don't believe in God, He believes in you."

You do realize don't you, that I am trying to annoy you and captain al.

I don't care if you put your rules on that. I was trying to get you to do that.hahaha.

But anyway, GOD loves you Cranky. He loves you..

And I am not really saying what I want to say in the full context of things. I am having a hard time explaing what I think. It's frustrating. I am doing homework as I do this. That is why I my rationalization is a little weird.

But if you were to actually get into my head and think what I think, you wouldn't see a Bad God.

You also see it that way because you are so set on your belief system. Just as Me, Lindsay, and Kelly are set on ours. That's why it is so hard for you to undertand what we are saying.

I think of earth as a Big Glass House. It is like God is on the outside of the house and looking through. Us humans have the run of the house. In Lindsay's case it is the devil. (you see, they are just statements) God is watching and making sure we make the right decisions. And the doors are locked By God. But one very special occasions God will unlock the door and may step in to help. I feel that god is with us, and tries to help with our bad times. Let's say there is a speaker that only individuals can hear when it's directed to them. He simply comforts them and makes them know that they are loved. But some people turn off their speaker phones and head phones and can't hear God.

To me God is always there. But if you don't want God in your life then he will just sit back patiently and wait until you do. He is always there for you.
I would appreciate it if I didn't get any rules on that. thanks. Because I am not trying to prove he exists I am simply giving you my belief. A Statement. Thanks
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 08:15 PM
Lindsay,


"oh yeah and kelly im sorry but i really cant just sit back and listening to ppl call the president a murderer. wether or not you like him, he is in authority over the country and you have to respect him. hes your leader like it or not. if you want to be a mature citizen then youre going to have to respect him..............."

I couldn't agree more with you on that one. Not just that paragraph, but on the entire entry. Good Job!!!! Thumbs Up!!!

I mean they say now. Sudamma Bin Laden.... I mean Sudam Hussein. They say that he wasn't involved, You never know he could be lying. He and Osama could have collaborated together in the whole process. And they also say that there was no Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraqistan.. I mean Iraq. Some other country could be holding it for them you know. I can talk forever on that subj But I would like to go into more detail on it. but this is the wrong Forum to do it.

GO TROOPS! GO AMERICA! GO BUSH! but he has a problem with responding to things way to late.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 08:45 PM
One example of Carter's logic. In 1755, tens of thounsands of people in Libson, Portugal, were killed by a tsunami. Since the ability to detect tsunamis has only been around since 1946, I am at a loss to explain Carter's belief those people could have known about it beforehand. He says there was massive loss of life only because the 18th century Portuguese had the "free will" to establish a tsunami warning system but chose not to. Good deduction Carter.

Sorry I will not be joining you in that locked flooded building. I know there is no god to test faith with so why should I suffer. You're the one who should be there. It's your turn isn't it? But you're not willing to go either. Something about being too busy drawing pictures. I see you are all in favor of suffering to test faith in God, as long as it's not you doing the suffering. Very noble.
Kelly
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 | 11:15 PM
What's the line in that Song by.....oh yeah, 'Simone and Garfunkle'..... "HERE'S 2 U MRS. ROBINSON, ERR CAPT. AL, AND CMG, JESUS HOLDS A PLC. 4 THOSE WHO BR8"! Love that Song!!

No DisRespect 2 U Lindsey, and Carter, but in my VEIW I see Your President as an Blood Thristy Murderer. We were after BIN BABY, REMEMBER? Not Saddam? Although it would've taken a few if not more of our GR8! "NAVY SEALS" 2 get SADDAM the HELL OUT of his poor Country. They could've Killed him right there and then.
And WE ARE THERE, THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT WANT US THERE!! They want us OUT! And NOW!! As President Clinton said, he would've NOT gone about 911 the way GWB has done. I did NOT VOTE FOR HIM EITHER TIME, GWB. Or his Father. Whom I do repsect to a degree. But NEVER, EVER WILL I RESPECT HIS SON, and the HELL of a CRYING DYING MESS HE HAS GOTTEN US INTO. And for what? POWER, TO SEE THAT EVERYONE SEE'S ''HE'' IS THE NUMBER ONE PRESIDENT. NO WAYYYYYYYY......... NOT IN THIS LIFE TIME. And what about La? And Miss.? and the Horrific Crimes, and Drownings, and NO HELP, because MR. Bush was on ''VACATION'' And did NOT think it was all that bad.......? Yeah right.
I do agree with what some folks are saying on TV about MR. BUSH and FEMA, that they don't care for the ELDERLY, the POOR, the AFRICAN AMERICANS. How Sad, and Embarrassing for our Country to React this way, Hell, BBC WAS THE 1ST. TO SAY IT, WHERE WAS PRESIDENT BUSH? WHY HASN'T HE COME SOONER TO HELP? ETC;
Again No Disrespect to you both, Carter and Lindsey.
GOD BLESS,

Kelly
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:24 AM
lindsay said:

"oh yeah and kelly im sorry but i really cant just sit back and listening to ppl call the president a murderer. wether or not you like him, he is in authority over the country and you have to respect him. hes your leader like it or not. if you want to be a mature citizen then youre going to have to respect him."

Absolutely false. There is NO legal or moral requirement for an American citizen to respect any elected official. None whatsoever. Neither the president nor any other official in this country is anointed by God. They are elected--and usually not by even a majority of the voters.

I'm guessing that you consider yourself a conservative. Did you "respect" Bill Clinton? You NEVER said anything bad about him or called him a name? Some of the same people who are now so upset about the things others are saying about George Bush called Clinton a murderer and rapist when he was in office.

The First Amendment of the Constitution gives any citizen the right to call the president--ANY president--a son of a bitch, a spoiled little bastard, a murderer or anything else you want. Period.

If you think that citizens are in some way required to "respect" their "leaders," then you disagree with the Founding Fathers who started this country in part because they had STRONG disagreements with the then-current King of England. They disrespected him SO MUCH that they crossed the Atlantic to get away from him and the way he ran England. There were other issues as well, but that was a factor in the founding of America. Were they bad people because of that?

Countries that REQUIRE citizens to "respect" the leaders are not countries I want to live in. If YOU would be happy living in such a nation, pleae name one and tell me why. I'd be fascinated to hear your reasoning. How about North Korea?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:27 AM
Carter S said:

"But if you were to actually get into my head and think what I think, you wouldn't see a Bad God."

I DON'T see a "Bad God." I see NO God. I also see people who make unbelievable rationalizations to try to "explain" the contradictions in the concept of a "loving God" who allows some of His creations to have horrible existences when He could easily help them.

Occam's Razor, dude! Look into it.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:36 AM
Captain Al,

"One example of Carter's logic. In 1755, tens of thounsands of people in Libson, Portugal, were killed by a tsunami. Since the ability to detect tsunamis has only been around since 1946, I am at a loss to explain Carter's belief those people could have known about it beforehand. He says there was massive loss of life only because the 18th century Portuguese had the "free will" to establish a tsunami warning system but chose not to. Good deduction Carter."

Ok, let me say this then. As we grow and become more evolved in technology we have a better use of free will. Yeah ok you spent all that time going through all that research to put that down. Good job! But let's compare it to someone stranded on an island. a very small island. So they have the free will to do every thing they can to survive and what not. But then a big tsunami came. He really wasn't ready, and really has nowhere to go. So I guess all I can say is that he has the free will to try his best to survive or allow him self to die. There you go.

So, the tsunami victims in portugal, had the same free will as that man on the island.

As times go by and as we grow in our minds and technology we have a greater range of free will.

Ok, now I am only giving my some views and some possible ideas for what free will is. Why would you care if I think that or even put that out?
You and cmg say that I am doing some pathetic rationalizing, but all in all, they are just ideas, why not put them out there. Why not look at all the possibilities. Usually when I am talking about this stuff (free will) I am trying to be philosophical about it. I try.

You also mention the way people of religion always result in insults because they have nothing else to say. Well I believe you insulted me first. So I guess you must be religious, since you had nothing else to say but an insult. I don't know that is what I am guessing?

I don't like to insult you. I actually have respect for your views and others. I respect what you say. I listen to your views with an open mind.
I Don't see why you and CMG can't just respect the views of others, especially without that smug way of writing to us, despite your disagreement with us. You don't see Lindsay and I saying that you guys are wrong. We are not criticizing your views.


"Sorry I will not be joining you in that locked flooded building. I know there is no god to test faith with so why should I suffer. You're the one who should be there. It's your turn isn't it? But you're not willing to go either. Something about being too busy drawing pictures. I see you are all in favor of suffering to test faith in God, as long as it's not you doing the suffering. Very noble."

Hell I'll do it. Provide me with the building to do it in. As long as others aren't dying with me.
If it were to come down to it. I really would risk my life for Jesus and God. I don't care how crazy you, CMG, or anyone else for that matter, thinkS it is.

But the funny thing is, you are saying that I should be in a locked building when a tsunami hits, just because I am stating my views and giving out ideas. HMMM... that doesn't sound all that nice buddy, but if it turns you on, it turns you on right.

Go ahead and call it a cult, or something else, if you would like, I am not in one,so it doesn't really matter to me. But that seems to be the way you guys think of religion.

I don't ever recall saying that: 'as long as it's not me suffering'. You like to put words in other peoples mouth don't you?

Another thing. You say I am not noble, but yet you don't even know who I am. What I do. Or what I have done. Maybe you should stick to what you do know. Just a little advice.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:38 AM
Carter S said:

"I never said that sitting by as your child was in danger was Loving. You keep twisting, and turning everyones words. I was giving you a sense of what Free Will means. I said if that person were to watch that child crawl into danger then it is the FREE WILL of that person to make the right choice. For someone to actually do that means that THEY are the sociopath. Not God. It is called Free Will. Let me repeat that FREE WILL."

OK, I'll try this again. Wouldn't the parent who watched but did nothing while their child crawled toward a train track be considered sick? Allowing that to happen certainly would NOT be considered an act of LOVE, right?

So, why do you say that God is "loving" when HE watches yet does nothing while some of His creations are in jeopardy? Why doesn't God pick up the baby crawling toward the train track as He obviously could easily do? The baby does NOT have "free will." A parent might conceivably be in such a situation once in their life. God, however, watches and does NOTHING thousands of times a day as His creations are jeopardized by things out of their control. Please explain where the "love" is in such inaction if you can. Do NOT drag the straw man of "free will" into it as we are talking about people in jeopardy because of forces outside their control. Free Will is not an issue in that situation.

"You also see it that way because you are so set on your belief system. Just as Me, Lindsay, and Kelly are set on ours. That's why it is so hard for you to undertand what we are saying. "

You could "unset" me by offering ONE SINGLE FACT that backs up the notion of the existance of God. All it would take is ONE FACT. Instead, you keep repeating the same NON facts over and over as if they will magically become facts through repetition. That, I can assure you, will NOT happen.

OK, so I have explained how I could be convinced. See, I'm not stubborn at all. All I ask for is ONE FACT. Got one?

Please do not tell me yet again that you "just believe" and so on. I'm asking for a FACT, not opinion.

You folks, on the other hand, persist in believing in something which has not a single fact behind it. Uh, so who's stubborn here?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:42 AM
lindsay said:

"read what i wrote and tell me what you dont understand plz, i just read through that and i cant see what you wouldnt get. "

I assume we're talking here about the "free will of the spirit" thing, right? Sorry, but I honestly do NOT know what that means. Yes, I understand what the concept of "free will" is, but I don't know what the difference between that and the "spirit" variety is. Can you please explain? Remember, after all, that I am but a poor misguided heathen non-believer.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:47 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Yeah I guess I'll look into it because I guess I am giving out bad rationalizations.


"They disrespected him SO MUCH that they crossed the Atlantic to get away from him and the way he ran England."

Actually I believe they crossed the Atlantic to conquer. As they settled the King had Governors of each settlement. The Governors were of course under the command of the King.Thus the people being under the command of the King. But that's when they decided they didn't like the King. They disagreed with the way he wanted things. Like the Sugar ACT. I think. But that is when they started to break away from the Royal Kingdom.

I am not saying that people didn't like him before that, but that's when they decided to break off from him.

But Yeah, I do like the pres. But I don't think that anybody had to like them. They can say anything they want about him, and disagree with him. That's what makes this country great. Our Amendments.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:01 AM
lindsay said:

lets start off with the basics. you guys seem to need them

"long ago God created the earth and gave it over to adam and eve. they sinned and gave the earth to the devil. very simple. the devil is in control of the earth, now God has made a way for us to not allow our sins to condemn us. but the earth still sucks. when ppl ask him, and have faith in him, and do as he says, then he may change things. that takes care of alot"

Lindsay, not one of those statements is a FACT. Nor are the statements made in the following paragraphs. If you have an actual FACT, I'll be happy to listen. Unfortunately for your argument, you haven't presented any so far.

I refer you to Rule Number Two:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

AND Rule Number Three:

"The fact that what you believe is written in a book or books is NOT proof of the existence of God."

You keep insisting on presenting variations on the same NON-facts over and over so I am forced to remind you that they ARE NON-facts.

When you have ONE SINGLE FACT to back up your beliefs, I will be FORCED to consider it. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.

Oh, I forgot Rule Number Sixteen:

"Repeating the same non-proof(s) over and over again is NOT proof of the existence of God."

Get it yet?
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:07 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

You said:

"OK, I'll try this again. Wouldn't the parent who watched but did nothing while their child crawled toward a train track be considered sick? Allowing that to happen certainly would NOT be considered an act of LOVE, right?"

Right! But in my views God does not intervene. I mean If he did, everything would be perfect, thus having no purpose for us actually being here. (To learn, NOT to have bad things happen to us).


"So, why do you say that God is "loving" when HE watches yet does nothing while some of His creations are in jeopardy? Why doesn't God pick up the baby crawling toward the train track as He obviously could easily do? The baby does NOT have "free will." A parent might conceivably be in such a situation once in their life. God, however, watches and does NOTHING thousands of times a day as His creations are jeopardized by things out of their control. Please explain where the "love" is in such inaction if you can. Do NOT drag the straw man of "free will" into it as we are talking about people in jeopardy because of forces outside their control. Free Will is not an issue in that situation."

Ok, The baby of course does have in little ways free will. But not actual logical free will. ( Don't give me shit on that one) They are so curious but I won't consider it free will. k? But anyway the love from God is him wanting us to learn, to grow, He wants us to learn from our mistakes that our free will let happen. Thus our free will being us. Bye watching I am sure God wants us to pick up that baby. But he is observing our free will. I am not saying that he is sacrificing babies for the sake of our learning. I am saying that he is watching us through a window, where on the other side of the window is us, in our environment, letting our free will take control and run the world that we live in.

He won't step in. It is our job to step in. When we don't step in, it is the consequences that we have to pay.


"You could "unset" me by offering ONE SINGLE FACT that backs up the notion of the existance of God. All it would take is ONE FACT. Instead, you keep repeating the same NON facts over and over as if they will magically become facts through repetition. That, I can assure you, will NOT happen."

"OK, so I have explained how I could be convinced. See, I'm not stubborn at all. All I ask for is ONE FACT. Got one?"

I will talk about this tomorrow, I have class in four hours. So I need some sleep.

"You folks, on the other hand, persist in believing in something which has not a single fact behind it. Uh, so who's stubborn here?"

Yeah we sure do. Listen I do not think you are stubborn alright. Despite what I ahve said in the past. I respect your views. They are your beliefs and I have so much respect for that. So, Don't for one second think that I think your views are silly, or that you are ignorant.

Tired Gotta go.

Later
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:09 AM
Carter S said:

"Ok, Did you read what I said. I said it is the FREE WILL of the person which can create such a bad thing to happen to a child. Like drinking or taking drugs while they are pregnant. Or sometimes it's is just in the DNA. I am not saying that God jsut says 'oh well, I guess I will go ahead and make this child disabled, there we go'."

No, I'M saying that. According to you, after all, who made the DNA in the first place? Um, God, right? Where's the "free will" in being born with a genetic disease?

A being that would allow a child to be born with a disease when that being could change that situation is NOT loving in any sense that I can understand. I realize you have to rationalize things like this in order to believe, but sheesh!

"I am saying that on a planet like this, where everything is based on what the human race does, is not what God is doing, but it is our Will that is running this planet. We learn from mistakes, There is always a lesson to be learned."

So, God allows children to suffer so that SOMEONE, somewhere can "learn a lesson." Wow, God really is a prick, isn't He?

Your rationalization of God's behavior sounds almost exactly like the father of a person in my family who was mentally ill (the father that is). He liked to "teach lessons" through cruelty, too.

You believers keep avoiding my central point here that a human being who treated their child in the same manner as you say God does would be considered sick. Why should we NOT apply the same standards to a being who, after all, is supposed to be perfect?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:15 AM
Carter S said:

"Even if you don't love God, He loves you. Even if you don't believe in God, He believes in you.

"Did you know that Cranky?"

Well, I was taught that as a child, but no, I do NOT believe it. There's no reason to. After all, as Rule Number Two clearly states:

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

And, of course, there's also Rule Number Sixteen:

"Repeating the same non-proof(s) over and over again is NOT proof of the existence of God."

NEXT!
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:19 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

I'm Baaack!!!


When I say that I am trying to get you to give me your rules. It is to annoy you. But I will stop.

later
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:20 AM
NEXT!!!

Damn I love that.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 02:22 AM
Kelly,

I will happily debate you on any of that.

Actually I will be HAPPY to debate ANYONE on politics.

Just Go to the Terrorism forum, Then it's under Iraq.

It will be FUN.

Who's up for it?
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 10:51 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

I said:
"Ok, Did you read what I said. I said it is the FREE WILL of the person which can create such a bad thing to happen to a child. Like drinking or taking drugs while they are pregnant. Or sometimes it's is just in the DNA. I am not saying that God jsut says 'oh well, I guess I will go ahead and make this child disabled, there we go'."

You said:
No, I'M saying that. According to you, after all, who made the DNA in the first place? Um, God, right? Where's the "free will" in being born with a genetic disease?


Yeah I know! But you are pretty much telling me what I am saying and that is not what I am saying. Sure your saying it. But I am not.


The DNA thing, ok, I am not saying I believe this, I really have no answer for this, But I am thinking that he gave this DNA type thing, like only getting one ear, So that people can over come the hard ship and ridicule of having one ear. For disease, maybe he let that happen because he wants us to use our brains, try to find a way to cure it, eradicate it. To grow in our technology.

"A being that would allow a child to be born with a disease when that being could change that situation is NOT loving in any sense that I can understand. I realize you have to rationalize things like this in order to believe, but sheesh!"


I am just throwing out possiblities right know. Maybe it is bad rationalization. But at least I am trying to consider things.

"So, God allows children to suffer so that SOMEONE, somewhere can "learn a lesson." Wow, God really is a prick, isn't He?"


That is just the thing, he is letting us rule the world. Something is either going to be bad or good. So if he stepped in what would we learn as humans?
I guess in some cases it's tough love. I am sure he doesn't like to see a child suffer.

"Your rationalization of God's behavior sounds almost exactly like the father of a person in my family who was mentally ill (the father that is). He liked to "teach lessons" through cruelty, too."

It's not that God is teaching the lessons, the lessons teach themselves. We have to learn from them.

"You believers keep avoiding my central point here that a human being who treated their child in the same manner as you say God does would be considered sick. Why should we NOT apply the same standards to a being who, after all, is supposed to be perfect?"

That's just the thing. He is perfect. He allows those things to happen so that we can perfect our selves.

Dude I am trying my best to show my views. At least give me some credit for actually sticking to my views. Especially when you have some very good arguments.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 11:41 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

"You could "unset" me by offering ONE SINGLE FACT that backs up the notion of the existance of God. All it would take is ONE FACT. Instead, you keep repeating the same NON facts over and over as if they will magically become facts through repetition. That, I can assure you, will NOT happen."

I have admitted it in the past. " there is no proof that God exists..."

I would love to give you a FACT. But I would also Like to have a FACT.

The only facts I know is that, there are many religions that beleive in God. But that obviously does not prove his existence. It also violates your very well thought out rules.

Since this is the Sylvia Browne page, I should be able to try to express myself about God, without any rules. But then agian it is a free country. So your rules are obviously permitted.

I do say this though, Although there is NO PROOF of Gods existence, it is really just the matter of Faith. That's what religion is all about. Faith. When it comes to believers, they don't care about what the facts say, they care what their hearts say.

I KNOW THAT FAITH IS NOT PROOF. So please, no rules. I would really appreciate that.

Nobody will ever prove the existence of God. And why do us believers try? It is because we hope that our faith can help other people have faith.

Yeah we throw out all kinds of things. Even though they might contradict one another. We do keep repeating the same Non-proof of God. But just because that may be so, it doesn't prevent us from doing it over and over again, because it's what we believe.

When we say it is our faith, or, our heart tells us to feel that way. It's kind of like someone that you love. But although there may be a lot of proof that they are a bad person, it doesn't make it so. So we put our faith in it. We hope for the best. Sometimes our heart tells us wrong things. And we pay miserably for that. But I guess we'll know that when we die.( about the existence of God).

It is my opinion that there is no right religion, whether it's hinduism, buddhist, catholic, or johovahs' witness, or even Athiest (which I guess isn't considered a religion, more of a belief system). They are all about doing the best they can, to make their lives worth something, to help others and provide a healthy life style.

Of course I am not talking about the bad people who don't practice what they preach. (Like pedafile priests.) They may have SOME good intentions, but always seem to go the perverted way.

I don't have a problem with people who don't believe in God, I don't think they are better off believing. Because If that's what gets them through life ok, then I find that to be the best belief. To me the best belief is your own.

I don't agree with terrorism, and cults. So don't bring that up please. I find that to be a disturbing way to live. But I guess it gets them through life. I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE OK. Because it hurts others. If a belief hurts others, then I will disagree with
it.

I don't "look down" on any one because of their belief. I like to see it as them finding their way of life. They are stating their opinions, and I find that fascinating, and awesome, especially, despite what others say.

This debate over God is a never ending debate, that could and probably will drive people crazy. I just find it easier to look at what is around you, and make a conlusion for your self, and the best of all, respect other peoples beliefs. No matter how silly it may sound to you. (of course not the terrorists)

*Well I guess I should turn off that Full House loving lecture music now.

I suggest we continue with the Sylvia Browne Forum, and save our comments about God for the Prove God Exists Forum.

What do you say!?

Here I'll get it started...

Is the evidence that we have now, good enough to convict sylvia of being a fraud?


Sincerely,

Carter S
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 11:46 AM
"Of course I am not talking about the bad people who don't practice what they preach. (Like pedafile priests.) They may have SOME good intentions, but always seem to go the perverted way."

I should probably restate that.



The pedafiles are the ones that may have some good intentions. It is the pedafiles that seem to chose the perverted side.

pedafiles (right spelling?)

Bye. If you make a statement about God I will post my response on the God existence forum.
Carter
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 11:51 AM
Captain Al, CMG,

"I'll have my faith tested by your suffering. I'm sure you'll agree to that. After all it's for my own good."

Yeah my rationalizing is making me sound like I think that, But I just can't seem to get what I want out. But I don't think that.

later
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 01:54 PM
Carter S said:

"The only facts I know is that, there are many religions that beleive in God. But that obviously does not prove his existence. It also violates your very well thought out rules."

Correct on both points.

"Since this is the Sylvia Browne page, I should be able to try to express myself about God, without any rules. But then agian it is a free country. So your rules are obviously permitted."

Well, I would never say you didn't have the RIGHT to express yourself concerning your beliefs (or anything else for that matter). However, you have to accept that you will be challenged, especially in a forum like this.
lindsay
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 04:45 PM
i dont have time to respond to all of this and sry if i bring the forum back a few entries but i dont have time to read all of it either

cranky-

"I'm guessing that you consider yourself a conservative. Did you "respect" Bill Clinton? You NEVER said anything bad about him or called him a name? Some of the same people who are now so upset about the things others are saying about George Bush called Clinton a murderer and rapist when he was in office. "

do you realize how young i was when clinton was in office? anything i would have said would have come from my mom and she doesnt bad mouth presidents no matter who they are

im sry kelly i prolly phrased that wrong. what im saying is in my belief to be a mature citizen of the united states you have to be able to respect the president. that is the american way i think. and also kelly, id debate you on any of that but this forum is already horribly off topic.

cranky you need to look into this a little more. how ridiculous. the arguement that we are in include the beliefs of christians. you guys are trying to say that the bible contridicts itsself, therefor you are using the bible in your arguement. we may use it to, to show you that you are wrong, that its not contridicting that God loves us. i never said it was fact. its called understand a book. aaaahhhhh im sry but this is sooo annoying.

so cranky, now can you respond to my explanation?

i dont remember writting anything about the "free will of the spirit" and cranky dont act like i treat you condisendingly. i dont wish to be insulted like that. you no what that really pisses me off. wen have i ever treated you as an inferior? dont be a jerk.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 07:12 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"Well, I would never say you didn't have the RIGHT to express yourself concerning your beliefs (or anything else for that matter). However, you have to accept that you will be challenged, especially in a forum like this."

Yeah, I know, It's called the Museum of hoaxes.

I didn't come in thinking that I wasn't going o be challenged. I wrote something hoping to be challenged.

Lindsay,

"the arguement that we are in include the beliefs of christians. you guys are trying to say that the bible contridicts itsself, therefor you are using the bible in your arguement. we may use it to, to show you that you are wrong, that its not contridicting that God loves us."


Sorry if I said it does, I really don't know since I have never read the bible. I will though. But I just said that because they use that arguement and I assumed that there was some truth to it. I will read it and see for myself.-


The reason why I wrote all of that is because I wanted to stop writing about the God on this page, since there is a page for that. I just want to get back on the subj.

Have a good one guys
talk to you later.

mmmmmm I smell Roast Beef!
lindsay
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 | 07:54 PM
yeah im out. i still dont how this whole thing got started on a debate about sylvia lol.
Kelly
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 12:12 AM
I just thought of something CMG, and CAPT. AL, The "T" Flood, and the Hurrican's, and all the Deaths of our Troops, and all hell br8ing loose in our own Nation, and Our world is because of the 'DEVIL' itself!! "GOD" Never, EVER punishes us, The Devil WILL do it's BEST to C that WE BELIEVE that it is "GOD" Doing all this Shit!! And Ignoring the Young, but it's 99% If not 100% The Devil doing it ALL. within YOUR MINDS as well.

The Diseases the Children grow up with I TRUELY belive are the acts from the Devil. And I also Believe that We some how CHOOSE what we would like to 'STUDY' if you will, here on Earth the Next time around. So some of the Diseases could Stem from that also. Think About it.

Did anyone See the Finale of "The Ghost Hunters" Tonight, on SCI-FI Channel?? If not it was AWESOME!! They ACTUALLY CAUGHT an Enity on Their Therma thing, he was wearing an Civil War Union form. Hat and all!! Then both Jake and the other Head Guy, went to this house, and the owner is....
an MEDIUMN......So of course these ''GHOST HUNTERS'' R VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT MEDIUMNS, PYCHICS, ECT; So each had an Reading, and they were Blown away about what this man did. He was RIGHT ON TARGET about All, for both Gentlemen! They took their equipment and saw that when The 1st Guy that was 'READ' by Carroll The Medium The ENERGY FLOWED, LITTERILLY FLOWED FROM HIM TOO THE PSYCHIC!! IT WAS ABSOLUTELY MIND BLOWING!!!! For The Head Guy, was 'BLOCKING' CARROLL, the MEDIUM from READING his Mind. It was SHOCKING to say the least.
I'm convinced at last that there R TRUE PSYCHIC'S OUT THERE AMONGEST US. THANK GOD!!!! And HE does NOT Charge tons of Money,in fact I don't think he charges anything for the readings.
This was in Arizona, some high society Hotel there is where i believe they found the Footage of the SOLDIER.
COOL!

Kelly.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:22 AM
Kelly, I'm sure you're a nice girl but you're very naive.

The Devil comes under the same general heading as God. In short, PROVE HE EXISTS. Do I really need to repeat Rule Number Two?

"The sincerity of your belief in God is NOT proof of the existence of God."

You keep doing that as if simply repeating an unproven assertion will somehow MAKE it proven. That is not so. You're going to make me add a Rule if you're not careful:

"Making an unproven assertion (like the existence of the Devil) is not proof of the existence of God."

As for the "Ghost Hunter" thing, sorry, not buying. It's a TV show; nobody on there is under oath. I have some familiarity with TV production, having been a segment producer for the FX network for a summer. A TV show that is all about the existence of ghosts isn't going to be very interested in doing a show on which NO ghosts make an "appearance."

Am I suggesting that the thing may have been faked? Yes. I'm not saying it absolutely WAS, just that I wouldn't fall over in a dead faint if I found out it was.

So, energy "flowed" from the "ghost," huh? What KIND of energy? The word "energy" is thrown around rather loosely in the paranormal world.

Give me about $10,000 and I'll build you a very "scientific" looking machine that will detect "energy" whenever you want.

TV shows like that are NOT scientific in any way. They're intended to entertain.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:51 AM
Carter S said:

"Ok, The baby of course does have in little ways free will. But not actual logical free will. ( Don't give me shit on that one) They are so curious but I won't consider it free will. k?"

No, not really. A baby does NOT have "free will" so what you've said up to this point simply doesn't work. "Free will" is about being able to distinguish the consequences of your actions and making a choice. A baby has NO ability to do that.

You're doing exactly what I've been saying believers do all along: rationalize. When a point is proved wrong, suddenly you "didn't mean" what you plainly meant.

I do not mean this as a personal attack; it's just what all believers do when they're in an argument with a person who insists on logic.

A parent who didn't do everything he or she could to try to save a baby which was crawling toward a railroad track would NOT be called "loving." God allows bad things to happen every single day. I therefore do NOT see why you think that God is "loving."

I submit that the FAR more likely answer is that there simply is NO God. No God = no contradiction. Simple.

NEXT!
Kelly
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 01:19 PM
Okay........I have HAD IT. I can not believe the NAMES some of U call our 'GOD'!!

So I'm out of this.

Good Luck, and GOD BLESS ALL.

Kelly
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 02:02 PM
Kelly said:

"Okay........I have HAD IT. I can not believe the NAMES some of U call our 'GOD'!!"

Kelly, you can't insult the non-existent!
lindsay
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 03:19 PM
"I do not mean this as a personal attack; it's just what all believers do when they're in an argument with a person who insists on logic."

theres something wrong with you. really there is. i cant believe that youre that immature! god, get a freakin life! so basically youve just made the stereo-type, that all christians are illogical. cranky whenever anyone says anything logical, you ignore it. and dont try to say that you dont. dont even make urself look that bad.

"Kelly, you can't insult the non-existent!"

theres a point where you draw the line. was that necesary?

i really dont care if you think it was actually. i cant put up with your disrespectful condiscending attitude. weve put up a good fight. i debated with you over the summer and ive debated with you for a while now. i really dont appreaciate that all i get from that is that im a stupid christian. tell you what, when im 30 or 40 or however old you are. then well have this debate again. when im an adult maybe i wont be so illogical and stupid.
lindsay
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 03:22 PM
that was a little mean. i cant say that im sorry cuz im not. i meant what i said. except for the thing about there being something wrong with you, that was just unnesaccary for me to say. i just cant stand it when ppl dont have respect for others. its like you think that youre better
than us.

im sry if i get a little bratty. im talking to one of my friends about him cutting right now and my best friend just told me that shes moving two hours away in a week so im not in the greatest mood.
Carter S
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 06:26 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"You're doing exactly what I've been saying believers do all along: rationalize. When a point is proved wrong, suddenly you "didn't mean" what you plainly meant"


I admit that I put that about the baby. But then again I am throwing out ideas.
When I say that I didn't mean that or something in that matter. It is probably because I didn't mean to write it that way, or you make it into something else, thus, me telling you I didn't mean it like that.

When I say the baby has a little free will, that is me throwing out ideas. I am playing devils advocate here.

You should start to respect people, even if their rationalizations sound funny to you. I could see you being disrespectful to a terrorist belief or something of that nature, but not because someone is giving an idea or their views. Not to be rude, but have you considered taking a class in social skills?
Are you like this to your friends, co-workers, to your wife, your children? When your kids give out an opinion do you simply say, no you're wrong and stupid, here are my rules.

I don't know, I guess I just figured that a man of your age and wisdom would be respectful. You are pretty smug about things that you are not 100% on.

Yes, I admit, I have been disrespectful in the past. Like Captain Al, But that was is in retaliation from his attacks. And I already apologized for that.


Yeah, sure you disagree with us, but is that a reason to be disrespectful?


I put:
They are so curious but I won't consider it free will. k?"

So I acutally admitted to babies not having free will.

NEXT!

So are we going to talk about Sylvia or not.
Let it Go Cranky, There is actually a forum on God remember. Let's use it!

Here I'll get us started (AGAIN):

Does the evidence that we have now actually prove her a fraud?

Now someone else responds...
Carter S
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 | 09:45 PM
I am guessing that know one here wants to debate me in politics.(kelly) Well I am talking to one person over on the terrorism/iraq forum and it's getting pretty good.

Well any way,

I don't think that what we have is enough to say psychic abilities are fake.


...............................................
..........................................
.........................
...........
.......
..
.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 07:40 AM
Carter S said:

"I don't think that what we have is enough to say psychic abilities are fake."

Carter, the same principle applies here as with the God debate: no one has to prove a negative. If you believe there are "psychic powers," the burden of proof is on you.

The fact of the matter is that NO ONE has EVER demonstrated psychic powers under controlled conditions. Period.

If by "fake," you mean that psychics are putting on a deliberate act, well, I'd say that some are and some are sincere (but wrong) in their belief that they possess such powers.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 08:08 AM
Lindsay said:

"cranky whenever anyone says anything logical, you ignore it. and dont try to say that you dont. dont even make urself look that bad."

Well, when has a believer said anything "logical" in this debate about God? Seriously.

"Kelly, you can't insult the non-existent!"

theres a point where you draw the line. was that necesary?"

How does that cross the line? You claimed that I was insulting God. Clearly, I don't believe in God and no one here has presented anything resembling a FACT supporting His existence. Why is it "over the line" to point out that you can't insult someone who doesn't exist? Can I insult Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter? No. Why? Because they're fictional characters. Same concept here.

"i really dont appreaciate that all i get from that is that im a stupid christian."

I've never said that. What I HAVE said is that your beliefs are unfounded in logic. Sorry, but that happens to be the case.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a believer told me they "pitied" me, etc. even though they have exactly ZERO facts to back up their beliefs. Talk about smug!

You folks have such a problem with me repeating my Rules. As I KEEP pointing out, I only do that when a believer insists on repeating one or more of the same NON-facts to support the notion of the existence of God. NON-facts do not become FACTS through repetition. Are you of the opinion that I should just accept your NON-facts when you repeat them enough times? Life doesn't work like that.

When believers stop repeating the same things over and over and over, I will have no reason to respond with the Rules. See, you have all the power here! Isn't that great?
positivity
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 02:52 PM
everyone has an opinion. you can take everything i say like a grain of salt. i know there are a lot of frauds after peoples money that claim to be psychics. i personally have someone very close to me that has psychic abilitys. they have been proven over and over again. she doesnt charge anyone or want anything in return. she has a real gift.no true psychic knows everything and if they say they are correct 100% all the time they are lieing. the supernatural is real. i have personally have felt and seen things that cant be explain. our loved ones from the other side do visit. some people can get clearer messages than others.trust when i say i havent seen half of what other people have seen. but just because you havent seen it doesnt mean its not true. this world we call earth is filled with so much negativity we have to reach for the positivity. once again its my view on things.
have a great day
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 03:38 PM
positivity said:

" i personally have someone very close to me that has psychic abilitys. they have been proven over and over again."

Where is this "proof"? You are stating it like it is a fact. It you are so sure of this, your friend should easily be able to win the JREF $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge.

"this world we call earth is filled with so much negativity we have to reach for the positivity."

Do you call successfully proving a claimed psychic a fraud, negativity? I would say that's positivity.
positivity
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 04:53 PM
i never said it was a friend so lets correct that. yes we are all here to dismiss the frauds or wanna bes for who they are. they trick to many people. im just saying why are people so quick to dismiss that their are true psychics that have a gift in different degrees. also what i meant by negativity is this world is so filled with it. we forget to see the positive and greatness in the good. there is too much blackness in this world. it is so unbalanced. if we create more positive energy within ourselves we create ourselves to be better at what we do. we need more white energy not become such a complainer and create such misery that all you attract is the negative. a yes is my for a fact i know this person is real at what they say like i said she picks up a lot of information past present and future. also you live your life, you can absorb what one tells you but you do not ever live your life by it or waiting for it. if it happens then you say ok. but you dont sit about wondering is it or isnt it.
like i said this is my opinion take it or leave it. dont live by what i say you feel they way you feel and this is my opinion on how i see it.

hope u are having a great day.
Carter S
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 05:11 PM
Well I am glad people are actually talking about the right subj on this forum now.

Let me say this:

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

I have also had paranormal experiences. I have talked about them on this page in the past.

Captain Al gave some explanations, but I had already thought of them, and it didn't work out that way.

In my opinion, people need to be more open minded.

Like positivity said, Take it or leave it.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 05:41 PM
Positivity,

You said people have psychic powers in differing degrees. So then, why couldn't some psychics be right 100% of the time? None have done any better than what can be expected by guessing.

Like I said many times before, if they really did have psychic powers, it would be easy to prove it to the world. Why then have none be able to?

Contrary to what Carter thinks, I have a completely open mind about this and all it would take to change my opinion is for one of these self-proclaimed psychics to win the $1,000,000 challenge. What will it take to convince you there is no such thing as psychic abilities?
Carter S
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 06:16 PM
"What will it take to convince you there is no such thing as psychic abilities?"

For me it would have to be me going into the past somehow and never having an experience.
Carter S
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 06:18 PM
Captain Al,

"Contrary to what Carter thinks, I have a completely open mind about this and all it would take to change my opinion is for one of these self-proclaimed psychics to win the $1,000,000 challenge"

Let's say that the 1,000,000 dollar challenge never existed. Then would you say that psychic abilities are possible?
positivity
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 | 06:51 PM
see what i meant by degrees is that some can feel things when they touch someone. others can be on the phone and pick up messages. some can see future while others can be connected to the paranormal. know one in this world is a hundred percent you are not the all knowing. we have flaws we are on earth. we are not supreme. true psychics are not about here is your lotto numbers and this is how you can get rich. examples are i see you getting a job working in a office with a round desk and the man who will hire you looks medium height glasses and not married , quess what got the job exact description five years later. the boy i met at fifteen broke up because he moved was told he would come back either 6 weeks or 6 months.and i would not break up will marry him and have three kids. quess what happened exactly not 6 weeks but six months later remember i am fifteen not thinking about marriage now i am married to him and three kids nineteen years later still together. sister was told she would have a set of twins doesnt run in family she did. i can keep going but once again these are my expericences. i dont need convincing hope u find your answer i know and believe its true.
my opinion onces again
have a great day
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 03:02 AM
positivity said:

"see what i meant by degrees is that some can feel things when they touch someone. others can be on the phone and pick up messages. some can see future while others can be connected to the paranormal."

If you (or anyone else) can prove ONE of those claims under controlled conditions, there is a million dollars waiting for you/them to claim. Go for it! Until then, please do not make statements you can't back up.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 03:20 AM
Carter S said:

"I have also had paranormal experiences. I have talked about them on this page in the past."

No, what you had was experiences you don't have explanations for. They may or may not have been "paranormal." That remains to be proven.

People are a little liberal with the "paranormal" label, I think. I've seen people say that David Blaine must have special powers because he appeared to levitate in front of them. I know exactly how he does that trick; I bought the same video tape he learned it from. Trust me, there ain't NOTHING "paranormal" about it.

Yes, I know you aren't claiming anything like that; I'm just using Blaine as an example of something that people describe as "paranormal" that isn't because they don't happen to know the real explanation.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 03:21 AM
By the way, if anyone should happen to want to know how Blaine "levitates," do a search for "Balducci levitation."
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 03:33 AM
positivity said:

" i personally have someone very close to me that has psychic abilitys. they have been proven over and over again."

What sort of "psychic abilitys [sic]" do they demonstrate? How have these abilities been "proven?" Have they ever subjected themselves to properly conducted double-blind testing?
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 08:46 PM
"Let's say that the 1,000,000 dollar challenge never existed. Then would you say that psychic abilities are possible?"

No. There would simply have to be some other properly conducted scientific test.
Carter S
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 | 12:33 PM
Oh, Ok.
Carter S
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 | 01:02 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

Yeah, I saw that before (balducci levitation).

I did it to my Friends before. They were amazed. It was funny.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 | 12:31 AM
Yes, Carter, the Balducci Levitation trick is pretty good, huh? I'm almost embarassed to perform it, though, because it's SO simple once you know how it works.

My point, though, is that the Balducci Levitation kind of demonstrates something about humans: the fact that something seems inexplicable doesn't prove that it IS. After all, YOU know that the Balducci trick is extremely simple. Your friends who don't know, though, assume that it must be due to something amazing. Just about everyone above a certain age has had at least one seemingly inexplicable experience. That doesn't prove that it WAS inexplicable.

Sometimes, as with the Balducci trick, the answer is so simple that we overlook it.
Carter S
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 | 09:26 AM
Yeah, it is really simple. Well I told them how I did it and they were embarrassed to fall for it.

But, I do agree with you on how people are tricked into thinking things are real when in fact they are not.

But my experiences are real. Well some. I always look for an explanation first.

Like me hearing voices in my sisters room. I am going to assume first that someone is in there.(family member). I check it out. If no one is in there, I try to find things that it could be. I have yet to find anything. But I am still assuming that it was just my neighbors, or the TV echoing through the halls. Which I am sure It was.

But then there are things which are completely unexplainable. Like my toilet flushing on it's own. Toilets don't do that. Unless they are the automatic ones. But mine is not. It happens all the time. When I am getting ready for school, taking a shower (that sucks,it burns), But toilets don't flush on their own. You can actually hear the knob flip up after it's has been flushed.

My TV in my room changes channels by themselves.( I don't have a remote control for it either).
It turns off and on.

I took it in for repairs and they said nothing is wrong. They also said nothing will make a TV turn on unless someone does it themselves. Not even bad wiring will do that. It can however turn off by itself, do to power outages or if the TV breaks, or faulty wiring.

I have just seen weird shit happen. My moms coffee mug flew across the table and broke against the door that leads to the garage, While my friends were in there.

Those are only some of the reasons why I believe in the paranormal. Hell I would love to invite Randi James to my house. But My dads not one for that kind of stuff, and would say that it's ridiculous. But I guess the ghosts or whatever it is would have to get the money.

I just never rule anything out anymore. I don't believe everything that I hear, But I look into it, and come to my own conclusions.

I just recently had a weird experience at work, about three weeks ago. I work at a golf course, and I was driving around in a cart with a co-worker. When we happen to pass a tree with a blinding light in the center. We went up to it
and it started to get hot. then cold. then hot again. kind of like a pattern. We went to our supervisor and he came to look at it and said "yeah this has happened before, its weird because it was a different tree that did this in the past and we cut it down." He said, " It will leave a hole in the tree and kill it. that is why we had to cut it down."
There have been investigations on it too. But there is no answer for it. Just to keep a watch on things. But in the mornings we can all see weird lights in the sky, and flashes of blue and red, green. They seem to just hover in the air. there are usually two, one on top of another just hovering. The lights do some kind of a sincranized pattern with each other.

I am tempted to bring a camcorder to work.

Weird shit happens.
Carter S
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 | 11:54 PM
Everyone,


Just off the subject. I happen to read an article by a Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. He talks about the hurricane and how African Americans in New Orleans reacted to it.

The Article was called "MORAL POVERTY COST BLACKS IN NEW ORLEANS."

This gives a great perspective on the attitudes of the people of New Orleans.

Look this article up on google or something. It is very true. And don't forget to see what race the author is.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 | 01:13 AM
Carter S said:

"Just off the subject. I happen to read an article by a Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. He talks about the hurricane and how African Americans in New Orleans reacted to it.

The Article was called "MORAL POVERTY COST BLACKS IN NEW ORLEANS."

This gives a great perspective on the attitudes of the people of New Orleans.

Look this article up on google or something. It is very true. And don't forget to see what race the author is."

Yup, Carter, that is WAY off the topic. Besides, since not all people in New Orleans have the same "attitude" (whatever that vague word means in this context), how can we draw any conclusions based on "their" alleged "attitudes?"

Let me guess: the author is black. What did I win?
Page 6 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.