Not true. I said I didn't present it because you chose not to accept the first-hand accounts.


No, it does not apply to me. If anything, I choose to keep the religion, but dump the god. (By "religion" I mean "a set of beliefs about spiritual matters.")


I have already done so, and you chose not to accept it. No reason to do it again.

which means you are spiritual ..I guess I should've also add being deceptive to that description



"Skyhook" did you present the new unknown knowledge or did your out of body self present it because I never saw it ..come on "Skyhook" present the evidence again maybe the moderators accidently deleted it before any one could read it ..come on be a buddy be a pal

And how do you know that big fella?


How can you be so rock solid sure that someone cannot remote veiw something as simple as next door's kitchen?

I know I have been in my parent's loungeroom, whilst they have been having a conversation, which I could recite word for word to them both, and what was on the television in their home, whilst I was in New Zealand,asleep, two hours ahead of them....

You wouldn't know a remote view if it bit you on the arse!


But keep being the cynical, it suits you.

I don't see how I deceived you. (Unless you believe that "being spiritual" = "being deceptive".) But go ahead and feel free to believe that I deceived you if you want.


If you never saw it then you need to look harder. I looked and It’s still there. It hasn’t been deleted. If you want it, find it yourself. I’m not going to do it for you.

Fascinating and compelling account Jess. Thank you for contributing more "new, unknown knowlege" to our already substantial accumulation.

I not saying that I'm rock solid sure ..I'm just saying that no evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise



"Jess" well first of all they are your parents so as a child you probably heard the same conversations that your parents had hundreds of times that lead to them saying the same things leading to the same conclusion of the conversation

also as for remote viewing as to what was on your parent's telelvision ..you probably seen the program or remember one of your parents mentioning that they are going to watch it ...with today's technology with cell phones dvrs the internet makes using what's on television to prove that someone remote view unreliable



all that would matter at that point in time was that I felt my apse get bit



"Jess" ...just because you can't provide any verifiable evidence beyond a delusion shouldn't be used as a reason to label someone cynical ... the term "cynical" is use mostly when the claim-ee lacks any verifiable evidence ...

Geez "Skyhook" it's no need to have a tantrum.. it's only a debate ... now I see what those Princton researchers had to deal with

but anyway I read it all beforehand which is why "I know for a fact" that you presented no evidence of any "new unknown knowledge"
so theres no need to play silly reindeer games like you did post something ..

this is a chance to present concrete evidence but instead you have a conniption fit

"Skyhook" that doesn't constitute as being "new unknown knowledge" ..what Jess described was only the "event" or the "dream" that supposely took place ...

According to the definitions of the words "new", "unknown" and "knowledge" (as given in The American Heritage College Dictionary - Fourth Edition) it most certainly does.

But if you have some made-up definitions of your own, then please share them so we can all understand what you mean by that oxymoronic phrase.

And again, according to the definition of the word “evidence” (as given in The American Heritage College Dictionary – Fourth Edition) his account is precisely that. (As are the several accounts documented in this thread, as well as the voluminous documentation from the PEAR research.)

So please, if you’re going to use made-up definitions of words, at least let us know what those definitions are so we can all understand what you’re saying.

[deleted double post]

I explained the term "new unknown knowledge through-out this thread but will gladly lump the posts together so that the term can be fully understood


"new unknown knowledge" means knowledge that exist outside the realm of reality that you normally exist in

as a spiriutal entity or as a "remote viewer" you would have been in a whole new plane of existence and/or in an unknown alien situation but yet you had total controlled and didn't have to adjust to anything new and didn't acquire any new knowledge from the experience ...

let's say you were the only person in existence and therefore had no knowledge of swimming in water and decided to jump in the ocean...you would enter a total alien enviroment in which the laws in the water would be different then anything you ever experience..

you wouldn't know how to keep afloat you would find out that you can't breath and if you didn't drown you would have gain new unknown knowledge about existence or existing in a water enviroment

but you claim that you were out of your body in an total alien situation that you had no knowledge of but yet you have total control and didn't have to adjust to anything new you automatically knew how to walk hover breath and didn't bring any new unknown knowledge from the experience ..you brought nothing back but that you left your body and those are the same happenstances that occurs in dreams ...

so that's why I'm not saying it didn't happen to anyone I'm just saying no one have supplied any evidence that it was nothing more than a dream

"Skyhook" that's the point I been trying to get across to 'Tribo" that everything may not be in the dictionary that knowledge expands and definitions change or can be undated as to defined the words in more absolute terms

but to start demanding that people follow or conformed to exactly whats written in the dictionary stagnate the society into a religion and turns the dictionary into a bible ..

Funches, if you will stick to known definitions of words, then you might be able to communicate better.

Just a suggestion.

JB

if I did... would that mean that you can provide any evidence that your remote veiwing was anything more than you having a delusion

so come on "JennieBean" let's give it a try I'm play your game ...but I can bet it wouldn't make a difference even if I spoked in Kligonese you still couldn't supply anything beyond an hallucination

that's what I like about this debate..you guys can't blame your lack of evidence on God or Man or me...only on yourselves ...

No. There is no evidence that would satisfy you available. I have told you this before. No. No. No. No. What part of No do you fail to understand funches?

Hallucinations and out of body travel are very similar in that they originate from the pineal gland.

If your pineal gland is not working properly you may be diagnosed as "schizophrenic" or "delusional" because you probably hear voices and see things that don't exist in this reality, while you are wide awake.

I agree with you funches, that these visions and experiences can be considered "delusional" by people such as yourself who do not pay attention to the subtle differences between them.

So you are free to call them delusions if you wish.

However without the ability to have dreams, we could not function as conscious beings, so these things are in truth a natural experience. Dreams and visions and even out of body experiences are part of our entire physical and spiritual make up. You will hear much much more about them in the very near future. You may even experience one yourself.

How you want to define as "reality" is a personal choice funches. You could even call your entire life a "delusion" or "illusion" if you want to. You have no way of knowing if it is real other than you believe it is.

If you feel secure in your reality by believing that out of body experiences and remote viewing is nothing more that delusion, or dreams then that is a good thing for you.

I am happy for you funches, because you believe you have it all figured out. Good for you funches.

JB

again "JennieBean" why do you keep making your lack of evidence about me ..if you lack evidence then you can only blame yourself ..to blame someone else because you lack evidence for something you claim to have happened is...er.. how can I say this ...delusional

you took responsibilty to claim the experience then do the same for the lack of evidence ..


"JennieBean"...you are happy for me because you lack evidence???? ..er ...sounds delusional to me

It is all about you Funches because you are the person who continues to harp on it and demand proof and evidence.

You either believe me or you don't. You either think I'm delusional or you don't It is all about you funches.

I have enough evidence and information to convince myself. That is all I require. It is not my job to satisfy your requirements for evidence because I allow you to believe what ever you want, come to what ever conclusion you want.

Therefore the ball is in your court and it is all about you and what you want to believe. I have my evidence, you just refuse to accept or believe it. That is your choice.

cheers!

well "JennieBean".."Earth Wind and Fire" said it best ...that's the way of the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsAaLNMtb1A

Well it's obvious that you have no idea what the purpose of a dictionary is. So let's make this whole "word definition" thing fair: You pick a word and make up a definition for it. Then I'll pick a word and make up a definition for it. And so on. Then when we get all our words defined by that method, we'll continue this debate using all those made-up definitions.

That seems fair to me, how about you?