RoderickSpode

Hello, Roderick - long time no see!

It seems to me all religious experiences/religions might be considered part of the "occult". Its just that people don't generally consider their own beliefs mysterious or dark - that's what other people do! 😁

Occult, Witchcraft and Paranormal all labels people often use when they don't know where else to put things.

I'll admit it, I used to think the earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution was fake invention of atheist scientists, and that the Big Bang never happened. This is mostly because I was raised by Young-Earth Creationists, my parents have at least 7 Ken Ham books in Their house. But Also partly because I wasn't exposed to other forms of Christianity.  

I'm no longer a Young-Earth Creationist, and I accept evolution, the Big Bang, and the Age of the Earth (roughly 4.6 billion years).

When it comes to discussions over the age of the earth, facts are discarded or interpreted differently by a wave of "experts".  All dissenting voices are silenced. 

Our modern culture has become a cancel culture. A culture that uses shame to dismiss any alternative voices.  This means that a particular voice is louder than every other voice to the extent that no other voice is permitted to speak or adduce evidence.  In fact ALL evidence from an alternative voice is immediately labeled as not real (fake) evidence. 

It's called static electricity.  Research has shown that as a word or answer began to form, the eye movements increased, indicating that participants brains were calculating and predicting potential answers and sending their eyes to potential next letters, thus subconsciously guiding their hands to glide the planchettes to them. The pair on the planchette subconsciously take turns taking control as their brains feel more confident tin their choices.

Same as my position on any religion or spirituality or belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in it personally, but if you do and you're not harming anyone with your beliefs, I'm pretty tolerant. 

I happen to think palm reading and Tarot cards and ouija boards are all pretty fun. 

The difference between you and I is that you are lazy with your logical conclusions and I'm not, at least in this case

I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no knowledge of an UFO documentation, because no valid documentation exists. Give your sources or let the claim be unproven, again, I have never heard of whatever you're talking about. Now, people have sent in doctored videos claiming that the sources are offical, and the fraud has always been discovered false, but again, aliens would not be "unnatural", we have no current evidence of intelligent et life, but it wouldn't be unnatural if it did exist.

aliens would not be "unnatural",

You have literally no idea what I was talking about,

I said that the woman called them decievers, therefore the only judgement shown on them was human judgement, which is ultimately subjective, nothing more than biased by our human evolution and our own moral systems. Therefore this alien lying doesn't mean anything in terms of good and evil, your claim makes no sense whatsoever, and has no logical bridge linking. "Aliens lied, therefore, objective morality?" Again, that is a non-sequitur.

What? The force "pulling" your hand along was the other person, your example only further proves my point - exactly the resistance came from the other people, the only difference is that instead of pulling a rope, they were moving the planchette, and you thought it was moving by itself, perhaps even the other person thought that, but you don't even know if that other person wasn't moving it intentionally as a prank and was internally laughing their ass off, because you actually fell for it. Your logic is as about as brittle as crackers. 

So whenever I actually pursue the questioning you immediately back off? That's not suspect at all

First of all, their is a marked difference between asking questions for specific things in order for more clarity, and not engaging particular arguments and dismissing them with questions. You have done the second, notice that the only part you actually talked about was the finger part not supporting the weight, which is just untrue, as, you have no presented no evidence that the supernatural exist, the planchette apparantly lifted up, and it is very possible that people mistake what they actually did in occurances, therefore the most reasonable explanation is that you were supporting the planchette with your fingers and one of the three I posited above are true.

You are literally wrong in EVERY regard here. I see the other suggestions as MORE likely than the others actually, I don't see that you specifically are more likely to lie, I simply include the bit about lying because I can't definitively rule out the possibility. I explained ALL of them, your logic is not at all polished here. There are actually three reasons I included it: It is very common for people to do, I couldn't strictly rule it out as a plausible outcome, and it does fulfill Occam's Razor very nicely. You were just super wrong there.

There are lots of reasons she could have made these claims: A) She wanted clout, it might seem like that is untrue because "reputation" but then you would not be familiar with the modern age, people want clout regardless if it's good or not, it could be a very simple case that the woman have wanted to have attention pulled on her. B) She genuinely believed it, so what? People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect all the time based

on "personal experience" unless you are every single religion simultaneously, than you agree that somebody has misconstrued some personal experience to mean something that it doesn't. Honestly, the whole, "had lots or reputation to lose" means less than nothing.

What? That is a non-sequitur, the more plausible explanation - she realized she was wrong and was attempting to rationalize it, it happens to victims of denial millions of times a day. How the hell does: "Woman was incorrect about alien ship siting" translate to "Pattern recognizing evil objectively" if you are trying to argue that good and evil are subjective, I disagree, and humans thinking anything on the matter is literally definitionally subjective. Not only that, but "X didn't do what they said they would do, therefore x was lying" Is not some great leap in logic nor even a claim about evil, it's saying that X said something knowing that it would not comport to reality, thats a description of an event, it has literally nothing to do with evil. All of these other things are "evil" because millenniums of human tradition and story has led us to having "evil creatures" baked into the fabric of society.

That makes literally no sense, your own story did not support that, let's look at this: The woman was the one to say that the aliens were being deceptive, not the aliens, not only that, but there was no moral weight here ANYWHERE, the mere act of being deceptive is just a descriptor, of course truth exists elsewhere, truth is just the act of something comporting with reality, but any supernatural or mystical implications are untrue. It should also be noted that the truth I am saying exists everywhere is literally just: What is true, no moral weight to that, morals are subjective. 

An appeal to ignorance isn't an argument, it was a mental suggestion, and you didn't catch the fact that it was a mental suggestion, its that simple.

Just because you don't think it was, doesn't mean it wasn't. The "pulling" was probably the other person, you aren't the one being subjected to mental suggestion every time, it is just as likely that another person could be tricked by it. Again, this continued stance that, "It doesn't seem scientific" isn't really an argument. 

As for Alistair Crowley, I had never heard of him until now, and as I see it: he seemed like a traumatized, sexually repressed preacher, who lashed out with nihilism and other things whenever the entire world shamed him, leading to his lifestyle of old school satanism and literally drinking a cat's blood one time. I have no idea what he did "Occult-ly" so I have no idea what to debunk there

Lol, you should probably pretty much guess what an atheist is going to believe about this sort of topic. It's certainly not going to be anything productive or open-minded...

In terms of interaction with spiritual forces, that doesn't just apply to the dark side, not in any stretch of the imagination. So it's kind of funny these terms are considered heretic by any Bible follower, or maybe they just believe that spiritual ability and observations just apply to those characters in the Bible which I find absolutely hilarious. That reminds me of the Baptists who assume spiritual gifts no longer apply to God's people lol.

The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience. 

Except nothing about that is personal opinion, it is literally true that something that is "supernatural" happens outside of the realm of natural-ity, and you have not at all, nor do I believe anyone, to have suffciently demonstrated another realm to exist. Until this realm has been proven to exist, nothing supernatural could happen. Therefore, literally, any solution that isn't a 0 on the plausibility chain is more likely than the occult.

Literally all I ask is that you actually engage in my arguments instead of saying, "I don't see what you mean" and "Explain more", that doesn't seem like that much effort. 

I am a little tired of your continued questioning, I already explained myself: I do not think any supernatural thing is possible, at all, it literally defies reality. Until someone can demonstrate that their is more than reality, this remains true. Therefore any alternative solution is more likely than the supernatural. Not only that, I explained, again, why they are probable in each step, its like you didn't even read the entire thing. If you won't actually engage with my answers, I see no reason to spend further time actually giving you answers, as you ignore half of them anyway, and you don't have any actual valid criticisms of them.

Again, I am not trying to debunk Occult as a whole, as I think they are categorically false, and I have no need to do that. Second, you have basically just hand waved off the explanation, the point of it is - even if the occult was real, that explanation would be the more plausible one, especially with no evidence in your favor. Again, your finger's could have easily been supporting the planchette (Note that you do not have to put your fingers underneath a coin to lift it, it is perfectly possible to grab onto the edges and lift it, with more people this is even easier), heck, your fingers could have been underneath it and you are:

A) Lying, you could just be making it up that your fingers weren't underneath it, you have no way to prove that you aren't lying (as you have motivation to lie) unless you show video evidence and something showing that you haven't doctored it. Not only that, but people lie about stuff like this all the time, its not like its hard to believe that someone would lie about this, especially with the low stakes you are under.

B) Not remembering the occurence correctly. This is another thing that happens fairly often, in fact, human minds are notoriously bad at keeping details straight, and this is another more than likely thing to have happened - in fact - you could be both lying and misremembering,

or you could be doing one or the other. With misremembering, this is most likely what happened period, as, this happens to most memories in general. 

C) You simply misconstrued where you're fingers were in the first place, you might think you were "barely touching it" when in reality you could have been supporting more than the entire weight of the planchette. I see no reason to dismiss this as a possibility, and in fact, happens again, very notoriously. Especially with things such as cards, coins, and yes, even planchettes. It happens so often that an entire style of "magic" tricks have been made using that fact (Card Tricks). 

The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience. 

The human finger is actually capable of some incredible feats, even lifting 400 pounds with the middle finger [8], but also in times of intense emotion or even action, people can radically misjudge where their finger is located, it is entirely possible that you grabbed onto the piece more than before and were able to lift it. Planchettes are often light weight pieces of wood, weighing no more than a light gram-mage, perhaps at no more than 50 or so, maybe some special planchette's do, but we have no reason to believe that the sort of object used was heavy enough that a misjudged finger placement could not have lifted it. 

There is no reason to accept any of the claims here, and it is more than possible that RoderickSpode is: A) Lying about the experience, B) Misremembering the experience, C) Attributing the Occult to something that is fairly common. 

Therefore, the entire thing of, "one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself" is false, unless they specifically claim that the Occult is false, the one that claims that they have practiced occult to real effect because of supernatural or magical forces, must also demonstrate that claim. Because it is a claim, adding in an extra caveat of it being, "practiced" has no effect on the actual burden of proof. Due to the parenthesized line right after it: "as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums" I believe the order to be of a biased conclusion on the OG's poster's behalf. Therefore he does have the burden of providing evidence for what he claims to have occured.

Before Saint Porphyrios reposed, he wrote this letter, which demonstrates the humility of a saintly man.

"My dear spiritual Children,

Now that I am still in charge of my faculties, I want to give you some advice.

Ever since I was a child, I was always in sin. When my mother sent me to watch the animals on the mountain, (my father had gone to America to work on the Panama Canal for us his children, because we were poor), there, where I shepherded the animals, I slowly read, word by word, the life of St. John the Hut-dweller and I loved St. John very much.

I said a lot of prayers, like the young child that I was, twelve or fifteen years old, I don't remember too well. I wanted to follow his example. So, with a lot of difficulty, I secretly left my parents and came to Kavsokalyvia on the Holy Mountain. I became obedient to two elders, the true brothers, Panteleimon and loannikios. They happened to be very devout and full of virtue, I loved them very much and because of that, with their blessing, I gave them absolute obedience. That helped me a lot. I also felt great love for God and got along very well.

However, because of my sins, God allowed me to become ill, and my elders told me to go to my parents in my village of St. John, Evia. Although I had sinned a lot from when I was a small child, when I returned to the world I continued to commit sins which, today are very many. The world, however, thought highly of me, and everyone shouts that I'm a saint.

I however, feel that I am the most sinful person in the world. Of course, whatever I remembered I confessed, and I know God has forgiven me.

But now I have the feeling that my spiritual sins are very many and I ask all those who have known me to pray for me, because, for as long as I lived, I humbly prayed for you, too. Now that I'm leaving for heaven, I have the feeling that God will say to me, "What are you doing here?" I have only one thing to say to him, "I am not worthy of here, Lord, but whatever your love wills, it'll do for me." From then on, I don't know what will happen. I however, wish for God's love to act.

I always pray that my spiritual children will love God, Who is everything, so that He will make us worthy to enter His earthly uncreated Church. We must begin from here. I always made the effort to pray, to read the hymns of the Church, the Holy Scriptures and the Lives of the Saints. May you do the same. I tried, by the grace of God, to approach God and may you also do the same.

I beg all of you to forgive me for whatever I did to upset you."

When I read the writings and lives of the saints, I find many examples of those  who even up until their last breathe found themselves unworthy of being saved. Rather, what I find is that they put their trust in God's love to forgive them, even considering it the righteous judgement of God to send them to perdition.

Feeling secure in one's own salvation is a sign of prelest. It is also not the proper attitude to have toward God, for the sinner who said "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner" was said by Christ to be justified, while the pharisee who accounted himself as righteous was not. For "every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

Peter repented.

The problem with eternal security is that it leads people to arrogantly boast of their own salvation, which they themselves don't truly know they have. It also very easily leads to a dead faith without works(no faith) and even a dead conscience that feels no conviction from sin.

Walking with God necessitates a life of repentence. Which means to confess when you sin, and turn away from evil.

Let's just say for the sake of argument, there were common ancestors. With which common ancestor would the superstition, and God concept begin with?

I don't know and it's immaterial. If we assume common ancestors, then we can logically conclude that at some point one of them had the concept of god for the first time. If you want to assert that can only have been so if it was given to them by god, then I ask can you show that this is the case? If it could have formed without revelation from a god, then why is it unreasonable to consider that a possibility?

The only concern in the animal kingdom is food, sex, and sleep. Some animal infants are lucky if their parents nurture them instead of eat them.

So logically the further we would go back in the alleged evolutionary chain, the less likely of any concern outside of basic needs and pleasure.

This is again immaterial. Would you agree that humans are capable of having ideas? Would you say it's possible for humans to create complex fictions? If so, then why couldn't a humanity entirely devoid of the concept of gods imagined their way to that concept on their own? What relevance does our ability or inability to pin point when we became capable of conceiving of god have to do with the question of if babies are atheists?

Do claim babies believe in a god?

Do you accept babies are people? 

Sure, but that's your opinion. We know that people can imagine. We know that we can come up with ideas that are either true or false (intentionally or otherwise) and that people can believe ideas, regardless of if they are true or not.

Why is it so implausible a position to consider that early humans anthropomorphised the world around them? We anthroporphise a great deal after all.

As for why they'd take the time, the world was scary and dangerous and brutal. Don't you think the idea that intelligence and powerful beings that bring good and bad events into our lives wouldn't have been more comforting than the idea that disasters were simply beyond their control? At least with a being doing it we can hope to bargain or at least find reason to the events.

Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment.

There are many different Bodhisattvas, but the most famous in China is Avalokitesvara, known in Chinese as Guanyin.

Bodhisattvas are usually depicted as less austere or inward than the Buddha.

Renouncing their own salvation and immediate entrance into nirvana, they devote all their power and energy to saving suffering beings in this world.  [**]

There are a great many ancient traditions of devout and sincere "seekers".

Strangely, they haven't managed to all find the exact same "YHWH".

As for rejecting the idea that an atheist would ever become a theist, or that no one would have originally thought up a concept of primitive gods due to superstition and a tendency to anthropomorphism. Is there a reason this is an unreasonable assumption?

Do you disagree with George Box's claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful?

  It's a way of remembering that models are incomplete. That doesn't make their individual data points wrong. 

But intelligent design is the same as creationism insofar as they posit a superfluous designer (creator)

to otherwise working models of reality

And teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.

How are you using "saved"? Are all your instances in this section about the afterlife only? If not, then there is something presently saved in a Christian that can be undone in some capacity. 

As far as the problem with saying will, being that it would require knowing the person was a genuine believer, I don't think this is fair to the new testament. The texts repeatedly testifies to watching out for false teachers, describing their character and testing what they say with Scripture. For this reason I don't think measuring out a punishment has room for suspecting who is genuine.

I think the text suggests that Paul may have had doubts about the person's stance as a believer.

Why?

Mod team, if the board is ever going to be a safe and enjoyable place for females, we should discourage this sort of behavior. It's already hard enough to get female members without cave men using the word "woman" as an invective.

Oh, okay, now I see why this topic exists, you seem concerned that atheists are 'claiming' babies as part of our 'big board.' Atheists don't actually have a big board, and I doubt any atheist would really care about 'claiming' a baby, and none of us, not one, think a baby is someone who has reasoned or otherwise 'arrived' at a conclusion that there isn't any god or gods to believe in. I really don't care about anyone's baby's religious beliefs, frankly. 

The fact remains that babies don't believe in god or gods. That makes them atheists by default, and I'd certainly say that's far different than someone who arrives at the conclusions I have. But they're still atheists when they're born, as they aren't capable of the kind of thought pattern required to form beliefs, and the word 'atheist' just means 'no belief in god.'

That passage in 1st Corinthians 5, the fifth verse has the word may instead of will except in a few translations. May never necessitates will

I'm determining that a sixteen year old is not a child due to their ability to reason. A sixteen year old can generally say "Phooey, Santa doesn't exist". A child however will at first explanation believe Santa exists because there's no reason as of yet not to.

I think its just using a meaning of atheist and semantically applying it