Shamaradin
"I understand why you gave the flippant response, that is obvious. You believe it is an idiotic claim akin to believing in the tooth fairy, but no one here is taking a stand for the existence of the tooth fairy. I think we can all agree that there is no evidence to verify the existence of such a being, even though you claim otherwise."
Don Ho
I never said verify, I distinctly wrote:"There is actually much more evidence on the existence of the tooth fairy than there is on the existence of Ramtha" which is true-please read my statements with a bit more carefully before responding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Ho (previous)
"The characteristics of wind allow people to feel it and experience for themselves."
Shamaradin
"Yes, and it seems that because you have not experienced the wind you would argue for it's non existence. The characteristics of Ramtha allow people to feel and experience it for themselves also."
Don Ho
There you go again-I was answering a direct question with a direct answer on why people liked easily provable things, I even included the previous question that I was answering-I said nothing closely related to your statement "that because you (I) have not experienced the wind you (I) would argue for it's nonexistence.
----------------------------------------
Don Ho
Your post did change a bit (I only change mine for typos, I probably won’t even do that in the future) and the part about me being rude is gone but I do agree-I am rude but basically I believe I have “righteous rudeness” only using it when it’s deserved.
------------------------------
Don Ho
Here were getting to another part that you didn't read carefully-the origional question asked: "do you see wind can you explain it if someone told you it was there but there was no sciene to prove it?" which I reprinted it with my answer saying "I would move my hand quickly by their face to give them an example of it." Nowhere in the previous question did it say anything about it having to be on the board like you did.
Shamaradin
"Since we are in a forum that does not allow the proximity for such a demonstration I ask you how would YOU explain wind to someone who disbelieved in it, over these boards?"
Don Ho
But all is not lost!~-since we are on the boards I am presuming he is using a computer-I would tell him to put his hand over one of the fans. Now, if none of this worked, say this person didn't have a computer or he couldn't figure out to move his own hand in front of his face because my hand is here with me, then I would tell him about Ramtha.
Shamaradin
Let me give you an example of a possible response: I do not believe in the tooth fairy because I know that it was me that put the money under my child's pillow after the lost tooth and the one time I forgot, the money was not there the next morning and the tooth still was. Hence, evidence, reasoning, conclusion.
Now, Your turn
Don Ho
I don't believe that Ramtha exists because I watched this movie and saw the biggest collection of liars, idiots and kooks I have seen in a long time and believe they have no credibility for any claims they make. Plus if you do searches on the web (or just look around here) about this movie you will find that there is a lot of negative press about RSE.
reply
share
shamiradin
17 years ago
Your arguing over semantics is really counterproductive to forwarding a conversation. I think you know that I understood you quite well. You know as well as I do that there is no evidence for the existence of the tooth Fairy, "verified" or not, so why would you claim there is?
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Ramtha, so I hope we can end that apples and oranges debate.
I am sorry if the "wind" metaphor was confusing to you although I suspect you understood me but were just being contrary to avoid the point at hand. I was not suggesting that you were arguing for the nonexistence of the wind. You were (are) arguing for the nonexistence of something you have never experienced. Hence the metaphor.
Just because you believe that the people in the movie have no credibility does not mean that they do not, it just means that you are not aware of it. The negative press is generated by those who have no more credible information than you on the subject and is then recycled and reinforced by heresay and speculation while the facts are ignored for the expediency of ignorant righteousness. I have looked on the web and across this board and everyone who seems to have a negative opinion about RSE actually has no facts. Fascinating for people who claim to use science as a basis for their opinion. If you had the facts, and not just the rantings of the religious (scientists included) (some cling to known science as fiercely as the faithful) (it's the same phenomenon) who desperately want to cling to their solidified beliefs so they can sleep at night without having to consider the unknown.
You did not like the movie because it flies in the face of your religious/scientific beliefs. What if the basis of ideas presented in the movie have provable foundations? What if these people know something that you do not? What if in the near future these principles are verified by science as new findings and ideas constantly are? will you jump on the bandwagon of the future or will you defend the past as the religious do despite evidence to the contrary?
Science is a tool that is used to study, describe, explain and understand phenomenon that we are currently aware of. That has always been the case and as our perception and awareness of our environment evolves and changes we develop new science to explain that which was previously unknown. In other words science evolves along with us in step with our perceptions, new knowledge and experience creates the motivation to discover answers, explanations for that new paradigm which eventually becomes common knowledge based on the science that explains it. Only a religious man would deny the possibility of science explaining an unknown and worse yet mock those on the frontier who are attempting to do just that.
reply
share
donho-4
17 years ago
shamiradin
“Your arguing over semantics is really counterproductive to forwarding a conversation. I think you know that I understood you quite well. You know as well as I do that there is no evidence for the existence of the tooth Fairy, "verified" or not, so why would you claim there is?”
Don Ho
I’m not arguing over semantics-I am stating quite clearly that there is more evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy then there is for the channeling of Ramtha-Where are the semantics? I’m not saying either one exists and I never insinuated that they did-you are the one that wrote I was claiming the verification of the existence of the tooth fairy-I do have a right to point out you claimed I said this when I said no such thing, not even close. I am using an example of the tooth fairy to show the idiocy of Ramtha.
Don Ho
Remember?
“It is a flippant response to show the idiocy of the claim. There is actually much more evidence on the existence of the tooth fairy than there is on the existence of Ramtha. Prove to me the tooth fairy doesn't exist and we'll have that debate.”
There’s no effing semantics there, it is very straight forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
shamiradin
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Ramtha, so I hope we can end that apples and oranges debate.
Don Ho
uh yeah….. and his brother Squiggy too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shamaradin
“I am sorry if the "wind" metaphor was confusing to you although I suspect you understood me but were just being contrary to avoid the point at hand. I was not suggesting that you were arguing for the nonexistence of the wind. You were (are) arguing for the nonexistence of something you have never experienced. Hence the metaphor”
Don Ho
Where did I appear confused? Once again-I never said anything to be “arguing for the nonexistence of something you have never experienced” I very clearly answered his question on why people prefer things that are obvious compared to things that aren’t. Where did I say anything to the effect of things that I haven’t experienced don’t exist? Where?
It's not my arguing that's counterproductive-It's your not being able to comprehend anything written in plain English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
shamiradin
Just because you believe that the people in the movie have no credibility does not mean that they do not, it just means that you are not aware of it. The negative press is generated by those who have no more credible information than you on the subject and is then recycled and reinforced by heresay and speculation while the facts are ignored for the expediency of ignorant righteousness. I have looked on the web and across this board and everyone who seems to have a negative opinion about RSE actually has no facts....................... Only a religious man would deny the possibility of science explaining an unknown and worse yet mock those on the frontier who are attempting to do just that.”
Don Ho
You don’t know a single thing about my beliefs. And the rest of your babbling speaks for itself since you claim a belief that Mothra I mean Ramtha is on the frontier of anything. And also "everyone who seems to have a negative opinion about RSE actually has no facts" is a lie.
reply
share
Dirtrum
17 years ago
"On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Ramtha,"
Care to slide that down Occam's Razor?
I'm naked under my clothes...again
reply
share
shamiradin
17 years ago
"Care to slide that down Occam's Razor?"
If JZ Knight could do the things that Ramtha can do, if she she knew the things that he knows, why would she make up an elaborate story that is unbelievable to most people, why wouldn't she just take credit for herself and say "I can do these things and I know these things" that would be the Human response. It does not make good business sense to sell a product that is unpalatable to most people. No, if she were simply selling a product she would have gone about it very differently and quite frankly would not likely have gotten away with a scam of that magnitude for 30 years.
Occam's Razor would suggest that she is telling the truth. To maintain a lie of that complexity for 30 years would be much more complicated, unproductive and less successful than simply telling the truth.
reply
share
Carrot-4
17 years ago
Hey you guys, let's get back on the subject will you? This is a thread about how we can make fun of stupid people, not debate them, where's the fun in that, debating stupid people is like trying to cut down a tree with a spoon, lots of energy for nothing... better just watch it die on it's own. And when all the stupid people of this world will be dead, we're all goin' out for a beer! My treat!
P.S. : It is Hawkins not Hawking, David R. Hawkins NOT Stephen Hawking, I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking would have sued these guys if they had used his material.
reply
share
Dirtrum
17 years ago
P.T. Barnum would disagree with you.
So would Charles Manson, David Koresh, and L. Ron Hubbard.
The lure of power and divinity comes in handy when herding the sheep.
I'm naked under my clothes...again
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
DeadlySinner
17 years ago
In other words, she needs to submit to a double blind test, or shut the hell up!
Of course, if she did that, she would lose her business.
"It doesn't feel right to shoot an unarmed man... but I'll get over it."
reply
share
shamiradin
17 years ago
"The problem is that Knight, while channeling Ramtha, doesn't tell us anything unexpected. She tells us nothing which we couldn't know without her. All she does is assure us that we all have some great potential. She doesn't actually demonstrate that potential by her own actions."
I don't know what you base that statement on because it simply is not true. What is the extent of your knowledge on the more than 20,000 hours of teachings given by Ramtha in the last 30 years? Also not only has SHE demonstrated her potential based on Ramtha's philosophy but so have tens of thousands of Students from around the world done so to varying degrees. Also recently many Students have been able to demonstrate extraordinary abilities consistently, and some are currently undergoing independent scientific testing to verify the phenomenon. JZ Knight has also been rigorously tested and was found to have abilities that were unexplainable and conclusive to verifying that she is not a fraud.
"What would be meaningful is if Ramtha would tell us something that only Ramtha could know, and it would be something demonstrable."
I'm glad you said that because it is the test that a discerning mind would want to see. My answer is that it happens all the time. there is not just one example but untold numbers of them that leave no doubt in the observer who has witnessed even a few.
"Time is invested in it because it's in a form for which it's meaningful to determine if it's either definitely not true or plausibly a candidate for truth."
People are willing to invest time in their studies at RSE for this very reason and they are encouraged always to determine truth for themselves. There is no following. Students are given philosophy and then provided opportunities to test for themselves the validity of the philosophy and make up their own mind. The success rate of demonstratable phenomenon among Students at the School is remarkable and growing. And yes in the process of being tested.
And it's interesting that shamiradin has confused the question of JZ Knight's personal motivation with the question of Ramtha's itself. They are two separate questions. It's as if, at the conclusion of a murder mystery novel, it turns out that all the suspects did it, because after all, each of them was established to have a good motive. But in fact it turns out that only one suspect committed the murder; all their varied motives are beside the point of what actually transpired. Knight's motives are her own affair, and are independent of whether one has convincing evidence that Ramtha per se exists."
The reason I only talked about JZ was because the person I was addressing does not believe in the possibility of and is not willing to consider yet that Ramtha exists, so in answering Occam's Razor I spoke to what was listening. I explained how it made no sense, if thought through that she would make up something so unbelievable instead of just taking the credit for herself for the truly amazing things that Ramtha has done and said for 30 years. Occam's Razor would suggest that she is telling the truth due to the complexity and probable impossibility of maintaining that level of deception to so many for so long with flawless execution. No Human being could do what "she" has done. It's because she didn't, Ramtha did.
Now if you want to talk about Ramtha as a separate subject then you would be the first to do so on this board. This is an evolution! Ramtha is supported by the conclusion of Occam's Razor only if you can even consider the possibility of an ascended, enlightened, immortal being. If you can, then the phenomenon and wisdom demonstrated by him over the years is easily acccepted as the simplest explanation that he is who he says he is. If you cannot consider that possibility under any circumstances which many who would argue against him cannot,(meeting him in person would cure that by the way) then what's the point? They can give a canned response "she must be a fraud" but can offer no explanation of their own for the phenomenon (mostly because they no nothing about it) (it's understandably hard to explain something you know nothing about.)
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
shamiradin
17 years ago
as I mentioned, the independent testing and verification (of students performance)that you are requesting is still under investigation. These tests are currently being performed and the results as yet are unavailable because they are not yet complete. They will be, so stay tuned.
The testing of JZ Knight while Channeling Ramtha was done in a three year study between 1996 and 1998 by Stanley Krippner and a team of scientists from the American society for the study of Psychical research. That information is available to the public through your own investigation or by contacting RSE to have it sent to you.
As far as the accounts of Ramtha's consistent demonstration of extraordinary knowledge and phenomenon there are thousands of them to be had by talking to students and the study of Ramtha's legacy and teachings.
The conclusion that you come to is based on the knowledge that you use to study with.
reply
share
shamiradin
17 years ago
I do not have the report that I spoke of in front of me to cite from. But I did give you it's source for you to look up. The studies that are under way as I said are not yet available. Only those who are participating know how that is going.
I personally have volumes of stories, that you would only consider here say. they are none the less my truth, my experience. But the fact is that those who are participating are the ones with the truth about what is happening, and unless you are willing to consider that perspective you will have to wait for the "official" research to be completed. Or do your own. I am not one who is content to wait to let others research and experience life and then tell me how it is. I am active in that which intrigues me, I learn, research, study and participate in order to come to my own conclusion. who do you rely on to tell you what reality is? The people on these boards? Scientists? Priests? yourself?, the source? your Mother?
The conclusion you come to is based on the information you use to study with.
Where and who do you get your information from and why do you believe it to be valid? Something to consider.
reply
share
donho-4
17 years ago
I just went to Stanley Krippner's website. On it it talks about his new book "Becoming Psychic: Spiritual Lessons for Focusing your Hidden Abilities"
Sounds like the kind of person I would look for to do unbiased testing on channeling.
reply
share
donho-4
17 years ago
"The testing of JZ Knight while Channeling Ramtha was done in a three year study between 1996 and 1998 by Stanley Krippner and a team of scientists from the American society for the study of Psychical research."
Becoming Psychic by Stephen Kierulff and Stanley Krippner
Chapter 1. The First Way to Become Psychic: Mind Reading
Chapter 2. The Second Way to Become Psychic: Remote Viewing
Chapter 3. The Third Way to Become Psychic: Moving Matter With Mind
reply
share
DeadlySinner
17 years ago
Please, just answer me this one question. Has this "Ramtha" ever said anything about life and society where he lived 35,000 years ago? Or is he/she just spouting off philosophy- something anyone could do?
"There's more to the truth than just the facts."
This statement is only to get people to believe this stuff. "Cast aside your common sense and everything you know so we can fill you with this nonsense!"
"It doesn't feel right to shoot an unarmed man... but I'll get over it."
reply
share
shamiradin
17 years ago
Yes he has told volumes about his life and the conditions of the planet and society during his lifetime as well as hundreds of hours of lectures about the history of the earth before and after his time here.
No he is not just spouting philosophy that anyone would know or could do. As I mentioned before he has been teaching here for the last 30 years and there are over 20,000 hours of recorded lectures and much more that has not been recorded given over that time. He has done, said and demonstrated many many things during that tenure that could not have been known or done by any Human being.
I understand that the idea of a 35,000 year old Ascended Master teaching Human beings what he knows is a difficult concept for many to grasp but the fact is that he is just that, and has given ample proof of his authenticity to those with the tenacity to ask the questions and participate in his classes with sincerity. And there is the occasional moment when he will entertain a skeptic with his brilliance and power leaving them shaking their head, blinking their eyes and relieved of their doubt to the amusement of us all.
The people who made this movie are students of The Ram and it is THEIR movie, not his. Ramtha was the inspiration for it and was interviewed to be in it, but he did not write it , direct it or produce it, nor did RSE have anything to do with that.
Ramtha is the genuine article, I have NO doubt about that. I have seen, heard and know too much to believe otherwise. Of course I cannot say anything to convince you of that since it is just my word over your beliefs, however there are thousands of hours of material that are available to study, in books and CD's that are direct transcripts of his lectures and videos of live teachings from events at the school. And of course there are beginning classed held throughout the year all over the world for those who wish to know more, find out for themselves what is really going on and participate in the most amazing phenomenon happening in the world today.
reply
share
Dirtrum
17 years ago
How much are lessons?
I'm naked under my clothes...again
reply
share
Cindy91
17 years ago
I do not know much about this facet of religion, and it is fascinating. I must say, as a completely objective bystander, that I admire your conviction.
Take care.
reply
share
donho-4
17 years ago
shamiradin"
Your arguing over semantics is really counterproductive to forwarding a conversation. I think you know that I understood you quite well. You know as well as I do that there is no evidence for the existence of the tooth Fairy, "verified" or not, so why would you claim there is?"
Don Ho
Going over this I realized you really didn’t understand-the “evidence” I was talking about, it would be things like anecdotal evidence such as children’s accounts, and eyewitness accounts from parents to their children. I thought when I wrote about “the evidence” it would be apparent what that I wasn’t claiming the tooth fairy existed, quite the contrary-I was saying as idiotic as a belief in the tooth fairy is, there is more reason to believe in the idiotic tooth fairy than in Ramtha. I believe the point I was trying to make was actually quite clear-especially when I admitted it was flippant and idiotic.
reply
share