Printable View
This is my first video production and my first YouTube upload! I put it here in the General Community section because it doesn't seem to fit squarely in any other section. Thanks to Patrick Brinton and Deborah Thayer for camera work etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVDSyclmL1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVDSyclmL1Q
Magnifique Mon Ami!! How you have the patience to argue against such nonsense, is a mystery to me. But I'm glad you try.
Thanks for the kind words. In spite of mounting evidence that reason rarely changes people's beliefs, I have a sort of childlike faith in it, perhaps because I myself have been reasoned into radical changes in worldview more than once (Mormon to fundamentalist Christian, thence to something of a New Ager, thence to a rationalist/atheist/skeptic), so I know that there are a few people open enough to change--I can't be the only one!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
You know I'm with ya Dixon; he who dropped the ball!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I'll bet nobody was grateful for the lesson. Oh well. Good thing you waited until the guy was healed. Probably the cosmic process required you to drop the ball or it wouldn't have worked.
I'll have to ask my guardian angels.
-Jeff
Not surprised to hear that kind of twaddle; we atheists are just about the most despised minority group in this Bible-thumpin' country. There are several states which have laws against an atheist holding public office! Some bigotries are out of fashion, but atheist-bashing never seems to go out of style. It's also known as "Christian love".:pray:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tacitus:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Hi Dixon,
Congrats on your first youtube video. It is very funny and I enjoyed it. It made me laugh and Jim Dreaver and the others in the room appear to be laughing too. I'm very glad that Jim is well.
A couple of comments.
In the video you appear to assume that the ball of energy was heavier than the surrounding air because of the way she cupped her hands around it. Maybe it wasn't heavier. Maybe it didn't fall to the ground. Heaviness usually implies weight or mass which is a property of matter, not energy.
Just because we have not invented instruments to detect or measure this energy is not proof that it doesn't exist. There are very likely many things in the eleven dimensions of reality that we have not detected or measured yet.
Also the video seems to imply that the use of healing energy is primarily associated with New Agers. It would be my opinion that the use of this energy is a very ancient skill and that the existence of this energy is probably more than 13 or 14 billion years.
I'm open to the possibility of the existence of this energy and at the same time I realize it might not exist.
Thank you for posting the video. I was the first person to click the Like button.
Marty
Yeah, laughter is a wonderful thing, although I also meant the video as a serious lesson about our suggestibility.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Marty MacMillan:
Me too. Jim's a good guy.Quote:
I'm very glad that Jim is well.
Well of course I doubt the very existence of the ball of energy, so arguing about its properties makes as much sense as arguing about what kind of cookies Santa Claus prefers (It's chocolate chip, by the way). Having said that, I think my assumption about the weight, and not weightlessness, was consistent with Leslie's way of holding the "ball", so I stand by it.Quote:
In the video you appear to assume that the ball of energy was heavier than the surrounding air because of the way she cupped her hands around it. Maybe it wasn't heavier. Maybe it didn't fall to the ground.
Of course. The same is true of being able to hold a ball of it in one's hand--a property of matter, not energy. Both good reasons to believe such balls of energy don't exist.Quote:
Heaviness usually implies weight or mass which is a property of matter, not energy.
That's undoubtedly true, and probably always will be. You do understand, don't you Marty, that I'm not claiming to have disproven the existence of balls of healing energy, not even the existence of that particular one? What my little demonstration shows (in a playful, less than rigorous way) is that the subjective experience of "feeling" some sort of "energy" does not constitute any evidence that the energy is real rather than imaginary. By extension, people who are really truth seekers rather than just belief-defenders will want to re-assess their beliefs and seriously question the validity of those beliefs that are based on such subjective experiences as "feeling" some supposed "energy". Again, that doesn't mean the energy doesn't exist, only that some other kind of evidence would have to be adduced to give us good reason to believe that it does. And, as always, the burden of proof is on the claimant; it's not the skeptics' responsibility to disprove it; if there's no better evidence than the subjective experience of "feeling" it, it's appropriately assumed to be probably false unless proven otherwise.Quote:
Just because we have not invented instruments to detect or measure this energy is not proof that it doesn't exist. There are very likely many things in the eleven dimensions of reality that we have not detected or measured yet.
I think you're inferring something that wasn't actually implied. It is associated with New Agers, but "primarily"? Not necessarily. Not that that matters much, as far as I can see.Quote:
Also the video seems to imply that the use of healing energy is primarily associated with New Agers
I have little doubt that such beliefs are very old, but am dubious about the existence of the energy itself.Quote:
It would be my opinion that the use of this energy is a very ancient skill and that the existence of this energy is probably more than 13 or 14 billion years.
I admire your openness on the issue and that is in fact my position, although, as I've hinted, in the absence of good evidence for a claim, my default position is that the claim probably isn't true, per Occam's Razor.Quote:
I'm open to the possibility of the existence of this energy and at the same time I realize it might not exist.
Thanks for your kindness, Marty. Heretofore, I've been pretty much unconscious of the "Like" button, but I'll have to get into the habit of using it when I appreciate a video.Quote:
Thank you for posting the video. I was the first person to click the Like button.
Maybe we can bring Quantum Mechanics into this discussion. As I understand it the ball of "energy" might be something like an electron. An electron is actually a field of energy not a particle if you measure or exam the wave field. However it is a particle if you track it in a smoke chamber. Latest theory ( I restate theory) says it is both a wave or a particle and which it is, is determined by the observer. So maybe the ball of energy is a ball of energy and it is not. It is a real object with position and momentum and mass and it is not. The funny thing about science is the more we known about what is real the more we realize that we don't really know what's going on. Thanks Dixon, I love your skepticism and the video. Hey has anyone gone back there to see if that ball is still on the floor ?
If I understand the basic concepts of quantum mechanics accurately (and I'm not sure any of us in Waccoland do), these principles you mention, like wave/particle duality and the role of the observer in defining the qualities of the observed "object", are relevant only in the subatomic world, not in the human-scale world of supposed "balls of energy". Like I've said before, we may not be able to know both the location and the spin of a subatomic particle in my fork, but we can know the location and any substantial movements of the fork itself well enough to get it to my mouth. The same would hold true for anything big enough to be a "ball of healing energy" that one could cup one's hands around, so any attempt to introduce fuzziness to the situation by invoking quantum effects is, I think, irrelevant to a human-scale situation like this.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gene:
Yeah, there's a lot of truth in that, but you know what's ironic? New Agers are telling me that all the time, while at the same time, they typically believe that they themselves really have it all figured out, such as being certain that "healing energy" exists, etc. etc.!:biglaugh:Quote:
The funny thing about science is the more we known about what is real the more we realize that we don't really know what's going on.
Thanks for the kind words, Gene.Quote:
Thanks Dixon, I love your skepticism and the video.
I've never heard of participants in subsequent dances reporting stepping on it.:FlakeyFoont::wink: Funny how people can "feel" it when they think it's there, but not when they don't, hmmmmm?:thinking:Quote:
Hey has anyone gone back there to see if that ball is still on the floor?
Interesting and amusing video, Dixon. I've watched it a couple of times, have followed the thread, and have come up with a few observations of my own for your consideration.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I agree that there are many similarities between Christians and "New Agers", and that "New Agers" can be very defensive and appear to be as closed-minded or more close-minded than Christians. From my own personal experience, I have concluded that this attribute, regardless of ones philosophy (whether it's religiously based or even intellectually based, i.e., rationalism, critical thinking, etc.) is fundamentally caused by "dabbling". That is to say, a majority of people seem to be attracted to and dependant upon the superficial packaging of a philosophy rather than the underlying substance. Hence, when they are challenged (or perceive to be challenged) on the substance of their belief, their depth of understanding is limited and not anchored in a firm foundation. Consequently, they have little information to substantiate their belief system and offer amorphous, touchy-feely responses or worse, regurgitate dogma. If you don't understand why you truly believe in something, of course you'll be defensive about it.
Not many folk will spend years questioning their own philosophy. They gravitate from one system to another, often basing their judgment on misinterpretations, erroneous expectations, trendiness, peer pressure, behavioral knee-jerks. In a disposable era, when it seems easier to replace something that's broken rather than fix it, people throw away belief systems before they have sincerely delved into them especially if it seems like more effort than it's worth. "Wait. I don't have time to think about this. It just feels right (or wrong)". Unable to achieve instant gratification from your minister, your guru, your shaman, your psychiatrist? Try another. Heaven forbid if this is going to take longer than scanning an email or microwaving dinner!
One of the most important tools we often abandon when we leave childhood behind is the desire to know why about everything.
Apropos your "experiment" with the alleged energy ball of healing, some of my whys are these:
Why do you believe the energy ball of healing does not exist? Because you didn't feel it? Is that based on mass or sensation of energy, such as heat? If you think that the ten or twelve others in the room who did perceive the energy ball were under the influence of suggestibility or they were simply imagining it, is it not just as possible that you were influenced by your own imagination to not perceive it?
From an empirical point of view, energy balls do exist. They have been observed by scientists and there have been ongoing efforts to determine their exact, quantifiable nature for a very long time. Ball lightning and forms St. Elmo's fire are just two examples. It would be very difficult to say that, at least, these two types of energy balls do not exist. Thus, if two types of energy balls do exist, why not more?
For the sake of argument, let's say there was a ball of energy generated and manipulated in that room but, for some reason, you were unable to perceive it, Dixon. Perhaps its mass (if it had mass) was too subtle for your senses. Or, if it did not have mass, perhaps its radiation (heat) was too subtle for your senses. Perhaps the ten or twelve others in the circle had been exercising their faculties of perception over time so they were more able to perceive it with their senses than you were. Or, is it possible that six of the people actually perceived it, three imagined they did, two people pretended, and one person was just hoping all of this would end so they could get over to the buffet table?
Most humans are aware of the sensation of heat but that perception varies (sometimes radically) from one person to another.
As for not being able to see it, perhaps it radiates in the infrared. You can't see the heat radiating off your own body or others unless you have a device that registers radiation in the infrared frequency. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exits.
Why can Leslie Butler generate and manipulate a ball of energy? Can people really do this? Well, people generate and manipulate energy all the time, both personally and through the use of technology. Our bodies crank out about 100 watts normally (with a blackbody potential of 500 watts). You can't see it (a bumble bee might) but, if you could, you could read a book by it. You most certainly can feel it (if your nerve endings aren't dulled, damaged or impaired...or subverted by your imagination). Touch your armpit. Touch your feet. Touch your friend’s armpit and feet, if they’ll let you.
Some people do control body temperature consciously and this ability has been empirically observed (
https://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html ). On a more personal level, my husband can power-heat our bed consciously in about ten minutes, which rocks in the winter! If it helps, I'll take the thermometer to bed sometime and get back to you with the data. ;)
A valid experiment with some credibility would have been achieved by measuring the possible electromagnetic fluctuations in the room and, using some form of spectroscopy, ascertain radiated energy. That might have given you some data that you could base your theory of non-existence upon.
Wouldn't a critical thinker want to know why he or she was unable to perceive this ball of energy when others did? Isn't one of the tenets of critical thinking to remain open to considering alternative perspectives? Yet, from reading this thread and watching the video, I get the sense that you are not as open minded as you would require others to be, Dixon. In fact, it would seem that you have a grudge against "New Agers" in particular. Grudges can most certainly influence ones perceptions and emotional responses (or not) to stimuli.
Whether you are a witch or a critical thinker (or the myriad of possibilities in between), your whys will help contribute to a philosophical base that is not made of sand.
I suppose that I fall into the category of "New Ager" in a broad-brush manner but I am also what I consider a healthy skeptic even about my own belief system. I am sadly aware that many people in my own community cannot answer the tough questions for themselves or others and are not willing to invest the time and energy it truly requires to root securely in a fundamental philosophy. The common label for these folks is "fluffy bunny". But I submit to you that this type of person skips around on the surface of all sorts of communities, be they mystical, intellectual, or societal and it is not beneficial or conducive to base ones genuine inquiries into a philosophy by observing these folks airy dance on the surface.
Luckily, there are others who are deepened in their philosophies (whatever they are), do have the correct answers, and can walk with you through most, if not all, of the layers of why. You just have to be serious about making the journey and...uh...keeping an open mind.
By the way, what is an atheist doing by greeting people with "blessings"? The origin of "bless" is to make something sacred with sacrifical blood as offered to the Divine. Really, Dixon! Get a grip, man! ;)
Anathstryx