Queries

  • Thread starter Thread starter vampire_f00d
  • Start date Start date
V

vampire_f00d

Guest
I recently read the article posted on shoutwire, and unlike a lot of people that are happy to take in one side of a story and believe it, I am more under the impression that you should never take one persons side of the story. Now they can label you what they like, but I am past labelling people as it serves no real purpose, but am curious about some of the things they mentioned in their article. I am aware that defamatory articles, even whole sites, have been put up in the past against you so am wondering if the following aspects about the cassiopean experiment are true:

Do you believe you talk to aliens through ouija boards
Do you use hypnosis to try and contact hidden parts of the mind

Although only two aspects at the moment, i'm curious about these mainly because of my knowledge of them. I'd like to hear your side of the story more due to the fact that like I said I will never take one side of an argument as correct, as it most of the time one side is never correct in an argument, or at least 100% correct. If you could answer those 2 pieces of information for me I would be very greatful as if they are/aren't true I will have more queries about yourselves, but either way look forward to a response.

[VaMpIrE^F00D]
 
Hi Vampire food,

Those are very pertinent questions. It's interesting that you did not draw or jump to conclusions, so I will offer what I do know of the cassiopaean experiment as I understand it. I should mention that I am by no means well versed in it. I have however read the wave start to finish. Laura touches on several subjects that many are prejudice over. Prejudice in terms of -already having drawn a conclusion. Like Aliens
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=98&lsel=A
or UFO's
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=800&lsel=U
or Vampires
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=855&lsel=V
(I sincerely hope you read those short explenations) And does it in such a way (from my experience) as to shed some light on those fears, prejudices and stereotypes. I would recommend the wave since that would break down and combat the article your referencing into a pile of useless ashes, or at least I believe that every single point in some SW guys article is clearly refuted. I'm certain someone may come along and expand on this. I can't really cover the ouija board side of it.

Hypnosis and hidden parts of the mind

I think this is referencing to some of the work laura did and the concept of greenbauming if I am understanding you correctly. So far as this group is concerned no one is hypnotizing anyone ("PERIOD"). So going where I think where you are coming from I would again link to the glossary.
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=904&lsel=M Mind Control
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=365&lsel=G Greenbaum
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=17&lsel=P Program

Heaven!; Just check the glossary yourself http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php There are gaggles of easy to find and absorb facts and theories that really might help flex some of those thinking muscles and ideas and concepts you may already have. Anyhow going along further. As I understand it Laura has done work in excorcism, hypnosis, counseling and therapy type stuff. I can't give you the year of her (name some college) Degree or anything of that nature. I find it irrelevant.. Looking at it from the perspective of a scientist or engineer I am of the opinion that they have discovered a 4th way school that is funtional, organic and concurrent with the times, needs, awareness and forms of truth (ever chaging) this time of crisis needs. Sorry if I got a little soapbox syndrome there but it is what I truly believe. Heh, there is no way of simply putting it and now that I feel i've painted myself into a corner I will bow out.. I hope you check out some of those links.
peace.

Edit: AGAIN "I should mention that I am by no means well versed in it."
 
Hi noise, thx for replying so quick and I understand that your not well versed, but the articles you've pointed me to will be a good starter for learning more, although I can't check them out now I will do so in the near future. If someone wants to post anymore i'm all ears as to any replies, but i'm sure I will have more questions after reading the glossary as i'm naturally an inquisitive person :).

Once again thanks for the information, will get back to you asap :D.
 
I guess I should define well versed some. I've read alot and studied over the last couple years. Well versed is rather lacking maybe the word 'cultured' would be a better statement. Take the example of the recent SW scenario. I'm from the school of biatches and bong-hits. I was actually gung-ho during the initial shock and awe of Iraq and slept through 9-11. Once I saw the pentagon strike video and realized the reality we find ourselves in I started looking for answers.

I suffer from Ponerological programming, lethargy and ignorance. Rewiring oneself and discovering awareness does not happen over night so thus I believe getting 'cultured' is a better definition in my case. The search for truth is one thing, being true is a whole 'nother.

If I reread the wave now I would still get some shocks
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=684&lsel=S
from it. Our daily mechanicalness helps rebuild buffers.
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=16&lsel=B
I seek the truth about reality. Half the time I was reading the wave I was tempted to close out the browser and just give up and say.. ahhh bullshit. I chose (I read slow and so a couple months into it) to keep reading and within another page or paragraph I was struck by Laura's logic and dumbfounded in my idiocy.

Anyhow; It's taking time. The answers do not all come at once, they seem to come from determination, a willingness to learn and an open mind. It is terribly easy to just toss in the towel and give up, like a coward or a quitter, I'm niether.

Iron maiden (can't think of the song) "Wouldn't you like to know the truth - Of what's out there, to have the proof? And find out just which side your on, where would you end, in heaven or in hell?"

A matrix video for ya? http://www.dickeatsbush.com/tribute.htm A tribute toward truth (windows media player)

I really wish I could share more with you. I often go to a friends house and kick it with him and talk about these things. You know like print out one of the glossary link subjects. I guess in all it is learning to look at oneself in the Mirror http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=492&lsel=M and though it is sometimes humiliating or ugly to face some of the aspects of ourselves it is a priceless gift. And the cool thing about mirroring is you get a perspective of yourself from someone who is actually not judging but offering their observation of how they see you until you learn to observe yourself or remember yourself. http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=42&lsel=S
-Salutes!
 
vampire_f00d said:
I recently read the article posted on shoutwire, and unlike a lot of people that are happy to take in one side of a story and believe it, I am more under the impression that you should never take one persons side of the story.
What about in the case where one person is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Then if you're not taking their side, you're siding with the lies. My point being, sometimes between 2 people who disagree, the truth is somewhere "in between". But sometimes, the truth resides wholly with one side or the other, and is not anywhere "in between". The question is, which situation are we facing right now? That's something you'll have to decide for yourself, as you research what is going on - if you choose.

Now they can label you what they like, but I am past labelling people as it serves no real purpose
I think sometimes labeling is very useful. Like psychopath - that's a label isn't it? I think the problem is when labels are not accurate, or are subjective like most insults.

Do you believe you talk to aliens through ouija boards
I have been involved with this group since 2003, and although I cannot speak for them, I do have a pretty good working knowledge on some of the more fundemental aspects of how this group works, in terms of the approach. The answer to your question, as you have phrased it and from my best understanding, is no. But the reason for that is the word "believe". Belief is an assumption, and assumptions are basically the antithesis of what this group is about - finding the truth. In other words, we can't find it if we hold convictions, beliefs, and assumptions about anything. Also the word "aliens", as it is generally used, is very limiting/restricting in terms of the real situation. Nobody can truly know for sure just who or what we communicate with using the ouija board. All we have to work with is the message that comes through. And so the messages, wherever they are coming from, are used as inspiration for further research, that's it. We entertain no delusions or assumptions about where those messages come from - we have working hypothesis, and we have the messages themselves, but we have no way of verifying the reality. But in the end it doesn't matter to identify exactly who/what is sending the messages I think - the point is the nature of said messages, and how they help us, if at all, to learn and grow. The "nature" of the source is more important than its true "identity", because the nature can be discerned over time based on what comes through, but the identity we have no way of verifying right now.

Do you use hypnosis to try and contact hidden parts of the mind
Check out www.cassiopaea.org and read the Wave series and the Adventure series. Laura has quite extensive experience doing just that in her years as a hypnotherapist, and has written much about it. Also there is a signs-of-the-times podcast that has an audio transcript of one such experience. Hope that helps.
 
Okay, I read the introduction to the wave series, and also the glossary points that were pointed to me but am kinda questioning the validity of the research you have done and also the philosophical stance of the implications of what laura is saying.

Firstly it says that hypnotic regression was used, and it has been found out conclusively that hynoptic regression is usually part of the sub-conscious, that actually invents whatever information is divulged in the regression, as they have found so many people that claim to be a famous figure of the past, but all exist now. Which would either mean that in order for that to be the case, more than one soul would have to live in a body at once, or like they have concluded it is most likely an invention of the persons mind to satisfy some unconscious desire. The other thing about the regression was that you said that in the regression sessions one of the subjects foretold a future event that would be to happen, that seems paradoxical because in regression you are supposed to go back in time to a previous life, if the regression was being used to maybe go forward into a future life if that was even possible (even though regression has been falsified), it would indicate that time has already been mapped out, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Similarly to how Laura says she is talking to herself in the future, if the future already exists in space and time, it means that we cannot change it as it is inevitable to end up that way, it's paradoxical if people from the future are trying to change the past as the future they are in would not exist and neither would they if any other event happened.

The other point that bothered me a bit was the fact that you were using a ouija board to contact people in the future (forgetting aside this is a paradox). First of all people who take part in seance and ouija board sessions are very susceptible to auto-suggestion from the sub-conscious, so quite often the information gained from those instances is merely the sub-conscious telling the conscious what it wants to hear. If you aren't susceptible to auto-suggestion yet still manage to get a response from a ouija board, it needs to be made sure that the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram is done before hand (cabbalistic ceremony) to banish all negative entities from around you, if you don't do this all you could basically end up with is a malevolent spirit that is having fun with you and feeding you lies for its own entertainment. The astral plain is a very dangerous place for us humans due to the fact we are right ontop of the lowest level of it so that basically we are right next to all the malevolent spirits, so if no protection ritual was taken, which it doesn't say in any of the introduction that is the case, then I would find it hard to believe that the session material is valid due to the fact it could both be auto-suggestion unless the relevant precautions were taken to avoid that, and it could also be misinformation from malevolent spirits.

If you could clear any of this up for me i'd be very greatful.

Vamp

Forget to say you were putting about belief and all, Plato said that belief and opinion were not classed as knowledge as they basically were unconfirmed and speculative which I agree, but at the same point we have to have belief's to work from as we are unable to obtain knowledge without any prior belief's, as if this were the case we'd simply have to reason out everything regardless of information from the senses. If you take more of an empiricists view on things though, belief is merely the reinforcement of prior knowledge that again we cannot really use because for all we know things may happen differently.

As for the matrix as you put it, it is true that there is very well a world outside of our own and we cannot truly confirm anyone elses existence except our own, but the thing in philosophy is that it's all about the fact you can only be 100% certain about very few things in the world, so it is only things that are very low in probability that we should take as uncertain. If you end up thinking that we all could exist in another preconceived world, and this is just a simulation then you will have to also think that the only thing you can confirm is your own existence a la Descartes, as if it's a simulation there would be no other way to tell that anyone else in the matrix really exists. The level of certainty for anything would then drop to 0 and you would never be able to escape this solipsism, as the only way Descartes did was appealing to God which was falsely assumed.

Anyway sorry for ranting on, hope you can help

Vamp
 
Good post man (so I'm concluding - M not F). I can't pretend to have the answer(s) to your question. One thing you pointed out though that I believe is/may be a common mistake is to think if we draw stars in the air and four directions and say different (supposed) names of god that something malignant will or will not be banished. In a way this also represents some psychological/subconscious beliefs. I hope you get the gist of what I am meaning.

Not to change gears by any means or trying to sidetrack your questions but your statement reminded me of something in all the years of reading Crowley up until a few months ago I'd not known. There was at some point (creepy? :)) Crowley (sorry creepy crawly.. kinda humorous I think) uhh.. and G. met. I find it interesting cause I do not recall the :D voice of the New Aeon ever mentioning it in Confessions of, Magic_ in theory and practice, book of lies etc.. etc.. ever having mentioned it. Sorry if it seems I'm hi-jacking your topic on this. It just came to my mind. I used to think for the longest time why The messenger of Ra-hoor.. was never mentioned here, or if so it seemed he was somewhat shunned. It took some time for me to find out why and get over that sacred cow.

------------------------------------------

"Mister, you go?" Gurdjieff inquired. Crowley assented. "You have been guest?" - a fact which the visitor could hardly deny. "Now you go, you are no longer guest?" Crowley - no doubt wondering whether his host had lost his grip on reality and was wandering in a semantic wilderness - humored his mood by indicating that he was on his way back to Paris. But Gurdjieff, having made the point that he was not violating the canons of hospitality, changed on the instant into the embodiment of righteous anger. "You filthy," he stormed, "you dirty inside! Never again you set foot in my house!" . . . Whitefaced and shaking, the Great Beast crept back to Paris with his tail between his legs.(James Webb, The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and Their Followers (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1980) p. 315) Richard Smoley
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=604.msg3467#msg3467

--------------------

Anyhow It may be that someone will come along who has more in depth knowledge and understanding who'll asnwer your question. In some instances I imagine you might not like an answer. For myself it often leads me to dealing with a sacred cow. http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=15&lsel=S I usually go for the throat (in mechanical reactionary terms) but usually the other person has the clarity and good nature to patiently point that out. Then it becomes a matter of letting it (it= my belief) go or (ignorantly) fighting tooth and nail over my sacred (rediculous) belief. /me shrugs.

Also You could follow along on the wave more, it is HighlY likely that the answer in particular is there. Being that there are people of differant tastes and styles or study and research, it is possible that a person may not come along and offer an answer but say simply "do your homework." Speaking for myself it doesn't mean your an idiot but simply look for the answer. It is a mountain of information they (SOTT's, QGF..) have collected. It is also a mountain of information alot of which is freely distributed throughout the sites.

I'm betting that you can find a particular topic that may have the more specific information you seek here.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

Salutes!
 
Well, you sound interested, so in that case I would say that answers to your questions are already in the body of the Wave book, so you might want to keep reading. But I will take a stab at a couple of points working off the top of my head.

vampire_f00d said:
Okay, I read the introduction to the wave series, and also the glossary points that were pointed to me but am kinda questioning the validity of the research you have done and also the philosophical stance of the implications of what laura is saying.

Firstly it says that hypnotic regression was used, and it has been found out conclusively that hynoptic regression is usually part of the sub-conscious, that actually invents whatever information is divulged in the regression, as they have found so many people that claim to be a famous figure of the past, but all exist now. Which would either mean that in order for that to be the case, more than one soul would have to live in a body at once, or like they have concluded it is most likely an invention of the persons mind to satisfy some unconscious desire. The other thing about the regression was that you said that in the regression sessions one of the subjects foretold a future event that would be to happen, that seems paradoxical because in regression you are supposed to go back in time to a previous life, if the regression was being used to maybe go forward into a future life if that was even possible (even though regression has been falsified), it would indicate that time has already been mapped out, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Similarly to how Laura says she is talking to herself in the future, if the future already exists in space and time, it means that we cannot change it as it is inevitable to end up that way, it's paradoxical if people from the future are trying to change the past as the future they are in would not exist and neither would they if any other event happened.
A lot of what we think of as paradoxical, the C's (those entities Laura contacted or Laura's unconscious) say that in our state, in third density, time as we normally think of it doesn't exist.

vampire_f00d said:
The other point that bothered me a bit was the fact that you were using a ouija board to contact people in the future (forgetting aside this is a paradox). First of all people who take part in seance and ouija board sessions are very susceptible to auto-suggestion from the sub-conscious, so quite often the information gained from those instances is merely the sub-conscious telling the conscious what it wants to hear. If you aren't susceptible to auto-suggestion yet still manage to get a response from a ouija board, it needs to be made sure that the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram is done before hand (cabbalistic ceremony) to banish all negative entities from around you, if you don't do this all you could basically end up with is a malevolent spirit that is having fun with you and feeding you lies for its own entertainment. The astral plain is a very dangerous place for us humans due to the fact we are right ontop of the lowest level of it so that basically we are right next to all the malevolent spirits, so if no protection ritual was taken, which it doesn't say in any of the introduction that is the case, then I would find it hard to believe that the session material is valid due to the fact it could both be auto-suggestion unless the relevant precautions were taken to avoid that, and it could also be misinformation from malevolent spirits.
These points are well-covered in the Wave, not only by Laura but also by the C's themselves. The C's warn that what is transmitted is not 100% true. If I remember correctly, the figure they give for the early channelings is 70% true. There are distortions inherent in the process, for some of the reasons you mention (other members of the channeling group at any time, for example) As for protection rituals, the C's said that rituals restrict. As for protection, they frequently say, "knowledge protects." Many practical examples of this can be found in the readings. As for the lower astral plain, if you read further or listen to some of the podcasts where Laura talks about the early attempts, all this is covered pretty thorougly.
vampire_f00d said:
If you could clear any of this up for me i'd be very greatful.

Vamp

Forget to say you were putting about belief and all, Plato said that belief and opinion were not classed as knowledge as they basically were unconfirmed and speculative which I agree, but at the same point we have to have belief's to work from as we are unable to obtain knowledge without any prior belief's, as if this were the case we'd simply have to reason out everything regardless of information from the senses. If you take more of an empiricists view on things though, belief is merely the reinforcement of prior knowledge that again we cannot really use because for all we know things may happen differently.

As for the matrix as you put it, it is true that there is very well a world outside of our own and we cannot truly confirm anyone elses existence except our own, but the thing in philosophy is that it's all about the fact you can only be 100% certain about very few things in the world, so it is only things that are very low in probability that we should take as uncertain. If you end up thinking that we all could exist in another preconceived world, and this is just a simulation then you will have to also think that the only thing you can confirm is your own existence a la Descartes, as if it's a simulation there would be no other way to tell that anyone else in the matrix really exists. The level of certainty for anything would then drop to 0 and you would never be able to escape this solipsism, as the only way Descartes did was appealing to God which was falsely assumed.

Anyway sorry for ranting on, hope you can help

Vamp
 
Hi vampire_f00d,

I think the following link will address several of the questions you are asking. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/intro.htm
 
Right I read that introduction thing, and it sorta caused more problems in my head than clearing them up.

I accept the possibility that their are other possible dimensions of the universe, and that a so called branch of a dimension can occur when say either one person makes a decision in their life, or someone intervenes from the future, that is acceptable in a way to me although it is still kinda paradoxical in a sense, but you still arrive at the same problem that time is a defined structure that has a beginning and an end and we are just parts of it.

I know time itself does not exist and it is merely a concept developed by humans in order to understand the world around us, but the whole "we are you in the future" thing causes a problem if you apply Einstein's causal loop thing so that it is probable to jump in and out of time. It is possible to say that the messages being received, if they were from the future, could not at all be you in the future but be you in the past, as if with the causal loop you can theoretically jump in and out of time when you please, then there would be absolutely no way of telling at what point in time these messages were coming from. To say that they are coming from the future is necessarily an assumption and it is just as likely they could be coming from the past, say, pre human era when (Forgive me for saying this) if Scientology would have it, that the souls of the aliens or whatever they believe, were on the earth.

The other problem I still have is with the validity of the messages received. I know you said that rituals are just waving your arms around and the like, but the astral plain has a decent amount of credibility to show that it exists, or at least some plain of further experience what with experiements done into ectoplasm, photo's and EVP, but when you are taking messages that could be auto-suggestion, or malevolent spirits interfering then it is virtually impossible to validate in anyway possible. It is possible to get around the auto-suggestion thing by simply disorientating a person so they don't know where they are, blindfolding them, and then starting the ouija board, and malevolent spirits can be avoided by doing the LBRP, but the reason rituals like the LBRP work is because of the overlapping of the astral and physical bodies, so while it may not appear to have any effect on our plane of existence, on the astral plane it is far different as the vibration rates of the atoms and particles on that plane are different, so different resonating effects are produced.

I am also interested how you managed to take a photo of an Aura as it is to do with the parts of the eye that are used in viewing a persons aura, I can't remember exactly which bits it is but I know that you have to use the part of the eye that we are taught to stop using when we are young. It's why children often wave at things, and say they see colours around people, because they see halo's and other astral entities.

Reality is basically what people make of it as there is no way to confirm what is infront of our faces as we all have the ability of perception, but the whole matrix thing as I explained before destroys validity even more due to the fact that if you are saying that everything we experience is a simulation, then there is no way of confirming to ourselves that even the other people in our existence are a simulation, so the only conclusive analysis we can make is that if we are in a simulation everything is simulated.

The final thing is that if someone wants you to believe that they are being honest when they are trying to manipulate you (if it was the case of malevolent spirirts using ouija), then they would be very likely to say that some of what they transmit isn't true to lead you into a false sense of security about their trustworthiness as basically they want to try and convince you as much as possible due to the fact that what they are telling you could very well be a manipulation.

I just have a problem understanding the validity of all this as I have read a lot of theology/philosophy and see how different validities work, and how the problems arise from things, but can't see any validity here as to how it is possible that anything of this is not just simply taking someones word that everything that they are receiving is true, and they're not just accessing their subconscious and 'finding' stuff that they merely want to find.
 
Again, do the reading. The C's don't say that rituals are just waving your arms around. They say rituals channel energy to 4D STS. So rituals are worse than ineffective, they drain your energy to the benefit of your hyperdimensional enemies.

I think you are asking us to do the work for you here. You seem to want us to try to convince you. We keep saying, read and come to your own conclusions. Then the discussions will be more fruitful. Also, we are not trying to "convert" anyone.

You seem to be very smart and have a good grasp of philosophy and metaphysics. Why do you need all your objections cleared up right now before you have read further?

vampire_f00d said:
I know you said that rituals are just waving your arms around and the like, but the astral plain has a decent amount of credibility to show that it exists,
 
vampire_f00d said:
Right I read that introduction thing, and it sorta caused more problems in my head than clearing them up.
{snip}
I just have a problem understanding the validity of all this as I have read a lot of theology/philosophy and see how different validities work, and how the problems arise from things, but can't see any validity here as to how it is possible that anything of this is not just simply taking someones word that everything that they are receiving is true, and they're not just accessing their subconscious and 'finding' stuff that they merely want to find.
Whoa dude. You can't understand a decade of research in a couple of hours or by reading a few articles. Nobody is going to be able to point you to a spcific paragraph that is going to satisfy all your questions right at this moment.

Read, read, read. Yeah, there is a ton of it, but it's like taking a toe off the body and trying to explain how the body works just by looking at the toe. ;)

Read this forum also, a lot of good stuff here.
 
I understand the reading and all is needed, that is not the problem, the problem is there seems no validity in any of the research which is why I am skeptical about reading a large amount of it if it is based soley on trusting one person and messages that have been 'received' through them. With most philosophical and theological teachings they usually have some form of validity to them, ie Christianity does have natural phenomena which seem to relate to some of the parables, most deductive philosophy makes 100% sense, and a lot of empirical philosophy does also until you get to the point of stipulating answers from pure opinion.

The main factor is, if it is just one person receiving messages through ouija and hypnotherapy, I don't see any validity in it as it is solely one person. Psychological, sociological and philosophical investigations show how different things are valid and invalid based on sample size and other variables, so that's why I am hesistant to read much more, because it is a lot of reading and at the current outset it doesn't seem to have any rate of validity.
 
vampire_f00d said:
The main factor is, if it is just one person receiving messages through ouija and hypnotherapy, I don't see any validity in it as it is solely one person. Psychological, sociological and philosophical investigations show how different things are valid and invalid based on sample size and other variables, so that's why I am hesistant to read much more, because it is a lot of reading and at the current outset it doesn't seem to have any rate of validity.
As a school, QFS does not think it has any validity either. That is why channeling sessions are used for inspiration to stimulate research. By research, we mean looking through the literature to understand if there is lateral support for some of our ideas. We don't simply believe everything that gets channeled. I can not generalize our methods in a few sentences, but I think I can confidently say that a part of our method is taking a step back to look at the mosaic. No... Statistical studies have not been a big part of our method up to this point and no one can say if they ever will be. Is our approach radical? Yes. But... I do not think it is unreasonable.
 
The other thing I find hard to conceive is why all of the ideas are put into such concept scientific jargon, with little explanation as to what most of the terms mean.

As for the validity, if there is no statistical validity then it is fine to believe, but I would find it very hard to justify anything if I didn't at least have something to refer too, that I could say in a quick amount of time to people so they could appreciate the logic of my argument. There doesn't seem to be any logic in all of this though either, it seems to be assumptions driven by assumptions with nothing actually ever confirmed.

It doesn't seem to be any different than the whole flying spaghetti monster thing, just because someone says it is doesn't say it is, logical argument and at least some tiny statistical significance need to be used to back up that idea as a justification otherwise like you put before, beliefs are nothing as that is all they are beliefs. It's almost a contradiction because you have basically said that beliefs are pretty much useless, yet though you have no logical argument or statistical evidence to back anything up, all the whole idea of the cassiopeans seems is belief, so it seems like you're saying:

You can't believe in beliefs as they are not useful in anyway
We have no logical argument or evidence to back up our ideas
Therefore our ideas are beliefs
Therefore our ideas are useless.

That's it put out in deductive logic for you.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom