Essentially you've just come here to say stuff without backup? Just as your sig says. How are we to take your posts? This is a discussion and debate forum, you're not really contributing anything if you can't back yourself up. If you're to make any objective statements you need to be prepared to back them up, otherwise they will just be seen as fictitious.
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.
Granted you have your experience and it's something you can't back up, you can't really make an assertion. You've had the experience, but you made the following assertion:
they are beings who exist in another vibration, and they often appear to be transparent simply because they are, at the time, inbetween worlds.
This is what I tried picking you up on. You posted an entirely subject experience and said that it is good verification of this information (you didn't even say how your experience verifies this). This is what you couldn't back up. So I posted something (which was backed up) that would be an alternative explanation of your experience, suggesting that no...your 'experience' is not verification of the above (quoted) statement...even if the only person who could verify it is you.
Instead of addressing it, you condescended to me about the nature of 'scepticism', telling me to look at things with an open mind and to trust my senses and put aside preconceptions of the possible. This is a dodge. Dodging is a form of stonewalling and is intellectually dishonest. You've only encountered me in 2 discussions on this forum, how can you tell what my views on scepticism are, how open minded I am or even how open minded I am being or how much I trust my senses or why I might not necessarily trust them? That is why it is condescending and why I said it contains a number of baseless assumptions. The 'trust your senses' thing is already contradicted by reconstructive memory because it itself suggests your memory is inaccurate. You finish on suggesting I should ignore pre-existing dogma. (Even though the pre-existing dogma I was using is also backed up by personal experience)
Then, I explained my personal experiences and how said 'pre-existing dogma' (psychological theories) is backed up. And brought in a rebuttal of trusting your memory and senses completely and how your telling me to trust my senses is in conflict.
Your response to that is a goal post shift:
Put it down as a possibility alongside the possibility that it is a ghost.
Why is this a goal post shift? Because previously you were VERIFYING that these ghosts are beings who exist in another vibration and are in between worlds with your own experience. How does something you've verified suddenly become a mere possibility?
Has your position changed so quickly? Am I right in that no you can't verify your experience with your claim that what you remember was seeing/talking to a being existing between worlds? But rather it is only a possibility
, with which neither you nor I could verify, test or know. At least my so-called 'possibility' has back up. Your explanation could stand alongside an infinite number of answers, including, "a pixie created a psychic projection in order to fool you into thinking your were talking to a being existing in between worlds". If so, it'd be nice to know that your views have changed, saves being accused for shifting goal posts, because intellectually dishonest people shift goal posts so that the person talking to them is left chasing the dragon in a game of Heroin Hero
Then you change the subject by talking about evidence for your experience. In fact, I was asking for evidence for your experience, I was asking for your original statement, which you used an unverifiable experience as back up...experience you first said verified to you then suggested that it was just a possibility.
I wouldn't say that you're a liar or necessarily dishonest in character (I wouldn't know about the latter, I cannot claim to know you are much about you), you've been up front about not having evidence to support that your experience actually happened and you're up front about the fact you're not posting anything you're capable of backing up. I feel I should say that, as I've pointed out directly where you're not really sticking to this forum's rules or expectations. Anyway:
I should requote the above section of the rules with additional highlights for the parts I've just covered:
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling,shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments
If you're not here to abide by that section of the rules, then unfortunately you will find yourself on a path away from discussion here. These rules are in place to make discussion fair and balanced, and when I say 'fair and balanced', I don't mean Fox News' 'Fair and Balanced' but something that's actually fair and balanced. Whether how you've posted is intentional or not, it's certainly worth thinking about. If you don't like the forum's terms, then I will be up front and say there are alternatives out there that are less hardcore. Though, if you were able to engage in the forum that way, I don't think anybody would have an issue with you...obviously we don't get personal, even if it does get a bit heated.
As for why it may appear I am so frothy mouthed at that particular part of the rules, it's because I've been led around in circles wasting time and getting nowhere by those who engage in those unfair tactics and I intend not to let it happen. It gets tiring after a while too.