David Vaughn75 said:Look, I’m telling you right now—reincarnation isn't just some hippie daydream; it can actually be proven. You can go ahead and slap a fancy label on it like "quantum philosophy" or whatever buzzword makes you feel more sophisticated if it helps you sleep at night, but the core truth remains the same.
My take? It can't be done right now. Even if we could, all we'd be proving is some kind of indirect transfer of non-physical information—not necessarily reincarnation itself. Who knows how someone from the Stone Age would interpret us sending data over the internet.
The fact that someone "remembers" isn't proof of a past life. In most cases, you can't even rule out much more mundane explanations, so there's really no reason to jump to anything exotic.
To be absolutely certain you haven't missed a single scrap of information, you’d basically need an experimental group of untouched wild tribes—or, if we’re being realistic about what we actually have access to, some testimonies from children. Even then, all you might prove is some unknown mechanism for transmitting data, not necessarily reincarnation in the sense of a soul physically moving from one body to another. It isn't just religious frameworks offering other explanations—think things like the Akashic records or various supernatural influences—nor is it limited to parapsychology, like field theory. Honestly, even modern theoretical physics might find some models for this on the exotic fringes of quantum philosophy.
I've dabbled in hypnosis myself, and I tend to agree with most experts on the matter: hypnotic regression into past lives is mostly just charlatans selling fog, and non-hypnotic regression simply doesn't exist. There’s been plenty of debate on this elsewhere, so I won't derail the thread.
At the end of the day, none of this really connects to the specific case at hand.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't—perhaps it’s just lost in the woods. There is no way for us to verify religious interpretations of these kinds of experiences; at the end of the day, it's a matter of faith.
Besides, you have visions every single night while you sleep. They don't prove anything on their own.
Jason Grant said:What I actually did was pivot to the core issue: any rational, responsible, and educated person who follows healthy living principles ought to embrace natural solutions—the kind rooted in everything from ancient Greece and the Hippocratic tradition down to modern authors who teach the same simple truths, truths validated by millions of people seeing real health improvements—while still maintaining a bridge to modern medicine.
Being skeptical of those who hold these views (essentially being skeptical of Alternative approaches), while still welcoming them to this forum, is the key to having a focused, productive debate.
1. We need to identify, penalize, and kick out the charlatans and frauds... 2. On the flip side, the trolls who just spit on and mock anything Alternative are also easy to spot; they have zero constructive posts to their names despite posting constantly—it's obvious as day.
So, skepticism toward Alternative methods is perfectly fine, provided it serves the purpose of distinguishing nonsense from proven results. It’s worth noting that not all "science-based evidence" is equal, but someone actually coming from an Alternative background will at least grasp the fundamentals, whereas someone who isn't will just dismiss everything as stupidity.
That’s why it’s essential for at least one moderator in the Alternative section to actually come from those circles. It's specifically so that person can quickly figure out who is who and actually maintain order in the Alternative threads.
Here is a simple example: It’s totally unacceptable for people to barge into vegetarianism threads just to mess around talking about pork chops and stuff like that. That shouldn't be allowed. Especially when you consider that many vegetarians didn't choose that lifestyle for fun, but for serious health reasons, and many have seen genuine improvements in their well-being.
What defines an "alternative" type versus what counts as an "alternative"? It’s all pretty slippery, much like where you draw the lines on any given topic. Looking at the post, it seems you're grouping Ryan Gomez4 with the skeptics, but she’s actually a supporter and consumer of alternative methods. I actually spent a brief period working professionally in that field myself.Yoga therapy in modern medical practice here in the States versus how it's handled at an Ayurvedic center in India.Back when I was younger and a bit too obsessed with alternative medicine, I still couldn't manage to moderate the PDF. It wasn't because I struggled to write from a skeptical perspective; it was mostly just the difficulty of articulating the alternative side properly. But of course, if you aren't some hardcore fanatic worshiping the sun, everyone immediately labels you a paid shill for Big Pharma. 😁 Some of the things being discussed here are wildly exaggerated—surreal, even, by today’s standards. It’s funny how the most nonsensical topics often grab the most attention and drive the most activity. For instance, I’m fairly certain that many of the high-quality Ayurvedic practitioners I've worked with would lean more toward skepticism than the "alternative" camp in this black-and-white worldview. This PDF seems incredibly polarized; on one side, you have hyperactive skeptics looking for a crisis, and on the other, people pushing the most superficial, irrational versions of alternative medicine. It probably happens because there isn't a solid middle ground of established traditional medicine to anchor the conversation.Just a handful of self-sufficient herbalists.People who actually take things seriously don't really hang around here. It creates this weird negative selection process where the loudest, most exaggerated stories always seem to get all the attention.
On one hand, there’s this push to shut down the skeptics, and on the other, an equal urge to silence the alternative crowd—especially when they start talking medical stuff. Look, the administration isn't going to make everyone happy, no matter how much we wish they would. In my opinion, it’s in everyone's best interest to find some middle ground. We just need tighter oversight on how information is communicated. As for the skeptics, let them debate; we can keep handling those arguments just like we always have.
Jason Grant said:Let's talk about positivism, rationalism, and religion.
How do you justify the way modern Western medicine operates when they completely ignore the fundamental Hippocratic oath—first, do no harm? Just the act of diagnosing a disease can be harmful in its own right, especially considering how many modern medical technologies actually have negative side effects. Then there's the endless waiting in exam rooms and the total breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship—it's subjective, sure, but generally speaking, things are much worse now than they used to be, which doesn't help the patient one bit.
And look, I absolutely agree that scammers and charlatans in the alternative space should be prosecuted strictly. But we also see cases where a practitioner helps a hundred people, yet one person unfortunately dies, and suddenly that therapist ends up behind bars. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, people die in hospitals on a daily basis, morgues are built right into the facilities, and nobody is held accountable.☕
You're pivoting to something that has nothing to do with the point made in the quoted post.
Since things like public health or medicine deal with relatively clearly defined fields—complete with their own methodologies and evidence—it’s actually possible to set specific criteria there.
But because alternative medicine lacks those clear boundaries, allowing anyone to claim whatever they feel like, you just can't apply the same standards. I don't see how anyone could defend that kind of debate against skeptics; comparing it to a structured field like public health is a stretch. It’s more like watching believers and atheists argue about religion than looking at a formal document.
Besides, subforums have their own editorial autonomy. How moderation works in a public health forum versus a religion forum isn't directly tied to the world of alternative medicine.
fadedgull42 said:I was dealing with a massive iron deficiency—honestly, I can't even remember what those units are called. Someone please refresh my memory, Carol Lopez23! 👍For me, it was usually around a 2, but if I recall correctly, the range for women goes anywhere from 8 to 30. Honestly, what would have happened if that number just kept dropping? Would I even still be alive? Just to be clear, I was totally blacking out at the time. If nobody had caught me, I could've easily cracked my skull on the pavement or wandered straight into traffic. And honestly? That feeling right before you lose consciousness is terrifying. I had absolutely no clue what was happening to me—I genuinely thought I was dying.
So what’s the actual issue then, if you're eating the exact same stuff we are?
It’s not even about that. I wasn't eating it back then, and I'm definitely not eating it now.
There’s a lot of chatter floating around about his expertise, but honestly, seeing how he handles moderation, it wouldn't surprise me if the rumors are actually true.
Maybe because it’s the only lasting (and I mean *lasting*) change I made to my lifestyle back then? I mean, what else could have caused such an improvement besides what I was eating?
I'm not saying it isn't, but it isn't enough to prove anything.
We're talking about one single person and their own subjective interpretation (just because we personally notice a certain factor doesn't mean it's actually the cause; things slip past us all. To exaggerate, maybe we blame "global warming" when it's something else entirely. History is littered with these kinds of false associations and intuitive, yet incorrect, conclusions).
Now, if you had two identical versions of yourself in parallel universes where every other variable remained constant except for that one change—and then you multiplied that by fifty for a more relevant sample size—then you’d have something (in the absence of parallel universes, we'd have to settle for maximizing our knowledge of inputs and outputs along with large sample sizes to statistically observe trends..).
Even if we determined the answer lies in food, we still face the problem of figuring out exactly what about that diet caused the effect. Was it because it was raw food, or was it something changed during that transition? Could I have achieved the same result just by adjusting my cooked meals? In other words, isn't it possible that food quality matters, but the issue isn't simply the (oversimplified) split between raw vs. cooked?
To go back to my own example: I ended up with a gallstone after about ten years on a vegetarian diet. Was the vegetarianism to blame? No. It was most likely a combination of genetic predispositions, the specific way I ate (I wasn't exactly careful, lots of fats, etc.), and a lack of physical activity at one point before the problem surfaced.
But again, that's just a hypothesis, since those are factors proven to increase the probability of such issues. However, it's entirely possible that those predispositions were the dominant factor and the problem would have happened even if everything else went perfectly. You can never know for sure with these isolated individual cases, and you certainly shouldn't try to make approximate links (like to a vegetarian diet, for instance) just to promote some oversimplified "cure-all" recipe (like saying "start eating meat and you won't get this, right?").
fadedgull42 said:It isn't a problem at all. I already posted about my own experience curing my anemia through raw food on the other thread. 🤷 So, this isn't about blind faith; it's about lived experience. Theory without practice is like a wheel without an axle!
Everyone views this through their own lens. Since you haven't experienced it firsthand, you feel like you have the luxury of deciding whether to believe us or not, and you assume the rest of us are just operating on faith too. But we aren't. We know. Because we actually did it.
Given how hard they're trying to stay stuck in their ways—despite having zero knowledge or interest in alternative methods, and being openly hostile toward them—it wouldn't surprise me if certain shady interests are pulling the strings behind the scenes. ☕
Message to the supermoderators: If you're going to keep BAT kolo around, at least make the new third moderator someone from the alternative community. Basically, the complete opposite of him: someone with actual knowledge, genuine interest, and someone who actually supports what we do. 👍
Thanks for understanding
But how do you actually know it was specifically raw food that did the trick?
Take my own example—a gallstone (1cm) that just vanished. If I were more inclined toward modern medicine, I might subjectively claim the cause was long-term use of Ursofalk*. If I leaned toward Alternative options, I’d look for the cause in Ayurvedic medicine I picked up while traveling through India, or maybe some lifestyle changes—in both cases, dietary shifts...
In reality, it might have just been luck and I'll never know (maybe it would have disappeared regardless, or maybe there's some fifth factor I'm totally missing...). I’d just be looking for a way to confirm my own biases. That’s why scientific studies exist; anecdotal "evidence" can't compete because it lacks controlled conditions and large enough statistical samples processed with proper methodology. There are simply too many variables and subjective interpretations to make such bold claims with certainty.
Given how hard they try to stay stuck in their ways, despite having zero knowledge or interest in Alternative medicine—and being an outright opponent of it, no less—it wouldn't surprise me if certain shady entities are playing a role in all of this. ☕
That's about it 🤣
*A true believer in Alternative paths would probably give Ursofalk a better shot if it were in its older, unisolated/non-synthetic form, like the bear bile used in TCM 😬 Or if at least a legitimate TCM supplement company had formulated the isolate and put something like LaoTzea on the bottle 😳 Because Big Pharma isn't quite sophisticated enough to poison us to death using bear bile trapped in micro-cages that even a six-year-old couldn't get out of 😳
Henry Hernandez7 said:We respect your opinion, but as users and active participants here, we feel entitled to tell you that this approach is just plain stupid.
Without knowing the specifics or the underlying reasons, you can't really judge—and you won't be getting those details because we aren't going to air our dirty laundry in public. Just saying. 😳
Subversive deals happen via DMs and emails all the time; it’s not the first or last time someone got kicked out for trying to start an alternative forum. I’ve been through those phases myself, so I get it. From a user's perspective, things look different when you can afford to be emotional or reactive. But the admin team has to weigh everything against a much more complicated reality. It’s a broader view. All of that said, we aren't going to tolerate public sabotage. Plus, advertising other sites—let alone other forums—is already against the house rules for business reasons, regardless of what’s happening right now.
I don't know, it was such a long time ago. I was at about half my current weight back then, and honestly, my memory is pretty fuzzy. It’s probably better to wait for an opinion from someone who actually knows what they're talking about 🙂
I remember having one of those hanging on my wall when I was a kid. I’m sure there’s some benefit to them, but it feels pretty limited compared to a heavy bag or hand wraps. There’s zero shock absorption—so you’re either pulling your punches or risking an injury—and the range of motion is just too restricted...
But hey, that’s just a vague memory from way back when, so take it with a grain of salt. 🤔
Real work belongs in peer-reviewed journals. Honestly, given the current state of American philosophy—specifically the lack of qualified people, the shaky standards, and the zero competition—even subpar papers somehow manage to hit top-tier status. I’d suggest not wasting your energy on places that don't actually respect intellectual labor. Instead, direct that effort toward more serious, career-oriented fields. 🙂
I’ve heard people say a few times that deleting posts feels even worse than just boxing them up.
So, I’ve moved away from my old habit of leaving boxed posts alone. Nowadays, I usually just delete them along with the box—it’s much more effective, so I’d suggest my colleague try the same.
1) How exactly did the moderator earn that title? By dragging natural science number 2 along for the ride?
2) Should a moderator be out there defending the use of natural sciences in an argument?
3) Would it be worth bringing in more serious philosophers—people like Sigmund (which I’d personally love)—and if so, what’s the best way to pull that off?
4) Do you feel like the whole communication landscape is just split between high-level academia and troll-heavy off-topic nonsense, with absolutely nothing in the middle?
Every single Troller in this forum's history has suffered from a messiah complex 😉
Regarding philosophy and the natural sciences, you couldn't just walk into Platonov's academy without having a foundation in them first (from that era's perspective, anyway. And despite his silly ideological fanaticism and his tendency to support "bans" on anything more complex than basic tools—effectively stalling technological progress even when they already had the theoretical groundwork laid out ), the natural sciences weren't actually separated from philosophy until quite recently. It’s not even rare to see modern philosophers using them to back up their arguments, often showing an understanding far deeper than the surface-level pop science usually peddled on this PDF . So, this isn't really a failure on the part of the users or the moderators. It’s just your desire to strip philosophy down to a barroom debate 😉
I wish I could agree, but I hope you realize that bans and deletions—like the ones that prompted this little outburst—won't just be one-off incidents. They’re going to become much more frequent, especially since half of what you post is just complaining and nitpicking.😉