Talk:Ramtha

message: Ramtha (or at least JK Knight channeling it) via the movie What the Bleep has been seen by more than a thousand people, therefore, is probably valid material for Wikipedia.  Keep the article.  I put links to two places where James Randi comments on Ramtha.  Jrincayc 15:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it 

message: "There is no clear proof that J.Z. Knight is a Fraud. That is, proof that his/her followers will belive. There are lawsuits that stated that J.Z. Knight is the only one who can channel Ramtha, which is odd. Also, she copywrited Ramtha. 20/20 did a segment that showed proofs of how Ramtha's school is just taking peoples money."
Is there any evidence hinting that JZ Knight isn't a fraud?  I'd imagine that any logical person would realize that somebody selling "magic/curative" water is a fraud.
:Well, if Knight thinks it's true, it isn't technically a fraud. --Chronodm 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a fraud?!

message: You'll read above that some people believe there is no proof she is a fraud. A great hint would be the fact that she claims Ramtha is from Atlantis. Come on now. Atlantis was written about by Plato allegorically, not to be taken literally! Atlantis doesn't exist and it never did. It is the equivelent of especially desperate people 2,000 years from now believing there is a Lilliput, or Houyhnhnmland, or maybe it would be the lost island of Laputa.It is ridiculous. The fact is she claims she is channeling a person from a fictional place, therefore she is channeling a fictional entity. For Christ's sake has the world gone mad? 
Maprovonsha172 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maprovonsha172 , whether you like it or not, hundreds of thousands of people (if not more) believe in Atlantis in one form or another.  It's not just spiritual seekers either, some archeologists have spent their lives pursuing their own pet theories about where the REAL Atlantis is.  Articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to make value judgements about the beliefs of others, rather they are supposed to simply describe them using reliable sources for those descriptions.  As for fraud, If Knight herslef knew and believed there was no Ramtha, then yes, she would be perpetrating a fraud.  However, if she genuinely believes she is channelling a entity known as Ramtha, she is merely testifying to her belief and faith.  Ramtha and the Ramtha School of Enlightenment are best described as new religious movements.  How would you like it wikipedians started saying your religion is fraudulent and that its fraud should be self-evident to everyone? No matter how out of the ordinary, these are people's genuine beliefs.  Articles on such movements often contain a section of criticisms of the group which is as it should be.  let's just avoid making POV statements.LiPollis 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, LiPollis, your arguments do not hold water.  The number of people who believe or do not belive in Atlantis is irrelevant.  There is no credible evidence of its existence.  If articles on Wikipedia are supposed to "us[e] reliable sources," where are the reliable sources of information on Atlantis?  Your statements concerning fraud, belief and faith are questionable at best.  Knight's fraudulence does not need to be proved; her credibility needs to be proved.  As an "actual scientist" you should know this.  "These are people's genuine beliefs."  That, my dear, is a mighty POV statement!!! --Joysword 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of, it's rather rude to an innappropriate to call any other editor "my dear" since it is an attempt to reduce them to the status of a child. Please refrain from such personal attacks in the future. Sadly this is a common refuge of pseudoskeptics. If they cannot argue a point backed up with reliable sources, they seek to infantalize the person with whom they disagree. I did not say the phenomena they believed in was genuine or real, rather that the genuinely believed these things to be true. That's a subtle difference, I realize, but an important one.  Prove that they don't really believe these things and you can safely get away with calling them frauds.  NPOV requires that we not hold one religion or belief system to one standard and others to a higher standard of proof.  People wouldn't dream of attacking an article on Jewish or Christian beliefs in the same manner. (well some would, but they are in the minority) My approach to new religious movements is from my expertise as an anthropologist. I choose not to make value judgements of established systems of belief or new systems of belief that are evolving.   I find that judging a subject from a personal point of view is counter-productive to the effort to gather encyclopedic information.  If you wish to dispassionately discuss the content of the article, then do it disapassionately.  If you wish to allege fraud, then back up your claim with proof from reliable sources. ALL alleged fraud must proven if it is to be cited as fraudulent here as any "actual" editor should know.  Your statement that you or anyone else should be permitted to allege fraud on the part of Knight without proof  flies in the face of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.  Please refamiliarize yourself with those policies.  I encourage you to seek reliable sources to back up your claims.  That is is the only appropriate method for inclusion in an article.  I personally do not think Ramtha s very credible but that is far short of throwing out all wikipedia guidelines and simply unilaterally declaring the phenomenon fraudulent.  Wikipedia cannot be party to libel.  Please keep that in mind.  Citing reliable sources insulates wikipedia and sets a good example for other editors.LiPollis 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proof she is a fraud? 

message: Saying that the nonexistence of Atlantis is well established is besides the point. Most well educated people could make a similar argument about any story of the Bible, but i doubt that you would say that the nonexistence of Noah's Ark is well established, as it was an allegory, and therefore Noah didn't exist, in the Bible article.
: The nonexistence of Noah's Ark is well established. WiccaWeb 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of non-credible people do believe in it, though (and have various non-credible references to back their claims that there's more to Atlantis than Plato's allegory). It's not really "fictional" in the sense that, say, Middle-Earth is fictional. A link to Atlantis is sufficient; highlighting the dubious nature of Knight's claims (as much as I may agree with you as to how dubious they are) doesn't seem NPOV. Wikipedia is not Snopes. --Chronodm 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (And just to be clear, no, that anonymous commenter wasn't me.) --Chronodm 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I suppose that might be slightly misleading, as I myself am somewhat skeptical of Ramtha. My aunt, however, dose believe that Ramtha is real, and had in fact gone to many of Ms. Knight's "seminars", if you will. I appologise if I'm not entirelly clear on some points... As I said, I am only repeating what my aunt has told me.
Anywho, my aunt had started attending these seminars right around when they first began. Right from the beginning, she said that Ramtha (or rather, Ms. Knight chanalling Ramtha) told them all that he would not want people following him; attending every one of his seminars, and such. Apparently, he said that he would only be here for a short amount of time.
According to my aunt, once Ramtha left, it is possible that Knight was somewhat angered by the fact that a portian of her lifetime had been spent on these seminars. Feeling that she deserved some sort of reward for her wasted life, Knight continued to pretend that she was chanaling Ramtha in order to make some money out of it.
I wish I could elaborate more on why my aunt held faith in Ramtha, but my memory of our conversation over the matter has worn thin. Perhaps, if we ever happen to speak over the matter again, I'll add more to this. I suppose I should add that my father has also attentded a few of these seminars. Take my word for it when I say that my father holds no faith in these supposed "psychics" and "channalers". Often he ridicules them. However, whenever I mention Ramtha, my father grows somewhat uncomfortable and speaks little on the matter. Apparently this Ramtha had struck a few chords (as "he" had spoken to my father in person). Whatever Ramtha said, Father has never told me, but I find it unusual that it was cause so much discomfort in him...Howl 8:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Howl, if you happen to see this comment, I would encourage you to gather testimony from people who once believed in Ramtha or attended seminars.  Such first person narratives are useful to researchers studying new religious movements and also to Skeptical researchers who want to document what they view as an elaborate con. First person testimony is anthropological gold.  Either tape record them or video tape them if you can.  You could even upload such video to a webpage where people searching on Ramtha could find it.  Unless you publish it or put it togther in a significant way on a website, it really wouldn't be notable enough to include here.  Still, since it fascinates you, I encourage you to do some fieldwork!  EVen as a young teen, I often recorded stories my elders told me, not about new age religion mind you, but about just as strange things such as irish water horses and other mythological creatures they believed in. LiPollis 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From the Standpoint of a Believer

message: The neutrality of this article was very poor.  I have removed most of what I considered non-neutral statments and unreferenced statments.  This left the article much more sparce and in need of expansion.  Anyone? BobAlmighty 18:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes and POV 

message: I'm going to revert the first paragraph. Whoever keeps removing the Atlantis sentence can justify it below (as I've argued for it above without dispute):
Maprovonsha172 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any further discussion for the past 5 days, if nobody has anything else to dispute about this issue, I will remove the sentence. BobAlmighty 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantis 

message: Ramtha does not claim to be scientific so I think the category pseudoscience is wrong. Please explain or I will remove it. By the way, I have the book by J. Gordon Melton at home so if I have time, I will write more. (I do agree with some of the criticisms of Melton's book and I deeply regret that he did not explain more in detail why he sees the controversy about Ramtha as exaggerated, except by making the usual negative generalizations about critical ex-members). Andries 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RSE doesn't claim to be scientific exactly, but they seem to use scientific arguements to try and back up their claims. The most obvious example of this is the movie What the bleep do we know, which is very pseudoscientific. I think that the category may not be a perfect fit, but that it has relivance. BobAlmighty 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What scientific arguments do they use? Sorry, but I really do not think that the pseudoscienc category is appropriate here. They do not claim to be scientific. They teach transparent nonsense of course, but that is no pseudoscience. Andries 19:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The movie What the bleep do we know is also a major source of controversy involving Ramtha. Critics of the film describe it as a pseudoscientific fiction and not the documentary and scientifically based film it projects. However, JZ Knight appears in the film solely to reinforce the apparent connections between ancient spiritual beliefs and new discoveries in quantum physics.
This is biased in Knight's favor. However,... sounds authoritarian, and it's a defense of Knight. And, if Knight is to be believed, she never appears in the film. It's Ramtha, right? Instead, perhaps we should say, However, filmmakers claim...
Maprovonsha172 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the category Pseudoscience?

message: I would just like to add some info that seem obvious to me, that doesn't appear in this discussion, I am not into writing so I have no interest in editing the encyclopedia entry.  The first point I'd like to make is that all new concepts are refferred to as cults in their conceptipon, as was christianity.  The second is that science is at it's heart the search for the unknown as ramtha encourages. Science is a process of conceptualizing an idea and proving or disproving it, making modifications and trying again.  As the wiki writers would say, Ramtha "Claims" to be a 35,000 year acended master, from that "claimed" perspective he can make claims about the nature of reality that are far ahead of the scientific community, that doesn't make him wrong.  In fact over the last 18 years many of his concepts are just being discovered by the scientific community.  Finally, It's not suprising that Ramtha's legacy has spread and grown beyond the 3000 students as the entry suggests and is now a worldwide phenomenon, it is because it works, if you want to see the latest scientifically published work that revolves around ground breaking phenomenon At Ramtha's school you have to look at this paper published by the American Institute of Physics, which has a rigorous system of peer review to verify scientific authenticity, and if AIP can see the scientific value of the information then I think  over a short time, the world will too.
http://proceedings.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001256000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
Personal Note: No where else in the world can I learn to do the things I have done at RSE, including learning about our ability to measurably augment our environment with our minds as discussed in the paper.  From this students perspective, my scientific process is taking the information given and applying them, when it works for me it's all the proof I need, I just want more.  I'll leave it to the slower process of scientific community to catch up and study the phenomenon in greater detail.
Common Sense: As with all the internet, you will always find unhappy people or agendas that flood the internet on any topic, especially hot ones.  I hope eventually more emphisis will be on the Message of RSE as opposed to the banterings of peoples opinions for and against.
PS: if this is the wrong place to post an entry like this, don't bite my head off, this is my first time.
Isleprince 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some info to consider, from an RSE Student?

message: As I reserched this Ramtha movement, including reading the material and ordering the DVDs and CDs, I'm impressed by the lack of "cultish" information.  Is there a 35,000 year old spirit inhabiting JZ Knight?  I don't know, and I don't care.  I did read that she has been tested by notable scientists (not members of the Ramtha School) and proved legitimate.  
the definition of a cult is, "A system of religious worship".  This defines many religious groups throughout the world.  Ramtha doesn't insist on being worshipped.  In fact, the teachings inspire the individual to worship the god within.  How wrong is that?  To experience more of the teachings, they developed a system for those interested in these belief systems.  Does not the richest and most powerful church in the world deman more than that?  They demand 12 years of school costing families thousands upon thousands of dollars.  They demand money for just about every decision a person makes to insure they will not be damned for all time.  And yet, you question a small school that teaches its students that God loves you beyond your wildest dreams.  That God loves you even if you don't contribute 10% of your income to the church that you attend.  I see no evidence of a cult in the Ramtha teachings.
—This unsigned comment was added by 216.49.214.3  (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 April 2006.
:Althought it is true, in the most general sense, the word cult can be used to mean "A system of religious worship," - that is mostly not how the word is used, but is more often used to mean "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious" - which more accurately describes how the ramtha movement is regarded. The fact that you openly acknowledge that you don't care whether you a paying money to a fraud makes you one of the people that JZ Knight enjoys having on this planet very much - an easy target. Your main argument is Argumentum ad Hominem, or 'two wrongs make a right' in that you seem to think that what the Catholic Church does right or wrong somehow affects the legitimacy of the ramtha movement. Wrong. MaxMangel 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tested by notable scientists not biased by a connection with her organization and proved legitimate? There's a shiny nickel in it for you if you can actually point to an actual scientist, much less a notable one, who thinks that this woman is channeling an ancient Lemurian or Atlantean spirit or whatnot. I'm seriously considering an offer to eat my hat if you can show me such a statement. grendel|khan 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Catholic Church is a Cult 

message: Hello, everyone; Olivebranch here.  I would just like to say a word about the content of this article: hogwash.  The first descriptor is there because there is an entire section devoted to 'controversy', which to me is another example of cardstacking propaganda.
The unencyclopedic descriptor is there because I think that we need to explore Ramtha here.  This is not an article about J.Z. Knight.  If it was, her name would be on the top of the page.  So, if we could get an expert on this subject it would be greatly appreciated.  Also, if we could explore Ramtha's life a little more in-depth (ex: his early life, great accomplishments, how long and where he lived, etc.), since I am thirsty for the knowledge of how he LIVED, not just his afterlife (even though that's cool too :-)].
:You have described the article as hogwash, yet you have failed to provide a specific example of factual inaccuracy within the article. The fact that YOU are a fan of Ramtha and simply don't like to read about controversies associated with him, I would argue, is a source of great personal bias for your opinion. You have slandered the article with the title 'cardstacking propaganda,' well, pray enlighten us as to exactly where the inaccuracies are, rather than just throwing around emotive phrases. Anyone can simply declare something to be bad, but not everyone is capable of backing up those statements, and this is what I'm challenging you to do. 
:If you fail to back up your opinion with hard facts then I'm sure your labels will be removed in short order. 
:As for your problems with J.Z Knight being so heavily mentioned, this is unlikely to change, seeing as all information about Ramtha, as I understand it, is sourced through her. 
:As for your desire to learn about how Ramtha lived, well, feel free to add such information to the article if you happen to find primary sources of his existence 35,000 years ago...MaxMangel 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, no surprise that you failed to back up your claims. Removed the unbalanced tag. MaxMangel 09:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mediumship has been known about for millenia, is widely taught today, and is very simple to learn, despite commercial efforts to brand it and make it a big business. There is also a long history of information from those who have experience with it asserting that even though useful information can be gained, 100% accuracy is unrealistic, and that there are risks (physical, psychological and spiritual) associated with the practice if one is not careful. Even Edgar Cayce knew and acknowledged he did not approach anywhere near 100% accuracy and reportedly he died after ignoring channeled warnings he was overdoing it. Just because there is some truth in something or some phenomena can be demonstrated does not justify inferences of accuracy in other areas. Respected modern authorities such as Paul Brunton taught that there is a state of mind that one can reach through concentration, meditation, self-conquest, and study, but that the danger is that once there, then their egoism becomes stimulated by the subtle forces they have evoked, their emotional nature becomes more sensitive and more fluid, their imaginative power becomes more active and is less restrained, and if they then fall victim to spiritual error regarding their state, the result is swollen vanity, superstitious credulity, emotions run riot, and wild imagination. Brunton considered this a major factor in explaining the human wreckage found on the spiritual path. Likewise, the noted Integralist Sri Aurobindo taught that there is a level of consciousness where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible, but which can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment, etc. He asserted that one can avoid harm by seeing through the half-lights and tempting but imperfect and often mixed and misleading experiences, but that those who go astray by following false voices and mendacious guidance, may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes, which he stated happens to many who enter that mental state.  The current trend to blend new age thinking with misinterpreted science such as in this case makes it justifiable to consider this psuedoscience--Dseer 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Message from the Descriptor Adder 

message: In what the bleep do we know, J.Z. Knights makes some glaringly ignorant assertions on Zero point energy. perhaps mentioning it and how obviously wrong her assertions are might add to the artcile. intuitors critic might be a good source to start with http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.75.33.118 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Point Energy 

message: ...how can one person hold copyright over them?
Nobody has legal ownership of King Arthur. I would think that he would have that of himself. But now he's dead if he existed, so who cares?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.54.78 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Ramtha was a living person... 

message: Hi.
as discussion is ongoing and improvements made, I replaced the multiple tags with one single one, fixed a link and add category/infoboxes to connect it to other topics in this area.
Whether the beliefs are bunk or not, I really don't care, but they look inline with the medium's claims. Would an informed individual make the time to add some specific references and quotes, preferably from academic sources?
 
Thanks and good luck ... the spirit of Queen Guinevere (Rightful Heir to the Crown of England) aka --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced tags 

message: I have proposed that this page be merged with JZ Knight, as they seem to be covering the same subject; this article claims to be about Ramtha, but is really about JZ Knight (e.g. the Controversy section) and thus should be merged there. As far as I'm concerned, Ramtha is JZ Knight, and does not deserve a separate article: but even if you disagree, it's unarguable that Ramtha has been made famous by JZ Knight, and is only notable because of her. Having too separate pages seems unnecessary to me, and furthermore suggests that Ramtha is entirely separate from JZ Knight, which is quite clearly not the case. If you agree or disagree, please comment below. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. No reliable sources treat Ramtha as an independent entity. <eleland/talkedits> 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal