|
| Thread: The Spirituality Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted September 07, 2005 05:44 PM |
|
|
Occam's Razor theory of auras...
I have played with my own perceptions of auras or visual halos around people, and this is what I've discovered.
When a person (or object) is largely stationary against a plain background (esp. a white or light-colored one) and you observe the person (or object) against that background for several minutes, your retinas adjust to the difference in light between the person and the background. After staring at a darker or differently colored object for several minutes, when the object moves slightly the retina is still reading the darker image like a temporary imprint on the retina. The movement frees part of the imprint field and creates a "light effect" which appears to be emanating from the object.
If you experiment with this phenomenon for a few minutes you will see that you can create the aura effect with your thumb in front of the computer screen by holding it up against the screen, staring at it for a long period of time, and moving it around slightly. I just successfully completed such an experiement myself to verify once again that I am correct in my theory (as I have done mefore many times).
However, the fact that I begin to see an aura of light around my thumb when I move it around slightly does not imply I am perceiving an aura, unless all objects, both animate and inanimate, exude auras. I can just as easily create the same effect using a pencil, television remote, or other object that blocks the white background and creates the "imprint" on the part of my retina the object is blocking from receiving the back light.
Too bad you're not who I thought you were US, we would have had such a grand ole' time catching up over the past twenty years... LOL!!!!
Also -- Quote:
...It is not skeptics who are robbing people of billions of dollars every year by selling them snake oil and shark cartiledge and psychic readings...
Hey -- Wait a minute!!!! You mean the Shark Cartiledge I'm taking isn't helping with my osteo-arthritis? My MD prescribed that for me!!!! 
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
USAtheist,
Now it's funny that in all our discussions, you've never once agreed with me on any point. Is it because you don't comment on what you share opinions on and only point out other's errors?
I guess alot of your logical thoughts and basis for argumentation I don't agree with. But you know, we can agree to disagree. Reading huge posts and replying in such a long manner takes an extraordinary amount of time, and that's a commodity I am short on nowadays. I'd kinda like to reply to you and discuss this even more.
In any case, I welcome your divergence of opinion and lack of hostility. Many people have a hard time with that. I may post more and discuss my experiences further later, but for now I'd rather live my experiences as I find they give much sense in my life.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2005 09:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
USAtheist,
Now it's funny that in all our discussions, you've never once agreed with me on any point.
As far as I recall(I may be wrong) we have only had this one discussion. It stands to reason that, in such a discussion about "spiritual matters", where I am a skeptic adn you are a believer, we will disagree. I can almost guarantee that if we were discussing politics or computer games or some such, we would find loads to agree upon!
I am at a loss as to why you find it "funny" that I disagree with you though?
Quote:
Is it because you don't comment on what you share opinions on and only point out other's errors?
I do not understand what you are asking. As far as pointing out errors goes; do not think that my pointing out logical fallacies is me trying to pass some judgement on you. We all commit errors in thinking and logic from time to time(some people do this damend near ALL THE TIME!), including ME. I appreciate when people point out when I commit such errors because an argument that rests on such fallacies is a worthless argument and needs revision.
Quote:
I guess alot of your logical thoughts and basis for argumentation I don't agree with. But you know, we can agree to disagree. Reading huge posts and replying in such a long manner takes an extraordinary amount of time, and that's a commodity I am short on nowadays. I'd kinda like to reply to you and discuss this even more.
Understood. I don't expect everyone to be in a position to devote huge amounts of their time to philosophical or scientific debates such as these.
But as far as disagreeing with my LOGIC...well, logic is not like a general opinion or idea. Logic is logic adn it is universal for the most part. Yes, there are different forms of logic(symbolic, classic, inductive, deductive etc.) that have different strengths and weaknesses or apply differently to discussions. But as far as these existential debates go, logic is logic and things like the law of noncontradiction apply and arguments which appeal to or argue FROM ignorance, authority, popularity, strawmen, adn the like are bad arguments...PERIOD! This is not opinion, it is just basic logic
So in order to disagree with me in THIS regard, you must show how my own arguments and reasoning are flawed(as time permits of course).
Quote:
In any case, I welcome your divergence of opinion and lack of hostility. Many people have a hard time with that. I may post more and discuss my experiences further later, but for now I'd rather live my experiences as I find they give much sense in my life.
And I welcome your difference of opinion as well. World would be pretty boring if everyone thought as I do, knew (only) what I knew, adn liked what I liked etc.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2005 09:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Also -- Quote:
...It is not skeptics who are robbing people of billions of dollars every year by selling them snake oil and shark cartiledge and psychic readings...
Hey -- Wait a minute!!!! You mean the Shark Cartiledge I'm taking isn't helping with my osteo-arthritis? My MD prescribed that for me!!!!
I enjoyed your "halo experiment". It had not even occured to me to even try to recreate such a phenomena by ordinary means(I am usually too busy delving into the psychological factors of WHY people want to believe such things in the first place)!
*Chuckle* Yeah the alternative medicine crowd are a hoot aren't they(a DANGEROUS hoot but funny nonetheless)? I will never forget the day I came upon that book "Sharks Don't Get Cancer!" which advocated ingesting shark cartiledge to cure and/or prevent cancer. First thing out of my mouth was "Hey trees don't get cancer either! Maybe we should drink tree sap to cure cancer!".
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2005 04:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
QP applied to USAtheist, excellent posts 
Congrats, USatheist, you deserved it, yet Pandora beat me to it!
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 01:48 AM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 8 Sep 2005
|
Quote:
Well, I am a card carrying 'skeptic' myself. I am one of those guys who seeks to spoil everyone's fun by revealing how psychics perform their con-artistry and exposing the logical flaws in spiritualist/supernaturalist arguments.
We skeptics are not so because we are mean-spirited or (the ever popular) "closed minded" or arrogant. Skepticism is all about open-mindedness. It demands that one be open minded enough to accept unpleasant or undesireable truths.
Welcome, Mr Sceptic, by a person that is somewhat sceptical of your thinking. I say that because I believe
you hear the word "spiritual", and then portray every
charlatan that has ever been concieved in this world as
representing that spirituality. Its akin to putting
down all drug companies (maybe we should ), because
some let drugs slip into the consumers hands without
proper testing. That is, it is unfair to classify all
in same breath as those known as snake oil sellers.
If you read through this thread, perhaps you saw my
argument evolve from trying to back up myself with vague
links, to just stating thats my experience. Of course,
as its not your experience, you are ready to negate and
debunk it all as being junk. Being a man of reason and logic, you want proof. I have none to offer, nor do I
rely on faith, nor do I have a need to prove anything to
you. However, at times, I do enjoy the debate, so I post here.
What is my experience? Its like this: walking down a path
in Rishikesh, s holy city in India, I saw a woman sitting
under a tree. As I approached, I felt a very real
brightening and clearing in my mind and perception. I
stood there for a few minutes, and then moved on,
watching the effect of her "aura" fade as I moved on.
I don't refer to aura here as Conan did, because I saw
no colors or anything emanating from her body. I refer
to a bubble that surrounded her and extended out around
for about 20 feet.
Now, you can call this a delusion, but if its a delusion,
its as much a one as your own thinking. We can debate the
subject of reality endlessly, but since your statements
are predicated on what you see, and mine on what I see, we may never agree, at least on this subject. I'm sure we
would agree on other things, that Katrina is a disaster,
that debating is fun, or whatever, but this subject,
spirituality, holds no meaning for you, except that it
raises black flags of scepticism whenever you hear the
word.
By the way, I mentioned drug companies before, because
its my feeling that they can be as deceptive as any
shark cartilege seller can. In my life, I have been
cured by drugs, I have also found some natural remedies
that work well. I'm willing to use what ever works. I do
kind of distrust big drug companies, because they look
99% at the bottom line, making money. That is not a
healthy motivation to create a drug that actually cures
a disease so you wont need the drug anymore. I have also
been to a few naturopaths that charged by the minute and
saw you out the door with a bag full of uneeded, very
expensive vitamins. The internet is a great tool for
self-education regarding what ever ails you. Having been
the object of shoddy doctoring, I take a far more
proactive approach to my own body these days.
Finally, as to what to do if you are the only one seeing
something, and thus think you are crazy, best keep it to
yourself  ...or maybe find like minded crazy people and
talk to them. Anyway, what is called sanity is too often
another name for mediocrity. Those who see outside the
box are the creative ones.
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 04:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Finally, as to what to do if you are the only one seeing
something, and thus think you are crazy, best keep it to
yourself ...
That's true Shiva, but then, that's not all that fun, is it?
Here is more to my story. I always saw these clouds around people and always thought everyone saw them too when I was little. But one day I meat a lady in my family, one I had never meat before and she took me aside. She told me that these where not normal and that most did not see the clouds.
So, being the skeptic I was (), I went to ask just about anyone I could find if they saw it too. Up to the point where I stood in front of a mirror and showed my cousin, who did not see anything. Yet I did find some people that shared my view, literaly. Some where religious, some where not and some where like me when I was young, they had no clue it was abnormal.
I started reading books, talking about it with others and then, much later in my life, I created this thread
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2005 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Welcome, Mr Sceptic, by a person that is somewhat sceptical of your thinking.
This is just an relatively unimportant aside but why is it that anytime a skeptic mentions being a skeptic, we get the same line, invariably, from at least one non-skeptic or anti-skeptic...the "Well I am skeptical of your skepticism"(or some slight variation) line? I am just curious because I hear this one more often than women hear the "You've got beautiful eyes" from guys in bars!? I mean is there something about the term "skeptic" that provokes this desire to play off the word in such an oft repeated fashion?
I am not trying to insult BTW. I just sense that you 'believers' bear some great animosity towards skepticism(as if it were "Against (your) beliefs")!?
Quote:
I say that because I believe
you hear the word "spiritual", and then portray every
charlatan that has ever been concieved in this world as
representing that spirituality.
No. You are projecting your own preconceptions onto me. The examples I have mentioned of "charlatans" ARE examples of superstition/supernaturalism/spirituality gone wrong and they ARE EXACTLY the reason you should be skeptical when thinking about your own beliefs.
DO you honestly think that everyone who believed in psychic surgery(or just plain psychic ANYTHING!) actually knew better but decided they wanted to be taken for a ride by a con-man?
Of course not! They(WE actually. I was one myself ) believed just as strongly as YOU do and they/we had ALL the same evidence to support their/our beliefs: Personal experiences/anecdotes and the like.
THAT is why I keep asking for the bit of evidence(EVIDENCE, not "proof"!) that would distinguish your claims from all of the false/fictional beliefs that have come down the tube over the years.
Occam's razor would have it that, if you cannot find objective evidence to set your belief apart from claims you probably DON'T believe, then the most likely reason is that your belief is, like those beliefs for sasquatch, Nessie, remote viewing and psychic surgery, false.
AGAIN, I cannot stress this enough: People who believe in things which is probably false do NOT KNOW that the things they believe are not true. The atonishing thing about our pattern seeking belief mechanism is that the mind will FABRICATE memories and evidence to confirm what you want to believe and you will be none the wiser! You will "find" evidence that does not exist and it will more often than not be a powerful personal revelation/experience!
Quote:
Its akin to putting
down all drug companies (maybe we should ), because
some let drugs slip into the consumers hands without
proper testing. That is, it is unfair to classify all
in same breath as those known as snake oil sellers.
Simple matter to resolve this then: Please give us a single shred of objective evidence...something that CANNOT be the result of confirmatory bias or pattern recognition. Something that is concurrently observable. Some quality that imaginary things do not possess.
When you can do that, then we will no longer be able to compare your claims to these false ones(snake oil/charlatanism etc.).
Quote:
If you read through this thread, perhaps you saw my
argument evolve from trying to back up myself with vague
links, to just stating thats my experience. Of course,
as its not your experience, you are ready to negate and
debunk it all as being junk.
On the contrary: it IS my experience and thus far I see nothing from you to indicate that your experinces are any different, substantially, than mine. The only difference between us is that I stumbled onto the skeptical school of thought several years ago adn decided to honestly question my own beliefs and earnestly wonder if it were possible that I could be fooling myself or otherwise being decieved into believing something which was false(a great many things actually).
I am not saying that you don't question your beliefs but there is a grave difference between passively wondering if you may be wrong(and 99% of believers do not even do THIS much!) and actively setting out to falsify your own cherished beliefs or discover what natural explanations there are for why you believe in 'X'.
Quote:
Being a man of reason and logic, you want proof.
I want EVIDENCE! IT is YOU guys who keep dragging out the "PROOF" bugbear to write off the skeptics. The intent of this characterization is to make it seem as though we are people who would reject all manner of credible evidence because we are dogmatically opposed to the paranormal/mystical.
AN apple falling from a tree is EVIDENCE of gravity for example(it is FAR from "proof"!). That is all I am asking for is soem bit of evidence that infers the claims you are making. Not something that COULD indicate something extraordinary OR could also indicate scores of mundane/ordinary occurances such as delusion, deceit, misperception etc..
Quote:
I have none to offer, nor do I
rely on faith, nor do I have a need to prove anything to
you. However, at times, I do enjoy the debate, so I post here.
That is another thing that bugs me. I have, at times ventured into threads titled "PROOF of (some supernatural/paranormal claim's veracity)!" and always, when I point out the flaws, falsehoods or expose the poor quality of the alleged "proof", I am invariably told "We don't have to prove ANYTHING to you!" as if I braoke into someone's house and pointed a gun at their head, demanding this "proof"!?
Now this thread may not have started out as anything more than a "spiritualists' mutual appreciation thread" but Conan never stated that he wanted ONLY the opinions of believers on these matters or I would have never followed Svargon into this one.
So let's steer clear of the hyperbole, shall we?
Yes, you are not obligated to prove anything or give ANY evidence. You can pop in and say "I believe this but I have no rational reason for doing so. Bye now!" adn pop back out again and I doubt any skeptics would dwell on it much.
But if you DO "enjoy the debate" as you say then know this: "Proof" is as much a part of debate as disagreement is! The very nature of logical debate is trying to prove one's case to dissenters.
Quote:
What is my experience? Its like this: walking down a path
in Rishikesh, s holy city in India, I saw a woman sitting
under a tree. As I approached, I felt a very real
brightening and clearing in my mind and perception. I
stood there for a few minutes, and then moved on,
watching the effect of her "aura" fade as I moved on.
I don't refer to aura here as Conan did, because I saw
no colors or anything emanating from her body. I refer
to a bubble that surrounded her and extended out around
for about 20 feet.
Again, you say about that you "watched" her aura. What you are saying then is that these "auras" have visual sense contents. So please, tell me why most of us do not see them then? If two sets of eyes are looking at the same thing but one of them does not detect a thing in that direction which the other sees, then the rational conclusion is that someone either has a deficiency in their eyesight, causing them "aura blindness"...OR the other has a more complex physiological organ for such sensory activity.
So which is it? IF you go to an optometrist adn get a full on exam, what ios he going to find about your eyes(which he does NTO find in most people) that allows you to see "more" than the rest of us?
Now, if you say that your eyes are no different than mine then the inference is that there is something different going on in your neo cortex. In which case, though the implications are probably not encouraging ), you should be able to get a cat scan done to find a physiological reason for why your brain is processing information which is not readily available to the rest of us.
Quote:
Now, you can call this a delusion, but if its a delusion,
its as much a one as your own thinking.
MY thinking does not appear to be delusional though. Believe me, I have had all manner of medical professionals testify to this in recent years. As a type 1 diabetic who has gone through some harrowing incidents, I am sometimes prone to fits of low blood sugars/insulin reaction. When my blood sugar drops, I become quite irrational/delusional and eventually fall into a seizure(or a coma if I am in real big trouble). These seizures(I have had scores of them in the last three years alone) wreak havoc on every organ in my body, including my brain which warrants periodic CAT scans and visits to neurologists the like. My thinking appears to be standard for a mentally healthy adult male with my I.Q. .
I think you are under the impression that "delusion" indicates someone who is out of their minds insane. Pointing at invisible people and ducking for no apparent reason and such. Usually delusion is nothing like that. Perfectly sane, intelligent people who otherwise think quite rationally will usually suffer SOME type of delusion or the other(For example:the one I still have trouble recognizing stems from my liberal political bias which sometimes leads me to think the worst about conservatives, even when charges leveled against them are unwarranted/unsubstantiated).
Having said that, delusion is only ONE probable reason for why people believe weird things adn it is arguable whether such things as "confirmation bias" adn such can be classified as "delusion" in any sense.
Quote:
We can debate the
subject of reality endlessly, but since your statements
are predicated on what you see, and mine on what I see, we may never agree, at least on this subject.
AHhh... but if only life were that comlicated! IF we examined reality as you would have us...giving equal credence, arbitrarily to ANYONE'S claimed observation, then we would be expected to allow or encourage our children to be raised adn taught to recognise the validity of genies, leprachauns, 400' radioactive dinosaurs etc.. We could never make ANY distinction of what was real or what wasn't since the believers in Santa Claus, for example, would simply be going by what they "see" adn we would be forced to think that our skepticism was at fault for not "seeing" Santa.
When it comes to extraordinary claims, anecdotal evidence is completely worthless. I cannot scrutinize your anecdotes. I could simply assent to your claims without any evidence or rational justification but if I do that, I must also agree to any claim made by any person who says that have seen something or I am a hypocrite.
Things which are 100% imaginary and false are far too often "seen" by a great many people(most people in fact). What would be convicning for any extraordinary claim is if there were concurrent observation in support of the anecdote. I don't just mean more than one person claiming something. I mean that(going back to teh controlled test thing for a second) if we have a central room of one-way mirrored windows which is ajoined by four rooms, each of which has an "aura seeing" occupant who can see through their own one-way mirror into the central room and we have someone claimb down a ladder into the central room(perhaps with his face hidden and not allowed to make any gestures) to be observed by the aura folks, and each of them immediately writes down the color and appearance of the aura of the man in the central room(i.e. they all write down "green, swirling cloud-like" or somesuch)...THAT would be something! Of course they mystics could still be cheating(they could have somehow decided beforehand that they would all say "green" no matter what. This could be a codified behavior of mystics for all I know!) but if they have claimed that auras are different for each person and somewhat dependent on mood, then it would be much more difficult to cheat since we could use several different test subjects/controls.
Quote:
I'm sure we
would agree on other things, that Katrina is a disaster,
that debating is fun, or whatever, but this subject,
spirituality, holds no meaning for you, except that it
raises black flags of scepticism whenever you hear the
word.
Hardly. It is of GREAT interest and importance to me! ANy facet of human behavior is of interest to me! The more we learn about why people believe such things adn teh physiological reasons for these beliefs, the more we unlock about the mysteries of the human mind(which are far less profound than mystics are wont to assert).
To that end I am also facinated with how and why so many people are subject to facism, psuedo-science, racism, phobias, etc.
Right now...like it or not, neuroscience is on teh verge of a full on 100% natural explanation for the brain functions we collectively refer to as "conciousness"(one of the most cited "gaps" for gap arguments left!). Mystics and the psi-crowd do not like this anymore than the Catholic church wanted the horizon or the shadow on the moon to be pointed out to them when they were holding to a flat earth model. For some reason, people feel great shame in the idea that tehy may have strongly beliefved in things that are patently false! As if they themselves are too blame for the human brain being imperfect!?
Quote:
By the way, I mentioned drug companies before, because
its my feeling that they can be as deceptive as any
shark cartilege seller can. In my life, I have been
cured by drugs, I have also found some natural remedies
that work well. I'm willing to use what ever works.
But these "natural remedies" do NOT work! That is the thing. This will not, of course, do anything to stop you from BELIEVING that they work but that is why we skeptics and scientists ask for mechanisms to be presented with such claims. If the homeopathic crowd cannot tell us how/why ground spider legs mixed with one million parts water(which should be inert anyway) should have an effect on one's mental capacity(curing/treating ADHD and whatnot) and in every test conducted thus far, test subjects react identically whether given a placebo or the actual concoction, then it is the duty of the rational thinker to conclude that your personal, subjective experience is better explained by your own pattern-seekintg belief engine than it is by the claims of homepathy.
If what you say were true then you should have no fear of a test in which 10 doctors each give you what they claim is a "natural remedy that you trust to cure whatever ailment, confident that you will be able to recognise when you have been given the actual "medicine", correct?
Quote:
I do
kind of distrust big drug companies, because they look
99% at the bottom line, making money. That is not a
healthy motivation to create a drug that actually cures
a disease so you wont need the drug anymore. I have also
been to a few naturopaths that charged by the minute and
saw you out the door with a bag full of uneeded, very
expensive vitamins. The internet is a great tool for
self-education regarding what ever ails you. Having been
the object of shoddy doctoring, I take a far more
proactive approach to my own body these days.
Unfortunately, the whole "Drug companies are out to make money so they will engage in massive cover ups of the benefits of alternative medicine" hoopla is 99% urban legend. For a pharmaceutical company to operate in teh way you describe would be the greatest example of how to drive oneself to bankruptcy that I could ever imagine!
If there are all these rather plentiful "natural" ingredients about which can effectively treat all manner of common ailments, then the drug companies would switch to selling these "alternative" faster than you could say "Here is my S.A.S.E.! Please send me my medical degree!".
REAL drugs/medical treatments cost enormous amounts of money to research and produce and right now the "alternative medicines" are being sold for close to the same price as the real medicines(and they require, nor benefit from such research adn testing). Every single test so far to establish the varacity of such things as accupunture, St. Jon's Wort, homeopethy, "Theapeutic touch" and much of chiropractry has come up NIL! No difference between the placebo and the actual "treatments".
That is is astonishingly negative track record! If I were to shoot at a toothpick with a high-powered rifle from 15-20 yards out, I could expect to hit the target at least one out of 30 or 40 times! Even on a bad day, in high winds with a throbbing headache I could do it one out of 50 or 100 times!
Quote:
Finally, as to what to do if you are the only one seeing
something, and thus think you are crazy, best keep it to
yourself ...or maybe find like minded crazy people and
talk to them. Anyway, what is called sanity is too often
another name for mediocrity. Those who see outside the
box are the creative ones.
Insanity does NOT = "creativity" and 'Sanity' does NOT = "unable to think outside the box". 
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2005 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is just an relatively unimportant aside but why is it that anytime a skeptic mentions being a skeptic, we get the same line, invariably, from at least one non-skeptic or anti-skeptic...the "Well I am skeptical of your skepticism"(or some slight variation) line? I am just curious because I hear this one more often than women hear the "You've got beautiful eyes" from guys in bars!? I mean is there something about the term "skeptic" that provokes this desire to play off the word in such an oft repeated fashion?
I am not trying to insult BTW. I just sense that you 'believers' bear some great animosity towards skepticism(as if it were "Against (your) beliefs")!?
No, just a traditional opening joust, a general comment
on what you said. All for drawing the lines of where
we each stand. As far as "us believers" go, try not to
lump me in any group, and I'll remove you from the
general skeptics category.
Quote:
No. You are projecting your own preconceptions onto me. The examples I have mentioned of "charlatans" ARE examples of superstition/supernaturalism/spirituality gone wrong and they ARE EXACTLY the reason you should be skeptical when thinking about your own beliefs.
DO you honestly think that everyone who believed in psychic surgery(or just plain psychic ANYTHING!) actually knew better but decided they wanted to be taken for a ride by a con-man?
Of course not! They(WE actually. I was one myself ) believed just as strongly as YOU do and they/we had ALL the same evidence to support their/our beliefs: Personal experiences/anecdotes and the like.
THAT is why I keep asking for the bit of evidence(EVIDENCE, not "proof"!) that would distinguish your claims from all of the false/fictional beliefs that have come down the tube over the years.
Occam's razor would have it that, if you cannot find objective evidence to set your belief apart from claims you probably DON'T believe, then the most likely reason is that your belief is, like those beliefs for sasquatch, Nessie, remote viewing and psychic surgery, false.
AGAIN, I cannot stress this enough: People who believe in things which is probably false do NOT KNOW that the things they believe are not true. The atonishing thing about our pattern seeking belief mechanism is that the mind will FABRICATE memories and evidence to confirm what you want to believe and you will be none the wiser! You will "find" evidence that does not exist and it will more often than not be a powerful personal revelation/experience!
Again, try not to put me in the class of psychic
surgeons, the Loch Ness monster et al. I never claimed
to be on their team. All I ever said is I practice
meditation and I have had a few experiences. My goal
is " clear mind", and the experiences actually do not
define my practice at all, they are just somethings that
have happened. I'm well aware of the power of imagination
that can create whole worlds out of the mind, so clarity
is a must, not visions of extra-sensory events. However,
my mind is open to the possibility of anything, because
the power of imagination can also become creative. Where
do you think all great works of art come from?
Quote:
Simple matter to resolve this then: Please give us a single shred of objective evidence...something that CANNOT be the result of confirmatory bias or pattern recognition. Something that is concurrently observable. Some quality that imaginary things do not possess.
When you can do that, then we will no longer be able to compare your claims to these false ones(snake oil/charlatanism etc.).
I wonder who this all-encompassing we is you talk about?
Do you speak for everyone? And please, listen to what I
say, not what you jump to conclusions about what I am,
joining me with everybody you thrown into the
"alternative pot". Again, its not my mission to prove
any claims to you other than I can show you how to
meditate, a very indentifiable technique that has
benefited many.
Quote:
I want EVIDENCE! IT is YOU guys who keep dragging out the "PROOF" bugbear to write off the skeptics. The intent of this characterization is to make it seem as though we are people who would reject all manner of credible evidence because we are dogmatically opposed to the paranormal/mystical.
AN apple falling from a tree is EVIDENCE of gravity for example(it is FAR from "proof"!). That is all I am asking for is soem bit of evidence that infers the claims you are making. Not something that COULD indicate something extraordinary OR could also indicate scores of mundane/ordinary occurances such as delusion, deceit, misperception etc..
All I can supply is my experience. So I mentioned the
my experience of a lady sitting under a tree, meditating
who noticably brightened my day as I walked by. I said
nothing about colors or seeing anything other than a lady
sitting under a tree. There have been other cases in my
life where I have felt this sense of upliftment in the
presence of others. My idea is it emanates from
those who have a decidedly spiritual bent, so I conclude
their practice has something to do with it.
Quote:
That is another thing that bugs me. I have, at times ventured into threads titled "PROOF of (some supernatural/paranormal claim's veracity)!" and always, when I point out the flaws, falsehoods or expose the poor quality of the alleged "proof", I am invariably told "We don't have to prove ANYTHING to you!" as if I braoke into someone's house and pointed a gun at their head, demanding this "proof"!?
Now this thread may not have started out as anything more than a "spiritualists' mutual appreciation thread" but Conan never stated that he wanted ONLY the opinions of believers on these matters or I would have never followed Svargon into this one.
So let's steer clear of the hyperbole, shall we?
Yes, you are not obligated to prove anything or give ANY evidence. You can pop in and say "I believe this but I have no rational reason for doing so. Bye now!" adn pop back out again and I doubt any skeptics would dwell on it much.
But if you DO "enjoy the debate" as you say then know this: "Proof" is as much a part of debate as disagreement is! The very nature of logical debate is trying to prove one's case to dissenters.
As to proof of a "God", please prove there isn't one.
You can't irrefutably do so, except to state your own
experience which then becomes as anecdotal as mine
Quote:
Again, you say about that you "watched" her aura. What you are saying then is that these "auras" have visual sense contents. So please, tell me why most of us do not see them then? If two sets of eyes are looking at the same thing but one of them does not detect a thing in that direction which the other sees, then the rational conclusion is that someone either has a deficiency in their eyesight, causing them "aura blindness"...OR the other has a more complex physiological organ for such sensory activity.
So which is it? IF you go to an optometrist adn get a full on exam, what ios he going to find about your eyes(which he does NTO find in most people) that allows you to see "more" than the rest of us?
Now, if you say that your eyes are no different than mine then the inference is that there is something different going on in your neo cortex. In which case, though the implications are probably not encouraging ), you should be able to get a cat scan done to find a physiological reason for why your brain is processing information which is not readily available to the rest of us.
Again, I didn't see anything, I noticed a brightening and
a feeling of well-being as moved close to her. If you
were there, maybe you would have expereinced the same.
Quote:
MY thinking does not appear to be delusional though. Believe me, I have had all manner of medical professionals testify to this in recent years. As a type 1 diabetic who has gone through some harrowing incidents, I am sometimes prone to fits of low blood sugars/insulin reaction. When my blood sugar drops, I become quite irrational/delusional and eventually fall into a seizure(or a coma if I am in real big trouble). These seizures(I have had scores of them in the last three years alone) wreak havoc on every organ in my body, including my brain which warrants periodic CAT scans and visits to neurologists the like. My thinking appears to be standard for a mentally healthy adult male with my I.Q. .
I think you are under the impression that "delusion" indicates someone who is out of their minds insane. Pointing at invisible people and ducking for no apparent reason and such. Usually delusion is nothing like that. Perfectly sane, intelligent people who otherwise think quite rationally will usually suffer SOME type of delusion or the other(For example:the one I still have trouble recognizing stems from my liberal political bias which sometimes leads me to think the worst about conservatives, even when charges leveled against them are unwarranted/unsubstantiated).
Having said that, delusion is only ONE probable reason for why people believe weird things adn it is arguable whether such things as "confirmation bias" adn such can be classified as "delusion" in any sense.
I also, have been through the medical mill. I had a tumor
removed from my spine in a lengthy operation, and have
an MRI every 2 years. I respect the surgeon who saved
my life, but the doctors also made mistakes and
misdiagnosed me originally, causing me to have an useless
lower back operation.
I believe in an integrated apporach to medicine, such as
that practiced by Dr. Andrew Weil. He takes the best of
everything and tries to use what is most effective in any
situation.
As far as delusion goes, well, unless one's mind is clear
our view of the world will always be deluded. Scientists
are deluded by the present way of thinking. My Uncle
was diagnosed as bi-polar in the 1950's and recieved
a lobotomy by some doctor who was on the cutting edge
of that days thinking. Needless to say, he was vegetable
for the rest of his life. Yes we have a more evolved
body of knowledge now, but it isn't the last word, only
the present word
Quote:
AHhh... but if only life were that comlicated! IF we examined reality as you would have us...giving equal credence, arbitrarily to ANYONE'S claimed observation, then we would be expected to allow or encourage our children to be raised adn taught to recognise the validity of genies, leprachauns, 400' radioactive dinosaurs etc.. We could never make ANY distinction of what was real or what wasn't since the believers in Santa Claus, for example, would simply be going by what they "see" adn we would be forced to think that our skepticism was at fault for not "seeing" Santa.
When it comes to extraordinary claims, anecdotal evidence is completely worthless. I cannot scrutinize your anecdotes. I could simply assent to your claims without any evidence or rational justification but if I do that, I must also agree to any claim made by any person who says that have seen something or I am a hypocrite.
Things which are 100% imaginary and false are far too often "seen" by a great many people(most people in fact). What would be convicning for any extraordinary claim is if there were concurrent observation in support of the anecdote. I don't just mean more than one person claiming something. I mean that(going back to teh controlled test thing for a second) if we have a central room of one-way mirrored windows which is ajoined by four rooms, each of which has an "aura seeing" occupant who can see through their own one-way mirror into the central room and we have someone claimb down a ladder into the central room(perhaps with his face hidden and not allowed to make any gestures) to be observed by the aura folks, and each of them immediately writes down the color and appearance of the aura of the man in the central room(i.e. they all write down "green, swirling cloud-like" or somesuch)...THAT would be something! Of course they mystics could still be cheating(they could have somehow decided beforehand that they would all say "green" no matter what. This could be a codified behavior of mystics for all I know!) but if they have claimed that auras are different for each person and somewhat dependent on mood, then it would be much more difficult to cheat since we could use several different test subjects/controls.
I have made no fantastic claims at all. At most, I have
only stated possibilities, and some of my own
experiences, and I asked you to prove God isn't, just
for the sake of fun.
Quote:
To that end I am also facinated with how and why so many people are subject to facism, psuedo-science, racism, phobias, etc.
Sounds to me like you are putting anybody who
professes any belief in anything into a facist camp.
That is slightly over-reaching, don't you think?
Quote:
But these "natural remedies" do NOT work! That is the thing. This will not, of course, do anything to stop you from BELIEVING that they work but that is why we skeptics and scientists ask for mechanisms to be presented with such claims. If the homeopathic crowd cannot tell us how/why ground spider legs mixed with one million parts water(which should be inert anyway) should have an effect on one's mental capacity(curing/treating ADHD and whatnot) and in every test conducted thus far, test subjects react identically whether given a placebo or the actual concoction, then it is the duty of the rational thinker to conclude that your personal, subjective experience is better explained by your own pattern-seekintg belief engine than it is by the claims of homepathy.
If what you say were true then you should have no fear of a test in which 10 doctors each give you what they claim is a "natural remedy that you trust to cure whatever ailment, confident that you will be able to recognise when you have been given the actual "medicine", correct?
Lets not forget that many "drugs" are based on extracts
from plants eg aspirin. Therefore, there is something
to herbology. As to homeopathy, I never found it
effective at all.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the whole "Drug companies are out to make money so they will engage in massive cover ups of the benefits of alternative medicine" hoopla is 99% urban legend. For a pharmaceutical company to operate in teh way you describe would be the greatest example of how to drive oneself to bankruptcy that I could ever imagine!
If there are all these rather plentiful "natural" ingredients about which can effectively treat all manner of common ailments, then the drug companies would switch to selling these "alternative" faster than you could say "Here is my S.A.S.E.! Please send me my medical degree!".
REAL drugs/medical treatments cost enormous amounts of money to research and produce and right now the "alternative medicines" are being sold for close to the same price as the real medicines(and they require, nor benefit from such research adn testing). Every single test so far to establish the varacity of such things as accupunture, St. Jon's Wort, homeopethy, "Theapeutic touch" and much of chiropractry has come up NIL! No difference between the placebo and the actual "treatments".
That is is astonishingly negative track record! If I were to shoot at a toothpick with a high-powered rifle from 15-20 yards out, I could expect to hit the target at least one out of 30 or 40 times! Even on a bad day, in high winds with a throbbing headache I could do it one out of 50 or 100 times!
Look, I have used many drugs in my life that have cured
me, antibiotics and so on, but I do believe that when
a person or company has a vested interest in the status
quo, they will fight to maintain their territory.
Sometimes, the paradigm shifts, and so, a company like
Kodak that makes film has to struggle to reinvent them
self after digital cameras become big. Money corrupts
people. So much money has been spent on cures for
cancer, and yet, after all these years, chemo, surgery
and radiation remain the most used methods of treatment.
There is so much money involved in the oil business, that
a cheap alternative is not in their interest. Until the
need becomes actually vital, change will not occur in the
oil patch. Money plays a big part in it all of this, as
it does in drug research. Would a drug company choose
to promote a drug that cures forever something or one that you would have to take and pay for the rest of your
life? If you were the CEO of such a company who had
great pressure from Wall Street, what would you choose?
____________
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 12, 2005 07:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, just a traditional opening joust, a general comment
on what you said. All for drawing the lines of where
we each stand. As far as "us believers" go, try not to
lump me in any group, and I'll remove you from the
general skeptics category.
But I AM a "general skeptic", in that I examine every claim with a critical eye adn an eye out for my own biases adn such which can lead me astray from the truth.
And I have not lumpoed you in with anything. I have only gone by what YOU have told me, claimed and argued for in this thread.
Quote:
Quote:
No. You are projecting your own preconceptions onto me. The examples I have mentioned of "charlatans" ARE examples of superstition/supernaturalism/spirituality gone wrong and they ARE EXACTLY the reason you should be skeptical when thinking about your own beliefs.
DO you honestly think that everyone who believed in psychic surgery(or just plain psychic ANYTHING!) actually knew better but decided they wanted to be taken for a ride by a con-man?
Of course not! They(WE actually. I was one myself ) believed just as strongly as YOU do and they/we had ALL the same evidence to support their/our beliefs: Personal experiences/anecdotes and the like.
THAT is why I keep asking for the bit of evidence(EVIDENCE, not "proof"!) that would distinguish your claims from all of the false/fictional beliefs that have come down the tube over the years.
Occam's razor would have it that, if you cannot find objective evidence to set your belief apart from claims you probably DON'T believe, then the most likely reason is that your belief is, like those beliefs for sasquatch, Nessie, remote viewing and psychic surgery, false.
AGAIN, I cannot stress this enough: People who believe in things which is probably false do NOT KNOW that the things they believe are not true. The atonishing thing about our pattern seeking belief mechanism is that the mind will FABRICATE memories and evidence to confirm what you want to believe and you will be none the wiser! You will "find" evidence that does not exist and it will more often than not be a powerful personal revelation/experience!
Again, try not to put me in the class of psychic
surgeons, the Loch Ness monster et al.
I did not do any such thing. You are making an all too common error in understanding what I am saying. I was making a point above about claims which I suspected YOU probably would NOT assent to and showing that, when compared to claims you HAVE argued for, they are fundementally alike in what evidence supports them.
I was NOT simply tossing out claims that you might find ridiculous and saying "Your beliefs are like those!".
Do you see? The analogy is in regards to the evidence. There are NO CLAIMS which are, by default "obviously silly" or "more ridiculous" than any others when it comes to extraordinary claims. Ghosts adn auras are just as subject to proof as Santa Claus and gods are.
Quote:
I never claimed
to be on their team. All I ever said is I practice
meditation and I have had a few experiences.
You HAVE made specific(even while trying to maintain ambiguity) claims in this thread, in response to the skeptics adn it is your assertions and arguments that I am tackling. I am a SKEPTIC...NOT a "cynic".
Quote:
My goal
is " clear mind", and the experiences actually do not
define my practice at all, they are just somethings that
have happened.
You are back-peddling here. I do not know if you have edite4d your posts to reflect this new position but it would make no sense to statte such irrelevancies in this thread while responding to skeptics.
Quote:
I'm well aware of the power of imagination
that can create whole worlds out of the mind, so clarity
is a must, not visions of extra-sensory events. However,
my mind is open to the possibility of anything,...
Even the possibility that not everything is possible? Think about that one before you answer because the implications are deeper than you might think .
As Sagan used to say, we do not live in a universe where anything is possible. Most of what we can imagine is completely IMPOSSIBLE! If we DID live in an "anything is possible" universe then we could not know a single thing about reality, nor would we have any reason to draw inferences about cause and effect.
Quote:
because
the power of imagination can also become creative. Where
do you think all great works of art come from?
I have never begrudged the imagination(I am an artist myself). I simply aknowledge the distinction between a conceptual existence(imaginary things and concepts like "liberty" which do not "exist" as objective things do) and an Independnet existence(physical things which have sense contents and are subject to linear time).
Quote:
Quote:
Simple matter to resolve this then: Please give us a single shred of objective evidence...something that CANNOT be the result of confirmatory bias or pattern recognition. Something that is concurrently observable. Some quality that imaginary things do not possess.
When you can do that, then we will no longer be able to compare your claims to these false ones(snake oil/charlatanism etc.).
I wonder who this all-encompassing we is you talk about?
Skeptics. We who do not assent to unsubstantiated extraordinary claims, psuedoscience or conspiracy theories and the like.
Quote:
Do you speak for everyone?
No. That would be impossible as I would have to be speaking for YOU and Conan as well which would make this entire conversation pointless.
Quote:
And please, listen to what I
say, not what you jump to conclusions about what I am,
joining me with everybody you thrown into the
"alternative pot".
I AM listening to what you say adn addressing what you say. I do NOT challenge you by attacking other claims. The mistake you are making here is to assume that these other claims(Loch ness, Sasquatch, psychics adn whatnot) are somehow, by default automatically irrational and that whatever you are claiming is by deault more sensible.
Wrong on both counts.
Quote:
Again, its not my mission to prove
any claims to you other than I can show you how to
meditate, a very indentifiable technique that has
benefited many.
Now you are only claiming to be able to teach me how to do something that anyone not in a coma can do? Before you made claims about "auras", alternative medicines, drug companies and the like. You have entered this debate and said that you enjoy debatting these matters. This cannot be so if you have no desire to prove these things likely true as debate entails trying to prove things.
Quote:
Quote:
I want EVIDENCE! IT is YOU guys who keep dragging out the "PROOF" bugbear to write off the skeptics. The intent of this characterization is to make it seem as though we are people who would reject all manner of credible evidence because we are dogmatically opposed to the paranormal/mystical.
AN apple falling from a tree is EVIDENCE of gravity for example(it is FAR from "proof"!). That is all I am asking for is soem bit of evidence that infers the claims you are making. Not something that COULD indicate something extraordinary OR could also indicate scores of mundane/ordinary occurances such as delusion, deceit, misperception etc..
All I can supply is my experience.
Your experience cannot be scrutinized so such evidence is worthless in these debates. IF that is all you have then we have nothing to debate.
Quote:
So I mentioned the
my experience of a lady sitting under a tree, meditating
who noticably brightened my day as I walked by. I said
nothing about colors or seeing anything other than a lady
sitting under a tree.
You said that you "watched her aura"(you provided a sort of nebulous description of what you saw, distancing yourself from Conan's problematic positions, but I will have to go back through to find the exact quotes). Watching implies sense-contents. What would be the purpose of simply stanting that you met a girl whom you felt good around?! How would such an assertion be relevant to the discussion?
Quote:
There have been other cases in my
life where I have felt this sense of upliftment in the
presence of others. My idea is it emanates from
those who have a decidedly spiritual bent, so I conclude
their practice has something to do with it.
Well, there are one thousand natural explanations for a "sense of upliftment" such as you describe so I will opt for the razor on this one.
Quote:
As to proof of a "God", please prove there isn't one.
Depends on WHICH God you are talking about but in any case the burden of proof is upon the claimant...NOT the dissenter. Can you prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not live in my pocket? You cannot because it is impossible to prove a negative. You also cannot prove that Santa Claus does not fly a magic sleigh delivering presents all over the world every year but I will bet even money that you will not assent to such a claim.
But even though I am not obligated to "disprove God", I say that I CAN do so for the most common concepts of God(note the capital 'G'). Obviously, if your god is the sun or Kim Jong Il then I agree these things exist but do not call them "gods".
But if you worship a transcendent god such as those typical of monotheistic religions, then YES...I CAN prove God does not exist.
It all comes down to defining "existence" and "transcendence" and then showing that these qualities are logically inconsistent. Existent things have sense contents(the only way we are able to know of their existence) and are bound by linear time and causeality(otherwise saying that they "exist" would be a nonsense statemetns since "exist" implies a state of being from one moment to another.
"transcendence" is a quality of being WITHOUT sense contents(and thus beyond empirical evidence and observation) and/or unconstrained by linear time.
Viola! Proof of God's nonexistence! Really no more difficult than proving that round squares cannot exist.
Quote:
You can't irrefutably do so, except to state your own
experience which then becomes as anecdotal as mine
Wrong! I would have agreed with you several months back, when I was still a "weak atheist"/negative atheist. But now I whole heartedly disagree!
Quote:
Quote:
Again, you say that you "watched" her aura. What you are saying then is that these "auras" have visual sense contents. So please, tell me why most of us do not see them then? If two sets of eyes are looking at the same thing but one of them does not detect a thing in that direction which the other sees, then the rational conclusion is that someone either has a deficiency in their eyesight, causing them "aura blindness"...OR the other has a more complex physiological organ for such sensory activity.
So which is it? IF you go to an optometrist and get a full on exam, what is he going to find about your eyes(which he does NTO find in most people) that allows you to see "more" than the rest of us?
Now, if you say that your eyes are no different than mine then the inference is that there is something different going on in your neo cortex. In which case, though the implications are probably not encouraging , you should be able to get a cat scan done to find a physiological reason for why your brain is processing information which is not readily available to the rest of us.
Again, I didn't see anything, I noticed a brightening and
a feeling of well-being as moved close to her. If you
were there, maybe you would have expereinced the same.
"Brightening", in relation to something you are "watching", indicates a visually observed phenomenom.
If you are now describing something far less extraordinary(i.e. you just sat around soemwhere and felt good) then this is irrelevant.
Quote:
I believe in an integrated apporach to medicine, such as
that practiced by Dr. Andrew Weil.
LOL! Andrew Weil is a well known quack. You can read a full report on him over at quackwatch.org(a site run by Dr. Stephen Barret which investigates psuedoscience claims in the field(s) of medicine adn explains why tehy are not legit'.
Weil is the pioneer of what he calls "Soned thinking"(the idea that smoking pot is, not just good fun recreationally, but downright advantageous to one, MENTALLY!) and probably the most vocal proponent of "alternative medicine" today. He would be an important figure if he were an actual DOCTOR who could substantiate his claims(the way real doctors must do...by the rigors of science and regulations of the FDA), but he is not. He is no more a "doctor" than (Dr.)Martin Luther King Jr. was, in the sense of actually practicing medicine.
Weil's claims about "integrated", holistic medicine are just like Creationists' claims that they only want "all sides of the debate taught in schools". The reason why "alternaitive medicine" is not "integrated" with real medicine is the same as why "voodoo" is not part of a doctor's prescription to treat chronic pain. You are free to believe in voodoo and no doctor will have anything to say about that. But you cannot simply label "voodoo" "Other medicine" adn expect doctors adn biologists to join you in pushing the FDA to approve sticking pins in dolls.
Same goes for Weil's ideas.
Quote:
He takes the best of
everything and tries to use what is most effective in any
situation.
No, he does not. He caters to those who are ignorant of medicine and biology and who are suceptible to the foil hat conspiracy theories about modern medicine adn drug companies the same way that certain religionists prey on the uneducated to push creationism.
But here is an idea: Instead of me going through a laundry list of Weil's claims, debunking them in turn, why don't YOU provide one of his A.M. claims which you feel is justified by empirical evidence and substnatiated by controlled tests and we will deal with it here .
Quote:
As far as delusion goes, well, unless one's mind is clear
our view of the world will always be deluded. Scientists
are deluded by the present way of thinking.
Sorry but that is nonsense on top of nonsense. Bald assertions all around. HOW are scientists so "deluded"? How is our view of the world "deluded"?
Quote:
My Uncle
was diagnosed as bi-polar in the 1950's and recieved
a lobotomy by some doctor who was on the cutting edge
of that days thinking.
I am sorry about your Uncle but this is still a
strawman and an irrelevant conclusion. Psychology itself has been a contentious matter(being a "soft science" that is fraught with speculation still!) but 50 years ago, labotomies were not even close to being "cutting edge" as you describe and in any case, what would labotomies have to do with scientific methodology? You might as well be arguing that scientific investigation was fundementally flawed because of the way terrorists use chemical weapons!?! Or that evolutionary biology is bunk because of the Piltdown man hoax!
Quote:
Needless to say, he was vegetable
for the rest of his life. Yes we have a more evolved
body of knowledge now, but it isn't the last word, only
the present word
Science is about pursuing ANSWERS to life's mysteries but FORTUNATELY there will always be more mysteries to solve. ALWAYS. UNFORTUNATELY, mystics and paranormalists will always take advantage of this to posit the gap arguments they rely on(re: We don't know 'X' so 'Y', and 'Z' are likely true!"). It is a pretty common fallacy but an error in thinking nonetheless.
To argue that, for example, "God might exist" because science, for example, cannot explain every facet of quantum mechanics, is like saying that if I don't know what is in your pocket, it is possible that a unicorn is in there.
Quote:
Quote:
AHhh... but if only life were that comlicated! IF we examined reality as you would have us...giving equal credence, arbitrarily to ANYONE'S claimed observation, then we would be expected to allow or encourage our children to be raised adn taught to recognise the validity of genies, leprachauns, 400' radioactive dinosaurs etc.. We could never make ANY distinction of what was real or what wasn't since the believers in Santa Claus, for example, would simply be going by what they "see" adn we would be forced to think that our skepticism was at fault for not "seeing" Santa.
When it comes to extraordinary claims, anecdotal evidence is completely worthless. I cannot scrutinize your anecdotes. I could simply assent to your claims without any evidence or rational justification but if I do that, I must also agree to any claim made by any person who says that have seen something or I am a hypocrite.
Things which are 100% imaginary and false are far too often "seen" by a great many people(most people in fact). What would be convincing for any extraordinary claim is if there were concurrent observation in support of the anecdote. I don't just mean more than one person claiming something. I mean that(going back to teh controlled test thing for a second) if we have a central room of one-way mirrored windows which is ajoined by four rooms, each of which has an "aura seeing" occupant who can see through their own one-way mirror into the central room and we have someone claimb down a ladder into the central room(perhaps with his face hidden and not allowed to make any gestures) to be observed by the aura folks, and each of them immediately writes down the color and appearance of the aura of the man in the central room(i.e. they all write down "green, swirling cloud-like" or somesuch)...THAT would be something! Of course the mystics could still be cheating(they could have somehow decided beforehand that they would all say "green" no matter what. This could be a codified behavior of mystics for all I know!) but if they have claimed that auras are different for each person and somewhat dependent on mood, then it would be much more difficult to cheat since we could use several different test subjects/controls.
I have made no fantastic claims at all. At most, I have
only stated possibilities, and some of my own
experiences, and I asked you to prove God isn't, just
for the sake of fun.
Then if all you were doing was speculating on what you thought MAY have been possible, then all I was doing was showing how these things could NOT be so. It does not matter whether you came out and said "This is true!" or "What about *this*?". In the context of our discussion, both of these must be answered as I have. DO npot take my refutation/rebuttal as a statement of your beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
To that end I am also facinated with how and why so many people are subject to facism, psuedo-science, racism, phobias, etc.
Sounds to me like you are putting anybody who
professes any belief in anything into a facist camp.
Not at all. You have quoted me out of context(anotehr no-no.) Just because I said I was facinated by why people succumb to facism, psuedoscience and other things should NOT indicate that I was trying to characterise all believ ers as facists. I am merely interested in human behavior and how humans come to believe what they believe.
Quote:
That is slightly over-reaching, don't you think?
Don't know. It is not MY position.
Quote:
Quote:
But these "natural remedies" do NOT work! That is the thing. This will not, of course, do anything to stop you from BELIEVING that they work but that is why we skeptics and scientists ask for mechanisms to be presented with such claims. If the homeopathic crowd cannot tell us how/why ground spider legs mixed with one million parts water(which should be inert anyway) should have an effect on one's mental capacity(curing/treating ADHD and whatnot) and in every test conducted thus far, test subjects react identically whether given a placebo or the actual concoction, then it is the duty of the rational thinker to conclude that your personal, subjective experience is better explained by your own pattern-seekintg belief engine than it is by the claims of homepathy.
If what you say were true then you should have no fear of a test in which 10 doctors each give you what they claim is a "natural remedy that you trust to cure whatever ailment, confident that you will be able to recognise when you have been given the actual "medicine", correct?
Lets not forget that many "drugs" are based on extracts
from plants eg aspirin. Therefore, there is something
to herbology. As to homeopathy, I never found it
effective at all.
But again, just because drugs ultimately can be traced to organic, natural things has NOTHING to do with whether chewing fern leaves cures paralysis or eating bark from a maple tree is effective treatment for indigestion or whatever. IF scientists, following and practicing scientific method, discover a new use for an old plant, that is GREAT! This is how modern medicine(and even the drug companies you are not so fopnd of) works!
What makes the "alternative medicine" bunk is that it does not work and the people dogmatically standing by it in the face of an avalanche of contrary evidence from medical science!
Quote:
Look, I have used many drugs in my life that have cured
me, antibiotics and so on, but I do believe that when
a person or company has a vested interest in the status
quo,
Strawman. No drug company has such a vested interest. This would be contrary to them turning profits! Beleve me, writing books shilling for "alternative medicine" is where the money is. If drug comoanies wanted to maximize profits, they would be selling you all the St. Jon's Wort and shark cartiledge you could ever want!
Will have to get to the rest later...
Ta ta for now.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am starting to think that my being a native English speaker and you not being so is what is contributiong to your misunderstandings. I realize it is difficult to communicate in a secondary language but that does not give you the right to go off attacking me personally and making false charges against me.
THere is zero evidence suggesting a flat earth and there is zero evidence to suggest that "auras" exist.
It is not skeptics who are robbing people of billions of dollars every year by selling them snake oil and shark cartiledge and psychic readings...it is new age/spiritual "mystics" and con men preying upon their gullibility.
We do not want to see our grandmothers forking over their life savings to con men. We do not want to see our children paying John Edward $2,000 a seat so that he can run his scams on them.
?!? What?!? Are you threatening me?!?
Grow up junior.
First do not accuse anyone of not being an english speaker until you read thier profile. FIY I am an english speaker (Australian) so do not try and hide your excuses of our suposed misunderstandings by thinking we do not speak english.
Just because you have not found any evidence of aurors does not mean they are not real, im guessing that you believe seeing is believing but you don't alway need to see to believe. We do not make this stuff up to entertain your selves that is why we have a life off the net.
Do not dare to start to compare us with cons like John Edwards it is not our fault that people in todays society have chosen to exploit the ways in which we have worked hard to salvage for the middle ages. If you think that people sell things such as "Snake Oil and Shark Cartilege (which is not sold by true practitioners) It would seem that you have no clue as to what these items are used for.
No Im not trying to threaten you in any way shape of form because I am a peaceful person I am saying that you should becareful when talking to others bacause many do not take it lightly.
I think that I am well grown up thankyou!
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(if this question has been discussed please let me know... I skimmed through many posts but didn't see the topic i'd like to raise...)
I'd like to ask those who have stated they don't believe in religion a question... you say you are spiritual but not religious so Im curious, do you celebrate Christmas??
And if you do, considering you don't believe in religion, are you only celebrating the commercialism of the holiday? in what context do you celebrate the holiday then?
(just curious)
Actually we have two christmases if that is what you want to call it. We keep with the common theme of celebrating the commercialism of Christmas and we also have a celebration of our own that is celebarted during the year.
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 03:11 PM |
|
|
USAtheist, it seems to me that you are a scientific man and rely a lot on science to answer questions, but I would think that you would know that their are many things in this world that can not be explained by common science. It just may be that this is another one of those things that can not be truly explained and it is left up to people to decide what they believe in.
Please forgive me if my prevoius posts seem that I am angry, I am just frustrated that some people have no respect in peoples belifes and abilities.
Science is not a resolve to all of the worlds problems and we know that science is not perfect.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 07:40 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 13 Sep 2005
|
Actually, I had the very same argument about Science and auras with USAtheist a few pages back. I told him that some things are not perceptible or "studyable" by science.
He responded by stating
Quote:
And again, this is false. There is not a single thing which is part of reality which science cannot scrutinize. This is a common, though still erroneous bald assertion.
I did not respond to it at the time and agreed to disagree with him. Although now I feel compelled to answer...
So, here it is. Nothing, to me, is universal. I choose to beleive that I see auras and USAtheist chooses to beleive I do not. In fact, we both beleive everything/anything we want.
To be a real skeptic, one would question everything exept his existance. Like DesCartes said, the only thing I know for certain is that I exist, because I think. Hence: "I think therefore I am".
To a certain extent, I too question everything. How do you know for certain that the stimuli you are receving really translate into what your brain tells you? Does an eye see without a brain? No it does not, and so you must "beleive" what your brain is telling you. You will never have evidence of what is truly out there, you only have your 5 senses; but you must beleive them. A true skeptic like USAthiest would question even his own senses. In fact, he would not beleive anything is as it is, exept for his existance, like I said earlier.
So, in conclusion, you might have science, but you need to beleive in it - you need to beleive that what your eyes see of that science is true. Hence, I choose to beleive one thing and USAthiest decides to beleive another. In essence, we agree to disagree.
BTW, it's very nice to see everyone posting is this thread, it's worth reading and i could of never imagined that it would have such success when I created it.
EDIT: just one thing. It's hard to talk about this kinda thing not even being on the net, I understand the missunderstandings that might happen when reading an emotion-less post. Just remember to keep cool and take a breath before posting. We're trying to have a nice place at HC and this talk is very interesting. Let's not leave it to degenerate into harshful sayings.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 08:25 PM |
|
|
We interrupt this tennis match --
For just a couple of brief observations.
First, I think it's not completely accurate to state that all human eyes functions in precisely the same way. For instance, there is such thing as color-blindness, which causes people to percieve less color detail than others.
I "suffer" from a particular type of color-blindness. There is a very specific shade of neon violet which, when it hits my field of vision even in just one small place, causes everything else in my field of vision in the red-blue end of the spectrum to turn the same shade of purple. I always know when that color is hitting my retina, but frequently have to look around for the source, becasue there are so many objects that have suddenly turned that color.
Isn't that wierd???
Now consider the fact that there are electrical fields around living things. We are a kind of subtle electrical conductors. These electrical fields surround us. Also, no two biological entities are completely identical. Some are more keenly sensed, others less. It stands to reason that some eyes are therefore naturally more sensitive than others. Isn't it possible that some eyes are sensitive to the point they can detect the disturbance surrounding a living thing caused by the electrical field?
Finally, there isn't a single thing within the purview of science that is not subject to the laws of science or that cannot be scrutinized by the scientific method. But this does not necessarily mean that therefore nothing exists outside the purview of science. Let me explain further.
Humans employ 5 to 7% of their brains on everage. Most brain activity is taken up with sensory data-- hearing, seeing, smelling touching and tasting, and/or from the mental constructs we have in our heads based on the data from those five senses. Our scientific method arises from our direct sensory experience.
I just wonder what the other 95% would be capable of "perceiving" if we were ever to tap into it. There may be aspects of reality we are not perceiving (or not perceiving as a group). This does not mean those other aspects of reality do not exist, but it is argumentum ad ignorantium to argue that they do at the same time just because science cannot prove they don't. In fact, arguing about ultra-sensory events either way becomes kind-of circular, because our entire linguistic and logical system of thought is built up around the portions of the world we can sense.
Let me give you another example: The T-Rex's vision was based on movement. T-Rex would have no conception of color. If T-Rex were an intelligent creature, if it were to come across a being which could perceive color, the concept would be outside it's realm of experience. But this doesn't mean color doesn't exist. It simply means that its sensory mechanisms were not designed to perceive it and ingest the concept into its mental contruct of the universe.
Just some grenades for you all to chew on.
(hee hee hee)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2005 08:44 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 13 Sep 2005
|
wow, Peacemaker, I agree with you 100%.
That is exactly what I was trying to say! Nice example about the color blindness, it proves my point nicely. I may think that color is yellow, but someone may say, no, it's green. Hence, we both beleive what we see... for us, it is the truth because that is what our brains tell us.
The argument about science is superb, staight to the point and how I see it aswell..
If I could give a QP because I agree with you, I would!
Now let's sit and wait for USAtheist to blow these arguments out the window!
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 02:51 AM |
|
|
Well said Peacemaker. It is hard for some people to accept
that someone may see something they don't. Then, they
demand proof for your experience simply because it is not
theirs. In fact, they can get quite evangelical about not
believing anything one says, and can begin to sound..uh.
a little fanatical about their point of view. Its simply
not true that only religious folks are fanatical, some
scientific sorts have such a passionate view about things
and really need to convert the " believer" into an
"unbeliever".
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 04:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Really no more difficult than proving that round squares cannot exist.
Only if you require space to be flat. If you allow curvature of space, squares can be round.
Quote:
Finally, there isn't a single thing within the purview of science that is not subject to the laws of science or that cannot be scrutinized by the scientific method. But this does not necessarily mean that therefore nothing exists outside the purview of science. Let me explain further.
True
Quote:
Humans employ 5 to 7% of their brains on everage....
False. (short version of the explanation here : [url=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm])
Quote:
I just wonder what the other 95% would be capable of "perceiving" if we were ever to tap into it. There may be aspects of reality we are not perceiving (or not perceiving as a group). This does not mean those other aspects of reality do not exist, but it is argumentum ad ignorantium to argue that they do at the same time just because science cannot prove they don't.
The "other" 95% is a plot device for shows such as the X-files. Don't get me wrong, there are things that lay beyond the purview of science, but the "unused" portion of the brain is not one of them.
Quote:
Our scientific method arises from our direct sensory experience.
Sort of. We do build instruments that can "translate" phenomenon that we can't perceive into phenomenon that we can (ie magnetic fields[except for poor Larry "Nail in Nuts" Suggins], strong/weak force, EM radiation outside the visible spectrum).
Quote:
Let me give you another example: The T-Rex's vision was based on movement.
It's possible that this is true. It's possible that T-Rex's spent a lot of time bumping into immobile trees and mountains that were invisible to them. It's also possible that this was a method for Mr. Spielberg to not have to kill those two delightful munchkins 15 minutes into his blockbuster film.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 02:34 PM |
|
|
USAtheist,
It seems that this agruement will draw on for some time until someone decides to give up and move on with the topic. I would like to point out that Magic (Witchcraft, Wizardry, pow-wow, voodoo etc) has been around for a long time since time began, before science. Really Science is just a modern derivative of these practices and Im guessing that you may/will dissagree but it is true. It is the same as when the Cathoilc church had their East-West Schism (split) the same happened to magic. People decided to split from the ways of magic and find more conventional mean for things in the world.
Science still uses elements of nature to produce the modern drugs that are used today and magic practices do the same but they do it in their purest forms. It is actually evident that science still resembles magic. 'Good' science that is used to create mediciens and do research to help others can be represented as White/good magic, and 'Bad' science such as that used to create weapons etc can be represented as Black/bad magic, but modern. Really the only differences is that the ritiuals are now formulas and may be more complicated.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2005 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have played with my own perceptions of auras or visual halos around people, and this is what I've discovered.
When a person (or object) is largely stationary against a plain background (esp. a white or light-colored one) and you observe the person (or object) against that background for several minutes, your retinas adjust to the difference in light between the person and the background. After staring at a darker or differently colored object for several minutes, when the object moves slightly the retina is still reading the darker image like a temporary imprint on the retina. The movement frees part of the imprint field and creates a "light effect" which appears to be emanating from the object.
I admit, this is very close to what I see and after reading your post several times, this explanation is plausible. But there are still some things left unclear to me, mainly:
1- When I see the faint light, I am not looking at the darker object, I am looking beside it... into the white, or faint-coloured background. So if I did not look at the dark object, why would i see the imprint?
2-Quote:
However, the fact that I begin to see an aura of light around my thumb when I move it around slightly does not imply I am perceiving an aura, unless all objects, both animate and inanimate, exude auras.
Animate and inanimate objects do indeed exude auras, just not all on the same planes. In the ethiric plane, objects (minerals) do exude auras. Hence, it should be possible to see for someone with a fine-tuned perception.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
| |
|
|
