PDA

View Full Version : My protestant side


paiktis
23-03-2009, 00:05:19
I don't know if protestantism is like this but that's how I picture it.
Anyway this is protestantism for relationships.

We're not here to have fun.
We're here to do time.
We're here to sweat, and bleed and survive and produce.
We're here untill our time ends and it will be a life full of pain, hard work and hard work and hard work.
We're not here for pleasure. Pleasure is not the issue.

This should also go for relationships.

We're not together to have fun.
We're together because that is the natural way of things. Because you give and I give. Because we can support eachother. One man, one wife exclusively for eachother.

Having Many relationships destroy the capacity for staying power (and I'm not talking barry white here).

One relationship, one man, one woman.

Labor, hard work, bleeding fidelity, unseparable. Toil and sweat and hard work and dedication to one another.

A couple forged together on clear values and foundations.

Much like the church says.

The modern way is satanic. What does devil mean? It comes from Diavolos which means the one who divides, the one who leads astray.
The meaning of the word devil is very clear. It is the one who diavalei who instills dichonia among people. Instills separation and unfocuseness. He is the diaboleas the one who puts words and thoughts of separative malevolance in the minds of people.

The one who fucks up the focus.

paiktis
23-03-2009, 00:15:31
I'm considering joining the church. And really it's not full of wacky people.
For example the prist in my neighborhood was a mechanical engineer who also has studied psychology before becoming a preist.

This is about a choice of life. I don't think I'd find it suffocating.
He sees me from time to time and without pressure he realizes that I have been tearing myself up.

He's not like "we don't see you in church" or anything like that.

And who are the ones who profesize against the CHURCH?

THE SLUTS! That's who. They can't fit anymore so they try to anihilate what is virtuous and pure. But they are sluts.

paiktis
23-03-2009, 00:21:25
Modernity and relativity and emancipation and freedom. TO Do WHAT? To be unhappy? HOw can a system that has survived, in fact flourished, throughout 2,000 years be wrong?
And sure now with money there's less need to believe in something that can give solace outside of materialism but people are more crazy now than ever.

the ethical foundations of society have been destroyed. There is no compass or lighthouse to sail to. It is being blocked by a freedom that's not freedom but a delirium of pseudohedonistic approach to life that is full of shit. Materalism and consumerism and capitalism those things don't mean shit.

Besides there's a father there that accepts you. And I've seen plenty of people who were very cool and were religious. Like it is a bad thing to believe and live your life according to the scriptures.
Says who?

paiktis
23-03-2009, 00:30:35
And what is psychology but a paltry human attempt to self centerness. It aggravates the problem. Self focused. Self serving. Self fulfilling. It's all about the ego. That is completely opposite to the holy books. It is the wrong way to go. It's like you have two alternatives. You're either some psycho who gets drunk and can't bear himslef, or some zulu robot completely self centered who cares only about himself.


That's bull. That's where salvation comes from. From loving the other one like your own self and from giving, not receiving. To forgivr and accept. To love dearly god and all his creations. To be there to serve.

Oerdin
23-03-2009, 01:59:19
It's a lovely day. Why not go outside?

Greg W
23-03-2009, 07:18:35
Originally posted by paiktis
How can a system that has survived, in fact flourished, throughout 2,000 years be wrong?Slavery lasted longer than that.

Provost Harrison
23-03-2009, 13:06:11
Paiktis - just, you know, chill a bit...

JM^3
23-03-2009, 16:21:07
Obviously as a Christian my feelings are biased in that direction. I think that most people would be happier being some sort of Christian.

I would encourage you to talk to people like the priest you referred to and determine if it is what you want to do.

I do agree that the 'modern' approach of throwing away all the insight gained through thousands of years of religion (which is heavily related to philosophy, of course) is foolish, which ever of the three major traditions you beleive in.

You refer a lot to sex, which is only a small and minor part of the issue, I am a lot more similar to my friends from hindu/muslim/buddist religions on matters of sex/relationships than I am to more 'modern' people (like David Floyd on apolyton).

JM
(One thing to note is that Christians are people and part of the cultures they live in as well. That means they are just as bad, and just as good, as everyone else. I wish I could say otherwise. Christianity only leads to life change if you live it.)

JM^3
23-03-2009, 16:34:52
Just a couple items more.

I want to make clear that I agree with you on many points.

And selflishness and self focused life I also think is the major human problem.

One of the reasons why I am Christian rather than some other religion is because it (can, there are some types of Christianity that aren't this way) focuses outside the self.

I don't meant to preach, so please ignore if you want.

A Christian isn't good, rather it is Christ's goodness which makes a Christian good. God saves us, we don't save ourselves.

Christian growth is from helping others, not only from self study.

Basically, as is said over and over again, we are to be servants. You will still find plenty of focus on blessings for yourself that is preached, it is hard to get away from. But the point should be that you get blessed by giving to and helping others.

Anyways, I said my bit.

JM
(Other religions, of course, also say that it is good to help and serve others. The difference is in Christianity, it is Christ acting through you while in other religions it is something caused by your own growth/etc.)

Funko
23-03-2009, 16:54:07
Hard for me to reconcile organised christianity/churches being "focused outside the self" whilst also having to be focused on maintaining the survival and interests of the church. The bigger the organisation the more the focus has to be on maintaining the organisation.

Quite a lot of the principles in the New Testament are pretty good. Don't see many Christians actually following many of those principles though. Especially the forgiveness and non-greed aspects which seem to be the main focusses.

And I can't really be dealing with any religion that gives God credit for doing your good things and blames the devil or whatever for any bad you do. If you do 'good' or 'evil' (defining them is a whole other issue) that's down to you. Or a combination of your choices and your upbringing/environment.

Plus there's the whole God thing.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2009, 17:01:33
Originally posted by paiktis

the ethical foundations of society have been destroyed. There is no compass or lighthouse to sail to. It is being blocked by a freedom that's not freedom but a delirium of pseudohedonistic approach to life that is full of shit.


That point has been made since.... well, points have been made.

JM^3
23-03-2009, 17:52:56
Yeah, if you have an issue with the whole God thing than it is obvious that you can't really be a Christian.

And I noted the problem with a lot of Christians. This part really upsets me and made me be a Christian Anarchist for a bit.

The main point of Christianity is that we need help. And in a lot of theodicy the reason that the devil wasn't destroyed or whatever is because humans would do a fine job of being evil on their own (especially with our environment). I think our upbringing/environment tends us towards evil, which is why we need so much help.

JM

Immortal Wombat
23-03-2009, 17:53:18
Originally posted by Funko
Plus there's the whole God thing.
Yeah. If you're considering religion for the deity, then it makes sense to accept His ethics. If you're considering religion for the ethics/way of life, why accept a whole bunch of unnecessary metaphysics as well?

Immortal Wombat
23-03-2009, 17:59:21
Originally posted by paiktis
I don't know if protestantism is like this but that's how I picture it...

In England, CoE protestantism is more like:

We're here to have fun.
We're here to join the church music group.
We're here to drink tea, and share cake and knit kneelers.
We're here until our time ends (because our husbands have died) and it will be a life full of gentle pottering around, helping with the flower arrangements and picking a spot in the churchyard and hoping there's a God.



(someone had to do this, right?)

JM^3
23-03-2009, 18:10:32
I like those types a bit better than the assholes in Christianity, but they are also par tof what is wrong with it.

JM

Greg W
24-03-2009, 01:07:23
And that's not even mentioning the Pope telling the Africans they can't use condoms, despite the rampant spread of aids. Sorry, but I find it hard to feel any empathy for a church which comes up with such edicts.

I happen to believe in God, but he and I make our own peace. I don't need an organisation telling me how, when and why to Pray. I live a good life, I try my best to not do harm to others and to do good where I can, and if that's not good enough to get into heaven, if I need to follow some organised doctrine, then frankly, God can bugger off.

Not that this is meant to be an antagonistic post, it's just what I think. Churches and organised religion (Buddhism/Taoism aside - perhaps - I haven't read up enough about their history) have and continue to bugger up so much that I can't fail to see them as a bad thing. Human nature is such that given enough power over other people, corruption ensues. And the churches haven't been short of it over the millennia.

King_Ghidra
24-03-2009, 09:26:46
Originally posted by JM^3
I think that most people would be happier being some sort of Christian.


:lol:

Funko
24-03-2009, 09:49:26
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If you're considering religion for the ethics/way of life, why accept a whole bunch of unnecessary metaphysics as well?

Exactly.

protein
24-03-2009, 10:04:48
choosing a religion because you prefer it to others is retarded. i choose the blue armed god today, he's my favorite, no, wait, i choose the one with the skinny palestinian nailed to a post. no, wait, the other one...

choosing a religion because it has proof of the existence of a deity is the only logical way. since none of the religions can do that, you can come to the realisation that whatever religions can do for you, you are capable of doing for yourself.

Greg W
24-03-2009, 12:35:32
That's the whole definition of faith though - belief in something that can't be proven. Either you have it or you don't, you can't bring logic into the equation really. If you need proof, you have no faith. If you don't need proof, you do.

You should also know enough about humanity to know that many people need a push, a shove in the right direction. Something to believe in. And that's simply human nature.

And as stated before, I don't believe in organised religion myself, I just like playing devil's advocate. ;)

Funko
24-03-2009, 12:46:06
I think people can't handle the idea of dying so the idea of an afterlife is attractive. Everything else is a convenient way for a society's rulers to promote / justify behaviours that'll make society run smoother.

Just because people don't bring logic into the equation doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do. We are able to reason and think for ourselves, so we absolutely should! Why should we listen to someone/some book telling us to have faith in something that all logic tells us is ridiculous?

Just because that's the way we were brought up?

Does anyone really think that if Jon had been born in a Muslim country in a Muslim community he'd think Christianity was a better religion?

MoSe
24-03-2009, 12:50:38
Originally posted by Funko
the idea of an afterlife is attractive.

too bad the PC game was nothing special tho

http://www.gamershell.com/pc/afterlife/

kinda simcity in heaven and in hell
curious, but soon boring

Funko
24-03-2009, 12:53:48
No surprise, world building is much more fun when it's something familiar that people can relate to.

MoSe
24-03-2009, 12:56:21
I only remember there was a Catastrophe named "Hell's Freezing Over"

MOBIUS
24-03-2009, 13:10:59
Originally posted by Funko
Does anyone really think that if Jon had been born in a Muslim country in a Muslim community he'd think Christianity was a better religion?

No, he'd have been a Muslim.


(That point needs to be rammed home so much that it I'm happy to incur the PHd/Own Goal for my trouble)

MoSe
24-03-2009, 13:19:48
Originally posted by MOBIUS
No, he'd have been a Muslim, or he'd have been dead.

Fixed

King_Ghidra
24-03-2009, 13:46:29
Originally posted by JM^3
This part really upsets me and made me be a Christian Anarchist for a bit.

:lol:

Originally posted by JM^3
The main point of Christianity is that we need help. And in a lot of theodicy the reason that the devil wasn't destroyed or whatever is because humans would do a fine job of being evil on their own (especially with our environment). I think our upbringing/environment tends us towards evil, which is why we need so much help.

JM

Try looking at the world without using (christian-defined) concepts of Good and Evil and you might find a world in which you don't need God's help.


And as for

Originally posted by Paiktis
And what is psychology but a paltry human attempt to self centerness. It aggravates the problem. Self focused. Self serving. Self fulfilling. It's all about the ego. That is completely opposite to the holy books. It is the wrong way to go. It's like you have two alternatives. You're either some psycho who gets drunk and can't bear himslef[...]

I'm hoping that last option is what this thread came from. otherwise, sorry to see you heading in the wrong direction.

I believe in man, whether it be man the animal, the artist or the thinker. I'll take that flesh and blood, that beating heart, that eons-old struggle and endeavour and passion and pain and triumph and tragedy, i'll take that real thing, that visceral animal pain over some fucking perfect shining light that makes us no more important than worms.

Salavation is a lie, Paiktis. You don't need it. Nobody does. Virtue? Purity? What the fuck are these words without the church? Why would anyone need those things?

Real people made this world the way it is. Democracy, security, human rights - people paid for those with their lives, with their dedication. Again and again and again and again. The wonders of the arts, of the songs that are so good it hurts, the books that so perfectly describe the human condition, they all came from real people. Human sacrifice and human endeavor got us to this place, 2009, a world of marvels and horrors and all of it human. God makes a mockery of all that, so fuck that shit and anyone who wants a piece of it.

MOBIUS
24-03-2009, 14:03:32
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Try looking at the world without using (christian-defined) concepts of Good and Evil and you might find a world in which you don't need God's help.

Actually, isn't that one of the major problems with religion? They each have slightly differing and inflexible concepts of what is right and wrong - which invariably creates friction and ultimately becomes the cause of murderous Crusades, Jihad, Pogroms or what have you...

Perhaps one of the biggest fallacies that sounds good in principle, is believing that you should treat people the way you yourself would want to be treated: between differing religions - that is a sure-fire way of pissing people of extremely rapidly!

Funko
24-03-2009, 14:14:55
I think KG's supermodel comment elegantly pointed out the flaw in that argument. :)

Greg W
24-03-2009, 14:29:36
Originally posted by Funko
Everything else is a convenient way for a society's rulers to promote / justify behaviours that'll make society run smoother.Or keep certain people in power, the Catholic church especially did that for a LONG time.Just because people don't bring logic into the equation doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do. We are able to reason and think for ourselves, so we absolutely should! Why should we listen to someone/some book telling us to have faith in something that all logic tells us is ridiculous?All logic tells us it is ridiculous? And why is that? I am yet to see a valid proof either way, for or against a god, ether the version portrayed in the bible or something else...

How do you prove that a god doesn't exist, using logic? I think it'd be impossible to prove that god didn't exist. Just as it is impossible to prove that one does exist. Enlighten me...

Greg W
24-03-2009, 14:34:12
Oops. :o

Funko
24-03-2009, 14:47:17
So someone defines something as something that can't be proven and then saying that the fact you can't disprove it means it might well exist and that's not ridiculous?

I've yet to see any good reason that God as a theory of explaining things is worthy of having any time spent on proving or disproving it, or any predictions or measures that you could use to test it.

Contrast it with a proper theory for something we could disprove like gravity or evolution or the existence of the Higgs Boson.

There could be transcened lifeforms out there so powerful that they are indisinguishable from Gods to us, but they're not Gods, we're just slightly cleverer than average pond life.

Isn't it logically ridiculous that we should consider any one world religion out of the hundreds/thousands that have ever existed to be the right one? Isn't it very likely that humans everywhere find religion a useful social tool or that humans just like trying to interpret the incredible nature of the world around them into something that makes sense.

Funko
24-03-2009, 15:07:39
BBC talking around physics and how it is or isn't compatible with spirituality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7955846.stm

I'll go with Weinberg. The Platonist view is interesting, but I think outside the universe 1 + 1 doesn't exist as a concept, let alone equal 2 and what other abstractions other than Maths could there be?

JM^3
24-03-2009, 15:42:06
Obviously I believe in God and am a scientist.

However, I don't believe in God to explain away the gaps in human understanding. While I do think that God is the ultimate source for all, if you are to go for a purely God of the gaps you wouldn't arrive at Christianity.

Greg has noted, and I agree with him, that it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. But what we mean by that is that it is impossible to scientifically prove. Personal experience is also a factor of personal choice, but isn't part of scientific proof.

The reason for the Christian God is personal. It is found by taking the step of faith of following Him, and having that step (possibly after some time) shown to be correct. Christianity is about a change of who you are.

And yeah, I need God, even when my moral system was very different than it is today (when I thought that group marriage, for example, was the best idea/etc). And I am sure I am biased by being raised Christian, however, I did consider a lot of ideas, and even held (still hold?) some very non-traditional ones.

A number of my atheist friends seem to be Platonists btw, they can't comprehend that Maths could be different.

JM

Funko
24-03-2009, 15:48:26
How can you have that step be shown to be correct?

Any way other than attributing any positive results of the vague turns of chance and the choices you make to your faith?

I think a few people here were saying that you can get anything you can get out of religion on your own, so I guess I'd dispute the concept that you could be shown to be right, but I'd be interested to hear what it is you meant by it.

Fistandantilus
24-03-2009, 15:50:42
Originally posted by Funko
There could be transcened lifeforms out there so powerful that they are indisinguishable from Gods to us, but they're not Gods.

Is this a variation of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I mean, if two things are indisinguishable one from the other how can you tell they are different?

Funko
24-03-2009, 15:52:21
A fair point. I meant to say "that they appear indistinguishable" but even then you are right.

JM^3
24-03-2009, 16:01:58
As you said, it is what others could call just chance/etc.

Christianity does have the hope that it will be 100% proven after a while, obviously to all of us(?) that hasn't happened yet.

And good point on the transcended life forms. I always am amazed at all the people who can't believe in the miracles in the Bible, but can believe in the existence of God. All the miracles in the Bible could easily be done by sufficiently advanced technology, we could do many of them today! (well, make the 'natives' think we had done them)

JM

Funko
24-03-2009, 16:12:58
Someone wrote a book explaining most of the biblical miracles with explanations of how they could be done at the time. I can only remember two. Feeding of the 5000 (no desert people would go out into the desert without food, and when asked to share would say no out of self interest, but once realising there's only a tiny amount of food to go round would eat their own) and the water into wine (rich dude hosts party, gets cheap wine in, wine runs out, jesus goes to cellar and sees some barrels, which contain the host's good wine, the host says oh that's just water in there so jesus says abracadabra! I'll turn that into wine, and of course it's nicer than the stuff they started with).

JM^3
24-03-2009, 16:19:44
Oh yeah, there is that. And the natural reasons for things seen on the discovery channel/etc.

But that is a bit different than what I Was referring to.

JM

Funko
24-03-2009, 16:43:00
Don't see why it's unreasonable for people to think that if there was a god/gods it/they don't intervene in human affairs.

As I think we've agreed, biblical miracles are less than convincing.

MoSe
24-03-2009, 16:52:22
Originally posted by Greg W
How do you prove that a god doesn't exist, using logic? I think it'd be impossible to prove that god didn't exist. Just as it is impossible to prove that one does exist. Enlighten me...

http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=978827

Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Hmm.... do you have a problem with the old saying that you shall not confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence?

Despite all the efforts by past philosophers, it should be common sense that God has nothing to do with science nor logic, you bunch of apolytoners

it's two different domains

I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist: I just don't need a god to exist

I think that it's the same thing that Ockham had put down in a more clear and incisive way

MoSe
24-03-2009, 16:57:47
Originally posted by MoSe
I just don't need a god to exist
maybe my english semantics were ambiguous

I meant

I don't need a god, for me to exist

Scabrous Birdseed
24-03-2009, 17:08:58
Paiktis, I sometimes have similar instincts too, to desire unity and order and unselfish hard work. But then I realise that the 2000 years have been used to maintain inequality and injustice, the hierarchical dominance of some groups over others. Heteronormativity, patriatchy, eurocentrism.

I just refuse to believe that the extremely restrained 50s housewife, the slave, the medieval farm labourer is happier than their descendants today. "Christian ethics" (which to me are much more crucial to the religion than any belief system they're supposedly based on) are to a large degree based on dominance and power, male over female, straight over gay, upper class over working class. Intolerance to some degree, certainly, but much more definitely power hierarchies.

I don't think it's possible to be left-wing in today's post-structuralist intellectual climate without accepting the existence and essential evil of several intersectional power structures. You have to chose. And be aware that accepting the orthodoxy leaves you open to its inner instability and lack of coherence.

JM^3
24-03-2009, 17:43:55
Originally posted by Funko
Don't see why it's unreasonable for people to think that if there was a god/gods it/they don't intervene in human affairs.

As I think we've agreed, biblical miracles are less than convincing.

When I could imagine some advanced alien, or even us, being able to do (many of) the biblical miracles.... I fail to see why they are so impossible.

I mean, on one hand you say that aliens could exist which are sufficiently advanced to us to blow our minds away now. I guess you say less than convincing, and I agree, it isn't convincing to me to believe that a god could exist based on miracles 2000+ years ago.

I mean, I am not saying that you should believe that Biblical miracles happened. They aren't worth it/etc. However, could sufficiently advanced aliens do them? Yes. Could any god worth referring to god do them? Yes.

My point is that those who believe in God, but have trouble believing in any sort of biblical miracle, are being silly and inconsistent. Believing in the existence of a god is a far bigger belief than the miracles in the Bible. Point is that there are a lot of Christians who don't believe in miracles, if you have other reasons for believing in a god but not that Christian God, fine, but to say I believe but none of the miracles could happen is just inconsistent.

JM

Immortal Wombat
24-03-2009, 18:53:10
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Salavation is a lie, Paiktis. You don't need it. Nobody does.

I agree. Pavlov is a dangerous cult.

Greg W
25-03-2009, 01:02:02
Originally posted by Funko
So someone defines something as something that can't be proven and then saying that the fact you can't disprove it means it might well exist and that's not ridiculous?

I've yet to see any good reason that God as a theory of explaining things is worthy of having any time spent on proving or disproving it, or any predictions or measures that you could use to test it.

Contrast it with a proper theory for something we could disprove like gravity or evolution or the existence of the Higgs Boson.

There could be transcened lifeforms out there so powerful that they are indisinguishable from Gods to us, but they're not Gods, we're just slightly cleverer than average pond life.

Isn't it logically ridiculous that we should consider any one world religion out of the hundreds/thousands that have ever existed to be the right one? Isn't it very likely that humans everywhere find religion a useful social tool or that humans just like trying to interpret the incredible nature of the world around them into something that makes sense. I have seen and heard too many things not to believe that there's more out there than can be easily explained away by science or proof. So, no, I don't need proof for everything, I keep an open mind on an awful lot of things.

RedFred
25-03-2009, 03:38:49
You need to give Hinduism some serious consideration. The music is better and the food is better.

Greg W
25-03-2009, 03:57:02
Either of which I can enjoy just as much as a non Hindu. :p

RedFred
25-03-2009, 04:32:40
Er... So you are Hindu already?

Funko
25-03-2009, 09:43:13
Originally posted by Greg W
I have seen and heard too many things not to believe that there's more out there than can be easily explained away by science or proof. So, no, I don't need proof for everything, I keep an open mind on an awful lot of things.

They can all be explained.

Funko
25-03-2009, 09:45:37
Originally posted by JM^3
My point is that those who believe in God, but have trouble believing in any sort of biblical miracle, are being silly and inconsistent. Believing in the existence of a god is a far bigger belief than the miracles in the Bible. Point is that there are a lot of Christians who don't believe in miracles, if you have other reasons for believing in a god but not that Christian God, fine, but to say I believe but none of the miracles could happen is just inconsistent.

I think it's not that people believe that the miracles couldn't happen, but that they consider God as a more abstract thing that doesn't directly intervene. I don't see anything wrong with that, and no weirder than any of the other differences between what different branches of christianity believe.

Greg W
25-03-2009, 12:14:08
Originally posted by Funko
They can all be explained. Alright then. Explain to me how I have had dreams that have come true. And I don't mean in a general way, I mean specific times and places.

Explain to me how a friend of mine walked into a house in Melbourne, and in one specific spot felt like it was freezing, despite it being 30 degrees celcius outside. And how she later discovered that a lady had been killed in that same room, presumably in that same place. And how her friend had also felt the same cold in the same place.

That's just two examples of things that I can't explain, and why I keep my mind open and not closed to the possibility of there being more than can be explained away by simple science.

Funko
25-03-2009, 12:26:41
The dream thing is probably the same as Deja Vu, the brain gets confused in the way it processes information and you are convinced you've seen something before, but you actually haven't. Did you document them down in advance? That'd be more impressive.

There's a physical response to fear or stress (even new places) that can cause goosebumps and shivers even when it's warm. We've probably all experienced something like that. There's also decent evidence that areas of low humidity can feel much colder than more humid external temperatures, so you go into a dry room, suddenly your sweat can evaporate quickly and you feel cold. That and drafts have been the major causes when genuine sceptics have investigated ghostly cold spots. (assuming it's not more convincing fraud on the part of people creating ghost myths).

Ghostly explanations of phenomena like this are another example of humans being amazingly happy to pick the most irrational reason for something. Something like that happens in a house where no-one has been killed we think, oh it must be a draft. Why make it significant just 'cause someone died?

Funko
25-03-2009, 12:27:43
Science is not simple. It's the hard explanation, the one that needs work and thinking.

Saying it's God or a Ghost without investigating is the easy way out, accepting you're not going to think about it. It's not keeping an open mind at all.

JM^3
25-03-2009, 16:37:08
What you think is a reasonable explanation of something relates to what your assumptions are.

'They can all be explained' is true both of a I assume God exists or an I assume god doesn't exist framework. Neither framework of assumptions gets any support from 'they can all be explained'.

JM

MoSe
25-03-2009, 17:06:45
yeah, that's the point
nor either gets undermined by the contrary

gods can't be "proven", thay can only be "assumed" i.e. believed in

"all miracles can (or will someday) be explained by science" doesn't (or should not) undermine the faith of believers

IN THE SAME WAY, claiming that some events can't be explained by science is totally moot, as it's not for that reason that you can convince anyone to believe in something supernatural (i.e. gods), it only assesses the current perimeter of the science framework

claiming that there is something I can't explain, only "proves" that there is something I can't explain, period, nothing else

Funko
25-03-2009, 17:10:56
Originally posted by MoSe
"all miracles can (or will someday) be explained by science" doesn't (or should not) undermine the faith of believers

Why not?


Originally posted by MoSe
claiming that there is something I can't explain, only "proves" that there is something I can't explain, period, nothing else

Yes, but why do people say "well there are things we can't explain so ... dah da dah da dah da dah da*... it must be some mystical spiritual bullshit" not "let's do some experiments and find out what the explanation is!"

That's what I don't get.

MoSe
25-03-2009, 17:47:25
expecting to support something irrational as a belief, using logic/science/rationality, is the original fallacy, whence all others stem

MoSe
25-03-2009, 17:49:59
""all miracles can (or will someday) be explained by science" doesn't (or should not) undermine the faith of believers"
"why not?"

because if you believe in something only because you can't explain a miracle, then you're not a believer, you're just a gullible nitwit

Immortal Wombat
25-03-2009, 18:18:06
own goal

paiktis
25-03-2009, 18:31:23
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
:lol:



I'm hoping that last option is what this thread came from. otherwise, sorry to see you heading in the wrong direction.

I believe in man, whether it be man the animal, the artist or the thinker. I'll take that flesh and blood, that beating heart, that eons-old struggle and endeavour and passion and pain and triumph and tragedy, i'll take that real thing, that visceral animal pain over some fucking perfect shining light that makes us no more important than worms.

Salavation is a lie, Paiktis. You don't need it. Nobody does. Virtue? Purity? What the fuck are these words without the church? Why would anyone need those things?

Real people made this world the way it is. Democracy, security, human rights - people paid for those with their lives, with their dedication. Again and again and again and again. The wonders of the arts, of the songs that are so good it hurts, the books that so perfectly describe the human condition, they all came from real people. Human sacrifice and human endeavor got us to this place, 2009, a world of marvels and horrors and all of it human. God makes a mockery of all that, so fuck that shit and anyone who wants a piece of it.

I believe all that, or rather I used to beleive them. My life and thinking system was or still is based exactly on what you described and in the way that you described it.
I have two instances in my life that underline this life stance which has been mine since the beggining.
One is something that I read in school. There was plato and his students walking down a river. As was the custom then the athenians should throw some peddles in the river (or something like that, I don't remember exactly) as a tribute to the gods.
The students did that but plato did not. So the students asked him, if he believed in the gods or not.
So plato took some peddles and threw them in the river and said "now we can concentrate on our lesson".
He also said something like "honour the gods but also bare in mind that we live here and now and we will make heaven or hell here and now according to what WE do".
That's the one istance.
The second comes from my mother who has worked hard all her life. When matters went to theological turf, she used to say, I don't know but what is important is that we make heaven or hell right here and now according to what we do".
It was like metaphysical stuff were irrelevant. They were not disrespected, but irrelevant.
However I do lose strength from time to time. And time passes with lightining speed. And I've seen so many people lost just staggering around life, blind tearing themselves up. Without purpose, without a goal that it scares me. To the point I think I may me becoming one of them.

Greg W
27-03-2009, 11:00:04
Originally posted by Funko
The dream thing is probably the same as Deja Vu, the brain gets confused in the way it processes information and you are convinced you've seen something before, but you actually haven't. Did you document them down in advance? That'd be more impressive.I've dreamed of specific places and situations, and then had them come true many years later. It's not just deja vu, I can be somewhere and suddenly something will happen, like a specific phrase is said, or I look in a particular direction, and that knowledge comes flooding back to me. I remember roughly when I had the dream and what it was about. I doubt that you'll believe me, but there it is.

If you want something more specific though, my girlfriend had had two dreams that came true within 4-5 days of her having dreamed them.

One was she dreamed of her father having an accident and something about a red car. Three days later a little boy ran out from behind a parked red car and her father killed him. And yes, she had warned her father about it when she had the dream.

The second was about her sisters in an accident. There was something specific as well, a white Toyota from memory. My memory is a bit more vague on this one, but within 4-5 days, her sister had been in major accident with a white toyota, and almost died. And yes, again she warned her sister beforehand.There's a physical response to fear or stress (even new places) that can cause goosebumps and shivers even when it's warm. We've probably all experienced something like that. There's also decent evidence that areas of low humidity can feel much colder than more humid external temperatures, so you go into a dry room, suddenly your sweat can evaporate quickly and you feel cold. That and drafts have been the major causes when genuine sceptics have investigated ghostly cold spots. (assuming it's not more convincing fraud on the part of people creating ghost myths).

Ghostly explanations of phenomena like this are another example of humans being amazingly happy to pick the most irrational reason for something. Something like that happens in a house where no-one has been killed we think, oh it must be a draft. Why make it significant just 'cause someone died? And her friend who walked to the door and immediately said he wasn't going in the place cos there was something badly wrong? Despite not even setting foot in the place?

Sorry, but this was in one specific place in the house, and verified by a few people. And not just a cool breeze colder, they would feel freezing cold on a very hot day.

But, hey, I don't think I am going to convince you, you're not as open minded on these things as I am. And that's cool. We can just agree to disagree. :)

And I am not saying any of these things have anything to do with god, they just help me keep an open mind on a lot of things. :)

Greg W
27-03-2009, 11:02:31
Oh, and that's not to say there's not a lot of crackpots out there imagining things. I don't take everything on face value, cos I am sure some of it is made up to get attention.

Funko
27-03-2009, 11:41:24
I'm totally open minded to finding out what happened. the Ghost angle is the least plausible but if we rule out absolutely everything else

Just out of interest, how many dreams has she had that haven't come true? Does she take each one of those that doesn't come true as counter evidence to the one that did?

Funko
27-03-2009, 11:51:18
Multiple people experiencing something makes it more likely it's a reproducible phenomenon doesn't it?

The freezing cold on a very hot day thing has been measured a few times by ghost sceptics finding rational explanations from these things. The low humidity thing seems most plausible.

They have recreated the same thing in a controlled environment with multiple people. Some people they told that someone had died in that place, and they claimed to feel much stronger reactions than those they told it was just a humidity difference.

But people are very resistant to having their mystical experiences explained. It makes people feel a bit stupid to think there's a very straightforward explanation for their profound experiences. You don't seem open minded to perfectly plausible scientific explanations to these phenomena.

MoSe
27-03-2009, 12:01:05
Originally posted by Funko
You don't seem open minded to perfectly plausible scientific explanations to these phenomena.

I say it must be because of some Ghost possessing his mind.

Maybe something in his profession haunts him...

The Ghost Bus!

maybe there's even more than one...

Ghost Bus
Ghost Bus -bis
Ghost Bus -ter


:D

Funko
27-03-2009, 12:01:43
Originally posted by Greg W
I've dreamed of specific places and situations, and then had them come true many years later. It's not just deja vu, I can be somewhere and suddenly something will happen, like a specific phrase is said, or I look in a particular direction, and that knowledge comes flooding back to me. I remember roughly when I had the dream and what it was about. I doubt that you'll believe me, but there it is.


And this is exactly the same as Deja Vu, I've had the same thing and never thought it was something mystical. Everyone has probably experienced something similar.

There's tons of research into it and some very good theories that are really good shots at explaining it. It seems infinitely more likely that it's the mind playing tricks on us rather than some miraculous physics busting psychic powers.

protein
27-03-2009, 12:02:52
Originally posted by Greg W
[B]I've dreamed of specific places and situations, and then had them come true many years later. It's not just deja vu, I can be somewhere and suddenly something will happen, like a specific phrase is said, or I look in a particular direction, and that knowledge comes flooding back to me.

that IS deja vu. it's when your senses get re-routed to your long term memory. you view an area or hear something and immediately think you experienced it long before.

i used to get it all the time when i took acid. and during my hormonal teenage years.

next time you get it, ask yourself it that it what's happening.

Greg W
27-03-2009, 12:12:24
As I said, I didn't think you'd believe me. It's cool, but the so-called scientific explanations do not sound plausible at all to me, especially the very specific ghost case? Low humidity? In an area about a meter around? When people who know nothing about any possible ghost feel freezing on stinking hot days?

Yep, must have been low humidity. :lol:

As for the deja vu thing. No, sorry, it has happened too many times with too many specifics for me to doubt. Even to the point where I have seen something, had my flashback, then said that something is about to happen. And it did.

It is very rare, it's happened to me maybe a dozen times in a very strong way. And the things I have known were just too bizarrely obscure to think that it may have been my mind playing tricks on me.

As for taking into account dreams that don't come true and whether she takes them into account as counter arguments. Now that is grasping at straws... :lol:

Funko
27-03-2009, 12:29:39
Hey, like I said, that's one proven explanation for other cases. I doubt I'm going to get the chance to come in with a bunch of guys to experiment and find out what it is in this case, but I'd love to.

Clutching at straws thing: NO! Not at all. This is the whole point I'm getting at. It really isn't unlikely that you'd have a dream about something that later happened. We have several dreams a night, every night and they often involve people and situations we know.

It's exactly the same as when the phone rings when you are thinking about someone and it happens to be them. AMAZING PSYCHIC CO-INCIDENCE?! No. It's actually something that's really likely to happen at some point in everyone's life.

At some point in your life having a dream about something that later comes true is just as likely, and as we remember dreams very badly I'd certainly suggest that some 'specific details' that were in the dream were filled out after the fact.

And we are right about the Deja Vu thing, it doesn't matter how obscure the thing is, because the most plausible explanation (I think) is that the bit of the brain that writes to memory is closely linked to the bit of brain that deals with our timeline and as you're writing the new memory you think, oh, wait, this happened before. But it didn't.

Tizzy
27-03-2009, 12:35:24
All this has happened before and will happen again

Sorry...

Greg W
27-03-2009, 12:46:17
We shall agree to disagree... I'm not going to convince you, and you're sure as heck not going to convince me. :)

As I said, too much evidence that can't be explained away for my liking. I don't take things at face value, I doubt pretty much everything until it's been proven to me in a reasonable way. Even then, I don't become a true believer or anything. But I do keep my mind open to possibilities.

MoSe
27-03-2009, 12:48:04
Originally posted by Funko
It seems infinitely more likely that it's the mind playing tricks on us rather than some miraculous physics busting psychic powers.

Hey, we all know that a deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

http://hubpages.com/hub/dejavu

The Mad Monk
27-03-2009, 12:49:14
Life is just just a dream, you know...

MoSe
27-03-2009, 12:54:49
Originally posted by Funko
It's exactly the same as when the phone rings when you are thinking about someone and it happens to be them. AMAZING PSYCHIC CO-INCIDENCE?! No. It's actually something that's really likely to happen at some point in everyone's life.

Even better:

you pick up the phone (not a cell) to call someone, and he's already there connected without that you dialed anything!
Magic?
No. He was calling you one second earlier, and when you picked up you actually answered his call before your phone could begin to ring.

Happened to me at least a dozen times in my life.

Funko
27-03-2009, 12:59:29
Originally posted by Greg W
We shall agree to disagree... I'm not going to convince you, and you're sure as heck not going to convince me. :)

As I said, too much evidence that can't be explained away for my liking. I don't take things at face value, I doubt pretty much everything until it's been proven to me in a reasonable way. Even then, I don't become a true believer or anything. But I do keep my mind open to possibilities.

Yeah, keep your mind open unless it's about there being a possibility that there are scientific explanations for stuff you couldn't explain at the time.

MoSe
27-03-2009, 13:01:50
Originally posted by Greg W
I have seen something, had my flashback, then said that something is about to happen. And it did.

Funko, I begin to think of another simple explanation:

we're actually posting with the AE of Allison DuBois (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1879634/), the "Medium" TV Series character!

Hi Allie, how're you?

Fistandantilus
27-03-2009, 14:16:34
Originally posted by Tizzy
All this has happened before and will happen again

Sorry...

:D

Greg W
27-03-2009, 17:32:26
Originally posted by Funko
Yeah, keep your mind open unless it's about there being a possibility that there are scientific explanations for stuff you couldn't explain at the time. I am so not going to bother with that until you can even start to explain away the ghost story for starters.

And how in some of my dreams, I have known things about to happen when I experienced your so called deja-vu. Like an old, pale blue FJ Holden coming around a corner and having a head on with a motor cycle. And how I knew it was going to happen, despite the fact I couldn't even see the car coming until it was too late.

Coincidence? Random chance that I dreamed true once and remembered years later? Puhlease! :rolleyes:

The Shaker
27-03-2009, 17:53:49
Greg, he already offered a theory, which you rejected without even testing, just based on your belief in humidity effects.

Out of interest does this happen to your friend in other places? Have people been killed there? Does it have to be a violent death or just death? Does it happen on occasions when there has been no violent death? Conduct a few experiments to get more data, then he's got something to work with.

Also why is being cold associated with a ghost? What particular characteristic of ghosthood causes it? Has anything other than coldness been experienced in this house related to ghostly activity?


Out of interest I have the sudden feeling that something bad will happen quite often. However it hasn't yet (well depending on your point of view), but if it does will one positive event override all the negative events?

Greg W
28-03-2009, 01:32:48
Come on, a one meter round area in a room where it's freezing cold on stinking hot days (and no, it wasn't under an air conditioning duct)? And you claim that humidity effects could possibly explain that?

I don't have to try and prove it, it's preposterous. Even Mike said about it:Originally posted by Funko
Hey, like I said, that's one proven explanation for other cases. I doubt I'm going to get the chance to come in with a bunch of guys to experiment and find out what it is in this case, but I'd love to.And it happened to about half a dozen people in that one place. Not just one person. So as far as I am concerned, that's enough evidence to not just throw out out of hand, it's enough to make me believe there might (just might) be something there.

What I don't do is dismiss it out of hand as being a fanciful imagination or a bizarre local weather phenomenon. Add that into the dreams thing, and I keep an open mind as I said.

Personally, I am not a need to see scientific proof to believe something kind of guy. If I see a good enough argument from reliable people that something happened, then I will keep an open mind that it may, just may be possible until I see evidence to the contrary. If someone can disprove it, then by all means do so. Some things I am at a loss as to how science could possibly explain though, with our current limited understanding anyway.

If you have a feeling quite often then of course it will come true eventually. Even I am not silly enough to believe that would be proof that you're some kind of psychic. But, hey, try and explain the ghost and a small number of dreams that I have had away (especially that Holden, that freaked me out, though there were others just as odd). I am yet to hear a plausible scientific explanation that disproves or comes close to explaining either.

Provost Harrison
29-03-2009, 01:41:42
Originally posted by MOBIUS
No, he'd have been a Muslim.


(That point needs to be rammed home so much that it I'm happy to incur the PHd/Own Goal for my trouble)

Not a bad effort as PHd's go...I'll give it an 8/10...

Funko
30-03-2009, 09:07:49
Originally posted by Greg W
Come on, a one meter round area in a room where it's freezing cold on stinking hot days (and no, it wasn't under an air conditioning duct)? And you claim that humidity effects could possibly explain that?

I don't have to try and prove it, it's preposterous. Even Mike said about it:And it happened to about half a dozen people in that one place. Not just one person. So as far as I am concerned, that's enough evidence to not just throw out out of hand, it's enough to make me believe there might (just might) be something there.

What I don't do is dismiss it out of hand as being a fanciful imagination or a bizarre local weather phenomenon. Add that into the dreams thing, and I keep an open mind as I said.

Personally, I am not a need to see scientific proof to believe something kind of guy. If I see a good enough argument from reliable people that something happened, then I will keep an open mind that it may, just may be possible until I see evidence to the contrary. If someone can disprove it, then by all means do so. Some things I am at a loss as to how science could possibly explain though, with our current limited understanding anyway.

If you have a feeling quite often then of course it will come true eventually. Even I am not silly enough to believe that would be proof that you're some kind of psychic. But, hey, try and explain the ghost and a small number of dreams that I have had away (especially that Holden, that freaked me out, though there were others just as odd). I am yet to hear a plausible scientific explanation that disproves or comes close to explaining either.

Something happening regularly to lots of people in the same place means it's probably quite easy to find out what's really going on.

One of the things that science most commonly tells us is that people are just about the worst measurement and recording devices you can find. Completely inconsistent, in their reactions, terribly unreliable in their memories, incredibly unspecific in their descriptions and prone to find all kinds of patterns in stuff which is sheer coincidence.

In short, a 'reliable person' is till a terrible source of information about any phenomenon. And when these things have been proved to be very simple atmospheric differences, the people who experience them still swear blind that can't be the cause so trying to convince you over the interweb is fruitless.

I quit.

Funko
30-03-2009, 09:17:35
I've bothered to find a proper explanation of how a small temperature change can seem like much more for you.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-04/efthimou.html

As far as I'm concerned, this is enough proof that I don't need to explain further how a small change can seem like much more.

CASE CLOSED!

Greg W
31-03-2009, 03:07:31
Now, come on. Even the professor says:“You do, literally, walk into a column of cold air sometimes,” said Wiseman. “It’s possible that people are misattributing normal phenomena . . . . If you suddenly feel cold, and you’re in a haunted place, that might bring on a sense of fear and a more scary experience.” Thus, the rumor that “cold spots” are associated with ghosts seems to be a myth created by the construction of old buildings and vivid imaginations. That explanation also talks about places known to be haunted, and people expecting to see or hear a ghost, and thus explaining away a small temperature change as the presence of a ghost. They're pre-determined to expect a ghost, thus a small change to them seems proof.

I'll give you, it's a plausible explanation, and in the case of that particular ghost story in England, sounds very possible However, the people in my case had no idea there was a ghost there until way after the fact. Also the case of the friend stopping before he even entered the building and saying that he wasn't going in there cos he could feel something was wrong...

I'm not saying they're right, and I'm not saying that you're right. Just that I am keeping an open mind about it. Wish I had experienced it myself, but that's not going to happen.

Proof? It is plausible, as I said. I am not saying you're wrong. But there's a few too many things that don't fit as far as I am concerned. Same with my dreams...

Funko
31-03-2009, 08:23:03
The point is, there's no possible basis for the idea that ghosts might cause cold spots. It's a relatively recent invention for 'spiritualists' or whatever they call themselves to use this particular phenomenon to show evidence of 'ghosts', so why keep an open mind about that particular thing rather than any other explanation?

Greg W
31-03-2009, 09:12:09
Hang on, I don't remember that article saying anything at all about there being no possible basis to ghosts not causing cold. Just that one possible explanation is basically cold draughts and people's belief that they;re expecting a ghost. Person expecting a ghost gets a cold draught and it must be the ghost is basically what that argument says.

However, it is only a theory. I also never said that I wasn't keeping my mind open to anything. I even stated that it was a possible explanation. You're the one that is refusing to believe anything other than it being cold draughts.

However, with me not being there myself, I will keep - as I keep saying - an open mind. Seeing as you seem to have no idea what that means, that merely means that I haven't ruled anything out. It doesn't mean that I have decided that it must be a ghost and no other explanation could possibly exist.

In this case though, there's also the bloke that sensed something bad before he even entered the house, and refused to do so. The fact that the people going into the house had no idea there had been a murder there. And the fact that the murder happened in (or at least very near to) that cold spot.

Those things mean that I merely find the cool draught explanation less likely as it leaves a few unanswered questions. It does not mean that I have ruled it out, as you keep trying to assert that I have.

Thus... ta da... open mind.

Turd
31-03-2009, 09:18:17
This thread is shit.

Fistandantilus
31-03-2009, 10:17:20
You damn barrelstopper

Funko
31-03-2009, 10:23:53
Originally posted by Greg W
Hang on, I don't remember that article saying anything at all about there being no possible basis to ghosts not causing cold. Just that one possible explanation is basically cold draughts and people's belief that they;re expecting a ghost. Person expecting a ghost gets a cold draught and it must be the ghost is basically what that argument says.

However, it is only a theory. I also never said that I wasn't keeping my mind open to anything. I even stated that it was a possible explanation. You're the one that is refusing to believe anything other than it being cold draughts.

However, with me not being there myself, I will keep - as I keep saying - an open mind. Seeing as you seem to have no idea what that means, that merely means that I haven't ruled anything out. It doesn't mean that I have decided that it must be a ghost and no other explanation could possibly exist.

In this case though, there's also the bloke that sensed something bad before he even entered the house, and refused to do so. The fact that the people going into the house had no idea there had been a murder there. And the fact that the murder happened in (or at least very near to) that cold spot.

Those things mean that I merely find the cool draught explanation less likely as it leaves a few unanswered questions. It does not mean that I have ruled it out, as you keep trying to assert that I have.

Thus... ta da... open mind.

I think I've given 2 possible plausible explanations (3 if you include involuntary shivering which I think we can rule out in this case) and said we'd need to actually run some tests to see what was really causing it.

I don't think I can accept that anyone who's equipped with all the facts would consider that the ghost theory is more plausible than any of the things I've suggested.

My two suggestions have both been tested and proven to explain the exact same phenomena in other locations and are based on well known physical and physiological laws. Not only that but it seems other sceptics* have documented when this link to cold spots and ghosts first came up and their links to the kind of charlatans that were peddling this crap to people to sell 'ghost busting' services.

The ghost explanation requires us to accept that there's some kind of afterlife and not only that but there's some way in which spirits in that afterlife can physically alter conditions back here on earth. Two massive leaps that completely transcend anything in science that we currently understand about the world.

Occums razor does us well here.


*I hate that phrase, it suggests there's something valid to be sceptical about which there isn't really. I'd go for realists or scientists or something.

Funko
31-03-2009, 10:31:02
I also don't think it's a sign of an open mind to consider stuff as being possible when it's so incredibly unlikely that it's basically ridiculous. Promoters of woo have abused scientists historical unwillingness to say anything is completely impossible so they can say, "Ah, but you can't rule it out!" when often, you really can rule it out for all practical purposes.

Like if you throw a ball up in the air and keep an open mind about whether it'll be acted upon by gravity or not it'd be ridiculous.

Immortal Wombat
31-03-2009, 17:22:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

protein
31-03-2009, 18:46:56
if you find out occasionally that some of your memories you are convinced are real turn out to be false, you can accept that superstition is ridiculous.

Nills Lagerbaak
31-03-2009, 20:52:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

'If we did, in fact evolve from Monkeys, then how come babies aren't born moneys'

eh???

Greg W
01-04-2009, 01:39:34
Originally posted by Funko
Two massive leaps that completely transcend anything in science that we currently understand about the world.Sorry, but I know that science can't explain everything, nor prove or disprove everything. Our understanding of the universe is increasing in massive leaps and bounds, however there's an awfully long way to go. Every time we think we understand something, something comes along to show how pitiful our understanding really is.

Thus, until it can be proven to me, the things that I have seen or heard that in my opinion cannot be easily explained away with our current explanation of science... I am going to keep an open mind.

As is, you haven't answered at any stage my point about the bloke who wouldn't enter the building cos he sensed something wrong. Nor about how people not expecting a ghost wouldn't suspect the sudden cold was a ghost. These are not paranoid people expecting ghosts at every turn, like in that article you linked.

I am not saying those explanations are wrong, I just have massive doubts about them cos there are too many holes in the argument for my liking.

Nor about the dreams that came true with such startling accuracy. A blue FJ Holden coming around a corner to hit a motorcyclist head on? That I knew was going to happen before it did, as son as I recognised the petrol station near the corner from a dream? Explaining that away as a random dream that just happened to predict the future is so far fetched it's not funny. As were the two dreams about the accidents I mentioned earlier that came true within a matter of days.

And we're not even getting into psychics here. The type that the police use to track down unsolved cases where they have little or no leads (and no, I don't mean the television shows). Can science explain them away?

And your argument about gravity is a nice straw man. Gravity can be proven, 100% through experiments. The presence or absence of ghosts, souls, psychics, true dreams and the like cannot, you yourself said it.

paiktis
01-04-2009, 01:59:45
Personally I have come nothing across in my life which would point out to the existance of anything metaphysical.
I remember one or two occasions that it could be interpreted as such but it is based totally on a strong feeling so it can't be scientifically proven.
But the feeling was so intense that it can't be denied. Again it can't be denied by me, alone. And one other in one occasion.
We were driving with one of my girlfriends once, trying to find a remote place for err... cuddling.
Right she used to lieve in a remote place outisde the attican basin that had just started being developed.
There were small mountains all around and there was a lot of forest.
The road would go up and down a lot and there were funny slides.... think of it like a "soft" rollercoaster.
It was night and there was virtually no light except for my car lights.
We were driving down this rollercoster and there was something like a clearing in the middle of a forest on a mild mountain side.
The road was very roughly paved with asphalt.
I drove down there, it was almost all black and tall trees were looming all around. I stepped on the breaks and led the car to a gentle stop in the end of that forest clearing.
Suddedly and without the slightest warning I felt like a crushing anvil in my chest the absolute certainty that we were going to be massacred right there and then by a demented serial killer.
I said "we must get out of here"
the girl said "yes now"
I just stepped on the gas gently and started to drive out of there.
I didn't say anything more. I was petrified with fear.
Some time after we had left the clearing I said my thoughts to the girl and she said she felt exactly the same thing.

I'm sure it can be explained.
The setting would seem ideal for such thoughts of terror but on the same time it could be seen as of ideal beauty. but the feeling was of ideal terror.

It can be explained, easily I guess but the severity and force of the feeling (that was felt by two people) cannot be denied.

MoSe
01-04-2009, 07:54:49
Originally posted by Funko
Like if you throw a ball up in the air and keep an open mind about whether it'll be acted upon by gravity or not it'd be ridiculous.

as I use to reply:

Wise: - The sun comes up every morning
MoSe: - ...so far

Wise: - Everyone has to die, sooner or later
MoSe: - ...so far

Funko
01-04-2009, 08:27:14
You'll note that's why I said "be acted upon by gravity" not "the ball will fall down".

But we actually have pretty good theories about when the sun won't come up any more and what'll cause it. So I think both those statements are ones I wouldn't make, especially in a thread like this.

As is, you haven't answered at any stage my point about the bloke who wouldn't enter the building cos he sensed something wrong.

The easiest to explain and the one you are least likely to accept. *shrug*

Lots of things make people feel uneasy. Especially going into unfamiliar places, and especially if they are dark/abandoned. Going into a wood alone at night freaks out most people for instance.

Now this could have been brightly lit, welcoming home, but still something can trigger our sense of danger. Something about the house triggered his and he felt uneasy. It's even possible he saw the house on the TV at the time of the original murder and his subconscious reacted. Most likely something about the house made him uneasy and it's a pure coincidence. Plus a lot of these stories are unintentionally exaggerated after when they happened. Not saying your friends are liars, just that they are normal humans doing what everyone does.


And we're not even getting into psychics here. The type that the police use to track down unsolved cases where they have little or no leads (and no, I don't mean the television shows). Can science explain them away?

Yes. Very easily.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html

And your argument about gravity is a nice straw man. Gravity can be proven, 100% through experiments. The presence or absence of ghosts, souls, psychics, true dreams and the like cannot, you yourself said it.

But time and time again when scientists or sceptics who know what to look for have studied individual cases of these phenomena they've been able to explain them without resort to the paranormal. Why would anyone assume that the cases that haven't been investigated yet are paranormal?

And we've explained the dream thing, you just don't believe us. You didn't have a dream, it's your mind playing tricks on you. Standard Deja Vu that we've all had. I've had it where I think it must have been a dream where I saw something before, I can clearly remember where I was where I saw something before, but that's not what's really going on.

Provost Harrison
01-04-2009, 11:16:05
Blimey, did I take a wrong turn and wander into Apolyton?

Funko
01-04-2009, 11:38:12
C beast :shoot:

King_Ghidra
01-04-2009, 11:52:36
Good shot, sir.

MoSe
01-04-2009, 12:08:50
did it have a soul?

Greg W
01-04-2009, 17:03:12
I give up. Sorry, I will never ever accept that explanation for my dream, it was way too specific. A blue FJ Holden coming around the corner and having a head on with a bike near a service station that I saw in the dream?

In terms of coincidental dreams, that would have to be the mother of all coincidences. Tied in with my friend and her two dreams of bad accidents for her family, picking the specific family member and some of the details of the accident.

Even a scientist would have ro say that the chances of those happening are incredibly slim.

Why am I bothering? Just forget it, I'm wrong, you're right, and the universe exists entirely within the bounds of what science understands today. There is nothing we don't understand that can't be explained with science.

RedFred
02-04-2009, 04:35:55
As long as you are giving up and admitting you are wrong - are you now willing to become a Hindu?

MoSe
02-04-2009, 08:27:17
Greg beware behind u!

Funko
02-04-2009, 08:50:23
Originally posted by Greg W
1. I give up.

2. Sorry, I will never ever accept that explanation for my dream, it was way too specific. A blue FJ Holden coming around the corner and having a head on with a bike near a service station that I saw in the dream?

3. In terms of coincidental dreams, that would have to be the mother of all coincidences.

4. Tied in with my friend and her two dreams of bad accidents for her family, picking the specific family member and some of the details of the accident.

5. Even a scientist would have ro say that the chances of those happening are incredibly slim.

6. Why am I bothering? Just forget it, I'm wrong, you're right, and the universe exists entirely within the bounds of what science understands today. There is nothing we don't understand that can't be explained with science.

1. You're not really giving up are you.

2. It wasn't a dream, so it should be identical. The temporal bit of your lobe got confused as you were processing what you were seeing into memory and to make sense of the idea that you'd seen what was happening before you subconsciously attributed it to a dream. I've had the exact thing happen. So has Protein and probably most if not all other posters. In fact it's such a common thing among people that it's been heavily researched.

3. The mother of all coincidences happen all the time, and a lot of things are actually a lot more likely than we intuitively think they are to happen. However in this case I think it's most likely:

4. Tough to pinpoint what went on here with hearsay, and you not accepting any questioning of her side of events but a combination of co-incidence, deja vu and human natural ability to see random as pattern really do explain this.

5. Nope, we'd say the premise of the question was wrong or that even if it is very unlikely the number of people there are and the number of dreams they have makes it very likely that it'll happen quite regularly.

6. Now who's using the straw man? I didn't say that. I said every specific paranormal phenomenon that has been properly investigated by scientists so far has been found to have a proper scientific basis. Including ones identical to all the things you've mentioned all of which are very common and explanations for which I found with seconds of googling.

There's tons we don't know about science, but there's a lot we do know, and there's a huge amount we know about so called paranormal phenomena that people just aren't prepared to listen to for whatever reason.

Funko
02-04-2009, 08:52:29
However

There's nothing we don't understand that can't be explained by science

I agree with this, we just might not understand the science yet.

MoSe
02-04-2009, 10:38:23
There's nothing we don't understand, that we can positively exclude right now it will ever be explained by science.

(i.e. "I know FOR SURE that science will NEVER be able to explain this, not even in a million years" - FALSE: you can't be sure that it will explain it, you can't be sure that it will never explain it)

Funko
02-04-2009, 10:43:20
Science does explain it but human understanding of science is not complete.

MoSe
02-04-2009, 11:01:16
does science exist per se?

Funko
02-04-2009, 11:13:30
Answer probably lies somewhere between the definition of science and philosophy.

Maybe depends whether you define 'science' as the laws underlying the universe (if we accept that the universe exists) or humanity's understanding of those laws.

In the latter case, what I said wouldn't make any sense.

MoSe
02-04-2009, 11:41:38
hhhmmm....

science is the laws - NO, as I got it, science studies the laws

the universe exists - don't tease me, I think I made known here that if I have a stance and believe in something, it's the following links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Radical_empiricism
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193050/esse-est-percipi-doctrine
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-George-Berkeley-Philosopher.htm
What I actually think is: I can't say that 'I' exist, I can't say any other object exists, all that's known is about a 'perception' event that represents itself as the interaction between an observer and an object, but it really cannot say anything at all about the reality per se of either the observer or the object
so, does the universe exist? I know that the experience of "MoSe-perceiving-the-universe" exists, but that is not a proof that MoSe exists as an entity nor that the universe exists as an entity

there are laws underlying the universe - NO, phenomena exist (if we ignore my above underlying stance :)), laws are just some model of some phenomenon made by someone. There could be different laws modelized to describe the same phenomenon.

sicence is humanity's understanding of those laws - NO, knowledge is the understanding, science is just a method, period.

(BTW, it's funny that I'm discussing this, as I'm probably getting all the terms wrong, in english :D, I (?) can only vouch for the concepts perceived by the cognitive process "MoSe-universe")

:clueless:

King_Ghidra
02-04-2009, 12:29:42
MoSe i think that's an entirely valid philosophical point, one which i have great deal of sympathy with, but the fact that the experiential world is so strongly brought to us through our senses tends to override on a day-to-day basis the philosophical stances we might hold true.

I'm reminded of doctor johnson, as described by boswell:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

Funko
02-04-2009, 12:59:26
sicence is humanity's understanding of those laws - NO, knowledge is the understanding, science is just a method, period.

I think loosely science means knowledge (certainly comes from the latin for knowledge) but more recently it's come to mean knowledge derived by scientific method.

Greg W
02-04-2009, 13:18:24
Originally posted by Funko
1. You're not really giving up are you.Nope, I just couldn't be bothered any more. Anyone can creat a theory (as in that atricle you linked me about the air currents) and then say that that theory is 100% valid because it seems to fit the criteria. Svience is about PROOF however, not guesses or theories. And I have seen very little proof shown, just theories that seem to explain the phenomena away.

But, this really is pointless. You can explain away my dream(s) as you want. But I knew seconds before it happened that that car was coming around that corner and going to hit that motor cycle. I cannot have that explained as my brain trying to correlate something I saw into deja vu after the fact. I knew, and even whispered a warning (I tried to shout, but apparently it came out as a whisper) to my friend to look away. They still cannot believe that I knew what would happen. And I can't explain it, any more than I can accept that half baked reasoning.

And it's happened to me a dozen or so times in my life. Yes, the normal deja vu feeling I ignore. But a few times I have known details of stuff that was going to happen before it did. Including some rather specific details. You can't accept that as anything other than my mind playing tricks on me. I can't accept that it is.

So, let's just forget it, this is pointless. You won't change your opinion and neither will I. Science may one day be able to explain it away, but not through some half arsed explanation of my brain trying to make sense of a sense of deja vu.

Peace. You have your beliefs in scientific theories, I have my open mind. Never the two shall meet it seems.

Funko
02-04-2009, 13:26:15
I can't prove any of it 'cause I can't get into the house to take readings or go back to when you had these feelings or take detailed statements from your friends or stick electrodes on their heads whilst they are sleeping or get them to keep dream diaries and compare them to what happens in the future can I!!! I'd love to! I think you should in my absence! Definitely.

All I can do is explain what other experimenters have found in other cases where they have done those things and what I very strongly suspect you'd find if you did them. But you don't want to find out whether or not I might be right because you are "open minded". :rolleyes:

As long as the definition of open minded only includes believing some weird ghost nonsense and not about the possibility of there being a rational explanation for this stuff. You are not open minded to that at all are you.

Funko
02-04-2009, 13:28:06
And yes, I am only continuing this 'cause I'm annoyed about being called closed minded for not being prepared to accept some irrational bullshit without any proof beyond vague anecdote.

If you had anything more impressive than a series of vague anecdotes and hearsay to back all this up I might have been able to do a better job finding you an explanation you'd be happy with but you don't.

King_Ghidra
02-04-2009, 13:28:41
Theory: Greg's experience resulted from his being completely insane

Evidence: See all posts in this thread.

THEORY PROVED.

Funko
02-04-2009, 13:31:05
Sadly I think it's all too normal and within the bounds of sanity for humans to hold on to baseless spiritualistic notions in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Greg W
02-04-2009, 13:36:27
Well, KG has caught on at least. :p

Funko, how can I? I can't go back and measure it all, now can I? All I can do is go by what I have seen and felt. You can't measure that in the past now, can you? How can I turn my personal experiences into proof for you? I can't now, can I?

All I know is that your theories do not sound right. Based on my own personal experience, what I felt and what I knew before the fact. I can't prove my own personal experience, so thus, let's just let it drop.

And the weird thing? I don't dream any more. I have no idea why, but I don't. Well, more to the point, I don't remember them any more, cos dreaming being something our mind does to sort out stuff, I am sure I still do.

Either that, or not dreaming explains away the insanity. :p

Greg W
02-04-2009, 13:37:29
Originally posted by Funko
Sadly I think it's all too normal and within the bounds of sanity for humans to hold on to spiritualistic notions in the face of all theories to the contrary. Fixed! :p

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :lol:

Funko
02-04-2009, 13:44:38
Evidence would be all the experiments people have done in relation to this stuff, some of which are summarised in the links I've posted.

I did a fair bit of reading about these things when I couldn't satisfactorily answer Angelhorns' points about astrology.

It actually made me more angry as I went on. Before I thought it was mostly harmless but now I see how exploitative it can be and in some cases actually dangerous.

Like in the link I posted about so called psychics wasting police time and money on wild goose chases.

Fistandantilus
02-04-2009, 14:29:17
You must be a Capricorn.

protein
02-04-2009, 14:40:52
unfortunately reality/science isn't based on what feels right and what you want to be right.

lots of people believe in things because they want to believe in it. that doesn't make the thing they believe in real.

i always wanted to believe in gods, aliens, ghosts, chi and all that cool stuff. if they existed, life would be awesome. unfortunately me wanting them to be real, doesn't make them real.

ironically my delving into buddhism and kung fu in search of a more magical life actually made me question the nature of memory, perception, belief and reality.

Funko
02-04-2009, 15:32:45
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
You must be a Capricorn.

:lol:

JM^3
02-04-2009, 16:02:27
I don't beleive in horoscopes/psychics/ghosts/etc. There is a difference between these things and God, there have been numerous experiments done that should observe these things and don't.

There haven't been any experiments done (nor suggested) that should observe God's existence and don't.

Determining whether God exists can still only be done on a person level. To really see if God exists, you have to step out on faith.

If you don't choose to do so, then that is a personal choice.

JM
(and generally I am a sceptic about direct, extremely showy miracles as well)

Funko
02-04-2009, 16:05:55
Originally posted by JM^3
There is a difference between these things and God

I guess my question would be, why do you think there's a difference?

To me God's just a slightly cleverer version of the same thing, because it makes no predictions so can't be tested but most of the arguments against all the other things are still true for any God or Gods you might compare them to.

JM^3
02-04-2009, 16:20:32
There is a world of difference between something that makes predictions/etc that can be tested and is in disagreement with science and something that hasn't made predictions/etc and hasn't disagreed with science (and it's assumptions).

From a logical/reasoning perspective, there isn't much difference between (some) beleifs in God and the beleif in the many-worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics (for example). Or (currently) the beleifs that cause peopel to think that democracy/etc is the way to go.

Or even the beleifs that underly science. (empericism/etc)

I am not sure why you consider the beleif in God assumption to be the same type as the beleif in astrology, and not the same type as the beleif in empericism (for example).

And the Christian beleif at least does make predictions, they just aren't predictions that can be tested on a nonpersonal level.

JM

JM^3
02-04-2009, 16:23:06
The issue with astrology is that:

1. It doesn't arrise from a beleif in empericism. This is OK, many other things that people beleive also don't.

2. When you have it as an underlying assumption or beleif, it doesn't pan out on the promises it makes and disagrees with empericism/etc and the reasoning derived from it.

JM

Funko
02-04-2009, 16:29:00
Does many-worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics really have no way to experimentally prove/disprove it or test it? I don't know enough about it but I would have thought that to be widely accepted by physicists there'd have to be some testable predictions or it'd have to fit the observed behaviours somehow.

I don't see why not being able to make and predicitons based on something makes it more plausible rather than less plausible.

In your physics career if someone came and said "I've got his hypothesis, but there's no mathematical basis for it and no way to test it but if you have faith in it you might be able to attribute some personal benefits that happen after you choose to believe my theory to your belief in it" what would you say?

they just aren't predictions that can be tested on a nonpersonal level.

Sounds very similar to the kind of comment you get from 'psychics' justifying the vagueness of their results.

JM^3
02-04-2009, 16:51:18
There are no tests of the many-worlds hypothesis in quantum mechanics. There are other interpretations that have the same level of acceptance, actually.

It isn't that it makes it more plausible, it just means that it is an assumption. Empericism is great, and I am definitely a beleiver in it (just like I am a beleiver of God), but if you don't assume empericism you don't neccesarily have any test of it or any mathematical basis for it.

I, like all other scientists, have beleifs. Empericism/etc is some of the founding beleifs of scientists, and us physicists have more (a huge one is the beleif that the physics that is done on this earth is the same as what could be done 1000s of lightyears away, for example). If the beleif is testable, then it should be tested. If it isn't testable (under the assumptions of science), then it isn't a scientific beleif, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. The Scientist is interested in what can be tested in science, or might be able to be tested in the future.

I have a question for you Funko. If it was discovered that there was a part of the brain that showed certain activity when praying/etc, would you take this as evidence in favor or against prayer being some contact with something else? One person will say 'ah ha, this shows how spirituality is an acident of biology/etc'. Another person will say 'ah ha, that is the part of our brain that God often interacts with when we pray (generally)'. There is no emperical/etc reason to favor one over another, there is no emperical way to determine whther God is influencing you or not... even in such a case as the above.

If God is a being, and not a force of nature, then we can't probe Him because His responses won't be the same every time (or done in the same way/etc). The claim from psychics is that it is some force of nature that science just has not discovered yet. Every claim fo this sort has so far been debunked.

If psychics really exist, then at some point they will be limited/probed in some fashion by science. We can think of many many such experiments to do, or that would be possible. The same isn't true with God. No one has even thought of a single experiment which would do this.

I am not seeing some thing, and trying to explain it, and not being explain it saying 'god did this'. I am assuming that God exists, and as long as my assumptions (and I also assume that empericism is true/etc) are consistent, I have a reasonable beleif structure. Psychics (all that have been observed so far, to my knowledge) disagree with empericism.

JM

JM^3
02-04-2009, 16:55:07
Actually, two things which would debunk the Christian God:

The discovery that there is souls/etc, and that they go somewhere after death... that is in some sort of complete disagreement with Christianity.

The discovery of time travel, and going back in time and discovering Christ was a fraud.

I don't think that either of these will ever happen, due to my beleifs in empericism/etc.

JM

The Bursar
02-04-2009, 17:37:14
Originally posted by JM^3
I am not sure why you consider the beleif in God assumption to be the same type as the beleif in astrology, and not the same type as the beleif in empericism (for example).

I actually have some sympathy with this. Everyone has to have some axioms to work from. Empiricism has tended to do well because it enables one to make predictions and models of (bits of) the universe, to gain more direct knowledge and understanding. Theism is just another philosophy, fine.

It's a valid position to take, I think, for a scientist who believes in God. But I think keeping that assumption both useful and compatible with empiricism is actually pretty hard. A lot of theology is an attempt to make that assumption useful, and it begins to sit awkwardly with the empirical world. And a lot of theology is reconciliation with the empirical world, and it begins to weaken the strength of the God-claim.

AFAICT, the (only) kind of theology that works, that has no disagreement with empiricism, is such a weak deism that really it isn't worth assuming. It boils down to "nobody knows, and it makes no difference anyway".

And what purpose does that assumption of God actually serve for a knowledge-gathering being? Does it enable you to model the world better? Well, not really, because the models it creates (the ones that aren't inconsistent) are almost always untestable. Does it instead concern morals and right-living? Well, not really, because they can't be derived from your reasonable assumption.

JM^3
02-04-2009, 18:07:15
I have maintained for over a decade, and I am not sure I have said so on this forum, that a deistic view is the easeist theism to beleive in.

I have re-evaluated my philosophies and beleifs many times. A year or so ago it was to relook at reductionism, I am still a reductionist (like most fundamental physics guys) but agree now that the subject isn't obvious and would like to continue to investigate it myself in the future.

It was in highschool that I really considered what I beleived in in regards to the basics. Deism is the easist beleif. I didn't end up a deist though.

I see a lot of evil in the world. Torture, pain, suffering, cruelty, etc. A lot of this is caused by human selfishness and greed. I wanted (And still want) to beleive that God is good. And I like, and still liked, that the solution presented in Christianity is not a self-focus and self-developement to become a better person (most other religions that I looked at were self-focused, it seemed to me), but rather a focus outside the self, on others and God, to become a better person.

So I decided I wanted to remain Christian (which is what I was raised as). And while I am no means the perfect Christian, I have been changed. Basically, the main evidence that I am on the right path, is that I like where I have been going. That isn't to say that I don't struggle with thnigs, have issues and problems to face, or what have you.

To show that I wasn't some conservative/etc type, during highschool I thought that marriage would be best between ~10 adults of both sexes. I didn't become the huge proponent of tranditional monogamous marriage that I am now until a couple of years later.

I acknowledge that the Christian God takes more belief than the minimum (basically, a lot less than many other things that are common beleifs - not talking about stuff like psychics/etc here) , but chose to beleive in the Christian God (Which took more beleif) out of the desire to.

In the end, the two things that rule your assumptions are:
1. Are they the assumptions you want to make?
2. Are they all consistent with one another.

JM

The Bursar
02-04-2009, 19:27:12
re: 1. Everyone wanted to assume the parallel postulate. In certain contexts, satisfaction of one's desires is not the most worthwhile goal. Which is not to say that a personal life philosophy is one of those contexts - I mean, (from my perspective) we're just short-lived bags of salty water, so who cares what we believe - but maybe it is. I would argue* that a scientist's epistemological framework is (or should be). And look at all the cool non-Euclidean geometry we got when mathematicians re-prioritized.


*if I could be bothered

protein
02-04-2009, 19:33:07
i don't see anyone making assumptions apart from people who believe in invisible beings.

JM^3
02-04-2009, 19:47:06
Scientists make lots.

And in the end, I am a scientist because I beleive in empiricism/etc.

Just like I stayed a Christian because I beleive in a good God (self focus being part of the human problem is what I concluded from using my reasoning, it isn't directly a beleif).

JM

Greg W
03-04-2009, 02:15:21
Originally posted by protein
unfortunately reality/science isn't based on what feels right and what you want to be right. I more meant my feelings on the evidence presented to me. What I had observed and been through myself. That evidence leads me to believe that there's more to it than something random, because it was way too specific.

I can't explain why it happened, nor how it happened. All I know is that it happened and the explanations provided to me, while making sense in a more generalistic view of deja vu, simply do not fit the specific facts that I mentioned.

If, for instance I had a dream of that same service station, and a lady in a red dress walked around the corner, I would accept the assertion that it was quite possibly something random as it was somewhat vagie and lacked too many details. And a very common occurrence, ladies in red dresses. However, in this specific case, and roughly a dozen others like it, I cannot accept that they were random dreams that happened to come true as there was too much detail to them, and things in some cases that were so unlikely to happen that randomness flies out the window.

That does not make me a believer in psychics (and it's interesting, cos a google showed me a few cases where psychics had indeed helped cases, as opposed to a view posted on a skeptic site mind you), true dreaming, fortune tellers, ghosts or any of that stuff.

What it means is that I have evidence myself, that I cannot show to anyone (except my friend who was there when the car hit the bike) that there's something beyond those explanations. General dreams coming true, I accept the belief that that could very well be random (notice I use the term "could ... be"). However, my own experience leads me to believe that that is not a cover all explanation.

As I said, I can't explain it, and I am not going to try, other than to keep an open mind about it all. Maybe those dozen or so dreams where I have seen vivid details of things about to happen were random. But if so, I may as well go out and buy a lottery ticket, cos it's the biggest fluke I have ever heard of. So staggeringly random that I simply can't accept it.

So, science is all about observation, evidence and proof. Simply put, I have mine and the theories given to me simply do not fit comfortably enough for me to accept at face value.

As an aside, how does one disprove a theory about randomness making up for true dreams? It's impossible, unless all dreams were found to be true, which seeing as a recurring dream from my childhood was about me flying, patently they are not. That's the problem with that solution, it can neither be proved, nor disproved. Because the thing you need to disprove it (dreams coming true) actually just tends to prove it from a skeptic's point of view.

How many, and how detailed would a set of dreams have to be before you would believe that they weren't just randomly coming true? There would have to be a point, yes? If it could be proven that a certain number did come true, and in startling details, surely it would prove that it were possible to dream true?

Thing is, I have that evidence myself, or at the very least enough to make me doubt. I have reached that threshold where random chance cannot comfortably be used to explain it away any more, there is too much evidence there for me to accept it as is. But, I cannot prove that to you, nor anyone else, which is the problem with my so-called proof.

Which is also a reason why I don't usually talk about this much either. Most people are too skeptical and refuse to believe me. Scientific proof? Of randomness? It's a theory that cannot be proved nor disproved, that's the inherent problem.

This, I simply give up. I will never convince people that would prefer to see randomness as a scientific answer to something that science doesn't comprehend properly anyway (nobody knows for sure why we dream, anyway). Maybe, just maybe it is the biggest random chance ever. If so then so be it, my keeping an open mind will do no harm. I have never seen a psychic, fortune teller or the like, and never will. Not my thing. And frankly, I will never tell anyone else to. Nor will I tell people to act on their dreams. I will just sit here and accept that it cannot be adequately described to me at the moment and leave it at that.

Maybe they were somehow glimpses into the future, through some as yet unexplained scientific phenomena. Or maybe they were random. I guess that's what's part of keeping an open mind on the matter.

Anyway, why I continue when I said I was giving up, I don't know. This whole thing really is pointless.

King_Ghidra
03-04-2009, 08:01:58
HAIL DARKSTAR

Oerdin
03-04-2009, 08:47:31
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=player_embedded

Funko
03-04-2009, 09:36:57
Originally posted by JM^3
I have a question for you Funko. If it was discovered that there was a part of the brain that showed certain activity when praying/etc, would you take this as evidence in favor or against prayer being some contact with something else? One person will say 'ah ha, this shows how spirituality is an acident of biology/etc'. Another person will say 'ah ha, that is the part of our brain that God often interacts with when we pray (generally)'. There is no emperical/etc reason to favor one over another, there is no emperical way to determine whther God is influencing you or not... even in such a case as the above.


I guess I would say that the act of praying activated part of the brain. I think it's very likely you could show that. There's strong evidence for very strong psychological and even physiological reactions of the body due to some forms of worship.

Yeah, I'd definitely see that as evidence of no god rather than support for one, your second point.

MoSe
03-04-2009, 10:11:32
do'h?

the brain shows activity when you're thinking

the brain shows activity when you're thinking you're praying

what's so special and peculiar???

Funko
03-04-2009, 10:14:17
I assumed he meant something different to normal, some control test

"Think about this person"
"Pray for this person"

test the difference.

MoSe
03-04-2009, 11:13:08
we know that different kind of thoughts activate different areas of the brain.

say:
doing maths
recalling a poem
recalling an image
recalling an emotion
listening to music
thinking abstractions
passion
planning
....

so, that just shows that your thinking about prayer is a combination of specific memories, relations, abstractions, wishes, all pinpointing or converging a specific brain structure

if anything, this just shows that human brain got selected thru evolution to favor a dedicated brain structure to such activities, with positive effects on survival and reproduction

when you interact with some alcaloid you find in nature, and that natural substance finds a specific receptor in your brain that makes you see purple dragons, do you infer that purple dragons exist?

Funko
03-04-2009, 11:15:08
Yeah, that's my view of it.

MoSe
03-04-2009, 11:17:25
NO, that's MY view of it!

;)

MoSe
03-04-2009, 11:19:33
Originally posted by Funko
I"Pray for this person"

would "praying for someone to die" do as well?

:cute:

Funko
03-04-2009, 11:19:46
No, I agree with you!

MoSe
03-04-2009, 11:36:44
until I was almost 16, I was under the influence....

... of brainwashing organisations as the parish, and catholic boyscouts
they induced me to think that I believed

I took part in a youth trip organised by the parish to an ecumenic religious youth centre based in Bourgogne

there the main church was big and simple, bare columns, very high ceiling, stone walls with little or no decorations except candles, sombre, quiet, ecxellent friar choirs resounding in the background...

Well, a few times, when I was there "meditating" (call it praying if you want), I felt a sudden surge from within, that could be defined as "elevation"
I had indeed a strong kinetic sensation of moving upwards, head ballooning, limbs tingling, light breath...
Of course that could have been induced by concentration, respiration, the daft yoga-like posture, restrained (or enhanced) blood circulation, self-suggestion

what's the point of this waswas?

well, I discovered a couple of years later, that I had EXACTLY the same identical wonderful sensation after I had smoked my first hashish joint one evening at the Jardin de Luxembourg in Paris (and it was some extraordinary afghan black nonetheless)

:D

I had abandoned my beliefs a couple of years earlier, but I remember that I concluded that evening that if there had to be a god, that joint was proof that he must have been afghan

:lol:
:p

protein
03-04-2009, 12:46:07
greg, here's a scenario for you that happens all the time due to the way memory works:

you had to go into the city to do some work, made your way around on foot. while you thought you were thinking about nothing or just thinking about the upcoming meeting, your brain processing will have been concerned with not getting run over in the busy city, making your way around on the underground, breathing in and out, staying upright, looking at adverts, avoiding falling onto train tracks or onto spikes, looking at buildings and wondering who works in them, resisting the urge to feel women's tits, feeling weird about checking out the size of a dude's muscles, pressing the button at traffic lights and thinking about germs, then the word germs makes you think about germans, then you think about sausages, then think about food and drink and realise you are thirsty, you think about crossing the road safely and are reminded of a road safety song when you were a child, your thirst gets the better of you and you buy a coffee, it's from an italian sounding shop so you feel sophisticated, you look at the pores on the nose of the person selling you coffee and wonder if your nose looks like that, you check out the name tag, wondering about the peeling plastic at the corners...

all of that useless crap and more went on mentally and all you actively remember is buying a coffee and thinking about a meeting.

after a night of sleep, your brain decoded the day before, arranged the important part into important memories and everything else as just forgettable experiences.

you experienced parts of it as dreams. you meet a man with pores on his nose drinking coffee at a the traffic lights but you notice he has sophisticated breasts and you find him attractive and then you want to get away so you fly away singing a road safety song and realise your hands are peeling at the edges.

you wake up, go downstairs and look outside and just at that very moment a guy is hit by a car. suddenly you have a feeling about knowing it was going to happen. you're tired and your power of reasoning is dulled. it's amazing that you knew it was going to happen!

while you pull on your coat you think "traffic, i knew there was something about traffic, i had a dream about a man and traffic".

you go outside and see the man semi concious and bleeding, he's wearing a grey suit, the car was a yellow ford. it's a horrific, powerful and unforgettable sight. you can smell petrol, everything seems bright and you are full of adrenalin. you think "i had a strong feeling about this happening, i knew a man would get hit by a car today"

eventually an ambulance turns up and the female paramedic comes out. your excited and confused brain says "i knew there would be a woman doing a man's job. i forsaw this in my dream. she has breasts and a name tag. she even has pores on her nose"

you go to sleep that night, your brain processes the information and files away the important bits and forgets the unimportant bits.

the next day you tell a friend at work that you had a dream about a man being hit by a car and then it happened for real. in your mind it's as clear as day that that is what happened.

the more you retell the story, the more you rely on the dreadful human memory, the more you go over it, the more real it gets - "i had a dream that a guy would get hit by a yellow ford and rescued by a female paramedic with a porus nose and a nametag with 'sue' on it. then it happened for real! i'm psychic dave! i'm psychic!"

then for the rest of your life, your memory of the event is completely wrong but it's clear in your mind that you are psychic.

MOBIUS
03-04-2009, 13:43:10
Er Darkstar?

King_Ghidra
03-04-2009, 14:05:19
be careful, if someone says his name a third time he will be summoned

MOBIUS
03-04-2009, 14:11:59
...Darkstar...:cute:

Greg W
03-04-2009, 14:32:16
Except Mobius, I warned someone before it happened. Before the car even came around the corner.

If not for that, I might just believe you.

protein
03-04-2009, 14:33:52
there's a perfect example of how poor the human memory is. you literally just read it and thought mobius wrote it. i did.

protein
03-04-2009, 14:50:22
besides, you missed the point about false memories.

i have memories of a horrible streetfight i was in once on tour. basically this guy was about to try and beat us up because we were trying to revive his unconcious friend and for some reason he got heated, took his jacket off and said he was going to kill us.

anyway, talking about the event afterwards, everyone around me thought that i had then done some sort of amazing jumping spinning kick out of nowhere, doing a full rotation in the air and knocked the guy clean out, held him down in some sort of impressive aikido lock and then said something heroic about helping his friend. while he regained conciousness.

what actually happened was that after he took a swing at someone i did a kicked him in the head, he fell over and then i fell over. then i jumped on him and pushed his head down so he couldn't hit me. the actual event was an awful drunken brawl and an awful affair.

but because of the nature of the situation, the adrenalin, the shock to all of the people around me that elevated their memories of the event into some sort of movie ninja fight.

their recollection of the event - re-living it through re-telling, had become something unreal. they wanted to believe it was awesome and exaggerated the event.

our whole lives are like this. religious people will have had religious events happen when they didn't. depressed people will have seen events as negative when they weren't. kung fu people will put down physical endurance to magical chi energy. superstitious people will put down ordinary occurances as supernatural.

Funko
03-04-2009, 15:06:18
Moral of the story is don't fuck with Protein on tour unless you want him to Bruce Lee your arse.

protein
03-04-2009, 15:17:37
to the people with the false memories, yes.

to me it's - isn't it amazing how people's memory of an event can be different from each other based on how they view the world.

JM^3
03-04-2009, 15:31:31
Originally posted by Funko
I guess I would say that the act of praying activated part of the brain. I think it's very likely you could show that. There's strong evidence for very strong psychological and even physiological reactions of the body due to some forms of worship.

Yeah, I'd definitely see that as evidence of no god rather than support for one, your second point.

So it all comes down to your assumptions.

Other assumptions are also reasonable, but you interpret in light of your assumptions.

This we all do.

That is my point.

JM

Funko
03-04-2009, 15:49:47
It doesn't actually support or not support God's existence in any way. It just shows us that the act of praying activates part of the brain.

The only reason I said I'd see it was evidence for my side was you were suggesting it as a prediction for pro-God existence weren't you?

And we haven't touched on how dodgy the Bible is as a source of religion in terms of who wrote it, when who edited it, when and what their agendas were. Who translated it and when and what their agenda was.

JM^3
03-04-2009, 16:00:34
No, I wasn't.

I was using it to illustrate how our assumptions color the evidence that we see.

JM

Funko
03-04-2009, 16:04:12
I can't argue with that.

But as I think we've agreed you can't make any predictions or show any evidence for or against god so there's no evidence to colour.

JM^3
03-04-2009, 16:18:53
No scientific evidence.

If, for example, Christ came in clouds/etc then someone could say 'it is an alien'. Something like God fundamentally can't be probed, I think.

JM

Funko
03-04-2009, 16:25:37
:brwncard:

Provost Harrison
03-04-2009, 16:27:53
Christ comes in clouds?
God can't be probed?

This thread is a theological Freudian delight :D

Greg W
04-04-2009, 01:19:09
Originally posted by protein
there's a perfect example of how poor the human memory is. you literally just read it and thought mobius wrote it. i did. Oops. :o

And besides, I didn't miss the point, I got that for sure. I just disagree that my perception coloured the event to the point where I essentially convinced myself that I knew what was going to happen before it happened. Because I told someone beforehand, it doesn't apply in this case.

Oh, sure, I may still be remembering things in certain ways that are different from what actually happened. Just not the knowing what was going to happen part. And that's the part I can't explain.

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-04-2009, 07:24:52
I predicted this thread, word for word.

Page 5 will feature a photo of KG pushing his chesty-pecs up together to make them look like ladyboobs.

Turd
04-04-2009, 08:32:39
That might even turn a turd on.

Funko
06-04-2009, 10:20:02
I'm not bumping it anymore.