Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon

[Neverfly]

Cern costs 10 billion dollars, you tell me what's better for me.
I was giving an example, but you there are other alternatives which don't require any kind or any quantity of money, and believe it or not, they work.

So what about Cern? You're not paying for Cern to treat cancer for you. That example was irrelevant and off topic. That's a total cost- how much is the total cost of Cancer Research?

As to the rest of your post and the one above it:
I do not believe they work. Saying "Believe it or not" doesn't fool me one bit. The mistake you are making is that they have been shown, time and time and time again, to not work because the "science" of it is false.
You have no understanding of the concept of "demonstrated untrue." You think that it's all opinion- it is not. You think there can be a valid example in a field of deception and fakery- you have not learned to appreciate how adept some people are at fakery.

It is people like you that charlatans seek out. You're a mark, a victim, an 'easy.'

Because you lack critical thinking skills, objectivity and rational analysis. You do not bother to research, study or learn. You just chalk it all up to unverified opinions and pick and choose which ones you like.
You have no concept of the Weight of Evidence. You cannot differentiate between "well supported by evidence" and "Dogma." You believe there is no difference because you never bothered to investigate.
You do not understand how strong evidence can lead to a reasonable conclusion. It is not faith.

Well, that's fine for you.

But where do you get off promoting ignorance? Suggesting that other people must be as willfully ignorant as you have chosen to be? What possible benefit do you really believe your supposed "open Mindedness" can bring to society? While people follow your example, the fakers and charlatans reap the profits, politicians lie, deceive and point fingers in blame. It is people like You, Gravage, that makes the world harder on the rest of us. Because this group of people is too lazy to put effort on their brain. It is people like you that gives these people a market; get them elected into public office.

 

[seagypsy]

No, you don't trust your experience, you're too skeptical to try everything, just because you found out a fraud in this it doesn't mean it's all fraud, I've been cheated by several people, until I actually heard about this one reiki master, and of course I thought he was a fraud like everyone else (based on previous experience), but than I was soon proven completely wrong., you obviously blindly trust science as someone believes in God, try everything in life most of those people try to regain their health, yes there are many frauds in alternatives, but who says they are all frauds?
Try everything across the entire globe.
You take science as religion, and not trying new stuff, you should go away, you can't handle that you might be wrong after all.

You have no idea what I have tried, what I have believed in. You don't know my history. I used to be very superstitious. I still question things from time to time. Have you seen the thread I started in general science? It's titled, "Is there an absolute reality?"

Don't tell me what I believe in. No one has told you what you believe in or that you don't believe in what you say or that you don't trust your experiences. At least I haven't. So don't you dare call me a liar when I say I trust my own experiences. I don't doubt you have had the experiences that you have had. I don't doubt that your brain interprets your experiences as it does. My brain interprets differently. Allow me my differing point of view if you expect the same respect for yourself.

 

[Gravage]

You have no idea what I have tried, what I have believed in. You don't know my history. I used to be very superstitious. I still question things from time to time. Have you seen the thread I started in general science? It's titled, "Is there an absolute reality?"

Don't tell me what I believe in. No one has told you what you believe in or that you don't believe in what you say or that you don't trust your experiences. At least I haven't. So don't you dare call me a liar when I say I trust my own experiences. I don't doubt you have had the experiences that you have had. I don't doubt that your brain interprets your experiences as it does. My brain interprets differently. Allow me my differing point of view if you expect the same respect for yourself.

You obviously believe in science. That much is obvious, which is good, but I learned not to trust anything too much, always remain skeptical, it doesn't matter if we're talking about science or alternatives or something else. Personally, I've experienced both frauds and genuine things that helped my body to recover.
I'm saying is that you cannot exclude the possibility of every single alternative and people who use it, if you tried what I did, than it would be a different story from you, which is understandable.

 

[Gravage]

So what about Cern? You're not paying for Cern to treat cancer for you. That example was irrelevant and off topic. That's a total cost- how much is the total cost of Cancer Research?

As to the rest of your post and the one above it:
I do not believe they work. Saying "Believe it or not" doesn't fool me one bit. The mistake you are making is that they have been shown, time and time and time again, to not work because the "science" of it is false.
You have no understanding of the concept of "demonstrated untrue." You think that it's all opinion- it is not. You think there can be a valid example in a field of deception and fakery- you have not learned to appreciate how adept some people are at fakery.

It is people like you that charlatans seek out. You're a mark, a victim, an 'easy.'

Because you lack critical thinking skills, objectivity and rational analysis. You do not bother to research, study or learn. You just chalk it all up to unverified opinions and pick and choose which ones you like.
You have no concept of the Weight of Evidence. You cannot differentiate between "well supported by evidence" and "Dogma." You believe there is no difference because you never bothered to investigate.
You do not understand how strong evidence can lead to a reasonable conclusion. It is not faith.

Well, that's fine for you.

But where do you get off promoting ignorance? Suggesting that other people must be as willfully ignorant as you have chosen to be? What possible benefit do you really believe your supposed "open Mindedness" can bring to society? While people follow your example, the fakers and charlatans reap the profits, politicians lie, deceive and point fingers in blame. It is people like You, Gravage, that makes the world harder on the rest of us. Because this group of people is too lazy to put effort on their brain. It is people like you that gives these people a market; get them elected into public office.

And again you're too close minded.
You obviously believe in science. That much is obvious, which is good, but I learned not to trust anything too much, always remain skeptical, it doesn't matter if we're talking about science or alternatives or something else. Personally, I've experienced both frauds and genuine things that helped my body to recover.
I'm saying is that you cannot exclude the possibility of every single alternative and people who use it, if you tried what I did, than it would be a different story from you, which is understandable.

 

[seagypsy]

Just leave me to live my life.

No one is stopping you. If you mean to say, stop criticizing my views, well you invite that when you post on a public forum. You want us to leave you alone about your views, don't share them. The best way to not have your opinions criticized is to keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[seagypsy]

You obviously believe in science. That much is obvious, which is good, but I learned not to trust anything too much, always remain skeptical, it doesn't matter if we're talking about science or alternatives or something else. Personally, I've experienced both frauds and genuine things that helped my body to recover.
I'm saying is that you cannot exclude the possibility of every single alternative and people who use it, if you tried what I did, than it would be a different story from you, which is understandable.

I have run the gammit on trying things. Unless you have shoved a gerbil up your ass or sucked face with a rattle snake, I'm sure there isn't anything you have tried that I haven't. Of course this is me giving you credit enough that you wouldn't do anything as stupid such as the first two suggestions. But then maybe I need to consider the alternative that maybe you are just that stupid.

 

[Gravage]

No one is stopping you. If you mean to say, stop criticizing my views, well you invite that when you post on a public forum. You want us to leave you alone about your views, don't share them. The best way to not have your opinions criticized is to keep your opinions to yourself.

Fair enough, I apologize for this. Personally I though that you were attacking me because I had different opinion, now it seems it is me who was attacking you, shame on my side.
I crossed the line.
I hope I won't be punished by you or Fraggle Rocker.
Anyway, I have nothing against your opinions, although although after this, you will not believe me.

 

[Neverfly]

Oh, get over it. We're all attacking eachothers views- that's the point.

 

[seagypsy]

And give me one reason why I shouldn't try homeopathy (or anything else) after nothing from classic medicine helps, you obviously want to die, if classic medicine doesn't help you have nothing to lose.
I don't understand such thinking.
You cannot trust science every single word it says, because this is multi-billion worth business, not science anymore. Scientists test what they want to test and that's it. You as the individual has the final word, not science.

Absolutely right. not science anymore. You are referring to a business. Not the actual science. I don't trust pharmaceutical companies. But that is not the same as not trusting science. Science is not a person with motives. Science is not a human being. Science is a tool. Like a hammer is a tool. A hammer has no intentions so it cannot defraud you. But it can be misused. It can be manipulated in a way it was not intended. It can be used to bash your head in rather than to place a nail into wood. Does this mean you do not trust the hammer? NO. It means you don't trust a crazy fucker with a hammer. I don't trust businessmen who dictate the actions of good intentioned scientists. Scientists often have to spend time working on something stupid in order to get the funding they need to work on something worthwhile. Sometimes non-scientists misrepresent true scientific findings or suppress those findings if they think it will hurt their business and they are in a position to do the suppressing. But that isn't the fault of science. That is the fault of douchebags who want to promote ignorance.

And yes, I have the final word on what I believe. I believe science. Not business men who own labs. The actual science.

 

[Gravage]

Absolutely right. not science anymore. You are referring to a business. Not the actual science. I don't trust pharmaceutical companies. But that is not the same as not trusting science. Science is not a person with motives. Science is not a human being. Science is a tool. Like a hammer is a tool. A hammer has no intentions so it cannot defraud you. But it can be misused. It can be manipulated in a way it was not intended. It can be used to bash your head in rather than to place a nail into wood. Does this mean you do not trust the hammer? NO. It means you don't trust a crazy fucker with a hammer. I don't trust businessmen who dictate the actions of good intentioned scientists. Scientists often have to spend time working on something stupid in order to get the funding they need to work on something worthwhile. Sometimes non-scientists misrepresent true scientific findings or suppress those findings if they think it will hurt their business and they are in a position to do the suppressing. But that isn't the fault of science. That is the fault of douchebags who want to promote ignorance.

And yes, I have the final word on what I believe. I believe science. Not business men who own labs. The actual science.

Agreed, pure science, not business science, however life experience is something I trust most.

 

[Gravage]

Oh, get over it. We're all attacking eachothers views- that's the point.

Yes, fair enough, I apologize if I was attacking you too, I didn't see it that way, my mistake.

 

[wynn]

Why are you so closed minded to the faith and beliefs of others? You seem to project the idea that anyone who does not believe as you is somehow substandard less intelligent human than you. While at the same time you can never really divulge what you believe. Do you think you are more deserving of the awesome wisdom that you hold and that no other human is worthy of knowing what you know? You seem to think you are the authority on what is spiritual and what is not. Are you god? Are you omnipotent? I don't think so. So how dare you make any claims of what spirituality actually is. Do you have empirical evidence to support your claims of what spirituality is? Do you have proof that these people cannot have a spiritual experience while on drugs?

Wow.

Don't use "seem" when you mean 'definitely'.

 

[gmilam]

??

How do you know that??


It appears the above is just your belief, nothing more.

I have no reason to "believe" otherwise. Do you?

 

[wynn]

I have no reason to "believe" otherwise. Do you?

An absence of reason to believe something isn't the same as certainty that said thing is not the case.

One might have no reason to believe in God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

 

[Mazulu]

Deleted

 

[Trooper]

If all is one, then there can also be no cooperation, no acceptance, and no love, since, if all is one, there are no individuals who could cooperate, accept each other, or love each other.

Exactly, that is why I said oxymoronic.

This is enough to satisfy my oxymoronic desire of being one with all.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If a spirituality is to be legitimate, it has to be arrived at by means that seem reasonable, actionable.

Indeed: evidence. Since spirituality (at least the varieties we most commonly encounter in the West, based on Abrahamic mythology) is an assertion that an irrational, invisible supernatural universe exists from which creatures and other forces emerge at random intervals to interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, thereby claiming to falsify the underlying premise of all science (that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior), spirituality is a textbook example of an extraordinary assertion. This invokes the Rule of Laplace: extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

This extraordinary evidence is the "reasonable, actionable" means you speak of. In fact, as I have often noted, supernaturalism is such a controversial topic which so many people hold so dearly, we actually waive the Rule of Laplace and ask for merely ordinary evidence. Yet none has been forthcoming. A scorch mark on a tortilla said to be the image of the Virgin Mary doesn't qualify, especially since we have no portraits of her against which to validate it.

So, spirituality has not been "arrived at by means that seem reasonable, actionable." It has been arrived at by, in effect, claiming that science is invalid while beliefs not based on evidence are valid.

And if a criticism of spirituality is to be legitimate, it has to be arrived at by means that seem reasonable, actionable.

The scientific method has been tested (often with great hostility) for half a millennium and has never come close to being falsified. It is humanity's shining achievement: a way of sorting reality from woo-woo. Its legitimacy is beyond reproach because it has been devised over 500 years of "reasonable, actionable" gathering of evidence, derivation of hypotheses, testing of assertions, and peer-reviewing of theories. This applies to the Rule of Laplace, one of its most important tools, as well as to its underlying premise about the natural universe as a closed system.

So a criticism of spirituality, based on the fact that the claims behind it cannot satisfy even a watered-down version of the Rule of Laplace, is about as legitimate as a criticism can get.

People (at least in a free society) are welcome to believe anything they want. The Rule of Laplace says we are not obliged to treat their beliefs with respect, but we are also not obliged to treat them with disrespect. Criticism is not disrespect!

But when that belief motivates them to do harm to individuals (such as Christian Scientists letting their children die of curable everyday illnesses rather than administering medication) or to civilization as a whole (such as requiring inclusion of a respectful treatment of creationism in an entire state's schoolbooks), at that point we have to step in and treat them the same way we would treat anyone else who causes harm. At the very least, these are the felons whose right to vote should be revoked!

If all is one, then there can also be no cooperation, no acceptance, and no love, since, if all is one, there are no individuals who could cooperate, accept eachother, or love each other.

I think we're getting lost in the rhetoric of the supernaturalists here. They (well some of them) say "all is one" yet they still believe we are individuals with free will.

Maybe it comes out better in a different language.

 

[gmilam]

An absence of reason to believe something isn't the same as certainty that said thing is not the case.

One might have no reason to believe in God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

By this remark I can only assume that you too have no reason to believe.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

An absence of reason to believe something isn't the same as certainty that said thing is not the case.

This is yet another reason why all scientists should be required to take a couple of classes in communication before being allowed to speak to anyone but another scientist.

I've posted this before, probably on the Linguistics board because it's about the definition of words.

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by a moderate amount of evidence. Not enough to be convincing, but enough to keep investigating.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. I use the language of the law because lawyers have to be precise in their wording whereas scientists, apparently, don't think they have to.

A theory is as far as anything can go. No matter how convincingly a theory has been proven, we never know for sure that tomorrow new evidence won't turn up that will falsify it. If we've done out work right, the probability of that occurring is so small that it's safe for people to presume that it's true. In fact, what's more likely than falsification is that it will be modified or enhanced by new evidence. This is how Newton's laws were impacted by Einstein's research. All of us laymen run our lives as though Newton's laws were still correct, because the errors Einstein identified are so small that we cannot possibly notice them, since we never travel much faster than one millionth of the speed of light.

So again, belief in God is not merely belief in a fanciful creature who may or may not exist. It's belief in a creature and his surrounding supernatural universe, the existence of which would prove science to be false. (Because this would constitute direct evidence that the natural universe is not a closed system.)

Science has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt many times over. The veracity of science is possibly the most secure belief we have. So to believe in God is to doubt something that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, it is an unreasonable doubt. People who believe in God are not being reasonable. The fact that many scientists believe in God is testament to the enormous power of cognitive dissonance in human life.

One might have no reason to believe in God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

No, the point here is that one has a very powerful reason to believe that God does not exist. To believe in God is to doubt science, and to doubt science is to be an unreasonable person.

Notice that scientists never set out to prove each other wrong. That's the telltale that indicates you're talking to a crackpot, not a scientist. Scientists just notice new phenomena and conduct experiments to figure out what causes them. Once in a blue moon it steps on somebody else's theory, but that was not the goal.

Einstein didn't rub his hands together, crack a diabolical smile, and in his best Dr. Frankenstein voice cackle, "I'm going to prove Newton wrong and be famous! Hehe haha hoho hoohoo!" He just started looking for the reason behind some strange phenomena he had observed, using instruments that hadn't been invented in Newton's time so Newton could never have seen them himself.

 

[seagypsy]

Wow.

Don't use "seem" when you mean 'definitely'.

Is that the best you got? Omg did I stump you ? I used the words that communicated what I meant. If you choose to believe that I mean something otherwise, I guess like anyone else, you are free to believe whatever you choose, with or without evidence to support it.