The Big Religion/God Debate

[Cueshark]

PS: Anyway Cue, I really wish you could live such a thing.
I'm sure you wouldn't say such things so easly anymore.

Ok.  Humans have got to stop treating an experience like evidence of reality.

Experience and feelings are extremely subjective.  There is no way to use experiences to conclude anything about the world and reality.

All we do is use our senses to navigate around our environment.  Our senses get things wrong all the time.

Why are people so arrogant to think that they can experience what they think is telepathy and conclude that telepathy therefore exists!?

[Abnaxus]

When did I say such thing ?
From this quote you have been able to conclude so much thing ? Dude...

It's just an experience, but seeing it from your own eyes is much more different.
Would you just deny it happenned ? That's what you seem to mean.

Why are people so arrogant to think that they can experience what they think is telepathy and conclude that telepathy therefore exists!?

Why are people so arrogant to think telepathy doesn't exist while they've never lived such a thing ?

See ? I can say the same.
You should agree it's an unknown subject (source me if I'm wrong), and many people lived so.
It's not cause we don't have a scientific proof YET, that it's totally false.

I'm not saying telepathy exists. I'm just saying until someone find a thumor in my brain, I'll believe what I saw was real.

[Cueshark]

When did I say such thing ?
From this quote you have been able to conclude so much thing ? Dude...

It's just an experience, but seeing it from your own eyes is much more different.
Would you just deny it happenned ? That's what you seem to mean.

You're implying that I would believe in the impossible / supernatural if I experienced something which I couldn't immediately explain.

[Abnaxus]

You're implying that I would believe in the impossible / supernatural if I experienced something which I couldn't immediately explain.

Nop, I implyed that you wouldn't deny it so easly, that's pretty different.

Example: I really think god doesn't exist, just cause it's a bag of bullshits imo, etc etc..
But if one day, something related to god comes in front of me, I'd be totally wordless.

PS: I've add some things in my last post.

[DarkOne]

You keep saying you don't claim to say you know what it's about and you don't know whether the things you experienced are real.
But then, you're also painting your view of the world, based on those experiences. Your view of the world depends on the experiences being real.

Basically, Cueshark is right in his response or you don't stand behind your own view point. The latter is weird to me. Either you have an opinion on something or you don't - if you don't have an opinion, then don't post an opinion you don't stand behind.

[Abnaxus]

And what if I have 2 contrary opinions on the same thing ? I told you, I don't know if it was real or if I'm insane.
Since then, I have 2 points of view. And it's kinda hard to live with (what can you trust in ?).

I tend to believe it was real, but this is just a wish.

And on another side, some things must have been real since I wasn't the only one involved.

I really don't know what to think of it. So I dig both points. And the "non real" one was stagnating until this "epilepsy" proposition.

Meanwhile, it doesn't mean I can't argue.

[Aerox]

So we have Free trolling or being very high on his new drugs and the french guy playing devil's advocate...

good thing there's still a shark in the pool

[Ramone]

There's a well known border line between facts and assumptions. And that border line sets the difference between knowing something and supposing something, between common sense and delusion.. It's simple as that, there's Cue and D1 on the one side of the border, talking from scientific point of view about facts, while on the other side of the border there's Free and Abnaxus who's talking about their beliefs based on their personal experiences, in other words speculates.

I wonder that Doc1 haven't mention the term "psychosis" already to you Abnaxus. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock or insult you, but that's like the default diagnoses for your case. Psychosis means that a person has trouble telling what is real and what isn't, as you do.

Hallucinations are very realistic to the people that have experience them and that's why they can't figure out if they're real or not. Here's a quote from the dictionary: "Hallucinations are false or distorted sensory experiences that appear to be real perceptions. These sensory impressions are generated by the mind rather than by any external stimuli, and may be seen, heard, felt, and even smelled or tasted."

Your examples are not unique and lonely, there's thousands and thousands of people that have experienced this or that. But you have to be aware that it is only your subjective trip, it all comes from your personal experience, from your own brain. And that cannot be real for anyone except for you until there's proofs and facts. Now, there's been thousands and thousands of subjective telepathy experiences, don't you think it's a bit strange that no one ever got to prove any? After so many years of testing with all the modern scientific methods? Same as in Free's example, there's thousands of people that have used this ayahuasca, how come that no one have a single evidence or proof about "remote viewing"? Doesn't that explain things by itself?

And if we talk about possibilities, yes, there's endless possibilities philosophically speaking, but that has nothing to do with the reality. If it comes to philosophy, it's possible that we're all in matrix, that there's a life after death, that the aliens rules the world, etc... but what are we talking about? Or I should better ask, what are you talking about?   

[DarkOne]

I wonder that Doc1 haven't mention the term "psychosis" already to you Abnaxus.

because psychosis is a diagnosis that shouldn't be thrown around like that, methinks. People with textbook psychosis have no doubt that what they saw, heard or felt actually happened to them and they usually display a high degree or paranoia in the process.

And what if I have 2 contrary opinions on the same thing ? I told you, I don't know if it was real or if I'm insane.
Since then, I have 2 points of view. And it's kinda hard to live with (what can you trust in ?).

don't you think you should do anything it takes to find out for yourself which of the two is true? I won't be able to convince here which of the two, so I'm not going to try to do that.
Personally, I wouldn't accept that I don't know if I were you and I'd get someone impartial to help me find out.

Meanwhile, it doesn't mean I can't argue.

Well, yes, it does You can't argue if you have no stand point. You can only learn if you don't know.

[Cueshark]

I hope that in the future people will appreciate just how much they can be tricked and fooled by themselves.  People overestimate how capable they are at accurately remembering past events and they underestimate how the details of a memory can change over time.

Incorrect and manipulated details can also be shared between individuals causing the memory to become severely warped from it's original state.  I can support this with peer reviewed studies if you would like some proper persuading on the fallibility of human memory.

Don't forget, this shit doesn't happen to just people in studies.  It happens to all of us.  You as well Free.

Also, if you feel a certain way toward something or hold a certain belief then you are more likely to focus in on anything which supports or confirms it.  Likewise you are more likely to ignore, forget and castaway things which go against your beliefs and don't add up to your pre-existing view of the world.

During Free's scientific experiment with his girlfriend, asking her to move something in the room while he had his hands over his eyes, was Free completely 100% unbiased and carrying out a decently controlled experiment?  Did his girlfriend not give a flying f@#! if he succeeded or not, or did she perhaps (as I might expect) have a personal desire for him to succeed?  If she was even slightly more in favour of him succeeding then who knows what she gave away without realising.  Perhaps she moved an object which made a distinctive noise, also I imagine Free could have easily heard his girlfriend move around in the room and figured out roughly where she was, that could really help him make a more educated guess at what she had moved.

Unfortunately all these details are now lost, unless the experiment was filmed or documented somehow.  Free will remember the experiment using his brain which unfortunately is known to make big errors of recalling past events.

Seeing as you are clearly biased to believe in the supernatural it makes perfect sense to me how this misunderstanding occurred.  

I wonder if I could influence you to at least consider discounting that whole experiment as probably a load of bollocks.

[Free]

WOAH

Maybe I'll find the value to respond here later but obviously this thread ain't going nowhere productive anymore. Let's just agree to disagree.

Just because science (scientist Thomas Campbell has studied this kind of area a lot so anyone interested should read My Big TOE, link is on earlier posts) hasn't figured out YET the mechanics behind supernatural events doesn't mean they don't have the possibility of existing.

If you go back in time and start explaining to cavemans what fire is, they'd probably rock you to death. Earth was once flat etc. etc.

[HHC]

Why do you guys go through such lengths to disprove Free's and Abnaxus' claims?

The men are entitled to their opinion. And I'm fairly sure they are gonna stick to it, no matter what you say.

They don't need to be persuaded to view the world in a different light. Not everyone has to believe what you think, even if you feel you are 100% correct, let it be. Noone's forcing you to listen.. I kinda get the feeling you guys are just 'exorcising' your own doubts and frustrations.

[Cueshark]

WOAH

Maybe I'll find the value to respond here later but obviously this thread ain't going nowhere productive anymore. Let's just agree to disagree.

Just because science (scientist Thomas Campbell has studied this kind of area a lot so anyone interested should read My Big TOE, link is on earlier posts) hasn't figured out YET the mechanics behind supernatural events doesn't mean they don't have the possibility of existing.

If you go back in time and start explaining to cavemans what fire is, they'd probably rock you to death. Earth was once flat etc. etc.

NO FREE.

Science hasn't even established that there are any supernatural events to even explain.

Which part of my post did you disagree with and why?

[Cueshark]

Why do you guys go through such lengths to disprove Free's and Abnaxus' claims?

The men are entitled to their opinion. And I'm fairly sure they are gonna stick to it, no matter what you say.

They don't need to be persuaded to view the world in a different light. Not everyone has to believe what you think, even if you feel you are 100% correct, let it be. Noone's forcing you to listen.. I kinda get the feeling you guys are just 'exorcising' your own doubts and frustrations.

Eh?  Why not HHC?

If someone is wrong then I will try and argue that point.  Same as I hope others do to me.

Do you think there is something offensive about being shown the truth?  Even if it goes against cherished beliefs then it's still more important to uphold the truth.

[Free]

Take a look at My Big TOE and then tell me science haven't looked into subjects like these.