Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
461

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You make some good points, and you deserve an answer, but the main problem is the scientific method. That is belief in the scientific method to give you all the answer of life.

When I was young science was highly respected, and dealt with material issues only. Things like rocks, trees, and the physical parts life. Most scientists were theists at that time and religious issues were never researched. It was assumed man had an eternal soul and would live after death.

This began to change in the '60s, psychology was being elevated to science standing and more was heard on evolution. I saw the first “God is Dead” bumper stickers about that time. Studies of the brain changed “I think” into the “brain thinks.” Former behaviour problems – depression, alcoholism, etc, became diseases or gene related. Slowly science produced theories of mind, and made it a material study. This in outline explains the conflict between science and religion going on today. One of the latest “hits” was the announcement that science had proved prayer to be useless. I thought this was very bold of science and was met with anger from the religious people. My thoughts on this were if science acknowledges the placebo effect, then it should acknowledge prayer, since both operate on the same principle.

Now that we are up to date, I should point out that the scientific method is not infallible, it can not measure beyond the physical. It can not measure spiritual events. So here science says they don’t exist. Sad, that you know only one side of the discussion. You can not learn from people who think like you do.

There is room in this world for religion and science, they are only facets of life, there are many others. I will discuss more about enlightenment if anyone wants to here. I can not answer all the posts, but will try to answer those interested.
[/QUOTE]

I do not think Science thinks prayers are useless,if a person believes in Prayer he will be consoled with it,but one can pray to a carrot, a monkey or a stone, then if what was asked for happens one could say, stone etc. heard my prayer, if it did not happen then one could say stone etc. said no!

But you still haven’t answered my questions as to how you know it was God you experienced. 30 years ago I had many of what could be called religious experiences which in time led me to study more then I realized it came from inside of my self and what I had desired.
Monavis

462

[QUOTE=monavis]
I do not think Science thinks prayers are useless,if a person believes in Prayer he will be consoled with it,but one can pray to a carrot, a monkey or a stone, then if what was asked for happens one could say, stone etc. heard my prayer, if it did not happen then one could say stone etc. said no!
[/QUOTE]

Prayer is probably useless.

463

[QUOTE=monavis]
I do not think Science thinks prayers are useless,if a person believes in Prayer he will be consoled with it,but one can pray to a carrot, a monkey or a stone, then if what was asked for happens one could say, stone etc. heard my prayer, if it did not happen then one could say stone etc. said no!

But you still haven’t answered my questions as to how you know it was God you experienced. 30 years ago I had many of what could be called religious experiences which in time led me to study more then I realized it came from inside of my self and what I had desired.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]

What can I say? I knew it was God because of the unconditional love I felt and the connection with the Universe. I knew I had experienced it before, I guess I just knew.

When we look outward we see the physical world, and when we look inward we see the spiritual world. All spiritual experiences come from within because that is where your connection with the Oneness of God rests waiting to be activated. Of course, that would have been your desire. Who would not want to be connected to joy and peace?

I would love to hear about your experiences if you care to share them with me. Email me.

464

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Reality is what we make it to be. As Ab Lincoln said: “people are about as happy as they want to be.” Thoughts change reality, change your thoughts, change your reality.

Experiment:
Say to yourself every day, twice a day or more. “Everyday in everyway things are getting better and better.” This is known as the first affirmation used to change reality. It was given by a pharmacist, and it worked when the directions were followed.
[/QUOTE]
You appear to be intermixing “reality” with “your reality.”

Of course your thoughts change your reality. That is how people dupe themselves into believing all manner of things, and how the placebo effect works.

You may alter your mood. You may alter your ability to tolerate spicy foods. You may increase the likelihood that you are going to slice into the treeline, drive the pitch to the opposite field, or sink a free throw. You may change your perception of pain. You may increase the likelihood that you’ll see Jesus Christ in the pancake syrup or the smoke rising from the twin towers.

All of that is simply your brain exerting influence over your body.

But one’s thoughts do not change any external realities.

Again, do you think that your thoughts can alter external realities?

465

[QUOTE=Cuckoorex]
Prayer is probably useless.
[/QUOTE]

Just depends of who is doing the research.

466

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
You appear to be intermixing “reality” with “your reality.”

Of course your thoughts change your reality. That is how people dupe themselves into believing all manner of things, and how the placebo effect works.

You may alter your mood. You may alter your ability to tolerate spicy foods. You may increase the likelihood that you are going to slice into the treeline, drive the pitch to the opposite field, or sink a free throw. You may change your perception of pain. You may increase the likelihood that you’ll see Jesus Christ in the pancake syrup or the smoke rising from the twin towers.

All of that is simply your brain exerting influence over your body.

But one’s thoughts do not change any external realities.

Again, do you think that your thoughts can alter external realities?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, most definitely, thoughts can alter external realities. Why, because there is no difference between external and internal realities. If you alter your external reality it automatically alters your internal reality and vice versa.

467

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, most definitely, thoughts can alter external realities. Why, because there is no difference between external and internal realities. If you alter your external reality it automatically alters your internal reality and vice versa.
[/QUOTE]
Then please alter reality so that your assertion makes any sense whatsoever to me. I’ll be waiting right here.

468

The problem with all prayer tests is since there is no way to detect the presence of a prayer, who is doing it, where it comes from, or if it is properly addressed, the outcome cannot be reliably credited to specific factors beyond chance.

Consider, for example, any of the tests linked to in this thread. Let’s presume that I was not a test subject, but knew when one was in progress, and I prayed that the others’ prayers would have no effect. Then, if no effect was observed when all the number were in, what was the cause? Did my prayer override all the others, or were they all ignored?

Or do some prayers have more “punch” than others? Does time of praying (time of day as well as length of prayer) have any significance? How about distance? Sincerity? Age of petitioner? Sex?

In other words, how can you control for ALL factors in a test? If prayer really works as some believe, there is no way to prevent some unknown party, somewhere in the world, from interferring with the test in an undetectable manner and thereby rendering it useless.

Until we can invent a prayer meter to objectively determine, as a minimum, when a prayer is being performed, the whole exercise is nothing more than a paranormal fantasy.

469

[QUOTE=Musicat]
The problem with all prayer tests is since there is no way to detect the presence of a prayer, who is doing it, where it comes from, or if it is properly addressed, the outcome cannot be reliably credited to specific factors beyond chance.

Consider, for example, any of the tests linked to in this thread. Let’s presume that I was not a test subject, but knew when one was in progress, and I prayed that the others’ prayers would have no effect. Then, if no effect was observed when all the number were in, what was the cause? Did my prayer override all the others, or were they all ignored?

Or do some prayers have more “punch” than others? Does time of praying (time of day as well as length of prayer) have any significance? How about distance? Sincerity? Age of petitioner? Sex?

In other words, how can you control for ALL factors in a test? If prayer really works as some believe, there is no way to prevent some unknown party, somewhere in the world, from interferring with the test in an undetectable manner and thereby rendering it useless.

Until we can invent a prayer meter to objectively determine, as a minimum, when a prayer is being performed, the whole exercise is nothing more than a paranormal fantasy.
[/QUOTE]

I say Amen to that.

470

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I say Amen to that.
[/QUOTE]
So I can pray for bad things to happen? To whom am I praying to do that? Does God grant ill-wishes, or is it Satan? How can my one prayer for bad things to happen override one prayer for good things to happen? Is God biased to grant ill-wishes over good? How are conflicting prayers weighted?

This is all quite ludicrous.

471

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
So I can pray for bad things to happen? To whom am I praying to do that? Does God grant ill-wishes, or is it Satan? How can my one prayer for bad things to happen override one prayer for good things to happen? Is God biased to grant ill-wishes over good? How are conflicting prayers weighted?

This is all quite ludicrous.
[/QUOTE]

And who’s to say what “good” or “bad” are? One person may think that abortion is a good thing, another may think it’s bad. Which prayer will god answer?

472

lekatt, why haven’t you changed reality yet? I don’t have all day.

If you don’t do it soon, I’m going to have to assume that your thoughts can’t change reality. We’ll have to then figure out excuses why your thoughts couldn’t change reality. Perhaps the tried and true “because I really didn’t believe.” Or maybe you just haven’t wanted to change reality.

Or perhaps a person’s thoughts really cannot change external realities.

473

I was hoping we could get lekatt to give us tails. They’d be useful.

474

I was hoping he’d change my financial reality. Wish me a winning lotto ticket!

475

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I see you believe that the brain, as well as the eyes and ears, can continue to function while the body is in a state of clinical death and the blood removed from the brain for surgery purposes. Pam said she watched the operation from a position at the surgeons shoulder. So the brain, eyes, and ears would have to be mobile while the body was clinically dead if your conclusion is to be believed.
[/quote]

Not at all: she simply would have had to experience things this way internally. It’s well documented that things like fear from being half conscious/half sedated, let along having a bone saw used on your head at the time, can make people disassociate from themselves.

I gave you a bunch of specific reasons why the story is not credible evidence, and you come back with a bunch of vague appeals to what some doctors believed.

Again, let’s repeat this so other people here get it:

When Pam Reynolds supposedly “left” her body, she was NOT dead. She was under anesthesia, and it is perfectly possible that she wasn’t being given enough to keep her fully sedated (she would have also been under heavy painkillers as well). If the operation had been called off at this point without telling her, Pam Reynolds would have STILL reported having died and seen the operating room, perhaps even seen loved ones and so on. All of this with nothing more than going in and out of anesthesia.

This is because, as lekatt somehow also forgot to mention, her OBE demonstrably begins HOURS before the time her brain supposedly is made to cease to function entirely (though as I’ve already pointed out, most of the cells in her brain would have continued to function even during that period), and that particular period lasts all of 5minutes out of about an hour of cardiac arrest and blood cooling. Furthermore, no one has credibly been able to show that she saw or heard anything during those five minutes, or even for sure during the hour.

476

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
lekatt, why haven’t you changed reality yet? I don’t have all day.

If you don’t do it soon, I’m going to have to assume that your thoughts can’t change reality. We’ll have to then figure out excuses why your thoughts couldn’t change reality. Perhaps the tried and true “because I really didn’t believe.” Or maybe you just haven’t wanted to change reality.

Or perhaps a person’s thoughts really cannot change external realities.
[/QUOTE]

Feel free to believe whatever you wish, everyone does.

477

[QUOTE=Apos]
Not at all: she simply would have had to experience things this way internally. It’s well documented that things like fear from being half conscious/half sedated, let along having a bone saw used on your head at the time, can make people disassociate from themselves.

I gave you a bunch of specific reasons why the story is not credible evidence, and you come back with a bunch of vague appeals to what some doctors believed.

Again, let’s repeat this so other people here get it:

When Pam Reynolds supposedly “left” her body, she was NOT dead. She was under anesthesia, and it is perfectly possible that she wasn’t being given enough to keep her fully sedated (she would have also been under heavy painkillers as well). If the operation had been called off at this point without telling her, Pam Reynolds would have STILL reported having died and seen the operating room, perhaps even seen loved ones and so on. All of this with nothing more than going in and out of anesthesia.

This is because, as lekatt somehow also forgot to mention, her OBE demonstrably begins HOURS before the time her brain supposedly is made to cease to function entirely (though as I’ve already pointed out, most of the cells in her brain would have continued to function even during that period), and that particular period lasts all of 5minutes out of about an hour of cardiac arrest and blood cooling. Furthermore, no one has credibly been able to show that she saw or heard anything during those five minutes, or even for sure during the hour.
[/QUOTE]

The information you have given on Pam Reynolds surgery is totally false. I suggest you read the real account.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

I can understand why you have trouble understanding, you have the wrong information.

478

There must be a point at which it is acceptable to call some religious beliefs delusional.

479

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Just depends of who is doing the research.

[/QUOTE]

The Master speaks.

480

[QUOTE=lekatt]
The information you have given on Pam Reynolds surgery is totally false. I suggest you read the real account.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

I can understand why you have trouble understanding, you have the wrong information.
[/QUOTE]

No, the page you link to has the wrong information. It is a misrepresentation of the timeline and account given in Sabom’s book, which is itself rather misleading, but still states a set of events that cannot be reconciled with the claims made in your linked article.

The comment Reynolds reports about hearing someone say that her veins and arteries being small occurred during her NDE, but before they began to cool her blood and induce her arrest. So her NDE began before she was dead: before she was even induced to arrest. There is no way around this. The authors of your article are just flat out wrong when they say otherwise. Not only was Reynolds not dead when her NDE began, but as she was put into arrest, the anesthesia was actually cut off (since hypothermia would eventually be enough to keep her under, and she would have no circulation soon anyway), meaning that there is even more reason to think she might have been conscious to some degree.

I don’t have trouble understanding: I have trouble with people who willfully mislead others in order to sell their pet theories.