God experience can change atheists

[ecco]

Certainly by now, there should be a lot of rich psychics...

Unfortunately, there are quite a few rich people calling themselves "psychics".

They are not rich because they have true abilities to see the future or communicate with the dead. They are rich because there is a vast number of people who desperately want to believe in woo.

 

[ecco]

I did provide evidence. I ask anyone with half a brain to examine what I said in #326 vs #338(the quote from Hyman). They may also compare my general attitude of psi in this thread with Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: comment on Storm et al. (2010). - PubMed - NCBI (if they have access). Considering how many times you've been corrected in this thread, I don't expect you to comprehend this, let alone read it. However, anyone else who's observing this thread can.

If you want an observer with half a brain to comment, I'll volunteer.

I can cut and paste from the article you linked:

An experiment, having adequate power and that meets these criteria, has already been conducted and failed to produce evidence for psi. Parapsychology will achieve scientific acceptability only when it provides a positive theory with evidence based on independently replicable evidence. This is something it has yet to achieve after more than a century of trying.
​

Even with just half a brain, I can see that the article (in essence) says "There ain't nuttin to all this PSI nonsense!" That should be crystal clear to anyone with a whole brain.

 

[charlie sc]

Unfortunately, there are quite a few rich people calling themselves "psychics".

They are not rich because they have true abilities to see the future or communicate with the dead. They are rich because there is a vast number of people who desperately want to believe in woo.

Those psychic cold readers are real scum. It shocks me how people fall for it.

Is there someone in the crowd that knows a john or a Jessica? Anyone? No, ok what about a Rachiel or Mark? He’s kinda short, kind medium height. Oh you do! It was a sudden death and he loved you. Great

Where’s the ****ing treasure he buried?

 

[ecco]

I thought it fit to share a thought of Huxley here.

From pure sensation to the intuition of beauty, from pleasure and pain to love and the mystical ecstasy and death ...
After silence that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.

Aldous Huxley
Music at Night and Other Essays​

I thought it fit to share a thought of Osbourne here.

My life was empty forever on a down
Until you took me showed me around
My life is free now, my life is clear
I love you sweet leaf - though you can't hear

Ozzy Osbourne
Sweet Leaf

 

[charlie sc]

If you want an observer with half a brain to comment, I'll volunteer.

I can cut and paste from the article you linked:

An experiment, having adequate power and that meets these criteria, has already been conducted and failed to produce evidence for psi. Parapsychology will achieve scientific acceptability only when it provides a positive theory with evidence based on independently replicable evidence. This is something it has yet to achieve after more than a century of trying.
​

Even with just half a brain, I can see that the article (in essence) says "There ain't nuttin to all this PSI nonsense!" That should be crystal clear to anyone with a whole brain.

I accept your observation and conclusion

 

[joe1776]

Until such time where researching something equates to evidence for something, the logical default position will always be skepticism.

Absolutely! However, genuine skepticism is unbiased. Calling yourself a skeptic on this question doesn't cut it unless you demonstrate that your doubt is unbiased. Your statements clearly demonstrate bias.

Unfortunately, cut copying and pasting a hundred research studies into the paranormal and the supernatural, does not equate to conclusive, falsifiable, and reproducible evidence. ...

The scientists who did those studies would disagree. Are you qualified to claim that those scientists are wrong -- and to do it without examining the evidence? Of course not. Your opinion demonstrates bias not skepticism.

Doesn't it seem odd that since the dawn of mankind, no one has clearly demonstrated any psychic, paranormal, or supernatural abilities?

You mean In your biased judgment scientists have not demonstrated any paranormal ability? And you'd like me to explain that?

Maybe you can point to just ONE conclusive scientific study, that clearly demonstrates and explains the existence of the paranormal and the supernatural? Just one would do it.

I'm no more qualified to answer that question than you are to judge that all those studies I listed failed to demonstrate psi. I know as a fact that precognition and telepathy are possible from one extraordinary experience with each. So, I know that some of the ton of anecdotal reports on them are true but I can't tell which are true and which are false.

Moreover, asking for a study that would change biased minds is most likely impossible. Only a paranormal experience of their very own would do that. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer reported that his skepticism was "shaken to its core" by a personal experience. And the experience he described could be explained as a rare coincidence and not a genuine paranormal event.

So what is your best example(since you've read all the studies you've posted), of conclusive falsifiable, and irrefutable evidence for the existence of the paranormal and the supernatural?

I haven't read any of those studies. I posted them because the debate here has centered on the stupid claim of one of your cohorts that there is no evidence for the paranormal while making false analogies to beliefs like Santa Claus, etc. I've showed that there is evidence and while all of it is contested by mainstream scientists, there's plenty of it. My evidence would have closed a formal debate. But your side is too stubborn to admit defeat in this informal debate. Therefore, I'm done with it.

.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Unfortunately, there are quite a few rich people calling themselves "psychics".

They are not rich because they have true abilities to see the future or communicate with the dead. They are rich because there is a vast number of people who desperately want to believe in woo.

Obviously, these apathetic opportunists are not the true psychics that I was referring to. A true psychic would be a gazillionaire by now, just by using his/her psychic abilities. How much do you think it would be worth, to see into the future, predict the future, or read minds? Priceless. As long as people fear death, they will believe in a life after death. As long as they believe in a life after death, they will believe in a God(s). As long as they believe in God(s), then any supernatural belief will seem rational and intuitive.

My personal view is that the existence of a God would be impossible in our 4D Universe, because it would violate the laws of physics. Since no medium(quantum or classical) exists to support a paranormal or supernatural causality, then no physical evidence can support or explain their effects. This what we expect to see, and exactly what we do see.

I'm afraid that our senses are not self-stimulating, and do not extend past our own subjective perspective of reality. No matter how much we may wish it to be so, it just ain't.

 

[ecco]

Obviously, these apathetic opportunists are not the true psychics that I was referring to. A true psychic would be a gazillionaire by now, just by using his/her psychic abilities.

Yep. Thereby pretty much proving that there are no "true psychics".

How much do you think it would be worth, to see into the future, predict the future, or read minds? Priceless. As long as people fear death, they will believe in a life after death. As long as they believe in a life after death, they will believe in a God(s). As long as they believe in God(s), then any supernatural belief will seem rational and intuitive.

Therein, I believe, lies the basis for all supernatural beliefs. Kids are taught, from before they can walk, to believe in unseen supernatural nonsense.

My personal view is that the existence of a God would be impossible in our 4D Universe, because it would violate the laws of physics. Since no medium(quantum or classical) exists to support a paranormal or supernatural causality, then no physical evidence can support or explain their effects. This what we expect to see, and exactly what we do see.

I'm afraid that our senses are not self-stimulating, and do not extend past our own subjective perspective of reality. No matter how much we may wish it to be so, it just ain't.

Two hallelujahs and an Amen to all that.

 

[ecco]

I haven't read any of those studies.

Thank you for the candid admission. That's what got you in trouble in the first place - posting stuff that you hadn't bothered to read.

I posted them because the debate here has centered on the stupid claim of one of your cohorts that there is no evidence for the paranormal while making false analogies to beliefs like Santa Claus, etc.

I guess I might be the cohort you are referring to. Although I doubt I would have made an analogy to Santa. But it's been a long thread, so maybe.

In any event, you still haven't posted any evidence for the paranormal, so I guess my claim is not so stupid.

I've showed that there is evidence and while all of it is contested by mainstream scientists, there's plenty of it.

Your "evidence" is no better than your anecdotal comments about your own experiences.

My evidence would have closed a formal debate.

INDEED!
If someone like you walked into a formal debate between Creationists and Evolutionists, plopped down links to AIG and Creation.com and said - "See, there is the evidence for Creationism". That might indeed have closed the formal debate because everyone would have walked out.

More realistically, it would have closed the formal debate because you would have been thrown out by people on both sides of the argument.

But your side is too stubborn to admit defeat in this informal debate.

Aw. If it really means that much to you, I'll admit that you won the debate (against me) by posting an article that refuted your own claims and that you further solidified your victory by posting three pages of links to articles that you also did not read and which, based on your history of posting, would not support your argument.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Absolutely! However, genuine skepticism is unbiased. Calling yourself a skeptic on this question doesn't cut it unless you demonstrate that your doubt is unbiased. Your statements clearly demonstrate bias.

The scientists who did those studies would disagree. Are you qualified to claim that those scientists are wrong -- and to do it without examining the evidence? Of course not. Your opinion demonstrates bias not skepticism.

You mean In your biased judgment scientists have not demonstrated any paranormal ability? And you'd like me to explain that?

I'm no more qualified to answer that question than you are to judge that all those studies I listed failed to demonstrate psi. I know as a fact that precognition and telepathy are possible from one extraordinary experience with each. So, I know that some of the ton of anecdotal reports on them are true but I can't tell which are true and which are false.

Moreover, asking for a study that would change biased minds is most likely impossible. Only a paranormal experience of their very own would do that. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer reported that his skepticism was "shaken to its core" by a personal experience. And the experience he described could be explained as a rare coincidence and not a genuine paranormal event.

I haven't read any of those studies. I posted them because the debate here has centered on the stupid claim of one of your cohorts that there is no evidence for the paranormal while making false analogies to beliefs like Santa Claus, etc. I've showed that there is evidence and while all of it is contested by mainstream scientists, there's plenty of it. My evidence would have closed a formal debate. But your side is too stubborn to admit defeat in this informal debate. Therefore, I'm done with it.

.

I'm afraid that you don't get to set preconditions regarding how skepticism is defined. I am a true skeptic on all matters that involve superstitions, the paranormal, and the supernatural. A "true" skeptic would doubt the truth or value of everything. In this sense, I am not a true skeptic. In fact, no one can be a genuine or unbiased skeptic. Since there is no such thing as an unbiased mind, there cannot be an unbiased skeptic. You are trying to use absolutes(unbiased and genuine) to set a precondition that can never be reached. How does one demonstrate that their doubts are unbiased, and what is its relevance? This is not only a fallacy, but is also intellectually dishonest. The fact still remains that because 100's of studies are being done, does not equate to 100's of studies as being true.

As long as we both have the same use of our mental and sensory faculties, we are certainly qualified to determine if the studies have demonstrated the existence of psi or not. If someone could predict the lotto numbers 10 times in a row, then he/she is psychic. If someone could tell me what 10 people are thinking in real time, then he/she is a telepath. If someone could lift all the cars on my block, using only their mind, and place them onto the next block, then he/she is a telekinetic. If someone could visit 10 different children's hospitals, and cure half of the children with terminal illnesses, then he/she is a psychic healer. All under scientifically controlled conditions. Of course, we never see these things, do we? Name just one scientific Theory that we can't falsify or clearly demonstrate?

Since you have not read any of the studies you have posted, then how do you know that they represent evidence supporting your claims? Some of the studies I am very familiar with, and some I have never heard of. Unless your formal debating skills involves cub scouts, the amount of studies does not constitute evidence. At best the results have all been inconclusive(just above chance), and at worst, a total waste of a valuable grant. There are 100's or 1000's of studies on alien abductions and ghosts. Does this mean that aliens and ghosts also exist?

I've showed that there is evidence and while all of it is contested by mainstream scientists, there's plenty of it. My evidence would have closed a formal debate. But your side is too stubborn to admit defeat in this informal debate. Therefore, I'm done with it.

Unfortunately, once conclusive, objective, falsifiable, observable, and reproducible evidence is requested, all believers in extraordinary phenomena start looking for the intellectual exit signs. One might even claim that the "huff and poof" preceeding your "swan song" was a psychic prediction.

 

[Neutral Name]

I totally agree. I was an atheist until I had many spiritual things happen. At one point, it was completely mind blowing. How could that have happened?!!! But I finally came to believe that there is a God acting in this world and I'm very happy with that fact.

 

[wandering peacefully]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

Shouldn't the fact that mystical experiences can be brought on with drugs as well as meditation or spontaneously, give some indication that they originate within the brain and not from some cosmic source?

 

[Vinayaka]

Shouldn't the fact that mystical experiences can be brought on with drugs as well as meditation or spontaneously, give some indication that they originate within the brain and not from some cosmic source?

Some people would see it as one and the same. In mystic Hinduism the 7 ancient rishis also have a home in the sahasrara chakra of all soul bodies, although generally the sahasrara corresponds to the pineal gland. If that same 'cosmic source' is permeating the brain, then although it may appear to be external, it can also be simultaneously internal, or actually internal. The yogi worships God both on the inside, and on the outside.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Some people would see it as one and the same. In mystic Hinduism the 7 ancient rishis also have a home in the sahasrara chakra of all soul bodies, although generally the sahasrara corresponds to the pineal gland. If that same 'cosmic source' is permeating the brain, then although it may appear to be external, it can also be simultaneously internal, or actually internal. The yogi worships God both on the inside, and on the outside.

But why the need to call any of it god or cosmic? Why the need to take an appreciation for all that is in our lives and all we are as ourselves, and create an external cause?

I understand wanting to believe there is something greater than ourselves (which there is in the form of altruistic humanism). But why turn that understanding into a space originating from someplace outside of our own selves and existence? Why not give credit to our own knowledge and attempts at wisdom instead of assuming an unknown omni or cosmic source?

 

[Vinayaka]

But why the need to call any of it god or cosmic? Why the need to take an appreciation for all that is in our lives and all we are as ourselves, and create an external cause?

I understand wanting to believe there is something greater than ourselves (which there is in the form of altruistic humanism). But why turn that understanding into a space originating from someplace outside of our own selves and existence? Why not give credit to our own knowledge and attempts at wisdom instead of assuming an unknown omni or cosmic source?

I see no compulsion to do either. Most certainly I don't see it as originating outside of ourselves. That's why Sanatana Dharma is viewed as indestructible. The knowledge is latent within everyone, and just waiting to be found and used.

 

[Bird123]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

A direct encounter with God will change anyone's life whether they are atheist or not. Since Believing has never ever been important to God, I do not see label changing as meaning very much at all.

Everybody wants to rule the world. People see what they want to see. How many really see what God is showing? Further, God works on multiple levels with multiple views. A true encounter might take a person weeks to really see what all was said. With our limited intellect, how much was missed entirely?

Do you see God as God is or who you want God to be? Beliefs can wander a person away from the Real Truth.

Atheists serve a purpose you might not even be aware of. Do you really want to get rid of them?

 

[Neutral Name]

Shouldn't the fact that mystical experiences can be brought on with drugs as well as meditation or spontaneously, give some indication that they originate within the brain and not from some cosmic source?

What about when physical situations change according to our needs or wishes. And if they do that often, then one might believe that there is something acting in the physical world.

 

[atanu]

Atheists serve a purpose you might not even be aware of. Do you really want to get rid of them?

Who am I?

 

[Bird123]

Who am I?

You are a Child of God.

 

[wandering peacefully]

What about when physical situations change according to our needs or wishes. And if they do that often, then one might believe that there is something acting in the physical world.

I'm not sure what you mean by physical situations changing. If you mean like getting a front row parking spot or finding a $5 bill on the ground then it is not unusual. When someone is always looking for "signs" or wishing for something to happen, then they tend to notice more when a favorable incident happens. How many situations have you wished would change and they didn't? And I do speak from experience. I've had many, many what would be called mystical experiences or coincidences depending on how I think about them. Before while still agnostic I actually believed they could be or were originating from an outside source. But eventually came to realize that I was always looking for experiences to happen. So when they did, I had some evidence of something more than the natural universe. Something was happening that could not be explained. But now when they happen I realize they are really just coincidences or I caused them to happen because of my thinking and my actions taken to invoke an experience or change in my situation.