Why is it spirituality vs skepticism?

[Aquila King]

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Of course.  Charlatans, fakes, phonies and all such things are a fact.  But you just said that you don't deny that other forms of healings exist out there, and that is the entirety of my point.  It only takes one to be real to dismiss the notion that all are fake. 

And no one needs to prove it for it to be real - anymore than the square root of two needs to be proven to be real.  It exists whether people believe it or not, or could give a rip less about it.  

In the early 1900's, Doctors were able to prescribe patients anything they wanted. This freedom was exploited however by an incredibly large quantity of 'doctors' that would sell all sorts of 'miracle medicines' that were later revealed to be either totally ineffective, or sometimes even incredibly harmful. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people who got sicker and even died as a result of greedy businessmen passing themselves off as doctors, selling just a bunch of totally random stuff they mixed together and called 'medicine'. And this was TOTALLY LEGAL.

That is until, the FDA stepped in to enforce strict drug laws, that prevented these kinds of fakes from killing people. It was strict drug regulations that prevented deaths, and saved lives.

You're right, I'm not denying the existence of spiritual healing. What I'm saying is that it is an unregulated practice that is undergoing the same pitfalls the drug industry started off with. Otherwise we're just gonna keep allowing charlatans to profit from killing people.

[back to earth]

Oh... its not only medical  charlatans that do that !

I threw my stats prescription in  bin .  It didn't 'feel right'  .... just as well !

http://www.anh-usa.org/the-grave-dangers-of-statin-drugs-and-the-surprising-benefits-of-cholesterol/

 

I chucked em as they are to reduce cholesterol  ... but I checked my blood results, a few times and my cholesterol is in normal range .

Doctor freaked of course .   But says I am doing fine a year later ... when I am still supposed to be on them .

***  any medical 'recklessness' on my part is not a recommendation for others ***

[Guyver]

32 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Show me the evidence.

I just gave you evidence and you didn't say poo-diddley about it.  I just demonstrated to you quite convincingly that extremely unlikely events do in fact occur.  Then, you just go back to what you've been saying all along.  Placebo effect...blah blah blah.  Placebo effect no doubt accounts for SOME explanations. 

Sigh.  

 

[Guyver]

20 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

In the early 1900's, Doctors were able to prescribe patients anything they wanted. This freedom was exploited however by an incredibly large quantity of 'doctors' that would sell all sorts of 'miracle medicines' that were later revealed to be either totally ineffective, or sometimes even incredibly harmful. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people who got sicker and even died as a result of greedy businessmen passing themselves off as doctors, selling just a bunch of totally random stuff they mixed together and called 'medicine'. And this was TOTALLY LEGAL.

That is until, the FDA stepped in to enforce strict drug laws, that prevented these kinds of fakes from killing people. It was strict drug regulations that prevented deaths, and saved lives.

You're right, I'm not denying the existence of spiritual healing. What I'm saying is that it is an unregulated practice that is undergoing the same pitfalls the drug industry started off with. Otherwise we're just gonna keep allowing charlatans to profit from killing people.

Of course I accept your points.  But I guess I'm not not getting through here.  What we have here seems to be a failure to communicate.  Let me break it down as best I can, with no uncertain terms.

Faith healings/spiritual/alternative healings may in fact be real.  They don't have to be the norm, and they don't have to be replicated in a laboratory.  Those who perform them or receive them are under no obligation to demonstrate it to all the cartoon posting poo-pooers out there.

If you don't want to believe it....that is your right (generic you - to the whole forum/world) your beliefs in a thing don't make it true or false.  The truth of a thing is what makes it true or false.  

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Of course I accept your points.  But I guess I'm not not getting through here.  What we have here seems to be a failure to communicate.  Let me break it down as best I can, with no uncertain terms.

Faith healings/spiritual/alternative healings may in fact be real.  They don't have to be the norm, and they don't have to be replicated in a laboratory.  Those who perform them or receive them are under no obligation to demonstrate it to all the cartoon posting poo-pooers out there.

If you don't want to believe it....that is your right (generic you - to the whole forum/world) your beliefs in a thing don't make it true or false.  The truth of a thing is what makes it true or false.  

I do understand where you're coming from, and I totally agree with the bolded above.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Show me the evidence.

Define your use of the word 'evidence' first.

[NYCEddie]

On 9/9/2017 at 8:26 PM, rodentraiser said:

Why can't a person be both spiritual and skeptical? After all, being spiritual doesn't necessarily mean you have to be religious. Being  a spiritual person can mean you respect other people and nature and try to be a good person. That in no way contradicts the fact that you can also be skeptical of things like aliens and Bigfoot at the same time.

It is impossible for a person to be both spiritual and skeptical. One, spiritual, requires faith in religious myths and, therefore, does not employ logic, common sense and reason and such a person does not seek evidence. Two, skeptical, rejects outlandish claims that are not support by evidence and there is nothing more outlandish than religious belief which has no evidence. No gods, no jesuses, no buddhas, nothing outside of humans who created the gods.

 

[NYCEddie]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Define your use of the word 'evidence' first.

If you ain't got it you can't sell it.

ev·i·dence

ˈevədəns/

          noun

1. 1.

   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

   synonyms:

   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"

   verb

1. 1.
   be or show evidence of.

   "that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings

    

[NYCEddie]

43 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I do understand where you're coming from, and I totally agree with the bolded above.

This is what was bolded: The truth of a thing is what makes it true or false.  

You agree with stupidity? It's a dichotomy! It should be correctly written as follows: The truth of a thing is what makes it true.

 

[freetoroam]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

I'm a 110% 

Certain.

 

 

 

 

Lol 110% and you call me ignorant?

I have valid reasons not to believe in a god, because i respect that nature is the ruler on this planet,  i am 100% certain about evolution and am 100% certain the bible is seriously flawed.

[freetoroam]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

So you're a brother by a different father?

 

 

What does that mean?  I know who my father is and who his  father was etc etc,  and i know evolution is a fact. What i do not know is the names of my cavemen forefathers, but i am 100% certain none of them was called adam.

[freetoroam]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You cannot be certain of the non existence of anything unless you  have evidences for its non existence.  You can, however, construct a certainty about the existence of anything without needing to have or provide evidences for that things existence which are transferrable to another Your own experiences can provide adequate evidences for certainty of existence, but not for non existence   

Ehhhh, i have evidence, it is called the evolution of man and it did not start with adam and eve. 

After all these thousands of years there is still no evidence of a god, but what we are learning more and more about is the existence of a universe and how things are created. We have evidence of nature and it is the changing face on this planet. 

[Mr Walker]

47 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Ehhhh, i have evidence, it is called the evolution of man and it did not start with adam and eve. 

After all these thousands of years there is still no evidence of a god, but what we are learning more and more about is the existence of a universe and how things are created. We have evidence of nature and it is the changing face on this planet. 

Sorry, what do you mean? I am an evolutionist myself, based on the evidences available from  different sciences.

 This is an entirely separate question to the existence of a god or gods (unless of course you specifically mean only an omnipotent, omniscient, omni present, creator type god, which i agree is physically impossible ) There is plenty of room for all sorts of gods within an evolutionary process. 

In the not too distant future( if we survive)  humans will have all the powers attributed to gods in books like the bible.  

God is an evolved product of the universe, the same as you or I, but much older, wiser, and more technologically developed.

There is a lot of evidence for the existence of such an advanced alien entity (or a group of entities)  and for their ongoing interaction with humanity over the last 100000 years or so. Millions of humans have individual personal  experiences with such a god.

Your evidences  for evolution are not evidences against the existence of  such a god.

There are no evidences that such a god as i describe  does not exist and a lot of evidence that it does.

Lack of personal evidences of a god proves nothing,  but the existence of personal evidences  does work toward proving the existence of such a god.

IE the fact that one man may have no contact with a god is not evidence that gods do not exist but just one man's true contact with such an entity is evidence that it does. Multiple individual experiences provide multiple evidence sources        

Edited September 12, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

55 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

What does that mean?  I know who my father is and who his  father was etc etc,  and i know evolution is a fact. What i do not know is the names of my cavemen forefathers, but i am 100% certain none of them was called adam.

Apparently, from mitochondrial  DNA, there might have been one eve  for much of humanity, however  

Not arguing against evolution.  It is just that I find such science, albeit a bit old now, to be fascinating

[rodentraiser]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

According to their psychological profile?

Whose psychological profile are you referring to? The atheists' profile or the profile of the people interpreting atheism?

[Rlyeh]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So, given that other primates also experience rises in dopamine under the right conditions,  how come none evidence the slightest capacity for faith, belief or religious expression?

Clearly these qualities are qualities of MIND and intellect,  and are made possible only when a certain level of self aware consciousness is attained,  NOT of chemical release and effect. 

We're intelligent enough to fool ourselves?

[rodentraiser]

2 hours ago, NYCEddie said:

It is impossible for a person to be both spiritual and skeptical. One, spiritual, requires faith in religious myths and, therefore, does not employ logic, common sense and reason and such a person does not seek evidence. Two, skeptical, rejects outlandish claims that are not support by evidence and there is nothing more outlandish than religious belief which has no evidence. No gods, no jesuses, no buddhas, nothing outside of humans who created the gods.

 

What you say makes sense, but why do you think being spiritual belongs only to the realm of the religious?

----------------------------

Which poses another question or two: when I'm being called an atheist by someone, is it because I don't believe in any god, or is it because I don't believe in his particular god?

AND/OR

When I'm being called an unbeliever or an infidel or an atheist by someone, is it because I don't believe in any god or is it because I don't believe in his particular religion?

 

EDITED because I had a wonderful idea: Let's take god-however-you-imagine-him out of religion and take the religion out of spirituality.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by rodentraiser

[rodentraiser]

11 hours ago, CJ1983 said:

do you mean spiritual as in Yoga, incense, mystical quotes over sunset pictures? that sort of thing?

Um, yeah, or maybe just being a spiritual person because you feel at one with the world and everyone is your brother.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, rodentraiser said:

Whose psychological profile are you referring to? The atheists' profile or the profile of the people interpreting atheism?

The people interpreting the people interpreting atheism.

[XenoFish]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

I just gave you evidence and you didn't say poo-diddley about it.  I just demonstrated to you quite convincingly that extremely unlikely events do in fact occur.  Then, you just go back to what you've been saying all along.  Placebo effect...blah blah blah.  Placebo effect no doubt accounts for SOME explanations. 

Sigh.  

 

I don't care about some random event happening. That doesn't scream 'Divine Intervention' to me. All of that is just a part of the law of large numbers. 

[XenoFish]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Define your use of the word 'evidence' first.

The facts and statistics you are often asked to present to support your case. Which you never do. I figure that phrase will be the only intelligent response to anything you post. Because you never back anything you say up. 

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, back to earth said:

 

Except  ... 

I have had traditional 'spiritual' shamanic healings .   The ones that worked used what we call 'natural magic' , that is, the healing also involved me taking botanical substances.

And some of  the significant ingredients in those botanical substances have become used in pharmacological medicines     

You know just as well as I do the evolution of the sciences. 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

We're intelligent enough to fool ourselves?

In one sense yes. The human mind evolved to a point where it became aware of things around it ( eg the difference between life and death The link between cause and effect.   The nature and effect of linear time) enough to begin questioning what was happening around itself, and to itself).

 When no answers were available as factual data, our minds constructed answers which met its need for security and safety and hope .

In an evolutionary sense this abilty is absolutely essential for a self aware being to have confidence in its survival,  to act in faith  when the future is uncertain, and to build and construct an ordered reason of ideas from the chaos and uncertainty around it.

An unaware animal has no need for these coping and psychological defense mechanisms. It does not realise it will die, or that certain things put it a t risk of death (or of extreme pain) .  it has no intellectual constructs or awareness of death, pain or suffering, which can befall it, and thus does not anticipate or fear those things will happen to it in the future,    but the human mind cannot survive (especially in a time when it lacks data) without them.

 To compensate for an awareness of impending death, its inevitability, its permanence,  and its unknowable nature, man builds concepts in his mind as defensive walls or as deflective barriers  to these fears.

 Whether this is fooling ourselves is open to question. Science shows powerful and measurable positive effects of faith and belief, on human health and wellbeing, perhaps BECAUSE it is evolved for this purpose.

Just as our  fight or flight response releases chemicals like adrenalin to promote a greater chance of survival; faith/ belief, releases chemicals which heal wounds and trauma faster, reduce pain and perception of suffering quite significantly,  reduces stress/ anxiety/ blood pressure etc.  and increases survival rates from many illnesses and diseases.   

Secondly, when it comes to faith and belief, for  things about which reality is unknown and currently unknowable, no one can prove that a believer is fooling themselves.  They might have it right, and it is the unbeliever who is fooling themselves   

Edited September 12, 2017 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

 Yeah, well, most of my frustration here is spilling over from another forum.

I just wrote basically a damn book's worth of information, then I get hit with a **** ton of posts openly denigrating it all without ever even clicking the links and reading any of it. I'm 'bout to rage quit this whole shindig.

It is not easy work to evaluate yourself, your beliefs, in fact, it takes incredible courage to do so and even more courage to change them and let go of what doesn't serve you. We all came here the same way thought we had all the answers, hang in there you are doing fine. Welcome to UM. 

[+Sherapy]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Yes, you're right. I think I've been putting a little too much effort into trying to convince others. It's only natural, being human and all, but I think I need to merely develop my own spirit and then merely express what I've learned, rather than trying to prove what I've learned all the time.

Honesty goes along way in any kind of growth. AK you are just fine and smart.