Author Topic: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.  (Read 16318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Darwins +45/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
IMO, i suspect we are stuck here in the Earth locality for as long as it serves our purpose of evolving. I suspect we have, and will, incarnate elsewhere and in other forms as our soul/consciousness is ready to take that on. 

As for souls being limited to the speed of light, i would say "it depends", if they are, then:
a) do souls/consciousness exist in this dimension or some other dimension
b) if they exist in some other dimension, we don't know how fast light travels in said other dimension (does it travel faster or slower there?)

I don't know about mass.

This is all I need.

Sorry if I am in a rascally mood or just don’t have the motivation/energy to adjust my frequency to understand crazy shit right now.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?

Whicj did you find was the most compelling case that he documented?  You must have examined a large number of them, from what you're saying, so which one did you feel was the most useful?  Which one stands up best to analysis? 

Is it your job to convince me of anything? No. However, if you're smart enough, you might be able to post information in such a way that will win me over to invest my time to investigate it further.

Quite right.  Do you apply the same standards to yourself?  At the moment, you have effectively said "go off and read through 6,000 cases of this guy, because it convinced me".  Frankly, what makes that claim any different to someone saying "Dr.Bob has 6,000 studies that show the moon is made of cheese"?

I wouldn't be inclined to go and investigate further, no matter HOW many times you told me you really, really believed in a green cheese moon.  However, if you took the time to tell me about one really really good piece of cheese evidence, in detail, that might influence me to go off and look for some more.

So I'll look forward to you following your own advice to "post information in such a way that will win (us) over to invest (our) time to investigate it further".  And the best thing you could do there is to actually present a piece of evidence, as opposed to saying "the evidence is all our there, go look at it."

Final point - from the forum rules that you agreed to follow.
Quote from: WWGHA Forum Rules
No Preaching - For the purposes of this forum, preaching is defined as the posting of religious proclamations/texts or inculcated religious doctrine without intent to engage members on its validity or support with evidence. The staff will determine if a member is engaging in preaching by using this definition as a baseline aided by the support of past experience.

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

So let's hear some actual evidence, please.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 08:51:57 AM by Anfauglir »
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12562
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Actually, no, its not my job.

This is where you still do not understand expectations here.

It is your job, as a claimant, to support your claims with argument and evidence.  It is called the Burden of Proof.[1]

You see, lots of people think it is a viable maneuver to throw out a claim (unicorns exist!) and then demand other people disprove it.  I call this the "Can't Proove It Doesn't" argument.  The problem with that approach is 1) it is very juvenile and 2) you can imagine an infinite number of things that cannot be disproven.  Disproof can be impossibly difficult in many cases.  So engaging in that kind of thought would allow for any kind of fictional entity or idea, which does not help us achieve a better understanding of reality.

For more on this look at Russell's Teapot[2] and Screwtape's Dog[3],  the former being more historic, the latter being more entertaining.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
 3. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20148.msg444285.html#msg444285
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Further to what Anfauglir said, you should want to dazzle us with your findings, not begrudge us to have to go track it all down ourselves. That is what is so great about the scientific community. One person will toil away on a particular field of study and after a time they might come to a conclusion. Next, he would assemble the best of his studies and research that led him to this conclusion and present it to the rest of the community for examination and refutation. This is where the fun really begins... the rest of the community tears into this guys pile of evidence in an attempt to find something wrong with it. Sometimes, this is easily done *cough*, but every so often something stands up to the scrutiny and... can you guess what happens next? MORE scrutiny! (Gotcha!  ;)) Until FINALLY, Eureka! We have a tested and verified claim. This becomes a scientific fact, like Gravity.

How do you suppose that process would have gone had the scientist detailed above done all of his own research, came to a conclusion, then went before the community and said "Something OUTRAGEOUS is true! If you care to believe me that is fine, but the truth is out there if you just go look!"?

You want us to believe in reincarnation. You admit that you have done some detailed research into the topic and "solid evidence" exists. So, why don't you go slap some of that stuff together (takes an hour, maybe less) and come back here with something that will really blow our socks off!?
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?

Whicj did you find was the most compelling case that he documented?  You must have examined a large number of them, from what you're saying, so which one did you feel was the most useful?  Which one stands up best to analysis? 

Is it your job to convince me of anything? No. However, if you're smart enough, you might be able to post information in such a way that will win me over to invest my time to investigate it further.

Quite right.  Do you apply the same standards to yourself?  At the moment, you have effectively said "go off and read through 6,000 cases of this guy, because it convinced me".  Frankly, what makes that claim any different to someone saying "Dr.Bob has 6,000 studies that show the moon is made of cheese"?

I wouldn't be inclined to go and investigate further, no matter HOW many times you told me you really, really believed in a green cheese moon.  However, if you took the time to tell me about one really really good piece of cheese evidence, in detail, that might influence me to go off and look for some more.

So I'll look forward to you following your own advice to "post information in such a way that will win (us) over to invest (our) time to investigate it further".  And the best thing you could do there is to actually present a piece of evidence, as opposed to saying "the evidence is all our there, go look at it."

Final point - from the forum rules that you agreed to follow.
Quote from: WWGHA Forum Rules
No Preaching - For the purposes of this forum, preaching is defined as the posting of religious proclamations/texts or inculcated religious doctrine without intent to engage members on its validity or support with evidence. The staff will determine if a member is engaging in preaching by using this definition as a baseline aided by the support of past experience.

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

So let's hear some actual evidence, please.

I watched his initial interview video and that's what i recommend people watch. I never said to "go off and read  6,000 cases". I merely stated that was his body of work which lends credibility to his findings. I read both his books Destiny of Souls and Journey of Souls after watching that 1 hour interview on Youtube. I found both books to be very interesting. I can say that if you find the concept of reincarnation to be stupid, then don't bother. I'm sharing this for people that would like to research this topic, as a pretty interesting place to start. That's about it.

As for evidence, the sessions he listed in the books are interesting. Let me explain that the gist of his work is about documenting the sessions with his patients. His hypnosis sessions are ~4 hours long, during this time he puts his patients into hypnosis, and asks a series of questions that help the patient remember who they were in their past life and identifies various details and events about it.. He then zeros in on how they died in their past life and documents what happened during their death, and follows their experience into the post-death world, which he calls "life between lives". That's where it gets interesting. His patients paint the same general picture of existing as "balls of light" (that's the best explanation of it), reuniting with other familiar spirits, the light spectrum of each "spirit" indicates the maturity level of soul (e.g. white is a young soul, yellow maturing, red is more mature, blue very mature, purple even more mature). He finds that most of his patients are not perfectly young, but starting to mature (yellowish). He encountered only a few patients that have described themselves as blue or dark blue (i.e. very mature). Also, his cases are not famous people, the vast majority are regular, boring people.

The case studies vary in demographics, but once under hypnosis, according to his findings, the recollections are similar. So much so, that he was able to assemble a fairly detailed layout and description of this "life between lives" place/dimension. Also, one interesting thing was the rebirth process. That is, he explains that we are active participants in selecting the next body and experiences we are to have before reincarnating. A simple example, if the spirit has not conquered the lessons jealousy, they will come back to a body/set of experiences that will provide more opportunity to work on it. I know, there will be people rolling their eyes at this post --- that's fine. I'm just posting a blunt summary of his work. I would watch his interview to decide if you want to investigate this on your own.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
The interview consists of this guy telling us stories. Anyone can tell stories. That is not evidence. Even if he is very sincere and persuasive. He could be a very sincere and persuasive liar. Or he could be a very sincere and persuasive crazy person.

Evidence= Concrete facts. Checked over and validated by others.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
The interview consists of this guy telling us stories. Anyone can tell stories. That is not evidence. Even if he is very sincere and persuasive. He could be a very sincere and persuasive liar. Or he could be a very sincere and persuasive crazy person.

Evidence= Concrete facts. Checked over and validated by others.

"stories" = his first hand experience in treating and working with patients.

As i said, if you find him credible in this short interview, then you might be inclined to research his work and claims as you see fit. If not, then fine, it's not for you. Seems we're back to the same issue as before as to the type of evidence you guys are willing to accept. Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2237
  • Darwins +74/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

If you find it intriguiging and worth exploring, then by all means, do so. Then come back to it here when you have some real evidence. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated supernatural claim that skeptics aren't going to bother exploring based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Mostly because there are already vast quantities of real scientific endeavors for us to explore, leaving precious little time for stories, fables, and wishful thinking.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Darwins +407/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

If you find it intriguiging and worth exploring, then by all means, do so. Then come back to it here when you have some real evidence. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated supernatural claim that skeptics aren't going to bother exploring based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Mostly because there are already vast quantities of real scientific endeavors for us to explore, leaving precious little time for stories, fables, and wishful thinking.
acturbo, here is a list of topics you may wish to explore in your studies of this reincarnation thing:

1. The nature of memory
2. False memory syndrome
3. The nature of hypnosis
4. Repressed memory therapy
5. Confirmation bias
6. Schema theory
7. Nicholas Spanos
8. Confabulation
9. Bridey Murphy
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

If you find it intriguiging and worth exploring, then by all means, do so. Then come back to it here when you have some real evidence. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated supernatural claim that skeptics aren't going to bother exploring based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Mostly because there are already vast quantities of real scientific endeavors for us to explore, leaving precious little time for stories, fables, and wishful thinking.

That's fine. Just consider that your statement applies to every single Ph.D. that presents his or her work. That means, according to your statement, every Ph.D. is essentially telling stores, fables and wishing thinking unless what? A mathematical formula is presented? So, all the crime detectives in world, trying to solve crimes and mysteries, seems according to you, they must provide a math formula in order to be believable?

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

If you find it intriguiging and worth exploring, then by all means, do so. Then come back to it here when you have some real evidence. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated supernatural claim that skeptics aren't going to bother exploring based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Mostly because there are already vast quantities of real scientific endeavors for us to explore, leaving precious little time for stories, fables, and wishful thinking.
acturbo, here is a list of topics you may wish to explore in your studies of this reincarnation thing:

1. The nature of memory
2. False memory syndrome
3. The nature of hypnosis
4. Repressed memory therapy
5. Confirmation bias
6. Schema theory
7. Nicholas Spanos
8. Confabulation
9. Bridey Murphy

Before posting this list, did you bother to watch the video?

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Darwins +407/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Before posting this list, did you bother to watch the video?
Does it matter?

Let's remember that you're the one primarily interested in this topic, not me.  Why would my watching of the video make any difference in your search for truth and understanding of a topic?  I just made suggestions of topics - I wasn't pressing any kind of conclusion on you.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Darwins +407/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
That's fine. Just consider that your statement applies to every single Ph.D. that presents his or her work. That means, according to your statement, every Ph.D. is essentially telling stores, fables and wishing thinking unless what?
Unless they provide compelling evidence for their claims.  If they do not do so, then yes, they are telling stories and fables.

Quote
A mathematical formula is presented? So, all the crime detectives in world, trying to solve crimes and mysteries, seems according to you, they must provide a math formula in order to be believable?
If that math formula is pertinent to establishing the innocence or guilt of a person, then yes.

Are you seriously arguing for the validity of the argument from authority?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2237
  • Darwins +74/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

If you find it intriguiging and worth exploring, then by all means, do so. Then come back to it here when you have some real evidence. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated supernatural claim that skeptics aren't going to bother exploring based on a lack of scientific evidence.

Mostly because there are already vast quantities of real scientific endeavors for us to explore, leaving precious little time for stories, fables, and wishful thinking.

That's fine. Just consider that your statement applies to every single Ph.D. that presents his or her work.

It soooo doesn't. It applies to hypotheses with no merit, and no grounding in reality though.

Quote
That means, according to your statement, every Ph.D. is essentially telling stores, fables and wishing thinking unless what? A mathematical formula is presented?

Uh, no.  But is peer review, evidence, and falsifiability too much to ask? I think not.

Quote
So, all the crime detectives in world, trying to solve crimes and mysteries, seems according to you, they must provide a math formula in order to be believable?

And...now you're just being defensive because I don't drop to my knees and automatically say "well golly gee, Mr. acturbo, reincarnation sounds really neato!"

So how about you either bring some evidence, or even make a sound logical argument, or at the very least, address some of the potential problems that others in this thread have raised, such as how many souls are out there waiting to be reincarnated? Because, at this very moment, there are more people on the planet than have EVER been on it before.

Look homie, we're all just animals here, hairless apes that evolved a higher capacity for thought. That doesn't make us any more special than a sea slug in the grand scheme of the cosmos, and there's no such thing as souls, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
That's fine. Just consider that your statement applies to every single Ph.D. that presents his or her work. That means, according to your statement, every Ph.D. is essentially telling stores, fables and wishing thinking unless what?
Unless they provide compelling evidence for their claims.  If they do not do so, then yes, they are telling stories and fables.

Quote
A mathematical formula is presented? So, all the crime detectives in world, trying to solve crimes and mysteries, seems according to you, they must provide a math formula in order to be believable?
If that math formula is pertinent to establishing the innocence or guilt of a person, then yes.

Are you seriously arguing for the validity of the argument from authority?

Actually, IMO, that isn't quite right. If someone is an authority is a certain Field, referring to them when it comes to that field, is not a fallacy.

That is what he is trying to lead you into

But that isn't the question here. The question is: "is this Field valid at all" Which needs to be addressed by someone outside of that Field. You could be an expert in Phrenology or Genetics, but until someone in the Field of Biology acknowledges it is a valid study, what the expert says is of no use.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 01:14:35 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

"stories" = his first hand experience in treating and working with patients.

As i said, if you find him credible in this short interview, then you might be inclined to research his work and claims as you see fit. If not, then fine, it's not for you. Seems we're back to the same issue as before as to the type of evidence you guys are willing to accept. Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

From 5:20 to 6:00 says it all. So this guy has already assumed his conclusion from the outset. He basically starts from the presupposition that there is an afterlife for each person, that people have 'souls', and that people have a "spirit group" and immortality, even though there is no indication whatsoever that he has independently confirmed his alleged findings/hypotheses. It's really just a practice based upon conjecture which is based upon presumption and presupposition. That is not good science.

Science operates with strict rigor, multi-faceted attempts at falsification, independent testing, demonstration, and verification, and the application of critical/skeptical thinking to eliminate confirmation bias and slanted personal filters. This man doesn't seem to be doing any of this. My question to you is: Where is your standard of evidence?? If you are willing to accept the mere claims of one man on a video, what else are you willing to accept based upon mere testimony? Again, science doesn't work this way. There are lots of videos that sound convincing but the fact that a video can sound "interesting" (aka - convincing) to you doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not the claims being made are actually true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12562
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
As i said, if you find him credible in this short interview,

His credibility is not the issue.  The issue is evidence.  He has none.  Nobody believed Galileo, Newton, Einstein or Hawking because they were credible.  They believed them because the data matched observations.

How do we know that hypnosis is capable of helping people recall memories of past lives?  As I have already pointed out in prior posts, hypnotherapy can make people think they remember things that never happened like UFO kidnappings and childhood molestation.  So why should anyone suppose that hypnotherapy is able to access something even more outlandish? 

How is anyone supposed to tell when they remember real things or imagined things?

How is anyone supposed to tell true from false?

This is the whole big, giant point you have been avoiding from the very start.  If you have no way to separate reality from fantasy, then your idea is probably not a very good one to hang on to.


Seems we're back to the same issue as before as to the type of evidence you guys are willing to accept.

Indeed.


Seems to me that a thinking person should consider this interview intriguing at the very least and worth exploring.

Ah, so now we are not thinking people because we are unmoved by interviews.  That's great.

To me, a thinking person should want to be able to verify that what they believe corresponds to reality.  To make sure that they believe only what is true.  My efforts to help you in that regard have apparently been a total waste.



edit - are
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 01:28:08 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
To me, a thinking person should want to be able to verify that what they believe corresponds to reality.  To make sure that they believe only what is true.  My efforts to help you in that regard have apparently been a total waste.


Yeah, has anyone ever noticed the meaning of "open your mind" has changed over time?

It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions;" now it means, "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions."
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Yeah, has anyone ever noticed the meaning of "open your mind" has changed over time?

It used to mean "look at the evidence and abondon your preconceptions;" now it means, "abandon your evidence and believe in my preconceptions."


For the wishful thinkers and the delusional: it's always been the latter rather than the former.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Darwins +407/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Actually, IMO, that isn't quite right. If someone is an authority is a certain Field, referring to them when it comes to that field, is not a fallacy.

That is what he is trying to lead you into

But that isn't the question here. The question is: "is this Field valid at all" Which needs to be addressed by someone outside of that Field. You could be an expert in Phrenology or Genetics, but until someone in the Field of Biology acknowledges it is a valid study, what the expert says is of no use.

Thanks for the correction.  This is valid.  Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious, depending upon context.

Though this example:

So, all the crime detectives in world, trying to solve crimes and mysteries, seems according to you, they must provide a math formula in order to be believable?

This is what primarily bugged me.  It had a "just believe the awesome detective, no need to actually care why or how he determined innocence or guilt" vibe to it that felt as if acturbo was suggesting that the word of an investigator should be sufficient to establish whether or not a crime occurred.  Me thinks I was reading way more into it than was actually there.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
^^ If it turned out that the detective had employed tea-leaf readings to determine someone's innocence or guilt, then I would hope that the detective's authority wouldn't hold more weight in the eyes of a court than what (s)he had actually done to come to his or her conclusion.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
That is why we have the detective show evidence of their conclusions, and let the court try to tear the evidence apart. Even then, actual physical evidence is way more accurate than a story told by a detective or a witness. People lie, forget stuff, make mistakes, get threatened, get confused, get scared and get flustered. Physical evidence does none of those things.

We have many cases of convictions-- based on witness testimony-- being overturned after new DNA or other physical evidence is presented. Much rarer is the DNA evidence being overturned by testimony from an eyewitness. People can make mistakes interpreting physical evidence, but the evidence itself does not lie.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12562
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
My 6th grade teacher used to say "figures don't lie, liars figure".   

Whatever that means...
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
That is why we have the detective show evidence of their conclusions, and let the court try to tear the evidence apart. Even then, actual physical evidence is way more accurate than a story told by a detective or a witness. People lie, forget stuff, make mistakes, get threatened, get confused, get scared and get flustered. Physical evidence does none of those things.

We have many cases of convictions-- based on witness testimony-- being overturned after new DNA or other physical evidence is presented. Much rarer is the DNA evidence being overturned by testimony from an eyewitness. People can make mistakes interpreting physical evidence, but the evidence itself does not lie.

Truth is a chimera, facts don't change. The Battle of Little Big horn is an excellent example of that.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
My 6th grade teacher used to say "figures don't lie, liars figure".   

Whatever that means...


Liars figure the angle of the truth that works best for them which negates the truth as being 'a' truth.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.
« Reply #489 on: February 03, 2014, 08:45:25 AM »
Whicj did you find was the most compelling case that he documented?  You must have examined a large number of them, from what you're saying, so which one did you feel was the most useful?  Which one stands up best to analysis? 
I watched his initial interview video ...... I read both his books Destiny of Souls and Journey of Souls after watching that 1 hour interview on Youtube. I found both books to be very interesting.....As for evidence, the sessions he listed in the books are interesting.... (he)asks a series of questions that help the patient remember who they were in their past life and identifies various details and events about it.....

So to put it simply.  People tell him stories under hypnosis that they claim detail their past lives. 

And the evidence that those stories are based in fact are......?

From what you've said so far, the guy has NO evidence that any past life actually happened.  Has he tracked down borth/death certificates that match their tales?  Founrd corobborating documents that support what they are saying?  Apparently not.

So what we've got here, is a guy told stories under hypnosis, who has not taken any effort to verify what he has been told.  You have heard what he has done, decided it sounds cool, and adopted it as your belief system.  You have no evidence that any past life actually occurred.....and call us names for not leaping to find out if it is all "true".

Funny thing - we get loads of peple coming here with their own little brand of "woo".  NONE offer any evidence.  ALL tell us how close-minded we are for not immediately accepting it, or rushing off to find out more.  You've not given one shred of a reason why we should bother to look any further into things at all - and its painfully apparent that you have never looked critically at what you are claiming, not least because you've been unable to provide even ONE case for us to consider.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.
« Reply #490 on: February 03, 2014, 09:32:55 AM »

Quite right.  Do you apply the same standards to yourself?  At the moment, you have effectively said "go off and read through 6,000 cases of this guy, because it convinced me".  Frankly, what makes that claim any different to someone saying "Dr.Bob has 6,000 studies that show the moon is made of cheese"?


What make is it worse is that Dr. Bob has 6000 studies of people stating they know the moon is cheese because they said they remember being there and tasting the cheese. And not one study of actual moon substance.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jordancda

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.
« Reply #491 on: February 03, 2014, 10:34:21 AM »
it has been banned.

spam removed.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 01:11:59 PM by screwtape »

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Darwins +407/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.
« Reply #492 on: February 03, 2014, 10:55:37 AM »

We have assisted many people who have the same difficulties as you receive up to $40,000 in tax refunds from the Canadian government. We may be able to assist you receive  a refund as well. You can call us at 1-888-298-2721 for a free consultation or feel free to visit our website for more information www.canadiandisabilityadvocates.com

Why won't god heal amputees?
Because Canada's already got it covered.

Leave it to a spambot to come up with a unique argument I've not heard before.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/