Fat is a type of crazy

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I am skeptical too about psychic powers, but you'll have to concede that the kind of evidence demanded by official science is unrealistic. 

.. So I'm quite skeptical about mr. Shermer's claims that mr. Cayce was a fraud.

How so..if you are psychic why should you not be able to do better than average in a test of your psychic skills. You don't have to do perfectly.. just consistently better than someone who might be a charlatan

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

Science writers and skeptics have pointed out that the evidence for Cayce's alleged psychic powers comes from sensationalised newspaper articles, affidavits, anecdotes, testimonials, and books rather than any empirical evidence that can be independently evaluated.

 

 “The matter of Edgar Cayce boils down to a vague mass of garbled data, interpreted by true believers who have a very heavy stake in the acceptance of the claims. Put to the test, Cayce was found to be bereft of real powers.  His reputation today rests on poor and deceptive reporting of the claims made by him and his followers, and such claims do not stand up to examination. Read the literature, with these comments in mind, and the conclusion is inescapable. It just ain’t so.''

 

— Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions — James [The Amazing] Randi 

It's an interesting part of getting older for my generation. As a kid in the 70's things like psychics, astrology, seances  and such seemed cool and interesting. You felt like you were going into some other world separate to the hoi polloi. Maybe some pretty girls were talking earnestly about such topics and it got you further interested. Maybe older people you admire are into it. I was never much into it but it was something I would think could have some merit.

At some point though in the late 80's I started working for a buck, the youthful handsomeness is starting to fade, you are not so young and idealistic,  - and you turn back and look at the stuff you took an interest in and realise it was fun but that there is little or no evidence for it. The Amazing Randi and others helped make the point. 

Meanwhile the new idealistic generation in the late 80's and early nineties turned to the new New Age with crystals, self help books and all the other stuff. You then feel separate from it and it all looks silly.

Astrology, Edgar Cayce, crystal power- you realise the belief and promotion of it is really within a small group of the population being the young, the eternal hippies, the eternally hopeful, those that want to feel a part of something,  the mentally fragile, and a range of charlatans. 

Some things help people get through the day and keep them connected so that's fine. But it can get nasty if you put reality to the side for too long - look at the modern new age - anti vaccine, anti 5G, turning into QANON and all sorts of total illogical nonsense in my opinion.

42 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

If you have nothing to hide, why the paranoia. Being able to backtrack your movements or locations could even get you out of some problems too.(IMHO)

 

During a pandemic - no problem. But by that logic you wouldn't mind being traced each and every step. You don't have to be paranoid or be doing bad things to want to live with a sense of freedom that no one knows where you are. 

4 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Knowledge can only be the outcome of personal experience; it can neither be taken over nor transmitted.
To believe is basically to consider possible; without considering something possible one can never experience it. 

Much of our individual knowledge comes from what we are taught. I haven't been to Africa but I have knowledge of it.

OK so you mean inner knowledge. I follow the logic of what you are saying but I have no idea what inner knowledge means. Knowledge of what...If you think there is a god then you may have a feeling, a sense, but does that come with actual knowledge. That knowledge may in your opinion take the form that god exists but what is it that allows you to call this knowledge.   What is metaphysical - something outside human perception. How then can a human have knowledge of something he cannot perceive.

The example of Bach is that he simply had a skill. Nothing metaphysical or god like about that in my opinion. 

You are right that I have an acceptance of scientific belief that is not based on my personal experience. Based on available information it is most likely to be correct. It is not faith - it is saying that is the best I have to work with at this time.

To believe is not to consider possible. I consider there might be a god or a yeti or space monsters or whatever. I don't have to believe it to consider it possible.

I might not consider it possible that a space monster exists. I'll certainly experience it if they come to my house.

Possibly you are talking inner consideration and experience. I might not consider that a god could exist. But if he comes to my house or touches me inside I'll be convinced otherwise. I can't see why an open mind is a prerequisite.

If you think I am a fool not to be argued with I won't be offended.

Leave your Patong hotel and get stopped by a suit seller 'Hello Mate. Shake my hand. Where you from?', smell wonderful things in the drains, step past the massage girls 'Hey mister you come alone',  go to the beach, avoid the plastic and bits of metal on the beach, manouvre past jet ski and parachute ride cowboys, enjoy a swim in a roped off section with dirty sticky sand and fumes from speedboats and jetskis. Take a taxi to a better beach and pay through the nose for the privilege. Otherwise it was fun.

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

When you wake up from a dream, are you usually fully aware to be back in the waking world, or do you still have doubts throughout the day whether you're still dreaming or not? 

If you encounter 1, 2, 5 people who all try to convince you you're still dreaming, do you believe them or do you instinctively know that you're awake?

I would bet that you just know it and don't need anyone to tell you otherwise. You may be confused in the dream state whether you're dreaming or not, but once you awake and can compare the 2 states, you then also know with a 100% certainty that you're now awake. Right?

 

All the experiences we have in life influence and define us. Lots of people claim that the most defining moment in their lives was the birth of their child. I've never experienced that, but I will take their word for it, because I believe they're saying that in good faith. And who am I to dispute it? 

The same goes for my experience. It may not be a common one, but it's not that rare either. Whether others believe me or not is inconsequential. All you need to know is that I reported it as best as I could and with no need to convince anyone. If you or others think that makes me smug, conceited or crazy, well I really don't care. To me it's as real and unmistakable as waking up from a dream.

 

Also, I don't believe there is anything that came from outside myself.

There may be something about posting that makes me think inwards a bit about things I have seen in my past - that is the source of the examples I give. It isn't about people posting here. 

I don't think you are those things or that the examples I gave applied to you. 

In some ways I am making the same boring point about the leap of faith. 

An interesting issue is if the experience of god is diminished if you keep an open mind that it may not be god. You seem to think it is so clear that it is a god that there is no leap. Is it possible you are in a sense being self deprecating and you are an intelligent sensitive person who just woke yourself up at a particular point. 

40 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

 

Fauci is an admitted liar:

 

Dr. Fauci Admits Feds Initially Misled About Face Masks: ‘Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers’ Had Enough

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/dr-fauci-admits-feds-initially-misled-about-face-masks-wanted-to-make-sure-health-care-workers-had-enough/ar-BB15A4kO

Thanks for replying to my post. You normally just give me a confused face. 

It may be that on that particular occasion  that he may have felt the end justified the means i.e. he didn't want a mad rush on masks so early in the pandemic so he took steps to make sure health care workers had enough. It may not be black and white like that though - it may have been that the effectiveness of masks were not well known, but they may work, so it was best the  limited supply went to health workers. 

If, in giving 100's of hours of  excellent scientific advice over the last 12 months, the only criticism is that he took this action back in March, then it hardly could be considered a blemish on his excellent and trustworthy reputation.

16 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Speaking for myself, I've never taken any leap of faith.

To stay in line with the allegory...I was quite happy playing with my 3 friends. That's all I knew at that point, my whole world. Then it just hit me, irrevocably, radically, without any doubt to its veracity, like falling in love for the first time (times a million). I didn't have to accept what others wrote about love, I didn't have to believe there was something called love out there to experience it.

No, love hit me square between the eyes when I didn't expect it and there was no denying it. 
What is there to do after that? What would you do?

I haven't felt that feeling that you describe. I am going to get a bit esoteric here. Let us say you are just a body - that the 'good feeling' if you like in the body is limited.   Let us say you hold yourself in a certain way as we all do. They way we walk. Our fears etc. We are all stressed in some way - tight necks, tight hips, whatever. Then let's say you change your life in some way. Parts of you that have been stressed relax giving you a rush of adrenaline and a new sense of freedom. Unbeknownst to you you are stressing other parts of you but you don't notice as you taken aback by the good feeling. You may be overwhelmed and look for an explanation beyond yourself. God.

Alternatively maybe god hit you with a thunderbolt of sorts, from outside your physical body,  and that is what lead to your belief.

I am not saying that either happened but I am saying that if you believe without leaving the option of other theories it still has to be a leap of faith. As you say in your case it might, on balance, seem reasonable and justified to you that you conclude that you have been touched by something outside yourself based on your experiences and feelings.

38 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

No - I got Dawkins spot on.

 

To call someone 'delusional' is to look down on them.

 

The bottom line is that science has always sought and failed to explain why the universe came into existence. We still don't know. What we do know is that every now and again, the current scientific theory on how it happened gets replaced with a new one.

 

It seems to me that believing in the currently accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe is no more a leap of faith that believing in a creator. Certainly, not worth looking down your nose at.

I get what you are saying and that delusion is loaded word. I think we all delude ourselves in some way to live in the real world. I know I make assumptions about myself and the world just to get from A to B. To me saying believers may be deluded is not suggesting superiority. The issue is the degree of delusion.

My girlfriend can believe in Buddha, hindu gods, snake gods all at the same time -  I might consider the option that she has a  mild delusion.  I say mild as she is non judgemental,  lives a normal life, and she has a gentleness  and a serenity , and a certain fullness in her life,  that is so different to  non-religious Australians. So though she may in fact have some delusion in might open other parts of her such that there's something in that belief that is worthwhile. 

Then there are extreme  delusions  e.g. cults with narrow defined definitions of belief  that can be so bad for you.

I think you have to give science some credit that in such a short time they have got so far in explaining the very small and the very large. In terms of the creation of the universe they have come up with the Big Bang Theory which isn't shabby.

For what it's worth I would also say that theories change but they are rarely replaced by a separate new theory - they normally just are able to expand on the existing one. You make it sound that such theories are a bit willy nilly and can just be set aside and replaced a new.

Science by definition does not have a leap of faith. Richard Dawkins is not saying his book is a bible.

If you are theorising there is a god based on your life experience that is different of course to making the leap and believing in god. 

34 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I heard this before and I don't blame you for thinking this way. You can't relate to that "experience", so you naturally distrust and doubt it.

I thought about an allegory that makes it much easier for all of us to relate to, because we all went through the same (or similar) experience. Amazingly, none of us now claims to be any more special than the rest. 
-----------------------------------
Little Bob was a 10 year old boy like all the others. All he thought about was playing and hanging out with his close friends Joe, Jack and Jason. They spent all their time playing sports, exploring abandoned places and generally getting into trouble. They were a very close-knit bunch of friends.

 

One day however, something strange happened to Bob. He was at the shopping mall, eating his well deserved ice-cream, when a lovely girl passed by him. In one instant, all his senses were on high alert: he felt the air, moved by her body, caressing his cheeks, he smelled her scent of vanilla and strawberries, his heart was beating like crazy. He had no idea what was going on. He's never been interested in girls before, ...quite the contrary. Bob and his friends used to make fun of those silly girls and wouldn't give them a second thought. Now, in just one small moment, all that changed. This girl that he didn't even know, had become the single most important thing in his life. 

In the following days, his friends noticed that something was different with Bob. He still played with them, but his mind was elsewhere. They asked him what was going on because they wanted their old friend back. They just wanted Bob to be the brother in arms they knew. Bob tried to explain what had happened, that he couldn't stop thinking about that girl, that he couldn't sleep at night, that he lost his appetite, that the whole world around him seemed to have shifted and that he felt there was no going back to the old ways. Joe, Jack and Jason couldn't really understand what Bob was talking about. For them, girls were still those silly creatures they're always been. No amount of explaining could change their minds. Joe started to resent Bob "Who does he think he is now? Is he too special to come out and play with us?". Jack chimed in "I think he's full of <deleted>. He just found some new friends and is too chicken to admit it". And Jason: "How could he like a girl?? He must be lying! Nobody can be that stupid!". 
After a while, Bob gave up trying to change their minds. He didn't blame them though...not long ago he would have said the same things if the roles had been inverted. He know there was no going back to the old ways and that the only way was forward into this strange new world. He also knew that he had to be true to himself, and he certainly wouldn't change his ways just to please his old friends.

It took the other guys a little longer, but eventually, they too went through the same experience. Now, Bob, Joe, Jack and Jason meet up again regularly, not to play but to talk about girls and their latest conquest.
-----------------------------------------
Does this make sense?
 

Thanks.  It does make sense. I appreciate that you have got what I was saying in that, as far as we know, we are just our bodies and so I was after the sense of god in terms of the feelings and emotions and experiences of the body.  

There is a place for esoteric talk but it's not really for me because I've found at the end of the day it still requires a sort of a leap of faith as it doesn't have an actual personal experience.

So I guess I'm trying to get to why someone might feel a sense of god and the reason at some point they take that leap of faith.  

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Like everyone else on planet earth, I don't know what happens when we die and I dont know how the universe was created. 

 

I am fine with the big bang, not sure about evolution but it beats 'dinosaurs were put there to test our faith'. I've read the blind watchmaker but the issue with Dawkins and Stephen Fry is that they both think they have the answers and they don't. Evolution theory can be wrong at the same time God doesn't exist and vice-versa. 

 

Anyway, all this stuff in the unuverse got here somehow and it's convenient to say God did it - but then who made God? Was he not here 1 day but was the next? Of course, you could say that God exists outside of time but his atoms still come from somewhere.

 

Whatever you say created something must have been created itself. Nobody seems to be able to answer that. 

 

So, I am agnostic. Unlike Dawkins and Fry, I don't look down on anyone for their beliefs and I also don't beleive that any of the worlds major religions have it right. I would guess that if there was a creator, we couldn't possibly comprehend its form or function 

I think you are a bit tough on Dawkins. He considers that belief in god is often caused by a form of delusion and it is fascinating to work through that argument as to why people may choose to believe in god .

I have seen him do lots of interviews and I don't see that he looks down on people or thinks he has all the answers beyond what he can take from science.

I have bigger problems with those who say they have found god and have a certain smugness. Believers should be able to freely do their thing, of course,  but if they show smugness - i.e. you just haven't experienced what I have experienced type stuff  -  I like those people to really flesh out how they experience god and show why it is not likely to be a form of delusion. 

3 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

and yet he voted no....and sure the senate can convict an impeached former president, there was a vote and senate voted yes to go ahead.... McConnel is a disgrace on the same line as Cruz, Graham, Hawley

They voted to go ahead ..but that doesn't mean he cannot have an opinion that it is not correct.

I am probably repeating myself a bit but I concur that it was likely a cynical decision.. he just did a bit better than those other guys by making that speech and sending a message about the future of the party ..

Compare that to the others who are 100 per cent part of the Trump cult

5 minutes ago, J Town said:

I watched it live. He was merely playing both ends to meet the middle.

But why did he need to ..he could have just said he considered it unconstitutional or given some other reason and left it at that.

I am not a fan - he has been the most appalling politician for years - I am just saying his words will make a difference. CNN showed the whole thing while Fox News cut Schumer's speech and then played Mitch's speech. They looked shocked and what he said. That was fun. 

13 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

If he had any nuts, he'd have voted with his heart! They put the Proud Boys and moron Trump followers above their conviction! Very weak!

I just think you should save the title of absolute coward with no nuts for the others who voted to convict and then quietly left the chamber to keep Trump happy. I know he's the ultimate cynical politician and could have made it so Trump could have been convicted. But did you actually watch his speech? Took some nuts to say the things he said and it will have at least some consequences for how Trump is received in the future.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Do you even live in NZ? A country where families had to sleep in cars ( before corona changed things and they live in motels now ) and young people will probably never be able to own a house because house prices are out of control, poverty is widespread with kids going to school hungry, lucky to even see a cop if burgled, polluted rivers ( and lead in drinking water now ), and some people eat bad food most of the time- takeaways do really well here. As for your assertion that healthcare is excellent- sure, if one is wealthy, but terrible for the poor. I had better health care in Thailand than I get in NZ. I won't get into all the other bad stuff going on in NZ.

 

NZ is "free" 55555555555555555 It's just as PC as any other western country.

Taking your claims at face value I don't think you do live in NZ, or if you do you are rich.

I live in even a better place. Australia.

I have heard property is out of control - they changed the law in New Zealand I think so you had to be a resident to buy. I've only been to the north island but it just seemed so idyllic and green and healthy. South island looks even better but a bit cold. We'll see who gets to Thailand first after they open up. My girlfriend is in Ubon so that's not fun.

It is cheaper in Thailand but to be honest in recent trips I got a bit sick of the thai food all the time at restaurants and stuff - MSG and salty and oily if you are not careful. Better get back to talk about god.

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I agree. I'm not a student of the bible either, because I found far more practical teachings elsewhere. 
Anyway, why do you care about what the bible says or how others interpret it/live by it?

Why do you care about the reason I care about what others care about.

In actual fact I was going to just comment on the New Zealand thing as I agree there's no point trying to find the bad in things such as the Bible just for the sake of it. If people like it good for them. If people use it to tell me what to do or how I should act then it is fair game. They do all the time - in politics particularly.

The jokes been made ad nauseum but the fact these white capitalistic moralisers follow an angry middle eastern dark skinned, basically communist or non-materialistic , probably four foot tall guy, from 2000 years ago is sometimes confusing. 

It makes it interesting too because I think anyone brought up in a western country has probably been shaped by christianity more than they might like to admit. 

I know christians who live in a really positive non judgemental way. So I have no doubt that if you take the best of it you can fashion it into something good.

We all know of that other sort of Christian too. 

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Really ? I was thinking that the 10 commandments were clear enough as a guideline for a functioning society. You don't need to be religious to appreciate that.

In the end,  " don't do to others what you don't want the others do to you " is the basic principle for a successful cohabitation.. 

Perhaps is not God or even religion which is wrong here.

Fair point I guess. One or two pages I assume out of 100's of pages. 

The first 5 seem to be about god being the one and only. Let's just think about that. He comes across like a boring dictator. So half of it is nothing much in my opinion.

The second 5 are OK. Be good to your parents, don't kill, cheat, gossip  or covet your neighbour's wife, servant  or ox.

 Don't need the bible to know not to kill. I think people would work that out for practical and moral reasons.

Thai's seem much better and caring for parents and they don't follow the bible. 

So my wife and servant are property like an ox. 

Still there is some good advice there.

I am not saying there are not stories or parables in the bible that cannot inspire, heal and give guidance. If you find it gives you solace then you may interpret it in a different way. I am not a student of the bible.

But I am saying in my opinion there is a lot of stuff that as far as I am concerned is not a good guide to how to love or live either in spiritual or practical terms.

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even lower animals than humans can "reason" that it's not a good idea to run into a fire, so I find your claim to be pointless. I said "I'd be more convinced by your argument re "reason" if more humans used it. Most I know are quite unreasonable"

Obviously I was using "reasonable" as a description and not as a process. If more people used reason, wars and poverty would not, IMO, exist.

 

Even related to this thread, if some posters used reason, they might conclude that if they can't prove God does not exist, and IMO they can't prove that simply because humans don't know much about the universe beyond what they can actually see and measure with such primitive tools as humans currently possess, they might acknowledge that if they can't prove the non existence of God, that ergo God might exist, rather than dogmatically stating that as a fact God does not exist.

 

It is my opinion that in the capability of understanding such matters as love and faith, humans have advanced not an iota from the cave.

We live in a world still riven by tribalism and war- IMO the only real advances we have made in 50,000 years is in how to kill each other more efficiently. It is somewhat significant IMO that we spend more on weapons to kill each other than we do on helping the most desperate humans live better lives. Reason might inform us that having an enormous underclass that has to be suppressed by vast numbers of police is not a good idea. Perhaps not surprisingly if one looks at who possesses most of the wealth and treasure in humanity we humans still think lots and lots of weapons are a better option than co operation and love for each other. It's not as though God has not informed us as to the correct path to follow- the Christ often mentioned "love" as the way forward, along with forgiveness, and charity. It's not God's fault that such advice is ignored.

 

In my opinion, if God ever was invested in what happens to the human race, God would have abandoned us to our fate, as we would appear, IMO, to be a lost cause.

 

 

 

It has probably been said but keep in mind that saying I know there is no god and not believing in god are two different things. 

Boy your are a pessimist. Living in New Zealand one of the most free countries, with a fair  police force, excellent healthcare, no pollution,  and a bounty of good food and you say we have not made advances in 50,000 years. 

Poverty is way down around the world in just the last 30 years. Bad stuff happens but good stuff happens too. 

On your last point if God supposedly says we should love each other he should have given a better guide book on how to achieve it. The old Bible is full of weird and wonderful stories of revenge and hatred and loyalty and faith for loyalty and faith's sake. The new bible isn't really practical - no one I see really lives by it. The buddhist stuff is a bit more practical but you could argue that love, particularly romantic love,  is not the aim but detachment from such emotions is the aim.