Science leads folk to God!

[JoeEllison]

Oh, I looked up Radin... he's a gullible fool. Well educated, but still a gigantic sucker who believes in EVERYTHING.

 

[The Don]

Is deLynch playing logical fallacy bingo ?

m huber this is Radin

 

[deLynch]

If you guys prefer to look direct at the peer reviewed science instead of publications, google "dean radin publications" and choose the 3rd link , it should have a list of all his papers and the journals they are published in.
Once I've done enough posts I'll try to link you to some of the best science.
bye for now,
may the force be with you all

 

[Cainkane1]

You can't see into the future. It hasn't happened yet. You are saying that if we are looking at pictures both good and bad that our skin reacts to the bad picture before we even see it? Yeah right. I'd love to see this tested in a purely scientific way. Say a beautiful girl and the next picture of a beheading victim. Ok so before we see the beheading victim our skin will crawl or something? Well if the subjects are told in advance that there will be mixed images both good and bad its my guess that the skin will crawl in "anticipation" whether the images are good or bad or not.

I dearly wish the supernatural did exist because if it did life would be much more interesting. Talking to a spook would make my day.

 

[I less than three logic]

I less than three logic: To be fair the experiment doesn’t directly proof Christianity to be true. But what this sort of science does achieve is to dispel the atheist / naturalist myth that no supernatural exist.
Once a skeptic accepts there is a supernatural they are more able to pray to Jesus with an open mind. Then Christ Himself can lead skeptics the rest of the way to the Truth.
So a more precise title for the thread would be Science leads folk some of the way to God. Not as catchy though!

Atheism is a position concerned only with the belief in the existence/non-existence of one or more gods. So unless gods are required for the supernatural to exist, atheism, in and of itself, is not directly concerned with whether or not the supernatural exists. I see no reason why a person can't believe that the supernatural simply works on a different set of rules than those of the natural, and thus does not necessarily require gods to exist. A person can believe this experiment, believe the supernatural exists, and still be an atheist and not believe that any gods exist. So your "more precise title" would still be incorrect.

 

[JoeEllison]

billy da kid
The most succint definition is that God is Love. Humans are made for love, God's love most of all.
God is also the creator of the natural world.

Wow, we've never heard anyone ever say that sort of thing... you must be a prophet!

 

[JoeEllison]

I dearly wish the supernatural did exist because if it did life would be much more interesting. Talking to a spook would make my day.

That's the thing that these woosters don't seem to understand: the vast majority of skeptics are smarter and have better imaginations than the woosters, and we want this stuff to be real much more than they do.

 

[fagin]

hi fagin, lets not get into relativism here. Theres such a thing as human universals and pics that for example show someone suffering or are plain ugly are almost universaly regarded as unpleasant.

Anyway if you look in Dr Radins science you'll see that the signs of stress continue after the picture is seen.

Didn't have time - sorry, but a quick look at Wiki mentions he went to a spoon bending party, and bent a spoon.
Wow convinces me.

 

[Darat]

For god's sake can we avoid yet another decision of what "atheist" or "skeptic" means!

 

[JoeEllison]

For god's sake can we avoid yet another decision of what "atheist" or "skeptic" means!

Yeah, just as soon as the woosters start using the terms correctly!

 

[JoeEllison]

Didn't have time - sorry, but a quick look at Wiki mentions he went to a spoon bending party, and bent a spoon.
Wow convinces me.

Yeah, and that entry also notes that he claims that "real psychics" are right 30% of the time, while everyone else is right up to 20% of the time by randomly guessing.

 

[fagin]

ps some people actually enjoy real pain, so they may possibly enjoy pictures too.
And I'm not sure I could recognise the signs of stress. Those of ecstasy are very similar.
(hint - watch your girlfriend/sig other at the precise moment)(or look in the mirror)

 

[totale]

That is why over 90% of the worlds population believes in some form of divinity (google religion by adherance) Many are granted totally convincing evidence on a personal level.

And that's what generations of humans ad infinitum have said, except they weren't talking about your god, they were talking about Apollo or Thor or Vishnu or any one of countless deities you or I have never heard of. They had totally convincing evidence of their own deities existence, so you need to explain why your version is the correct one. And please don't reduce your argument to "Because I feel it in my heart" or "Because there are lots of people who think the same thing", or any other meaningless nonsense. Stick to the facts.

 

[Crundy]

Fair comment I should have said psuedo-sketicism - the affectation of skepticism when really you are close minded

I think you need to look up a proper definition of Open Minded:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php

 

[Sasha]

snip... Ok so before we see the beheading victim our skin will crawl or something? Well if the subjects are told in advance that there will be mixed images both good and bad its my guess that the skin will crawl in "anticipation" whether the images are good or bad or not.

Same thing I thought when I read the OP. How does skin crawling mean anything regarding what the subject thinks he'll see? It's simply an anticipatory reaction to the idea that something will be shown, neither good nor bad.

 

[m_huber]

That's the thing that these woosters don't seem to understand: the vast majority of skeptics are smarter and have better imaginations than the woosters, and we want this stuff to be real much more than they do.

Perhaps as a skeptic I want the supernatural to be true, but I do not need it to be true. That is the difference between a believer and a non-believer.

 

[Jimbo07]

That's the thing that these woosters don't seem to understand: the vast majority of skeptics are smarter and have better imaginations than the woosters, and we want this stuff to be real much more than they do.

I'm not quite like this. I want what ever is real to be real, regardless of what it is. I don't specifically want ghosts to be real, but if reality includes ghosts, then so be it. It doesn't seem to, but of course, I don't know.

...

I had to attend a "professional development" seminar once. The presenter proceeded to try to sell us on natural supplements. He bought into their pitch hook-line-and-sinker. He even made claims about cancer which directly contradicted the first speaker (who was from the Canadian Cancer Society) . His problem is that he had bought into the scam so badly that he didn't know the demos are frauds... so... he tried the "words have power" game. He wrote down random words, put them in envelopes and had the smallest girls try to resist the beefiest guys. Of course it didn't work, because he failed to use plants! He seemed genuinely confused. He had been so taken in by others' fraud, that he failed to play the same fraud in front of an audience. He had been a 'respected elder' in the organization, and I think his credibility was damaged a bit by the whole seminar. It's kind of sad, really...

 

[Nucular]

The experiment, which has been repeated and verified many times[/COLOR], shows that skin conductance consistently rises at least 3 seconds before subjects are shown an unpleasant image, but not before they see a nice one.

The protocol ensures neither the subject or even the folk running the experiment can know what image is going to be in advance. Not by any natural means anyway!

Do presentiment experiments these days control adquately for computational expectation bias? Could you give a reference to the experiments you consider to be best designed?

 

[Hawk one]

You can't see into the future. It hasn't happened yet. You are saying that if we are looking at pictures both good and bad that our skin reacts to the bad picture before we even see it? Yeah right. I'd love to see this tested in a purely scientific way. Say a beautiful girl and the next picture of a beheading victim. Ok so before we see the beheading victim our skin will crawl or something? Well if the subjects are told in advance that there will be mixed images both good and bad its my guess that the skin will crawl in "anticipation" whether the images are good or bad or not.

I dearly wish the supernatural did exist because if it did life would be much more interesting. Talking to a spook would make my day.

And let's not forget that even if there was skin-crawling, there might very well be another explanation, one that deLynch should definitely find interesting.

See, if there is one thing we actually know about the human brain, is that it's not perfect. And one of the things it's not perfect at doing is remembering things in the order it actually happened in. The most classic example is of course that when you put your hand on a hot stove, your neuro-system instinctively pulls back the hand, and -then- you're conciously feeling the pain. However, the brain puts it together so that you think you conciously felt pain, therefore pulled back the hand.

Exactly how far this goes, I don't know. I've once read about how apparently people make decisions and then start rationalising it, yet they feel like they're going through the cons and pros, then ending up at making the decision. I don't have any papers on this, though, so I suggest you better take this paragraph with a grain of salt.

And of course, it might be other explanations too. Maybe deLyynch's only remembering the times he shivered and it turned out to be a bad picture, forgetting all the times he didn't shiver and it was a bad pic, or did shive while it was a good pic.

So, deLynch, how do you propose to test this in a manner that will exclude any natural explanations, such as the ones I've just talked about?

 

[calebprime]

This (the OP) is so wrong that I'm wondering if he's a sock of Doc.

also, second Darat's lament about another debate about the nature of "true" skeptics.