Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you can't do it in FIVE MINUTES. It would take me years to re-research all the information I've gained over the last 4 decades.
Why can I not do it in five minutes? If I'm able to find research debunking Positive Thought as anything more than the placebo effect in five minutes, how does that make it invalid, or my arguments invalid.
Quote:
By the way, I've NEVER put forth the notion that religion has any positive benefit on disease. You will not get me to say that prayer works, because no one listens to prayers. Just like you don't discuss policy with the CEO of your company, or discuss policy with the low-level workers if you're the CEO.
I fail to see how your analogy works, or what religion has to do with positive thought.
Quote:
What are you saying is A, and not A?
Objective reality isn't objective reality. You can't have both. You're argument is essentially "There is nothing that is true." (except this phrase). A and not A.
Quote:
All reality is subjective, based on the perceptions of the person perceiving the reality.
Reality is independent the viewer. That's what makes it reality. It exists separate and apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
And there have been reputable studies to the above effect...that if it is real to our perceptions, than we will react as if it was real. I don't believe in "reality" however, because I'm not even certain that any of us exist.
Incoherent sophistry. You cannot contemplate existence without existing in the first place.
Sizzly. Is it not just as silly to expect me to believe that a random accident created the incredible magnitude of order that we find in our very existence? I wish that we could put as much zeal and energy into believing as we do in not believing. I truly do not have one simple answer to give you any amount of proof or confirmation that God exists. I can only confirm it in myself, for myself. It is a personal choice we all must make independently. Ignoring that which is right in front of you is an inherent flaw in all of us. I appreciate your recognition of the painting as the "watchmaker argument". That tells me you are interested and know a great deal on the subject. You obviously have questions that need answers that I cannot supply. I am not very smart. I encourage you to pray for what you seek. No one will know. You have nothing to lose. I encourage you to do so with an open heart and mind. I have spent the majority of my adult life without God in it. I like it much better with Him in it.
Proof of God's existence - you my friend
Confirmation - on the Day of Judgement, all will be confirmed
Levi. Why would you think that a random accident everything? I don't think that. I can see how one might want to believe that a magical being makes more sense.
I really takes very little energy to not believe. I don't have to perform any mental gymnastics to convince myself.
And, as I thought, you have zero evidence of god. You just believe on faith.
Most of us have the same questions about life. But I am okay with not knowing what I believe is unknowable. Some folks need to have the comfort of thinking somebody up there cares about them.
Levi, you are very polite, and I know this god stuff is all very real to you.
But I don't believe in your god or any other gods. I am truly willing to be open minded, and if there were any valid evidence at all, I would change my mind.
Konraden, do you think that the only acceptable proof of anything is that it is posted on the Internet?
If I tell you that I work for Home Depot, overnights, and I'm the most productive worker in my department, do you need some sort of proof posted on the Internet for you to believe it to be true?
I've never said that there is an objective reality--because there isn't. It's all subjective.
Konraden, do you think that the only acceptable proof of anything is that it is posted on the Internet?
If I tell you that I work for Home Depot, overnights, and I'm the most productive worker in my department, do you need some sort of proof posted on the Internet for you to believe it to be true?
I've never said that there is an objective reality--because there isn't. It's all subjective.
Considering the number of 1. research articles I can find and 2. articles that clearly cite their research I find on the internet, it constitutes sufficient evidence to say this.
Positive Thought Psychology is bull****. It works no more than the placebo effect because it is the placebo effect. You are not going to cure cancer and repair a punctured lung simply by believing you can do so. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
How do you know? It is entirely possible that you don't exist. Are you willing to accept that possibility, or are you closed minded?
In order to ponder existence or non-existence, there must be existence in which to ponder. Like I said before, your argument is incoherent sophistry.
We exist by definition. This isn't about philosophy as much as pointless sophistry. If no one exists, this conversation could not occur. If you don't exist, I couldn't have the conversation with you. If I don't exist, I could not reply towards you. Etc, etc. Existence isn't something to be debated, because in order to debate it, existence must already be.
To which, something cannot be and not be at the same time. It is incoherent.
If I tell you that I work for Home Depot, overnights, and I'm the most productive worker in my department, do you need some sort of proof posted on the Internet for you to believe it to be true?
You didn't answer this question.
Do you need proof posted somewhere on the Internet to believe this, or can you accept it as a given?
I don't get my information from the Internet, I have amassed information over decades of life experience and study. The studies of other people, however, I find to be questionable. My own experiences are the only ones that have any validity to me.
If I base my actions on someone else's study, and I don't find them to be valid based on the experience I myself have had, then how valid can it be? If it isn't valid for ME?
We exist by definition. This isn't about philosophy as much as pointless sophistry. If no one exists, this conversation could not occur. If you don't exist, I couldn't have the conversation with you. If I don't exist, I could not reply towards you. Etc, etc. Existence isn't something to be debated, because in order to debate it, existence must already be.
To which, something cannot be and not be at the same time. It is incoherent.
I don't think we're having this conversation. Because I doubt either of us exists.
After all, we're just faceless people on the Internet. [and even if one of us existed, we could still have this conversation--see solipsism.]
Do you need proof posted somewhere on the Internet to believe this, or can you accept it as a given?
The claim isn't worthy of research to validate, so I would accept it on face value.
Something that actually affects the health of people? Much more important. The standards of evidence are appropriate the the claim being made.
Quote:
I don't get my information from the Internet, I have amassed information over decades of life experience and study. The studies of other people, however, I find to be questionable. My own experiences are the only ones that have any validity to me.
Your own perceptions lie to you--which we know from objective study of perception. Your experiences are entirely relevant to you--to be sure--but they speak little of the objective world separate from your subjective perceptions--hence this entire bull**** sophistry you get into regarding existence and non-existence.
Quote:
If I base my actions on someone else's study, and I don't find them to be valid based on the experience I myself have had, then how valid can it be? If it isn't valid for ME?
Again, a sample of one does not a study make. Research showing that positive thought psychology is as effective as placebos is significant. The fact that you had a personal (unverified) positive response to positive thought does not represent the population nor invalidate the science behind positive thought psychology and placebo effects--both of which operate on the same principle, and both of which are of limited effectiveness. Your personal--subjective--experience is not empirical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
I don't think we're having this conversation. Because I doubt either of us exists.
You can't think without existing. You defeat your own arguments.
Quote:
After all, we're just faceless people on the Internet. [and even if one of us existed, we could still have this conversation--see solipsism.]
Can't have the conversation without existing. Even if "I" was a manifestation of your subconsciousness, your subcon exists, which again defeats your argument
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I know this god stuff is all very real to you.
