homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Annunaki and extra-terrestrial mythology (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Annunaki and extra-terrestrial mythology
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It takes a bold spirit to look at thousands of pictures of Mars, not find any buildings, and decide, "It's because they've hidden them" rather than "It's because they're not there." So I salute you, Emily Windsor-Cragg.

I submit, however, as Martin has above me, that God and your neighbor might be better loved by your redirecting energy away from analyzing tens of thousands of pictures and toward the ideals of Matthew 25: feeding the hungry, taking in the stranger, visiting those in prison, and so on.

Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Love is the truth.

Truth is just one aspect of love.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I saw this article and thought of this thread, for some reason.

Unaccountably, this sprang to mind.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
passer

Indigo
# 13329

 - Posted      Profile for passer   Email passer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Unaccountably, this sprang to mind.

In the spirit of this thread, I think that's quite accountable!

As an aside, I just ran through that test, and was struck by how different my answers were to what they'd have been if I was still working. I was clearly a ball of pent-up angst when I was working, whereas I now come out as laid-back approaching horizontal. That's office politics for you. Sigh. Learning to let go... [Biased]

I love the last few questions. I can see that for some people the internet might appear as an anthropomorphic hive-being sort of presence - I've known my fair share of conspiracy theorists who are apprehensive of the Deep Web and the Dark Web where the Illuminati can be found, and where such as the Annunaki plough their mysterious furrows. It's as if they see life though a photoshopped lens. They spend their time looking for yet more things to be afraid of, more things on which to lay the blame for their own feelings of inadequacy and helplessness.

I do wonder if it's an age thing. My kids and their peers regard the internet as an extension of their daily lives, just another tool accessible through their iPhones. They are completely at ease with all the technology they've grown up with, and relatively incurious as to how it works beyond the front-end. Older people may be just more suspicious of anything that can be loosely labelled as new-fangled, and less trusting of its infrastructure. If a youngster finds something wrong or illogical on the web, they just shrug it off as they would if a person gave them inaccurate information (it's only Wiki) whereas an older person might be more inclined to wonder why it is wrong, and another faux conspiracy is born.
//streamofconsciousness

Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841

 - Posted      Profile for St. Stephen the Stoned   Author's homepage   Email St. Stephen the Stoned   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I saw this article and thought of this thread, for some reason.

Unaccountably, this sprang to mind.
The scariest thing about that is:
"Please note that this questionnaire only works in the Internet Explorer web browser."

--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!

Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why does the statement "People deliberately try to irritate me" have as its highest-frequency answer "Once a day"?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841

 - Posted      Profile for St. Stephen the Stoned   Author's homepage   Email St. Stephen the Stoned   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why does the statement "People deliberately try to irritate me" have as its highest-frequency answer "Once a day"?

[Killing me]

--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!

Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU

For what it's worth. I don't believe his analysis, but there you have it.

K.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: That requirement, if applied consistently, must inevitably lead to atheism must it not?
To be honest, I think the requirement is too strong. Scientific evidence might be sufficient to make people believe something, but it isn't necessary. There are plenty of things I believe in life without scientific evidence ("Don't drink that coffee yet, it's hot!" "Ok, I'll take your word for it.")

Been on holiday so only just seen this.

1. Scientific evidence removes the need for belief.

2. Your thinking reminds me of the “youth evangelist” I heard in the 1960s.
All you need to become saved is to have faith; having faith is easy – you have faith every time you turn on a tap and expect water to come out of it.

Expecting water to flow from a tap when it’s happened successfully several times a day for a dozen+ years is not exercising faith – it’s a reasonable expectation based on overwhelming repeated experimental evidence. Similarly you probably learnt as a child that when people tell you that a drink they made for you is still hot they are probably right. (Because you learnt the hard way).

Sometimes we have to guess without certainty and behave as though we are right – getting married comes to mind – you could argue that getting married implies belief about the future. Often we don’t need to guess but some people choose to do so; I don’t know that there’s a God, I’ve chosen to believe that there is exABC Rowan Williams.

We tend to test things we understand and take on trust things we don’t. It was always said that the bank manager who grilled you severely over your application for a £10K house loan would grant a business a million pounds with little scrutiny – he had a house, he’d never contemplated a use for a million quid. The late George Carlin put it thus; "If you tell people that an invisible man in the sky created the universe and everything in it then they will believe it without question BUT tell them that the paint is wet and they have to touch it...just to make sure!"



--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hugh--

But trusting scientific evidence requires trusting the Scientific Method, the people using it, the quality of their tools and data, that reality can accurately and fully be measured that way, etc., does it not?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hugh--

But trusting scientific evidence requires trusting the Scientific Method, the people using it, the quality of their tools and data, that reality can accurately and fully be measured that way, etc., does it not?

Which is why peer review and replication are essential - that's how the scientific community learnt to reject Pons and Fleischmann's

cold fusion


reports.

Science isn't always right first time, but the scientific method includes tools for self-correction.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: 1. Scientific evidence removes the need for belief.
I agree.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: Expecting water to flow from a tap when it’s happened successfully several times a day for a dozen+ years is not exercising faith – it’s a reasonable expectation based on overwhelming repeated experimental evidence.
I agree.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: 2. Your thinking reminds me of the “youth evangelist” I heard in the 1960s.
All you need to become saved is to have faith; having faith is easy – you have faith every time you turn on a tap and expect water to come out of it.

This isn't the argument I was making.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When you think of it, the building blocks of scientific knowledge and understanding are very humble. Careful observation and careful measurement. Plus the vital ingredient of replicability. The finding is offered with information to enable another researcher to check it. The hypothesis is offered with information about how it has been tested, or how it might be tested. These things are done on an open hand, openly.

Bronowski observed that science is a tribute to what we can know, although we are fallible. At its best (and it is not always at its best, in common with all well-intentioned human endeavour), its findings and offerings take us beyond the measure of any single human mind into the territory of secure, common, understanding. Findings which can be repeated can be trusted. Hypotheses which can be tested can be trusted; at least until they are falsified. And both confirmation and any subsequent falsification aid the cause of a better, and shareable, understanding.

By contrast, the impact of all conspiracy theories is to diminish this shared understanding. True knowledge is seen to reside only with those who are "in the know". The "real" truth is always being "concealed" by "them". That is a pernicious, destructive, idea. It can cause otherwise good people to lose their way big time.

I felt very sad when I watched Komensky's video clip.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
People who live on Mars don't appear to want to be visible from above.

Or from the side, if the fact that no Mars Rover missions have yet identified any signs of life is anything to go by.

The image of those Rovers as Martian versions of the Google Street View van taking pictures to complement our overhead satellite views is an amusing one, though [Smile]

No doubt there's an extra button to show canals as well as streets over the topography view. [Biased]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
"If you tell people that an invisible man in the sky created the universe and everything in it then they will believe it without question BUT tell them that the paint is wet and they have to touch it...just to make sure!"

People touch it because paint does not remain wet. They want to find out whether it has dried yet.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Moo: People touch it because paint does not remain wet. They want to find out whether it has dried yet.
Some people even like sticking their finger in fresh, wet paint [Hot and Hormonal]


@HughWillRidmee: I'm sorry that my answer from yesterday evening was a bit short (it was quite late). I have been thinking a bit about it, and I'll try to give you my tl;dr answer now.

On the first page of this thread, a couple of weeks ago, the conversation went a bit like this (if I'm allowed to paraphrase a little).

Emily: The Annunaki are real.

Various Shipmates: We want to see scientific evidence of that, otherwise we won't believe it.

You: You don't have scientific evidence that proves Christianity either, so by your own logic you should abandon it.

I hope I got the gist of the conversation right. Let me try to explain my answer that I gave back then a bit better. I guess it is possible to divide the claims we can make into three categories:

CATEGORY 1: There are claims that have been proven scientifically. We should simply believe these claims, faith isn't required here.

Claims of the form 'if I let go of an apple, it will fall to the ground' fall into this category. Of course, strictly speaking science has no way to prove that the next apple will also fall to the ground, but you've made the Popperian argument (in your example about the water taps) that overwhelming evidence says that it will.

I agree with you, no faith is required here.

CATEGORY 2: There are claims that have been disproven scientifically. We should simply disbelief those claims, faith doesn't come into play here. (In fact, we could see this category as a form of category 1 of course, where the scientific proof would be negative instead of positive.)

CATEGORY 3: There are claims that have neither been proven nor been disproven scientifically. This is the interesting category of course, because here we have a choice.

Emily's claim "The Annunaki exist" falls into category 3 (although some of her other claims don't, for example the ones about a 12 mile wide Mars with buildings on it). The Christian claim "God exists" falls into this category too (I know there are some people on the Ship who claim that they can prove God's existence, but I'm not one of them).

If Emily could give scientific proof for the existence of the Annunaki, her claim would obviously fall into Category 1 and the matter would be resolved, but as long as she can't it's in Category 3. The same is true for the Christian claim of God's existence.

Which means that we have a choice: either we believe it, or we don't.

When it comes to claims in Category 3 (especially the Christian claim) you seem to have an attitude on the Ship that I'm paraphrasing as: "For all claims in Category 3, we should adopt a default position of disbelief, to be on the safe side." For example, you seem to have this attitude in this post.

What I tried to show (admittedly clumsily) in this post is: "the bulk of human communication takes place within Category 3, and it's quite common for us to choose to believe things that haven't been scientifically proven".

For example, in this post, you claim that you heard an evangelist speaking about water taps in the sixties. I believe that you did. But I have no scientific evidence to prove that this really happened, and there isn't exactly an overwhelming evidence that anonymous people on the Internet always speak the truth.

Yet, I believe you. Because you strike me as a basically decent person, and I don't see why you would lie about this. These are perfectly valid reasons for me to believe you, but they aren't scientific evidence. I can't just go to the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and say: "π + e is a transcendental number because I'm a decent guy and I wouldn't lie about this" [Biased]

So, all I want to say in this rambling post is: "I don't have scientific evidence that God exists, but I choose to believe it, and in fact it's perfectly normal to believe in things for which we don't have scientific evidence."

Thank you for your patience.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Roc:
So, all I want to say in this rambling post is: "I don't have scientific evidence that God exists, but I choose to believe it, and in fact it's perfectly normal to believe in things for which we don't have scientific evidence."

Except that all the other beliefs can be shown to be ideas from the human brain, or have a basis in scientific/natural fact. And the difference is also that no other beliefs have the same world-wide influence that belief in God/god/s does, nor do they teach children that hugely influential things without evidence are true.
(Not well expressed, I'm afraid! I blame it on the gloomy, damp, June weather.))

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris: Except that all the other beliefs can be shown to be ideas from the human brain, or have a basis in scientific/natural fact.
That in itself is a Category 3 claim, which you choose to believe but I don't.

For example, on the Ship you have said things like "The concept of love can completely be explained in scientific terms" and then you mumble on a bit about hormones and evolution, thinking that you've explained love sufficiently in scientific terms. No you haven't, and I don't think you can.

quote:
SusanDoris: And the difference is also that no other beliefs have the same world-wide influence that belief in God/god/s does, nor do they teach children that hugely influential things without evidence are true.
Yes, there are other beliefs that do exactly that.

There is a belief that has no evidence at all (I would even say there is strong scientific evidence against it), it is spread massively all around the world by all possible means, and it has a huge influence on children.

This belief is: "buying stuff is what will make you happy".

FWIW, within our society I find this belief far more dangerous than most religious beliefs.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, all I want to say in this rambling post is: "I don't have scientific evidence that God exists, but I choose to believe it, and in fact it's perfectly normal to believe in things for which we don't have scientific evidence."

Thank you for your patience.

quote:
SusanDoris: And the difference is also that no other beliefs have the same world-wide influence that belief in God/god/s does, nor do they teach children that hugely influential things without evidence are true.
Yes, there are other beliefs that do exactly that.

There is a belief that has no evidence at all (I would even say there is strong scientific evidence against it), it is spread massively all around the world by all possible means, and it has a huge influence on children.

This belief is: "buying stuff is what will make you happy".

FWIW, within our society I find this belief far more dangerous than most religious beliefs.

We are probably not that far apart until............

Like (as I recall from her previous posts) SusanDoris I am an atheist and also a humanist. I understand the temptation to be a christian and can admire those who (like you and Rowan Williams) state that they have no knowledge of the existence of God but have chosen so to believe. I think they are mistaken but, provided any harm they do is limited only to themselves, their belief presents little danger to humanity. Unfortunately a part of many religious beliefs is something akin to the great commission – and that’s where my problems begin. Quite apart from the effects on me and others caused by a childhood based on irrational fear and the certainty of failure

Nigel De Grasse Tyson

shows a correlation between the existence of fundamentalist religion and the erosion of progress. And no, most Shippies do not meet the usual definitions of fundamentalism, but moderation tends to produce fundamentalism and provide it with a cloak of acceptability.
It is only a few steps from I believe to I know to you must know to The lower house also passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend

religious believers.

to kill the apostate. Along that road we get science is great – provided it agrees with our religious book(s) – when it disagrees it's wrong . Again – relatively harmless if you think it, wicked if you teach in schools etc. in part because it facilitates acceptance of the associated supernaturality of homeopathy, acupuncture, anti-vaccine, mediums and other despicable charlatans - all sheltering under the religion supported umbrella of "science doesn't know it all" and other such cant. It also permits silly ideas (The Annunaki, Scientology, Anthroposophy et al) to present themselves as valid concepts because they can claim to meet the same standards of evidence as the older religions).

Teaching people that the physical world can be changed by superstition is wrong – it provides the hope of false short-cuts (at least someone wins the lottery) and ideas such as heaven encourage social inertia (the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate) and the acceptance of poverty/abuse/violence/genital mutilation etc. because it will all be alright once you’re dead.

As to “buying stuff is what will make you happy” – it’s not the only way to happiness (and it’s temporary of course) but

this

evidence suggests that it does work – though buying memories is better than buying stuff.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: We are probably not that far apart until............
Darn, here was me looking for a long fight [Biased]

quote:
HughWillRidmee: I think they are mistaken but, provided any harm they do is limited only to themselves, their belief presents little danger to humanity.
I'm fine thank you, but are you open for the idea that my religion might also inspire me to try to do some good?

quote:
HughWillRidmee: It is only a few steps from I believe to I know to you must know to The lower house also passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend
Oh yes, and that step has been taken far too often for my liking.

I don't deny that some awfully bad things have been (and continue to be) done in the name of religion. Believe me, I hate these as much as you do. Religion is connected to some strong emotions of ours, and therefore it can easily be abused. But isn't this the same with some other things: money, sex, politics, even love? Surely you don't want to abandon all of those as well?

quote:
HughWillRidmee: Teaching people that the physical world can be changed by superstition is wrong – it provides the hope of false short-cuts (at least someone wins the lottery) and ideas such as heaven encourage social inertia (the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate) and the acceptance of poverty/abuse/violence/genital mutilation etc. because it will all be alright once you’re dead.
Yes, but not all religion is like this. Mine isn't, for example. (Maybe this sounds like bragging, but there you go.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

I'm fine thank you, but are you open for the idea that my religion might also inspire me to try to do some good?
Yes of course, but if you are the sort of person, as I suspect you are, who is able to be inspired to try to do some good can you accept that you might be the same person without that religion? Obviously we can’t test the hypothesis but I’ve known a lot of good people – some of them were also religious.

I don't deny that some awfully bad things have been (and continue to be) done in the name of religion. Believe me, I hate these as much as you do. Religion is connected to some strong emotions of ours, and therefore it can easily be abused. But isn't this the same with some other things: money, sex, politics, even love? Surely you don't want to abandon all of those as well? No, but I’m not sure that you’re analogies are valid. This is thinking on the hoof. Humans, to varying degrees, are motivated by the same wants as they were seventy thousand years ago –things such as food, warmth, shelter, companionship, security , sex. Money/power is the stepping stone to satisfaction of these needs whilst religion, politics, and sometimes love are means to obtaining money/power.

You say religion is connected to some strong emotions - granted that it’s not total but I suspect that religion is most often and most closely linked to fear. I know some people will say that they want to go to heaven and spend eternity with their god but I reckon most religious want to avoid hell (or get today their daily bread). Not a scrap of evidence for hell but play on the natural fears that enabled us to survive on the African savannah and some will fear. (Ever known anyone listen to the twigs hitting their bedroom window on a dark, stormy winter night only to find that it actually was the bogeyman?). In many societies there's plenty of reason to fear hunger and violence. Then get others to share the fear as a price for companionship/mutual support. It’s interesting that the lack of religion is generally greatest in those countries where the citizens are, or feel, most secure. It’s also interesting that some sections of christianity (and other religion) work very hard to try to keep their congregations dependent upon the church rather than other agencies/"socialism".

I would like for humanity to abandon unnecessary fear.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: Teaching people that the physical world can be changed by superstition is wrong – it provides the hope of false short-cuts (at least someone wins the lottery) and ideas such as heaven encourage social inertia (the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate) and the acceptance of poverty/abuse/violence/genital mutilation etc. because it will all be alright once you’re dead. Yes, but not all religion is like this. Mine isn't, for example. (Maybe this sounds like bragging, but there you go.)
And that’s great – but, in truth, I suspect most religious people would say theirs wasn’t like that either. Yet they will pray expecting to improve the divine will and teach others to try to do so, they will fund the adornment of buildings and the enrichment of officials when others are in desperate need of the basics, they are sure that they know what their god wants everyone else to do in their bedrooms, and who with, and under what circumstances. And their religion is not harming anyone, where would morality be without their religion – they’d all be murderers and rapists wouldn’t they – not.

So - why are you religious? How is your religion different to most other peoples’? Do you encourage others to share your religious views?What do you get/hope to get from your religion?

You can PM me if you wish



--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hugh--

Acupuncture and homeopathy aren't about the supernatural. I know homeopathy is pretty controversial, at least in the US. But acupuncture is well documented in medical settings.

Acupuncture worked well for me, over a long period of time. I've had good experiences with Oscillococcinum homeopathic cold/flu medicine. And I don't seem prone to placebo effects.

FWIW.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
HughWillRidmee: Yes of course, but if you are the sort of person, as I suspect you are, who is able to be inspired to try to do some good can you accept that you might be the same person without that religion? Obviously we can’t test the hypothesis but I’ve known a lot of good people – some of them were also religious.
First of all, I don't believe that religion has a monopoly on morality. There are many atheists and agnosts who do much good. I know a number of them, and I respect them very much.

For myself, of course I would be able to do good also if I were non-religious. But at the same time, I don't doubt that I would be a different person. My religion is a part of me, and I don't think you can separate that.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: You say religion is connected to some strong emotions - granted that it’s not total but I suspect that religion is most often and most closely linked to fear.
I'm glad that you aren't going very far down the 'religion is just a crutch for people who fear death' route. I've heard that a couple of times too many, and I'm not sure if want to go very far into that discussion again.

For the moment, I would just like to point out that for most people, religion is very strongly linked to positive emotions too. There is a reason why we celebrate marriages and the birth of children in church. I could talk of many experiences that I link positively with religion: nature, music, science, inspiration...

quote:
HughWillRidmee: I know some people will say that they want to go to heaven and spend eternity with their god but I reckon most religious want to avoid hell
I don't believe in Hell myself. I don't think it is a very useful construct, partly for the reasons you mentioned here. You're right, I don't believe that fear of Hell is the best motivator.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: It’s interesting that the lack of religion is generally greatest in those countries where the citizens are, or feel, most secure.
This is true, and I think you'll agree that there are many and complex reasons for that. I agree with you that when people feel they have more control over their lifes (less fear?), they'll also feel that they have less need for God or religion. But I doubt that this is the only reason.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: I would like for humanity to abandon unnecessary fear.
Me too. No argument from me here.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: And that’s great – but, in truth, I suspect most religious people would say theirs wasn’t like that either. Yet they will pray expecting to improve the divine will and teach others to try to do so, they will fund the adornment of buildings and the enrichment of officials when others are in desperate need of the basics, they are sure that they know what their god wants everyone else to do in their bedrooms, and who with, and under what circumstances.
Like you've undoubtedly noticed on the Ship, there are many flavours of Christianity. I don't like this particular flavour very much either.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: So - why are you religious?
I'm afraid I don't have a very spectacular story to tell here. I'm not a convert, my parents already took me with them to church when I was a child. It helped that it was a very warm community, I had many friends there. As time progressed, I started to accept Christianity more and more as my own. Later, I've been influenced by many things, especially my encounter with Liberation Theology here in Brazil.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: How is your religion different to most other peoples’?
I'm not sure. I'm definitely quite far out on the left-wing/liberal/progressive scale. Maybe this is what you mean?

quote:
HughWillRidmee: Do you encourage others to share your religious views?
I'm not really into evangelizing, if that's what you mean. I just talk about the way I try to live my faith when it comes up.

quote:
HughWillRidmee: What do you get/hope to get from your religion?
I don't see my faith in purely utilitarian terms of "what can I get out of it?" But I guess I coud say that my faith gives an extra dimension to things, through which I see the world, and which inspires me to try to do something good for other people. I wouldn't want to miss it.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, isn't this judgment interesting?

This guy thinks he ought to be my Guide and Mentor, telling me what I ought to be doing.

Never mind, that I have found buildings, military bases and operations (in NASA photos) and all the Races of mankind there; plus snakes. Oh the snakes.

Look. You do what you are called to do, and I'll do what God has called me to do, okay Friend?

[Smile] Emily

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
It takes a bold spirit to look at thousands of pictures of Mars, not find any buildings, and decide, "It's because they've hidden them" rather than "It's because they're not there." So I salute you, Emily Windsor-Cragg.

I submit, however, as Martin has above me, that God and your neighbor might be better loved by your redirecting energy away from analyzing tens of thousands of pictures and toward the ideals of Matthew 25: feeding the hungry, taking in the stranger, visiting those in prison, and so on.


Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hugh--

But trusting scientific evidence requires trusting the Scientific Method, the people using it, the quality of their tools and data, that reality can accurately and fully be measured that way, etc., does it not?

A scientistic method that leaves out the rest of this dimensional universe is not scientific.

without Intuition and [telepathic] remote-viewing, scientists are completely cutting themselves off from higher knowledge, which is a form of deliberated ignorance.

And that's where secular materialism stands to this day: knowing absolutely nothing about higher intelligences [like who "God" is and what "God" functions are].

Today, astronomers have been taught a cosmology that is completely obsolete, out of date and wrong. They believe in it, the way they believe in Jesus ... by faith.

That is no way to run a planet.

Emily [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
without Intuition and [telepathic] remote-viewing, scientists are completely cutting themselves off from higher knowledge,...

Why do you call it 'higher' knowledge? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it 'different'? I have asked this question of believers quite often over the years and have never had a really satisfactory answer. It's alwaysa rather preciously woolly response which seems to mean that they are on some imagined 'level' unattainable by non-believers!

I do not recall seeing Sof posters implying that idea though!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris: It's alwaysa rather preciously woolly response which seems to mean that they are on some imagined 'level' unattainable by non-believers!

I do not recall seeing Sof posters implying that idea though!

That's great. I do believe that religion adds something 'extra' to me, another dimension through which I see the world. But I don't feel that this would be 'higher' in any way than the knowledge you might have.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Without diesel engines and power steering, poets are totally cutting themselves off from bus driving.

Without maps and contour lines plumbers are totally cutting themselves off from geography.

Science isn't about "higher knowledge" , its about knowledge of the natural world gained through reproducible methods. Reflective, scholarly, experimental. Whatever "higher knowledge" might be, its answers to different questions.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But trusting scientific evidence requires trusting the Scientific Method, the people using it, the quality of their tools and data, that reality can accurately and fully be measured that way, etc., does it not?

A scientistic method that leaves out the rest of this dimensional universe is not scientific.

without Intuition and [telepathic] remote-viewing, scientists are completely cutting themselves off from higher knowledge, which is a form of deliberated ignorance.

And that's where secular materialism stands to this day: knowing absolutely nothing about higher intelligences [like who "God" is and what "God" functions are].

Somewhere in St. Paul's epistles, he says that if something can be proved, there is no need for faith. In other words, God cannot be proved scientifically. So "Creation Science" is attempting the impossible. By the same token, neither can God be disproved scientifically. Thus atheists of the Dawkins variety -- as opposed to agnostics -- are likewise attempting the impossible.

As Ken says :
quote:
Without diesel engines and power steering, poets are totally cutting themselves off from bus driving
And I don't believe that, as yet, "Remote viewing" or other methods purporting to rely on telepathy can be said to be part of the Scientific Method.

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
without Intuition and [telepathic] remote-viewing, scientists are completely cutting themselves off from higher knowledge,...

Why do you call it 'higher' knowledge? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it 'different'?
No, not different at all. MULTI-dimensional knowledge is all part of the same diverse universal reality.

The Universe is as diverse as the forest, the ocean, the meadow and the mind.

Turning off the rest of the Creation so you can only see what your IDEAS HOLD AS "sacred" is like
only believing BBC and letting the rest of the world go to Hell.

That's not an intelligent strategy.

45 87 99 [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Somewhere in St. Paul's epistles, he says that if something can be proved, there is no need for faith. In other words, God cannot be proved scientifically. So "Creation Science" is attempting the impossible. By the same token, neither can God be disproved scientifically. Thus atheists of the Dawkins variety -- as opposed to agnostics -- are likewise attempting the impossible. ... And I don't believe that, as yet, "Remote viewing" or other methods purporting to rely on telepathy can be said to be part of the Scientific Method.

Ah! So that's where the heresy lies--again--in Saul of Tarsus' false testimony!

if something can be proved, there is no need for faith is false!

What can be proved in 3rd Dimensional Physicality is absurd and requires FAITH in 7thD or 13thD subjectivity.

The rules of manifestation in subjective existence absolutely refute the laws of cause and effect in 3rd dimensional physicality.

So, if the Angels didn't have faith that God knows how to run 3rd D Causes and Effects, they would not be able to attend to the outcomes of Physical failure uncaused by bad intentions.

Every time Paul opens his mouth, he contradicts the teaching of Jesus, Son of YHVH.

45 87 99 [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hugh--

Acupuncture and homeopathy aren't about the supernatural. I know homeopathy is pretty controversial, at least in the US. But acupuncture is well documented in medical settings.

Acupuncture worked well for me, over a long period of time. I've had good experiences with Oscillococcinum homeopathic cold/flu medicine. And I don't seem prone to placebo effects.

FWIW.


Cochrane reports homeopathy aggregated results over many properly constituted trials – indistinguishable from placebo.
Acupuncture works just as well with sham needles (they have retractable points) and normal needles placed randomly (but not in the recommended places). – conclusion – placebo.

Much info. readily available if you want it.

They both rely on concepts not found in the natural world (succussion and chi) and, by definition, would prove the existence of the supernatural if they worked better than placebo.

As to colds/flu – your immune system, in time, deals with viruses – just don’t, please, risk relying on homeopathy for prevention against dangerous conditions such as malaria. My doctor had a patient who did - the patient survived, but only after six weeks at death's door in a specialist London hospital.

LeRoc – thanks and good fortune

E W-C the US military got scammed for several million dollars on RV – it doesn’t work.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Placebo is difficult, isn't it? It does work better than nothing, there is something going on, but it isn't going to work if the patient knows that's what it is. So why not use homeopathy or acupuncture if they are as good as placebo?

Though not for the killers.

[ 16. June 2013, 22:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Placebo is difficult, isn't it? It does work better than nothing, there is something going on, but it isn't going to work if the patient knows that's what it is. So why not use homeopathy or acupuncture if they are as good as placebo?

Though not for the killers.

Homeopathy worked better than the alternative when it was dreamt up by Hahnemann - but the alternative was blood-letting. Blood-letting increased the risk of infection, water/sugar pills with no active ingredient have no direct impact on risk whatsoever. Nowadays we often have alternatives that work spectacularly better than placebo.

Possibly the most disconcerting aspect of placebo is that it does work when people know that's what it is. But it usually only works for some people and is a waste of time/effort/money in the majority of cases.

And, if its done without disclosure, it's deceitful.

And telling people that science can be replaced by supernatural delusion is both immoral and potentially dangerous to the listener.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Somewhere in St. Paul's epistles, he says that if something can be proved, there is no need for faith. In other words, God cannot be proved scientifically. So "Creation Science" is attempting the impossible. By the same token, neither can God be disproved scientifically. Thus atheists of the Dawkins variety -- as opposed to agnostics -- are likewise attempting the impossible. ... And I don't believe that, as yet, "Remote viewing" or other methods purporting to rely on telepathy can be said to be part of the Scientific Method.

Ah! So that's where the heresy lies--again--in Saul of Tarsus' false testimony!

if something can be proved, there is no need for faith is false!

What can be proved in 3rd Dimensional Physicality is absurd and requires FAITH in 7thD or 13thD subjectivity.

The rules of manifestation in subjective existence absolutely refute the laws of cause and effect in 3rd dimensional physicality.

So, if the Angels didn't have faith that God knows how to run 3rd D Causes and Effects, they would not be able to attend to the outcomes of Physical failure uncaused by bad intentions.

Every time Paul opens his mouth, he contradicts the teaching of Jesus, Son of YHVH.

45 87 99 [Smile]

Oy vey! [Roll Eyes] Well i guess i'll just have to live in my own little 4D world (counting time as the the 4th dimension) and not trouble my poor brain about the 13th dimension. You are free to accept on faith that the Annunaki told you that Paul was a heretic. Moi, i'll just have to get along without my tinfoil hat.

and [Smile]

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please note thati really didnt intend my previous post to be an ad hominem comment on the poster but on the content of the post, my opinions of which i stand by. Actually Sister Emily is a sincere person and probably a very nice person, and i loved her post in Eccles where she related her enthusiastic Texas-style response in church to a Bach piece that had been playrd. I thought "You go girl!"

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Possibly the most disconcerting aspect of placebo is that it does work when people know that's what it is. But it usually only works for some people and is a waste of time/effort/money in the majority of cases.

And, if its done without disclosure, it's deceitful.


I wasn't aware of that - that it worked when the patient knew what it was.

And I agree that ethically it's not on to do it without disclosure.

I suspect that part of the homeopathy effect is down to the length of time taken in assessing the situation, and the interest in what the patient has to say.

I had a friend who told me that a friend of theirs found that his conditions got better when he had identified the supposed remedy. Which would presumably be the "it was going to get better anyway".

I did try the little pills for myself once for the odd cold. What turned me off was when I had the sort of earache that might possibly a tooth instead, and the remedy was supposed to be mercury. When I pointed out to the guy in the shop that I must be getting enough of that off my fillings, he said that that wouldn't work because there was too much of it.

[ 19. June 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Left out the word "situation" after "it was going to get well anyway".
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
without Intuition and [telepathic] remote-viewing, scientists are completely cutting themselves off from higher knowledge, which is a form of deliberated ignorance.

Imagination may have a place in scientific inquiry but unless ideas can be tested against the world outside one's dreams it is not science. The technical phrase I beleive is "making shit up".

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've had good experiences with Oscillococcinum homeopathic cold/flu medicine. And I don't seem prone to placebo effects.

Two mutually contradictory statements I'm afraid. [Biased]

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If earthbound, physical scientists cut themselves OFF from "other-dimensional" [The Holographic Paradigm] knowledge, they can't understand the relationship because "what they know" and the cosmic perspective in which "what they know" operates and has its effects.

Staying COMPLETELY and SOLELY within the confines of physical "causes and effects" is ...

LIKE the physician who refuses to acknowledge effects of nutrition and stress;

LIKE the architect who refuses to acknowledge effects of climate;

LIKE the engineer who refuses to acknowledge effects of wear and tear;

LIKE the computer geek who refuses to recognize or acknowledge effects of neglected UPDATES;

LIKE the media who refuse to recognize or acknowledge effects of dysinfo and misinfo on the public mind.

Partial knowledge creates a situation in which chaos can operate TRANSPARENTLY.

eewc

[ 21. June 2013, 00:47: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717

 - Posted      Profile for Plique-à-jour     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

Partial knowledge creates a situation in which chaos can operate TRANSPARENTLY.

Yes, any project which doesn't take its lead from the mystical pronouncements of visionary initiates, or the authority of monarchy by divine right, will have to muddle through as best it can with what information it can derive from the observable.

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

-

Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, maybe we can s-t-r-e-t-c-h what's observable in terms of developing better digital image interpretations.

A nobel laureate physicist was surprised to hear that someone can see "dark matter" simply by photographing in NIGHTSHOT, black-light digital images that leave out R-G-B hues. That never occurred to him.

I laughed til my sides ached.

http://www.scienfree.org/marsmap.htm

I guess, one can try to open the minds of the already-schooled.

eewc

[ 21. June 2013, 22:21: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
...someone can see "dark matter" simply by photographing in NIGHTSHOT, black-light digital images that leave out R-G-B hues

(Independent) Citation needed.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You'd have fitted in just fine in the prayer group I was in at Triangle tonight Em.

I watched The Master a week tomorrow ago. And a few days after the John Huston documentary about combat PTSD. The treatment can be initially spectacularly successful because battle neuroses are rapidly acquired.

Ours aren't. We can become walking - cognitive - wounded, some of us. Of the guys I was with tonight, most barely will if that. One could see that I can. But even so, the wind changed a long time ago for us Em. And our funny faces set.

Some here seem to think that people whose funny faces are actually harmful to others have to go to even further to Hell for that.

That's one of the most harmful, wind set funny faces there is.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've had good experiences with Oscillococcinum homeopathic cold/flu medicine. And I don't seem prone to placebo effects.

Two mutually contradictory statements I'm afraid. [Biased]
[Razz]

Seriously, I'm known for all sorts of rare reactions to prescription meds. If I were placebo-effect prone, I'd think I wouldn't have such bad reactions. FWIW.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Seriously, I'm known for all sorts of rare reactions to prescription meds. If I were placebo-effect prone, I'd think I wouldn't have such bad reactions. FWIW.

The unanticipated reactions to prescription meds may be in themselves you being prone to placebo effects.

My favorite story on placebos was something that was coming up in Olympic doping detection. They were starting to get some athletes who were being given undetectable performance enhancement drugs which were in fact placebos like water.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is the nocebo effect, which causes negative results.

Mistakenly pressed reply instead of URL

Report on nocebo effect

[ 22. June 2013, 08:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There is the nocebo effect, which causes negative results.

Mistakenly pressed reply instead of URL

Report on nocebo effect

Thanks for this link. I'd never heard of this but it makes all kinds of sense.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, when I used to have baddish migraine, I developed new symptoms after reading about them, or being told of them! But after spotting what was going on, that stopped. That was before I learned about the concept of nocebo.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might be difficult to distinguish the nocebo effect from health anxiety.

Classic cycle of health anxiety being very high monitoring of physical state - any change of physical state being interpreted as a symptom.

The checking can then cause problems itself - I knew someone who checked their breasts for lumps upto 30 times a day. So of course she experienced tenderness and mild swelling - which tended to confirm to her that there must be a problem so she would then increase her checking.

Likewise I knew another person who always tended to believe that any symptom was caused by something she ingested. So heavily restricted diet. When given medication for another condition she felt tired and ill and her glands swelled so she immediately stopped it. Within a few days it became clear she had flu - which she realised and acknowledged. However, wouldn't restart the medication. I guarantee that if you asked her 6 months later she would remember that episode as the medication causing her to have a bad reaction - because that was consistent with her pre-existing biases.

[ 22. June 2013, 08:21: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools