God experience can change atheists

[ecco]

There is something objective in the nature of the psyche that would recreate the gods were all memory of them suddenly wiped out.

There are always going to be people who say "Where did it all come from?" and, lacking a good clear answer, say "GodDidIt".

 

[joe1776]

...People say they can telepathically communicate with others. True double-blind tests show they can not. The proponents say there is controversy.

Controversy has no bearing on whether or not there are "positive" results. Why is it that you don't understand that?

Logic.

If "numerous tests" hadn't shown positive results as you claimed. There'd be no controversy.

These ganzfeld tests?
Ganzfeld experiment - Wikipedia

Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved​

You aren't helping your cause to quote Wikipedia on ANY controversial subject because the information isn't compiled by impartial editors like Britannica's. For example, if you search for Catholic Church and Slavery, don't expect to find a balanced article. Having said that, the Wikipedia page on telepathy you linked is more balanced than it was four years ago when the bias was so obvious it was laughable.

Wikipedia We Have a Problem details a case study focusing on how a group of “skeptic activists” on Wikipedia leverage their dominant voices on a large swath of topics and biographies and suppress minority voices, often through violating Wikipedia’s own harassment policies and extending their activity to other MediaWikis, such as RationalWiki.

Ganzfeld | Psi Encyclopedia.
The above site is a site that believes telepathy. It shows with pictures and descriptions of how the process works. It should be easy for you to spot the problem with such a test. Let me know if you can't.

I need your help on this. Explain the "problem" to me please. And have a look at the following:

Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”: 56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other. https://www.abzu2.com/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-many-are-starting-to-think-not/

 

[sealchan]

Do you ever say that what people say is
a "god experience" always is a "god experience"?

Are you disputing the experience or the interpretation of the experience?

 

[sealchan]

There are always going to be people who say "Where did it all come from?" and, lacking a good clear answer, say "GodDidIt".

I think that it is more than just a simple logical fantasy...it is a brain-supported, useful fantasy.

 

[charlie sc]

I did say "From the study". I asked because I never saw any actual numbers in the report. I just searched the report again, the one in the OP, and there was no 789 and no 511.

So, I'll ask again...
From the study, how many atheists took hallucinogenics and became theists? Note: I am not asking for a ratio, I am asking for actual numbers.

I did get it from the study and there were actual numbers , but had to use simple maths to determine the number. Unfortunately, the descriptives from this study are weirdly done and I don't consider this a very good paper either. Use maths.

If you want, I can explain where and how I got this number from the paper?

 

[joe1776]

I think that it is more than just a simple logical fantasy...it is a brain-supported, useful fantasy.

Agreed. But evolution-did-it is equally useful for answering questions when we have no clue.

 

[tas8831]

Agreed. But evolution-did-it is equally useful for answering questions when we have no clue.

'Evolution-did-it' at the very least has an evidence-supported track record.

 

[Audie]

Are you disputing the experience or the interpretation of the experience?

100% off! No, none of that.
Did you read what I said?

 

[joe1776]

'Evolution-did-it' at the very least has an evidence-supported track record.

True. Evolution is a fact.

That makes it more likely that nonsense in its name will be taken more seriously than that of the God-did-it explanation..

 

[Audie]

I think that it is more than just a simple logical fantasy...it is a brain-supported, useful fantasy.

What? You agree that god is a fantasy?

Useful...? Like, how else could you sell
indulgences?

Ignorance and superstitjion benefit a few at the
cost of the many.

 

[ecco]

Logic.

If "numerous tests" hadn't shown positive results as you claimed. There'd be no controversy.

Numerous tests (extensive geological analysis) have shown there was no Great Flood. Does your logic tell you there is no controversy regarding the Great Flood?

Numerous test(100 years of research) shows the validity of The Theory of Evolution. Does your logic tell you there is no controversy regarding ToE?

You aren't helping your cause to quote Wikipedia on ANY controversial subject because the information isn't compiled by impartial editors like Britannica's. For example, if you search for Catholic Church and Slavery, don't expect to find a balanced article. Having said that, the Wikipedia page on telepathy you linked is more balanced than it was four years ago when the bias was so obvious it was laughable.

Wikipedia We Have a Problem details a case study focusing on how a group of “skeptic activists” on Wikipedia leverage their dominant voices on a large swath of topics and biographies and suppress minority voices, often through violating Wikipedia’s own harassment policies and extending their activity to other MediaWikis, such as RationalWiki.

I need your help on this. Explain the "problem" to me please. And have a look at the following:

Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”: 56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other

. https://www.abzu2.com/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-many-are-starting-to-think-not/

This entire discussion is because I related telepathy et al to Creationism. You just, unwittingly, made another correlation. You have your: /does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-many-are-starting-to-think-not. Creationists have theirs: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

In any case the article in the link states (as you copy/pasted) "Two surveys..." but does not show the surveys. Reading further, we see they were really two polls. Even at that it gives no information about how the polls were conducted.

At least the DissentFromDarwin site shows the exact wording of the proposal.

 

[sealchan]

100% off! No, none of that.
Did you read what I said?

I just read that one post and wasn't certain of your meaning...my apologies if I lacked relevant information from previous posts.

 

[sealchan]

What? You agree that god is a fantasy?

Useful...? Like, how else could you sell
indulgences?

Ignorance and superstitjion benefit a few at the
cost of the many.

I see fantasy as a necessary augmentation of our practical and reproducible knowledge. It allows us to rethink a oftentimes brutal reality into a livable transition toward a more humane one. To the extent that a well-crafted fantasy can inspire us to not get overwhelmed by what is bad, we can work toward making what is good a reality.

Stories engage more fully the human psyche because they engage our experience more fully than objective facts alone. Responsible use of story can create the inspiration people need to meet injustice with practical correction. Irresponsible use of story (to promote an archaic, literalist power hierarchy) can lead to very bad outcomes.

 

[sealchan]

Agreed. But evolution-did-it is equally useful for answering questions when we have no clue.

Sort of, but an evolutionist might still take exception to such an easy claim.

The problem as I see it is that we might have faith in science or God but we should be open to experience to improve the precision or details as we continue to explore the truth whether religious or scientific.

 

[joe1776]

Numerous tests (extensive geological analysis) have shown there was no Great Flood. Does your logic tell you there is no controversy regarding the Great Flood?

Numerous test(100 years of research) shows the validity of The Theory of Evolution. Does your logic tell you there is no controversy regarding ToE?

You are offering false analogies. You are offering two controversies in which the evidence offered was contested thus causing the controversy. Your claim differed in two ways:

1. After offering your opinion that tests weren't funded because the funders regarded the telepathy claim as 'woo," you then claimed that "numerous" tests were done.

2. You didn't claim that the controversy was over the quality of the evidence as in the Flood, you claimed that numerous test showed no positive results.

This entire discussion is because I related telepathy et al to Creationism. You just, unwittingly, made another correlation. You have your: /does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-many-are-starting-to-think-not. Creationists have theirs: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

You really need to stop trying to make arguments with analogies. This is another false analogy. You have two totally different arguments being made. The only common element is that you disagree with both.

In any case the article in the link states (as you copy/pasted) "Two surveys..." but does not show the surveys. Reading further, we see they were really two polls. Even at that it gives no information about how the polls were conducted.

This claim in the article surprised me. I did a quick search to see if I could find the surveys online. I didn't but I'll put more time into it to because it puts an entirely different slant on the bias problem.

As to how the polls were conducted, I wouldn't expect any surprises there. There's nothing especially tricky about asking scientists' opinions on telepathy.

 

[Shad]

There is qualitative difference between a man having a life changing-consciousness expanding experience that becomes beneficial and another man who resorts to drugs for escaping life.

You provided zero evidence that those in the study are the former rather than the latter.

Why cannot you accept the statistical validity of the study?

You misunderstand me. I do not put much stock in drug induced fantasies as indications of anything serious. The individual may value such an experience to belief dynamic but I do not. The statistics only show people doing drugs are clueless.

 

[Shad]

This is a correlational study, so it doesn't look at causes

Sure. However the drug induced fantasy is a poor way to frame "God experiences" as anything serious. Also it establishes people doing drugs are clueless if they can not link their drug use with their hallucinations just like my alien example.

 

[joe1776]

...In any case the article in the link states (as you copy/pasted) "Two surveys..." but does not show the surveys. Reading further, we see they were really two polls. Even at that it gives no information about how the polls were conducted....

I couldn't find the surveys online but I found several references to them including this one:

During this period, academics outside parapsychology also appeared to have a general optimism towards this research. In 1979, a survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that only 2% of psychologists expressed the belief that extrasensory perception was an impossibility. A far greater number, 34%, indicated that they believed ESP was either an established fact or a likely possibility. The percentage was even higher in other areas of study: 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP research was worthwhile.[25]
Parapsychology

I'm surprised by that. I was under the impression that the BS of the pseudoskeptics was generally believed. I was also surprised to learn that the US national Institutes of Health was taking the matter of research on precognition seriously (tougher to prove than telepathy) Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents

Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents

 

[atanu]

You provided zero evidence that those in the study are the former rather than the latter.

Did you provide any evidence that all who participated in the study are similar to your addict example?

You misunderstand me. I do not put much stock in drug induced fantasies as indications of anything serious. The individual may value such an experience to belief dynamic but I do not. The statistics only show people doing drugs are clueless.

That is your view, validity of which in respect of the referenced study cannot be established. I respect your opinion.

 

[ecco]

You are offering false analogies. You are offering two controversies in which the evidence offered was contested thus causing the controversy. Your claim differed in two ways:

1. After offering your opinion that tests weren't funded because the funders regarded the telepathy claim as 'woo," you then claimed that "numerous" tests were done.

I asked...
Do you not see the difference between funded projects and funded tests?
I guess I'll have to provide the answer, since you didn't.
You do not see the difference between funded projects and funded tests insofar as this conversation is concerned.

Projects are what proponents of ideas to gather support their ideas. This may and should include good testing.

Testing is also done by researchers independent researchers and researcher opposed to the concepts put forward of a project/proposal.

2. You didn't claim that the controversy was over the quality of the evidence as in the Flood, you claimed that numerous test showed no positive results.

So your only response is to try to play word games. There is no positive evidence for the Great Flood.
There is no positive evidence for telepathy.
The quality of evidence for the Great Flood is below reasonable standards for evidence.
The quality of evidence for telepathy is below reasonable standards for evidence.

You really need to stop trying to make arguments with analogies. This is another false analogy. You have two totally different arguments being made. The only common element is that you disagree with both.

See above.

This claim in the article surprised me. I did a quick search to see if I could find the surveys online. I didn't but I'll put more time into it to because it puts an entirely different slant on the bias problem.

As to how the polls were conducted, I wouldn't expect any surprises there. There's nothing especially tricky about asking scientists' opinions on telepathy.

Really. Since I couldn't read the poll questions, I can't tell how they were worded. However, I find it interesting that the authors of your article ignored the difference between a survey and a poll. I find it interesting that the authors didn't bother to provide references to the polls. I'm not surprised that you didn't notice this before you posted the link. That's what happens when you don't read an article before linking to it.

As far as wording goes, here is the creationist version:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

That's vague enough to get even some evolution supporters to sign on. At least until they realize it's propoganda.