I started a thread a couple months ago asking people here "if you were 100% certain god was speaking to you, would you kill your son if he asked"

pretty much everyone said they would...notice i didn't say god was actually speaking to you, only that you were completely convinced he was...

The way i would figure it is that God lost his empathy and compassion over the course of his evolution or never had those traits to begin with, kind of like the omnipotent Q on star trek. So **** um let him do with me what he wants.

What's that from? normally i get references.

watchmen

ah

I don't recall saying yes to that.

Here is you in that thread:

Well we all know the interwebs doesn't lie, so I guess I stand corrected.

When people hear god-like voices giving them commands, this kind of thing happens. Maybe someone who is wired to believe supernatural claims and conspiracy theories would say that these people are being spoken to by a god, and they aren't just mentally defective.

Woman dismembers 3 week old baby, eats brain; God told her to.

That was hilarious, though. I need to start doing that.

I don't know what your situation was, I'm sure the process was difficult and painful. And, as I believe, we don't know what to pray for. We know what we want, but being so limited, we can't know what is really in our ultimate and eternal best interests. So, at some point, regardless of the prayer we have to say Thy Will be Done not Mine. About this: Hmmm. Well, I don't think you need an hour of contemplative prayer a day to start to receive some revelation. I think prayer takes a lot of forms. Like, if you are in some sort of moral quandary or have an ethical dilemma and you really wish you could figure out what is best to do, I think that wanting the good is a form of prayer. And I think we often, if we can just listen, will get an answer that we just know is the right thing. So, that's dialogue with God, or prayer.

Just really wanting the Truth is prayer. I always think there are a lot of very spiritually aware atheists out there - Isaac Asimov being my main famous example. Anyway - again - I always recommend people read The Miracle Detective - he did the research most of us can't, got amazing access, was an atheist at the time, I believe - not sure where he's at now. Then you have stuff in the here and now rather than a couple thousand years ago that might be interesting to you.

I mean, sure, this is a problem. But if I were convinced that an omnix3 God were telling me to do it with the intent that I follow through, I would commit a similar atrocity. The only thing that would prevent me would be some doubt (perhaps even a slight doubt) that there is really an all-knowing and all-benevolent being behind it.

Given the assumption that there is such a being behind it, then the act seems clearly to be justified.

I think the important thing that people who commit these acts miss is that feeling strongly that something is a request from God does not amount to certainty of that. I don't have this problem, I don't ever interpret my experiences as certainty. But I'm sure if I were "crazy enough" in a particular way, I would. If I were "crazy enough," I would go on a killing rampage. The idea that I am somehow special and immune to such insanity is unsupportable.

But none of that is the point of the post, is it? What I said was that the scientist they did consult did nothing even vaguely scientific, he just said, "He saw it on TV" with no evidence, no research, no nothing.

Whicj scientists? Some scientists do, indeed, accept reincarnation and other metaphenomena. Which is what I am also saying - those that do this kind of work are generally rejected by the mainstream scientific community. They can't get published (where they previously had no trouble) they lose their funding or teaching positions or whatever.

In the end, it's just like sects of religions arguing about who's got the best god - people who say they believe science and scientists, decide that they only believe scientists who agree with them.

It's okay, people don't die, just bodies. Allow yourself a bit of skepticism about your skepticism when you pass and at that moment - just that one - ask God to show you the way. That'll be enough to get you where you need to go.
There's a famous prayer "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief." You don't have to believe in God at all in order to pray. Why start out talking to some one you don't believe in? There's someone on the Other Side, you could chat with, I'm sure. Next time you lose your car keys, ask your Grandmother - or anyone you have over there, to help you find them. Just start talking to them. In the car, when you are frustrated, whatever. If anyone wants to explore the idea or possibility there is more around than what seems obvious, start reading a few things and talking to them. That's all prayer is, anyway - dialogue - speaking and listening.

And don't tell anyone. It's just about you and them.

LOL! Prayer is free. As for time, just use the time when you aren't thinking of much else. On the walk from the computer to the kitchen for a snack. While driving alone.

No, I don't think it is. I was a cop who pursued an education and career in science. PM for details, if interested in the miracle.

It's Edward - Edwards is a politician. John is a real medium, too bad these clips that seem so stupid to the uninformed are out there - too bad no one just goes and gets a reading. I have. I'll recount it if you like, but that's still not proof of anything for anyone but me.

The difference between Koresh and Edward is the "fruits" as Christians like to say. John's bigger events are quite affordable, BTW, and he's pretty entertaining. Give one a try sometime. See what you think by primary observation.

"Lord, I believe, help my unbelief."

i prayed this prayer everyday sincerely for 2 years, after being a strong believer for 15 years previous to that. God did nothing to help my unbelief, and now look where I am.

the only thing I can conclude from my own personal experience is that either the Christian God doesn't exist, or he doesn't care about my enternal soul. So either he doesn't need my belief, or doesn't want it ... the end result is the same.

Dude, what you suggested as your evidence was some kid's anecdotal report. You do know that anecdotes are never valid evidence, right?

Case studies never justify conclusions, the simple fact that your "scientists" are using a case study to justify a conclusion proves that they are not (competent) scientists at all.

For sure, I lol'd. And I had to do a double take at first.

You know that "anecdotal" reporting is the basis of a great deal of natural science, right?

Now - no matter what happened or did not with this kid - the fact is the so-called scientist did no science. He stated something as a fact for which he had no evidence whatever, anecdotal or otherwise. That was my only assertion. What happened with the kid is irrelevant to what the scientist did. Which is nothing at all but reveal his bigotry.

One scientist maybe made a mistake 1 time. More news as it develops.

The effectiveness and reliability of science as a method of inquiry doesn't come from how amazingly smart and overwhelmingly good looking most scientists are (*cough*). It comes from things like peer review and the need to replicate your own results and then have others replicate them. It comes from the fact that when someone proposes a new explanation it is immediately and viciously attacked by others, which is harsh and easily misconstrued but vital in preventing cold fusion type fiascos from occurring in the core of science as they sometimes do in the public via the media. It also stems from the fact that falsifying the claims of other scientists is rewarded, and (most importantly) that the better established those claims are the greater the reward.

The scientist may have had more interesting, or better paying, work to do. Unlike God, a scientist cannot be everywhere at once. So he has to make a choice how to spend his time. My point earlier was that the people making the claims need to find one of the scientists who are interested. If this kid represents a verifiable phenomenon, it will get accepted in the mainstream eventually. Lots of famous scientists were laughed at and dismissed at first.

RIGHT! But if you are a scientist or work in the field, you should certainly have seen enough to know how crappy a lot of that is. BUT - also not my point.

Let me try again. In the case of what I call metaphenomena and others sometimes call the "supernatural" or the "miraculous" science doesn't act like itself in almost every case.

The first thing we do as scientists is observe. Always. First, you see. You see as much as you can and in as many ways as possible. Then you test - or try to. How many experiments does it take on anything studied before we finally design an effective test? manymanymany That's one reason it's so expensive.

But there are all these taboo subjects - the ones that when true scientists, persons of impeccable credentials and background, become involved in attempting to research - they are dismissed as working in "psuedo-science." And heaven forbid that the very first experiment has some flaws, or subsequent ones have uneven or anomalous results or the whole of the scientific and non-scientific community cries: FAKE!

There's a lot of science that has been done on these topics. Just try and refer anyone on a forum to any of the published work -

First we see. But first we have to look. Why is it so impossible to simply decide to respect people trying to figure out how the Universe works - just because they are looking at something you, or that guy, or some lady over there, have already decided cannot exist. Why would anyone not a believer in any of these phenomena, want so hard to stop inquiry into them and eject the researcher from the scientific community?


That's not science. That's what they did to Galileo.

The good thing about "true scientists" (unlike "true Christians") is that there is actually criteria involved for determining who is or isn't a true scientist. And guess what? It's not background or credentials or religious affiliation or race or accomplishments. It's very simple:

Did their work employ the scientific method?

Yes = true science
No = FAKE!

Well all I was really trying to say is that it is perfectly feasible that the specific scientists you mentioned is a dickhead or an incompetent asshat, but that doesn't really serve as an indictment of science as a whole. As for the pseudoscience stuff, if you want to do something so utterly groundbreaking as showing scientific support for any of those claims, you have to brace yourself to deal with ridicule and abrasiveness until you have the goods. It's an unfortunate side effect of a vital process.