The Black Vault

It's crucially important, though, that we don't just slap supernatural labels on anything that doesn't immediately make sense or defies explanation. That's what mankind has done traditionally, until they learn otherwise. Claims such as that schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are caused by "evil spirits" for example, and some of the "treatments" in the past were horrific and barbaric.

Or blaming weather on supernatural beings. There's a kind of narcissism or even solipsism in viewing naturally-occuring events as intentional, or blaming illnesses on invisible entities.

People are pattern-seekers, and confirmation bias can reinforce delusions. That's one reason why skepticism is so important.

at1with0 wrote:You don't know that.

You don't know that they are accessing a higher power, either, so we're left with testimony that is not proof of anything, which you want to use as proof of something

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:What about non-Christian religious people who receive supernatural validation that their religion is right?

What is their testimony worth?

The testimony might indicate that something is out there that some might call god.

Yeah, it might, but until that "might" is turned into proof of something tangible it's silly to use it as evidence right now, which you are very intent on doing.

You're handing me crap and telling me it's gold.

DIss0n80r wrote:It's crucially important, though, that we don't just slap supernatural labels on anything that doesn't immediately make sense or defies explanation. That's what mankind has done traditionally, until they learn otherwise. Claims such as that schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are caused by "evil spirits" for example, and some of the "treatments" in the past were horrific and barbaric.

Or blaming weather on supernatural beings. There's a kind of narcissism or even solipsism in viewing naturally-occuring events as intentional, or blaming illnesses on invisible entities.

People are pattern-seekers, and confirmation bias can reinforce delusions. That's one reason why skepticism is so important.

Exactly, couldn't have said it better!

greeney2 wrote:You used gambling to make a point and failed to consider, exactly what I said is built into that example. Winning is real, it exists, it is not a fairytale.

You're stretching the example too far.

The point I was trying to make, I made. When someone tells you they *just know*, there is a good chance they are wrong.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:

at1with0 wrote:You don't know that.

You don't know that they are accessing a higher power, either, so we're left with testimony that is not proof of anything, which you want to use as proof of something

Proof that there is something, yes.

Not proof there is something, no...

Is dreaming proof of a dream world?

at1with0 wrote:Rejecting all testimony prior to examination is crap, yes.

Yes, again, I do not do that. Neither of us accepts Christian testimony fully though, otherwise we'd both be Christians. If I did that, I would not even bother to ask believers about their experiences.

humphreys wrote:

greeney2 wrote:You used gambling to make a point and failed to consider, exactly what I said is built into that example. Winning is real, it exists, it is not a fairytale.

You're stretching the example too far.

The point I was trying to make, I made. When someone tells you they *just know*, there is a good chance they are wrong.

Isn't that a bit like picking a passage out of an entire chapter and book, and trying to make a point by ignoring the entirety of it? the perspective seeing its entirity, all has a different intrupetation. In your case with the gambling example, you expected the point taken, would be made by only considering the parts you wanted onlly, but the other parts show a differnt possibilty. YOu can not deny your use was to show Faith is a futile effort, only if you could not win, but forgot in a game of gambling, the prizes are real. My point in gambling is that jackpots are real, other payouts are real, it is not impossible to win. Therefore the gambling example was a poor choice and not very logical from my perspective.

You say I looked too deep, well isn;t that what you do, nothing goes without further debunking, further questions.