Can you disprove this?


#84

Qaz, I can understand everything except the liar part. I don’t think defamation is healthy to these boards. I myself have noticed a lot more harsh responses on these forums since we moved to the new setup. I don’t think that is healthy.

I’d like everyone to tone it down a bit. Thick skin has nothing to do with it either, as that is just another way to justify harsh words. We don’t need to be like a political forum. I realize that I, too, have responded in offensive ways, and therefore do my best to treat everyone fairly, even if I think they are totally off base. Hoping all of us can start afresh.


#85

The Hebrew Online Bible Program gives the following two meanings for the Hebrew word for “city”:

  1. excitement, anguish
    1a) of terror
  2. city, town (a place of waking, guarded)
    2a) city, town

#86

Gabe, thanks for the correction. You are right. I was too harsh. However, I will say this: I don’t believe Brian’s stories about angels and demons.


#87

That is of course BDB’s definition. It’s not technically two meanings, but possibly different applications (seemingly according to BDB) off a common base and yet that difference being due to their respective spellings. IOW… they are NOT rendered either/or according to context BUT their actual particular spelling — and city simply means city and not chaos as has been suggested.

The closest you might get to the likes of… excitement, anguish or terror is the protection offered BY the ancient cities that were WALLED — thus the likes of the OT ‘cities of refuge’ etc, where there was stability and protection away from any potential chaos; but that’s a long way from claiming city = chaos when it doesn’t.


#88

Again, Davo, the website I sent you to is giving you the latest in translation research. The lexical aids you’re using are likely outdated or from American sources which are not up-to-date with the latest research. Jeff Benner, who runs the site, started out using the Strong’s Concordance and Lexicon, as well as other translation aids, but he kept running into problems with the translations. Things weren’t adding up. So he finally began going for the latest research overseas coming out of Israel. There were no websites disseminating the new research at that time, so Benner started his own website for that purpose. Eventually, he started teaching a class at a college in his area and still does to this day (I forget the name of the college off hand–I’m sure he mentions it on his website). So you’re welcome to keep going to the old lexicons to get your information, but you’ll continue to get outdated definitions of certain words or simply shallow definitions that don’t give a good sense of the words. And that’s the last I’ll discuss this with you unless you can start showing me that your source materials are updated with the current research coming out of Israel (because most are not). So don’t take it personally if I ignore your posts on this subject from this point on. I don’t have time to repeat myself or look up resources for you. Benner’s site should direct you to the resources you need if you’re serious about researching this stuff. But if you just want to tout how your knowledge and sources are better, then I have no use for that conversation. Have a good day.


#89

Qaz,

So because my information doesn’t line up with your beliefs, you assume that I’m superstitious and probably lying? That’s interesting. Well, if I’m just “superstitious” and “lying,” then I’m not the only one. Go find a book called The Shining Man with Hurt Hands by Ellis H. Skolfield. He died back in 2015, but his book is when I first discovered the inside world of people with multiple personality disorder. I took what I learned in the book and started using the same method to work with multiples soon after that, not just to confirm it was all true, but also because it was interesting work that I knew I had the skillset for. I was lucky enough to have a friend on a forum online who knew Ellis personally, so he offered to introduce me to him. From that point on, when I got stuck while working with a multiple (a person with MPD/DID), I’d call him and he’d tell me how he used to deal with whatever the situation was I was having a problem with.

All of his books are free to read online, so go read that book and you’ll see that everything I spoke about is there. It’s a quick read due to the format of the book. I can confirm everything in that book. I’m still in contact with a couple of the multiples I worked with back then. They were SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) victims, which take years to help heal, and codependency issues were getting in the way, as well. That’s why I stopped doing it. Spending a few hours each day working with people for free can get tough when you start seeing big barriers in your way.

Also, the research I’ve discussed here can be verified. You’ll have to do some digging on Google scholar or around the net, but you should be able to find a good portion of it.

Here’s a link to The Shining Man with Hurt Hands online for free: http://www.ellisskolfield.net/books

Ellis would sell his books for a little while, then he’d try to put the ebooks up for free so everyone could have access to them. He was a really good guy. I plan to do the same with my books eventually, but Amazon won’t let me make my ebooks free, so that’s kind of a problem.

Hope this helps.


#90

All good Brian… I understand fully where you’re coming from.


#91

Brian, your stories about encounters with angels and demons might work with vulnerable people who are credulous, but not with me. I have a bullshit meter. I’d wait for you to produce some empirical, verifiable evidence of these creatures, but I know you won’t.


#92

I never said I encountered them. If you read my post closely, I said that the people I worked with who had MPD/DID were telling me about the inside world they saw. You see, to them, when they’d go inside that other world, it was as real as this world is to me and you. They could walk around there, interact with their other alternate personalities there, etc. That world was like this one but it had no industrialization and development like we do here, so it was much more natural, devoid of stores and factories, etc. So of course I didn’t have personal encounters with angels or demons. The multiples (people with MPD/DID) would tell me what they were seeing in that other world/dimension while they were in there. They can actually be in there and out controlling their body at the same time, though, it splits their attention pretty severely so it’s not something they’d do normally, but it was how I had to work with them.

Let’s switch gears real quick. Did you notice how when I told you that you could go read a book where someone else will give you their same experience with this stuff that you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m a liar and you don’t believe any of it? You didn’t make any attempt to go read the book free online. You didn’t make any attempts whatsoever to consider the information. Instead, you let your emotions immediately drive you to the decision that I was a liar and clearly trying to fool others and that you weren’t going to be duped by me. Do you remember how I mentioned before that Atheism, almost completely across the board in studies, has been shown to be a result of father wounds in childhood? In other words, it’s emotional not intellectual. So by all means, go read the studies on this–they’re easy to find on the internet and Google Scholar. You’ll see that nearly all of the Atheists admit that there’s an emotional component to it involving their father. This is why when people have conversations with Atheists and offer up solid arguments, the Atheists typically divert from that information into an area they know about that works in their favor, or they start declaring the person is stupid and doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Your response was a textbook emotional response. If you don’t believe me, go find some good debates with Atheists. You’ll see it repeatedly. I’m not saying this in any derogatory or devisive way. It’s just a statement of fact. However, no matter what I say, it will not get down to the emotional core of what’s driving your emotional reaction right now. It’s not my job to convince someone of my beliefs or change theirs. That’s something they must do on their own if they want to study up on this stuff from a genuine curiosity and desire to figure out whether their beliefs are based in fact or not–an attempt to seek the truth no matter if it disproves their beliefs or not. I’ve always done my best to keep an open mind and study that way, and in the process, my beliefs have changed over the years because of it. Beliefs are one of the main things we use to cope with the world because our beliefs are excellent ways to repress emotions. That’s why I try not to hold on to my beliefs too tightly and keep an open mind. I remember when I was younger and someone would disprove one of my beliefs, I’d feel fearful. It wouldn’t manifest with fear, but I could tell there was anxiety there and so I’d start studying for long periods of time trying to find a new answer, to figure out the truth so that the anxiety would go away. I’m not like that now, but I remember the emotional drive behind beliefs. It’s crazy how much our emotions drive us and we don’t realize it.

Anyway, since you won’t read The Shining Man with Hurt Hands, we have no more to discuss on this topic. If you ever want to read it, then we can talk again about this. Thanks, though, for your great information. Much appreciated. And I don’t hold anything against you for calling me a liar. :slight_smile: Anyone else in this conversation will see that that’s an emotional reaction, not one based in fact.


#93

I’ll take your armchair psychoanalysis of me with a grain of salt. Haven’t you admitted you hold no academic/professional credentials in psychology?

If you ever have evidence that what these people are describing is real, as opposed to the delusions of the mentally ill, let me know. Until then, I’ll take note of your penchant for spreading the delusions of mentally ill people as gospel and ignore your posts.


#94

Psychology isn’t anything but a bunch of theories and presuppositions. Many people with PhD’s differ entirely on this subject, as as much as gasp religion. I have recently been reading much work from an Aussie named Jurrian Plesnem, who when to the point and honest in his self help…

Jurriaan Plesman BA(Psych), Post Grad Dip Clin Nutr

The various forms of psychotherapy all derive from the philosophical assumptions of therapy. Most psychotherapists have often a unique and personable view of personality based on these assumptions.
It would be very difficult to find a hypnotist who would question the assumption that we have a “subconscious mind”, or a behaviourist raising doubts about human behaviour being learned, or a psychoanalysts who would object to the idea that human behaviour stems from early childhood experiences, or a Rational Cognitive Behaviourist who believes that innate attitudes are irrelevant to our actions.
These are the assumptions of psychotherapy which differentiate one psychotherapist from another. An assumption is basically a major premiss that is accepted as being true or as certain to happen, without proof. These assumptions, once accepted, generate inevitable logical consequences that will create a cohesive structure to the theoretical background of a particular psychotherapist. Thus as a psychotherapist, the therapy I practice are equally based on fundamental assumptions, that are different from many other therapists. I, for instance, have questioned the assumptions of many psychologists, and this has lead me to conclude that most psychological theories are dead wood, or psychological debris that we need to sweep aside, if we want to develop our own theory or assumptions.

http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au/2012/assumptions-in-psychotherapy/

Qaz,

What credentials did Jesus have? As far as I know, they even poked fun at Jesus and called him a bastard. You can’t demand that people have credentials and dismiss them if not, while at the same time believing Jesus claims, who was basically a “nobody” in the eyes of the religious leaders.

Another psycho therapy site, a person who I really, really think has it right information on addiction. Steven Slate wrote:

Let me repeat the words of this experienced researcher, PhD, and lecturer/professor from Boston College and Harvard who, in addition to publishing scores of papers in peer reviewed medical journals has also had an entire book debunking the disease model of addiction by Harvard University press (I say all of this about his credentials so that I can hopefully STOP getting commenters who say “but you’re not a doctor, and what are your credentials wah, wah, wah,……” here’s a “credentialed” expert who essentially agrees with most of what I’ve written in this article – so please, for the love of god, save your fallacious ad hominems and appeals to authority for another day!)- he

http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/


#95

So when I gave you a book to read that shows everything I described and does so with over a hundred cases, you simply don’t mention it and that’s your way of claiming I didn’t give you any valid proof. lol That’s classic. And that’s exactly why I don’t have these conversations anymore with Atheists or Agnostics…because they can’t have honest, open discussions about factual things. They’re only interested in responding emotionally and pushing their agendas and attempting to insult and discredit others for their own purposes. It is an utterly self-centered, prideful act of personal protection for their own beliefs. I have no interest in that sort of conversation. I like to discuss things with people who actually can have discussions with their big-boy pants on. :slight_smile:

And well, Agnostic_Gabe’s links have some major issues with them. My wife’s a brain researcher on the cutting edge of brain research at a company that works with the military and has some major government grants. There are a lot of PhDs in the field like the researchers you posted who misrepresent the data. Yes, there’s choice involved in addiction and of course we can see that in an fMRI scan. The problem is that when we do those tests, we see that the brain chooses about 10 seconds before the person finally comes to a conclusion and chooses. In other words, the subconscious is making the choice and pushing the person’s conscious choice in that direction, which means the subconscious is making the decisions. So he’s correct when he says it’s not a disease, but he’s misrepresenting how the mechanism works. It may be a choice, but it’s not the person’s conscious choice–it’s a subconscious choice, and that’s the part of the person that they can’t seem to change without a solid psychologist and some experiential therapy or a good hypnotherapist who knows how to get into the subconscious and convince it to change the way it does things. The problem with research is that researchers often can find what they want to find, which is exactly what one of you said already in this thread if I’m not mistaken (unless I’m mixing this thread up with one other I’m in). But if researchers do a good job of double-blinding studies and use proper parameters, they can get most of the bias out of them.

You really aught to read the studies in a book called The Field by Lynne McTaggart. There’s one where they take plants and hook them up to lie detector machines. The machines measure water content to detect whether someone’s lying or not. But in plants, they just wanted to see how quickly the water got from the roots to the leaves. However, they were about to kill the plants once their research was done and they noticed something odd. As soon as they thought of killing the plants, the plants had an anxious reaction register on the lie detector. So they started testing this by just thinking about burning the plants. As soon as the researchers thought it, the plants would have an anxious reaction register. But the most the researchers did that, the less response they’d get out of the plants. Eventually, the plants didn’t respond to those researchers threatening them in their thoughts. The plants began to realize that the researchers weren’t actually going to hurt them. So they brought in new people to have thoughts of burning the plants. Sure enough, the plants freaked out again according to the lie detector, because the plants didn’t know these new people. LOL How bizarre is that? What they proved, at least as best as our technology can prove, is that plants not only have some sort of consciousnes, but that they can read our minds or emotions or something to that effect (there’s no way to know exactly what the plant is reading that tells it what we’re thinking, but we know it knows because of its reaction). So, everything I just told you is simply a test to see if you will acknowledge that there’s a book that lists the research that you can go check out yourself which proves plants are conscious, even though they have no brains or hearts. This likely would prove they have a spirit, though I’m not sure I’d say it fully proves the have a spirit. It’s at least a very good indicator. So, will you call this absurd or ignore it or try to come up with some way around it like you have everything else I’ve stated? You know, it doesn’t matter whether I have a degree or not if I can continue to produce references to people who do have degrees and show their research. At some point, a rational person would say, “Well, I’m clearly not wanting to see the fact here…I’d rather just believe what I believe and leave it at that.” But I’d say at this point that you’re not acting rationally or humbly in this situation. You’re only concerned with you and your beliefs, and that, my friend, is emotional rather than informational, which is why you keep avoiding the evidence and studies I’ve shown you. So go on and believe whatever you like. Again, anyone reading this post will see that it’s an emotional issue on your part causing you not to check out the references I’ve given you that back up my statements. You have a good day.


#96

You continually accuse me (and unbelievers) of being too emotional when I say I don’t buy what you’re selling. Is that part of your judgment-free philosophy? :wink:

I think you’re a charlatan. Sorry about my emotional reaction, but I’m allergic to bullshit. The writers of the epistles responded harshly to the peddlers of bad ideas too. There are people who have written books claiming they’ve seen Vishnu, been abducted by aliens, and seen Bigfoot. The fact that someone wrote a book claiming people have seen certain things doesn’t convince me. Oh, you mean they don’t have any pictures of what they saw? How convenient…


#97

Yes, this is called “Confirmation Bias” and everyone who is dogmatic on an issue are often guilty of this. Those who are not dogmatic about said issue will not likely being citing studies in an effort to convince themselves that they are right for whatever opinion they hold.

Keep in mind you are attempting to explain away those with PhD’s who do not agree with by saying they misrepresent data…

And your sweeping accusations of "That’s classic. And that’s exactly why I don’t have these conversations anymore with Atheists or Agnostics…"are painting with the largest brush stroke I have seen in ages.

I don’t see Qaz responding emotionally. Qaz just simply said he isn’t buying what you are selling.


#98

Of course this is part of the judgment-free philosophy because this isn’t a judgment–it’s a verifiable fact according to countless studies by both biased and non-biased researchers around the world. I’m sorry, but when you try to say psychology is completely inaccurate and yet the research shows repeatable, verifiable results, then you’re being completely illogical. And isn’t this what charlatans do?

Oh, wow…now you’re saying that because they don’t have pictures, they’re obviously lying? LOL That’s hilarious. Please explain to me how someone is going to take a picture of a place they see strictly through their spirit. That’s just absurd. These people don’t physically go to these places. Their consciousness is what goes to the other place and sees it. There are a lot of people who’ve been verified through research as having seen and interacted with another world (the astral plane is what it’s most commonly called) and each other in that world. Heck, a NASA PhD wrote a book about his experiences doing it. He kept a log. And those aren’t even the accounts from people with MPD/DID. Not only that, but the book about people with MPD/DID isn’t just one guy saying it. It’s that guy, all the people he worked with who gave permission to put their words and experiences in the book, all of the people I’ve worked with, and researchers who’ve also verified that these people see the same things in this inside world. If my description confused you, I apologize, in which case I can see why you’d think it’s absurd that they’re physically go into that place. But now that that’s a little more clear to you, it shouldn’t seem so outlandish. Again, I can verify everything in the book I recommended because I went through the same process with several multiples. All they were doing was telling me what they were seeing in that other realm/world/dimension. Scientists say they’ve found multiple dimensions and that there are likely many others they haven’t found. I take issue with how they describe those dimensions because it’s a bit unclear, but regardless, they say there are definitely other dimensions. But when hundreds of people claim to have seen another dimension, you call BS? Oh, and visions of Vishnu by different people can easily be made up or they could be some delusion or they could be real. No way to know because only one person is giving testimony to what they saw. Same with alien abductions–each is different and only seen by one person, so they can’t be proved (and on a sidenote, alien abductions follow the exact same patterns as demonic possession accounts from the point of view of the person possessed, so there’s that peculiar twist, along with other bizarre things about them). Oh, but what’s even weirder is that people with MPD give accounts of their abuse that sound just like an alien abduction because they’ve been drugged before their abuse and taken into a place that they describe as very similar to a “spaceship,” yet it’s clearly not a spaceship. We know this because other multiples will say they were taken to the place without being drugged and everything looked like an alien ship or it was dressed up as a different place, but it’s just a place dressed up to look like that. It’s a ruse. Also, several grown children of former military scientists are multiples (have MPD/DID) and their alternate personalities will tell their memories about being taken to a government facility by their father (a scientist usually) and having horrible experiments done on them that yeild a result very similar to an alien abduction, and yet they know it wasn’t an alien abduction. I said hundreds of testimonies earlier but I forgot about Diane Hawkins’ and her people’s patients, so it’s in the thousands, easily, who tell about seeing this other dimension.

Nothing of what I’m describing would go against what the early church was aware of. What I’m saying is a different dimension that multiples see is just another way of saying the spirit realm. Paul himself said he went into a different realm, as well as the prophets who were caught up in visions or say they were taken to heaven to see visions. They weren’t physically taken there, they were seeing those things with their consciousness, their spirit, just like multiples are seeing them. So no, I’m not a charlatan or proposing anything that’s out of the realm of Christianity. In fact, the writer of The Shining Man had an MDiv and wrote several books on different subjects besides MPD.

Scoff all you want, but you’re avoiding the materials I’m giving you because they disagree with what you believe and there’s a high likelihood you don’t want to read them because you have no interest in finding the truth if it disagrees with what you believe. And again…psychologists’ research say that’s caused by emotional repression driving behaviors. So, you can take that up with researchers, not me. I’m done.


#99

Oh, really? So, according to your statement, every scientist out there must be dogmatic about their research because they’re all citing studies about their theories. Nicely done. Great logic there. And by the way, there’s very little we can prove for certain (I think I stated that earlier), which is why I don’t hold to my beliefs too tightly. I think of them more as educated guesses that could easily be wrong. What theologians and Christians say the Bible proves isn’t proof at all, most of the time, because their idea of proof depends on the Bible being accurate in its supernatural accounts of God and miracles, etc. But there’s no way we can prove any of the fantastical things are true. Therefore, biblically speaking, we can’t prove hardly anything. And to say we know what God is like is, again, unprovable. In science, same thing…sure, we can prove some things, but there’s a whole lot we can’t prove. There are several things we thought were fact, scientifically, that have been proved wrong. Quantum physics is just bizarra as can be and shows that there’s a ton we don’t understand. So no, I’m not dogmatic about my beliefs. I’m simply saying that we can prove certain things, like there being other dimensions and people seeing those dimensions, and people coming out of body in near-death experiences, and all kinds of other things that are useful for knowing that there’s a bigger world out there beyond what we see. And yet there are many people who are adamant about turning a blind eye to all of it because it doesn’t line up with their beliefs. It’s not my job to convince anyone of my beliefs–that’s brainwashing. I’ll share information and if someone wants to research it, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine, too. I couldn’t care less about someone else’s beliefs. I was just sharing information. I haven’t a clue how much of my beliefs are correct or incorrect, and I don’t particularly care since there’s no way to know. I just know that I’ve honestly come by them with research that’s as objective as I can make it given what I was taught growing up influencing my beliefs and how I see the world.

Wrong. I’m telling you that my wife, a PhD, and a majority of her colleagues in the industry, say the same thing–that the data is constantly misrepresented by other PhDs in the field, especially when they have products they’re selling or agendas they’re pushing. It’s a huge issue in the field of brain research, and so many people are going off of old, out-dated, bad data, as well. One professor told his class each day when they came in, “Forget what you learned yesterday about the brain–it’s all changed today.” He wasn’t being literal, of course, but making the point that we know so little about the brain that we keep finding new things that invalidate old research. Yes, the brain is plastic like you said, which makes behaviors very hard to change by freewill, and most can’t do it without deeper subconscious change first, because that’s where the choices are being made which influence the choices of the conscious mind. So again, the PhD you cited is misrepresenting the data by not going deep enough into what’s behind the conscious choices. It doesn’t take a PhD to see that…it’s common sense if you have the right information on hand.

Then you’re missing the point of the statements. They’re being used because I’ve seen the same statements and same forms of arguments again and again, constantly, from Atheists, whether it was a long time ago when I would discuss this stuff, or whether it’s in videos or transcripts of debates I’ve read in the past or recently. It’s always the same tactics. The Atheist gets to a point where they can’t fight the research being cited or the logic, and they end up defaulting to attempting to discredit the person they’re debating or they end up dismissing the data altogether by saying it’s absurd or they avoid it altogether. You’d know this if you’d seen it as many times as I have over the years and actually paid attention to it.

Of course you don’t, because 1. it’s not in your interest to see the emotional responses he’s given or how they are emotional, and 2. because you believe psychology is absurd, and 3. because you don’t know how to spot emotional responses through behavior. Sure, you can spot obvious emotional behaviors, but because you don’t have a solid understanding of psychology and what it shows us about repressed emotions controlling conscious behaviors, you wouldn’t see it. Also, you wouldn’t have the capacity to spot it anyway, because you yourself don’t see the repressed emotions driving your responses either. But you can only read so many research studies before you can’t help but see the presenting behavior patterns due to repressed emotions from the same types of emotional wounds from childhood. You can call it making generalized statements and claim I’m judging, but all I’m doing is telling you what the research shows and sharing how I’ve seen exactly what the reserach shows. So take that up with the researchers (who, again, have been on both sides of the issues we’re discussing and have come to the same conclusion when looking at the data), not me. I’m done.


#100

Actually, lots of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens give the same descriptions of the aliens. The description is usually based on the aliens we find in movies of their time. Angels and demons are another thing like aliens. And bigfoot.


#101

To get back to the supposed brain-mind identity, I think we all agree that the two entities are not identical. But that fact does not imply that the mind is a separate identity that can exist apart from the brain. I suggest that the mind is a FUNCTION of the brain. So if the brain is destroyed the mind is destroyed. If even part of the brain is destroyed the mind may be severely affected.

An analogy would be that your walking is a function of your legs/feet. Cut off your legs/feet and your walking cannot exist. There is not some type of immaterial entity called “your walking” that can exist apart from your legs/feet. Even is part of your legs/feet are destroyed or injured, your walking my be severely impaired.

Likewise there is not an immaterial mind that can exist apart from your brain. In the day that you are raised again, you will again have “the same” body in some sense of “same” and thus likewise the same mind (in my opinion the same mind in the sense of “identical”).


#102

Paidion, I recommend you read the book The Emergent Self. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.


#103

My logic, based on the context, is very sound, and you know that. I don’t suspect you are open minded at all. The more you write, the more dogmatic you become.

If a scientist only looks at evidence supporting their theory, while neglecting science that refutes it, they are not an honest scientist. That is confirmation bias at it’s core; it is looking only for evidence to support your dogmatic claim while ignoring anything that refutes it. There is nothing wrong with performing tests to prove a theory, but that is entirely different and I think you know that.

When you started posting here, I thought you were well mannered. But anytime you have been challenged, it appears you lose your mind, a bit and become emotional, while claiming others are the one who are emotional. At first I found Qaz out of line, he apologized, and you took over and attacked him and them turned on me.

No, you actually said this: (I quoted more than the line, because I wanted to demonstrate the context is nothing of the sort)

Now, the ironic part is all of this, that has me laughing to out loud, enough for someone to ask me why I am laughing is this: You talk about all this misrepresenting of data and then to explain how it changes to so quickly and that basically none of the old information is trustworthy. The reason this is funny is because if that is true, then what your wife knows right now, is not likely to be correct as we progress. In a few years, your current knowledge will have to be “thrown out” for the “new discoveries”! So your dogmatic approach to “I have this all figured out, it is common sense” is basically defeated by your own admission that this brain science is still figuring out new things each day and that all the old information is largely just unreliable, wrong.

But, I’ll quote some examples now if statements you make that I couldn’t make up if I tried.

Really? Every Atheist? You can’t be serious.

Really? What are these ways to tell? Again, you can’t be serious.

Yeah, it is that simple. I mean, that is why the therapy has a 100% success rate, right? And, no, it doesn’t. Not even close.

How can one be healed of an incurable disease? And, are you saying you healed a Type I diabetic to teach his pancreas to start producing insulin, or cured polio and Alzheimer’s?

Really? Dude, you have got to be trolling at this point.

No, that is not why he assumes that, and I am sure you would not be the only person to lie either… Go figure, imagine that, more people out there who actually lie? Note: Not saying you are a liar, but your defense to it is pretty weak as in “Well, so is this guy then!” Uhh, yeah, probably.

If these take “years” to heal, then why the talk about “they were healed instantly as soon as these emotional issues were resolved!” Like, would it matter if you were healed instantly, if it took years to get to that point? Might as well just say it takes a long time and not move the goal posts around.

Oh, a book that claims to be true? Hmm, it must be true based on that reason alone! I can’t have an honest discussion that is open? It seems you can’t.

Yeah, and cutting edge today becomes yesterday’s false and unreliable information, according to your own words.

So, I decided to look this up, because the idea is… unbelievable.

Taken from: Review
To begin, it doesn’t help that McTaggart is an “investigative journalist” (instead of, perhaps, a physicist), with no formal training in physics or biology, which are the very subjects she’s writing about.

Nevertheless, McTaggart digs up an impressive handful of studies whose results are certainly curious, as long as we interpret the results the way she wants us to. But then, like most other authors in the genre, she blatantly disregards the vast, overwhelming body of evidence that proves that people do not have psychic powers, that we cannot move objects with our minds, and that we cannot change the world through our intention alone.

What I find totally inconsistent with you is that you claim PhD’s misrepresent data (which, I am sure happens, because PhD’s are from humans and humans do those things) and that people quoting them are just quoting PhD’s who got it wrong to bolster their conclusion… Right? I mean, what if the PhD’s you quote misrepresent the data? How do you know they are not operating on old and outdated information, or outright falsified data?

I think you are very, very confused as to who or what you are arguing with. Please feel free to link 50 or so of these “countless” studies of prove to this “fact” of yours.

I am tired, have spent more than I probably should have. I’d just add this: You don’t make friends by making sweeping generalizations about them. Now, you probably don’t care about being a friend with an “Agnostic” but just trying to explain to you that your wild imagination, frequent condescension towards those who do not agree with you is not going to win anyone over to your side.

With all that said, I do want to say this. There are at least 4-5 paragraphs that you wrote which fully agree with. I think you have some very good stuff to say. Unfortunately, I am left scratching my head by some of your stories and assertions. Now, maybe they are true, but like Qaz, I don’t believe them and I would have never stated such until you went on the offensive (which I am sure you will claim by being put on the defensive - maybe there is a little truth in both of those). That said, I believe that you believe them but that is about as far as i’ll go. As you said, the mind is a powerful thing. We can even start to believe our own stories.