Can you disprove this?

[BrianC]

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?

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?

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…

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.

[BrianC]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Paidion]

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”).

[Agnostic_Gabe]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Every Atheist who has had a near-death experience has come back a believer.

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

I get it from putting the pieces together. I’ve read the research from hundreds of thousands of near-death experiences and read and watched several near-death experience testimonies. There are ways to tell if a near-death experience is legitimate or not

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

If a hypnotherapist wants to take care of a person’s health problems, all he has to do is get the person in a theta brainwave state and let the subconscious start talking through the person in order to tell what emotion and belief is causing the health problem. Then the hypnotherapist can correct the brain chemistry, the health problem, and the emotional problem simply by correcting the belief issue.

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.

I worked with people with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD/DID) for five years helping them integrate their alters (alternate personalities) into a single personality. Once all of the alters were emotionally healed by removing their abusive memories among other things, they’d naturally integrate on their own into a single personality. When that happened, all of their health problems would go away instantly. We’re talking incurable diseases, terminal diseases, all kinds of stuff. All of it vanished suddenly.

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?

I used to strain tendons when I’d work out. It’d take 1-2 weeks for them to heal so I could start working out again. Then I developed a method I started using immediately after I strained a tendon. It’d take me less than a minute to correct the problem and the tendon strain would go away and I’d continue working out again immediately. I also got rid of a long-term candida overgrowth in my gut that way.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.