question on belief

stevejazzx

helena.ryan wrote: »

You just made me feel worse!! :eek::eek:

He's a robot...he can't emote...but damnit he tried! His LaGrange multipliers were obviously malfunctioning...

Whispered

Although I must admit I am so young I only have a vague idea who Edwin Curry or John Major is

Scofflaw

helena.ryan wrote: »

You just made me feel worse!! :eek::eek:

I suspect that would be because I was apologising, rather than trying to make you feel better...

amused,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

That love and indeed any strong emotion is more than what our bodies, our imperfect human bodies are capable of creating.

Again I'm not sure what you mean by "more"

An emotion is a state of your brain. You feel emotions. Therefore anything "more" than what is happening in your brain, what you feel, is rather pointless. Our brains could radiate x-rays when we feel upset, but that won't make feel any more upset.

helena.ryan wrote: »

But something more than just a scientific formula to explain to us our highest good feeling and our lowest lows.

A scientific formula is simply a method of describing something.

It is not a reflection on any value the thing itself has or doesn't have. You can use a scientific formula to explain the Big Bang, the most important event ever.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I just believe we developed them at a higher level as well as a physical level.

Can you explain what you mean by "higher level"?

helena.ryan wrote: »

Was this supposed to be sarcasm?? Do all athiests assume that because you believe in something you believe in everything?

A lot of people take the rocks thing very seriously.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Nope, at the time I though reiki was rubbish tbh.
...
But I did not know what to expect from the treatment and it was wonderful. Again personal opinion which I am not presenting as proof.

You are slightly missing the point.

Its a not a question of saying that nothing is happening. Something is always happening to something somewhere in your body. Even when you are dead a million things are happening in and with your body. Humans are a massive set of individual and distinct chemical processes.

The issue is whether or not what is happening is actually what the Reiki practitioner says is happening.

If you got and get a Reiki treatment and you feel great why exactly do you think the reason you feel great is because of the explanation of the practitioner?

On what grounds is she supporting her assessment of what has just happened to you?

helena.ryan wrote: »

And what explaination would that be??

From Wikipedia
[quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki]
Reiki teachings state that there is a universal 'life force' energy,[13] which can be accessed by practitioners to induce a healing effect.[9] It is claimed by believers that anyone can gain access to this energy[14] by means of an attunement process[15] carried out by a Reiki Master.[16]

The belief is that the energy will flow through the practitioner's hands whenever the hands are placed on, or held near a potential recipient, who can be clothed.[17] Some teachings stress the importance of the practitioner's intention or presence in this process, while others claim that the energy is drawn by the recipient's injury to activate or enhance the natural healing processes.[18] Going further, the belief is that the 'energy' is 'intelligent',[19], making diagnosis unnecessary.

A second level of training, including another initiation, is said to equip the practitioner to perform Reiki treatments from a distance.[20] This method, it is stated, involves the use of special symbols to form a temporary connection between the practitioner and the recipient, regardless of location, and then to send the Reiki energy.[21] Techniques are also taught whereby Reiki can be sent to a specific point in time, either in the past or the future.[22]

The energy involved in a Reiki treatment is said to be 'from the Universe,' rather than the personal energy of the practitioner,[23] and is therefore inexhaustible.[24] (Some teachings say that the energy enters the practitioner through the crown chakra at the top of the head, before being emitted from the hands.)[25] As a consequence, Reiki practitioners are taught that they can treat themselves with Reiki.[10]

Reiki is also used by practitioners as preventative medicine, as it is claimed that the energy encourages healing before any noticeable symptoms have emerged.[26] Another consequence of the simplicity of Reiki is that it can be taught to children.[27]

Some teachers state that if, on some level, the intended recipient does not wish to be healed, the energy will not flow.[28]

Reiki is described by adherents as a holistic therapy which brings about healing on physical, mental, emotional and spiritual levels.[5] It is said that healing may occur in any or all of these domains in a single treatment, without any conscious direction needed by either the practitioner or the recipient.[/quote]

helena.ryan wrote: »

My reiki teacher has never pretended to know why it works, just that it does.

I imagine she does believe in the Reiki process, and that what is happening is not the placebo effect it is due to energy transfer.

Of course I could be wrong, and if she genuinely is saying she has no idea what actually is happening, I think that is good, she is being honest. Though perhaps she shouldn't call it Reiki, since that implies an explanation.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I also think the placebo effect is great but heres the thing. There has been studies done with patients where they were given a placebo and they got better.

That is the placebo effect, the treatment they have been given doesn't do anything, but the mind set that will some how triggers the body into healing.

helena.ryan wrote: »

reiki (I can't speak for other spiritual practises) allows and encourages the body to heal itself.

You don't know that.

Reiki could do absolutely nothing, but the person believing that it will can trigger improved health. You can then replace "Reiki" with anything (stones on a persons head), so long as the person believes it will work. That is the definition of the placebo effect.

helena.ryan wrote: »

If you call this a placebo then so be it but I know of people suffering for years (my mother being one of them) who found relief with reiki where other things didn't work.

Again you are making a link that doesn't exist.

Your mother went to a Reiki session, and felt better afterwards. Obviously something happened, otherwise your mother wouldn't have felt better.

Does that mean the Reiki itself did anything? No.

Without proper testing it is impossible say that Reiki actually does anything. And because there are plenty of times when Reiki treatment doesn't lead to any improved benefits, this would strongly suggest that what ever happens in successful treatments such as those with your mother, is not actually down to the actual Reiki practice itself, but due to an external unknown factor (possibly the placebo effect).

helena.ryan wrote: »

we can feel it and it works.

What though, is actually working?

Say, just as an example, what was actually helping people wasn't the Reiki process at all but the colour of the room they go into to get the treatment (just an example, not saying the colour of a wall can significantly heal someone).

Continuing this example, say some Reiki treatment rooms have white walls and some have blue ones. Say that "Reiki" only seems to work in the rooms with white walls? Would you still say say that "Reiki" works? Probably not.

By calling what is happening Reiki implies that the process that is causing the improved health is the Reiki process (laying hands on the person receiving treatment). You don't actually know that. It might be nothing to do with the laying of hands on a person.

Again it was explained to us as a manipulation of energy, which you can feel when entering a room after a session. My b/f (who is himself a sceptic) can tell when I have been meditating or practicing

helena.ryan wrote: »

The energy I am referring to is the vibration of atoms at different speeds.
...
It is what we are at the smallest level.

Not really. Atoms in a molecule vibrate due to difference in the rotation of the molecule and the atoms themselves. This is an end result of quantum energy rather than the energy itself.

Modern physics have explored into the atom and found out about the various particles that make up an atom.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Energy creates magnatism, which creates movement, which creates energy..........etc.

Electromagnetism is a form of energy field that exerts on force on electrically charge particles. This force either pulls or repels particles.

I'm not following how you think this can be constructively used to heal someone.

For example there is far more electrical energy in your heart than on the skin of someone holding you. And how the body uses electrical energy is very specific. The body doesn't use electrical energy to heal. And if it did hooking someone up to a battery would work much better than someone holding you.

helena.ryan wrote: »

How fair do you think it is that science "develops" yet spirituality copies? Can spirituality not learn and grow too?

No, because "spirituality" is not studied in any structured way. It is just people guessing at what they think is happening. What people come up with normally reflects their vague understand of scientific topics. So scientists develop the theory of electromagnetism, and without justification or understanding the spiritualists claim that this also some how explains their theories as well, with no proper attempt being made to actually demonstrate this.

helena.ryan wrote: »

My understanding of it is obviously very basic but to me it makes sense that if we are made of energy then the transfer of energy will have some effect?

Yes, but that the thing. That doesn't actually make sense when you actually start looking at it.

For a start you are constantly transferring energy. You radiate a load of different forms of energy by simply existing. Right now heat energy is pouring out of you.

So why then are you not healing everyone around you right now?

If you have to touch someone for Reiki to work, then you have limited the types of energy transfer you are talking about. You are now talking about electrical energy. The body doesn't use electrical energy for healing, and even if it did you would gain far more electrical energy from touching a door knob that touching me. So why do people not heal themselves while standing on the bus holding a metal poll, as they have far more of a charge going through them than when you touch someone?

These are all problems with the explanation given that what is happening is the transfer of "energy" from one person to another, and that this energy some how does something?

So if we establish that the laying of hands on another person doesn't do anything, the question remains how does one explain why some people, some times, experience relief of symptoms or signs of healing?

That is a very good question. But Reiki doesn't provide the answer. Neither does spirituality. If you really want to know what is actually happening, rather than simply guessing about what is happening and accepting explanations that appear to make sense, you need to study it properly in a scientific fashion.

helena.ryan wrote: »

You're just showing off now :rolleyes: I should rephrase, you cannot see all energy IE radiowaes yet we know they are there.

We certainly do know they are there. Which is why the Reiki explanation of the movement of energy from one person to another through the contact of skin seems quite unlikely as an explanation of any healing.

helena.ryan wrote: »

This is what I meant above of energy vibrating at different speeds, this is what reiki is about (as I learned it) and I would hazzard a guess that a lot of "supernatural" happenings can be explained using this theroy when we understand it better.

Certainly, but we already understand it very well. And it doesn't cause the body to heal itself.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Phenomenal compared to what we are used to dealing with on a daily basis.

What we deal with on a daily basis is rather irrelevant.

Talon1977

The truth is the most important thing for humankind, the opposite is more than just ignorance- under the lie that is religion, it is mental slavery.

I agree. The truth IS the most important thing for humankind. But I could say the same thing, were I to desire to be a bigot, about the lie that is atheism, being mental slavery.

My point is that there have been assertions upon assertions concerning the "truth" of one or the other. It's unoriginal and uninformative, and ultimately useless.

I would, however, value an intelligent discussion on any one or more particular points of why you might think the truth is what you think it is. That might be a bit more appealing and useful.

Then again, it might not be. Who knows?

Whispered

http://breakingnews.ie/world/mheyaueysnau/

Talon1977

That is very sad indeed.

"We are looking for the miscreants as well as the leg," he added.

".... just in case." you could add there. lol

Dades

They'd better off looking for the leg first, and then using it's mystical powers to find the culprits.

condra

Talon1977 wrote: »

I would, however, value an intelligent discussion on any one or more particular points of why you might think the truth is what you think it is.

Overwhelming evidence.

SubjectSean

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about synchronicity? Such as the following example I robbed from wikipedia rather than boring you with my own experiences

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Other than my reasoning it's things like this more than any bible or holy book that make me believe in God. My God is in the plum pudding and other tasty morsels of this nature I've had lots of things happen in a similar vein and they amount to far more than just looking at the clock at the same time each day.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Beruthiel

SubjectSean wrote: »

What about synchronicity? Such as the following example I robbed from wikipedia rather than boring you with my own experiences

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

stevejazzx

SubjectSean wrote: »

What about synchronicity? Such as the following example I robbed from wikipedia rather than boring you with my own experiences

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

That's just a pair of plum pudding addicts hanging around paris waiting for people to make plum pudding...come on!

Scofflaw

Beruthiel wrote: »

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

Indeed, with so many people on the planet, there will statistically be people whose entire lives are absolutely stuffed with synchronicity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, with so many people on the planet, there will statistically be people whose entire lives are absolutely stuffed with synchronicity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I just posted the same reply in another forum about randomness...hmmm

Talon1977

womoma wrote: »

Overwhelming evidence.

Disputed evidence and assertions with no basis, more likely. But as you've not mentioned any particular piece nor even what it is you think the Truth is, I can't really discuss it can I?:D

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Could this be where the phrase "the proof is in the pudding," originated??

SubjectSean

Beruthiel wrote: »

Coincidence, with so much randomness in this world, it makes total sense that at times instances will occur which will appear as something more, coincidence.

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random. Personally I think the phenomenon of coincidence is somehow connected to the existence of attractors in chaos theory but whatever the reason may be I think the statistical liklihood of the example I gave is unlikely. I do not think that there is no degree of significance. However I have not done the maths, and would not even know how to calculate the chances of Émile Deschamps story. So all these people who are telling me that this is a statistically likely occurance, how have you worked this out?

Dades

I would have thought a coincidence is something that is statistically unlikely.
Possible of course given enough situations, but not likely.

The chances of winning the Lotto are about 45 million to one, but every few weeks some bastard other than me still wins it.

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

Could this be where the phrase "the proof is in the pudding," originated??

The phrase "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless, it is a shortening of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" with the word 'proof' meaning 'test' - a sense of the word 'proof' no longer used. The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

JC 2K3

SubjectSean wrote: »

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random.

And it's not really pushing it to say a God exists?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

The phrase "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless, it is a shortening of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" with the word 'proof' meaning 'test' - a sense of the word 'proof' no longer used. The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

SubjectSean wrote: »

Obviously I think that some degree of coincidence is inevitable but when it occurs in such an outlandish manner as in the given example then I think you are really pushing it to call such an occurance random. Personally I think the phenomenon of coincidence is somehow connected to the existence of attractors in chaos theory but whatever the reason may be I think the statistical liklihood of the example I gave is unlikely. I do not think that there is no degree of significance. However I have not done the maths, and would not even know how to calculate the chances of Émile Deschamps story. So all these people who are telling me that this is a statistically likely occurance, how have you worked this out?

In an arbitrarily large sample set any given arbitrarily "unlikely" event or sequence of events will occur given a long enough time.

Doesn't the fact that the example you cited comes from the mid 19th century not make your argument seem sorta tenuous?

I mean, if you could say that this happened to you. And that it happens every time you ask for plum pudding. And a different friend will appear when you order a different desert.


And also that every time you go to the airport you coincidentally meet the same group of people.

And every time you think of a particular episode of the simpsons it's on the tv that night.

And every time etc...

I'll hazard a guess that one of these things (or something in a similar vein) has happened to most of us at some point, but think about all the times when something "coincidental" could have happened, but didn't?

It's just not possible. There are far too many times when nothing coincidental occurred.

Zillah

pH wrote: »

The phrase dates back to the 14th C and used in Spanish in Don Quixote.

I'm reading it at the moment actually. Its going slowly. It sounds exactly like the kind of notion he'd come out with.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....

oh.....

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

.....

oh.....

Ah. Now, how many people did I just accidentally insult?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly the same sense as in "the exception proves the rule", much used by muppets to claim that evidence contrary to what they're saying actually supports their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

This being how one becomes a well-educated uncle in the first place, you please me, nevvie, with your diligence in disproving me! Erudition proceeds through error and correction.

Yum, there's even a Latin tag. Well, I shall add that meaning, since the article does not dispute my usage, but laments it.

cheerfully,
and now less ignorantly,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

pH wrote: »

O RLY?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

My well-educated uncle disappoints me

Perhaps in getting this wrong Scoff has proven the the rule that is he always right, this of course being the exception:)

SubjectSean

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

In an arbitrarily large sample set any given arbitrarily "unlikely" event or sequence of events will occur given a long enough time.

Yes I understand this, the monkeys arriving at the complete works of Shakespeare, but what I am saying is that in the case of Émile Deschamps and the plum pudding the monkeys appear to have arrived at the completed works suspiciously soon, so to speak, and I'm inclined to think that some sort of copying has been going on. Now I know the logic of the thing is that the monkeys can arrive at the completed works at any point and therefore I should not be surprised when they appear to get there early. However it seems to me that the monkeys get there early rather more often that one might expect. Although like I say, I don't even know how to go about doing the maths, so I have no way of knowing for sure. I think I need to go and learn about probability and significance.

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that the example you cited comes from the mid 19th century not make your argument seem sorta tenuous?

I cited this just because it's well attested to. I have personal examples as I'm sure many people do, things that stagger them. However if I cite personal examples there is no way for anybody to determine their validity.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

Perhaps in getting this wrong Scoff has proven the the rule that is he always right, this of course being the exception:)

Well, if it is necessary to specifically point out that I particularly am actually wrong, then by the proper use of the phrase it would imply the rule that I am usually right - and you know what they say - the world is divided into people who think they're right.

However, even I don't believe that I am always right - I am, however, always willing to be right.


cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if it is necessary to specifically point out that I particularly am actually wrong, then by the proper use of the phrase it would imply the rule that I am usually right - and you know what they say - the world is divided into people who think they're right.

However, even I don't believe that I am always right - I am, however, always willing to be right.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah I thought it would be *fun to use the phrase incorrectly as a defense..I almost used the *i word again!

Fallen Seraph

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes I understand this, the monkeys arriving at the complete works of Shakespeare, but what I am saying is that in the case of Émile Deschamps and the plum pudding the monkeys appear to have arrived at the completed works suspiciously soon, so to speak, and I'm inclined to think that some sort of copying has been going on. Now I know the logic of the thing is that the monkeys can arrive at the completed works at any point and therefore I should not be surprised when they appear to get there early. However it seems to me that the monkeys get there early rather more often that one might expect.

I'll phrase it thusly: how many times during your average day do you reckon that a coincidence *could* have happened, but didn't?

Keith186

They'd probably believe you are of lesser intelligence due to the fact that you believe in a god that they in 'their heart & soul' don't believe in and wonder why and how you could believe in a god when they themselves have no belief in it at all.

I've had heated exchanges with people over the same subjectand they would get quite aggressive too. It's quiet an easy subject to get angry about as it's a fundamental difference.

I don't really bother talking to much people about it unless they bring it up themselves.

I don't believe in any god or anything of the sort as I believe it's just a thought in your mind. If no one told you about a god would you ever find it or believe in it. I think not.