Darrell Stec wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>>"Darrell Stec"
webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
>>news:47b42cd8$0$6153$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>Robert Epstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robibnikoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Suzanne"
flash.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Robert, I am answering you from my own experience.
>>>>>>I am saying that faith is not just deciding something
>>>>>>blindly like conjuring it up with all your might. I am
>>>>>>saying that faith comes about by the interaction of
>>>>>>the Holy Spirit, a being outside of yourself, acting
>>>>>>upon your innermost being, or what we call our
>>>>>>heart. He makes his presence known to the person.
>>>>>>The person KNOWS there is a presence there that is
>>>>>>beyond himself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you know it's a real "presence" and not a symptom of mental
>>>>>illness?
>>>>
>>>>Personally I find what Suzanne says convincing. She does not sound
>>>>mentally ill to me.
>>>
>>Thank you. I'm not mentally ill.
>>
>>>That is only because you were subjected to your own wife's mental illness
>>>and do not even recognize THAT for what it was.
>>>
>>
>>Now that's kind of mean to say that to him, don't you think?
>>
>>>>Most of the time, those who are mentally ill do not
>>>>express their hallucinations in such a calm manner; it is usually part
>>>>of a system of pretty obviously far-out ideas that get worse over time.
>>>
>>>And you got your degree in psychology where? You are simply incorrect.
>>>And
>>>before you ask, I was once an assistant professor of psychology at KSU
>>>albeit many, many years ago.
>>>
>>
>>He is simply not incorrect. But it is interesting that you
>>were a prof. many years ago. A very admirable position.
>
>
> So you taught psychology too? Or is that your opinion of Robert from a
> layman's ignorant point of view?
Laymen are not ignorant. There are more sources of knowledge than your
ABC's of psychology. It doesn't allow you to claim superior knowledge
in all areas of living. You are like a parrot repeating "I am an
assistant professor. I am an assistant professor." Who really gives a
shit? I've heard of an ad hominem attack before, but this is an ad
hominem defense, and it is lazy and arrogant. Try making an argument
based on its merits instead of some imaginary wisdom that you think you
have by having a past basic professorship. "I was a professor. I was a
professor." Wow! I'm so impressed.
>
>>>> Simply saying that she has experienced something supernatural, though
>>>>it may go against your belief system, is no reason to think she is
>>>>mentally ill.
>>>
>>>There is no evidence of any supernatural and never has been. And there
>>>is
>>>plenty of reason to think she is mentally ill but you would need to be a
>>>qualified psychologist or psychiatrist to give a detailed explanation
>>>why. But for many of the non professionals here, is is as the saying goes
>>>--- I can't give a definition of good art, but I know it when I see it.
>>>
>>
>>If YOU have no evidence, then that means that you can't
>>know if you are right, and therefore it would not be
>>scientific or logical for you to condemn another person
>>to being loco in la cabeza just for being honest to try to
>>explain something to you that you probably have not
>>yet experienced.
>
>
> If Robert's writing about his wife is correct, then we do indeed have
> evidence just as we have evidence concerning your state of mind from your
> posts. Those do qualify as evidence.
They don't qualify as the evidence you think they are. People do
experience things. Sorry that you have a prefab category for everyone's
experiences. My wife does not have delusions, is not mentally ill and
had one solitary extraordinary experience. For you to assess her mental
state based on this one event of several decades ago that lies outside
your belief system shows that it is you who are mentally deficient. Go
get evaluated!
> And it is just that experience that condemns you. It simply is not normal.
You are self-condemned as an arrogant knave. I know more psychologists
and professors than I can shake a stick at. They are rampant in my
world, and I have never heard one talk with the self-assurance and
one-dimensional self-adulation that you do. I think you most likely
have narcissistic personality disorder yourself.
>
>
>>>>Now I have heard some folks around here who did strike me
>>>>as mentally ill, and even then I may have been wrong, but that was based
>>>>on some really far-out ideas. The idea that there is a supernatural
>>>>presence that can communicate to the inner self is a staple of almost
>>>>every religion in the world.
>>>
>>>And it sufficed in a world without science. It no longer suffices as an
>>>explanation. There is no evidence of any supernatural.
>>>
>>
>>Even science has to be believed blindly at some point....
>>like for example the unproven idea that live began on
>>earth when a spark of electricity passed through an
>>ancient soup mixture of elements laying in a puddle on
>>a muddy field.
>
>
> Science does not say that. You haven't studied science, otherwise you would
> not have made such a silly statement.
>
>
>>If I told you there are cosmic rays, and
>>you didn't know about them, and I told you I could
>>show you their pathway by making a McKesson cloud
>>chamber, what would you do? Beat your chest like
>>Tarzan and exclaim "Well...that's SCIENCE?" Would
>>you believe me if I had not shown you the action in a
>>cloud chamber? Probably...if I said to you, "this is
>>SCIENCE!" Or, if you didn't know about a cosmic
>>ray would you tell all your friends present, "She needs
>>to see a psychiatrist." : )
>
>
> If had never come across such an experiment, I might disbelieve you>
> However if it is science then I could duplicate the experiment or study the
> exact tests. You are using the wrong definition of belief here. One means
> acceptance of the facts because the evidence is duplicable but you are
> equating it with a belief, faith, which is accepting something for which no
> evidence exists.
>
>
>
>>>>Do you think that millions and millions of
>>>>people of every faith around the world are all mentally ill, just
>>>>because they are having an experience that is not within your belief
>>>>system?
>>>
>>>Many indeed are. Others are simply lying to themselves or are abysmally
>>>ignorant of science so any explanation will do no matter how irrational.
>>>
>>
>>All things science can't YET explain are supernatural
>>to a human being. Your science is only based on what
>>you can perceive of with your 5 senses. There are other
>>dimensions of things that I'm sure you don't yet know
>>about.
>
>
> Really? What evidence do you have?
>
>
>>I mean surely you don't think that we know
>>scientifically all things. If you lived 200 years ago,
>>and someone told you that people would one day go
>>to the moon, would you think they needed a psych?
>
>
> No, because there would have been no evidence that man could reach the moon.
> Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is the norm, the
> default position. Believing in something for which their is no evidence is
> the unstable position.
That is idiotic. When Newton proposed his laws of physics, the world
was not ready to believe him or digest his evidence. Galileo was
pronounced a heretic - do you agree that the Church was correct at that
time because they could not see or understand his evidence? Pasteur was
jeered at, his evidence was not taken seriously. There is still no
*direct* evidence that many of Einstein's theories are true, certainly
not Brian Greene's theory of 10 or 11 dimensions. There are not current
experiments to prove or disprove such a theory but physicists still take
them seriously. The default position that what cannot be seen or
understood at the time is WRONG. And you are wrong. You are not a
scientist, just a technician.
>
>
>>>>Or maybe you are mentally ill for insisting that everything is
>>>>merely material and mechanical without any evidence for that either.
>>>
>>>Not logical. If it is material or mechanical (movement of the material)
>>>than evidence does indeed exist although not necessarily available at any
>>>particular time or space.
>>>
>>
>>Sometimes even logic is illogical.
>
>
> Now that is a gem. Can we nominate that for something?
>
>
>>So, how to scientists
>>"probe?" With theories!
>
>
> You mean hypothesis. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. It is not
> guesswork. You labor under the same ignorance of science that all
> fundamentalists do.
>
>
>
>>And what are they, but ex nahilo
>>tests? There are also many scientific things that defy
>>logic, that have to be met with some kind of faith in
>>order to understand them.
>
>
> No, that is not true. The whole point of science is evidence which can be
> documented, tested and repeated. You are confusing science and acceptance
> of scientific theory with faith.
And you are confusing scientific theory with scientific experimentation.
There is often a time-lag between theorizing something and being able
to test a working hypothesis. In that gap theory continues without
being discouraged by current lack of evidence.
>
>
>>>>After all, you experience consciousness, you see a giant universe around
>>>>you with only a cursory explanation by science, and you cling that
>>>>little knowledge as if it explains everything.
>>>
>>>Your ignorant caricature is noted. Those who study science do indeed
>>>know its limitations and can quite acceptably say, "We don't know" while
>>>those who believe in superstition must claim to know in spite of the lack
>>>of evidence.
>>>
>>
>>No, people who study science and get things done are
>>people that have faith that there is an explanation, and
>>keep on probing until they find it.
>
>
> They have an unproven hypothesis. Besides it is bad science to have a
> conclusion then look for the evidence to support it. That is what
> fundamentalists do, especially in regards to scripture.
It happens in science all the time, and is not bad science if the
conclusion is not regarded as true. Many scientific discoveries are
based on necessity so of course the scientist is trying to accomplish
something whose conclusion has already been determined. He then tries
to discover whether it is possible.
>
>>A true scientist really
>>has to have a lot of faith if he is going to accomplish
>>something like Jonas Salk did.
>
>
> You never read much about Salk, have you?
>
>
>>>>That does not seem all
>>>>that healthy to me. What about you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are right. It isn't. But then science doesn't act like your
>>>strawman pretends it does.
>>>
>>
>>I don't agree with that. Explain a black hole, a quasar, or how
>>electrons can jump from one valence bond to another and
>>defy explanation.
>
>
> Your personal incredulence has nothing to do with real science. It stems
> from ignorance.
Physicists are amazed not only by what they have been discovering,
particularly in cosmology, but the amazing gaps in knowledge that they
reveal. They are in awe not only of the evidence they have discovered,
but of the possibilties that they can't even figure out how to step into
yet. You live only in the world of facts. The best scientists live in
the world of possibility and vision and use facts to build bridges to
new areas, not to conclude the limits of their understanding.
>
>>Anyone for the theory of strings, or the
>>theory of everything? : )
>>
>>>>I do not think that I know that there *is* a God, or what its nature is.
>>>> I am not a Christian and though born Jewish I am not much of a
>>>>practicing Jew. I do believe, however, that one can have real
>>>>experiences that are not explained by our very local modern belief
>>>>system here in the scientistic West, and that we should be more open to
>>>>other possibilities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Aren't you afraid that your mind might be too open and everything will
>>>spill
>>>out? The default position of a reasoning sane person should be to not
>>>believe in something for which there is absolutely zero evidence. You
>>>take
>>>the opposite view and that is not rational.
>>>
>>
>>I have some ideas about that you might want to consider...
>>I don't mean to be unkind....
>>I don't think that what you are describing is very scientific. A
>>scientist does not exclude the possiblities of things that he
>>knows nothing about. Have you ever heard of the Aristotalian*
>>Square?
>
>
> One of the majors a seminarian studies is philosophy, so yes I have. But
> philosophy is not science. Besides, I think you read this somewhere and
> would be over your head if I were attempt any discussion on the Square of
> Opposites with you.
You're an arrogant knave and don't seem anywhere near as intelligent as
you think you are.
Robert
- - - - - - -
