h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There was this chap way back when, I think his name was Descartes, he said that he "knew" that he himself existed. Everything else was uncertain.

*clears throat*
What you see (and hear, smell, feel and taste) around you is uncertain, as knowledge about these things are based on senses, and senses are fallible.
Knowledge is based on agruments whose premisses are stuff we already know. So what do we know? What is the basic premiss for all knowledge?
Since senses are fallible, we have no real knowledge of nature. We do not _know_ that there are other beings around us. However, as we doubt everything around us, we become certain that we exist ourself. Knowledge of "self" is the basic premiss for all knowledge.
Or something along those lines....

(René also said some thing about God, and that everyone _knows_ that God exists, but as an atheist I object.)

Descartes may have jumped off the deep end, but at least he _knew_ that he existed himself. He needed no proof of that...

That´s the guy I mentioned earlier on in the discussion. It´s from his "Second Meditation"-text. And he didn´t "know" he existed, it was just the only thing he was able to prove. Cogito ergo sum, right? It´s just as in the Matrix, where you can´t be sure of anything besides your own existence. I love that movie.

OK, if that is the case then the only thing that you can prove is your own conscience. Even your own body is just perceptions of sensory input. You finally have to trust you feelings and senses, but temper them with reason, even if what you thought was true is destroyed in the process or what you thought was false is true. Test what you believe and test what you don’t believe, and with an open mind review the results. Then test some more, test parts of what you believe and don’t. Then, being honest to yourself, accept the results.

Have an open mind to the fact that our knownledge of the universe is not even drop of water in a vast ocean. Only by keeping an open mind and really looking into all things physical and metaphysical will you answer any of the questions here.

.... and even then you probably won't.

The Truth is out there. (X-files)

God is just a creature of some people's phantasy, he didn't exist, he does not exist and he'll never exist.
If you don't think about him, he is gone.

So member,

What did you do to come up with that statement? Did you test GOD, Prayer, angels, ghost? Did you talk with the people that have died and came back and claimed that they saw heaven or hell (hell is less reported though)? Did you read the studies done by doctors? The blind studies where a group heart patience were divided into two groups, one prayed for and the other not. Neither group knew of the study. The group pray for had less recovery time, less need for painkillers and less need for antibiotics. Did you talk with those who claim to see and talk with ghost? Have you read the studies done by the CIA using ESP to spy? Have you talked with or read the writing of the experts on both side of the debate? If you reject GOD, do you also reject ghost and anything else that is paranormal? So again I'll ask what studying of the subject have you done?

The great thing about the prayer study is that it didn't make any difference whether you knew you were being prayed for, OR what God was was being prayed to, OR whether you believed in such god, OR, indeed, whether you prayed before, during, or after the surgery, or even after the recovery.

In which case, it seems indistinguishable from those studies which purport to show that humans can effect the operation of chance merely by wishing it so - just a little more striking since it was done not with randum number generators, but breathing people...

The 'classic' explanation is that it's just the effect of statistics, made up data, and studies which don't show the desired effect being hidden...

In the mean time, they get rejected for much the same reason as God does - put in the "If I know anything, I know that..." box.

This post has been removed.

He's got a whole forum in his name! I don't see anybody doing that for *my* name...

Any of the so called
studies that prove
gods existence boil
down to suggestions
that a belief in god
can make people feel
good (so can coupious
amounts of drugs) or
flimsy support that
there may be things
which we can not
understand there is
nothing consistent
and definite in them.

Why is it that a
religious person can
believe with no proof
and call it fate but
as atheists we are all
ways called on to prove
are stand points.

HAVE FAITH IN THE UNIVERCE WITH OUT THE DEVINE!

Jk(I still don’t know how to do those smilys!)

I do believe so...
Anyway...God does have a whole forum named after him so he must be someone important...like Martin Luther...and John Calvin...(!)
I have to be obvious, don't I?
I think your beliefs are your own and you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone, apart from yourself.
But real life doesn't work that way and people are going to be like that and demand you prove everything, otherwise your opinion doesn't count for anything but hot air.
Just be nice to each other...if that is possible in this world, maybe in the next...here's hoping...

Smiley's are made by putting a ":" in front of a "-" and ending it all with ")".

And as an atheist I am proud to say that God exists. What God is, is debatable. I feel it is correct to say that Man made God. Making God a work of fiction, and a crutch for the weak and any other religious person. Others feel that God made Man. Making God a very real power-center.
In court it is usually the one making the case that has to prove it. All other parts (defendant or whatever) only has to spread enough doubt to kill the case in order to win. In "God vs. Man" it is hard to know who made the case.
If the religious are right, God made it clear he existed (see Creation in mostly all Great Religions, God and Man live side by side a while) and then someone said "Nay!". In that case someone needs to prove Gods non-existance (and will ultimatly fail)
If the atheists are right, man said "nothing in particular" and some dork said "Nay, God will it not this way". In that case the dork should prove God is (and will ultimatly fail).
(I apologize for using the word "dork", but if I am right and God does not exist, the first one to mention God was a dork.)

Mankoid, being nice to eachother would be nice. If everybody would keep their belifs to themselves, it would be nice as well. (Unless they are right, the ones who belive unbelivers will burn forever in the fires of Hell... In that case, I would appreciate if those blasted JWs finally get to me...)

Don't think there is any next world, so let's all be nice in this one. Can't do any harm now can it?

I'm sorry Jk, I guess I don't make myself clear. The study did not and was not meant to prove GOD's exsistence. What it did prove is that prayer works, or at least that there is something to it that works even though the person being prayed for is unaware of the prayers.

If you can't accept GOD's exsistence, can you accept that there is something more to prayer than speaking into the air?

Niz, old boy I am God and do you not believe in me??

IMO, the prayer studies can be generally explained thusly. The people praying for the patient have the patient put into the forefront of their minds. They are reminded on a very personal level that they are supposed to be supportive of the patient. As a result, they probably offer more emotional support and/or general aid than they might have otherwise. This improves the mood of the patient, which studies show has a huge sway on recovery from most serious illnesses.

Also, the patient may be more likely to undergo difficult treatment (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, angioplasty, etc) that they might otherwise avoid. They will have good reason to feel they can count on plenty of personal support from their family, church group, etc. if such people have been more supportive of them post-prayer. Even if the patient does not realize that prayer is going on, they will certainly notice the change in attitude by the people around them.

I've never seen a prayer study which proved a benefit to praying *after* the patient had recovered. But in general, praying after a person has recovered is going to be 100% effective -- because they are already better!

Fragilis,
The study that I was refering to, the patients were completely unaware (at least they were not told) that they were being prayed for and had no contact with the prayer group. If the patients were aware of the prayers for them, it was not by conventional means.

And there was a control group of people who were not prayed for? And both groups were at the same hospital? And they received the same treatments? And the doctors and nurses did now know who was who?

Seems to me to be sketchy research at best. As a recovered Christian, I have studied the effects of prayer. It works no better than not praying at all. However, when you do receive what you request, then it stands out in your mind as a wonderful thing, as long as you don't perceive the post hoc logical fallacy you are committing (post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after this, therefore because of this). But you try to ignore the host of failures of prayer, chalking it up to "God's will."

Your little scientific experiment was probably conducted by one of those awful Christian colleges, whose blind conjecture and tainting of lab procedures are well-documented.

Yes. No - the groups were both scatttered randomly around the health service of the given country. No - they both received whatever treatments they were recommended. Yes.
Plus the prayers were people who didn't know anything about the people to be prayed for beyond a picture and a description of the problem.

That's the one I read in New Scientist, anyway. *shrug*