This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A Girl's Message To Christians

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. A Girl's Message To Christians
3 years ago#41
epictetus1216 posted...
or how hot the chick is.

I hate the internet.
"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8
3 years ago#42
C_Mat posted...
ElderMisanthropy posted...
On the subject of Bill Wiese:


Perhaps there's some justification for believing this is anything other than a hallucination/nightmare/etc., but I'm just not seeing it.

This is why it's pointless to answer atheists questions when they ask if there's any reason to believe in anything supernatural. You will write off any testimonies as a hallucination. But you can't say I didn't provide you guys evidence; it's totally up to you whether you want to accept it.

You CAN'T be that dense. It's just not possible.

Elizabeth Loftus is one of the leading psychologists in the field of eye witness testimony. She provided extensive research on this topic, revolutionizing the field with her bold stance that challenges the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court. She suggests that memory is not reliable and goes to great lengths to provide support for her arguments. She mainly focuses on the integration of misinformation with the original memory, forming a new memory. Some of her most convincing experiments support this claim:

In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal Information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.

Loftus conducted more experiments to prove the reliability of expert psychological testimony versus the accepted basic eyewitness testimony. It was found that jurors who hear about a violent crime are more likely to convict a defendant than of one from a nonviolent crime. To reduce this tendency for a juror to quickly accuse, and perhaps wrongly accuse, choosing to utilize expert psychological testimony causes the juror to critically appraise the eyewitness testimony, instead of quickly reaching a faulty verdict.

Also, it has been shown that intelligence and gender has a role in the ability of accurate memory recall. Participants were measured in eyewitness performance in two areas: 1) the ability to resist adding misinformation to the memory and 2) accuracy of recalling the incident and person. It showed that when a woman was recalling information about a woman, the resistance to false details was higher and the recall was more accurate. If a man was recalling an incident involving a man, similarly the recall was more accurate. However, when dealing with opposite genders, the participants gave into the suggestibility (misinformation) more easily and demonstrated less accuracy.

Facial recognition is a good indicator of how easily memories can be manipulated. In this specific experiment, if a misleading feature was presented, more than a third of the participants recalled that detail. With a specific detail, almost 70% of people claimed that it had been there, when it had not been present.

Repeatedly, Loftus conducts experiments to support the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, based on her argument that memories can be altered.

Don't object. Read it and soak in what it means.
"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8
3 years ago#43
Fingerpuppet posted...
epictetus1216 posted...
or how hot the chick is.

I hate the internet.

Maybe you should stay off it if something as innocuous as that can get to you.
3 years ago#44
xTreefiddy350x posted...
Alright it's pretty clear you do not know what DMT is. No worries my friend I will explain it to you :)

DMT (dimethyltryptamine) is a natural hallucinogenic drug. It is one of the hardest drugs to obtain yet it is made naturally in our brains. Ever wonder how you dream? During REM sleep this drug is released from your brain, so basically when you dream you are really tripping out on drugs. This is not the only time DMT is released, however. When your body is under extreme stress (i.e. when your body prepares for death- whether you actually die or not) your brain releases a substantial amount of DMT, which explains why people such as your uncle see things when they are close to death.

I, personally, have done DMT twice. Its a wild experience, and I can completely understand why someone who doesn't know what is happening thinks it is a religious experience. Because I knew I was doing it, however, I dismissed all things I saw as simply hallucinations.

And btw falling through a hole is very common in DMT experiences, during dreams or stress.

Again, what do DMTs have to do with my post? Are you making the claim that Bill Weiss (and my uncle) were experiencing DMTs?

epictetus1216 posted...
It was a vision? Or did he actually go there? Because "vision" presupposes it was all in his head. Personally, I think that's as far as it went. I'm curious, why do you think it went any further?

Good question! In the Christian sense, the word vision does not necessarily mean it all took place in his head; it can also mean his soul traveled to another place while his physical body remained in the same location.

ElderMisanthropy posted...
It's pointless to answer atheist's questions because I'm not willing to accept without extraordinary evidence that this man had an Inferno-esque experience of hell one night that ended with him waking up on his floor?
That seems like a horrific level of confirmation bias. This man claims to have witnessed fire and brimstone, and his account of the event is almost indistinguishable from a nightmare any one of us could experience, and we're to take his word that it was a literal excursion to the depths of hell. You seem to believe this simply because it confirms a view you already hold.
And I'm not writing this man's testimony off as a hallucination. I'm saying that if there's a reason to think it's anything more than a nightmare or hallucination, he has failed in presenting that justification. Do I believe that he truly thinks he witnessed hell? Sure, why not. Do I believe that he truly witnessed hell? He's got all his work ahead of him to convince anyone that doesn't already share his views.

I can't speak for you, but I can always tell the difference in a dream and an actual experience five minutes after it's happened.

And he actually doesn't care whether you believe his personal story about hell; his agenda is to travel the country and tell about what the Bible says about the place called hell- which actually lines up perfectly with his own vision of it.

Faust_8 posted...
Once again, being open-minded does NOT mean accepting every anecdote without question. C_Mat is actually being the close-minded one here, heavily favoring one explanation (the incredibly unlikely one to boot) immediately without justification. C_Mat is the one who instantly made up his mind and won't accept the other view, so why is he attacking us on not being open enough?

Typical Christian MO.

I didn't post it to convince you guys of hell, I posted it because you guys asked me to supply the reasons I believe in hell; and apart from quoting a bunch of Bible verses at you, this is what you get.
3 years ago#45
Fingerpuppet posted...
You CAN'T be that dense. It's just not possible.

Don't object. Read it and soak in what it means.

Perhaps if you honestly, truly believe this yourself, you should be lobbying the courts to release any prisoners who were convicted on eye-witness testimony. It seems to be a way more important use of your time than arguing with people you don't know on the Internet.
3 years ago#46
Except there are some cases where eye-witness testimony is all you have to go on. In which case, you must take it into account.

That doesn't change the fact that it's the lowest form of evidence however.
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
3 years ago#47
^Like I said, it's your prerogative whether you want to accept it.
3 years ago#48
It's not my prerogative to accept clearly flawed evidence. You have not done your job convincing your audience by submitting easily disproved evidence, nor can you proclaim us biased if we don't accept your flawed evidence.

You act as though your job is completed if you can provide ANY source, no matter how questionable or unreliable it is, and then hold it against us if we don't take your word for it.

You have to provide GOOD evidence, not just any damn thing you can find. Otherwise you haven't accomplished a thing.

It's akin to me providing evidence for Bat Baby from the tabloids and saying "well it's your prerogative to accept it or not."

A: Here's my source!
B: Your source is known to be unreliable and I can prove why.
A: Well, accept it or don't.
B: Well, based on only that, I don't.

That's your entire tactic.
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
3 years ago#49
^Faust, it's hilarious how much fail you put into that post.

1. I'm not trying to convince you of anything about hell. If I was, my "argument" would be a lot different. Look back at page 3 of this topic. It says, "You've heard stories of people who have gone to hell? Do tell." I told the stories, two of them from people I personally know.

2. I have given evidence, you guys have all decided to reject the evidence by coming up with alternative explanations for them that you have no proof for (or by not actually reading what I posed all the way through). I haven't called you biased for that, I've said repeatedly that it's up to you whether you want to accept it for yourself.

3. Though I haven't used the word bias, I do strongly believe you guys have an anti-supernatural bias which I can demonstrate from some of the posts here. I'll use one of yours:
"Wah, you don't assume the supernatural explanation when the natural one is 100 times more likely!"

That statement presupposes the conclusion that supernatural explanations are extremely unlikely- at least 100 times less likely than a natural explanation. But if the supernatural is real, there's no scale by which you could make that kind of claim. You can only claim that if you've already made up your mind beforehand on the likelihood of supernatural events. Moreover, it's impossible to provide any of the 100% proof that you guys keep asking for. Or if it is possible, please explain what I would need to do. I don't care how open-minded you think I am, but please don't pretend you were open-minded when you read my post.
3 years ago#50
Ok, so you're not trying to prove hell or anything. Gotcha. Doesn't explain your whining when we're not convinced though.

You say our explanations "have no proof." Uh, yes they do. Here's how it works:

1) We know for a fact that people have dreams and nightmares.

2) There is no proof that people have visions of hell from Jesus. (Or of any claim of Christianity.)

3) People lie for a spotlight all the damn time, even for promoting religion. (Peter Popoff, anyone?)

This is why the natural explanation is "more likely" from our standpoint. Nothing suggests it is supernatural and the natural explanations happens every day.

It's Occam's Razor. For the supernatural explanation to be true, Jesus must be real and he must have chosen to give one person a vision of hell in 2013 (or whenever) to spook him. For the natural explanation to be true, one guy had a nightmare or lied. Which one requires the biggest assumptions?

You can't even begin to say that the supernatural explanation looks as valid as the natural one. It would simply be false or confirmation bias.

Also, that 100 times more likely thing was referring to THIS anecdote, not ever single supernatural anecdote that has ever or will ever exist. Points for assuming the one that makes me the most close-minded though. Maybe "100 times" is hyperbole but any rational person can see how more likely the natural explanation is. I was just trying to drive the point home.

I will entertain supernatural possibilities when the natural explanation doesn't explain it far better and with much fewer assumptions.
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. A Girl's Message To Christians

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived