Open thread for episode 22.33: Tracie and John


Tracie speaks to three volunteers who took Alex’s test to see a manifestation of Jesus. Alex, from Hawaii, called on episode 22.29 and provided information, which he claimed would be sufficient to allow anyone to see Jesus, with 100% success, as long as protocols were strictly followed. Tracey, Jason and Joshua, agreed to give it a try. All three filled out a post-experience survey and agreed to call the show to spend a few minutes discussing their results and experiences.

Afterward, Tracie and John take viewer calls.

General TAE Links

General useful resources

Comments

  1. twarren1111 says

    Tracie!!! It’s fascinating that the UN has made it clear for every country, except, well, the USA bc we dropped out of the human rights committee last month. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is TORTURE. It’s a fundamental reason Ireland just had a vote regarding abortion and why the result was the way it was. It’s the woman’s body. She MUST have 100% control and authority over it. Every woman MUST have free, informed, easily available, on demand birth control. Every woman MUST have total control over pregnancy. It’s in the constitution: the right, the MUST, that every woman be able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the problem with using the religious process to determine reality: it leads to low empathy decisions which means disinformation which means wastes time and energy which is what evil is. The opposite of love.

  2. David D. says

    I’m so disappointed in Tracie this episode. I feel like on the abortion call, she let herself be blinded by a gender issue that did not actually apply. The caller was completely correct that there was a valid analogy between forcing someone to provide breast milk to a starving baby and forcing someone to provide sustenance to a growing fetus. Tracie seemed to get stuck on the fact that the caller was saying a woman held this obligation while a man didn’t. That’s not true. As Tracie herself pointed out, it’s the obligation to not let the child starve that is at issue here. The fact that it happens to be women who are able to easily avoid that using their own body is happenstance. There is nothing inherently gender-based about that requirement. Arguable, if women stopped being able to lactate tomorrow, and men suddenly could, the obligation would now be placed on the man. Tracie made this a gender issue when it was not at all, and I think she did so on purpose to obfuscate the fact she couldn’t properly address the caller’s argument. I was very very disappointed. By the way, I’m an atheist who believes abortion should be legal.

  3. twarren1111 says

    No Daniel. The kamal argument is not valid. There is no evidence anything, ANYTHING, needs a ‘cause’. Just another example of confused ratios meaning confused relationships meaning loss of information meaning loss of time and energy meaning a waste of effort. Immoral. Evil.

  4. ImLee says

    It will be interesting to see how arguments surrounding abortion will change as artificial wombs become more available for common use

  5. bluestar says

    Tracie Harris. Poise, articulate, patient, insightful, gracious, intelligent, clear. Would love to see more of her in the helm chair.

  6. Ron Slaton says

    This comment is a nod to “bluestar’s” comment, “Tracie Harris. Poise, articulate, patient, insightful, gracious, intelligent, clear. Would love to see more of her in the helm chair.” I love her shows as much as Matt’s. I would like to see and would watch as many broadcasts as the hosts could do. Would there ever be a chance for multiple shows per week? For example, there could be one with Tracy on Saturday, one with Matt on Sunday, and one with Jan hosting on Monday.

  7. StonedRanger says

    Thank you Justin. What a task that must have been. Ive been wondering if AXP was ever going to do that. Makes it so much easier to find the parts of the show you want to see again and makes it much easier to skip the things (hamish!) that bore the pants off me. Back to the show.

  8. Monocle Smile says

    @Ron Slaton
    I’m sure we’d all like more content, but AXP is an all volunteer effort with a bunch of extra hours sunk just for the Sunday show. The people who do the work have families and day jobs, so we should probably just be happy with the substantial effort they already put forth.

  9. The Wild Monk says

    What about White, cucked, virtue-signaling racists who promote diversity as a strength? Just as important as religious/atheist discussions.

  10. RationalismRules says

    @David D. #3
    I too had some doubts about Tracie’s response to the breastfeeding analogy, which I am still mulling over, but it is absurd to assert that it is not a gender issue.

    Arguable, if women stopped being able to lactate tomorrow, and men suddenly could, the obligation would now be placed on the man.

    In your hypothetical world it would not be a gender issue, but we don’t live in a hypothetical world, we live in the real world where only one biological sex is able to lactate. Ergo, it is a gender issue.

    Arguably, pigs inability to fly is not a species issue, because if they grew wings tomorrow etc. etc. See?

    Even if the rest of your post was correct, why not simply conclude that Tracie was in error? How is your conclusion that she was deliberately obfuscating in any way justified?

  11. rocketdave says

    Daniel the Poe pissed me off. I’ll give him a sliver of credit for coming clean at the end of the call, unlike “Mark from Austin Stone,” who wasted I don’t know how many hours with his phony act. Even so, pretending to be a theist to get on the show is something I consider pretty unforgivable.

  12. GoUSC says

    Having volunteers take the alex test could be considered applying the scientific method to a silly assertion that 100% of people who go through his test will become christian so I can understand why volunteers were sought. However, when I first heard his claims, live, a couple weeks ago, he sounded like a bit of a scammer, making claims and attracting the gullible who would eventually give him money. And by humoring him as Tracie has done (I think all thinking people knew what the outcome would be before the test took place) it seems it has given alex one more item he can point at to scam more people. He can now claim the the Atheists actually HAD to try out his test because it was legitimate and even though no one converted, he will of course come up with excuses to explain away the outcome. It’s similar to giving flat earthers a platform to debate their position. By giving them an outlet, their point of view is also being legitimized by scientists, even if they lose every argument and debate. They are able to claim that they were put on a stage with someone legitimate so in the minds of the stupid, this makes them legitimate as well. This may be the reason that flat earth idiots have been multiplying recently. If scientist ignored them and gave them no legitimate platform to speak, their ideas would again be relegated to the tin foil hat crowd.

  13. Ryleh says

    It’d be really interesting to see what Tracie and others think about male financial abortion. I completely agree that if a woman does not consent to having a child she can have an abortion. And Tracie says as much and follows up with the parents being obligated to take care of the child once it is born because they are now considered to have consented to the birth of the child… but the fact is that the man’s consent is completely irrelevant, and like Tracie says she can go to the government for financial aid and they’ll go after the father for that aid, regardless of whether he consented to having the child. Not saying he should be able to force her to have or not have an abortion, but she or the state shouldn’t be able to force parenthood on him either, and I find that a lot of the time people decide that that’s where they draw the line for whether or not consent matters, even after staunchly defending the need for the woman’s consent.

  14. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    What about White, cucked, virtue-signaling racists who promote diversity as a strength? Just as important as religious/atheist discussions.

    Ok. It’s really time for a banning. Any mods around?

  15. Justin says

    Thanks, Stoned Ranger! That’s one of the main reasons I decided to do this. You can skip annoying repeat callers or skip topics you’re sick of hearing about! 🙂

    I also failed to mention (due to nerves of talking on air to Tracie, my favorite host) that if you’re watching on the desktop version of YouTube, the caller times are clickable! Just click the time of the next call and you’ll be taken right to it.

    Hope this feature is useful to everybody! Just remember, if it’s a new episode, I’ll need 2-3 days before I can post all the info. Otherwise, binge watch the past 4 years that are all up! Happy watching!

  16. gshelley says

    I think Tracie handled the breastfeeding analogy poorly, which resulted in them going round in circles for a good period of time. She kept saying that the requirement is that the parents feed the child, and that no one was insisting it had to be by breastfeeding, but in the analogy, it was set up so that breast feeding was the only method of feeding the child available. Perhaps this was such a ridiculous analogy, that it simply didn’t register what the caller was actually arguing?
    Jon did better, by pointing out the analogy was contrived and was not a situation that would happen in reality, but the analogy still wasn’t addressed, either by answering or simply saying “no, that is too ridiculous to respond to”

  17. bdez90 says

    I think Tracie handled the abortion call fine I just don’t think some people really understand her argument that well. She talks about women consenting to have another entity use her body and I think the main confusion comes from them assuming shes already consented by having sex. Maybe if she could hit that subject up front it’d cut to the chase a little quicker. The bigger question is at what point after conception are they okay with someone terminating a pregnancy or not. If it’s never well then convo is over.

  18. ecostarr says

    The analogy Nick used was really messed up. Here are the problems with it.

    1) “formula” was only created in the last hundred years, so the idea that the mother’s breast milk is the only means to feed a child is absurd. Historically, many women do not have the ability to produce breast milk so alternate means are used.
    2) if the argument is the child will starve w/o breast milk, you’re creating a scenario where the mother has no access to anything else to feed herself or the child, which means it comes down to starving herself or the starving the child.

    No one would suggest the mother starve herself and give her life to the child for one simple reason. If she dies of starvation in this absurd example, so will the child. There’s a reason airlines tell you to put on an air mask before helping others. If you impair your ability to survive, and you’re isolated, you will eventually endanger the person your helping with your own death. The state recognizes circumstances where survival is a question. You are not required to die for another.

  19. twarren1111 says

    Blue star and Ron Slaton, while I appreciate your comments on Tracie!!!, I want to make it clear that I saw her first!

    Regarding The Wild Monk, I seem to recall off topic comments previously. Using ad hominems such as ‘cuck’ etc and the way your statement is worded reveals a low empathy or a no empathy mind. Simply put: you seem to inherently confuse not only what the issues are but using ad hominems is a terminal fallacy in argument and I concur that it is in the best interests of the community that moderators put back to a status where your comments are reviewed prior to being posted. It would be time well spent bc you have now provided ample evidence to support the claim that your lack of empathy results in you substantially confusing what are appropriate issues and as such allowing you to post unmonitored is a greater waste of entropy than that which is generated by again having moderators moderate your posts.

    As for the abortion and breast feeding issue, to me, the issue is this: every person, of sane mind and age of 18, MUST have absolute say over their bodies. The issue is NOT feeding a pregnancy in utero and the issue is NOT feeding a baby ex utero. The reason many above seem confused and thus struggle with the topic is bc it is a confusion to conflate two separate and distinct issues: nutrition pre pregnancy, nutrition during pregnancy and nutrition post pregnancy, whether we are talking about either parent in each of these three situations are distinct, separate issues about autonomy of a person.

    There is very little probability that anyone other than the woman has any voice in how she handles her body. Yes, if she is not cognitively able to comprehend could be an issue. Money or access to any medical care is most rationally handled, and morally handled (which go together bc of entropy/information) such that EVERY woman MUST have EASY and COMPREHENSIVE ACCESS to any gynecological, obstretical, mental health care that she may need.

    A rational, caring, empathic society would recognize this as the most efficient way to utilize information related to the issue of a woman’s healthcare.

  20. twarren1111 says

    I just noticed something interesting when the issue is not confused: note in my comment above that the word abortion had no place. Why? Bc how a woman decides about her body is between her and her physician. No one else is needed in the ratio of woman-her body and its care-physician. Relationships are three things and three things only. When we have it wrong, ie, we argue, it means someone has confused what one or more of these three things are.

    Eg, putting the idea of abortion into the equation above is highly inappropriate and irrational. Literally, it breaks the ratio. And this then leads to wasting time and energy. Ie, wasting information and entropy. And it needs to stop. Why? Bc to otherwise, to confuse ratios, to waste time and energy is what immorality is. And to do it on purpose, like psychopaths do (Eg POTUS), to do it for FUN is evil.

    Yes, trying to call elective abortion evil is what evil is. Not having an abortion. Why? Bc who are you to mess with my daughter’s bodies? They can make decisions on their own!

  21. twarren1111 says

    So…with all that said: Tracie!!! was right on focus on the abortion call. Bc the issue is not feeding pregnancies vs feeding babies, and the issue isn’t abortion. The issue is that a woman’s body and what she medically does with it is a relationship between her and her doctor. That’s it. Done. And despite trying to tell the abortion calling this 15 different ways he just couldn’t get over his confusion. The result: he wasted time. He kept going in circles. John (man, I will NEVER play poker with that dude!) comment about the situation not being realistic was him intuitively understanding that the issue that the caller was trying to put between the woman and her doctor was not the issue. If the ratio is between a woman and society, the hypothetical is still providing the wrong issue there too. Again: abortion should never be the issue. Adequate healthcare is the issue.

  22. einyv says

    Didn’t anyone find it curious that Nick didn’t think the father should be obligated for anything even donating parts of him if it was needed to save the child. If this isn’t a clear example why this is purely a gender issue I don’t know what is. It is clear Nick is a misogynist and women are baby factories with no rights. Even if the child is a product of rape the women should be forced. Sorry but Tracie was right to how she responded.

    David. no the analogy with the breast milk was absolutely wrong. As pointed out if a woman did not CONSENT to the pregnancy there is no obligation to allow it to exist and provide sustenance for it grow where as if the baby is already born you signed up to be responsible for that child until the age of maturity.

    For Nick’s analogy to be correct it should have been if a mother CONSENTED to the pregnancy then she should take the necessary steps for the fetus to grow to viability as safely as possible. Otherwise his argument fails.

  23. Jeremy X says

    Great show as usual. However, I do think Tracie could have done a bit better defusing Nick’s breastfeeding analogy. She was on track, but there was an easier argument that got pushed to the side: Formula exists. People that have had mastectomies or for some other reason cannot produce enough milk have had children. Regardless of how one might personally feel about formula, it clearly serves as an example where the child is fed and the woman has no violation of bodily autonomy.

  24. BluePrint says

    A suggestion for Justin’s project, which is of great value that would only increase with time:
    If it’s not being done already, the conversation indexing should be also saved in a searchable document listing all episodes.
    It would allow people to search for topics without visiting every episode, and in the future, could be built into a web interface for ease of use.

  25. karamarika says

    This is my first time commenting here, so please don’t eat me alive 😊
    As a woman (who does agree that abortion should be the woman’s choice, however only up to the end of the first trimester) I was very disappointed listening to how the abortion call was handled. I generally enjoy Tracie and she generally handles calls very well. However, she got quite heated on this issue and I think that may have blocked her from really listening and taking what the caller had to say into consideration.
    There was a lot of talk about consenting to carry the pregnancy, but assuming she consented to having unprotected sex, then she knew the risks involved with that choice. The way I see it, if you go unprotected you are accepting the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. I am a big believer in personal responsibility. If you are that concerned about your body and the potential for it to be “used” to carry a baby, then be very careful. It really isn’t hard. Tracie kept making it out was as if someone put the baby into the woman without her consent, which is not the issue at hand. Cases of rape and incest make up a small portion of unwanted pregnancies (estimated at about 1% of abortions for these causes), so the vast majority of women consented to the act that caused the pregnancy. No one forced them to get pregnant.
    In conversations about abortion people tend to gloss over the mental anguish that the women often go through when getting this procedure. They often feel pressured by other people, their financial circumstances, society, etc. I recently watched an ad from a religious organization that gives women a free ultrasound when they are considering an abortion and many of the women who get the ultrasouns then choose to keep their babies. I don’t blame them. As a woman who lost a pregnancy that I desperately wanted, I cannot fathom purposefully killing my baby. I think that these women should be counseled to find out why they want the abortion and to make sure it is their decision solely. It would be devastating to be forced into an abortion just as much, if not more so, than being forced to carry a baby you did not want.
    So often when people talk about abortion they use words like viable/nonviable and fetus to remove themselves from the fact that it is a baby they are talking about. Similarly to how a murderer will say “that woman” or “that man” to distance themselves from seeing the person as an individual. I purposefully have said baby because no matter how you slice it, when a woman is pregnant (that wants it) that is their baby from day one.
    This isn’t a cut and dry gender issue or legal issue. It is a human issue. It needs to be handled with humanity and compassion. These women need help, not just a quick evacuation of their uterus. There certainly are situations where abortion is the best answer, but it would be nice if that could be decided on a case by case basis with each woman and her counselor and doctor instead of by everyone else in political forums and protests. If the woman still wants an abortion after seeing her baby move and hearing its heart beat, then she can have it. I just wish more time was taken to make sure it is really what she wants.

  26. twarren1111 says

    @einyy and @Jeremy X:
    Right on! I was just thinking about this more and decided to listen to Nick’s call again. And I realized something. WHY is the analogy irrelevant? WHY was John’s intuition about it being unrealistic to set it up as “a woman has a baby while traveling out of the country and has no access to any formula, etc, should she be required to breast feed?” And recall what Tracie!!! asked before allowing him the airtime for a hypothetical on abortion by asking “does it reduce the woman to an object?” to which Nick immediately said, “no”. Well? THINK ABOUT IT. HIS ANALOGY IS CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT HIS POINT IS TO EXACTLY OBJECTIFY THE MOTHER AS A COW! To wit: not only is not recommended to fly in last month of pregnancy (Eg, stay in town near where healthcare system knows you) but why would a soon to deliver mom fly to a place where only her breasts are a source of food? The WHOLE ANALOGY IS AN OBJECTIFICATION OF THE WOMAN as a brood chamber and wet nurse!

    And exactly his easy negation of Tracie!!! asking about John being required to donate body parts to the child REVEALS nick and other theists for what they are: a source of evil bc their low empathy (in his case his irrational fear of not handling the lack of any evidence for a deity suppresses his empathy to the extent that he admits to sexist double standards and then COMPLETELY objectifies women with his analogy and can’t see it, indeed, even thinks HE’S MORAL) leads to the dehumanization of women.

    We are so conditioned by this that even Tracie!!! didn’t catch consciously that his analogy is the objectification and dehumanization of woman. Of course, her intuition is so strong because she’s so well naturally using the scientific process as opposed to the religious process to determine how ratios work best, ie, she sees reality (or ‘truth’ if you want) so well.

    Anyway…very interesting.

    The issue has never been abortion.

    The issue is it’s NONE OF OUR BUSINESS what a woman or man decides with their doctor.

    Just like it’s NONE OF OUR BUSINESS to tell someone what gender they are or sexuality or pronoun to use or which damn bathroom to use.

    That’s why defeating the religious process for determining reality has to be defeated. Always. Bc by definition it’s a process that uses faith to support hypotheses and what that leads to is high false positives. So once you then try to determine reality and thus morality (which ALWAYS means uses Baye’s theorem) you have to MINIMIZE not MAXIMIZE the false positives. Why? Because the likelihood your hypothesis (aka claim) is true given the evidence is equal to the true positive (aka the likelihood your claim is true given truly positive evidence) divided by the SUM of true positive PLUS false positive likelihood (which is the likely hood the evidence supporting your claim LOOKS true BUT IS ACTUALLY FALSE).

    As an equation: prob H given E = TP/(TP+FP)

    What the religious process is: taking no evidence but faith that your claim is true which is a false positive and hiking that number to 99%. That way, it don’t matter what percentage reality is (ie TP) bc when you are dividing by a a high FP rate you can make anything true.

    Specifically: talking like abortion is the issue is .99 FP. The TP is that the issue over a woman’s body is between her and her doctor. See? For a rational person, the calculation is .99/(.99+0.01) that only a woman makes decisions about her body. For the irrational person, it’s 0.01/(.01+.99). See? A COMPLETE inversion happens when you use religion bc the FP gets too big and crowds the TP. And the result is shooting doctors and calling people murderers and wasted time and effort.

    That’s why the UN has been clear in reporting the evidence: forcing women to continue a pregnancy against her will is TORTURE. IMMORAL. EVIL.

  27. John Iacoletti says

    @karamarika – the short answer is that consent to have sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy is not the same as consent to carry to term. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy IS one way of exercising personal responsibility for the outcome, just like going to the hospital is exercising personal responsibility after you take the risk of driving, knowing that there is a possibility of having a car accident.

  28. says

    I don’t disagree I could have better expressed myself. Because I didn’t, I’ll do so here:

    >I’m so disappointed in Tracie this episode. I feel like on the abortion call, she let herself be blinded by a gender issue that did not actually apply. The caller was completely correct that there was a valid analogy between forcing someone to provide breast milk to a starving baby and forcing someone to provide sustenance to a growing fetus.

    No, it’s not the same for a few reasons. But mainly, as I kept hammering during the call “consent”–which isn’t irrelevant, and is at the core of the problem with his argument.

    All legal guardians/care givers are legally obligated to provide basic required levels of care–regardless of gender, and regardless of whether the person in your care is your child or someone else. One could argue, for example, that John, as a legal dad, is being forced to use his body to carry a bottle to the stove to heat formula–as part of his requirement to feed the child. But that’s not at all analogous to actually violating and using another person’s body *without consent*. The same argument could apply to any caregiver: They have to use their body to feed the elderly ward in the wheel chair–so it’s just like having someone take up residence inside your body and use all your organs and tissue, and put your life and health at risk–*without your consent*. No. It’s not even remotely close.

    People who are care givers consent to provide standard levels of care. When someone consents to gestate and birth a child, that necessarily makes them, at the end of that process, the parent. Generally that person then is the default care-giver–initially. BUT, we have processes in place by which they can legally relinquish that role through Baby Moses Laws or Adoption laws, etc. I do get that we have some issues with how we force parenthood onto some, but the end result is that there isn’t a conflict of *bodily* rights–which are basic to human beings in this country. That is, if I agree to keep my kid and parent it, then I have to feed it. If I decide I don’t want to feed it, I have to find alternative care, and that’s fine. But as long as I *consent* to be the caregiver, I’m obligated to give care. And I can’t withdraw consent without having other care in place. That’s part of what it means to consent to adopt the role of care-giver.

    The woman who is gestating and wants an abortion is not consenting. And her body is being violated in a way that is an intrusion on her basic, bodily rights, that is *not* the case in the scenario where the child is *born*. Basic bodily rights are the bedrock of what it means to see someone as human. That is, as you strip those rights to consent–the more you strip, you start to generate concepts like “rape” and “slave” and “violate/violence.”

    The idea of a state issuing laws that govern “quality of care” are not remotely close to the state saying that someone can be compelled to gestate and birth another person out of their body–and, further, that consent by the donor is not even relevant in that matter. It reduces the person gestating to a state incubator.

    A person consents to sex when they are asked to have sex. They consent to a gestation–which must be continued consent–upon finding out they are pregnant. Later they will consent to birth/c-section, as far as I’m aware that’s a choice as well–how to birth the child. Once the child is born, the parent/s must make a decision about care obligations–but the conflict of bodily rights is now off the table, and no longer an issue, as the child can now exist autonomously of another person’s body–it is viable and autonomous, a fully separate existing person. And “breast feeding” doesn’t recreate the bodily rights issue that was previously confronting us. It’s irrelevant, as the child is now no longer imposing the other person’s body in a way that infringes on blood/tissue (unless we’re going to now call excretions, like spit, feces and urine, “tissue”.)

    But the most important difference, to anyone who thinks someone with a uterus is a human being, is that one person consented to provide basic care to keep the ward alive, while the other never did, and has no “ward.”

    Also, importantly, the one who *did* consent to care, is *not* required to donate even one drop of blood or any other tissue to keep the person in their care alive (speaking, again, of “tissue” in terms of what we would be compelling a gestating person to provide). We do not impose on anyone–even legal care givers–as we do for people with a uterus who are not bound to care for someone else, and have not consented to do so.

    > Tracie seemed to get stuck on the fact that the caller was saying a woman held this obligation while a man didn’t. That’s not true. As Tracie herself pointed out, it’s the obligation to not let the child starve that is at issue here.

    Yes, that is the requirement of any caregiver. Agreed. And a pregnant woman has not consented to be a legal guardian or caregiver. And she has her body being violated because she has not consented to any of that. Whereas any person who agrees to be a legal guardian or caregiver–regardless of gender–is held to the same standard. For example, if conditions were dangerously cold, the caregiver, regardless of gender, would be expected to keep the infant warm–but it’s not a violation of anyone’s bodily autonomy to say that they would be expected to cuddle the infant to share their body heat–which is much more akin to the breast feeding, than a gestation. And we don’t require them to donate blood/tissue to provide for their ward, even though they have consented to be caregivers. So much less so, then, someone who hasn’t consented.

    > The fact that it happens to be women who are able to easily avoid that using their own body is happenstance. There is nothing inherently gender-based about that requirement.

    I agree with this, actually. Again, if a parent failed to keep their child warm–we might have a case for neglect there as well, if they refused to share body heat–but I don’t see that as being comparable to growing for 9 months inside the body of someone who has not consented to allow that. This raises the question then, why do we suddenly create a different standard for someone who has a uterus? If nobody–even legal guardians have to meet this requirement–why would someone who is not legally obligated by consent to care, then be obligated? This is the part where gender bias comes in. It’s the spot where we move it from the equality of care givers to the inequality of requiring a non-care-giver to lose all bodily autonomy and rights–even though they aren’t legal care givers–because uterus.

    > Arguable, if women stopped being able to lactate tomorrow, and men suddenly could, the obligation would now be placed on the man. Tracie made this a gender issue when it was not at all, and I think she did so on purpose to obfuscate the fact she couldn’t properly address the caller’s argument. I was very very disappointed. By the way, I’m an atheist who believes abortion should be legal.

    I think I said clearly there is equal obligation among those who consent to provide care. My point was to ask the caller why he then wanted to create a situation of *inequity* when it comes to noncaregivers. When I asked if the sperm contributor, for example, should have to donate blood or tissue to keep an unborn alive if it’s required–he wasted no time saying “no.” His entire argument was “you have a uterus, therefore you can be considered non-human. Your consent is not required for someone else to use your body.”

    That was the gender disparity I was trying to address. If it wasn’t clear, then I appreciate the chance to add some clarity. And if I stated otherwise, I appreciate the chance to correct myself.

  29. John Iacoletti says

    @Ryleh #14 – Tracie may pipe in here, but we had a conversation about this after the show and she said that she is sympathetic toward supporting a man’s option to consent or not to fatherhood at some point during the pregnancy. Ideally we will get to a place where technology will allow either or both parents (or someone else entirely) the ability to choose to, and to be responsible for, gestating that fetus to term and then raising the child after s/he is born.

  30. John Iacoletti says

    Regarding The Wild Monk: as far as I’m concerned, once you invoke the term “cuck” you are no longer worth paying any attention to. Your comments going forward will be pre-moderated for trolling, sexism, and racism.

  31. says

    >Tracie kept making it out was as if someone put the baby into the woman without her consent

    A person with a uterus does not control whether or not they do/can conceive. We don’t blame them when they can’t conceive for being childless, and I don’t blame them when they do conceive for a pregnancy, because it’s an outcome based on natural realities, and not something a person can control. A person may / may not have a capacity to exercise some influence, but pregnancy is not a given, or even the most likely outcome of a sex act–protected or not. Pregnancy is a *risk* to *anyone* who is sexually active and not medically sterile. Protection or not–there is a risk. So, why even bring “protection” into it, other than to attempt to paint the person you want to strip of their bodily rights, negatively. If you believe you’re fertile, and you’re having sex, you are risking a pregnancy. “Unprotected” isn’t relevant, if the argument is that knowing X *can happen* means you cannot take any steps to mitigate or stop X if it happens.

    And it’s a rare situation to tell a person that some activity carries with it a risk of physical harm, and that if that risk materializes, they can’t legally take any action to mitigate or stop the harm.

    I agree with John re: the car accident.

  32. says

    >Regarding The Wild Monk: as far as I’m concerned, once you invoke the term “cuck” you are no longer worth paying any attention to. Comments going forward will be pre-moderated for trolling, sexism, and racism.

    I support this response as well.

  33. Theisntist says

    I too was concerned about Tracie’s response to the breastfeeding hypothetical. Her clarification here, especially the distinction between tissue and breast milk does adequately address my concerns.

    It was rather comical how extreme the caller’s hypotheticals got, to the point that such a scenario is virtually impossible in the real world, but that is sometimes all one can do, invent an extreme example in an attempt to invalidate rules and choices meant to deal with everyday scenarios.

    But the caller did seem to be coming from a sincere attempt to make a distinction that he believed important.

  34. says

    >Tracie may pipe in here, but we had a conversation about this after the show and she said that she is sympathetic toward supporting a man’s option to consent or not to fatherhood at some point during the pregnancy.

    Yes. For me, ideally, if only one person wants to parent, I’d be OK amending laws to allow for that person to have sole rights and responsibilities for the child, and cutting out the other parent entirely.

    I am not at all comfortable with holding any person responsible for outcomes, driven by decisions they have no control over.

    Someone I know points out that a person with a uterus makes a significant investment — risking life and significant, lasting harm, literally — to gestate and birth the child, and with that investment comes full rights/obligations upon birth. Alternately, unless similar investment is shown by the person who donated the sperm, they don’t see why law should provide them any rights or obligations over the child.

    I think, that in addition to social biases–wanting to use offspring as a way to punish people for sex–a hurdle to “automatic” rights/obligations will be people who contributed sperm to the equation who *want* the automatic rights and obligations. That is, among that group are some people saying “It’s unfair to automatically hand me rights/obligations just for having sex.” And on the other side are people in that same group saying, “I deserve automatic rights/obligations just for having sex, and it is unjust to deny that to me.”

    Our culture ties parenthood to genetics/biology. It’s a bias we have that care-giving is somehow best when it’s done by whomever contributed genetically to the child. But there are many cultural models, and not all do that. In fact, not all are even aware of the genetic realities of how human reproduction works, and so it’s not relevant to how they determine parenthood. It isn’t a requirement that we use genes as the metric. And I’d be open to another if we, as a society, moved toward another model.

    Part of me thinks that restrictions on abortions, for example constitute invalidation of any consent by a person birthing a child. That is, the state, as an entity that denies in many cases capacity for choice, is actually mandating these gestations and births–and should therefore be responsible for them. It’s not unlike what the caller was suggesting about “what if…” a person imprisoned a woman and raped her until she was pregnant, then forced her to gestate and birth that baby. I said in the call I do not see her as having provided valid consent to be a legal guardian or caregiver for that child. To me, the perpetrator of the situation is solely responsible for care of that offspring, as it was their actions alone that gave rise to that person’s autonomous existence. If that baby starved to death, for example, and we wanted to put someone on trial, I’d be charging the rapist, not the prisoner.

  35. Justin says

    BluePrint,

    That’s not a bad idea going forward. The people posting the YouTube clips are also working on something similar. They’re creating playlists on the channel with different topics of calls. With more time, it should get more robust. Right now, they have many categories already, such as Indoctrination, Philosophy, Definitions of God, Street Epistemology, Addiction, Veganism, and more!

  36. paganbaby says

    My two cents. Whenever a discussion with abortion comes up, please remember that atheism is just a position taken on the subject of a god or gods, despite the tendency of atheists in the US to lean left. I think it’s important to remind anti-abortion theists who call in of this fact. I know atheists who are anti-abortion (very few) and I know theists (very few) who are pro. However, I do think it is very important that when the religious right tries to legislate their bullshit on this and many other issues that we push back and defend the separation of religion and government. But one need not be an atheist to value doing this just as one need not be a theist to be anti-abortion.

  37. John Iacoletti says

    Yeah, every time abortion, or veganism, or evolution, or cosmology comes up on the show I think “why are you calling an atheist show to discuss this?”

  38. III says

    @Ryleh #14 @John Iacoletti #31- viewed in the narrowest terms, as the voluntary assumption of obligation, if consenting to a pregnancy is what drives the obligation to nurture a child (upon birth), it seems that the most consistent position is that a man must also consent to assume the obligation – that financial obligation should not be assumed.

  39. III says

    Re: Daniel the Poe

    A lot of theists reflexively respond with “Yes, God knows what you will choose to do, but that doesn’t invalidate your choice! Free will! Free will!” and barrel past their belief that God made each of us – not just with a “sin nature” (this always seems grammatically wrong to me) but as unique individuals.

    Are we born equally likely to sin? Are we all equally likely to respond the same way to a given situation? If you answer “yes”, any difference in the sin count racked up by an individual would be a function of a roulette wheel of God’s choosing. There would be no need for (an imagined) hell to sift the wheat from the chaff. If the answer is “no”… how is it irrelevant that God put his finger on the scales in crafting my essential nature?

    I suppose it doesn’t matter if justice is absent from the idea of hell (I’ve never found the Problem of Evil to be problematic), but I almost always hear “free will justifies the seemingly unfair idea of eternal damnation” from theists. I’ve only had friendly conversations about this, but every (Christian) theist I’ve spoken with to eventually abandons their need for a just God (mysterious ways!) and posits that whether or not we EARN hell, we SHOULD be in hell if that is where our (god-given) essential nature determines we should be.

    I suppose you’ve already swallowed this if you believe in original sin.

  40. paxoll says

    I think the hardest part of the abortion topic is getting people to understand that regardless of intent, a fetus/baby is violating a womans bodily autonomy at any point when the woman does not wish to be pregnant. Any person can consent to sex, and at any point a person can withdraw that consent and if the other person continues to force sexual contact that becomes sexual assault. If someone was mentally incapable of understanding their actions, they are still violating someone bodily autonomy when they touch someone without their consent, it is still assault. As long as someone is violating the bodily autonomy of another, they lose their rights. A person who is being assaulted has the right to take whatever actions necessary to stop that assault. We have rules saying that if someone touches your shoulder you don’t shot them to stop that contact, but you escalate until the the bodily autonomy is no longer being violated. So we use a minimum force necessary. What is the minimum force necessary to stop a pregnancy? It is an abortion.

    Once we can get that concept through peoples thick skulls, the next hurdle is to deal with the whole responsibility/consent issue. The best analogy for how we hold people responsible for their actions/decisions with regard of bodily autonomy and health is skin cancer. We know that going out in the sun causes skin cancer, and there are lots of things to do to reduce the chance of getting skin cancer, just like sex and pregnancy. People like to go out in the sun for lots of reasons and rarely (or never) do they do so with the intent of getting skin cancer, but we all know that it is a risk. If someone DOES get skin cancer, we do not tell them tough luck they shouldn’t have gone out in the sun, we send them to the doctor to get the cancer removed. Between this and the rape analogy where people can withdraw their permission for people to violate their bodily autonomy at any time, there is absolutely no valid excuse for people to claim women are obligated to be responsible to carry a baby to term.

  41. Cimmerius says

    Interesting thing about that 100% reliable method of getting a sign from Jesus. Some of the more conservative Muslim countries ban movies, music and the internet. Yet all those people don’t seem to be seeing him.

  42. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If someone was mentally incapable of understanding their actions, they are still violating someone bodily autonomy when they touch someone without their consent, it is still assault. As long as someone is violating the bodily autonomy of another, they lose their rights.

    Nit: Violation of bodily integrity, yes. Is it assault? Depends on your definition. Oftentimes, crimes like assault require an element of mens rea, e.g. intent. So, in this case, there is no intent, and thus arguably there is no assault. There is still a victim, and there is still a situation that must be corrected, but there is no crime and no need for deterrence. To borrow your own words, there is still “someone [who] is violating the bodily integrity of another” and so “they [should] lose [some of] their rights”, regardless of intent.

  43. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I suppose it doesn’t matter if justice is absent from the idea of hell (I’ve never found the Problem of Evil to be problematic),

    I don’t think the existence of any evil whatsoever is a problem. However, I think the current amount of evil, e.g. suffering, is a problem. Loosely, if you had the powers of Superman, would you try to stop rapes, murders, and other crimes, and try to make the world into a better place? I hope yes. In other words, I think that Superman should be doing just as much as our police, and so too should Yahweh or any other purported all-powerful and all-good god. As far as I can tell, the only other logical possibility is that the police shouldn’t do their thing at all, which is quite an absurd position, a good reductio ad absurdum.

    In other words, the problem isn’t just a little bit of suffering or inconvenience. It’s the kind of real-world suffering where a woman was kept from birth in a basement for like 20+ years, and after a certain age, she was raped daily by her father. That’s the kind of suffering which is completely and utterly incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful god.

  44. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @karamarika #27:

    I cannot fathom purposefully killing my baby.

    Before weighing in on topics you cannot fathom, listen and do some research.
     
     

    No one forced them to get pregnant.

    Would you force them to stay pregnant? A charitable reading of #27 says no. But in endorsing crisis pregnancy centers, you are endorsing coersion, misinformation, and denial of care.
     
     

    people tend to gloss over the mental anguish that the women often go through when getting this procedure. They often feel pressured by other people, their financial circumstances, society, etc.

     
    Twitter Thread: Angel Morris – Just got back from Planned Parenthood

    the street was just lined with protestors. All of them wielding signs with scary and hateful messages. […] We pull into the parking lot and see that there’s PP, and right next to it, it says “Women’s Clinic”. I assume they are the same thing. A woman from that clinic is standing outside with a paper. She comes over to us and very forcibly asks what we’re here to do. Once I say breast exam, she calms down and tries to get me to go inside.
     
    As this is happening, a group of people wearing pink vests come out of PP and start warning me not to go in. The lady from the other clinic starts to get agitated and angry. Obviously I get freaked out and since we were here for PP anyways, I go with them. As soon as that happens, crazy lady from other clinic starts just yelling nonsense.
     
    We get inside and they tell us that that clinic is secretly a religious clinic that preys on girls and tries to “convert” them. Found out later that they don’t even have a medical license. They can’t treat or diagnose anything. They just force shame on girls! The people at PP were SO nice and welcoming and ended up being such genuine people. Now fast forward to leaving PP…
     
    We get escorted to our car by the PP people, and when we get inside we sat for just a small second to get our GPS up. As this happens, another lady from the other clinic RUNS up to our car and stands outside my window with a paper about Jesus and is just screaming like a lunatic. I’ve literally never been so appalled in my life by how animalistic these people who were supposed to be representing Jesus were. I saw Christ’s love today more in the people at Planned Parenthood than ANYONE who was claiming his name in that parking lot.
    […]
    Evil people claim they know Jesus. And I absolutely cannot imagine being a petrified pregnant girl who is seeking help and advice having to experience that evil.

     
     

    a religious organization that gives women a free ultrasound when they are considering an abortion and many of the women who get the ultrasounds then choose to keep their babies.

     
    Video: John Oliver – Crisis Pregnancy Centers (21:06)

  45. philk says

    I’m pro-abortion & women’s rights but even this episode gave me some good points from Tracie I’d never thought of. Nice work (as usual) & thanks for educating those of us who thought we knew enough to dismiss anti-abortion claims as pointless drivel. We all have to stand up for what’s right regardless of our gender identity. (Which is funny considering it’s mostly I’ll informed men calling to argue against abortion. Probably quickly dissappear if men could get pregnant lol)

  46. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @karamarika #27:

    it would be nice if that could be decided on a case by case basis with each woman and her counselor and doctor

    I cannot fathom purposefully killing my baby. […] I purposefully have said baby because no matter how you slice it, when a woman is pregnant (that wants it) that is their baby from day one. […] If the woman still wants an abortion after seeing her baby move and hearing its heart beat, then she can have it.

     
    Twitter thread: Cajsa Lilliehook

    When I was in college, I was on my way to my weekend job when I stopped for water at the bubbler. I felt this rush of air, straightened up, and saw there at my feet a young black girl who had thrown herself off the parking garage. My shoes and pants were spattered with blood and matter.
     
    A homeless man laid his coat over her. I stood there frozen for a few moments before rushing to the Science Museum where I worked and calling the police. She lay there on the sidewalk most of the day, still there when I had my 3 pm breaks but gone at 5. All of us at the museum kept checking all day to see if they came for her, but it took hours and hours and homeless people guarded her body, not police who didn’t seem to care since she was a suicide. A few days later there was a story, which you should be able to find in the Minneapolis Strib [(Star Trubune)].
     
    She had gone to a pregnancy crisis center to get an abortion. It was, of course, vile and fake, showed her videos and called her a murdere[r] and she left their office and threw herself off the building. I used to be mildly pro-choice. You know, the “abortion is icky, but not my business” kind of pro-choice, but her death changed me to an advocate for abortion rights. Those forced birthers murdered her as surely as if they pushed her off the building themselves.
     
    I don’t know her name. She was a minor and they didn’t include it in the article, but no matter, she will always be one of the people who had a more profound effect on my politics than any other. She was fourteen years old.

     
    * I was unable to verify this story, but searching, she’s told this anecdote several times over the years with less detail. Given the author’s age, college may have been 20 years ago.

  47. Ed Burgos says

    Hey Justin,

    Thank you for adding all the information to the YouTube videos. It would be a good idea to maybe put that same information up on a website someone that way it could be searchable so if you did wanted to know that one caller who wanted to talk about sleep paralisis you could just search that page for the exact episode. Just an idea. Keep up the good work .

  48. indianajones says

    @ JI #32 I as an always lurker and occasional commenter want to thank you for this and encourage more of the same! Cheers!

  49. says

    Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote “We are all inlets and may become outlets for all there is in God”.
    No degrees or qualifications of any kind are useful in proving the truth of this. What is needed is an understanding that there is only ONE intelligence in the universe, which differentiates Itself into all life forms we experience and penetrates the interspaces of the known universe and infinitely beyond. Once any individual comes into realisation that he or she is a differentiated expression of the same intelligence that formed the universe, the scope of accomplishment of that individual will be expanded to the extent of his or her imagination. The purpose of mental science is to provide the individual a systematic approach in achieving this realisation.

  50. says

    48 Ray says:
    Ah, making a bald statement is not proving a fact and is no evidence of a fact. And WTF is “mental science”? The woo appears deep in this one.

  51. Ryleh says

    @John Iacoletti, thanks for the response! Glad to hear that that’s what you guys think. My past discussions about this topic on the internet have left me somewhat jaded but I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised to find reasonable people on the AE. Have a good one!

  52. says

    @Heicart

    “I don’t disagree I could have better expressed myself. Because I didn’t, I’ll do so here:”

    I think you expressed yourself quite clearly. That was an extremely obtuse caller.

  53. says

    Hi Jeanette,
    The term Mental science came into use in the mid-1800s. There were many hundreds of books written on the subject, many of which were self-published by the authors. Others were published by small publishers. As the authors passed on and the publishing houses went out of business the books faded into obscurity. Some have been re-published in recent years, happily. The Edinburugh lectures on Mental Science (1905) can be read free online. During the 1920s the term “Practical Psychology” was sometimes used by writers on Mental Science.

    I think the word “woo” refers to certain new age type teachings which mix pseudo-science with psychological teachings. Deepak Chopra is a good example. These are not Mental Science though, neither do they claim to be.

    It is not possible for someone else to prove to you that you are the same intelligence that formed the universe, in a differentiated and unique form. This is something every individual needs to do for themselves. It is not difficult to do, but it takes time and practice, like most everything worthwhile. One must not be closed-minded to their own possibilities though.

    .

  54. meskibob says

    @Ray

    This is something every individual needs to do for themselves. It is not difficult to do, but it takes time and practice, like most everything worthwhile.

    Similar to Alex’s challenge from the show/OP, provide the detailed steps/method to achieve what you have purportedly achieved (understanding that there is a singular universal intelligence) so it can potentially be replicated by other people here.
    Until you’re able to do so (and your findings are actually replicated), your “Mental Science” is just more woo.

  55. says

    @meskibob

    There was a 5-page pamphlet published in the 1920s entitled “It Works” which outline Mental science principles in a very easy to understand and follow manner.
    You can read it free online here: http://www.brainybetty.com/2007Motivation/R.H.%20Jarrett%20-%20It%20Works.pdf
    and also here: http://limitlesslvx.com/it-works-r-h-jarrett-pdf/

    Once you find out that It Works there will be no limit to your capabilities of achievement, accept those which you impose in yourself.

  56. t90bb says

    @ray

    Cool story brah!!! Can you demonstrate any of it???……merely asserting the universe has intelligence etc….and then claiming each person needs to discover this…yadda yadda yadda……is a claim. A claim that may make you warm and fuzzy, but on this board expect to be asked for a demonstration for your claims!

  57. says

    @t90bb

    It is not that difficult to demonstrate for yourself. I have provided links to a small pamphlet above which will provide easy steps for you. In time you will be in no doubt as to the truthfulness of it. It’s then up to you how you use the knowledge.

  58. RationalismRules says

    [reposting from previous thread]

    @Ray
    You made a claim:

    …there is only ONE intelligence in the universe, which differentiates Itself into all life forms we experience and penetrates the interspaces of the known universe and infinitely beyond.

    That is not an assessment of my mental capabilities, it is a claim of fact about the universe we inhabit. Whatever I can determine about my own mental capabilities remains specific to me. You are claiming something which is not specific to an individual, but is a general claim of fact. Such a claim needs to be supported by evidence, or it is worthless. Are you able to provide evidence for the claim, or is it simply unsupportable assertion?
     
    I am also interested in the answer to Jeanette’s question: ‘what is mental science?’. Unfortunately you didn’t provide an answer, instead you told a little story about publishing history, and then made a statement about what mental science is not. Surely you are able to give a direct answer to a straightforward and fundamental question?

  59. says

    @RationalismRules

    A modern term describing Mental Science is Panentheism, not to be confused with pantheism.

    Some theists go from theism to pantheism and then to atheism and miss Panentheism altogether.

    Here is a typical definition:

    pan·en·the·ism
    paˈnenTHēˌizəm/
    noun
    noun: panentheism

    the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.

    A panentheist does not believe in the existence of a personal God. I am therefore an athiest to virtually all God descriptions from mainstream religions.

  60. jacobfromlost says

    If “Mental Science” actually worked, why 100 years later is it completely obscure? Why does it read like simplistic nonsense? Why would there be anyone before or after this “discovery” who clearly had great success beyond their imagination? And if you can wish for something you may discover you don’t actually want, why can’t you wish yourself to become tyrant of the world? Or the next Hitler? What if two people have directly conflicting wishes, tap into their Emmanual god-selves, and both perfectly achieve their goals? Does the universe destroy itself? Does god destroy himself? Is it possible for an nonbeliever in Mental Science to achieve unbelievable success…because I’d venture very few people do believe in Mental Science, and there are plenty of successful people out there. It just seems kind of simple and stupid is all.

  61. jacobfromlost says

    Tracie has discussed Panentheism on the show many times before. So have others. So have callers. Not to mention its relation to Emerson and Thoreau, Transcententalism of the 19th century, Walt Whitman, etc. It can be an appealing psychological view of reality, but I see no reason to think it is TRUE.

  62. says

    @jacobfromlost

    There are many thousands of students of Mental science and many who practice the principles without ever knowing that they were formulated in the mid to late 1800s.

    If someone wishes to become a hero they can, and if someone wishes to use mental powers in a destructive way they are free to do so also. It should be remembered though that the general movement of the Life Principle inherent in Infinite Intelligence is lifeward, and anyone who uses intelligence for evil will therefore put themselves in direct opposition to It, and will face destruction in the longrun, as history has proved.

  63. says

    @jacobfromlost

    I suggest you experiment with it yourself after which you will have good reason to believe it is true, or know it is true as I and many others do. I have provided links to a short pamphlet which will give you a good start I think.

    Please understand that unlike others who have called the show I am not attached to any religion at all and therefore am not attempting to “Save you” or convert you in that sense. I am merely endeavouring to point you in the right direction – the fun part of the journey is yours to experience!

    The reason most who have discovered what i did would never call the show is because they would not know of its existence most likely. I didn’t myself until recently.

  64. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Jeanette #49:

    And WTF is “mental science”?

    Ray #52:

    The Edinburugh lectures on Mental Science ([1909]) can be read free online.

     
    Book: The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science – Chapter XI

    Our ordinary conception of ourselves is that of an individual personality which ends where another personality begins, in other words that the two personalities are entirely separate. This is an error. […] The patient is asked by the healer to put himself in a receptive mental attitude, which means that he is to exercise his volition for the purpose of removing the barrier of his own objective personality and thus affording entrance to the mental power of the healer. On his side also the healer does the same thing, only with this difference, […] the healer does so with the intention of allowing a flowing-out: and thus by the joint action of the two minds the barriers of both personalities are removed and the direction of the flow of volition is determined
    […]
    here we find one most valuable practical application of the principle laid down earlier in this book, that pure spirit is present in its entirety at every point simultaneously. […] the healer realizes […] he can then speak to the sub-conscious mind of the patient as though it were his own, for both being pure spirit the thought of their identity makes them identical, and both are concentrated into a single entity at a single point upon which the conscious mind of the healer can be brought to bear, according to the universal principle of the control of the subjective mind by the objective mind through suggestion.

     
    Buckle up folks…

    It is for this reason I have insisted on the distinction between pure spirit, or spirit conceived of apart from extension in any matrix and the conception of it as so extended. If we concentrate our mind upon the diseased condition of the patient we are thinking of him as a separate personality, and are not fixing our mind upon that conception of him as pure spirit which will afford us effectual entry to his springs of being. We must therefore withdraw our thought from the contemplation of symptoms, and indeed from his corporeal personality altogether, and must think of him as a purely spiritual individuality, and as such entirely free from subjection to any conditions, and consequently as voluntarily externalizing the conditions most expressive of the vitality and intelligence which pure spirit is.
     
    Thinking of him thus, we then make mental affirmation that he shall build up outwardly the correspondence of that perfect vitality which he knows himself to be inwardly; and this suggestion being impressed by the healer’s conscious thought, while the patient’s conscious thought is at the same time impressing the fact that he is receiving the active thought of the healer, the result is that the patient’s sub-conscious mind becomes thoroughly imbued with the recognition of its own life-giving power, and according to the recognized law of subjective mentality proceeds to work out this suggestion into external manifestation, and thus health is substituted for sickness.
    […]
    in mental treatment time and space count for nothing, because the whole action takes place on a plane where these conditions do not obtain; and it is therefore quite immaterial whether the patient be in the immediate presence of the healer or in a distant country. […] one of the most effectual modes of mental healing is by treatment during sleep, because then the patient’s whole system is naturally in a state of relaxation which prevents him offering any conscious opposition to the treatment. And by the same rule the healer also is able to treat even more effectively during his own sleep than while waking.
    […]
    From mental healing it is but a step to telepathy, clairvoyance and other, kindred manifestations of transcendental power which, are from time to time exhibited by the subjective entity and which follow laws as accurate as those which govern what we are accustomed to consider our more normal faculties;
     
    but these subjects do not properly fall within the scope of a book whose purpose is to lay down the broad principles which underlie all spiritual phenomena. Until these are clearly understood the student cannot profitably attempt the detailed study of the more interior powers; for to do so without a firm foundation of knowledge and some experience in its practical application would only be to expose himself to unknown dangers

    bwahahaha

  65. jacobfromlost says

    Ray: As Jeff used to say on the show, and I have picked up with fondness…”Good Grief.”

  66. RationalismRules says

    @Ray
    Thank you for the definition (of Panentheism). I’m disappointed that Mental Science turns out to be an ideology, not a science.
     
    I await your response to the main point of my post:

    You are claiming something which is not specific to an individual, but is a general claim of fact. Such a claim needs to be supported by evidence, or it is worthless. Are you able to provide evidence for the claim, or is it simply unsupportable assertion?

  67. Monocle Smile says

    Ray isn’t here to answer questions, he’s here to repeat himself until he turns blue in the face.

  68. says

    @ RationalismRules

    As infinite intelligence individualises Itself within the individual, it is very specific to the individual. If we think about all lifeforms for a moment the common factor in all is intelligence is it not? A tree, an ant, a dog, a human, all display different levels of intelligence. As intelligent life cannot and has never been formed from non-intelligence, is it really too big a step for you to realise that the defining quality of that which caused the universe to form in the first place must be intelligence?

    Can a human being form or produce anything useful without using intelligence and imagination to do so? It is impossible for us to even conceive of anything useful in our material world being made without some intelligence at work, yet some of us like to suppose that the universe itself and everything it contains came into existence without any underlying intelligence at work.

    I think the real problem here is the notion of a personal God or Deity of some kind that many hold and many athiests argue against, and not the existence of an underlying intelligent power or evolutionary force as primal cause of everything in the natural world.

    I am happy to answer each and every question put to me. I have been doing so for 25+ years afterall.

    Please try to ask one question at a time though as you would do in a normal conversation and not several at the same time. Thanks.

  69. jacobfromlost says

    What if infinite stupidity is infecting our individualized infinite intelligence? It would explain why so much stupid is running around loose in the world.

  70. Monocle Smile says

    This is the same bullshit as “The Secret” as peddled by Oprah.

    As intelligent life cannot and has never been formed from non-intelligence, is it really too big a step for you to realise that the defining quality of that which caused the universe to form in the first place must be intelligence?

    Did you get off the wrong train at the wrong platform?

    Can a human being form or produce anything useful without using intelligence and imagination to do so? It is impossible for us to even conceive of anything useful in our material world being made without some intelligence at work, yet some of us like to suppose that the universe itself and everything it contains came into existence without any underlying intelligence at work.

    Oh no, you instead warped in on a wrong spaceship from a wrong universe where everything is wrong. Does that pamphlet make more sense before or after downing a bag of shrooms?

  71. says

    @ CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    As mentioned, The Edinburgh Lectures was written in 1905 and has very long paragraphs which was the typical writing style of the time. It is best to read it from the beginning rather than to start at Chapter XI. The author had one and one student only, a lady named Genevieve Behrend who wrote a much condensed outline of the teachings of Mental science entitled “Your Invisible Power” , which may be read free online here: http://www.brainybetty.com/2007Motivation/Genevieve%20Behrend%20-%20Your%20Invisible%20Power.pdf

  72. says

    @jacobfromlost

    Temporal stupidity is the nature of the human mind it seems, until it becomes enlightened (or not). That which is infinite and eternal must of necessity be changeless also. If stupidity was infinite there would be no intelligence displayed at all on this planet. There can only be one infinite as if there was more than one then one would limit the other and neither would be infinite.

  73. jacobfromlost says

    “There can only be one infinite as if there was more than one then one would limit the other and neither would be infinite.”

    Assuming you are not pulling our collective legs at this point, there is no “infinite” in reality. It’s an abstraction. And within that abstraction, there are indeed more than one infinity. There are infinite infinities. Any high school math student would know this. It’s like asking how many times can you divide any given number in half?

    Remember Jeff’s reaction to the woman who said there was an angel at the gas station who knew how to fill up her tire? I’m getting that vibe from Ray.

  74. says

    @ jacobfromlost

    in·fi·nite
    ˈinfənət/
    adjective
    adjective: infinite

    1.
    limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
    “the infinite mercy of God”
    synonyms: boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, interminable;

    To this I would add that the intelligent power which forms universes in omnipresent in its entirety, meaning it is present everywhere simultaneously as far as space is concerned, therefore anywhere you can envisage it being, the whole of it must be. This does not mean to say that it is present in the material world as one individual thinking entity though. The material world is a temporary vehicle for the infinite to express itself in as individual thinking agents. In and of itself it is not a single thinking agent, it is the sum total of all life on this planet and beyond.

  75. jacobfromlost says

    “If stupidity was infinite there would be no intelligence displayed at all on this planet.”

    I assume this is because infinity is “limitless or endless in space, extent, or size.”

    Therefore, your argument is that stupidity cannot be infinite because it would then of necessity have to fill everywhere, and thus there could be no intelligence at all (because it would be negated by the very existence of infinite stupidity).

    Why is that not a problem for infinite intelligence? You claim there cannot be infinite stupidity because then there couldn’t be intelligence on earth at all. Why is the inverse not true? Why is it not true that infinite intelligence cannot be true else there would be no stupidity at all on earth? You invoke temporality as if that addresses the issue. It doesn’t. But even if it DID, would would also address the issue of infinite stupidity allowing SOME intelligence on earth in the very same way. In other words, special pleading.

    Above you suggest experimenting to see if your views are true. Explain how the experiment would be falsifiable. You seem to be saying that whatever I see is evidence for whatever you say…which is NOT an experiment.

  76. jacobfromlost says

    Correction: “But even if it DID, it would also address the issue of infinite stupidity allowing SOME intelligence on earth in the very same way. In other words, special pleading.”

  77. says

    @ jacobfromlost

    Why is it not true that infinite intelligence cannot be true else there would be no stupidity at all on earth?

    Intelligence evolves on this plant from the very lowest forms to the highest forms known, i.e. ourselves. By a processes of the survival of the fittest (or natural selection) the stupid or weaker, or less intelligent genes are defeated by the stronger and more resourceful and intelligent ones in nature.

    The course of evolution is upward from the lower to the higher. As a race we are nowhere near the point where stupidity can be eradicated completely, in fact we are only just at the point where we can come into conscious awareness that such an evolutionary process even exists.

  78. jacobfromlost says

    If your logic that intelligence couldn’t exist on the earth if infinite stupidity were true is right, then the very same logic says that stupidity couldn’t exist on the earth if infinite intelligence were true. It’s the very same logic.

    There are not “low” and “high” forms. Evolution isn’t a ladder. It doesn’t move “upward from lower to higher.” So there’s that. I again quote Jeff: “Good grief.”

    You’re projecting the “great chain of being” onto evolution. Evolution is just change over time. There isn’t any “higher” or “lower”. A tomato has more genes than you do. Is it “higher” or “lower” than you in your estimation?

  79. says

    @ jacobfromlost
    Above you suggest experimenting to see if your views are true. Explain how the experiment would be falsifiable. You seem to be saying that whatever I see is evidence for whatever you say…which is NOT an experiment.

    Did you read the “It Works” pamphlet as I suggested? It is only 5 pages. Its is not about my personal views. Either It Works or it does not. If It Works for you as it has worked for countless thousands of other people, then perhaps you will become bold and put it to greater and greater test. If you do this you will eventually come to the conclusion that it is limitless in possibilities and you will “Hitch your wagon to a star”.as someone once wrote.

  80. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ray #77:

    from the very lowest forms to the highest forms known, i.e. ourselves

     
    Comic: Stonemaker Argument – The Happy Little Tetrad

  81. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray
    Why would I ask intelligent questions when you’re responding to total nonsense to the intelligent questions that are already being asked? Given that you don’t appear to know anything about anything, what’s the point?

  82. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    Ah, yes … the new age ‘healer’ crowd.

     
    If this truly is the hidden underlying reality of the universe, then why don’t we see little animal healers, let’s pick chipmunks, holding little chipmunk healing workshops and bilking the other gullible chipmunks out of their acorns in exchange for healing sessions (that when tracked don’t actually wind up healing any of them of their illnesses) … such as we see with any of the modern human new age charlatans?

     
    The demonstrable reality is, that we don’t see this delusional distraction spontaneously occurring in nature, do we. No, just in some humans circles do we see this sort of behavior emerging. Mental escapism from what can be a tough reality … into delusion. We also see exactly this sort of promise in Scientology … give us lot’s of your money, and we can ‘heal you’ and make you ‘a clear’ (enlighten you,) after which all your inherent special powers as an individual will be released, and you’ll be free to use them to become rich and famous (and all that other stuff people typically wish for with escapist style magic or prayer.) It’s the false promise that you can do a few things, think a few thoughts, and escape the human condition.

     
    All that ever happens, though, is that gullible people get parted from their money, and they never actually seem to reach this goal of ‘attainment’ … nothing happens any different from the abilities of their ordinary peers who aren’t involved in the scam. Actually, there are many who emerge out of this new age crap quite harmed, quite confused, and missing a large portion of the money they needed to actually survive. Have you seen how big the new age book section is as your local bookstore? Yet where are all the success stories? Instead, we just hear about the harm this has done to people after they leave these belief systems. There are plenty of those ‘testimonials’ around if you look for them.

     
    It’s the same old scam of ‘if you get this from me, you’ll get somewhere special’, just with a different, more modern, more scientific sounding story line. But, it’s still really just the promise of escape from the mundane into some abstraction of a better heaven … if you do certain things ‘correctly’ (and an ever moving target, usually.) It’s no different really from, say, Mormonism. (And they are “the one true church,” don’t you know. /s)

     
    You statements so far are just inane deepities … and even outright Deepakities in some cases. If this truly were the underlying nature of the universe … then why wouldn’t J35’s orca pod have just healed her baby, the one that died recently, instead of 100% of their offspring dying over the past three years. Are the orca’s just dumb or something? Are they not worthy? Why no successful healing session for them if, as you say, this is universal to all life? Why are only some groups of humans behaving as if this were actual reality?

     
    Silly new age woo. It’s delusional escapism from reality, and nothing more. And you very much seem to just be here to preach this crap too. Woo woo … trains a comin’ … woo woo!

  83. says

    There are not “low” and “high” forms. Evolution isn’t a ladder. It doesn’t move “upward from lower to higher.” So there’s that. I again quote Jeff: “Good grief.”

    You’re projecting the “great chain of being” onto evolution. Evolution is just change over time. There isn’t any “higher” or “lower”. A tomato has more genes than you do. Is it “higher” or “lower” than you in your estimation?

    If you compare a tomato or an ant or a dog or a human being it should be self evident what the order of intelligence expressed by each of them is. It has nothing to do with the number of genes. Is a tomato more intelligent than an ant in your view? Does a tomato farm, for example?

  84. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray

    If It Works for you as it has worked for countless thousands of other people

    Outright, unequivocal lie.

  85. jacobfromlost says

    Are you smart enough to successfully mate with the best lion in the pride to ensure a large and healthy litter? Neither I nor the tomato are smart enough to do THAT. Therefore certain smart lionesses are the smartest, obviously.

  86. says

    @ GumB

    As I am not trying to sell anything for profit I do not think that your comparison is relevant.

    Having experimented with Mental science principles for more than 25 years I can say with certainty that they are practical and workable.

    If you truly wish to progress rapidly in life then you may do the same instead of making pointless and unproductive comments. If you fail to even try you have only yourself to blame.

    You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink!

    Perhaps one of the problems with continually listening to a somewhat negative viewpoint as that of athiesm is that one gets to the point where they do not want to even try to find life’s deeper mysteries or experiment even, as they have been convinced by others that there is nothing further to find or that these things are unknowable.

    That’s a sad position to be in in my view.

  87. says

    @jacobfromlost

    As human being CANNOT mate with lions I hardly think the question is relevant. Human beings could wipe lions off the face of this planet if they so desired, because we are more intelligent, not because we are faster or stronger.

  88. says

    @ Monocle Smile
    Outright, unequivocal lie.

    I presume you have tested the principles outlined in the pamphlet and found them not to work, and also know everyone else who has ever read it personally?

  89. GumB. says

    Ray, I used to take people’s money teaching this new age crap you’re regurgitating. Not just practicing it … spreading it to others and getting paid for the workshops.

     
    You’re assumption that I didn’t follow this bunk for awhile, an assumption that preys on people’s ignorance (as if they’ve maybe missed out on something they just don’t know about,) is invalid in my case. You just met your match … I used to teach this garbage to people, for decades. You know … a course in miracles and all that Oprah crap? Hey, it paid the bills. Then, I got a conscience and stopped.

     
    It’s woo, dude. And also highly offensive to the indigenous people who’s culture it so often borrows from (who, by the way, interpret it differently on account of holding an entirely different world view from the Christian lens our culture views their culture through.)

     
    Busted dude … been there, done this woo, and grew out of it as an adult. Next …

  90. says

    @GumB.
    If you were selling something for profit that you really did not believe in then shame on you!

    You should have first demonstrated in your own experience that it is true, and if you were unable to do so then you should have found something else more fitting your level of understanding to sell, in my opinion.

    None of what you have said says anything about the truth or falsity of Mental science principles incidentally. If I were to ask you to write a computer program and I gave you a book on programming and still you failed to write a workable program does this mean that computer programming is at fault or is the fault your own for not taking the time and putting in the effort it takes to fully understand it?

  91. says

    @GumB

    What exactly was it that you believed and how long did you believe it for? Did you demonstrate it to be true or merely believe it intellectually, like many religious people do?

  92. says

    Ray, I’m gonna say this far more clearly than anyone else is willing to.

    Nobody here wants to join your silly little club. You will have to find friends elsewhere. Go away.

  93. GumB. says

    Ray, your implication that I just “didn’t do it right” … is a classic fallacious shmeeb. Oh, I understood it alright, and experienced all the imagined rewards too … just like a Mormon would claim when they find their car keys because of special priesthood power. However, it was all bunk. You are a walking talking fallacy my friend. promoting a fad … (oh, shame on you, oh, you just weren’t doing it right then.) Pfffft … show me the chipmunks living this way dude, in your supposed universal hypothesis of magic and make believe. Bzzzzt … it’s dumbness. It’s a demonstration of the ability of a mind to delude itself and overlay meanings onto things that aren’t actually there

     
    I’ve gotcha by the knackers here Ray, and look at you trying to make my disbelief now into some sort of ‘failure on my part to do it properly.’ Dude, I used to say that to people too, just like you’re now doing. Just like any Mormon would say, too. Rubbish … your mind is deluded my friend, get a grip and stop this nonsense. It harms people.

  94. says

    @GumB

    I guess you are unable to answer my questions truthfully. Pity

    As for a “silly little club,” “idiot”, etc., these type of derogatory remarks can only be viewed as failure on your part, most likely because you are unwilling to answer my own questions to you truthfully for fear of what it will reveal to others about you, perhaps.

  95. says

    @GumB

    As I have never read the course in miracles or any other new age book right the way through I have no idea what you believed to be true. In view of the fact that have not said what it is that you believed, I am not in a position to evaluate whether you were practising it correctly or not.

  96. GumB. says

    Listen to you Ray … your going to “evaluate me” now. That’s sure some ego you got there dude. Oh, and I never used the phrase “silly little club” … so look who’s the dishonest and mistaken one now, hey? I know all your little word tricks Ray, even if you’re too dishonest to even see them in yourself. You’re just rationalizing here is what your doing now, after the fact, that’s all you’re doing. Scrambling. You’ve bullshitted yourself dude, which is possibly one of the most fascinating aspects of our human psychology, the fact that we can do this to ourselves. I wasn’t a bad person Ray, I was just deluded, and good at convincing others of my delusion. Sorry you’re in this state, maybe it will pass some day like it did for me.

     
    Oh, and the course in miracles is the foundation book where most of this modern new age crap derives from. So, maybe you should go read it, and see the source where a lot of it came from (even though the movement had, as you say, been evolving since the 1800’s … “I Am” … and “Madame Blavansky” and her seances … and … etc, etc, etc.) It can all be traced back to the same beginnings, a fad, and it never helped anybody, except for maybe a lot of American new age authors.

     
    Give it up Ray … been there, done that. It was woo. Now, unlike you, I strive to be an intellectually honest person.

  97. meskibob says

    @Ray
    From the pamphlet (with my emphasis added):

    Regardless of the name of this Great Power, or the conscious admission of a God, the Power is capable and willing to carry to a complete and perfect conclusion every earnest desire of your objective mind, but you must be really earnest about what you want.

    The part in bold renders this entire “method” moot unless you quantify the minimum level of “want” required (which the lines below that do not do), as any failure of the method could simply be dismissed as not wanting enough.

    However, since you’ve found that minimum level of “want”, please do the world a favor and bump stopping climate change, ending childhood cancer, and eliminating global poverty to the top of your list (I’m sure others can also provide recommendations).
    You seem to wasting time on this blog that could be better spent following rule 2 (benefiting both yourself and the rest of humanity), so I’m going to consider any additional posts from you as you wanting climate change, childhood cancer, and global poverty to continue.

  98. GumB. says

    Oh, and Ray … claiming “oh, I didn’t read any of those books all the way through” was a common way people in that movement would try and distance themselves from appearing to have just picked something up from a book. Hahahaha … seen it all Ray, you ain’t foolin’ nobody here. You are the one who is being dishonest … with themselves.

  99. jacobfromlost says

    “Busted dude … been there, done this woo, and grew out of it as an adult. Next …”

    Indeed. And it’s not even up-to-date woo. It’s pre “power of positive thinking” mixed with 19th Century Spiritualism.

  100. says

    @GumB. says

    Oh, and Ray … claiming “oh, I didn’t read any of those books all the way through” was a common way people in that movement would try and distance themselves from appearing to have just picked something up from a book. Hahahaha … seen it all Ray, you ain’t foolin’ nobody here. You are the one who is being dishonest … with themselves.

    The only new age book I have ever read is the Secret, and I only read a couple of chapters of it. I then watched the DVD of it. I didn’t care for either as they were mistaken in their view of reality, in my opinion. No mention of infinite intelligence or the connection and interaction between conscious mind and subconscious mind, which is the basis of Mental science.

    It doesn’t really matter at all to me what you believe I have read anyway as it has no relevance.

  101. says

    @ jacobfromlost

    “Busted dude … been there, done this woo, and grew out of it as an adult. Next …”
    Indeed. And it’s not even up-to-date woo. It’s pre “power of positive thinking” mixed with 19th Century Spiritualism.

    The power of positive thinking have little or nothing to do with Mental science. It is certainly true from the psychological point of view that positive thinking as vastly more beneficial to the individual than negative thinking.

    As for spiritualism, this plays no part in Mental science teaching at all. Mental science is purely about the interaction of the individual’s conscious and subconscious mind. Spirits, if such things exist, do not come into it at all.

  102. says

    @meskibob

    As the reality we exist in is largely a result of the combined thinking and beliefs of everyone who has ever lived on this planet and those currently living on it, diseases, famines, “natural” disasters, etc., reflect the turbulent state of the human mind at this point in time and will only get less or disappear entirely when the balance of human belief and thinking dictates.

  103. jacobfromlost says

    “As human being CANNOT mate with lions I hardly think the question is relevant.”

    Can a lioness build a computer. As a lioness CANNOT build a computer I hardly think the question is relevant, and therefore lionesses are smarter than people because they know how to mate with lions. See the problem? (I can’t build a computer, either, so I see yet another problem. I must be dumber than people AND lionesses.)

    “Human beings could wipe lions off the face of this planet if they so desired, because we are more intelligent, not because we are faster or stronger.”

    Has any human ever been killed by a lion? If so, you would therefore have to admit THAT lion was smarter than THAT human, correct? I’m just trying to pin down your logic here as you seem to think the ability to kill something reflects intelligence. (You do know that HUMANS have the ability to wipe out all HUMANS if they so desire, right? Doesn’t that drop a contradictory fly into your soup?)

    Is a virus smarter than a human, as that could wipe out all of humanity?
    Let’s say you don’t like that analogy. What about an asteroid twice the size of the one that destroyed the dinosaurs? Is the asteroid smarter than humans because it has the ability to wipe us out?
    What about in 5 billion years when the sun expands into the earth and we all burn up. Is the sun smarter than all humans as well as all other species yet to walk the earth (and all that ever did)?
    I don’t understand the impulse of some people to imbue intelligence with magic. I don’t get it. Intelligence is just specific problem solving skills. It’s not magic, even if it is impressive and something we personally can’t.

  104. says

    @jacobfromlost

    I only gave the killing of lions as a simple example that intelligence can subdue and if necessary destroy or eradicate less intelligent life forms.

    Intelligence can be measured by the ability to imagine and then bring into being that which never existed before. If you look around the room you are in there are no doubt many examples of human intelligence and creative thought at work. Human beings are the only creatures we know of that are capable of creative, abstract thinking, The surroundings and habitats of all other creatures are pre-determined by Nature and by genetic programming.

    Do you believe that any other known species displays the creative intelligence of that of a human being? If you truly do not believe that you express a higher level of intelligence than that of a dog or a mouse then I do not see the point of continuing this line of discussion.

  105. meskibob says

    @Ray

    As the reality we exist in is largely a result of the combined thinking and beliefs of everyone who has ever lived on this planet and those currently living on it, diseases, famines, “natural” disasters, etc., reflect the turbulent state of the human mind at this point in time and will only get less or disappear entirely when the balance of human belief and thinking dictates.

    You’re spending time questioning how the Power will overcome what you perceive to be obstacles (I’m pretty sure those aren’t really obstacles to an omnipotent power) instead of following rule 2 and devoting your time to desire ending climate change, childhood cancer, and global poverty?
    If I knew the minimum “want” level like you, I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you or worrying about the minds of others, but instead I’d be following the three rules and trying to improve humanity.
    If I had that power and didn’t do that, others would probably consider me to be an asshole…

  106. says

    @meskibob

    The best way to eradicate any problem is by removing the cause, not just dealing with the effects.
    I believe that the cause of most if not all of mankind’s problems lies within the minds of men and women. As an intelligent race we have the ability to change the outer conditions of our lives by changing cause of them, i.e. our thoughts. The main purpose of Mental science is to aid us in doing that.

    As Ghandi rightly said “We must be the change we wish to see in this world”, or words to that effect.

  107. GumB. says

    Funny how with “the secret,” most people who find great success with it actually have funny little things like inheritances that can be pointed to as being the far bigger factor in their success, than can the quantum physics ‘positive thinking’ (mis)explanation. Those without the inheritance, go away feeling deeply shamed that it was just them who didn’t do something correctly.

     
    That’s become a common observation that’s started to arise, even in the people within this movement. Really, almost identical to a Christian magical worldview. Almost indistinguishable, actually. Ray, you’re just one big post hoc rationalization after the fact. It was easy to fall for this positive thinking bunk when the baby boomers were in an expanding economy. Now, however, kids in school are sick of hearing teachers from this generation claim it will all work out if they just think positively about something … because it just doesn’t turn out to be the truth in many cases. It’s no different than claiming prayer works, and is based on the same Christian worldview when you pair it right down. It’s Christianity 2.0 … the guy who always did have the inheritance … is the guy who was the better person at manifesting wealth (just like being more righteous and favored by god, sound familiar?)

     
    What bunk, and it leaves lot’s of losers who afterwards feel that they just failed and didn’t do something correctly, or just weren’t earnest enough … as Ray has already thrown out at us. What drivel … and Ray, you certainly are preaching, or you wouldnt’t be here making statements about horses not drinking the water you admit you’re trying to lead them to. You aren’t even remotely honest Ray. Not even close.

  108. says

    @meskibob

    As individuals we are restricted by our self belief. If we can conceive of a thing we can achieve it providing we impress the idea on our subconscious mind in such a way that it will feel the reality of it and accept it. At that point it becomes a reality in the unseen and will manifest in our world. All thoughts of doubt must be removed from one’s mind though. It takes practice.

  109. jacobfromlost says

    “I only gave the killing of lions as a simple example that intelligence can subdue and if necessary destroy or eradicate less intelligent life forms.”

    And you ignored my disconfirming examples of that claim because you are projecting the “great chain of being” onto reality when that isn’t reality.

    “Intelligence can be measured by the ability to imagine and then bring into being that which never existed before. If you look around the room you are in there are no doubt many examples of human intelligence and creative thought at work. Human beings are the only creatures we know of that are capable of creative, abstract thinking,”

    That YOU know of. Just do a little research to find out you are wrong.

    “The surroundings and habitats of all other creatures are pre-determined by Nature and by genetic programming.”

    Is it an option that human genes are optional in our intelligence in this argument? Because I know of no human who DOESN’T have specifically human genes who is also intelligent. So I have no idea what the differentiation is here.

    “Do you believe that any other known species displays the creative intelligence of that of a human being?”

    No. And I also don’t know of any other animal than a lioness that can potentially be smart enough to mate with the best lion for the largest and best litter. So what?

    “If you truly do not believe that you express a higher level of intelligence than that of a dog or a mouse then I do not see the point of continuing this line of discussion.”

    I have better math, language, and abstract thinking skills than both a mouse and a dog. A specific dog’s interpersonal social/emotional intelligence can, and often does, exceed mine.

    How would you know if a particular human or animal understood something that you don’t understand, other than through their obvious success at doing whatever it is that you can’t do (ie, PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS)?

  110. meskibob says

    @Ray
    Sounds like you should clarify your desire list to have “remove the causes of climate change, childhood cancer, and global poverty”, which the Power could do by fixing the minds of everyone else (since you’re clearly failing to do so). I mean, it is omnipotent, and we’re not supposed to question how it does what it does to make you achieve your desires.

    If you would kindly update your list and then start desiring that as much as possible (instead of wasting time here and not following the three rules), I’d greatly appreciate it. Maybe the Power will fix my mind in the process.

  111. GumB. says

    As individuals we are restricted by our self belief …

    Identical in nature to chastising someone for just not praying hard enough, or just not having enough faith in god. This is a Christian worldview you are expressing Ray, 2.0. Why can’t you make the connection to that?

  112. says

    @GumB

    The only reason I suggested to read the small pamphlet called It Works is because someone had asked me to outline a step by step approach to Mental science and this pamphlet does just that. Hardly preaching. Remember I do not belong to any religion or group and am not trying to sell you anything.

    I do fully believe, however, that anyone who follows the principles of Mental science will in time find them to be true. It took me longer than most as I was very much as skeptic. My mother used to call me doubting Thomas as a child because I questioned everything and would not believe anything without proof.

    There is only one Intelligence in the universe, and whether you call it God or Mind Power, or Subconscious Mind makes no difference. It is part of your own mentality and always will be.

  113. says

    @meskibob

    There is no personal God or Power which has knowledge of such things. To eternal and changeless infinite intelligence all is perfect, now and forever more. It us for us to eventually realise this ourselves. That is why we are born.

  114. GumB. says

    At that point it becomes a reality in the unseen and will manifest in our world.

     
    Are you serious? Please explain the science behind this mechanism, something that is repeatable and falsifiable. What even is this ‘unseen’ you’re talking about, except just gobbldygook fabricated out of unicorn land.

     
    And, as others have pointed out, you haven’t corrected climate change with this yet? You mean it’s just a tool to fulfill your narcissism? Hmmm, interesting (not.)

  115. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray
    You’re not engaging at all. Remember when I said you’re not here to answer questions, just to repeat yourself? I must be a fucking prophet, because you’re not answering any questions of substance (demands for actual evidence instead of bullshitting, questions of why we still have poverty, starvation, disease, war, etc).

    You’re hopelessly wrong about every topic you’ve blathered about. Your word mean jack shit when it comes to your claims. Do you have anything other than a dumb pamphlet and your worthless assurances?

  116. says

    @GumB

    The fact that our achievement as individuals is in direct proportion to our self belief is not the property of Christianity, or any other religion. It is a psychological fact. If an individual firmly believes that he and she will achieve a certain result and persistently works toward achieving it, knowing that there is infinite intelligence flowing through him or her, there is no power in the universe to stop the achievement of the desired result.

    No doubt similar principles can be found in allthe great religions of this world. I just don’t happen to be a member of any, but it really would not matter one way or the other if I was. A universal principle is correct no matter where the teaching comes from.

  117. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray

    There is no personal God or Power which has knowledge of such things. To eternal and changeless infinite intelligence all is perfect, now and forever more. It us for us to eventually realise this ourselves. That is why we are born.

    For someone who dismisses Deepak Chopra, you’re doing a good impression here. This is essentially Mad Libs.

  118. says

    @GumB.

    It’s 4.06 am where I am so I need to get to bed soon.

    The unseen referred to is the subconscious mind. It appears to have virtually unlimited power to bring into being that which we deeply impress upon it. This is how hypnotists are able to get subjects to act like rabbits or put their hand in fire, or quit smoking incidentally. The hypnotist puts the conscious mind to sleep and impresses the idea it wants in the subconscious mind of the individual.

  119. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @GumB #116:

    Please explain the science behind this mechanism

    Paraphrasing the book in #63…
     
    Bodies are merely figments of our collective imagination. Tissue damage from disease or injury is the result of your spiritual mind forgetting that you’re always perfectly healthy. Once you realize that, your arm’ll grow right back! Maybe give a healer some cash to give you a pep talk.

  120. says

    @Monocle Smile

    I haven’t read any of his books, but I have heard him talking about quantum physics and suchlike. He may be correct in some of what he says for all you or I know. Are you certain he is incorrect then? Deepak Chopra reminds me a bit of David Icke in what he teaches regarding consciousness, etc., and like David Icke I may believe some of it but not all for sure,

  121. jacobfromlost says

    Ray: Self-belief for very difficult things can be powerful in ultimately achieving them. But you often have examples of people who achieve things they themselves didn’t think they could achieve, and find it difficult or impossible to believe even AFTER they achieved it (there are plenty of people with extreme talent that don’t know they are talented). Moreover, you also have people who TOTALLY believe in themselves and their abilities…when they have no ability at all, and never will (see the first seasons of “American Idol”–although some were pranksters, many others clearly thought they were very, very good singers, when they were not and never would be). Self-belief is sometimes necessary, sometimes not, and sometimes self-delusional.

    I myself have often achieved great things despite crippling self doubt (at least I’ve always viewed it as crippling, but maybe it was strengthening). I can remember in 2nd or 3rd grade, we had our little Olympics at the end of the year, and I had absolutely NO DOUBT I would come in last and be humiliated (I think it was 100 yards or something). I was small. Everyone else was bigger. And to prove to myself that I was the absolute worst, I had to try my absolute BEST to be sure of how terrible I was compared to everyone else (who I assumed were all trying their best). I came in THIRD PLACE! I actually don’t think I’ve ever been more proud of anything else in my life. How many times in my life have I jumped off a metaphorical cliff into a challenge I thought I would absolutely fail, no doubt in my mind. And most of the time I succeeded wildly. In fact, looking back on the greatest achievements of my life still baffles me. If I had to choose to achieve those things again, right now, I’d say, “No way. I can’t do that. It’s too hard!” Last July I achieved something far beyond my wildest dreams of 20 years ago. I can’t imagine HOW I did it, but I can remember many of the baby steps (all riddled with doubt) that led to it. Now I’m achieving better than that achievement every month!

    How would Mental Science explain the success of someone like myself? (Or Larry David? Or a whole host of people consumed with self-doubt that doesn’t stop them, and often motivates them?)

  122. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray

    He may be correct in some of what he says for all you or I know.

    Don’t fucking lump me in with you. Do you really think everyone is as vacuous and ignorant as you are? Some of us have actually sunk a great deal of time and effort into learning about our world and how things work (physics), whereas you read a crappy pamphlet, made shit up, and pretended it was knowledge. You’re a fucking joke.

    It’s worse than that, even. Essentially, you’re perfectly comfortable with victim-blaming. Whenever anything awful happens to someone, you can simply write them off as not “believing in infinite intelligence” enough. Eat shit.

  123. GumB. says

    If an individual firmly believes that he and she will achieve a certain result and persistently works toward achieving it, knowing that there is infinite intelligence flowing through him or her, there is no power in the universe to stop the achievement of the desired result.

     
    These are just empty claims Ray, no different at all from a Mormon telling you that if you follow all the Mormon instructions properly, that you will obtain the things you desire too, in the same inexplicable way. And when you don’t get the results, the secret trap door out of the argument is that you did it wrong. Mormons even point at people in their own congregations who are going through a rough patch, and shun them, claiming they obviously must have done something to offend the great manifestation force, or screwed it up due to their own shortcoming in some way. It’s … hierarchical thinking.

     
    You have made many ridiculous and out of thin air assertions here today that are just empty collections of really nifty sounding words. The assertion you made that I quoted above is demonstrably false to anybody with one iota of intellectual honesty and a bit of life experience and honest observation. You’re just making a bunch of fancy sounding claims is all your doing here. Definitely Deepak Chopra stuff all the way … and not even new to those of us who came out the other side of this nonsense and got our heads back screwed on straight.

     
    Now, I actually work to advocate for the other life in our biosphere that our species is eradicating mostly due to religious cultural policy … in actual physical reality … instead of just praying to be yet another uber consumer who uses magic to get all the coolest material stuff they always wanted. It’s selfish nonsense, and your vacuous catch phrases are not even remotely original, not to mention being easily seen as patently false.

     
    The explanation you gave to me about the science behind this, the natural mechanism for it, is not empirical at all … it’s an empty claim of invisible goings on that you have definitely not proven. I guess you don’t understand the difference.

    Bodies are merely figments of our collective imagination. Tissue damage from disease or injury is the result of your spiritual mind forgetting that you’re always perfectly healthy. Once you realize that, your arm’ll grow right back! Maybe give a healer some cash to give you a pep talk.

     
    Who says things work this way, Ray? Your pamphlet? I … could say it’s all because of unicorns. That’s all you’ve done here, is make an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of the universe … no different from declaring an unexaminable god. You really need to firm up your critical thinking skills here. I think you should keep watching the show … you’ll hear all the same arguments being made by the theists who call in; the very same leaps of logical without any evidence or even much of and explanation to back it up.

     
    You’ll get there eventually … I’m absolutely positive of it, lol.

  124. danielocean says

    David D. #3

    “The caller was completely correct that there was a valid analogy between forcing someone to provide breast milk to a starving baby and forcing someone to provide sustenance to a growing fetus”

    See this is why whenever I hear a caller say “Can I make an analogy” I scream at the computer “NO!” People often use analogies just to completely miss the point of the analogy in the first place. You people do realize that you don’t have to breastfeed newborns? They have this amazing thing called formula. This is why the analogy isn’t even relevant: The point that Tracie made was that the state doesn’t obligate you use your body to feed your kids – you could hire someone to feed your child or even breastfeed for you and you’ve fulfilled your legal requirement.For the same reasons, you aren’t required to give an organ or blood even if your child is dying and you’re a match. Even more damning, that analogy also doesn’t hold because of the issue of consent: Parents have consented to have birth and make themselves legally responsible to their offspring (in the current legal framework, anyway) whereas a pregnant woman has not consented to give birth or be legally obligated to another human being. The only way this analogy holds is if you believe that the only way to feed a child is with breast milk and that consenting to have sex is somehow consent to give birth.

    Arguable, if women stopped being able to lactate tomorrow, and men suddenly could, the obligation would now be placed on the man.

    Another absurd claim since no one is obligated to lactate for their children at all (see point above). Your (and the caller’s) obsession with lactation gives your intentions away.

    Tracie made this a gender issue when it was not at all….

    Bullshit. The issue of abortion and pregnancy in general is absolutely 100% a gender issue. Men, although they clinically gave contribution to the development of the pregnancy, have absolutely zero legal requirement to lift a finger in the entire pregnancy process. When an ignorant man (and he was obviously ignorant because he’s apparently convinced the only way to feed a newborn is breast milk) calls the show and says “Abortion should be illegal” he’s making a proposition that will place legal burden on a single gender.

    …and I think she did so on purpose to obfuscate the fact she couldn’t properly address the caller’s argument.

    More bullshit. The caller didn’t have an argument at all – he only had an assertion and a false analogy. Once that analogy failed he wanted to amend it or fabricate a new one. That’s a waste of time. Don’t ascribe intentions to Tracie because you’re unable to understand why the analogy is false.

    By the way, I’m an atheist who believes abortion should be legal.

    Finally, I’m totally calling bullshit on this. If you spent any time with a critical eye towards religion you’d know that the issue of pregnancy and birth has been used to oppress and enslave women for thousands of years. Women’s bodies belonged to their husband/father or ultimately some (typically male) authority in the sky. We are still dealing with the fallout of that history: In the US women’s bodies belong only to themselves and Christians can’t stand it.

  125. GumB. says

    My apologies to Sky Captain, that was you highlighting an explanation from Ray’s pamphlet and not a direct response from Ray as I implied in my comment #126. But we will assume this was Ray’s explanation, since it came from the pamphlet he’s promoting.

     
    Also, and back to Ray:

     

    The unseen referred to is the subconscious mind. It appears to have virtually unlimited power to bring into being that which we deeply impress upon it. This is how hypnotists are able to get subjects to act like rabbits or put their hand in fire, or quit smoking incidentally. The hypnotist puts the conscious mind to sleep and impresses the idea it wants in the subconscious mind of the individual.

     
    Putting all your discussions together Ray, you’re trying to tell us that a hypnotist can convince the subconscious to grow back an amputated arm? Or manifest material things out of thin air, like wealth and opportunity? What utter bullshit. What I saw in this movement, is that people who do fall ill, or fall into a temporary life struggle, which is common … fall away from the movement in shame, while all the healthy consumers pat themselves on the back for having had their subconscious in such nice order … until they too have a life experience that suddenly contradicts the whole philosophy. It’s a mistaken post hoc rationalization of why things are even occurring the way they are, and no … people can’t be hypnotized into growing limbs back, or hypnotized into healing from their cancer. This is false hope, and very harmful crap that sells a lot of books and hooks in many, many hopeful believers who don’t seem to want to align with reality. It works fine, while things are going fine. Gosh, imagine that, hey? Works … until it doesn’t … because it was actually a complete mis-attribution of how things were actually working in the first place, extended to suppose it can even be used to grow back missing limbs or make things appear out of thin air.

     
    Enough ranting about it from me though. Ray seems to have not manifested the result he desired and left. 😀

  126. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @GumB #127:

    that was you highlighting an explanation from Ray’s pamphlet

    #63 was a book he cited. I quoted a bonkers chapter there, then repeated a paraphrased part of it later.
     
     

    Ray seems to have not manifested the result he desired and left.

     
    Ray #121:

    It’s 4.06 am where I am so I need to get to bed soon.

    GumB #126:

    You’ll get there eventually… I’m absolutely positive of it, lol.

    According to the book in #63, defenses go down when one falls asleep, so your influence over him will be more powerful!

  127. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Funny how Ray hasn’t developed mastery over the need for sleep yet. He could be much more efficient at ignoring the world’s problems to promote this ’round the clock.

  128. GumB. says

    Sky Captain,

    Funny how Ray hasn’t developed mastery over the need for sleep yet. He could be much more efficient at ignoring the world’s problems to promote this ’round the clock.

     
    It’s almost like a presuppositional apologist taking the opposite tact … to argue that we actually ARE a brain in a vat, and just hallucinating a funhouse existence. Good grief.

     

    According to the book in #63, defenses go down when one falls asleep, so your influence over him will be more powerful!

     
    Tee he he he. HA HA HA! BuwahahaHaHaHAHA !!! Keep your eye on the swinging pocket watch Ray, and just relax …

  129. ybhco says

    I’m starting this comment the way I start every comment on here: I think the AE is doing the planet a large disservice by blocking YouTube comments. I know they want their own thing over here, but it’s a pain in the ass, and we’re all missing some quality conversation (including dissent) by blacking out that platform. The blackout on YouTube comments is specifically the reason I stopped donating to the ACA.

    Now on to the reason I dropped by here: Caller Ryan halfway through this show got me thinking, and I don’t think the hosts fully addressed it… or at least, I think they missed an important part. We can certainly all imagine a situation where it *IS* beneficial from a survival standpoint to believe something that isn’t true. And maybe there’s a time and a place to lie. If your grandmother’s in the hospital and her dog dies, it’s probably best to tell her that the dog is fine, and it’s probably best for her to believe that. If someone’s struggling with depression and telling them bad news might actually cause them to kill themselves, it’s best for them to not know the bad news. The truth is not ALWAYS best. Maybe if you’re lost at sea, believing that a magical dolphin is guiding you home might actually keep you hanging on long enough to drift back home.

    So then I got to thinking about it from a more personal angle. Is believing something false beneficial? Well, I’ve got family members who are plenty smart enough to understand my atheist perspective and absorb it. I’ve got elderly family members who if they had to struggle with an existential crisis right now, it would likely kill them. I’ve got family members who, if they stopped going to church, their businesses would fail. I’ve got another family member who, right now, if he changed his mind about religion, his daughters and wife would disown him, and he’s struggling with depression, so he’d probably kill himself.

    So I think the answer to the question here is that sometimes genuine belief in bullshit IS actually necessary for survival. It’s anecdotal and situational, but it’s worth at least giving a nod to the fact that sometimes true belief in absolute bullshit keeps people alive. If I could (and I probably could) deconvert my family members and certain friends of mine, I wouldn’t. I can almost promise you that it’d be a situation of survival or death.

    So that’s at least worth mentioning, I think.

  130. Monocle Smile says

    @ybhco

    The blackout on YouTube comments is specifically the reason I stopped donating to the ACA.

    This might be sillier than any of Ray’s nonsense.
    More to follow. I have all sorts of questions about your post.

  131. dvdoria says

    Tracie,

    Unfortunately I’m not clear yet on how to quote and tag people in responses. Regardless, I think that I can sum up my reply to your response succinctly enough that this won’t be an unwieldy wall of text.

    To the extent that you fall back on the law, which I noticed you doing a lot in the video, isn’t that an appeal to authority? The way I view it, there were many times when the caller made a valid point, and you seemed to respond by saying that the difference was the law. This is a philosophical argument and I don’t believe it’s constrained by the law. In fact the caller quickly replied each time that in his opinion the law should change, which was also a valid argument I don’t feel like you gave any credit.

    In your reply to me, I see the same issue. A lot of it seems to fall back on the law and the issue of consent, insofar as consent is presumed in some situations, by law. But where consent is presumed by law, that’s not really a response to a philosophical argument about ethics.

    Certainly if abortions were banned by law, you would not allow someone to fall back on “but that’s the law” in an argument, right?

    I think the caller’s hypothetical was valid. To say that a hypothetical is not worth responding to simply because it’s not rooted in present fact, is to miss the purpose of hypotheticals. I personally hate when I use a hypothetical to attack the theist position and someone replies the way I saw in the video. For example, ask a question like “If you found out tomorrow that god didn’t exist, would you still believe in heaven?” Far too many will respond with something like, “but god does exist” and they will simply refuse to answer the question based on that assertion. But the point of a hypothetical is not the underlying facts. The point is whether they are analogous to particular facts, and the point is the conclusion you reach. Reductio ad absurdum are notoriously supported using hypotheticals with no root in present or potentially even possible fact. Again, not the point of a hypothetical. And I think you would acknowledge that in most any other debate, which is why I was so disappointed here; I really think some critical bias and resulting cognitive dissonance was shown in this episode.

  132. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Ray
    Why has no one been able to demonstrate the effectiveness of your techniques with proper modern scientific and statistical methods, and why has no one published a proper paper in a proper journal detailing the results of such proper investigation?

  133. RationalismRules says

    @Ray

    If we think about all lifeforms for a moment the common factor in all is intelligence is it not?

    No, the common factor in all life is life. ie. the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
    If you think all living things possess intelligence I have to ask what definition of ‘intelligence’ are you using?
     

    As intelligent life cannot and has never been formed from non-intelligence, is it really too big a step for you to realise that the defining quality of that which caused the universe to form in the first place must be intelligence?

    Yes, it is too big a step, because any step from a flawed premise is too big. “Intelligent life cannot and has never been formed from non-intelligence” is another unsupported and unsupportable assertion. At best, it’s a black-swan fallacy (we have never seen X, so X does not exist). Worse than that, it’s demonstrably false. Do you not understand that living cells are formed from non-living chemicals? Are you claiming that chemicals are intelligent too?
     

    Can a human being form or produce anything useful without using intelligence and imagination to do so?

    Yes, clearly. Our autonomic systems are not dependent on intelligence or imagination, yet they serve the useful functions of keeping us alive. Not only that, but they also produce other useful things like carbon dioxide, uric acid, salts etc.
     

    It is impossible for us to even conceive of anything useful in our material world being made without some intelligence at work…

    No. I have just proven that it is entirely possible by doing it. Grandiose assertions like this don’t advance your argument at all.
     

    …yet some of us like to suppose that the universe itself and everything it contains came into existence without any underlying intelligence at work.

    And some of us, like me, simply admit that we don’t know how the universe came into existence, and that since intelligence is an observed property of living things, and that all observable living things are part of the universe, there is no way to even determine whether it is possible for intelligence to exist outside our universe, let alone to conclude that it must be so.
     

    I think the real problem here is the notion of a personal God or Deity of some kind that many hold and many athiests argue against, and not the existence of an underlying intelligent power or evolutionary force as primal cause of everything in the natural world.

    No, the real problem here is that you are making multiple claims of fact without demonstrating any of them.
     

    I am happy to answer each and every question put to me.

    This is deeply ironic, given that you have not answered the main (and repeated) question I asked of you. Are you able to provide evidence in support of your claim of fact (There is only ONE intelligence in the universe, which differentiates Itself into all life forms we experience and penetrates the interspaces of the known universe and infinitely beyond), or not?
     

    Please try to ask one question at a time though as you would do in a normal conversation and not several at the same time.

    No. This is not a ‘normal’ (ie. spoken) conversation. If it were a spoken conversation I would question you whenever you said something questionable. In this format you get to ‘speak’ uninterrupted for as long as you want. I will ask as many questions as are raised by your posts.

  134. RationalismRules says

    @ybhco

    we’re all missing some quality conversation (including dissent) by blacking out that platform

    Yep, no doubt we are. So what? Life requires choices, and choosing leads to ‘missing out’. FOMO is not a good reason for anything.

    You’ve been given solid reasons why AXP makes this choice, and the only argument you have is ‘missing out?’

  135. says

    @ all athiests

    It is little more than a century since modern psychology began to proclaim the new science of human thought and action known as Mental science, and to demonstrate what a more intelligent application of our mental energies and forces can accomplish. The father of American psychology and philosophist, William James, characterized Troward’s Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science as “far and away the ablest statement of philosophy I have met, beautiful in its sustained clearness of thought and style, a really classic statement.”

    “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve” is a saying of Napolean Hill whose famous book “Think and Grow Rich” has sold more than 100 million copies. “The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion” have sold somewhat less than 4 million copies between them, yet are considered best-sellers in today’s market.

    The slogan of Hill’s was above the entrance of the Epcot Center in Florida when I last visited it. Napolean Hill was the most successful teacher of Mental Science principles there has been. The entire basis of his teaching is that the subconscious mind of man is in some way connected to or a part of the infinite intelligence and creative force of the Universe. Millions of people all over the world have demonstrated the truth of this in their own lives and continue to do so daily.

    If I were to write a book on Mental science which sold 10 million copies would this fact alone mean that the contents must be true? I don’t think so. The only way to prove or disprove such a book is to put the teachings within it to the test. Unfortunately many athiests are unwilling to take up the challenge, perhaps afraid of what they may discover. A famous athiest, Lawrence Krauss said he would not wish to live in a universe where God exists, or words to that effect. Perhaps this is secretly the mindset that many athiests share.

    “We become what we think about most of the time, and that’s the strangest secret.” said famous speaker and broadcaster Earl Nightingale, one of Hill’s contemporaries in this field of thought. If an individual convinces him or herself that no supreme intelligence exists in the universe then he or she will surely prove this to be true in their life experience. The reverse is true also. That is the strangest secret!

  136. says

    Falsification?

    As an individual’s relationship to infinite intelligence is subjective, i.e. personal and intuitive, proving it or disproving it to another individual does not come into it. Each individual can fairly easily prove it to him or herself – others cannot do it for you.

  137. says

    @ Blavatsky

    H.P. Blavatsky may well be the founder of the new age movemnent. She was a lucifarian and 33rd degree freemason – founder of the theosophical society. He student Alice Bailey dormed the Lucifer Publishing Company in the 1920s, which later changed its name to The Lucern Trust, and is currently spiritual adviser to the United Nations would you believe? Her writings were published in the late 1880’s. Mental science teachings begun to appear in book form more than 20 years before that. There is little on no resemblance between the teachings of Mental science and those of Theosphy.

  138. says

    @panentheism

    If I, or any experienced panenthiest were to have a one on one debate with any athiest, whether it be Krauss, or Dorkins, or your own hero Dillahunty, in front of an impartial audience, the position of Mental science would always bee more reasonable and acceptable than to simply say that I do not know how the universe was formed or what the nature is of that which formed it, which is presumably the atheist position. Dorkins refers to panentheism as “sexy atheism”. I guess he hes never found any argument to refute it, neither could he.

    Are Plants and trees intelligent?
    We now have very good reason to believe that they are….
    https://www.consciouslifestylemag.com/plant-consciousness-intelligence-feeling/

    The panenthiest position is that there are clear signs of intelligence at work in just about all forms of life. In view of this it is not such a big step to see that the defining quality of that which caused this planet to be must also be intelligence or that capable of producing and expressing intelligence for certain. As we have no examples of intelligent life coming from non-intelligence, this is but a purely logical conclusion.

    A panentheist does not believe that any type of personal deity has ever existed. Instead we believe that there exists throughout the universe and beyond it a wonderful, natural, intelligent, creative life-force of nature.

    I am happy to discuss the ontological aspects and how our present understanding was arrived at later.

  139. GumB. says

    From mentalscience.org:

     

    Those of mankind whose mentalities are in a sufficient state of enlightenment can learn consciously the principles of Mental Science. All must live out the Grand Creed of Christianity.

     
    The crying need of the world today is for leaders of faith and vision, leaders who realise that Christ is the Perfect Statesman.

     
    War and Depression came to teach us the lessons which we must all learn. Have the nations of Europe and America learned the lessons? At one time it appeared that they had, but now it is difficult to tell. If the lessons have not been learned, greater troubles still are to come.—Some prophets say they are coming now—within the lifetime of most of us. A terrible thought, which in itself should speed the learning of the lessons.

     
    Do not try to thrust Christian principles down other peoples throats, they are not digested that way. Practise them yourself, and so supply leadership.

     
    Do not fear. The Lessons will be learned. There have been four kingdoms already. The Mineral Kingdom, the Vegetable Kingdom, the Animal Kingdom and the Kingdom of Man. Only one more Kingdom remains un-demonstrated THE KINGDOM OF THE SPIRIT in which all things shall be made perfect.

     
    I think we see where you’re headed here with this Ray. The trouble with what I read on this mentalscience.org site, is that it all presumes that a christian worldview has already been deeply established in the reader (and speaking of psychology and sociology, I don’t think you understand what it even means to have a particular cultural worldview, passed to you from the society around you. This material definitely presumes that a christian worldview has already been deeply established in the reader when it makes all of its unsupported claims about reality. Presuming a christian worldview already is typical for a western author from the 1800’s.)

     
    By presuming a christian worldview in the reader already, it states all sorts of unproven premises as if they were established facts, when they are actually just bold assertions that haven’t been proven (or even attempted to be proven) by the author at all. It just assumes the reader already has a deep christian belief system established, and then just builds from there. Like I told you already … christianity 2.0, and the mentalscience.org confirms that: 100% assertions backed by zero evidence. (Many of the assertions aren’t even logical, and are easily identifiable as being dated beliefs from a certain era ie: the ether?) The arguments are thin and weak, and all build from unproven assertions that the author assumes the reader will just blindly accept due to the reader already believing many of these false christian about about reality. It’s basically sciency sounding christianity for people who can’t think very well, and who have a deep grounding in christian thought already.

     
    Oh, and here’s this from wiki:

     

    According to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) archivist Nell Wing, early AA members were strongly encouraged to read Thomas Troward’s Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science.[3] In the opening of the 2006 film The Secret, introductory remarks credit Troward’s philosophy with inspiring the movie and its production.[4]

     
    I also thought it was cute (not) the way the mentalscience.org site bemoaned how “MANY of the older books on practical Psychology were written in terms that savour of religion. The phraseology is ecclesiastical in tone and the words “God” “Christ,” “Heaven,” appear regularly and as an integral part of the teaching expounded. This type of phraseology has all but disappeared in this modern secular, materialistic age though, sadly.

     
    Go push your christian nonsense somewhere else Ray.

  140. indianajones says

    ‘No degrees or qualifications of any kind are useful’

    But a 5 page pamphlet is?

  141. says

    #77 Ray: “The course of evolution is upward from the lower to the higher”

    No, no, no. There is no “upward” trend in evolution. The “course of evolution” is whatever works best for survival of a species AT THAT TIME AND IN THAT SITUATION.
    There is no plan, no long-range goal, no point to evolution, except survival of a species in whatever form or way needed, using whatever their genetic toolbox contains. .

  142. Monocle Smile says

    Between “Dorkins” and the disparagement of book sales compared to a book that was published fucking 70 years earlier, I think Ray here is mighty butthurt about something and is being dishonest in more ways than he’s presented.

  143. says

    #139 Ray: “A panentheist does not believe that any type of personal deity has ever existed. Instead we believe that there exists throughout the universe and beyond it a wonderful, natural, intelligent, creative life-force of nature.”

    So….basically you are restating the thousands of years-old Hindu belief/principle of Brahma, and calling it Mental Science. Way to go with cultural appropriation.

  144. t90bb says

    Ray……

    Sure positive thinking and mental games can change a persons outlook. I doubt few here will disagree. How can the layers of your still unsubstantiated beliefs be more reasonable than honestly admitting there are many things we do not know. Perhaps the self absorbed silliness calms your head and eases some level of fear.

    There have been at least a dozen requests for you to demonstrate your claims and you can not. Instead you repeat that these things must be tried/experienced by each of us. Just like the religious who claim you will see “truth” if only you give yourself over and experience the “love” of allah or jehovah lol. We had a clown a few weeks ago who claimed 100 percent success guarantee that christ would appear to each of us if only a few steps were followed.

    Surely the mind is fascinating and we continue to learn about how thoughts and patterns of thought can be altered. Pretending or convincing yourself that there is a HP can bring changes in thought for a variety of reasons. Most of us here find the benefits of religious and spiritual thought interesting, but most of us are more interested in truth.

    I think its great that you have found something that has allowed you cleaner thought and less anxiety. Many of us have experienced such things without a belief in the divine or a HP. If you think you have something more meaningful and not understood I recommend you get off internet chat blogs and demonstrate it. If you think there is research (or you can produce it) that backs up your ultimate conclusions you owe it to the rest of us to provide it. Furthermore, if you think your case is so much more reasonable than those of well known atheists, .I look forward to your debates and exchanges. However, you will need to bring much more firepower to those exchanges than you have brought here which amount to little more than obvious and accepted psychological concepts as justification for your ultimate being.

    I was not totally unfamiliar with mental science, pantheism, panantheism before you started posting. After reading your pamphlet and spending a few hours reviewing much of what I had already known I must say you have not moved the needle even a nudge. Surely there the mind is fascinating and we continue to learn methods of control and influence.

    At the end of the day humans are always searching for clarity. Reducing anxiety is pleasant for most of us. Some people drink alcohol, some people pray and believe in personal deities. and people like you are convinced you have found truth through “mental science”. You are no more certain about your claims as many. People are so certain of their beliefs they have been known to kill themselves to show their love for their deities. So excuse us if we are not overly impressed with your brashness and confidence.

    I sincerely think the fact that you have found some level of benefit from your paradigm…. is wonderful for you! Life is difficult. If believing in what you have laid out makes your life better….well then…that is a good thing I guess. It seems rather innocuous.

    Its clear that you view yourself as enlightened. Seems you have convinced no one else.

    That said I hope you stick around and keep an open mind yourself. I have enjoyed the discussion. I look forward to all your upcoming debates and research!! Perhaps your mental abilities will allow you to alter reality and not age or die?? That would be impressive!

  145. GumB. says

    Ray’s last comment said:

    If I, […] were to have a one on one debate with any athiest, whether it be Krauss, or Dorkins, or your own hero Dillahunty, in front of an impartial audience, the position of Mental science would always bee more reasonable and acceptable than to simply say that I do not know how the universe was formed or what the nature is of that which formed it …

     
    Ray should call the show then. The online audience is a mixture of both religious folk and non-religious folk, and people on the fence too … so I look forward to hearing him make this god of the gaps argument to Matt live. Should be good for a chuckle. Come on Ray, I challenge you to do it … unless you’re afraid that you’re fallacy here won’t hold up to scrutiny?

  146. agamemnontriforce says

    I have a couple things to ask about this show:

    1.Why is it men most often suggesting that abortion be illegal? I don’t remember hearing a woman claim it should be illegal. Not that they don’t exist, it just always seems to be men.

    2. It took John long enough to ask what the legallity of abortion has to do with atheism. It’d be nice if you required the callers who want to make an argument about anything pitch the argument in a way that directtly relates to religion or atheism.

  147. Jay says

    When you donate blood as often as possible, bone marrow, a kidney and part of your liver while alive, and sign up to donate every single organ you can when you die – then you still don’t have the right to force someone else to use their body to keep someone else alive.

    If you argue women must be forced to endure a pregnancy to keep someone else alive, then all of the above should be mandatory, and refusing should be punishable as equivalent to murder, according to the pro lifers.

  148. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Ray

    As an individual’s relationship to infinite intelligence is subjective, i.e. personal and intuitive, proving it or disproving it to another individual does not come into it. Each individual can fairly easily prove it to him or herself – others cannot do it for you.

    Wrong. If someone can actually heal diseases and other adverse conditions from a person through – whatever it is that you’re saying – this is an observable, demonstrable, and falsifiable claim. I assume you have no proper modern scientific and statistical evidence to support this claim. Why is that?

  149. jacobfromlost says

    I think Ray’s just a troll yanking our chain. I’d still like to know how animals are just going by genetic programming, while human intelligence is not. As I said above, I know of no human WITHOUT human genes and yet WITH intelligence, which would seem to be the requirement to exclude genes from any of our traits, including our intelligence. All the people I know who exhibit human intelligence indeed do have human genes, so they would seem to be crucial to that trait, lol.

    And I also don’t understand how infinite stupidity is impossible because there couldn’t be intelligence on earth if that were the case. But infinite intelligence is true even though there is stupidity on the earth because “temporality”, as if that makes sense. But none of the rest of it made any sense either, so, whatever. Life’s too short for this. As a wise woman on youtube once said, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

  150. RationalismRules says

    @Ray #139

    If I, or any experienced panenthiest were to have a one on one debate with any athiest, whether it be Krauss, or Dorkins, or your own hero Dillahunty…

    A bit of your personal fantasy creeping onto the page there, is it?
    I’m with GumB #146. Stop dreaming it and do it! Call in to the show. Matt D’s scheduled to host this weekend. I look forward to you crushing him with your more-reasonable arguments.
     

    The panentheist position is that there are clear signs of intelligence at work in just about all forms of life.

    Good to see you’re learning to be a bit more circumspect in how you word your claims. That grandiosity thing really wasn’t working out for you.

    The reason ‘just about all forms of life’ is significantly different to your earlier claim of ‘all forms of life’, is that we have an evidence-based explanation of the process whereby non-intelligent life formed into intelligent life. It’s called evolution. Earlier you seemed to be conflating the genesis of intelligent life with the genesis of any kind of life. That didn’t make any sense, which is why I asked how you were defining intelligence. (No answer received, color me astonished).
     

    In view of this it is not such a big step to see that the defining quality of that which caused this planet to be must also be intelligence or that capable of producing and expressing intelligence for certain. As we have no examples of intelligent life coming from non-intelligence, this is but a purely logical conclusion.

    It’s not a step at all, it’s a leap – a poorly-judged leap that lands you right in a false conclusion.

    Let me have a go… “There are clear signs of carbon at work in all forms of life. In view of this it is not such a big step to see that it is a defining quality of that which caused this planet to be that it must also be carbon-based for certain. As we have no examples of carbon-based life coming from non-carbon based life, this is but a purely logical conclusion.”

    Wow, look at that. I’ve just demonstrated that whatever caused the universe was a carbon-based lifeform. Can I have my Nobel prize now please?

  151. bluestar says

    I’ve read books by Dyer, Tolle, etc. What I think for the most part is this New Age “Mental Science” is very effective. For the persons who write about it and go on speaking tours. But is there validity in any of it? For example, Tolle wrote an entire book on the concept of letting go of our past and not fretting over our future. Living in the present moment. I think all of us if not experiencing it ourselves, know someone who’s life is being affected negatively by past experiences they cannot seem to break away from. Just one example I’d present here.

  152. says

    @ all
    I live in the beautiful Philippines islands so calling the show is not so easy. I have tried several times using my MagicJack computer phone but what happens each time is that I get to speak to a call screener and then am on hold for a while then MagicJack disconnects. The number I have is a Louisville one (502) as I used to live there, so perhaps someone from the show can call me instead if they wish to?

    I have read the comments above but there is nothing there really – just throw away comments that have no basis in fact for the most part. Kind of what I expected really.

    Mental science is not a religion, there are practitioners of mental science in many religions no doubt, and many like myself who do not practice any religion at all. There are no creeds to follow, no dogmas, no obligatory “holy” books to live by. There are some great truths in the Torah, the Christian Bible, the gnostic Gospels, the Koran, and in other Eastern religious texts too. A mental scientist is open minded regarding these and may glean truth from many such sources,

    At the end of the 19th century American philosopher Ralph Waldo Trine published a very interesting book entitled “In Tune With The Infinite” which went on to sell more than 1.5 million copies. In the introduction to the book he says:

    “THERE is a golden thread that runs through every religion in the world. There is a golden thread that runs
    through the lives and the teachings to all the prophets, seers, sages, and saviors in the world’s history, through the lives of all men of truly great and lasting power. All that they have ever done or attained to has been done in full accordance with law.
    What one has done, all may do. This same golden thread must enter into the lives of all who today, in this busy
    work-a-day world of ours, would exchange impotence for power, weakness and suffering for abounding health
    and strength pain and unrest for perfect peace, poverty of whatever nature for fullness and plenty.

    Each is building their own world. We both build from within and we attract from without. Thought is the force
    with which we build, for thoughts are forces. Like builds like and like attracts like. In the degree that thought is
    spiritualized does it become more subtle and powerful in its workings. This spiritualizing is in accordance with
    law and is within the power of all.

    Everything is first worked out in the unseen before it is manifested in the seen, in the ideal before it is realized in
    the real, in the spiritual before it shows forth in the material. The realm of the unseen is the realm of cause. The
    realm of the seen is the realm of effect. The nature of effect is always determined and conditioned by the nature
    of its cause.”

    You can read the entire book free online or download it here:
    http://www.brainybetty.com/2007Motivation/Ralph%20Waldo%20Trine%20-%20In%20Tune%20with%20the%20Infinite.pdf

    What does spiritual mean? What is the spiritual realm?
    These are questions that has been asked many times by non-believers, and theists rarely are able to answer in a way that is useful or understandable even.

    “spirit” with a small “s” often refers to mental states as in “high spirited” or mean-spirited”. In religious texts it is often used the same way, so if a person’s mind is said to be infested with unclean spirits it is not referring to discarnate entities but rather thought-forms lodged in the subconscious mind. Spirit with a capital “S” is often used to describe the primal intelligent, creative substance which formed the Universe. In and of Itself Spirit could be described as universal subconscious mind.

    The spiritual realm is the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is not a function of the brain as some have been taught to believe. The brain is a physical mechanism of limited size which the subconscious mind operates through. Some people who have suffered brain damage have had function restored in other up until then dormant parts of the brain. Brain cells do not repair themselves in the way other body cells do.

    If thought was limited the human brain then it would eventually become filled up to capacity just as other physical organs could be. Subconscious mind is infinite in its capacity. It records every event of a human’s being’s life in minutest detail. It is the powerhouse that all the automatic functions of a body operate through. Unlike the rest of the body it never sleeps. It is the subconscious mind which processes your experiences into dreams at night. Whatever you experience in your dream state, whatever characters may appear in you dreams, are reflective of your waking mental states, in other words they are all really you.

    Through the science of hypnotism we have learned that the subconscious mind is entirely amenable to suggestion. It also seems to have virtually unlimited power at its disposal, and there may indeed be no limit at all to its capabilities. If you impress an idea firmly on your subconscious mind it will eventually accept it as true and will work to make it a reality in your experience. This has been shown to be the case by millions of people the world over.

    One of the main purposes of mental science is to provide an easy to follow way of impressing ideas on the subconscious mind in order that they may be brought to pass and become part of one’s life experience.

    Because the principles of mental science are demonstrably true there have been a great many books written outlining these principles, the most famous being Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich”. which as I mentioned has been read by more than 100 million people.

    “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne is book written by a relatively new student of mental science who at the time of writing it had seemingly not fully grasped the overall purpose of mental science. It is not some type of get-rich-quick scheme, or based purely on wishful thinking. Instead it is the science of thought or right-thinking, i.e. thinking in such a way as to bring conditions into your life that you desire rather than undesirable ones.

    “You never can tell what your thoughts will do,
    In bringing you hate or love;
    For thoughts are things, and their airy wings
    Are swifter than carrier doves.
    They follow the law of the universe —
    Each thing must create its kind,
    And they speed over the track to bring you back
    Whatever went out from your mind.
    (Ella Wheeler Wilcox)

    In the English language there are many terms relating to this such as “What goes around comes around”, “Birds of a feather flock together”, etc. The law of so-called law of karma is another example. Many non-believers do not like this idea as they secretly do not want to be accountable for there own thinking.

    It is of the utmost importance to realise that your own life experience is a reflection of your present and past thinking and mental states. If you provide a great deal of thought energy in any area this will in time be reflected in your daily experiences. You are self-formed as an individual much more than most are ever consciously aware of.

    In order for an agnostic or atheist to come into an understanding and realisation of the deeper spiritual aspects of life and to put this knowledge into practical use one must endeavour not to be closed-minded and dogmatic. This can be difficult, particularly to those who are used to hearing the so-called religious among us spouting their own dogmas relentlessly.

    As the relationship between an individual’s subconscious mind and universal subconscious mind is a purely subjective one, if you close your mind to this connection then it will be identical to if there was none and you will not be able to reap the benefits. But once you realise that you are indeed connected to and a part of the universal subconscious mind then your possibilities of personal achievement will only be restricted by your own imagination.

    Having been an athiest/agnostic for most of my life I really do know how difficult it be to be open-minded in this way, particularly if you were brought up with a religious dogma as I was. I went to a Roman Catholic school, but rejected the teachings and dogmas completely at aged 9 or 10.

    I feel that atheism has a very important part to play in our society in the removal of religious dogmas that retard our development as a race. I also feel that the more of us who hold a constant vision of a bright and peaceful future for mankind the sooner this may come to pass.

  153. says

    @bluestar

    I’ve read books by Dyer, Tolle, etc. What I think for the most part is this New Age “Mental Science”

    Do not be deceived. As I explained in a previous post, the new age movement stems from the writings of Helena Petrova Blavatsky and has little to do with Mental science, but a whole lot to do with what she referred to as “The New World Order”, which is a Lucifarian one world government system.

    What has happened is that certain modern new-agers have mixed some psychological principles derived from Mental science and mixed these with a great many other strange ideas that are completely foreign to the teachings of Mental science. These include spiritism, crystal gazing, talking to the dead, runes, palmistry, astrology, ufo-logy and many more. Instead of describing the workings of sub-conscious mind in a simple and easy to understand way they often use terms like “the realm of pure potentiality” and “infinite consciousness”, and “superconsciousness: and “Christ mind”, etc.

    Mental science is very simple to understand and is completely free of any such weirdness.

  154. Monocle Smile says

    Lots of excuses and repetition in that sermon, Ray. Why can’t you even address the most important questions in the thread and why are you so obsessed with book sales?

  155. says

    The planet we are living on was once a ball of fire. It is the result of a supernova, as are the other planets. All revolved around the sun just as protons and neutron round a nucleus. Over a very long period of time the planet become to cool, atmosphere formed, rain begun to fall, and fall, and fall, until eventually the entire planet was transformed from a fire ball to a water ball. Algea was present in the water which over a great period of time began to transform to plant life, and eventually to coral and other similar life forms. Unlike plants, corals do not make their own food. Corals are in fact animals.

    Built into the DNA of that which is living is a desire to be more than it presently is. Some believe that fish species eventually developed mechanism to venture above the sea and transformed to birds. This is incorrect. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. As areas of land began to appear the giant sea reptiles began to venture onto them. It was only these that had thick enough skin to do so.

    The purpose of the dinosaurs was to over billions of years fertilize the earth making it suitable for finer forms of life to inhabit it, all of which began in the sea. Once the earth was fertilized the dinosaurs had served their purpose and became extinct. Some may have been convinced that life has no purpose. This is a mistake.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, the purpose of this planet and the Universe is for the infinite life principle that some call God to express itself as lifeforms expressing strength, majesty, beauty, love. Who reading this cannot recognise the majestic beauty of a snow-capped mountain? Or that of the stars in the heavens, or even the snow flake? Every snow flake is different to all others. There are no two grains of sand identical. Infinite variety is evident throughout Nature.

    Can anyone reading this conceive of anything of beauty thought of by human beings coming into existence without the imagination? Can anyone think of a way that intelligent life could first form on this planet without the DNA to express intelligence being present at all to begin with?

    Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches us a lot, but what it does not teach is how intelligence formed on this planet. From whence did it originate? Charles Darwin admitted that although he cannot believe that God exists, he cannot see how intelligent life could possibly have formed on this planet without pre-existing intelligence.

    As far as we are aware all matter is temporal. We have no good reason to believe that any matter is eternal, certainly not any particular form of matter anyway. All matter is in the final analysis energy or changed space. It changes form for certain but the energy back of it does appear to be omnipresent and ubiquitous. Does anyone doubt this I wonder?

    If we accept that this planet and all the others are temporal and not eternal then in order to ascertain what the first cause of life was we must look to that which is eternal, for temporal causation of this planet and the universe would only lead us to think in terms of infinite regression would it not?

    However, eternal causation which is omni-present in Its entirety would not be limited by or subject to infinite regression or to what we term “time and space”. In order to measure time there must be movement as time is a measurement of movement between two points.

    Imagine for a moment that you are in a module in space observing this planet and the stars and then in the blink of an eye everything disappears and there is just you and the module and no more planets and stars. If you look at your wrist watch what is it now measuring? If it is a mechanical watch the only thing it can possibly measure is the sweep of the hands around the dial. Time itself can no longer exist without planetary movement.

    What was there before the great expansion of matter into this universe?

    The only thing there possibly could have been is pure energy that is omni-present and has always existed.

    What is energy without any physical expression though?

    In order to have entity energy needs to have extension in space, otherwise it is energy unexpressed, i.e. nothing.

    The purpose of the Universe and the countless other universes is for this energy to express Itself as what we term as “Life”;

    To suppose that such an eternal energy and life principle is void of intelligence Itself is preposterous and flies against all reason does it not?

  156. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    Your leap of logic occurs when you jump between simple demonstrable psychology … and magic that utterly defies physics. This is what happens when you mistake what is an actual cause and effect of a thing and get it wrong.

     
    It’s obvious that if someone is so depressed that they don’t even leave the house or get out of bed, that this person’s own thoughts, technically, are inhibiting them from creating the physical conditions that would even make it possible for them to find a job. (I’ll use this, finding a job, as an example.) Any psychologist will agree that if they changed their thinking and actually left the house and looked for work, that this physical behavior is far more likely to lead to finding a job (although, it is still no guarantee, it just makes it more likely … for obvious physical reasons that we can all observe quite clearly … leaving the house, getting out of bed, are obvious physical factors in a person’s likelihood of becoming employed.)

     
    The causal factor here was not thoughts magically altering reality in a dream-scape “Matrix the movie” like existence, the causal factor here was grounded in physical reality … if you don’t get out of bed and make the application, then you won’t even be considered for the job.

     
    The leap this overlay of reality of yours makes is when people start thinking their positive thoughts are actually causing the person doing the hiring to actually magically pick them over anyone else for the job. Confidence in an interview might have an influence on the person doing the hiring … and that’s within the bounds of psychology and reality, because people don’t tend to want to hire someone who doesn’t speak, or who stares at the floor during their interview, over someone who engages the interviewer during the interview. However, those are very connectable physical, behavioral causes and effects … very different from your proposition that life is like the Matrix movie, and that anything we imagine happens just because we think it in our subconscious, such as curing physical diseases or jumping 200 feet in the air. What you’re describing is magical prayer, which is not the cause and effects of things.

     
    That’s the problem when people like yourself conflate the subtlety of what was the actual physical cause and effect of a thing, and how it did or didn’t relate back to a person’s attitude or mental state about the thing. There are definitely external physical influences and limitations on what is possible under the laws of physics, and this philosophy of yours is almost always applied in a way that it blurs those lines and slips into delusion and fantasy thinking, which is where it becomes a problem for people (and it does become a problem in this way for pretty much everyone I’ve ever seen deeply embrace this type of magical thinking, this incorrect view of physical reality.)

     
    With 327 million people in the USA, it’s quite possible that at any given time there could be 50,000 people who wanted to become president as their greatest dream. Given the length of a life, and the length of a presidential term, and the fact that there can only be one president at a time, it’s obviously not true that ‘nothing in the universe could stop the “Matrix the movie” style dream of each of those 50,000 people from coming true if they just thought a certain way.‘ In fact, there are even more limitations than that when it comes to the myth that ‘just anybody’ can become president of the united states.

     
    That’s why this notion of yours about the actual causation of reality confuses and lures in so many people, because it’s tricky stuff to sort through when somebody confuses the difference between your mental attitude not even allowing you to get out of bed to go look for a job, and makes the leap into saying that just thinking earnestly about having a job and saying some affirmations everyday causes it to magically appear out of ‘the Matrix’ due to some psychic mechanism that you cannot demonstrate. The mechanism, or the mistaken illusion that some sort of mechanism exists and works in such a way, is the whole problem and where things go astray here Ray.

     
    You’re taking a small thing that is real, and expanding it into a big thing that isn’t actually real. Then, when people start to think psychic healers can cure them of cancer by getting them to just imagine themselves cancer free, there starts to be a lot of problems, and that’s when the damage gets done to people by this faulty understanding of cause and effect. You’re blurring the lines between something that is, and expanding it into something it clearly isn’t. There is a clear difference between physical behaviors that stem from someone’s mental attitude … and flat out prayers for the impossible. You’re completely lost in a world between science and christianity here, and are quite clearly off driving around in the magical bush.

     
    It’s the extrapolation of demonstrable psychology into something that it clearly isn’t that is your error here Ray, through sloppy thinking. I’d get your money back for that book if you can. Dreams of being rich should’ve been your first clue, since many would question the benefit of having such a narcissistic, ego driven dream right from the outset. Greed and over-consumption without limits, is not even good for life on earth Ray. One look around at our civilization today ought to tell you that, unless of course you want to promote the idea that everyone should aspire to being selfish pigs. Escaping reality into heaven, or escaping the realities of life by way of wealth … it’s the same dream Ray, and an unhealthy one even.

     
    So many flaws Ray. Sorry you can’t escape the salvation from reality infection, it is a tough one to sort through. Studying fallacies might help you identify where it is that you’re making some of your leaps of logic. I know you can’t see them, but some of the rest of us sure can. Good luck. Prayer, doesn’t work Ray, not in the way you’re claiming it does. Not unless your prayer is something like getting out of bed to physically put in a job application, and then you follow through and actually go do it. But it wasn’t the prayer that manifested the job. It was putting in the application that did it. You have confused and extrapolated all this into a fantasy. The get get rich quick scheme worked for the author … because at some point people were lured into buying the book. The notion of this magical process has harmed far more people than it has accidentally helped, which is what led me to start questioning it deeper when I was all wrapped up in it. It isn’t harmless; it’s actually screwed up a great many people’s lives. You don’t usually hear about that though, because they are ashamed afterward that they fell for such nonsense, and just pick up the pieces and quietly move on.

     
    It suckered me, an atheist, because I thought it was psychology explaining metaphysics and mysticism. Then, I saw all the damage it was doing to people. This is fucked up stuff Ray, I sincerely hope you find your way out and quit pushing this at people.

  157. Monocle Smile says

    Ray is trolling. Pretty sure that screed is copypasta of some variety.
    Eat shit, troll.

  158. says

    :tip

    If you want to find out if an article has been copied and pasted all you need to do is put different parts of sentences in google.
    But of course someone as astute as yourself must already know that must you not?

    I’d been interested to see if anyone in this forum has an actual sensible argument against anything I have typed in my last couple of posts.

    Talking about healing and matrix movie type dream realities, etc. would be regarded as straw-man arguments/comments by many I’m sure, particularly in view of the fact that I have not mentioned anything of the sort in what I have typed so far.

    You regard yourselves as atheists. That is not a positive assertion of what you stand for or believe in, it simply speaks of an absence of belief in a God of any kind.

    A person who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything someone once said.

    I have made pretty plain what I stand for I think.

    What I do not stand for is listening to a class of not very bright children spewing absurdities continually. Not for long anyway.

    I’m sure there are some people who are reading my posts who actually appreciate what I am saying and are thankful for me taking the time I have taken so far to share an alternative way of thinking, and alternative view of reality to that of a mainstream theist.

    Has it ever occurred to you serial posters what don’t really have much in the way of constructive thought going around in your heads that there may well be a great many people reading these posts who never actually post here themselves?

    Certainly attempting to insult those who take the time and make the effort to do so is no way to promote your lack of belief is it?

  159. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ray #136:

    “Think and Grow Rich” has sold more than 100 million copies.

    @Ray #152:

    little to do with Mental science […] they often use terms like “the realm of pure potentiality” and “infinite consciousness”, and “superconsciousness” and “Christ mind”, etc.
     
    Mental science is very simple to understand and is completely free of any such weirdness.

     
    Book: Think and Grow Rich – Chapter 11, The mystery of sex transmutation

    The faculty of creative imagination is the direct link between the finite mind of man and Infinite Intelligence. All so-called revelations, referred to in the realm of religion, and all discoveries of basic or new principles in the field of invention, take place through the faculty of creative imagination.
     
    When ideas or concepts flash into one’s mind, through what is popularly called a “hunch,” they come from one or more of the following sources:
    1. Infinite Intelligence
    2. One’s subconscious mind, wherein is stored every sense impression and thought impulse which ever reached the brain through any of the five senses
    3. From the mind of some other person who has just released the thought, or picture of the idea or concept, through conscious thought, or
    4. From the other person’s subconscious storehouse.
    […]
    The creative imagination functions best when the mind is vibrating (due to some form of mind stimulation) at an exceedingly high rate.

     
    From the Sacred-Texts Archive’s intro:

    He discusses harnessing Kundalini energy, manifesting psychic powers such as telepathy, tapping into higher consciousness, and getting in touch with the great minds of history, although, again, he is not too specific about how to accomplish these feats.

  160. Monocle Smile says

    Ray, your bullshit has already been pulled apart at the seams.
    Now, I could unravel it all again after GumB et al already have, but given that your utterly refuse to address the most important questions, what would be the point? It would be a colossal waste of time…and the lurkers already know that.

  161. GumB. says

    @Ray:

     

    would be regarded as straw-man arguments/comments by many I’m sure, particularly in view of the fact that I have not mentioned anything of the sort in what I have typed so far.

     
    It was a comment on the material you pointed us to Ray. Now, I can clearly see that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Of course this is the philosophy your author was promoting in his work, so quit with the no true Scotsman bullshit.

     
    Why can’t you make the phone connection to the show work? That ought to be even easier than asking for an angel to find you a parking spot. (Let’s forget even about your authors grandiose endorsement of faith healing, and just keep it simple.)

     
    Yet, you can’t even do that, make a phone connection work the way you want it to. Because it’s all just empty talk Ray.

     
    You’re not part of any solution Ray; you’re just part of a problem. Congratulations Ray, you’re a total bullshitter.

     
    I’d win the debate for sure … but I just can’t happen to call the show.
    I can change reality with my mind … yet I can’t even make a simple phone call work.

     
    Ya, no contradictions there are there. Pfffft, what a complete joke. Bye Ray, you’ve positively been refuted. : D

  162. says

    Important Questions?

    I haven’t seen any as yet – just straw-man comments which are nothing to do with anything I have actually said myself.

    BTW, I said that Think and Grow Rich is the best selling book teaching mental science principles. There are a great many others as well, but none of those claim to be or are intended as treatise on Mental science,

    For that I recommend you read the Edinburgh and the Dore Lectures on Mental Science.

    If someone would like to ask a specific question regarding what I have myself typed then I will be happy to answer, but probably not tonight as it is 27 minutes past midnight where I am.

  163. jacobfromlost says

    The only question left I have is why you haven’t used your mental science to shape your reality such that we all believe you. Why not do that, instead of continually posting more words? You COULD go away, tell yourself your mental science convinced all of us you were correct, and never check this blog again to check because that would be DOUBTING the validity of your claims, and be a falsifiable test. You said it isn’t falsifiable, so just never come back here to check. Sound good to everyone? lol

  164. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ray #157:

    Talking about healing and matrix movie type dream realities, etc. would be regarded as straw-man arguments

    @Ray #162:

    I recommend you read the Edinburgh

     
    Book: The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science – Chapter II
    the ultimate foundation of every form of matter is spirit, and hence that a universal intelligence subsists throughout Nature […] This primordial substance is a philosophical necessity, and we can only picture it to ourselves as something infinitely finer than the atoms […] we may conveniently speak of this primary intelligence inherent in the very substance of things as the Atomic Intelligence.
    […]
    it is by the response of the atomic intelligence to the individual intelligence that thought-power is able to produce results on the material plane, as in the cure of disease by mental treatment, and the like.

  165. meskibob says

    @jacobfromlost #163
    I tried that in my #112, although I didn’t phrase it as directly since I was trying to convince Ray to use his abilities to improve the world.
    Now I think GumB. is on the right track (in #161), in that he shouldn’t be wasting time typing here and instead should be dedicating his time to constantly desire calling the show. His written screeds clearly aren’t working, but maybe his (I’m assuming) amazing verbal communication and debate skills will convince us (only after the Power finds a way for him to call the show, obviously).

  166. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    Sky Captain … directly quoting Ray’s “Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science”:

     

    it is by the response of the atomic intelligence to the individual intelligence that thought-power is able to produce results on the material plane, as in the cure of disease by mental treatment, and the like.

     
    See Ray, I was directly addressing exactly what it is that your recommended author was promoting. Now … you’ve been exposed for being a liar.

     
    For fuck sake, there’s only been a thousand new age books written about this exact same thing over the past thirty-five years. This was huge back in the nineties. Of course it’s what your author was talking about, and that makes your response to me about strawmen a lie. You’re a liar now Ray, over and above being grossly mistaken in your magical belief. Sky Captain just proved that to everyone … right there in print, right out of your authors own book.

     
    Hahahahahahahahaha.

     
    Ray, the dishonest liar. I wonder how many people you’ll cause to die of an otherwise curable cancer Ray?

     
    My long response to you (Ray) was actually motivated by the person who commented that they thought your bullshit, harmful philosophy could maybe be useful in the positive thinking sense. I wanted them to know that, no, it isn’t. It’s always only harmful in the end. That’s who I actually wrote my rebuttal of you for Ray, them, not you, you lying piece of shit. So that they don’t die of a curable cancer on account of hearing about this tripe. That’s where it eventually leads people once they start down this road, into all sorts of related delusions based on this demonstrably false garbage.

     
    Thanks for exposing Ray’s outright lie and deception, Sky Captain. I knew what his author was talking about, clearly. It was obvious.

  167. StonedRanger says

    @Ray #67 As soon as you said this “As infinite intelligence individualises Itself within the individual, it is very specific to the individual.” I stopped caring what you wrote. That is so circular a piece of word salad that you might as well have typed ‘anything i say is bullshit and should be ignored’. What a waste of time and energy.

  168. t90bb says

    Ray has brightened the week here on this board!! Post often Ray!

    I think its cute that Ray thinks hes enlightened. You certainly have talked circles around all these amateurs on this board. We are all stumped!! Mental science is so powerful most of the world will never hear about it. Its like a mixture of some basic principles and discoveries about how the mind works…..along with the manure of pantheism, panentheism, christianity, and scientology!!!! A beautiful concoction of science, wishful thinking, and human arrogance.

    With all that mental science I am sure you will figure out how to solve your magic jack issues and put the atheist experience in its place!! You should call every week Ray!

  169. t90bb says

    168..lol GumB….you rock…

    I’d win the debate for sure … but I just can’t happen to call the show.
    I can change reality with my mind … yet I can’t even make a simple phone call work.

  170. jacobfromlost says

    I think infinite stupidity must individualize itself within in the individual also.

    “I can change reality with my mind … yet I can’t even make a simple phone call work.”

    Yeah, that is a pretty lame super power. I can change reality with my mind and there is NOTHING I can’t do, except get the phone to work when trying to inform the world of this limitless power. Disappointing.

  171. bluestar says

    Like the Professor on Gilligan’s Island. He could make an I phone from a coconut but he couldn’t repair a hole in a boat.

  172. bobbi says

    Nick’s GOT to be Poe-ing.

    Ain’t NO WAY anyone’s stieoughpied enough to simultaneously understand “can’t force man to give up body parts” but DENY comprehending babies can receive nourishment from formula.

    You’se two’s gottun tuukun.

  173. says

    Greetings,
    I just listened to this episode and heard Jacob from AZ say he did not know any other atheists.
    That is the main reason I started the Casa Grande Atheist Community of Arizona. Right now we reside in Facebook but I encourage Jacob to please reach out. If anyone knows how to get in touch with him, please pass our link on.
    We are in AZ and our purpose is to let other atheists in AZ, know they are not alone. Mainly in Casa Grande but we are here for those who want us.

    Best Regards, Scott Linke

  174. RationalismRules says

    @Ray

    If someone would like to ask a specific question regarding what I have myself typed then I will be happy to answer

    That’s good to hear, because I have many more questions about things you yourself have typed.

    Here’s a quick and easy one to start:
    In #161 you yourself typed:

    Charles Darwin admitted that although he cannot believe that God exists, he cannot see how intelligent life could possibly have formed on this planet without pre-existing intelligence.

    Can you please direct me to the quote you are referencing here? I am not familiar with it.

  175. says

    Certainly I can RelationshipRules and want you to know that I appreciate your politeness…

    I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—

    Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

    Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness & interest.—

    Yours sincerely & cordially | Charles Darwin

    [Enclosure 1]13 Asa Gray for Mr. Darwin Statement of the Sale of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” to May 1st, 1860 On hand last account, — On hand this date, 250 Printed since Jany/60 1500 In hands of Booksellers, 300 550 Feby—/60 500 Given away, 200 Mch/60 500 Sold to date, 1750 2500 2500 1750 Sold, at 5% on $ 1.25 Copyright amounting to $ 109.37

  176. says

    Once again, as expected, nothing but straw-man comments and profanity.

    Not a single comment or remark or argument of any kind concerning what I myself have typed in my last couple of lengthy posts or any previous ones, the last post excepted.

    Some suggest that I am in some way being disingenuous.

    Firstly, I will explain exactly what a straw-man argument is in order to demonstrate to you that this is all that you have been offering so far.

    Let’s suppose that a believer phones the Athiest Experience, a Christian perhaps, and wants to discuss the efficacy of prayer and the presenter of the show happens to be Matt Dillahunty. Before the caller has even managed to get a sentence out Mr. Dillahunty would most likely come out with something along these lines “Yeah, it’s been full tested and shown not to work, in fact the results where people have prayed are worst even than that of those who didn’t pray at all”, or words to that effect – y’all have probably heard it a dozen times before if you have been listening to him for years and have accepted that what he is saying is fact, but is it really true? Does Mr. Dillahunty actually know what real prayer is? Did any of those people who prayed actually know what true prayer is?

    Let us examine this using a quotation from the very “holy” book which Mr Dillahunty would have people believe he is such an expert on. What does the Son of Man from Galilee have to say regarding the correct way to pray?

    “Truly I tell you, you can pray for anything, and IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU’VE RECEIVED IT, it will be yours.” In other parts of the book he explains how not to pray also, but for the purpose of this demonstration I would like to concentrate entirely on the way he instructed his followers TO pray. What does he mean when he says “IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU’VE RECEIVED IT”?

    It should be as plain to you as the nose on your face. How can anyone ever believe they have received something without actually imagining they have received first? But believing that you have received it prior to it manifesting in your reality is more than just imagining it. You can imagine yourself flying through the sky like a bird if you wish, and ask your God to make it happen, but of course you will be doing so in vain and just wasting your time, because what is needed for you to have your prayers manifested in your reality is the FEELING that you have already received whatever you are praying for or that it has already come to pass. It needs to be just as vivid as the most erotic fantasy you have experienced. Once this is achieved then that which you desire and pray for is already existing in the unseen (subconscious) and your part then is just to joyfully wait for it to manifest in your experience.

    So Mr Dillahunty, in the 35 years that you claim you were a Christian have you ever prayed exactly in the way prescribed and outlined by Jesus? Be honest with yourelf Matt. Do you suppose that the people cited in the test you so often speak of prayed in the way Jesus proscribed? If course you don’t! Then why constantly refer to this test as if it is proof positive that prayer does not work?

    Now if the caller at the time asked you the questions that I have just asked you above and you were being honest in your reply I think you would have to admit that you have never prayed in such a way that you really believed and FELT that your prayer had already been answered. Certainly in no way can you possibly claim that those who carried out this most scientific prayer test prayed in the way Jesus outlined.

    So let’s suppose that you inwardly realized that there is no way that these people all prayed in the way outlined by Jesus, and it is more likely than not that not a single one of them did. If you then introduced into the conversion your “pet” topic regarding human slavery, this would indeed be a straw-man argument as your caller had not mentioned anything at all about slavery.

    This is precisely what you people here are doing now. You are choosing some passages from a book you have never even read regarding healing or whatever and attempting to turn the focus to this instead rather majing any effort to address or refute any of the things I myself have said.

    If you had really read any of the material I have provided links to, and understood what you were reading, you would see by now that the methodology described for attaining your desires is IDENTICAL to that prescribed by Jesus. Thomas Troward explains exactly why this scientific method of prayer works when he speaks on the relationship between individual and universal subconscious mind in his Edinburgh and Dore Lecture series.

    I will endeaveour to explain why five people praying to win the same race or 50 people praying to be President of the USA would not work in another post if you wish, but if you have been paying attention to what I have already said in this post it should be patently obvious to you already.

    Thank you for reading.

  177. indianajones says

    Oh, hi Andy! Decided to have a little outing on the FB page as well did we? Clown….

  178. RationalismRules says

    @Ray
    Sorry, where in that quote does he refer to the development of intelligent life?

  179. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    Should I just do what you do Ray, and remark to you …

     
    “Not a single comment or remark or argument of any kind concerning what I myself have typed in my last couple of lengthy posts or any previous ones …”

     
    Because that’s all you’ve done so far. Do you suppose that’s what people mean by being disingenuous?

     
    Do you not see how often you change your own story and directly contradict yourself? You start by giving us a five page pamphlet that explicitly says you do not need any details about how any of this works. Then, later, when I explain to you that it’s exactly the same as any of the other modern books outlining the use of affirmations as a method of self hypnosis, you go against what your own document says and begin claiming they aren’t the same thing based on … details. After awhile of you moving goalposts around like this, or trying to create diversions by gish-galloping off onto other tangents about the origins of the universe in order to avoid addressing people’s rebuttals of what you’ve previously claimed, or claiming people aren’t addressing your five page pamphlet when they exactly have, or trying to claim people haven’t read it, when they have. After awhile of these sorts of diversionary arguing tactics, people will just give up on even trying to have a discussion with you, and just dismiss you as intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

     
    Your pamphlet said three easy steps … no need for ANY further details … AT ALL. I’ll quote the pamphlet.

     

    There is no need to analyze how this Power within you is going to accomplish your desires. Such a procedure is as unnecessary as trying to figure out why a grain of corn packed in fertile soil shoots up to a green stalk, blossoms and produces an ear of corn containing hundreds of grains, each capable of doing what the one grain did. If you will follow this definite plan and carry out the three simple rules, the method of accomplishment will unfold quite as mysteriously as the ear of corn appears on the stalk, and in most cases much sooner than you expect.

     
    Here are the three steps:

     

    1. Read the list of what you want three times each day: morning, noon and night.
    2. Think of what you want as often as possible.
    3. Do not talk to any one about your plan except to the Greater Power within you which will unfold to your Objective Mind the method of accomplishment.

     
    I came on and said, yes, exactly like all the other books about affirmations. Here’s a look at a quote from a website called TheLawOfAttraction.com:

     

    1. Affirmation guide with examples and lists so you can start using affirmations today!
    2. Instructions on how you can create a dream board in order to design and manifest your dream life.
    3. A copy of your own dream check!
    4. A complimentary e-book! Get your copy of The Science Of Getting Rich by Wallace D. Wattles.

     
    (Ha, even a similar title in there to one of the authors you recommended, “… Getting Rich.”)

     
    See? Exactly the same thing. Make a list, hang it on your fridge or put in on your bathroom mirror, read it everyday as often as possible, never doubt, don’t question … and viola … it will all come to you or come to pass. Presto, abracadabra. Same lure of riches even (how very, very base.)

     
    When you exclaim that this isn’t the same thing, you are being disingenuous. When you gish-gallop off as a form of distraction into how the details behind the two are what’s important, and then send us off to read a book that dives into those details, you are being disingenuous, because the pamphlet you yourself gave us explicitly said NOT to even BOTHER trying to understand the details, that just the affirmation list instructions alone where required to make this work … period.

     
    You can stand there and lie and distract and change the subject all you want Ray. This is nothing more than writing an affirmation list just like any of the other books on the same subject, just like I said, and which you then denied … ei. The Law of Attraction, The Secret, How to Get Rich, Affirmations and Visualizations: The Ultimate Secret, The Secret Law of Attraction, The Law of Secret Attraction, The Secret to the Law of Attraction, The Super-Duper Extra Fucking Secret Law of Attraction that you Never Heard of Before And This One Actually Works Workbook … etc, etc, etc.

     
    When you say they’re not the same thing Ray … you are a liar. Especially when you contradict your own pamphlet and start saying the difference is in details that your own pamphlet said were irrelevant. Not ever addressing the things others have spent the time typing to you and just waving them of as being unsubstantial strawman arguments … just makes you a space cadet liar. Trying to change the subject by gish-galloping off onto other topics such as the origins of the universe, as if you never even made your original claims and just don’t want to talk about that anymore … makes you shmeeby liar.

     
    So much dishonestly that you don’t even seem to be aware of in yourself. Sad Ray. That’s some kind of enlightenment. Thanks for coming on and telling us what you believe. I’m still not sure you’ve explained why you believe it though. Should I assume you don’t know either? But ya, Ray, you contradict yourself and change your story around too much. It doesn’t make for a very rational conversation. We get it: write an affirmation list and read it everyday, and don’t tell anybody you’re doing it. Same instructions as all the modern books on the same subject too. Good stuff Ray, thanks for coming out. Sorry we didn’t gush all over you about it and stroke your ego.

     
    By the way, you debate very dishonestly you know, and don’t even seem to understand how or why; you should go read up on the logical fallacies that you apparently aren’t even aware you use. Especially, gish-gallop and no true scotsman (or should I call it no TRUE affirmations list.)

     
    Time to go manifest some morning coffee.

  180. John Iacoletti says

    @Ray, have you tried the “Call The Show” button on atheist-experience.com?

    Attaching the word “science” to something doesn’t actually make it scientific.

    Also, I’m curious why anyone would think that something that you cannot demonstrate is true could possibly be seen as “more reasonable and acceptable than to simply say that I do not know”.

  181. says

    #161 – Ray says:
    “The planet we are living on was once a ball of fire. It is the result of a supernova, as are the other planets.”
    Oh Ray, your grasp of basic science is so breathtaking, it convinces me you MUST be right about “Mental Science”.
    Actually Ray, please just look up any basic science text or video on the formation of the solar system. You have so many things wrong in just that one sentence that it is stunning. If you want any credibility, you really have to show you have some idea of how reality works.

  182. t90bb says

    Ray is likely doing his best. Once you get wrapped up in this and your very identity is so thoroughly intertwined, its hard to see much objectively.

    The thing about “mental science” is that it makes some observations that appear to be true. There does appear to be a mind body connection. Positive thinking, mantras, meditations do appear to change brain states. Its the gross overselling of these observations along with a myriad of spiritual woo add-ons that lead people like Ray into the rabbit hole.

    Ray….as they say on Heathen….we dont hate you we just think you are wrong.

  183. John Iacoletti says

    Well, I read the 5 page document. So we have here another testable claim. Can we get together a group of volunteers to test out the method described?

    1. Read the list of what you want three times each day: morning, noon and night.
    2. Think of what you want as often as possible.
    3. Do not talk to any one about your plan except to the Greater Power within you which
    will unfold to your Objective Mind the method of accomplishment.

    Let’s make the want be 200 million dollars. The text specifically says that a specific amount of money is fair game. Although I see the catch right away. It doesn’t mention a specific length of time to get results. Presumably you’re supposed to just keep doing this until it happens. How then could you ever mark an attempt as a failure?

  184. Honey Tone says

    In #183, is Ray attempting to assert and refute a straw man fallacy by using a no true Scotsman fallacy? I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere that such stacking of fallacies causes black holes.

  185. says

    Hi John and folks.

    Thanks for your interest.

    If you are really serious about testing this then you need to be real about it and not play mind games with yourself.

    Your goal here is to impress the idea of what it is you desire to achieve or receive in life firmly onto your subconscious mind. Get out of your head completely that the word “rich” mean dollars. This is wrong thinking. Get out of your head completely the idea that being successful is all about making money. This is wrong thinking also. That is “The Secret” type of thinking and it is incorrect and I will explain why it is incorrect.

    Your immediate need may be be money, and if that is your need then this is what you should imagine as your heart’s desire at this time. Your subconscious will accept this as it knows your sincere need is money. If however you are well-off financially and you try to impress the idea that your heart desires more dollars it will not necessarily accept this as it knows you are being insincere, and if it did manifest more dollars into your life it would only do so in order to teach you a lesson and I’m sure you would not like it later on and wish you had been sincere.

    Infinite Wisdom knows what your needs are before you express them. It is not necessary to write anything down if you don’t want. Personally speaking I have never written an affirmation list and rarely a desire’s list, but obviously you are free to do so if you wish. If you do wish to write down your heart’s desires you should put them in order of importance to you, and you are free to change them later if you wish of course. The important thing is that you must think about that which you truly desire often, particularly before going to sleep at night. Try to go to sleep imagining your heart’s desire as a present reality. If it’s more fulfilling work you desire, for example, imagine yourself actually doing the job or occupation you would love to do. Form clear and vivid mental pictures of yourself doing the new job. If it is better health that is your true heart’s desire, and, for example, you have a bad leg, or bad hip or whatever it is, imagine yourself perfectly healthy doing all the things that you are presently prohibited from doing due to you physical difficulty. Make it as real as you can in your mind’s eye.

    The true desire of a great many people is to be successful. What does success mean though? Obviously it means different things to different people. Here is a definition of success from Earl Nightingale:

    THE DEFINITION OF SUCCESS
    “First, we have to define success and here is the best definition I’ve ever been able to
    find: “Success is the progressive realization of a worthy ideal.”
    A success is the school teacher who is teaching because that’s what he or she wants to
    do. A success is the entrepreneur who start his own company because that was his
    dream — that’s what he wanted to do. A success is the salesperson who wants to
    become the best salesperson in his or her company and sets forth on the pursuit of that
    goal.”

    Never tell yourself that you are not smart enough or that you are too old or that you are not worthy of the success you desire. This is a certain route to failure and stagnation.

    Do not try to figure out and outline how what it is that you desire is going to come to you. This type of outlining will only restrict as you are then effectively saying to your subconscious “I desire this but it must come to me through this specific channel”. You have infinite power and infinite wisdom backed with infinite intelligence at your disposal which can and will draw resources from the ends of the earth if necessary to fulfill your heart’s desire.

    In an early post meskibob said:

    “Similar to Alex’s challenge from the show/OP, provide the detailed steps/method to achieve what you have purportedly achieved (understanding that there is a singular universal intelligence) so it can potentially be replicated by other people here.”

    As it was past 10 O’clock at night and I had already been working at my computer since 8am i really was not in the mood to do that so instead I posted a link to the pamphlet “It Works”. This was simply to provide some detailed steps/method that the poster was asking for. If I myself had written a booklet like that it would have contained similar instructions to the above with similar types of steps to make it easy for the reader to follow.

    Sincere prayer is not just about acquiring money, it’s about having you true needs and desires fulfilled. Emerson felt that selfish, greedy prayers are vicious.

    Reminds me of a joke I heard many years ago. A guy had been been telling his agnostic friend all about God and the Bible and he said that God is willing and able to give you your heart’s desire. He went on to say that God has infinite resources and that one day to God is like many thousands of years of our time when it’s over, maybe even millions of years. He suggested that his friend should begin by taking to God just before he goes to sleep at night, so the next night his friend began his conversation with God. He asked God if its true that one day to God is like many thousands of years of our time. God answered “Yes my son, that is true”. The man was very impressed and asked God if it is really true that He has infinite resources at His disposal. God answers “Yes my son, that is true”. The man begins to get really excited and said to God “Could have 1 million dollars. God replied “Certain my son, wait a minute and I will get you it” 🙂

    The reason I mentioned thought of this joke is because Infinite Wisdom is always right on time. If you have a big bill and don’t have the money to pay it ask for it and you will receive it – right on time. If you want to live in a beautiful house in the future and at the moment you live in a trailer, cut out a picture of the perfect home you wish to live in and pin it on your notice board or your fridge so that you see it every day.

    Your subconscious mind is like a tape recorder recording every event of your life. If this subconscious “tape” is filled daily with pictures and ideas of what your heart desires, whether they be mental pictures or physical pictures, it will go to work at bringing these into your experience.

    Think hard and long about what it is you REALLY want and have need for though. Be serious and determined in your mental attitude. You cannot fool Infinite Wisdom so don’t even try, after all, if what I am telling you is true, and it is, there is nothing in your life that can compare with joy that the full realisation of this fact will bring.

    I’m not one to quote Bible passages to people and I’m not going to do so now, but what I will leave you with is a passage from ancient scripture that was banned by the Roman Catholic church:

    “The Kingdom will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is’. Rather, the Kingdom of God is spread out upon earth, and men do not see it. . . . Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over all things.” – Jesus (from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas)

  186. says

    Re: Charles Darwin

    I was not quoting from any particular writing of Darwin in my previous post, I was just pointing out that he was never an atheist as some people believe he was. When he wrote Origin of Species in 1859 he was a theist. As time went, because he had been brought up to believe in a personal God like most of us are he became more and more perplexed as time went by and eventually turned to a deistic view of God. He didn’t really like talking about his religious beliefs much, but when asked he would normally say he is a agnostic as he felt that he did not have enough knowledge regarding theology, etc. He did believe that there was an intelligent Designer/Creator; he just was unable to reconcile this with the idea of a personal God, that’s all.

    My very brief description of where this planet came from and how life began and developed in a previous post was obviously not intended to be a treatise on cosmology, it was merely to illustrate how the dinosaurs over many millions of years fertilized the surface in order that finer forms of life may develop on the land, and then became extinct once this had been achieved.

    It sure is a stroke of luck for us that them old dinos did that or none of us would be here!

    It seems to me that athiests are just as liable to become self-deluded as Christians or Muslims or others.

    Ya just gotta love Tracy don’t you? She asks questions that virtually no one ever asks!

    How could nothing have existed before the big bang? That’s a fantastic question which I for one had never heard anyone ask before. Obviously it is incoherent as far as the English language is concerned.

    A much better way to speak of the beginning of things would be to say:

    At the beginning there was pure light/energy which, acting upon its own substance caused a colossal expansion of matter into what we now term the Universe.

    People are apt to not realize that Light is the very source of life. What is dark then? Simply the supposed absence of light. Dark really is nothing as it has no cause, it is merely the absence of a cause, i.e. light.

  187. Monocle Smile says

    Ray is now spamming, because all of that is irrelevant preachy bullshit. Ray is a disease that needs a cure.

  188. GumB. says

    @Monocle Smile

     
    I know, right? I can’t even see the damn goalposts anymore, I think they just got removed completely. Plus, all that text, and he couldn’t even bring himself to address John’s one simple question he had about the parameters of the experiment. I don’t think this guy hears anybody but himself, and don’t think he even registered that John, a host of the show, had asked a pretty specific question about his claim.

     
    Off topic, but inspired by Ray’s ancient text quote that promised “… and he will rule over all things”:

     
    In 1514, ships landed on the shore of South America and their commander had a document read out from the beach:

     
    “I assure you that with the help of God I will make war on you in every place and in every way that I can. And I will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and their highnesses. And I will take your persons and your women and your children and I will make them slaves. I will take your goods and I will do you all the evils and harms which I can.”

     
    I agree Monocle, I believe religious thought patterns are a disease of the mind that gets spread socially through ideas.

  189. says

    WHY PRAYERS FOR WORLD PEACE NEVER WORK

    Praying for world peace is a futile as praying that your son is not injured after you here he has been involved in a serious accident.

    For one thing it presupposes the existence of a person God that views his creation from a distant location some of the time, somewhat like an absent landlord. Infinite intelligence is immanent in this world and in the countless other worlds beyond – omniscient and omnipresent. This does not mean that God is present on the human scene. God is no more observing this world than the electricity flowing through your fridge and tv is observing those. God/Good, Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Wisdom, Nature, call he/she/it what you will, is the power that animates the universe. It operates through clearly defined laws. These laws do not operate for the good of specific individuals or groups of people, but for the good of the race as a whole and planet as a whole. If a hurricane devastates an area where people are living in 3rd world conditions in the richest country in history there is no personal god that has done this as in “An act of God” no good reason. It is the working of immutable laws that have resulted in this devastation. If we abuse this planet and kill other species unnecessarily by cutting down the trees in the rain forest and omitting toxic substances into the atmosphere the earth heats up to burn our ass in order to teach us not to do these things.

    As I said in an earlier post, what we are witnessing on this planet is the out-picturing of the combined thought forms of everyone who has ever lived on this planet and those currently living on it. The very animals in Nature respond to the way we view them and treat them and the way those before us viewed them. Anyone see gorillas in the mist?

    If we really want peace on this planet we ALL need to begin to adopt the same future vision for it. A prison is slowly emerging around us. Day by day the totalitarian tip-toe is taking place turning country after country into police States with fascist rulers. An Orwellian nightmare is ahead of us if we do nothing. The new age movement and the new world order ala Helena Blavatsky and Albert Pike is beginning to materialize. We cannot afford to be apathetic anymore.

    Before very long there will be earthquakes that will reveal supposed ancient alien relics which after carbon dating will show “beyond any doubt” that aliens came to this planet 1000s of years ago. If you don’t stand for anything you are liable to fall for anything, but fore-warned is fore-armed.

    My purpose here is not to harm but to help. As atheists you are more vulnerable to deception than most any other group. You believe what the “authorities” tell you to believe. Hitler once said that it is a good thing for governments that people do not think, because it makes them more susceptible to a BIG lie than a small one, because people tell small lies all the time but would be ashamed to tell the really big ones.

  190. GumB. says

    Ray, since the vast majority of humans on the planet are out-picturing combined thought forms that are based in damaging religious beliefs, then why are you continuing to promote those same thought forms yourself, like you’re doing here on this blog? You seem confused about where the ideas that are being projected by everyone are actually originating from, and seem to have it exactly backwards. You’re projecting here (in the mainstream psychological sense … pointing at us atheists, yet describing yourself.)

     
    If you really believe what you just said above, then quit being part of the problem. You’re half way there Ray.

  191. says

    BTW John, it is not up to you to decide what other people’s desires are. Each person is different. If you wish people to follow the instructions in It Works then just give them a copy of the book to read and leave the rest to them. They will know and be able to see when their particular personal desires begin to manifest. At first they may be inclined to think it is just coincidence, but as time goes by and you receive more and more reports back from them you will discover that it really is no coincidence and It Works. Remember also that Mr Jarrett, the author of the pamphlet states on several occasions that they need to be in earnest.

    ear·nest·ly
    ˈərnəstlē/
    adverb
    adverb: earnestly

    with sincere and intense conviction; seriously.
    “they earnestly hope to come back in the summer”
    synonyms: seriously, solemnly, gravely, intently;

    Do not try to set a time frame for them – allow them to set their own, because it will be entirely dependent on what their heartfelt desires are as to when they will be fulfilled.

    Please remember John that this is not a game. Once the people who you give the pamphlets to carry out this procedure correctly and successfully you will have helped changed their lives for the better forever most likely.

  192. t90bb says

    196……Ray…..

    “Before very long there will be earthquakes that will reveal supposed ancient alien relics which after carbon dating will show “beyond any doubt” that aliens came to this planet 1000s of years ago. If you don’t stand for anything you are liable to fall for anything, but fore-warned is fore-armed.

    My purpose here is not to harm but to help. As atheists you are more vulnerable to deception than most any other group. You believe what the “authorities” tell you to believe. Hitler once said that it is a good thing for governments that people do not think, because it makes them more susceptible to a BIG lie than a small one, because people tell small lies all the time but would be ashamed to tell the really big ones.”

    ATHEISTS are vulnerable to deception???? We are deceived AND YET YOU are the one vomiting assertion after assertion after assertion after assertion with no demonstration.

    I sense a panic in you since John has suggested we test the claims on your 5 page pamphlet. You are working pretty hard to shape our “asks” should we decide to try the “plan”. Are you standing by the plan as outlined in the 5 page pamphlet??? The pamphlet.says its OK to name specific amount of money (or other specific want/desire)….and to set a time frame for which is will be received.

    I just want to be sure that if we follow the pamphlet you are telling us it will work 100 percent of the time?? and within the time frame we request or need???

    I sense some back peddling from you and I agree with John that if a specific time frame is not accepted up front then the methodology can never be deemed as having “failed”. IF a deadline is set and the want/desire is not met we need to know you will not claim that although the deadline has passed…..your request will be delivered “right on time” (at a future date)., You will not do this will you???

    Also…..if the method is honestly tested and failed….will you admit that the “plan” does not work 100 percent of the time???

    I have a hunch that as soon as many of us agree to take the challenge you will disappear. Hey, I could be wrong. I mean I could be surprised and find that those that took up the “plan” all had a positive result.

    It could be also that some of your latest claims regarding aliens is just a ploy to get yourself banned, because you sense your number is near up hear and you don’t want to be around for the embarrassment should it come.

    I am actually torn as to whether your latest post should be your last. You seemed a bit off from the start but the alien shit, if serious, leads me to believe you are likely suffering mental illness. If that is the case the mods hear might be doing you a disservice by allowing you to post.. .. I say that out of concern for you.

  193. t90bb says

    I think the last post hit it spot on….

    Ray is making it impossible to falsify the plan…….by……the final rule!!!!!!

    :::::. DONT TELL ANYONE ABOUT THE PLAN. Which means reporting failure will falsify the entire process. If the desire was not received within the time frame I am quite sure Ray will tell us that our request was “in process” but now we fucked it up by revealing the plan!

    ITS entirely falsifiable

    I WILL REPEAT THE FINA PARAGRAPH OF MY LAST POST

    I am actually torn as to whether your latest post should be your last. You seemed a bit off from the start but the alien shit, if serious, leads me to believe you are likely suffering mental illness. If that is the case the mods hear might be doing you a disservice by allowing you to post.. .. I say that out of concern for you.

  194. says

    Hi t90bb
    Can I ask you what you think I was meaning when I referred to aliens?
    Do you think I was saying that I believe in aliens or do you think I was saying I do not?

    I have at this time no reason whatsoever to believe that aliens or extraterrestrials of any kind exist. Towards the end of last year a Pentagon official reported that he had seen a UFO very clearly. This is the first time that anyone involved in government has every made a claim.

    The new age movement, the mormons, the scientologists the JWs all want their follows to believe that aliens really exist? Why do you suppose that is?

  195. t90bb says

    202…Ray….

    you said…”Before very long there will be earthquakes that will reveal supposed ancient alien relics which after carbon dating will show “beyond any doubt” that aliens came to this planet 1000s of years ago”

    My issue and concern with your mental heath has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in aliens. Read the sentence you wrote and tell me why we should be concerned for your mental health.

    If its not obvious…I suggest you invoke your “plan” for greater understanding.

  196. says

    Yes, it’s like saying before very long the governments of this world will be legalising marriages between human beings and A.I. units. So what?

  197. says

    Oh, and regarding me disappearing – not a chance. You can always contact me via my website anyway – soulyears.com If you enjoy soul/R&B you should check it out. It doesn’t sell anything so this is not an advert by the way! Mine is as far as I am aware the only ad-free music site of this kind in existence

  198. t90bb says

    204 ray…..

    you said…”Before very long there will be earthquakes that will reveal supposed ancient alien relics which after carbon dating will show “beyond any doubt” that aliens came to this planet 1000s of years ago”

    My issue and concern with your mental heath has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in aliens. Read the sentence you wrote and tell me why we should be concerned for your mental health

    you replied..”Yes, it’s like saying before very long the governments of this world will be legalising marriages between human beings and A.I. units. So what?

    Do you see how your response was not an actual answer to MY question??? I think the mods should ban you out of concern for you. Honestly. You are either a really good troll…..or in need of some help. Either way this board in not helping you. I trust the mods judgement, however.

  199. GumB. says

    @t90bb

     
    Ray outlined a lot more catch 22’s than just time loopholes and not discussing the test with anybody. There were also all the other same loopholes all the modern versions of ‘the plan’ discuss at length in their books too (all the modern books about this that Ray still tries to play no true scotsman with.)

     
    There was talk about some requests being ‘vicious’ because they were too greedy or weren’t what we ‘needed for our own unique growth at the time we made the request’ (that’s my paraphrase of how it gets put in this scheme.)

     
    By saying that only the great power of the universe gets to decide what’s a worthy request for our personal growth or not at any given moment, you effectively have an all inclusive out that makes success in this endeavor indistinguishable from randomness. If your request gets denied, it can be presumed that it just wasn’t ‘a good lesson for you’ to have that particular request granted at that time.

     
    This was a classic Mormon ‘Milk before Meat’ strategy by Ray. First, a pamphlet that is simple and says you can ask for anything you want, and it always works. That’s the weak milk part. Then, once you buy in and sign up, it becomes a whole lot more complicated than that (all presented as giving you tips to just make it work even better for you, based on his experience, so helpful and kind, right?) That’s the stronger Meat part, where you roll your eyes and realize the initial pamphlet was not the car you thought you were buying. The real car you’re actually buying here, is a lemon.

     
    Now, he’s even saying John is wrong to even test it in the way he was suggesting … because it’s sacred, and not to be used that way or trifled with. Well, that’s an out too. Until it becomes reduced to random chance that it works or not, exactly matching reality. That’s why a lot of people walk away from, this ten years later, after waiting for the house on their fridge to materialize, thinking they fucked up somehow or weren’t worthy or didn’t make the right request. They find a lot of parking spots with it though, just like the rest of us do without ‘the plan.’

     
    Classic bait and switch. And yet that milk pamphlet seemed so palatable and easy, didn’t it. Yes, Ray is preaching, and bullshitting … himself.

  200. t90bb says

    205. Ray…

    Well if you wind up banned from the board…and thats a big if…..you can always use your mental science to override the ban….or not!

    Hope you have better luck with that then you poor cell phone connection!!!!!

    Jus sayin

  201. t90bb says

    207… GumB….

    dude. I really like you. I enjoy your posts and insights. I learn a lot from you guys and I say that sincerely!

  202. says

    Please bear in mind that unlike Alec with his see Jesus test I never prepossessed any test to begin with….it was another poster that proposed it.

    Having said that, If any individual follows the plan exactly as outlined in IT WORKS then they will find that it does, but they must be serious and in earnest. No silly games.

  203. RationalismRules says

    @Ray

    I was not quoting from any particular writing of Darwin in my previous post, I was just pointing out that he was never an atheist as some people believe he was.

    No, you weren’t “just pointing out that he was never an atheist”. You were making a claim that he had ‘admitted’ a particular point which happens to directly accord with your argument. ‘Admitted’ is a reference to someone’s own words, Ray.
    A dishonest attempt to defend a dishonest claim.

    Of course, the claim that evolution does not account for development of intelligence is absurd nonsense – there are no aspects of intelligence as observed in actual material life-forms (as distinct from your imagined magical disembodied intelligence) that are contrary to, or unexplained by, evolutionary theory.
    However, it’s very difficult to actually examine this point with you, because you refuse to clarify what definition of ‘intelligence’ you are referencing at any given point. Clarity is your enemy, isn’t it Ray? Specific statements couched in clearly defined terms are so falsifiable. It’s so much easier to claim “that’s not what I meant” when the whole discussion is kept in woolly statements and undefined terms.
     
    Let’s dig into something else that you yourself have typed:
    In #74 you wrote:

    That which is infinite and eternal must of necessity be changeless also.

    Now, you have previously said:
    “there is only ONE intelligence in the universe, which differentiates Itself into all life forms we experience and penetrates the interspaces of the known universe and infinitely beyond” (#51)
    and:
    “As infinite intelligence individualises Itself within the individual, it is very specific to the individual. (#70)

    So my question is this: when a new baby is conceived, how does the ONE intelligence reconfigure its differentiation so as to individualise itself specifically to that individual, without change?
    Such a reconfiguration is, by definition, change. How then can a ‘changeless’ thing change?

  204. says

    Poor cellphone connection? What’s that about? Are you OK?

    Perhaps you are referring to MagicJack computer phone. Did you think it was a cellphone?

    It’s interesting that you do not yourself answer any question that I ask. This seems to be ubiquitous in the forum.

    May I ask your age please? I am 62 myself.

  205. t90bb says

    213..Ray….

    apologies….YOUR mental sciences were not sufficient to overcome your magic jack issues!

    also…if you feel that you need or want to know my age (which is a bit weird)….use “the plan” to have it revealed to you!

  206. says

    Yes, he admitted that God must exist. What he was uncertain of until his deathbed was the Nature of God. This is why he identified as a deist and agnostic.
    If one of the finest brains my country has every produced admitted that God must exist why cannot you do likewise?

    It’s not a rhetorical question by the way, but I’m sure you will treat it as such

    No change takes place in Infinite Mind when a baby is born. Each person, you included, is an eternal spiritual idea, forever perfect to infinite intelligence. It is our privilege as human beings to come into realisation of our innate perfection. How many life experiences this takes depends on the individual. You are a great deal more than what is between your hat and shoes!

  207. says

    t90bb
    It isn’t weird at all. Some of the comments you have posted would lead me to believe you are a teenager. Either that or you are just here to try and wind-up theist visitors to this forum.
    If the latter is your intention then I suggest you stop wasting your time as I am immune to such behavior and have been for many years.

    In either case, GROW UP MAN!

  208. GumB. says

    Ray, you haven’t addressed much of anything in the posts I’ve typed to you either, except to dismiss them as not relevant, so I think you need to stop with this silly little ruse of yours of saying to people that we won’t address your discussions. This is more projection from you, because unlike all previous weeks that I’ve been around on this blog, pretty much this whole current entry has been dominated by discussions regarding your topic, and yours alone. What are you, a bloody narcissist? Quit with the lying as if we aren’t discussing your subject here … pretty much exclusively.

     
    Now, I can see that you claim things that are the opposite of reality … just bald face claim them regardless of what’s actually really happening. That’s why I now think you’re just a narcissist, so maybe you do need to fuck off, because your just being a shifty asshole whenever you get cornered. Practically the whole fucking blog has been about you this week. You can’t be that blind to not see that we’re exclusively discussing YOU’RE stupid subject here. And you complain? (I actually thing it’s just a ruse when someone flattens your bullshit, actually, it’s your tell.)

     
    Use the button on the website John pointed you to, and call the show this week Ray. It’s a phone over computer button on their site, that calls using your computer … so you have no excuse now to weasel out of it with a lie this time. Call the show. As far as your idiocy on the blog goes, I think we’ve probably had enough of your shifting goalposts and changing the meanings of terms like RationalismRules was pointing out. Your a fraud Ray, a phony, and that’s plenty obvious now. Call the show, it should be a gooder.

  209. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ray #215 (re Darwin):

    If one of the finest brains my country has every produced admitted that God must exist why cannot you do likewise?

    Shall we call you RayFromUK then?

  210. RationalismRules says

    @Ray
    I am assuming #215 is addressed to me?

    If one of the finest brains my country has every produced admitted that God must exist why cannot you do likewise?

    This is an appeal-to-authority fallacy. The fact that an authority figure believes a claim does not make the claim true, even if it is within their area of expertise (which this is not). I do not believe that any god exists because I have never been given any good reason to accept that claim. It’s the exact same reason I don’t accept that fairies exist, despite the fact that Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle believed in them.
     

    It’s not a rhetorical question by the way, but I’m sure you will treat it as such

    Why would you say this? Which questions have you addressed to me that I have failed to respond to?
    Would you like me to list the many questions that you have failed to respond to, in direct contradiction to your statement in #70:
    “I am happy to answer each and every question put to me.” That was some bullshit, wasn’t it?
     

    No change takes place in Infinite Mind when a baby is born. Each person, you included, is an eternal spiritual idea, forever perfect to infinite intelligence. It is our privilege as human beings to come into realisation of our innate perfection.

    What a bunch of word salad! Like I said, you’re all about the woolly statements and undefined terms. And assertions – there can never be enough assertions, apparently.

    Anyhow, I must not let this vomit of incoherence distract me from the point. Even if ‘each person is an eternal spiritual idea’ (whatever that means), prior to conception no physical entity exists for that ‘eternal spiritual idea’ to be connected to. Without a physical entity, no link to that physical entity can exist, and even making a new link is a change in configuration. How does your changeless ONE-intelligence manage this constant change without ever changing?

  211. RationalismRules says

    @SkyCaptain
    I doubt Ray will understand the reference. I do though, and it made me chuckle.

  212. says

    @RationalismRules

    If I have missed any actual questions relating to what I myself have said then kindly repost them.

    Changes of any kind in this material plane are related to space and time. Infinite intelligence is omnipresent in its entirety and subsists in the absolute which is a word used in process philosophy and metaphysics to denote the ultimate reality, which is not conditioned by time and space. It is the realm of causation, the material plane is the realm of effect.

    When you think about a certain thing with the intention of bringing it into being, such as designers do, you are doing so in the realm of Mind, which is causation. An entire city can be designed in mind to completion before a single brick is laid. The designer does not necessarily have to be present at any stage of the actual building of the city once he or she has designed it. Regardless of what changes and errors may occur during the building process, the design remains intact and changeless.

    ab·so·lute
    ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/
    noun

    Philosophy
    a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

    that which exists without being dependent on anything else.
    ultimate reality; God.

    The reason it is not conditioned by space and time is because it is present everywhere simultaneously.
    If you are interested in learning more regarding process philosophy read Alfred North Whitehead.

  213. says

    RationalismRules

    If you read the posts I have made concerning prayer and follow the instruction regarding how to pray scientifically and effectively you will have the proof you need to believe in God. It isn’t really hard to do, but because religions of this world, Christianity in particular, virtually ignore what their founder said in their “holy book” regarding how to pray effectively, relatively few are able to do so. Instead most just repeat set prayers like The Lord’s Prayer parrot fashion without even once thinking what the words they are saying actually mean. This is a pity because it certainly gives people like yourself no reason to learn how to pray at all.

    I think a lot has to do with the fact that the early Church wanted people to rely on them for their salvation and not on prayer at all. They then invented all types of horrendous punishments that would be awaiting those who did not in the “afterlife”. This is the reason that the protestant movement was formed by Luther and others, in order to break away from such domination by the Church. Many of the dogmas followed into protest-ism though, nevertheless.

  214. says

    CompulsoryAccount7746

    You can if you wish. It really doesn’t matter to me in the least what you call me. If you read some of the posts above from others you will see that I have been called all kinds of “swear” words and terms already. I’m not phased by it though and other theists who are reading this will just be given the impression that atheists are just a bunch of foul-mouthed morons if it continues, so any atheists who would like to swear some more at me or use foul language, swear on brothers and sisters!

  215. says

    @ John

    No, I was not aware that it was possible to call the show from your website. I will look into that possibility for sure. Is it possible to call Talk Heathen that way also, via a website?

  216. says

    @RationalismRules

    I wonder if you are aware that atheists throughout the world use Darwin’s evolutionary theory to support their atheism or belief that there is no God?

  217. RationalismRules says

    @Ray

    If I have missed any actual questions relating to what I myself have said then kindly repost them.

    Why this limitation “what I myself have said”? Why shouldn’t people ask you, for example, questions about the source material you direct us to, like your pamphlet? It’s reasonable to ignore questions that are completely unrelated to the subject under discussion, or questions that misrepresent your arguments, or duplicate, rhetorical, or incoherent questions, but what is the justification for this “what I myself have said” limitation?
     
    On to my question from the last post…

    Changes of any kind in this material plane are related to space and time. Infinite intelligence is omnipresent in its entirety and subsists in the absolute which is a word used in process philosophy and metaphysics to denote the ultimate reality, which is not conditioned by time and space. It is the realm of causation, the material plane is the realm of effect.

    None of this addresses the issue I presented. It doesn’t matter what you assert about the absoluteness or omnipresence of your infinite intelligence. ‘Realms’ are also irrelevant. Neither of these overcomes the problem that you are linking the ‘differentiated intelligence’ to a material body. The combination of the two is what makes ‘the individual’. And there cannot exist a link between something that has no existence (the material body before it is conceived) and something else, regardless of which ‘realm’ the something else resides in, and regardless of how ‘omnipresent’ or absolute it is. Until the material body comes into existence, there is no link. When the link is created, change has occurred.

    If there was no posited link between the ONE-intelligence and material life-forms you wouldn’t have this problem, but as long as your ideology links your ‘infinite and eternal intelligence’ to material individuals whose existence is temporal, you’ve screwed yourself, and just claiming special characteristics for your ‘infinite intelligence’ does not get you past the problem, I’m afraid.
    The only way you could possibly get out of this is by claiming there is no link between our intelligence and our physical manifestation. Good luck trying that one.
     

    When you think about a certain thing with the intention of bringing it into being, such as designers do, you are doing so in the realm of Mind, which is causation. An entire city can be designed in mind to completion before a single brick is laid. The designer does not necessarily have to be present at any stage of the actual building of the city once he or she has designed it. Regardless of what changes and errors may occur during the building process, the design remains intact and changeless.

    Somebody previously mentioned Deepak Chopra. I have to say that the way you talk of ’cause and effect’ reminds me of nothing more strongly than the way Chopra refers to ‘quantum’. You use the words, but you use them in ways that bear no relationship to what the words actually mean in our shared language.
    Cause and effect are concepts; they do not have actual independent existence. They are a way to look at the relationship between events. They are interdependent – neither makes sense without the other – and they exist only in relation to an event occurring, which makes them inherently temporal concepts.
    To speak of a non-temporal ‘plane of the Mind’ as the “realm of causation”, and “the material plane” as the “realm of effect” is just incoherent babble.
    If the ‘plane of the Mind’ is the ‘realm of causation’, then how can a rock without a mind rolling down a hill cause an avalanche? Such nonsense.

    Regarding your city example, the analogy simply doesn’t work. The relationship between a historical plan (which is the only type that remains ‘changeless’) and the city that resulted is not analogous to the relationship between the intelligence and the individual. There is no active link between a past design and the city – the design can exist without the city, and the city can exist without the design. The buildings, streets etc. comprise the city, whether or not they bear any relationship to the historical design. The only type of design that is actively linked to the city is the one that changes as the city changes – it is certainly not ‘changeless’.
    The individual RationalismRules comprises both a material body and an intelligence. Either of those things can change, and the individual will continue, but if either of those things are removed, the individual RationalismRules ceases to exist. Both the intelligence and the material body are active components of this individual. There is an active link that came into existence when the material body came into existence. Change.

  218. RationalismRules says

    @Ray #222
    I don’t know why you’ve addressed this to me. I doesn’t relate to anything we’ve discussed to this point, so it is in effect simply preaching at me.
    I don’t want you to preach at me Ray. I am happy to converse with you on the ideas you have presented, and there is more than enough in all the bumf you’ve spouted so far to keep us busy for the forseeable future, but I am not interested in being preached at.
    PLEASE DO NOT PREACH AT ME AGAIN. Is that sufficiently clear?

    Nor do I have any interest in your personal opinions on other religions. I’m so underwhelmed by anything you’ve offered in support of your own beliefs that I can’t see why you would have any valuable insight into anyone else’s.
     
    Since you pushed your prayer bullshit at me, I will respond.

    Even if I followed your instructions for ‘praying scientifically and effectively’ to the letter, and even if I got results every time I prayed (which your method absolutely does not yield), there would still be no reason to attribute the results to an imagined god unless I was able to:
    a: eliminate all other possibilities
    b: demonstrate that such a god actually exists
    c: demonstrate a direct link between the results and the god
     
    a: eliminate all other possibilities
    – How did you determine that any results you have achieved are not simply the result of positive thinking on your part?
    – How did you determine that your prayers are going to your god, and that they are not being overheard by a malicious but powerful fairy who lives behind your left shoulder and who is giving you results because it takes pleasure in seeing you believe in nonsensical things?
    – How did you eliminate the possibility that your prayers are being heard by a vastly technologically-superior alien race, which regards the human race with amused benevolence for our incompetence and ineptitude, and chooses to give occasional rewards to people who think positively?
    – Even if you have managed to eliminate every possible option that you can think of, that still leaves all the possibilities that you didn’t think of.

    b: If you can’t actually demonstrate the god directly, all these things that you are choosing to attribute to this ‘god’ idea do not add one scintilla of proof of its existence, because of the last point in a: above

    c: Even if you could demonstrate the god directly, unless you can also demonstrate a direct link between the results and the god, you’re still on the last point in a: above.

    (BTW: Feelz are not evidence)
     
    #225

    I wonder if you are aware that atheists throughout the world use Darwin’s evolutionary theory to support their atheism or belief that there is no God?

    Yes of course I am. Evolution destroys one of the arguments advanced in support of an imagined god ie. that the diversity of life must be the result of magic. In that sense, it ‘supports atheism’ although that’s a very odd way to phrase it. What is the point of this question?

  219. says

    @RationalismRules

    If anyone has any questions regarding what Mt Jarrett has written in his pamphlet IT WORKS I will be more than happy to answer them. The reason for this is that it is only 5 pages so I can be fairly certain that you have read it all the way through.

    The other books I have posted links to are longer. Therefore if you have any questions regarding what you have read after reading any of the other books then please note them and ask me them once you have actually read the book in question. I’m not going anywhere and if I am banned from posting for some peculiar reason then you can ask your questions by contacting me at my website soulyears.com

    The Edinburgh Lectures is perhaps one of the most profound books ever written and it took me several readings of it before I fully understood what Judge Troward was actually saying and meaning and the implications of what he was saying.

    This is why I also posted a link to Genevieve Behrend’s “Your Invisible Power” as she was Troward’s one and only student and her book is much easier to understand as she has presented the principles of his teachings in a simplified form.

    Regarding your other interesting question, before I can do it just can I know whether you believe matter to be a temporal substance as most scientists do, or do you believe it to be an eternal substance?

  220. indianajones says

    I think the answer to your last question there, Ray, might be ‘no’. I believe matter is neither temporal nor eternal. Have you considered that possibility?

  221. GumB. says

    If anyone has any questions regarding what Mt Jarrett has written in his pamphlet IT WORKS I will be more than happy to answer them.

     
    Yes Ray, I have the most obvious question there is about it … why doesn’t it actually work?

  222. paxoll says

    I wish yall would stop baiting the troll. As RR has noted, all Ray has done is preach and make strawman arguments. He/she has provided no honest discussion. While typical of many theists with strong belief it really accomplishes nothing except your own amusement to engage.

  223. GumB. says

    @paxoll

     
    I thought that’s what this site is though? Practice at debating and exposing fallacious beliefs and their attendant arguments; an exercise in critical thinking. Debating with the people the show explicitly invites here seems more on point than inviting them here to debate their beliefs, possibly even after calling the show, and then being offended that they did so. Think about it, and recognize your contradiction please paxoll. It would be like being annoyed that TAE takes callers from theists for the purpose of debunking their arguments and asking them them to eject all those callers for being trolls. This week, the troll made an otherwise generally slow moving blog move a little. Every caller to the show is a Ray, and that’s the whole point, so I really don’t understand why you’re asking this.

     
    Do we need a clarification from TAE on this? Is this not exactly what this site is about: engaging these people and their fallacious arguments and shifty social tactics for the purpose of exposing them for what they are, as a learning experience for the people who participate here or lurk here? How could people have the unreasonable expectation that they’re ever going to hear anything but silly fallacious arguments in the defense of any sort of magical thinking? Engaging and debating trolls, is sort of the whole format of the show … or did I miss something?

  224. t90bb says

    231….Pax…

    I dont think GumB or RR or I take Ray seriously at this point. I think we are all having a bit of fun. I have been fairly respectful of Ray and have defended his sincerity, initially, The key to showing Ray as a fraud (if not a mental case) was simple. Keep him talking. The more you pull from him the more he reveals himself. He probably does not even realize he is the current board clown and with each exchange still more of his absurdity is exposed. I think GumB nailed it when he identified Ray as a narcissist. And I think he sounds very, very lonely. And I think I understand why.

    I had a friend very much like Ray. So much so I have wondered if Ray could be that guy. Much the same script. Constantly claimed that he had become “enlightened”. Tried hard to impress everyone with his knowledge as justification for his spiritual enlightenment. People grew tired (theists and atheists alike) of the self grandiose proclamations and bald assertions. I was honestly one of his few friends. He was a martyr for his ideology. In one of our last conversations in response to challenge for some demonstration of his claims, he responded by telling me that he “forgives me for my ignorance”. He is pretty much a loner at this point.

    However, give this guy a platform and a new audience and he becomes almost manic. “They” love an audience, but burn through them quickly..

    Ray is having his manic moment. He found a bunch of people that will listen….for a while. But make no mistake the tide has turned from honest engagement, It is clear that Ray is a loon.

    I am betting he wont call the show (or Heathen)….but if he does he will be sure to avoid Matt or Tracie at all costs.

    What I loved about this exchange with Ray was how my brother and sister skeptics picked apart many of the claims by Ray so thoroughly and effectively. RR and GumB (and a few others..you know who you are!) are freakin amazing. As always its not about winning or losing…its about drilling down on what can be demonstrated and what we have reason to believe. And we engage in that process together….in a peer review like process. Ray probably thinks we engage only on group think here. He should know we have had EPIC disagreements among ourselves on many topics.

    Once a guy like Ray has bought in AND vocalized his beliefs, it nearly impossible to internally challenge them and admit there are legit challenges to his case. His belief system becomes very much a part of his identity.

    Ray has come here to “help” not harm to poor, poor skeptic!!! WE are so vulnerable, AND those earthquakes that will expose “supposed” alien visits verified by carbon dating are right around the corner!!! Right???

    I love you guys!

  225. John Iacoletti says

    Yes, you can use the same “call the show” button for Talk Heathen or any of our call-in shows.

  226. John Iacoletti says

    @GumB. wrote in #207:
    “By saying that only the great power of the universe gets to decide what’s a worthy request for our personal growth or not at any given moment, you effectively have an all inclusive out that makes success in this endeavor indistinguishable from randomness. If your request gets denied, it can be presumed that it just wasn’t ‘a good lesson for you’ to have that particular request granted at that time.”

    Bingo.

    Ray is promoting the idea that if you really focus on a desired outcome, you’ll figure out a way to make it happen. No infinite universal intelligence necessary or required.

  227. bluestar says

    If only Hillahag Clinton had visualized herself standing triumphantly on her stage as her sugar glass ceiling shattered and pieces fell to the floor. If only she saw the waving arms of the crowd, and heard the cheering throng of voices. If she only accepted that as true and felt with the same emotion sweet victory. It’s a shame Ray was not available to coach her. Such tragedy.

  228. paxoll says

    @GumB
    I simply stated my opinion. I don’t think Ray is a typical caller and I do not think if he called the show we would see much of any conversation going on. If he preached at Matt or Tracie without having a conversation I believe they would hang up quite quickly. Why I don’t think this is very useful in this medium is that Ray is able to simply prattle on regardless of what arguments people present. At least on the show with a caller the host is able to force an issue to be addressed or boot the caller. This medium doesn’t even have the audience of the show where pointing out the absurdities may get others to understand the argument better. I see the blog as a way to have sincere in depth discussions to help both the people having it as well as the primarily atheist readers of the blog. BUT thats just my opinion, if you wanna have fun poking the troll fanatic than fine, but I quit reading the walls of text half a blog ago.

  229. GumB. says

    @paxoll

     
    I recommend you install the browser add on that allows you to block and hide user comments from view. Then, instead of foisting your issues onto me, you can quietly deal with them yourself over on your end by blocking my comments from your view. I have it installed, and it’s safe, reliable, and works great for blocking commenters on blogs.

     

    Once the extension is installed, if you visit the comment page on a blog where it works you’ll see a logo in the browser bar telling you that killfile is active and a hovering your mouse over a comment will cause two links, [hush] and [hide comment] to appear near the name of the commenter. Clicking [hush] will hide that person’s comments from until you click the [unhush] next to their name. (As with the [hush] link, the [unhush] link is hidden until you hover over the notification that the comment is hidden)

     
    https://github.com/fizbin/killfile-extension

  230. says

    Dear Ray

    You might check out the Arabic philosopher Averroes, 1126 – 1198.
    To quote Wikipedia:
    “His thoughts generated controversies in Latin Christendom and triggered a philosophical movement called Averroism based on his writings. His unity of the intellect thesis, proposing that all humans share the same intellect, became one of the most well-known and controversial Averroist doctrines in the West. His works were condemned by the Catholic Church in 1270 and 1277.
    Looks like a tenet of Mental Science has been around for a while.

  231. paxoll says

    @GumB
    Feel free to use it since you already have it installed, you are the one having a big issue with my opinion on the conversation. Since you seem to be so hostile to my opinion and reasons for it, I doubt missing any further commentary by me is going to give you any concern.

  232. GumB. says

    @242

     
    You gave an opinion, I gave my opinion back. Now, you’re clearly over reacting, lol. Quit being a religious person and take responsibility for your own issues please. I just offered you a solution that doesn’t make your problem mine, like religious people are always trying to do. Seriously, read your comment again, it wasn’t even rational you twit. How ironic. Hahahahahaha!

  233. Smiles7800 says

    A better analogy on the abortion call would have been a real one, one that a woman I knew I knew dealt with. Doctors asked her and other lactating mothers if they would donate breast milk to a baby born prematurely because the actual mother did not want to breastfeed. The doctors begged the mother to breastfeed, knowing that for preemies, doctors don’t often have a formula that will be sufficient, and this could mean the difference between life and death. A preemie baby often does have a much better chance of surviving, sometimes it’s only chance, by receiving the actual mother’s breastmilk, because the mother’s milk is specifically composed of the qualities that that baby would need at that particular point in their development. This baby did end up dying. The law cannot require a mother to breastfeed, even when it means saving the baby’s life. As horrible as I think it may be, and as much as I may not understand her decision, I would not support forcing her to do this, or to be prosecuted for this. I hope Tracey will rethink requiring by law that a woman be forced to use her body against her consent to sustain life, just because the baby has been born. Again, I am extremely pro-breastfeeding and would definitely encourage this part of mothering when at all possible. It’s an incredibly beautiful way to make sure your child is getting the very best, and of bonding with them. But I still believe it should be the informed choice of each woman, and that we should understand there may be many reasons a woman chooses not to or simply cannot.

  234. says

    Hi John,

    I just woke up with a great idea, why don’t we make this test much much bigger and open to all. I have a Soul/R&B website which attracts 1000s of thousands of people and I also have a bunch of biography websites of famous and not so famous writers. I am a web designer among other things and I’m sure that Russell and I could between us could put up a very nice website for this demonstration. I suggest we call it doesprayereallywork.org This way the participants can share their experiences and results on a forum similar to this one for all to see.

    If you think about this idea for a minute, it could be very revealing as to how different types of mindsets produce different results. For example, I think we know what results the God-haters group would bring, but what about the agnostics, or deists, or non-religious “spiritual” groups”?

    Are you AA guys up for this?

    If so we will make it happen.

    We will make the pamphlet freely downloadable to hundreds of 1000s of people all over the world and take it from there.

  235. says

    @indianajones

    Could you explain what you mean please? If you are meaning that the matter we see is temporal but the atomic power therein could be eternal then I understand.

  236. says

    @GumB

    What I suggest as a treatment for you is for you to put a yellow GumBall in your left nostril and a pink one in your right nostril and to then go to the nearest shopping mall a entertain the shopper with a dance or some juggling perhaps. They may even find you amusing. I’m fairly sure readers of this blog who have more than a couple of brain cells on duty won’t!

  237. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    Just for that, I’ve put the manifestation of a refusal to your suggestion that the TAE promotes your pedestrian BS at the top of a visualization list am going to try and manifest that outcome. Let’s see who’s chi is stronger, mine or yours. I already know I won though, and that’s exactly how you’re supposed to visualize it, right? As already having been achieved?

     
    Hocus pocus, Ray’s lost focus! Shazam!

     
    But, it actually isn’t funny Ray, double blind tests following people dedicated to this idea have already proven that it makes people even less likely to achieve their goals, for obvious reasons. That’s the actual outcome.

  238. says

    @GumB.

    Really, so praying in exactly the fashion that Jesus prescribed makes people worse off you are claiming. Ok, so let’s see the datasheets and results of this “tests” and how they were conducted.

    In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

    Either that, or as it says in the song “Shut upa ya face”.

  239. GumB. says

    @Ray:

     
    This article briefly describes five different studies that were conducted.

     
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-blame-game/201205/throw-away-your-vision-board-0

     
    I will also offer you as evidence Ray: your website has a (professionally determined) valuation of only $2,200. That’s not even enough to cover your time for building it. So, I think you’re your own evidence that this doesn’t work Ray. And yes, Jesus beliefs running rampant through society hurt even the people who don’t buy into the farce, which is why I speak out against the tragedy of religious escapism.

     
    Anyway, back to visualizing you not getting TAE to join you in building a special website to promote your pamphlet. Your chi, against mine. Bring it dude. /s

     
    Oh, and I’m chuckling at you losing your cool too. Ha, funny. Did you visualize become a comedian as well? Because that didn’t work then either, lol.

  240. Monocle Smile says

    @Troll
    You ask that after you pretend that the same demands haven’t been asked of you repeatedly?
    Fuck off. Seriously.

  241. StonedRanger says

    You guys are cracking me up. Hey ray, didn’t you say that the pamphlet is already free for download somewhere? Why would TAE need to promote it?

  242. RationalismRules says

    @Ray

    Regarding your other interesting question, before I can do it just can I know whether you believe matter to be a temporal substance as most scientists do, or do you believe it to be an eternal substance?

    You shouldn’t need to know what my beliefs are in order to make your arguments. Your arguments relate to your beliefs, not mine.

    What I will say is that I don’t see how anything could be claimed to be ‘eternal’ when we have no way to confirm that ‘infinite time’ is anything more than a concept, like ‘the beginning of time’. These are conceptual notions, there is no way to establish whether they actually exist in reality. The fact that we cannot measure something does not necessarily mean it is limitless, it may simply mean that we do not have the capacity to measure it. (The definition you provided in #77 does not alter this.)

    Also, the question seems poorly formed to me. To me, temporal means ‘relating to time’ and ‘eternal’ means ‘for all time’, which is still a time-based concept, so it seems to me that something eternal (if that were even possible) would still be temporal.

  243. t90bb says

    Ray…..your request for TAE to partner with you on a prayer study is hilarious and self refuting.

    YOU have a “plan” that works 100 perc of the time when done correctly?? right??

    YOU know how to do it correctly, right???

    YOU desire that ALL know of this plan, right?

    Well then….why the fuck would you need or want TAE to ultimately prove what you claim to already know???

    USE YOUR PLAN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, TO HAVE THE PLAN KNOWN BY ALL!!!

    JUST DONT TELL ANYONE WHEN YOU INVOKE THE PLAN. Re-read your desire three times a day. Focus on it as much as possible!! It is infallible!! and you do not need ANYONE else to screw it up or make it happen.

    THANK ME VERY MUCH. YOU need no one to help or assist you in getting your mental science plan known by all…….JUST USE IT YOURSELF! YOU HAVE THE POWER, RAY!

  244. t90bb says

    RAY obviously wants his plan to be exposed to EVERYONE!

    So why cant he use his plan……………to have everyone on earth receive the outline of the “plan”.

    REMEMBER RAY….you dont need to focus or consider HOW this gets done…..just focusing on your desire enough. Trust the Unlimited One!!!

  245. t90bb says

    Remember when I said earlier the more Ray posts the more he unravels???

    He posted in 244…..

    If you think about this idea for a minute, it could be very revealing as to how different types of mindsets produce different results. For example, I think we know what results the God-haters group would bring, but what about the agnostics, or deists, or non-religious “spiritual” groups”?

    WELL WELL WELL, Ray….more backpeddling!!! You initially told us this plan is 100 percent effective (seemingly regardless of beliefs)?? You encouraged and ensured us atheist/agnostics that it would work perfectly for us if we only followed it. Now you seem to be saying it wont work or wont work as well for some groups???

    You are all over the place Ray. You have become pure comedic joy to me! I am rubbing my crystals hoping that you get through to the TAE not only tomorrow…..but every week for the rest of the year! If you are willing to become a regular caller I might even check out your website one day!

  246. says

    @GumB

    I just read the experiments you mention. Please read ITWORKS again and you will see very clearly that the author is asking you to pray to The God in You, or Your Omnipotent Power if you have issues with the word God, as obviously most if not all in this forum do.

    In the experiments there are other people telling the subjects exactly what to visualize in order to attempt to magnetise the forces of Nature. This is not prayer. If you were successful in magnetising material things to you in this way what would you be? You would be a wizard or a witch.

    This is precisely why books such as “The Secret” must be avoided like the plague. There are a great many such “New Age” books around similar to that. Many of them, such as “A Course in Miracles” involve revelations by spirits or spirit guides, according to the writers. These can all be traced back to the same source, i.e. the writings of Helena Petrova Blavatsky, writer of “The Secret Doctrine” and “Isis Unveiled”.

    As far as I am aware “The Secret” by Rhonda Burn did not involve spirits at all but was a compilation of principles from Mental science and New Thought writings such as those of Troward, Robert Collier and Wallace D. Wattles. Rhonda Byrne, for whatever reason , omitted God or God power entirely. Perhaps she was an atheist – I don’t know.

  247. says

    @t90bb

    I did not enter this forum to suggest a test or experiment in the first place. It was someone in the forum who suggested it to me. I therefore provided a link to ITWORKS in response. If you or anyone else follows the writer of this pamphlet’s instruction completely, exactly as the author has prescribed they will find it works. It needs to be the person themselves that decided what they will pray for and not someone else. How can anyone possibly have a heart-felt desire for something that someone else suggests they pray for as an experiment in a group, all praying for the same? I’m sure the ex-Christians in your group will understand the ridiculousness of such a proposition even if you yourself don’t.

    The experiment can still be done, but each person partaking must decide what they wish to pray for in accordance with their own heartfelt desires or needs.

    In other words, carry out the experiment exactly as the writer has prescribed.

  248. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Ray #257:

    How can anyone possibly have a heart-felt desire for [healing someone when informed of their need] in a group, all praying for the same?
    […]
    the ridiculousness of such a proposition

  249. GumB. says

    @Ray

     
    So, in other words … no TRUE scotsman gets this very same information from any book other than your pamphlet. You’ve already made this specious claim Ray.

     

    As far as I am aware …

     
    Ya, see, that’s the problem Ray. You aren’t self aware whatsoever. What you have, is a social sickness, one that’s killing all life on earth too. If long posts weren’t frowned upon here, I’d explain how that all works and what anthropology can demonstrate regarding the one cultural offshoot of homo sapiens who started developing these salvation religions all around the same time about ten thousand years ago and foolishly divorced themselves from any association with the natural world that supported their existence. They started to imagine themselves a special creature made in the image of a god and on some special journey. Delusional escapism … from the cramped, diseased, polluted, reality it was creating for itself everywhere it spread to, displacing, killing or assimilating all other cultures wherever it went as it pissed and shit and fouled where it ate. It developed a psychology of escapism to take it’s mind off of the conditions it created for itself everywhere it went. Anthropology can see these religions emerge, all at the same time, right when the conditions got bad enough that their hominid minds needed a mental escape from reality from the awful conditions that were emerging, conditions that followed this culture everywhere it spread due to it’s quirky cultural behavior. And this culture, spread everywhere. Anthropology can clearly see this.

     
    That’s your legacy Ray. That’s the truth of it. And you know, the verbal stories that got collected together eventually that had been passed from generation to generation that you now call your bible, isn’t your own story written by you about you even; it’s the stories that were told about you by the people you were exterminating as your culture emerged out of the fertile crescent ten thousand years ago … the Cain, who went mad and started killing his brother in order to take other people’s land because he was living without constraints and using up all his resources everywhere he spread to. Read the bible from that perspective, and it all suddenly starts to make a whole lot more sense. It’s not even your story Ray, it’s a story about you, written by the people your culture was exterminating. So, you’re one sick puppy Ray. I hope your proud of continuing this foul, disastrous legacy.

     
    But I won’t elaborate. Paxoll will whine that my post length made them uncomfortable. You’re a loser Ray. You don’t even know what you don’t know.

     

    In 1514 ships landed on the shore of South America and their commander had a document read out from the beach.

     
    I assure you that with the help of God I will make war on you in every place and in every way that I can. And I will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the church and their highnesses. And I will take your persons and your women and your children and I will make them slaves. I will take your goods and I will do you all the evils and harms which I can.

     
    You, promote this mindset Ray, which is why I oppose you. You’re evil. 250,000 years of success as homo sapiens as a species, collapsed in ten thousand short years by a psychopathic aberration of one group of that species evolving mind. Proud of that are you Ray? Somehow I imagine you probably are.

     
    I’m done responding to you Ray. You’re too dumb to talk to.

  250. indianajones says

    @Ray, IDK dude, ‘temporal’ and Eternal’ are terms you set up as potential properties of matter. I am gonna go with ‘neither’, perhaps just for funsies. Have you considered that possibility?

  251. says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says
    How can anyone possibly have a heart-felt desire for [healing someone when informed of their need] in a group, all praying for the same?

    I was referring to John’s suggested test concerning amounts of money, not healing.

    Mental healing of physical ailments is not an area I have any experience at all in personally. I have spoken with Christian Scientists who use this method of healing though. I can see no reason whatsoever why it would not be possible.

    According to Phineas Parkhust Quimby, who was the first practitioner of this type of healing I know about, “The explanation is the Cure”. What he used to do is interview his patients and ask about their religious beliefs in particular. In a great many cases he said that it was the religious beliefs that were responsible largely for their ailments. Fear that they were a sinner and God was going to punish or burn them eternally. This is the most appalling and disgusting doctrine there has ever been, and it is this type of nonsense that has given God a bad name. Certainly Christians and Muslims alike have a great deal to answer for in this respect for promoting such ideas in the first place.

    According to Quimby, once he explained to the patient that it was the religious belief that was the cause and persuaded them to drop it, the physical ailments disappered.

  252. says

    @RelationshipRules

    The problem with posting on this blog is there are no threads so if lots of people are posting it is difficult to find the previous posts in order to refresh the mind as to what they are asking. I’m sure you understand.

    “Yes of course I am. Evolution destroys one of the arguments advanced in support of an imagined god ie. that the diversity of life must be the result of magic. In that sense, it ‘supports atheism’ although that’s a very odd way to phrase it. What is the point of this question?”

    Where you aware that Charles Darwin was a Theist? The reason I ask is because it seems that just about everybody assumed he was an atheist, me included, until I studied about him. It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way, don’t you think?

  253. ncburnett says

    ” It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way, don’t you think?”. That’s a strange way to think considering a scientific theory doesn’t have a label “theist”or “non theist”.

  254. says

    ” It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way, don’t you think?”

    Sorry. late to the discussion, but had to respond to this one.

    In my view, the theory of evolution just is. It has no bearing on whether or not there is a god. I personally don’t use the theory of evolution in any way. If the theory of evolution didn’t exist I still wouldn’t believe Jesus is more real than any other god man described in myths and legends, like Hercules for example.

    I’ve skimmed through the thread and can’t really get a handle on your thinking Ray. A collective consciousness? Is that it? Nice idea. How can people tap into it? A step by step checklist of things to do that each person gets the same results every time is what I’m looking for. One where the universe decides what you get.. (e.g results vary) ..well that doesn’t cut it for me.

    Oh and by the way.. frankly I never care what some other “person who was much smarter than you are” person believes. That’s his business. What I care about is like, you know, evidence.

  255. RationalismRules says

    @Ray #262

    Where [sic] you aware that Charles Darwin was a Theist? The reason I ask is because it seems that just about everybody assumed he was an atheist, me included, until I studied about him. It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way, don’t you think?

    No I don’t find it ironic, I find it irrelevant.

    Atheists don’t believe in god(s) because we don’t find any of the god arguments convincing, not simply because one area of science destroys one god argument. That’s why I said your earlier comment on this was oddly phrased.

    Also, where does this “it seems just about everybody assumed he was an atheist” come from? Is this based on anything real, or is it just that because you assumed he was an atheist, everyone else must have too? I’m not at all surprised he was a theist – most people were in his time.

  256. Monocle Smile says

    Is Ray capable of being right about anything? It’s so bizarre how he just makes shit up and then assumes other people share his stupidity.
    I would find this comical, but:

    Mental healing of physical ailments is not an area I have any experience at all in personally. I have spoken with Christian Scientists who use this method of healing though. I can see no reason whatsoever why it would not be possible.

    Children die from easily preventable ailments due to this shit. Fuck you, Ray.

  257. says

    @ Monocle Smile

    Yes they do, which is why I am not a Christian Scientist and never will be. In my view ANY type of healing is OK. If someone identifies themself as a Christian Scientist and is willing to put any life at risk other than there own then they are neither a Christian or a Scientist, If they wish to risk their own life this way then that is their prerogative, but to put other lives at risk because of one’s own religious beliefs is not acceptable and will never be acceptable in any sane society.

  258. says

    @ RationalismRules

    Many Christian who do not believe in evolution assume that this theory is the work of the devil from an athiest.

    I have never been a Christian in the traditional sense. I was a Catholic until around 10 years old and then a non-believer-couldn’t-care-less-er.

    I became a theist in 1990 after reading The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental science and testing in my own experience beyond any reasonable doubt that what Judge Troward was teaching is correct.

  259. says

    @indianajones

    Can your repost your original question please as I have searched up and down this page and cannot find it.

  260. t90bb says

    Ray,,,,,

    I checked out your website. Thats a pretty cool resource if you are into that type of music! The website looksl ike it was designed by a grade schooler…..but It is a nice resource, I poked around and even found a couple catch tunes! Thank you. You are not entirely worthless.!!!!

    In a serious note…I hope you took my earlier advice seriously……You claim you have come to the blog to “help” the vulnerable. You claim that your mental science in not fallible……

    You expressed excitement about getting “the plan” out to thousands. Why go that small? You have unlimited power, correct???

    Use your infallible plan to get the pamphlet out to every human in the world. There is no need to try to figure out how this can/will be done. Just focusing on the desire is enough!!!!

    Read your desire to yourself morning, noon, and night!!! Think about your desire as often as possible!!!! Do not tell anyone when/if you make the plan!!

    ITS as good as done, right!!!??? Just trust in the ULTIMATE ONE!…….

  261. t90bb says

    Since Ray mentioned Jesus….some interesting versus….

    1 John 5:14 ~ This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. (1 John 5:14)

    1 John 5:15 ~ And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 John 5:15)

    1 John 5:16 ~ If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. (1 John 5:16)

    1 Chronicles 16:11 ~ Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always. (1 Chronicles 16:11)

    2 Chronicles 6:21 ~ Hear the supplications of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place; and when you hear, forgive. (2 Chronicles 6:21)

    2 Chronicles 7:14 ~ if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

    Ephesians 1:18 ~ I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, (Ephesians 1:18)

    Ephesians 6:18 ~ And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. (Ephesians 6:18)

    Jeremiah 29:12 ~ Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. (Jeremiah 29:12)

    Job 22:27 ~ You will pray to him, and he will hear you, and you will fulfill your vows. (Job 22:27)

    John 17:15 ~ My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. (John 17:15)

    James 5:13 ~ Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. (James 5:13)

    Mark 11:24 ~ Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24)

    Matthew 5:44 ~ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)

    Matthew 6:7 ~ And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. (Matthew 6:7)

    Matthew 26:41 ~ “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26:41)

    Proverbs 15:8 ~ The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him. (Proverbs 15:8)

    Psalm 17:6 ~ I call on you, my God, for you will answer me; turn your ear to me and hear my prayer. (Psalm 17:6)

    Psalm 102:17 ~ He will respond to the prayer of the destitute; he will not despise their plea. (Psalm 102:17)

    Psalm 141:2 ~ May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice. (Psalm 141:2)

    Romans 12:2 ~ Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

    Romans 12:2 ~ Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will

    Romans 12:12 ~ Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. (Romans 12:12)

    Psalm 4:1 ~ Answer me when I call to you, my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress; have mercy on me and hear my prayer. (Psalm 4:1)

    Psalm 145:18 ~ The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. (Psalm 145:18)

    Luke 11:2-4 ~ 2 He said to them, “When you pray, say: “ ‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread. 4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.’ ” (Luke 11:2-4)

    Proverbs 15:29 ~ The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous. (Proverbs 15:29)

    Matthew 6:9-13 ~ 9 “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’ (Matthew 6:9-13)

    Matthew 7:11 ~ If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:11)

    Luke 6:12 ~ One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)

    Luke 18:1 ~ Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. (Luke 18:1)

    Romans 8:26 ~ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26)

    Philippians 4:6 ~ Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. (Philippians 4:6)

    Colossians 4:2 ~ Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. (Colossians 4:2)

    1 Thessalonians 5:17 ~ pray continually, (1 Thessalonians 5:17)

    1 Timothy 2:8 ~ Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. (1 Timothy 2:8)

    Hebrews 4:14 ~ Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. (Hebrews 4:14)

    James 1:7 ~ That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. (James 1:7)

    James 4:3 ~ When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4:3)

    James 5:16 ~ Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. (James 5:16)

    1 John 1:9 ~ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

  262. says

    @Shaun

    No, I do not believe in a collective consciousness.

    I do not believe It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way either.

    I am curious about something now….why is it that if I type a line of nonsense I get two replies yet for nearly all the other lines of text I have typed this week ending with a question mark I get no response at all.

    Why is that exactly?

  263. says

    @t90bb says

    If you are expecting any response from me to that verbal diarrhea you expressed in typed form in #272 then don’t hold your breath. I am guessing you are grade schooler yourself. Why don’t you find something better to do with your time sonny?

    Leave this blog for the adults because copying and pasting passages from the bible will never make you one.

  264. Monocle Smile says

    Ray expects verbal blowjobs after acting like a giant asshole. More trolling behavior.

  265. Monocle Smile says

    EnlightenmentLiberal asked the same pointed question twice, Ray. You didn’t even acknowledge his existence. Elephant in the room.

  266. t90bb says

    275 Ray……

    use your mental science to make me go away…hahhahahha……

    1. write it down
    2. think about it as much as possible
    3. dont tell anyone!!

    hahhahhahahhahhah

    verbal diarrhea?? lolololol…..oh the irony!!!!!

    your best argument that your magic genie exists seemed to be that Albert Einstein was a theist?? I think thats what you used to try to convince RR???

    How is that magic jack functioning????????

  267. GumB. says

    I didn’t realize there was even a logical fallacy named after Ray’s specific delusion.

     

    The Positive Thinking Fallacy: An immensely popular but deluded modern fallacy of logos, that because we are “thinking positively” that in itself somehow biases external, objective reality in our favor even before we lift a finger to act. See also, Magical Thinking. Note that this particular fallacy is often part of a much wider closed-minded, somewhat cultish ideology where the practitioner is warned against paying attention to to or even acknowledging the reality of evil, or of “negative” evidence or counter-arguments against his/her standpoints. In the latter case rational discussion, argument or refutation is most often futile. See also, Deliberate Ignorance.

     
    In the interest of critical thinking analysis, Ray also uses the argument ad nauseam tactic, where no matter what gets discussed, he just keeps on charging ahead relentlessly until people grow tired of having a discussion with an obviously intellectually dishonest person and walk away. I predict he will at some point use people disengaging from him as a sign of victory that nobody was able to refute him, when in fact, Ray’s foolish idea was refuted within the first few posts after he got here and posted his silly pamphlet.

     
    People giving up on you him, is not a victory; it’s just people giving up on him. I did find it interesting, though, that his delusion is even included in logical fallacy lists (proving this isn’t anything new or even unheard of, even though Ray seems to keep implying that it is. No, it’s actually rather pedestrian, and a widely held fallacy in our society, no doubt due to the scourge of christianity and the fallacious magical thinking it encourages people to pursue.

     
    There is no excuse for Ray not to be calling the show today, since he obviously has an internet connection, and now has the link to the call over IP button. Should make for a funny show. I wonder if his argument ad nauseam style gets him hung up on? Then again, I have a strong suspicion he won’t even call.

  268. says

    Jesus and the Bible

    I do not know whether Jesus existed as a physical being walking on this planet or not and neither does anyone else know. Paul says Jesus was an apparition that appeared to him. Others claim to have witnessed this apparition also according to the Bible. It really makes no difference to me either way, because the teachings of any “holy book” stand or fall on their merits alone, regardless who is claiming they were given by.

    Below is a verse from the last chapter of the Bible.

    Revelation 21:16 ►

    The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long.

    Does this verse stand or fall? If any atheist Bible experts are willing to provide an answer to my question then I will be very interested.

    I will not hold my breath though because I suspect not one will be will to do so.

    It is easy to read the Bible and pick holes in what you think it means. My 7 year old son can do that.

    It is easy to claim you pray all the time even when you have never prayed at all.

    Keep mocking all you like. I expected it before I came here. It is simply a waste of your finger energy as I am unaffected by it.

  269. t90bb says

    283…Ray…..

    Why would i care about a verse from the by bull???

    Its easy for many to pick holes in the by bull…..because its so full of them…..

    As far as the mocking goes. We are all having a bit of fun here. It has been impossible to take you serious since about post 75. We are having some fun and you seem VERY starved for the attention. You probably are a decent dude. You have what amounts to be some sort of fairy tale that has become meaningful for you. You get to keep it no matter what is said here of course. If you do not want it to be critically discussed I have a suggestion. Do not bring it to a debate/study blog and claim it as truth.

    I look forward to hearing from you on TAE as soon as you fix your magic jack!!!.

  270. GumB. says

    Keep mocking all you like. I expected it before I came here.

     
    According to Ray’s own philosophy, he caused the mocking himself then, because he ‘expected it.’ Showing that he doesn’t even practice or apply what he preaches himself, or seem to even understand his own concept. Hilarious … and definitely not very bright or self reflective to not notice this about himself. Can’t wait for his call to the show.

  271. indianajones says

    @228, last sentence you say ‘Regarding your other interesting question, before I can do it just can I know whether you believe matter to be a temporal substance as most scientists do, or do you believe it to be an eternal substance?’

    I reply @229 ‘I think the answer to your last question there, Ray, might be ‘no’. I believe matter is neither temporal nor eternal. Have you considered that possibility?’

    Have you?

  272. RationalismRules says

    @Ray
    #262

    It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way, don’t you think?

    #274

    I do not believe It’s ironic that atheists use theory of a theist in this way either.

    I’ve addressed every question you’ve asked of me Ray. Now it becomes clear that this last question, addressed directly to me (although you couldn’t even do me the basic courtesy of getting my name right) was simply an exercise in time-wasting.

    I have no further interest in conversing with you.

  273. says

    @RationalismRules
    @ The Forum

    There are obviously a lot of teenagers or high-school kids in this forum. If a post aimed at me begins with an insult I assume that it is a teenager or moron and I do not bother to read the rest even. When I make a comment such as I did regarding people here not answering questions that I ask them, it is not aimed at anyone specific, but the forum in general. Because there are so many idiots in this forum who just enjoy swearing at people like most idiots do, it is inevitable that I will miss some that actually wish to hold a conversation with me here. If you are one of these and I have failed to answer then now you know why, and I apologize to those here who are serious if I have missed any question. I am very busy most of the time and do not have the time or inclination to wade through message after message of messages from morons in an attempt to find the serious ones. If anyone here is serious about having a conversation with me then you can always do so via my website. You will be certain to get replies from me then.

    This past week has been my first time posting on a blog at all anywhere. I think it would be useful if there were a moderator on this block who was intelligent enough to distinguish between serious people who wish yo engage in conversation and dialogue with others, This way they could just warn the foul-mouthed kids that frequent this blog to go and swear at people somewhere else.

    I expect people of whatever age to be mature enough to string a few words together without using profanity. I am not interested in talking to them otherwise same as most mature adults in the world wouldn’t be.

  274. says

    @RationalismRules

    I just read one of your messages for the first time, where you mention aliens, etc.

    What happened in my case is that i was very skeptical of religion since age 10. At age 35 when I had some time available to study such things i happened across a very old book at a flea market in Florida entitled The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science. It had a plain red cover so I had no idea at that point what exactly it would be about, but the title sounded intriguing so I picked it up and began to read it at the flea market stall. When I started to read terms like “dead matter” and “living spirit” I obviously had no clue what he was talking about. As it was only $1 anyway I decided to buy it and eventually got around to reading it one day. At first I had difficulty doing so because the paragraphs were sometimes the entire page long. Anyway, I did eventually work my way through it and understand it partially, enough anyway to realise that if what the author is implying is actually true then it is completely unbelievable, so I decided to read it again. By the third reading I believe I understood exactly what he was implying so I decided to put it to the test.

    The first time i received a demonstration that what he was saying is true I thought it must just be a coincidence. As time went by I continued to experience synchronicity after synchronicity after which I no longer had a shadow of a doubt that what he was saying is really true. I continue to do so.

    Regarding your alien question. What difference would that make? The entire concept was alien to me at the beginning!

    If ancient aliens control this planet then I would also need to consider that David Icke’s assertion that the moon is a hollowed out planetoid containing reptilians may be true also. Quite honestly I have no time for such speculations.

    If you go to youtube and watch the videos of Phil Schneider you may become convinced that there are grey aliens living in underground military bases all over the world right now. What difference does it make to me personally and my life if there are? An individual could speculate about such things all the time if they wished. Personally speaking I have better things to do with my time.

  275. Monocle Smile says

    I’m pretty sure that lame attempts to redirect traffic to one’s own website is even more solid grounds for banning than trolling.

    I expect people of whatever age to be mature enough to string a few words together without using profanity. I am not interested in talking to them otherwise same as most mature adults in the world wouldn’t be.

    This delicate flower was clearly born yesterday.
    Basically everyone here has made multiple attempts to engage you seriously, but all you’ve done is act like a clown. That last embarrassing post is pure projection.

  276. says

    @Monocle Smile

    I’m pretty sure that lame attempts to redirect traffic to one’s own website is even more solid grounds for banning than trolling.

    Don’t you think that if I was merely attempting to redirect traffic to my website It would be much more likely that I would be trying to redirect to one of my websites that actually sell something? There is nothing one can buy and no advertising at all on the one i gave, and it is also the same one that I used when registering to the forum

  277. C says

    About abortion Tracie vs. Nick Raleigh. This is the first time I disagree with Tracie. She uses the argument that the State is giving the parent obligations first after birth. What the State thinks is irrelevant to the argument, especially since Nick says he wants different legislation. Tracie seems to believe that the mother has got no obligations before birth at all? In that case she is fine with pregnant women doing drugs and compete in boxing with regards to the unborn child? With her reasoning abortion in week 39 should be fine as well? ”I do not want this parasite to use my heart and lungs anymore, this must stop this minute”

  278. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Third time’s the charm.

    To Ray
    Why has no one been able to demonstrate the effectiveness of your techniques with proper modern scientific and statistical methods, and why has no one published a proper paper in a proper journal detailing the results of such proper investigation? If you don’t have proper scientific, demonstrable, and falsifiable evidence, then what convinced you in the first place? And have you considered that maybe you shouldn’t be convinced by such flimsy “evidence” and reasons?

  279. says

    “There are obviously a lot of teenagers or high-school kids in this forum.’

    Why would you even say this, without any evidence to support your assertion? Oh yeah….

    This mistake has been made in the past by other protagonists in the past, notably Sam the Muslim to gumb.

    For all you know the other “people” you debate with could be nothing more than a machine that is good enough to pass the Turing test.

    Not wise to make assumptions not based on evidence.

  280. t90bb says

    Ray…you admit the “plan” is not well known and insufficiently tested scientifically…..You expressed great enthusiasm at the possibility of a large group experiment//////….

    The irony here is that according to you, YOU HAVE unlimited power to get all of this done YOURSELF.

    USE YOUR PLAN to verify to all…(or at least to produce solid verifying evidence in a group test)…that the “plan” works!!!! Here are the simple steps….

    1. write your desire down
    2, read it several times a day..focis in it as much as possible!
    3. do not tell anyone about your plan

    Either your plan works…or it dosent…..Ball in your court Soul boy!

    Guess the plan didnt work on the Magic Jack…….??????????

  281. John Iacoletti says

    @Ray, #244

    First of all, what the heck are “AA guys”?

    Secondly, in a properly designed experiment, it wouldn’t matter it the participants were “agnostic”, or deists, or “spiritual”. The procedure is either effective or it is not. The problems with the self-reporting of results are the first hurdle to clear though. It’s also hilarious that you wanted to create a website called doesprayereallywork.org and then claimed that your procedure is not prayer.

  282. John Iacoletti says

    @C, #292:

    Again, do you know what it’s called when you terminate a pregnancy in week 39?

    Birth.

  283. t90bb says

    297. John

    Ray should not need any help in producing and executing a convincing experiment if The Ultimate One is real and he can use “the Plan”!!!

    But he wont….for the same reason his magic jack fails to connect with TAE so he is not exposed in full light!!!

    Faith healing and wishful thinking are dangerous when sold as Ray tries to sell it. Hes a goof..

  284. GumB. says

    Since I’m partially to blame for why this thread got so large, I thought I’d take the liberty of rolling it over to 300. So …

     
    … who’s pickin’ a banjo here?     🙂

  285. C says

    @John Iacoletti#298: I (obviously) meant to terminate the pregnancy in such a way that the child dies immediatly (and stops parasiting). The dead child can then be removed at a convenient time. If Tracies argumentation is solid this should be acceptable?

  286. t90bb says

    300….gumb…….

    u are the man! i guess rays magic jack was beyond repair of the ultimate one! lol

  287. Monocle Smile says

    @C
    That’s a rather dishonest and uncharitable reading of Tracie’s position. John made his comment because “terminating pregnancy” doesn’t necessarily entail destruction of the fetus, so please don’t pretend that it does.
    Furthermore, this is a bit of a secondary discussion. Tracie was talking about whether or not the law should force women to remain pregnant. How we go about ending the pregnancy is a follow-on discussion.

  288. C says

    @Monocle Smile 303: I don’t think I was being dishonest, maybe you misunderstood me since my english is not perfect? Did you (or John) really think I found it controversial to end a pregnancy in week 39 with a normal delivery? That seems dishonest to me… However Tracie described the child as parasiting on the woman. With her logic I can’t understand why a woman should not be allowed to end the pregnancy say in week 25 if she wishes to?

  289. Honey Tone says

    @C 304:

    At what stage of the pregnancy does the mother give up control of her body? And why?

    Women die in the process of giving normal, full-term birth, even in the USA at hospitals with appropriate medical personnel and equipment present and available. This exact incident sadly occurred in a Massachusetts hospital a few weeks ago during my step-daughter’s 3rd year gynecology rotation.

    The risks of “normal” pregnancy and childbirth are substantial everywhere.

    So, when does a woman lose the right to say: I don’t want this to happen any more?

  290. C says

    @Honey Tune 305: Very hard question. In reality I think it is impossible to state any specifik week when abortion is OK because you will never know exactly which week it is in any given case. I think abortion is probably acceptable somewhere around week 18 (and later if the fetus is badly damaged or the mothers life is at increased risk). I still think it is moraly wrong but the alternative with unwanted children and illegal abortions and so on is worse. What do you think? Do you think abortion in the third semester is OK? If so, how late? Will se find any doctors to carry out egen later abortions to give women the right to choose even later in the pregnancy? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU I believe somewhere that we have to accept the risks of a pregnancy as a part of life. I read about a 4 year old kid who shot and killed its mother. When does a mother lose the right to say: I dont want this to happen any more?:)

  291. Honey Tone says

    @ C 306:

    Your willingness to allow abortion at certain times and/or under certain circumstances tells me you don’t believe the fetus Should have the same rights as a birthed human being. So…

    With all due respect to Dr. Levantine (the focus of that YT clip), how does his very personal change of heart in providing abortion services translate into a requirement that abortion services should be reduced or eliminated for every woman? If a woman decides she doesn’t want to birth the baby growing inside her and chooses to abort, there is nothing that imposes a duty on any particular medical professional to carry out the procedure. She should be free to find one who is willing to do it. How does her choice and the choice of the willing provider affect the rest of us negatively?

    And, bluntly, his graphic description of a midterm abortion is disturbing in the same way that dropping bombs on civilian populations is disturbing: it’s not something just anybody is willing to do.

    In your reality the mother never has control of her body once she is pregnant, you’ll just grant her more leeway early on, up to 18 weeks. After that, she’s a brood mare, and has to answer to the rest of us for how her body is used and what risks she endures for the next 20 weeks.

    Sorry, I can’t do that. While any abortion would make me sad, I’m not going to take away bodily autonomy from the human being whose body has to endure the process.

  292. C says

    @ Hone Tone 307: I agree with your first statement. I don’t believe that a fetus has the same rights as a bithed child. However I still think it has rights.
    You are correct that the specifik opinions of one doctor have little weight. However I think it is important to be aware of the consequences of mid-term abortions. Later abortions are even worse.

    1. Do you think a fetus has any rights at all?
    2. Does the woman have any responibilities in regard to the fetus in your opinion? For instance avoiding drugs when being aware of a pregnancy?
    3. Should a woman in late pregnancy be allowed to participate in boxing if she chooses to (if we exclude her own increased risk of injuries)?

    Your argument of dropping bombs has flaws in my opinion. Dropping bombs in a way that is acceptable from a moral standpoint can be considered only in specifik situations. You could maybe make the comparison between bomb-dropping and late abortion to when the female or fetus is at medical risk. Dropping bombs is not considered morally acceptable by many people just for convenient reasons.

    I think the female should be free to choose until the fetus is about 18 weeks, 22 weeks under special circumstances (i.e social problems, drugs problems) and only later if there is a medical risk. After the 22 weeks the fetus might be viable. Any limit will be arbitrary in a way, but this is an acceptable way to regulate a limit the way I see it.

    4. Just to make sure I understood you correctly: If a pregnant women in week 40 realizes that she is not interested to go into labour and does not want a scar form a Ceasarian section you think she should be free to avoid those 2 options? If she finds a willing doctor and if it is legal in her country you think it would be OK to give the fetus/child a lethal injection and remove it in pieces?

    5. One argument how this would affect the rest of us could be that it would make it harder to find acceptance to earlier abortions and also refrain doctors to work in this field. In my country doctors in obstetrics can’t work in a hospital setting and make their own definitions of which week is acceptable for them. If the law regulated that termination in week 40 is OK many or most of them would quit don’t you think?

  293. Honey Tone says

    @ C 307

    I just don’t share your overall viewpoint that women need to be protected from themselves. Whether and when a woman should choose an abortion should be between her, her doctors and any other persons she wishes to bring into the equation. We are not likely to have a rash of late term abortions because a woman decided her baby bump is ruining her party dress.

    The type of abortion procedures available change significantly as the pregnancy proceeds. It is precisely for that reason that abortion counseling and services be available throughput so that patient can make informed decisions. I think most third trimester abortions require induced labor, making such a process nearly as risky as childbirth. Better to have full medical guidance all along the way.

    The bombing of civilian populations analogy was used to highlight that not all persons are capable, mentally, of doing all jobs regardless of the moral and ethical issues. E. G., don’t be a surgeon if you can’t stand the sight of blood.

    I’m not going down the “rights of the fetus” rabbit hole with you. If the woman wants the baby, we don’t need to be involved. If she doesn’t, you will insist that at some point the baby’s rights override that of the woman whose body must thereafter unwillingly carry it. In my view, until it’s born, it’s rights must be subsumed to the mither’s.

    I suggest that for a more in depth discussion you head over to the Godless Bitches.

  294. C says

    @ Honey Tone 309:
    “I just don’t share your overall viewpoint that women need to be protected from themselves”
    – I don´t think so either generally speaking. I am arguing for the protection of the fetuses/children not the women!
    However you have to keep in mind that many patients including women at some point in life need protection from themselves. Just because you want your arm amputated it does not mean you should get it.

    Being a doctor myself (in another surgical field) I know that the sight of blood is rarely (almost never after less than 6 months of experience) the problem. The problem here is of ethical nature. You must realize that it is for instance much more psychologically demanding to operate on an abused toddler with facial fractures than a 93-year old with severe dementia having a third hip fracture. It is not the amount of blood and gore that gives you sleepless nights. Most doctors have feelings, like it or not. To go to work and terminate a healthy fetus in week 40 because the mother changed her mind the doctor really needs to be “mentally” “capable” – in a pathological way!

    You avoid the “rabbit hole” but your arguments are telling me that you don’t think that a fetus has any rights if they interfere with the mothers right to choose. Since the fetus lack any rights there is no conflict, the mother is always free to choose and should not be questioned.

    For most people I have ever heard from this matter is much more complicated. For parents and people working in healthcare even more so. If you know any serious clinician who is publicly arguing that a heathy mother should have the right to choose to terminate a healthy fetus late in the third semester due to a change of mind please let me know!?

    I am a bit disappointed that you refused to answer many of my questions, I was genuinely interested. I am less interested in trying to find something that applies to this specific discussion in a community called “godless bitches”. I think the way you ended your reply was a bit of a cop-out. Almost like “google it”.

    If you are interested in why your point of view is impossible and unethical you can talk to any Chief Medical Officer or any doctor (almost) in the whole world;)
    If you want empirical evidence you can ask the government of any democracy and see if their people are demanding laws regulating the mothers right to choose in the way you do.

  295. Monocle Smile says

    @C
    I think you’ve been incredibly disingenuous in this thread and I’m rather appalled at your conduct towards Honey Tone.

    If you are interested in why your point of view is impossible and unethical you can talk to any Chief Medical Officer or any doctor (almost) in the whole world;)

    That’s because you are attacking a ludicrous caricature and not the actual position.

    One argument how this would affect the rest of us could be that it would make it harder to find acceptance to earlier abortions and also refrain doctors to work in this field. In my country doctors in obstetrics can’t work in a hospital setting and make their own definitions of which week is acceptable for them. If the law regulated that termination in week 40 is OK many or most of them would quit don’t you think?

    I don’t believe that you are posting such silly bullshit in good faith. This is pulled straight from your ass and you’re continuing to misrepresent the position.

    I think the female should be free to choose until the fetus is about 18 weeks, 22 weeks under special circumstances (i.e social problems, drugs problems) and only later if there is a medical risk. After the 22 weeks the fetus might be viable

    Given that the fucking world record premature baby survivor was “born” at 21 weeks and 4 days, it is extremely laughable that you throw down a blanket “might be viable” at 22 weeks. Even if you are a doctor, you’re clearly out of your depth here. This is precisely why this decision should be between a woman and her doctor and not involve you at all.

  296. C says

    @Monocle Smile 311:
    You did not answer my questions last time. However this is the second time you call me disingenous etc. You also use curse words.
    You should consider the fact that you might be the rude one here.

    I thought the title “freethoughtblogs” meant that you could try your arguments and maybe even put a twist on them. I may have been wrong in thinking so. Your strong reaction might be due to me being non-fluent in English perhaps, maybe my arguments are a bit crude.

    I even put a “;)” on the part where I tried to illustrate the ineffectiveness to a debate to use the “argument of authority”. I felt this was used against me with “Godless bitches”, like “go educate yourself”.

    You might think that the argument for 22 weeks is laughable, but THAT is the definition in my country for why they choose 22 weeks as the limit. The limit has constantly been pushed further down according to medical development in the field of neonatal care. Did you think the limit was just random? IF there should be a legal limit in your opinion, which would be a more logical choice?

    “This is precisely why this decision should be between a woman and her doctor and not involve you at all.”
    – That is correct in an isolated case. But as a citizen in a democracy I can make a small difference towards the legislation all doctors in my country have to follow. A single doctor and a woman will never be free to do whatever they like, and especially not with public funding. Do you think every doctor/patient should be able to decide these things for him/herself?

    Again, the “amputate my arm please”-analogy.

    However, most of all I would like a straight answer to my central question (and maybe a civil discussion thereafter). And if you don´t wish to give me one this time either you should probably write to someone else.

    1. Should the woman have the right to terminate the fetus at any time during the pregnancy if the only reason is a change of mind?

  297. Monocle Smile says

    @C
    Why would I give a flying fuck about your country?

    However this is the second time you call me disingenous etc. You also use curse words.
    You should consider the fact that you might be the rude one here.

    Yeah, we have very different ideas of “rude.”

    However, most of all I would like a straight answer to my central question (and maybe a civil discussion thereafter). And if you don´t wish to give me one this time either you should probably write to someone else.

    Asked and answered. You refuse to let go of your extremely dishonest framing of the question, so I’m probably done engaging. Being pro-choice is about the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with killing a 39-week old fetus and nobody here says it is. Pretending otherwise is lying on your part.

  298. paxoll says

    @C
    I’m also a doctor, YES a woman should be able to have an abortion at absolutely any time during pregnancy. Your error is

    heathy mother should have the right to choose to terminate a healthy fetus late in the third semester due to a change of mind

    : If a pregnant women in week 40 realizes that she is not interested to go into labour and does not want a scar form a Ceasarian section you think she should be free to avoid those 2 options

    An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a fetus. That is a side effect of not being able to survive. The infant has the right to try to live outside of the pregnancy and that is why any abortion after the age of viability SHOULD be through induced labor or c-section. The infants rights are always secondary to the rights of the women since it is violating the womans rights by using her body. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her body, drugs, boxing whatever. LASTLY, do no harm is why doctors do not amputate healthy limbs, it is not ethical and a womans right to cut her arm off does not supersede a doctors rights to decline. Going through pregnancy and labor is significantly more of a health risk to the woman than an abortion and ethically doctors are obligated to do so according to the precepts of their profession. A doctor using some kind of religious moral exemption do not deserve to be called a doctor and should not be given any position where they would get to exercise that religious exemption. I have a very hard time believing you are a doctor if you haven’t learned these basic tenets of medical ethics.

  299. RationalismRules says

    @paxoll

    do no harm is why doctors do not amputate healthy limbs

    Interesting point: Would you consider the overall / mental health of the patient is served by amputation in cases of Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or Alien Limb Syndrome?
    For the record, I’m not a doctor, I have no knowledge of medical ethics, and this is a straight question, not an argument framed as a question (my frequent modus operandi). 🙂

  300. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @RationalismRules #315:

    Would you consider the overall / mental health of the patient is served by amputation in cases of Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or Alien Limb Syndrome?

     
    Article: BMJ Medical Ethics – Ethical considerations of amputating a healthy limb (2010)

    a discourse on how the accepted notion of harm does not apply to apotemnophilia
    […]
    The biggest objection to surgical measures concerns patient consent and the idea that patients requesting such a procedure certainly could not have the mental capabilities that are necessary […] Ramachandran and McGeoch state in their article about body dysmorphic disorder, “Such patients are not psychotic or delusional, however, they do express an inexplicable emotional abhorrence to the limb they wish removed.”
    […]
    Although apotemnophiles are rare, their healthy limbs can be donated to individuals who may have accidents necessitating the donation of another person’s limb. […] this would, in turn, benefit society as a whole. Simultaneously, the apotemnophiles of society would maintain their happiness and be contributing members of the community, a role they cannot manage without corrective amputative surgery. […] The majority of apotemnophile amputees have been logged, and almost all the patients re-entered society as successful and contributing members, once again upholding the utilitarian perspective of greatest happiness and benefit to the society as a whole.
     
    The extraordinary thing about the apotemnophilia debate is that, unlike traditional ethical discussion where utilitarianism and Kantianism are in opposition, this debate lends itself to the support of both sides.
     
    Basically, Kantians believe that the “rights” of the individual are always meant to be the focus, regardless of the betterment of society as a whole. Therefore, the “right to individual happiness” is paramount, and a Kantian physician should be asking “What will raise my patient’s happiness for the longest period of time?” and, secondly, “Is the risk to the patient’s happiness so great as to necessitate drastic measures?” As stated earlier, patients have gone to extreme measures to attain their amputations, leading to death for some. Furthermore, successful amputees claim that their lives have been restored to normality and that without the amputations they would have remained miserable. Thus, Kantian philosophy […] can be wholeheartedly applied

  301. suedoenimm3 says

    As I understand it Texas law is that abortion is legal up to the 28th week. That seems more or less reasonable to me at this time. In any case it is the law.
    .
    If a couple has sex there is possibility the woman will become pregnant. Rational people understand that. And they are responsible for the pregnancy. People are responsible for their actions. They/she can elect to have a legal abortion or to carry the child to term. They are responsible. Practically speaking the woman has more say in deciding on an abortion.
    .
    Past 28 weeks the fetus is basically, legally a human being. The woman and the man have the legal obligation to protect the health of that minor child. They/she can eventually give it up for adoption but they/she must maintain the health of the child until it can be transferred to another legal guardian.
    .
    I hear, Consent! Consent! Consent!
    Consent is not a magic word that can be used to avoid responsibility. When one takes an action (e.g. sex) one is responsible for the consequences. You can’t drive on a road posted for 30 MPH and say, “I didn’t consent to that speed limit.” After 28 weeks the woman can’t legally withdraw “consent”.
    .
    During the show it was said that “a person who is pregnant doesn’t have any legal parental obligation.” False. Past 28 weeks you have the legal obligation to carry the child to term.
    .
    “We have legal parental obligation once the child is born.” But not before? That was at the 1:00:00 mark in the video. So one can abort a pregnancy (resulting in the death of the fetus/child) one day before the natural conclusion of a pregnancy? Most of us, theist and atheist alike, would find that to be… murder.
    .
    1:00:14 “So you are saying…” (Where have I heard that before?) “… the state should compel women to let somebody else use their body without their consent.” Past 28 weeks your option to exercise your “consent” is past. By that time the child is a person. The state, if it intervenes, is intervening on the behalf of that minor child.
    .
    Then there is talk about “viable”. I think there was some ambiguous usage. Does viable mean that the child will peruse job ads the next day or that it will thrive if given reasonable care. Under normal conditions the child is viable long before delivery.
    .
    1:02:11 “She’s going to have a person inserted into her uterus.” Bizarre, indeed. Who is doing that inserting? (Well I know there was some kind of “inserting” going on. 😉 ) BTW, with that statement you called the fetus a person.
    .
    1:02:24 “..have her body violated in this way..” Wait. Didn’t she willfully have sex? Does an embryo have agency? Do embryos violate women? That would be a rather bizarre view.
    .
    1:02:35 “the father has zero obligation” That’s not true but she might have to take him to court. Yes, that is sometimes an unfair burden.
    .
    1:03:37 “They do not have parental obligations prior to the birth of the child.” I disagree. I understand what was said. I disagree with the assertion.
    .
    1:06:25 “She’s not trying to kill the child she is simply saying that she does not consent to the gestation.” Specific intent vs. general intent. She might not specifically intend to kill the child but an abortion (after 28 weeks) results in the death of the child, as any rational person would realize. Whether she is specifically trying to kill the child or not the death of the child is a rationally foreseeable consequence of the abortion.
    .
    -Sue

  302. paxoll says

    @RR
    Body dysmorphic disorders have 2 components, the mental state that is incompatible to the physical body. While BIID has significant correlations with gender dysphoria where physical alteration is curative (to the small degree we have evidence) there is a significant difference in the surgical outcomes after the procedures. It its causing a significant disability that will not only affect the individuals health, but the state and society of people who will have to pay to care for their disability. I think this will always straddle the line of medical ethics and doctors will always have the prerogative to decline. I can’t think of any other situation that is analogous. Typically you are looking at just the risks of disability from complications giving doctors a reason to deny medical intervention.

    Personally I consider elective c-sections, and elective plastic surgery of significant risk to be personally unethical and in general the medical establishment has left those up to the discretion of the physician. Every medical intervention is a risk/benefit analysis and every patient has different risks therefore any intervention could theoretically be able to be denied based on physician judgement, but for the vast majority of medical care doctors are dealing in fairly black and white regions. For me and most physicians, we are guided by two main principles, 1) we really want to help the patient be as healthy and happy as possible, and 2) patients have autonomy to make informed health decisions. Right or wrong in america doctors are given the power to decide if patients are making informed health decisions AND the responsibility for the health outcomes of those decisions.

    While my criticism of C may have made the issue of medical ethics seem very cut and dried, it is more of my own strict medical ethic standards being much tighter and nuanced then the medical community as a whole. Quite honestly issues of ethics and morality are boring to most people including doctors, they often simply accept what is legal as what is ethical.

  303. Monocle Smile says

    @Sue

    an abortion (after 28 weeks) results in the death of the child, as any rational person would realize

    This is false, as described above.

  304. Honey Tone says

    @ C

    godlessbitches.com

    Look it up. Another of the programs provided by the Atheist Community of Austin. Described as “feminism from a secular perspective.” I’m sure they can provide insight that a male like me on this site can’t.

    Like some of the other posters I have difficulty believing you’re a doctor or other trained medical professional. Or maybe in your country they just don’t require courses in medical ethics? In any event, I frankly don’t care what the rules might be where you live. What’s legal and/or what the general population is willing to put up with is not the point in this forum. That’s politics, which has only a tangential relationship to what’s is right or what should be.

    Right now in Canada there exists the legal right for a woman to have abortion at any time before birth. Not everybody agrees up there, but it is the law. Not too long ago abortions were very restricted. Laws, attitudes, politics, even ethics, can change.

    So, I stand on my original position: it’s the mother’s body, she should never be forced to use it in a way to which she does not consent no matter where along the process her consent is withdrawn. Until she willingly gives birth, it’s up to her.

  305. C says

    @Paxoll 314:
    I would like to start again to point out that english is not my first language. When I used the term “terminating the pregnancy” in the third semester I was heckled and told that it was called “giving birth”. What I meant is terminating the pregnancy AND the fetus.

    “LASTLY, do no harm is why doctors do not amputate healthy limbs, it is not ethical and a womans right to cut her arm off does not supersede a doctors rights to decline. ”
    – I know as a doctor you can decline any procedure but if you are a doctor in obstetrics and work in a hospital setting you can not pick and choose which types of abortions you can and can not carry out. At least not in Sweden. I think it is a good principle. If you are not willing to treat the women according to the legislation you have to find another field.

    1. The “do not harm”-principle is a tough one. What do you tell a woman after the late abortion that says she felt you persuaded her and that you destroyed her life? “I was not emotionally stable and I was pressured from my family to go through with the abortion.” Did you cause harm or not?

    “The infant has the right to try to live outside of the pregnancy and that is why any abortion after the age of viability SHOULD be through induced labor or c-section”.

    2. SHOULD or MUST? If it is a “parasite” the mother should be able to end its parasitizing ways with a percutaneous Digoxine-injection at any given time? It is her body, right? Maybe the mother decides she does not want her body to go into ordinary labour and does not want the scar in the skin and uterus from the C-section?
    Maybe she does not want the child any longer and doesn’t want to bother with adoption and so on (i.e. dumped by the boyfriend).

    3. Who should pay for the prenatal care after an “abortion” in week 26? In most countries there are no abundance of access to prenatal treatment. Should your mother (and her fetus) who wants to choose abortion because a change of heart have the same access to prenatal treatment as others with medical conditions?

    4. If YOU are a real doctor you should be able to tell me about some publications or ongoing public discussion in the medical field in the US where “real doctors” are promoting the idea that the women shouldyi always be free to choose “abortion” in the third semester no questions asked (provided she is mentally stable of course). I would be even more interested to read from colleagues who would be willing to carry out the procedure. If this ethical standpoint is so extremely obvious to any “real” doctor this must be really easy for you.

    5. If you had a pregnant female telling you that she fights for money and uses heroine you would do nothing but neutrally informing her of the risks?

    “I have a very hard time believing you are a doctor if you haven’t learned these basic tenets of medical ethics.”
    6. What do you mean? Have I ever written that you should be allowed to use your personal religious moral believes in the decision-making regarding treatment?
    You seem to think these questions are very easy, black & white. Most real doctors don’t and I hope you know it.

  306. Honey Tone says

    @suedoenimm3. 317

    I don’t know what the rules are in Texas, but the overall picture you paint in an attempt to justify forcing women to carry a fetus to term is cruel and unnecessary.

    Not every sexual encounter is welcome, and even when it is, the pregnancy is not necessarily wanted. Sex is more than a merely a choice, it’s a drive than stronger in some than in others. But beyond that it’s bizarre to say that forcing a pregnancy to continue constitutes “taking” responsibility. No, a law that cuts off options imposes a duty (imposes a responsibility, if you will). And the person most immediately affected by that imposition is the woman, because it’s her life and health. It doesn’t matter how early or late in the process it is imposed.

    Why is this necessary? This is 2018, not 1918. We have the expertise to do abortions safely throughout gestation, so we don’t have to be concerned for the mother’s well-being (when compared with childbirth). There are over 7 billion people on the planet; we’re not hurting for sheer numbers. People aren’t going to stop having sex, in or out of marriage no matter what the consequences.

    So, what are we really worried about? Do you think that unlimited abortions is going to result in so many late-term terminations that the human race will disappear? The overwhelming majority of pregnancies in the world are welcomed. That will continue. The few that are not welcome will never affect us. Removing the legal barriers to any abortions will not change any of that.

  307. paxoll says

    @C
    I feel like things are getting repeated an awfully lot here. And you are making a lot of tangent arguments that are only peripherally relevant to the topic.

    1) Doctors are human and limited by what can be expected to know. If you don’t know a person will develop an allergy you can’t consider giving them an antibiotic that they develop an allergy to an error. Rationally it is the absolute correct thing to do. Likewise an abortion is the right thing to do medically unless there is some overwhelming known evidence that it is not. This is a very dishonest argument as there is lots of research on the topic of psychological harm from abortion and the overwhelming conclusion is that the primary harm comes from societal/religious pressures. Meaning the correct course of action medicallly is to do the procedure and change societal understanding/norms, much the way that homosexuality has been addressed.

    2) The reason why it is VERY important to distinguish terminating a pregnancy and terminating a fetus, is because it is unethical to terminate a fetus without terminating a pregnancy. Your “end its parasitizing ways with a percutaneous Digoxine-injection at any given time?” is another false analogy because a non human parasite has no rights, you can kill one at any time you want. The fetus does have rights, they are simply limited because it is infringing on the womans rights. Just like with consensual sex, it is not ethical for a woman or man to simply kill the other because at some point they decided they no longer wanted to be having sex, but are perfectly justified to escalate the force to stop the unwanted contact up to and including killing the other person. Likewise death of the fetus is the last recourse to stop the pregnancy. I already addressed the issue of elective c-sections, I stated that in the US it is medically permissible, but I consider it unethical and doctors typically don’t care about the ethics and only about the legality.

    3) Irrelevant topic,

    4) Again, how many times do I have to say this most doctors do not care about the ethics only the legality. The US also is a highly religious society where any kind of public expression on this topic can lead to harassment, assault, or death. So expecting a public discussion on this is actually quite a ridiculous expectation. ACOG the professional society for obstetrics in the US has many private discussions that I do not have access to and cannot link to. But here are a few professional papers on the topic and you can see quite clearly that legality is the primary focus.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618303708?via%3Dihub
    https://jme.bmj.com/content/27/suppl_2/ii10
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473036/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7041095
    The issues is that the criticism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion are not sound.

    5) another irrelevant topic, I would inform her of the risks and offer whatever assistance is within my powers as a doctor, if she wants to keep the infant and is boxing than it is who is fighting her who has a moral decision to make.

    6)

    “While my criticism of C may have made the issue of medical ethics seem very cut and dried, it is more of my own strict medical ethic standards being much tighter and nuanced then the medical community as a whole. Quite honestly issues of ethics and morality are boring to most people including doctors, they often simply accept what is legal as what is ethical.”

  308. suedoenimm3 says

    @C
    .
    Your comments are intelligent and a positive contribution. I’m pretty much in agreement with you. And your English is better that a lot of native speakers.
    .
    -Sue

  309. Monocle Smile says

    @C
    Fine, one more post, since you insist on being silly.

    I would like to start again to point out that english is not my first language. When I used the term “terminating the pregnancy” in the third semester I was heckled and told that it was called “giving birth”. What I meant is terminating the pregnancy AND the fetus.

    But that’s not what anyone in the discussion means when they say “terminating the pregnancy” and anybody with a cursory understanding of the issue should know this.

    The “do not harm”-principle is a tough one. What do you tell a woman after the late abortion that says she felt you persuaded her and that you destroyed her life? “I was not emotionally stable and I was pressured from my family to go through with the abortion.” Did you cause harm or not?

    You tell her to kindly fuck off.
    This is essentially arguing that doctors would be justified in simply letting victims of suicide attempts die. I’m questioning your doctorhood right about now.

    Maybe the mother decides she does not want her body to go into ordinary labour and does not want the scar in the skin and uterus from the C-section?
    Maybe she does not want the child any longer and doesn’t want to bother with adoption and so on (i.e. dumped by the boyfriend).

    You seem obsessed with motive when it comes to abortion. Hint: motive is fucking irrelevant.
    Also, the mother has the right to stop being pregnant. How that actually happens is largely beyond her control and sometimes that comes with side effects, like a C-section. Why do you think this is hard to understand? It seems like you’re playing dumb.

    Who should pay for the prenatal care after an “abortion” in week 26? In most countries there are no abundance of access to prenatal treatment. Should your mother (and her fetus) who wants to choose abortion because a change of heart have the same access to prenatal treatment as others with medical conditions?

    Again the obsession with motive. Fucking stop it.
    The “no abundance” thing is nonsense. It’s a false scarcity due to lack of funding. I’m pretty sure most people also object to this false scarcity.

    You seem to think these questions are very easy, black & white. Most real doctors don’t and I hope you know it.

    Stop being butthurt.
    I called you disingenuous because you’re being fucking disingenuous, not to merely be rude.

  310. RationalismRules says

    @Paxoll
    Thanks. Interesting to think about. Like just about every issue we face, there is no black and white, all is actually shades of grey.

    For example, your point about the cost to society of their disability (after the amputation) was one I hadn’t previously thought about. Then, thinking further, I realized that it could also be argued that their current state is also a disability, and there are undoubtedly significant costs to society of having someone forced to live their life in a state of mental anguish. I have no idea how one would go about quantifying that, but I’m betting someone has.

  311. RationalismRules says

    @Sky Captain
    Rereading your post, I see it addresses the point I just made to Paxoll. 🙂

  312. Critical Carl says

    Hello! In the show, I think it was this one, john Lacoletti mentioned a website that lists examples of the harm religion can do. Can someone please link that?

  313. suedoenimm3 says

    @ Honey Tone, re: 322
    .
    Isn’t one of our principles that all humans have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
    .
    Immediately after they are born babies have a right to life, do they not?
    .
    How about one day before they are born? Is OK to terminate the life process of a fetus one day before their natural birth?
    .
    What is the point in time before which it is OK to terminate the life process of a fetus and after which it is not OK?
    .
    -Sue

  314. Honey Tone says

    @suedoenimm3 #329 –

    I’ve already stated in #320 that I don’t see the necessity for drawing a line in the sand at any particular point. Until a woman willingly gives birth, it’s up to her. It’s her body, it’s her fetus/baby, it’s her mind, it’s all her risk.

    You are OK with an earlier point for terminating the pregnancy/killing the baby. In #317 you stated 28 weeks seemed “more or less reasonable to [you] at this time.” What’s the magic there? How come the fetus has no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your world one minute before midnight of the end of the 28th week, and then suddenly has those rights one minute after? How come the woman has complete control of her own body before but not after?

    My point is to leave it up to the person most at risk, the woman in whose body the fetus is growing, along with her doctor and the vagaries of available medical options. I see no reason for you or me to second guess why SHE should or should not go through with childbirth. There’s no need to impose an artificial, non-medical deadline.

  315. suedoenimm3 says

    @ Honey Tone, re: 331
    .
    “I don’t see the necessity for drawing a line in the sand at any particular point.”
    .
    But you _are_ drawing a line. You are drawing it at birth.
    I see no reason to view a baby as less a person five days before birth. And the incremental risk to the mother in carrying it another five days is nil.
    .
    “it’s her fetus/baby,”
    .
    It is after birth too. And a mother faces risk in caring for the baby after birth too. But she can’t kill it then, can she.
    .
    “you stated 28 weeks…. What’s the magic there?”
    .
    That is the law in Texas. Actually on further reading I think Texas law is 20 weeks. It varies by state. In California it is 24 to 26 weeks. In California it is variable based on an assessment by a physician of the viability of the fetus. But across the states the laws are generally based on the time of viability of the fetus.
    .
    “in your world… then suddenly has those rights one minute after?”
    .
    In California it is not arbitrarily instantaneous. In your view it is instantaneous at birth.
    .
    “How come the woman has complete control of her own body….”
    .
    Hyperbolic a bit? Within the law no one has complete control. Outside of the law I suppose we all have complete control. One can sniff paint and shoot people. One can run through across a freeway naked and yell “You have a friend in Cthulu!” But if one does that police and paramedics are going to come and take them away for psychiatric evaluation.
    .
    “My point is to leave it up to the person most at risk, the woman in whose body the fetus is growing,”
    .
    In the US pregnancy is fatal for 26 in 100,000 women. Abortion is fatal for 100,000 in 100,000 fetuses.

  316. Monocle Smile says

    @Sue

    Abortion is fatal for 100,000 in 100,000 fetuses.

    Stop fucking lying. How many of us have to explain how wrong you are about this before you fucking listen?

  317. Honey Tone says

    sue is not listening. That’s not his/her purpose.

    Just wait until sue discovers life is 100% fatal.

  318. Honey Tone says

    @ suedoenimm3 #332

    Yeah, sure, I’m “drawing a line” at a willing birth, the point at which the woman’s body is no longer required by the baby. Seems like the right time for society to start imposing rules (including what constitutes child abuse and murder) without infringing on mom’s bodily integrity.

    Yes, the baby is “less of a person” before that birth. It is not independent of its host/mother.

    That “incremental risk” to the mother to carry it even one more day includes, but is not limited to, death. It’s really not for me to say whether another human being should be required to accept that risk. It doesn’t matter if pregnancy in the US kills 26 per 100,000 annually or 1/10th that or 100 times that. It’s about not foreclosing options and allowing a woman to decide what happens to and inside her. Whether the deadline is 20 weeks or 28 weeks, we don’t need to impose a deadline. Here’s some more of what you likely consider hyperbole: with any deadline prior to a birth we are holding a gun to the mother’s head.

    Your examples of legal restrictions on the actions of persons which are a danger to self or others are not applicable. The mother wants the fetus/baby growing inside of her to be removed. Why shouldn’t that be just between her and her doctor?

    As far as I’m concerned we’re just going in circles here. You think abortion restrictions during gestation are reasonable and that fetal viability justifies restricting the mother’s bodily autonomy. I think the restrictions are unnecessary and that the mother should have complete control within medical considerations. Unless you have something new to add, I’m done with this thread.

  319. suedoenimm3 says

    @ Honey Tone #335
    .
    “Yeah, sure, I’m “drawing a line” at a willing birth, “
    .
    OK. (I’m guessing you draw the same line regardless of the willingness of the birth.)
    .
    “That “incremental risk” to the mother to carry it even one more day includes, but is not limited to, death.”
    .
    The risk of just getting out of bed in the morning also includes death. You assert the risk to the mother is great. There is some risk but you are just giving an assertion with no substantial support.
    .
    “It’s really not for me to say whether another human being should be required to accept that risk. It doesn’t matter if pregnancy in the US kills 26 per 100,000 annually or 1/10th that or 100 times that. It’s about not foreclosing options and allowing a woman to decide what happens to and inside her.”
    .
    If the magnitude of the risk doesn’t matter then how is this about risk? (It looks as if “risk” is being used as a red herring.)
    .
    “Here’s some more of what you likely consider hyperbole: with any deadline prior to a birth we are holding a gun to the mother’s head.”
    .
    You didn’t disappoint. 🙂
    In Texas there is no legal penalty for the mother who receives an illegal third trimester abortion. The penalty is on the doctor. The first violation is a $500 fine. By the third violation the doctor can lose his/her medical license. Not exactly a gun pointed to their heads.
    .
    “Your examples of legal restrictions on the actions of persons which are a danger to self or others are not applicable. The mother wants the fetus/baby growing inside of her to be removed. Why shouldn’t that be just between her and her doctor?”
    .
    You are discounting the viable fetus. Texas law and I do not.
    .
    “As far as I’m concerned we’re just going in circles here. You think abortion restrictions during gestation are reasonable and that fetal viability justifies restricting the mother’s bodily autonomy. I think the restrictions are unnecessary and that the mother should have complete control within medical considerations. Unless you have something new to add, I’m done with this thread.”
    .
    OK. Yes, we have probably established our positions.
    .
    If I may summarize…
    .
    You consider the health risks of pregnancy to be such a horror that a pregnant woman must be able to receive an abortion at any time for any reason.
    .
    You understand that in Texas (the state in which the Atheist Experience originates) the law allows abortion on demand up to the third trimester.
    .
    You understand that a doctor may legally perform an abortion any time the doctor determines there is a threat to the life or long term health of the woman. (In fact, the doctor does not even need the patient’s consent.)
    .
    In case you didn’t already know this, Texas law defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. “
    .
    Your objective is to “protect the woman” in cases such as: the woman uses no birth control, she has consensual unprotected sex, she becomes pregnant, she doesn’t obtain a legal abortion before 20 weeks, she carries the baby for another 15 weeks or so, the doctor doesn’t detect any unusual risk to the woman, and the woman then says, “Pregnancy is a horrible risk. I demand an abortion.”

  320. Monocle Smile says

    @Sue

    In case you didn’t already know this, Texas law defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. “

    Then Texas law is extra fucked, because that’s a silly definition.
    I also don’t give a shit, because we’re talking about the issue itself (the right to terminate a pregnancy), not what some shitty law says.
    Keep ignoring your own lies, though. Makes you look so honest.

    Your objective is to “protect the woman” in cases such as: the woman uses no birth control, she has consensual unprotected sex, she becomes pregnant, she doesn’t obtain a legal abortion before 20 weeks, she carries the baby for another 15 weeks or so, the doctor doesn’t detect any unusual risk to the woman, and the woman then says, “Pregnancy is a horrible risk. I demand an abortion.”

    Ignoring the cartoonish nature of your portrayal…
    If 90% of welfare recipients were abusing the system, I would still advocate for welfare. See if you can figure out why this is relevant.

  321. says

    I know this is very late, but Sue has a very poor opinion women – so poor that I wonder if she is doing too much projection. Did she really imply that any minute before ‘natural birth’ occurs by any means except an unassisted v-birth is an abortion that is automatically condemning the fetus to death? The next thing I expected her to argue against is a scheduled C-section or inducement of labor before the date god decides the baby would be delivered because in her world those are clearly abortions done merely for the convenience of the woman who has capriciously decided she no longer wants to be pregnant and the fetus will die! um…. what?

  322. suedoenimm3 says

    If you don’t like my opinions on this subject then don’t view my video on my YouTube channel (SueDoeNimm3). 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *