about what you’re saying camlorn I feel like in the future stuff like mine control and all of that will be possible with technology. It wouldn’t surprise me, in the past couple decades we’ve seen things that we’ve considered science-fiction become real

There's this amazing BBC Radio 4 comedy called Old Harry's Game who stars Satan as the main character.
In it, we get an interesting view of Christianity that I find refreshing and don't see too often.
In it, Satan is basically the antihero that a good amount of the time tries doing the right thing even if it is for all the wrong reasons.
god, meanwhile, is a tired cranky old man that accidentally created the universe and got saddled with it by virtue of there not being anyone else to deal with it.
In the series, god's all-knowingness is often questioned, even by god himself.  There is a notable point when he visits hell feeling depressed because his omniscience means he never experiences surprises anymore.  One of hell's denizens asks him if he was omniscient, how did he not see his boredom / depression coming, which fills him with joy because he realizes he can still be surprised.
Satan and his minions also often point out that god's omniscience isn't as omni as it once was.
This conversation has built up a lot of tension, so I thought I'd bring this up and share an amusing little clip from the show.
during this clip, creation has broken down to the point where a dog and a baby accidentally ended up in hell, so Satan has gone on a quest to find god and talk him into restoring order once more.
Unfortunately, he finds him uninterested in doing anything, as he's too busy painting the beautiful world he created.
Anyway, for those of you interested, the link can be found here.

@Ethin: that paper was not discredited, either. Not to mention so many references to other publications, many of them leading to PubMed or NCBI articles. Here's what I want to know. Isn't NCBI a reliable source to read research publications? Why would they host pseudoscientific stuff if they're considered reliable? But you and @camlorn totally nailed it. It might very well be pseudoscientific, can't deny the possibility of that. Except, of course, @camlorn: minus the ad hominem. .
@GCW, man, I am too skeptical to fully believe your experiences, but too openminded to fully reject them outright as well. You and @mastodont especially talk about stuff which on the subjective level is experienced by many over the millennia so there's that. Even though there are stark similarities, subjectivity can't be made the basis for objective, nonbiased rationalistic enquiry.

Ok, again, gay rainbow unicorns.  I believe in gay rainbow unicorns.  If science is supposed to disprove everything, then please tell me how to disprove gay rainbow unicorns?

You can't start from the assumption that something is true and then prove it false.  Maybe gay rainbow unicorns are only found on the surface of neutron stars in the Andromeda galaxy.  As long as I start from the assumption that gay rainbow unicorns must exist, science can't disprove them.  Sometimes science can, for example if I said "gay rainbow unicorns can be found in Central Park in new York City on Tuesdays at noon".

If you want me to take back my comment about how I think people here are intentionally avoiding understanding science to hold onto their beliefs, explain how psionics is different?  Every time science disproves it, the bar just gets moved: maybe it can't be done in the lab because the instruments somehow destroy it, maybe you have to be holding the spoon for the mental energies to connect, and so on.  I say what I'm saying about intentionally ignoring science because even the most religious schools out there--the crazy cultish ones--teach you why this kind of argument is bad sometime in middle school.  You have to explicitly decide to ignore what is literally the most basic thing in science or any type of argument where one side must be correct to maintain the argument about psionics and other mental powers.  It's only in the realm of philosophy, where there is no objective truth, that you get to use other structures.  And even there, it's frowned on.

I have less of a problem with religion as a whole in this regard because religious people don't literally move the bar a couple weeks after each experiment rather than accepting the results.  The religion stuff at least takes a generation to shift the bar.  They shouldn't be moving the bar because that's bad arguing, but they're at least not going "hahaha, science, time to purposely move the bar, here's my blog post with something quantum interference can't measure it something something" a few days after the papers come out.  They don't argue properly, but they at least *try*.  maybe that will change as science continues moving faster, I don't know.

But the psionics stuff, you have to actively not look to believe in it.  You have to actively ignore the most basic tenants of science.  You have to actively not google things like "why is telekinesis impossible".  The only way to believe in it is to be incredibly gullible, be incredibly uneducated, or actively work to avoid trying to find out if you're right about it.

Provide me a way for science to actively disprove gay rainbow unicorns that I can't counter with an argument along the lines of what the mental powers people use and I'll take it back.  Until then, I stand by this viewpoint.

@134, why do you say that some people aren't capable of atheism?  Your example is very pertinent.

GCW, my reply to your post.
1. All of us have been created by Allah, the wise, the kind, the generous, the noble, and that is for one purpose. To worship Allah, may he be glorified and exaulted, in the best way ever. As Allah says in the qur'an: "And I have not created the jinn and the mankind accept they should worship me alone." Surah ad-dariat. Just look at how noble this is! You get to prostrate to him, ask him for your hearts lawful desire, beg of him, magnify him, what else could you want? And guess what, you don't need Jesus to intervene on your behalf, because in Islam Allah has given you the ability to talk to him alone, in any language you wish. You want to be a medical Doctor? You can say, "Oh Allah, make me a medical Doctor, please I beg of you!" You want to be guided to truth, just ask him! As Allah says in thequr'an: "186. And when My slaves ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning Me, then (answer them), I am indeed near (to them by My Knowledge). I respond to the invocations
of the supplicant when he calls on Me (without any mediator or intercessor). So let them obey Me and believe in Me, so that they may be led aright."
Just look at the meaning of this! In this beautiful verse, Allah says that he is near - the arabic word is kareeb and it's only used in the context of supplication just to show how near Allah is to his servants in his knowledge!  Usually, when Allah wants the prophet to say something, he would usually use the word in the beginning "kul - say."  "94. Say to (them): "If the home of the Hereafter with Allah is indeed for you specially and not for others, of mankind, then long for death if you are
truthful." However, in the first verse of the qur'an I quoted, the fact is Allah is so near to his creation it doesn't even require the format "say." Whenever you read the qur'an, you always take it as though Allah is addressing you. He is telling you simply ask me and I am there for you! One of his atributes is ar-raoof which means the kind.
Second, perhaps this old Lady is being tested with this disease. As part of Allah's kindness, he tests people with hardship in order for them to draw closer to him! We have to remember tribulations are like a bitter medicine, though we may not like them, they still better us, just like a bitter medicine does even though you don't like its taste. You have to realize Allah in his perfection is still taking care of this Lady. And you know what Allah says about the patient people? Read the translation and ponder. "153. O you who believe! Seek help in patience and As-Salat (the prayer). Truly! Allah is with As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

154. And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.

155. And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirin (the patient
ones, etc.).

156. Who, when afflicted with calamity, say: "Truly! To Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return."

157. They are those on whom are the Salawat (i.e. blessings, etc.) (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who)
receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones." So be of good cheer! All this Lady has to do is to say "La illaha illalah" before the angel of death comes and she will be on a good track to earn Allah's mercy, when the angels come down with bright faces and take her soul ever so gently out of her body to the one who shows the most mercy even more than a Mother child. Allah is more kind with us than we can imagine. I suggest you listen to the Qur'an, you can also read the translated meanings. i will give you a few short recitations, listen and let your heart be calmed, show these to this old Lady that she may be guided aright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZdqFdRn7KU&t=133s

This is surah saba, type in surah saba english translation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SmGTrTFbzE

This surah maryam - it's an especially read for Christians as well. This is chapter 19.
The third is surah rahman, chapter 55: This may be especially relevant to you and this old Lady who is quite ill may Allah cure her, grant her a long life full of goodness and guide her to the true way!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLwbtREU2UY

My honest  request for you is to read the whole qur'an, because the islamic conception of God is much more clear, much more valisd and rational than Christianity.

@139
Cruel, yes.  A very common belief shared even by most Christians, yes.  People get comfort from that believe it or not.  You can pass the test, if it's a test, and if you get an A you go to heaven (or go to better heaven, or spend less time in heaven learning what you did wrong in life, or...).

When I say that we would solve more problems without religion this is a big part of what I'm referring to.  But I guess we could also solve it if we made people such as @138 reframe the test as "hey, maybe we should figure out how to not have any suffering, maybe it's actually a test to see if we can eliminate this kind of pain", rather than some medieval bear the torture and it will bring you closer to god who can apparently only be appeased by pain.

@141, the problem is that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. I respect the opinions of others, and I acknowledge that when talking about any one subject I may not have all the information and/or maybe incorrect, and I'm perfectly fine with someone pointing that out to me. The difference between religion and science, as I see it, is that science does something about what they're told: they try to prove it. Science doesn't just go "I'm going to tell you that this is how gravity works and therefore it must be so". They actually experiment and test the theory to see if its accurate. There's some verification and research going on. Rligion has none of that: if your told to believe something, your expected to fall in line and believe it and not ask any questions. If you do, you'll get vague answers that don't really tell you anything, or you'll be punished.

Hey OP, I'm really sorry for what you, and your grandma of course, are going through. This world, God, whatever, it can all be very cruel.
And of all the posts in this discussion, I find 141 to be the most spot on from my perspective.
I guess my beliefs are ore agnostic in nature. I lean toward believing in something, only because I've experienced things in my life that would lead me to believe something has extremely positive influence over my existence. I know, I know, everyone says that. But I don't care if people side with me or not. I know what I've experienced, and I know what I believe.
But time and time again, I see people of religion falter because of their blind followings. And some are actually intellects, people who actually study science, with PhDs and all. Similarly, I've seen people of science, too unwilling to accept that even some things can't be explained, falter at the hands of their arrogance.
You can get philosophical about this. You can get scientific about this. You can even study high degrees of theology. But at the end of the day, what really counts is how you handle being challenged by others' beliefs.
All this science vs religion vs other stuff. I honestly think it's ridiculous.
They each have benefits. Proving, disproving, theories, axioms, etc.
We're all just here to figure it out. Yes, science has a bit of an upper hand in that regard. But that doesn't mean science can answer everything. And if you really think that, well, that's just too bad and I am truly sorry you feel that way. Likewise for religion. If someone actually thinks that religion is unwavering in its teachings, and you absolutely reject everything else, again, that's just too bad.
But I think some of us are too smart for that. I'd like to believe we offer acceptance and critical thinking.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I still appreciate a good back and forth every once in a while.

@GCW, Actually the important question would  be?  where do you turn when you are faced with great adversity, when suffering takes you by the throwt, and smashes you in to the cleaf of your own self?  Is it science?  Is it religion?  Or may be it is poetry?  Once I prised philosophy, now I am not sure if may be let's say a street cleaner isn't better then Kant.
If you want to talk send me a pm.

So, oddly enough I had a conversation yesterday with a friend about a similar topic. I wasn't thinking of this thread when this came up btw, but after the conversation my mind did jump back here and made me think of GCW's grandma.

The person I was talking to is at least somewhat religious. I don't know her well enough to know exactly how she practices, but I know she feels God is very important and worship is a big part of her life. I didn't outright come out and say I don't believe in such a thing, though I'm sure by the way I have spoken in the past, or how I didn't respond to her comments about worship, she could figure my stance out.

Anyway, she told me that she believes life is fair, you just have to understand the purpose of events and adjust your thoughts. Which goes against all of my beliefs. Life had a nasty way of being unpredictable, and i don't believe we as human beings should have our powers of interpretation stretched to such a  degree that we justify anything cruel that is out of our hands, in the name of faith. For me, a death is always cruel, whether committed by murder or by natural cause. Even predictable death has an element of unfairness to it for those who are close to the deceased.

An example of my feelings on the matter: A few years ago we had to put down a lovely dog we had. Not because he was dying, but because his back was irreparably out of whack and couldn't be fixed. As a result, he could barely walk. Our vet was surprised he was able to remain on his feet for as long as he had. It would've cost thousands of dollars to attempt major back surgery, and since he was so old, it just wasn't worth it (he was 15 or 16). So, he lived a good life, and we didn't think it was worth having him suffer through the remainder of it.

Now, I'm not a big dog person, but I do respect animal lives, and for a while, I couldn't get past the fact that this of all things was what had to kill him. He was healthy otherwise; had his back been better, he would've still been running around, barking way too much at the neighbor's dogs and generally being annoying, but that's what made him who he was. Maybe i'm being optimistic, but until the very end, I feel like he had the desire to be his old self. He still had some drive left. During the last weeks of his life though, he could hardly walk. He'd still bark halfheartedly when he heard other dogs, but he couldn't run and provoke them like he usually did. Therefore I thought the decision to put him down was a bit premature; I didn't think the dog was quite ready yet. But my mom saw more than I did, so maybe she could see he was giving up. I wasn't there when he was put down, but apparently my mom could tell that he somehow knew his death was coming, and he seemed ready for it. So, maybe he had given up after all but was just being a trooper. It wouldn't have surprised me.

For a while, I felt like we gave up on the animal more than it gave up on us. I mean in the end it probably doesn't matter, his life would either have been cut short by something else eventually, probably sooner rather than later. And it's very possible that if we had waited a week or two, he would've given up on his own anyway. That in fact was very likely, given how quickly his ability to walk had deteriorated. These facts helped me accept the decision when it was made, but it did bother me that his death was deliberate.

The strange part of this is that deliberately inducing death wasn't what bothered me most at the time. That's only part of it. What was hardest for me to take was that his life was cut short by a non-lethal issue. I suppose that's because I have a selfish curiosity. When people or animals die, I want to know the cause of death, because I like medical knowledge, and am a bit morbid sometimes. So, if he died of heart complications, I would've been satisfied. If he had given up and stopped eating, I would've said "Sure, makes sense." But a bad back? That doesn't kill, it doesn't make sense medically. It only makes sense if you put the emotional element in there, the thing that activates our compassion and sympathies. Maybe it's an autism thing, but as much as I'm able to understand the deciion and agree with it, there's still some sort of gap in there I have to step over in order to get firm footing if that makes sense. I haven't quite worded it like that before, but I'm also a little more confident at the keyboard than I am speaking, so yeah. I imagine most people will find me at least a little strange for thinking of it that way, if not heartless.

In the case of GCW's grandma, it's different. Not only is she mercilessly left hanging on through pain, but her mind is even caught halfway between being able to or not being able to decide if she's ready for death. The flip side of this, though, is that intervention or not, she will eventually die of her ailments. Dimentia and cancer are both ruthless killers and one will eventually get her if not something completely unrelated. The question I ask now is whether she, or her closest sane living relative speaking on her behalf, should be allowed to end it prematurely like we did with our dog. Had I been the one finalizing the decision, I honestly would be okay with her saying "Please just end it," because her death is already predictable, we're just making her suffer less while she's alive. But as we all know, society frowns vigorously on putting people out of their misery. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it just gets really messy for me and I suspect most others.

I do know that if some people are imminently close to death and are in hospice care or something like that, they can pretty much say "I'm done suffering" and in those cases it seems okay to make them comfortable and unaware of the world for the last remaining days of their lives. I know a couple people who died that way. So far as I know, their death was unassisted, they were just left to die of natural disease without aggressive resuscitation.

I think cancer is one of those diseases that tends to go like that. I knew someone with lung cancer who, when she became extremely ill and was too weak to do anything, was asked if she was ready to go. Her simple response was, "I'm ready, I'm done." And within 48 hours she was gone. I fortunately was not there to see this, but I had known her during earlier times when the cancer was developing, and I could tell her days were numbered by the sound of her breathing and her voice. It really saddened me, even though we weren't particularly close.

IN that particular case though, one could argue that her death was in a sense, fair, as she was a heavy smoker. I have my own feelings about that, but even if such a death is cruelly logical and could be called fair, the feelings of grief are never fair. Nobody deserves to feel that kind of grief in my book, so I don't understand how someone could say life is fair and it's on you to see the purpose of things which don't initially seem fair.

So yeah, just my additional 5 cents on this thread lol