122 replies to this topic

[Alienated Being]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

That is one of the best compliments I have had on UM.

If that's how you'd like to interpret it.

[Seeker79]

RavenEyes19, on 25 November 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

I can't take NDEs as proof of an afterlife. People who 'die' and come back aren't brain dead..they've gone into cardiac arrest. It's likely that they are experiencing vivid dreams or hallucinations as the brain is being starved of oxygen.

Again I have addressed all of this in other threads. Most spiritual workdviews are built on the brain as a receiver of conciiusbess view as oposed to the brain as a producer of it. All observations fit perfectly with the brain as receiver, while not all observations fit with the brain as a producer. When you look at it carefully and don't ignore statistical probabilities or try to get creative with conjecture a clear picture starts to emerge.

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 25 November 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

If that's how you'd like to interpret it.

I do. Those two are sophisticated on levels you are not even aware of. I am honored to be grouped with them. Even if it was ment as a cheep shot.

Edited by Seeker79, 25 November 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Alienated Being]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

I do. Those two are sophisticated on levels you are not even aware of. I am honored to be grouped with them. Even if it was ment as a cheep shot.

Sophisticated... yes, very sophisticated.... LOL

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 24 November 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

No, I am a realist who does not take too kindly to nonsensical metaphysical mumbojumbo.

There is nothing real or not real about your beleifs, and if you cant hold the argument of why something is "mumbojumbo" then you are simply guilty of unvaried bias, which is fine if you state your position as a matter of opinion, but in the end that is all it is, and rather a fallacious and uninformed one at that.

Edited by Seeker79, 25 November 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 25 November 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Sophisticated... yes, very sophisticated.... LOL

That is the problem with being to short to see over the steering wheel. You don't realize how bad you are at driving😘

[Alienated Being]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

There is nothing real or not real about your beleifs, and if you cant hold the argument of why something is "mumbojumbo" then you are simply guilty of unvaried bias, which is fine if you state your position as a matter of opinion, but in the end that is all it is, and rather a fallacious and uninformed one at that.

I lost interest in debating with you when you told me to provide you with evidence that there is no awareness after brain death, that's why I did not continue with arguing as to why it was "mumbojumbo". I can't take you seriously when you're going to attempt to argue that we can still maintain awareness after our brains have completely died. :\

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 25 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

I lost interest in debating with you when you told me to provide you with evidence that there is no awareness after brain death, that's why I did not continue with arguing as to why it was "mumbojumbo". I can't take you seriously when you're going to attempt to argue that we can still maintain awareness after our brains have completely died. :\

That is the debate there silly.

[Cybele]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

There is not a single shred of evidence that NDEs are anything other than they apear to be. I'll challenge you to find it.

How droll. I stated my opinions and you challenge me to prove them. Unlike you, I am not set on proving anything about consciousness after death, primarily because I am not emotionally invested in the idea of an afterlife. If you believe you have all the answers--and you clearly do--then you are the one who is required to provide evidence, but that is not the purpose of this thread. Not many people are going to take you seriously if you keep demanding that people prove a negative.

Edited by Cybele, 25 November 2012 - 06:03 AM.

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 25 November 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

How droll. I stated my opinions and you challenge me to prove them. Unlike you, I am not set on proving anything about consciousness after death, primarily because I am not emotionally invested in the idea of an afterlife. If you believe you have all the answers--and you clearly do--then you are the one who is required to provide evidence. Not many people are going to take you seriously if you keep demanding that people prove a negative.

I'm not demanding anything of the sort.

"I am not emotionally invested in the idea of an afterlife. "----yet you take the time to post about it.

The evidence has been provided. Its the illogical rubbuttles and bias unscientific "explanations" that I pick apart. This is not asking Somone to proov a negative. The phenomenon exists I don't have to proove that; it's a fact. I can look critically at the attempted explanations and they do not hold up to scrutiny... And no one  offers a counter argument to that scrutiny. That is how arguments are held correct? To write things off because someone gets creative dosn't seem very prudent.  

Typical

1) NDEs exist ( whatever their nature)
2) skeptic gives reason why that nature might be benine
3) believer shows with simple logic and/or completely within the realms of science that that reason is completely baseless.
4) skeptic cries fowl, says that believer dosnt understand logic or science  ( usually while using fallacies) and does not offer a counter argument to the scrutiny of the "explanation"

It's silly.. The skeptic is the one supposed to be able to follow it through. After all, they base their opinions in evidence right? I'm not sure why they hold onto arguments when they have been utterly defeated.

[Salami Swami]

i recomend the movie "the void"

[Cybele]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

I'm not demanding anything of the sort.

"I am not emotionally invested in the idea of an afterlife. "----yet you take the time to post about it.

I posted in a thread asking what happens when you die. I am emotionally invested, and interested, in death and the process of dying, not in heaven or hell.

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

The evidence has been provided. Its the illogical rubbuttles and bias unscientific "explanations" that I pick apart. This is not asking Somone to proov a negative. The phenomenon exists I don't have to proove that; it's a fact. I can look critically at the attempted explanations and they do not hold up to scrutiny... And no one  offers a counter argument to that scrutiny. That is how arguments are held correct? To write things off because someone gets creative dosn't seem very prudent.

I see no point in bringing evidence into a conversation where two sides have such diametrically opposed philosophical views that each side will interpret whatever evidence arises in favor of their own beliefs. I used to be more actively engaged in such topics; I now believe such conversation is fruitless. Naturalism, materialism, spiritualism, they are all philosophies. I don't believe one is inherently superior; they're all subjective beliefs.

Pointing out logical flaws is another thing entirely. You seem to be far from immune from them, as the below shows.

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Typical

1) NDEs exist ( whatever their nature)
2) skeptic gives reason why that nature might be benine
3) believer shows with simple logic and/or completely within the realms of science that that reason is completely baseless.
4) skeptic cries fowl, says that believer dosnt understand logic or science  ( usually while using fallacies) and does not offer a counter argument to the scrutiny of the "explanation"

It's silly.. The skeptic is the one supposed to be able to follow it through. After all, they base their opinions in evidence right? I'm not sure why they hold onto arguments when they have been utterly defeated.

Yes Seeker. This is a perfectly accurate, unbiased representation of all such conversations on UM and elsewhere. What a productive contribution.

The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they hoped for this thread to be a means of sharing opinions, not further bickering. There's already plenty of the latter on this sub-section.

[Seeker79]

Cybele, on 25 November 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

I posted in a thread asking what happens when you die. I am emotionally invested, and interested, in death and the process of dying, not in heaven or hell.



I see no point in bringing evidence into a conversation where two sides have such diametrically opposed philosophical views that each side will interpret whatever evidence arises in favor of their own beliefs. I used to be more actively engaged in such topics; I now believe such conversation is fruitless. Naturalism, materialism, spiritualism, they are all philosophies. I don't believe one is inherently superior; they're all subjective beliefs.

Pointing out logical flaws is another thing entirely. You seem to be far from immune from them, as the below shows.



Yes Seeker. This is a perfectly accurate, unbiased representation of all such conversations on UM and elsewhere. What a productive contribution.

The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they hoped for this thread to be a means of sharing opinions, not further bickering. There's already plenty of the latter on this sub-section.

I said it was typical. At least from my perspective. It's happening now... You are avoiding the object of the arguments themselves.

And I think This fits well within a skeptic vs spirituality topic entitled "what happen s when you die."

I'll be ok with your opinion, but do not claim it is built upon more logic and science than another unless you prepared to follow through and show why.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Pam Reynolds.

I certainly am not.

Well she doesn't have a brain now. What cognitive tests were performed?

[Cybele]

Seeker79, on 25 November 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

I'll be ok with your opinion, but do not claim it is built upon more logic and science than another unless you prepared to follow through and show why.

Okay. This is why I prefaced it as my opinion. Belief in a spiritual realm or the absence thereof can never be built on science, but that's a whole other topic.