Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism and faith

6,799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
5 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I must say that I’ve never understood the rhetorical force of the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective is derided as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

No it's not, it's just as its stated. Where there is knowledge to be gained, religious people somehow see that as an opportunity to shoehorn God into science. Its an unsupported and rather childish approach. 

Its really quite simple to understand. 

Here's a perfect example of just how silly the argument is. 

 

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Catholic Church accept Theistic evolution. It's not the same idea as blind, random evolutionary processes (New Darwinism) advocated by many atheists/materialists. For most christians, evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God.

It's not the point, one day they disagreed with any evolution and the next they agreed. They do accept the theory of evolution. Actually they really have no stance on it and people are free to believe what they want. All people have to accept is that the soul is created by God.

Theistic Evolution isn't a scientific theory however, it's an attempt by the church to explain how evolution was started by God. The stances literally states God started the evolution process but it's not really guided by God in the Catholic view, other Christians view it as evolution happened as described but guided by God.

I'm Agnostic so I don't care for either stance all I know is the theory of evolution is backed up with mountains of evidence.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
On 4/27/2018 at 6:38 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

You said yourself that you are not reading any books that contradict your viewpoints. Only ones that agree with it.

That's confirmation bias.

 

 

What  it means is that I 'think' about things....and I find answers based on my own thinking...what makes since to me. I'm  not really looking for a tit for tat relationship with you. It just seems to me that you really haven't  come to a firm definite  pov about all this and so you glom onto the pov of others, which is actually really what confirmation bias is. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
18 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I can  present a mountains and universes of evidence against it, so if you feel a need open a topic about it, and i will gladly participate.

If the evidence pointed towards evolution's non-existence, then that is where the science would point. "Science" is just the sum of evidence (vaguely speaking). I'm willing to put money on your "evidence" being either already demonstrably proven wrong, OR just arguments from ignorance (or both).

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
18 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

If the evidence pointed towards evolution's non-existence, then that is where the science would point. "Science" is just the sum of evidence (vaguely speaking). I'm willing to put money on your "evidence" being either already demonstrably proven wrong, OR just arguments from ignorance (or both).

The evidence in question is regarding chickens in Sweden.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
10 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:
On 4/29/2018 at 10:06 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:
Quote
On 4/27/2018 at 7:12 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

So it's impossible for a 'true atheist' to change his mind and convert to religion?

This here, Has me asking, why is it even important to think this is a concern to you? Why is it important, what others believe or do not believe? Shouldn’t everyone be left alone to believe or don’t believe? 

 

Are we not here to discuss and debate religion, beliefs and spirituality vs skepticism?

Yes! The religions, beliefs, and spirituality aspect itself. Not the holders of it, and whether they should or should not hold it. I'm going to assume. You seem, based on my reading of your original quote, to be concerned about them as well and whether they should hold it or not. 

Am I understanding that correctly? 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:
9 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I must say that I’ve never understood the rhetorical force of the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective is derided as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

No it's not, it's just as its stated. Where there is knowledge to be gained, religious people somehow see that as an opportunity to shoehorn God into science. Its an unsupported and rather childish approach. 

Its really quite simple to understand. 

Here's a perfect example of just how silly the argument is. 

 

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

Actually I find most Theistic claims of 'proof' are based on some variation of the God of the gaps  the most common being the big bang. Now we have QM predicting virtual particles which is removing that argument, albeit slowly as the theories are becoming more well known to the public. 

Could not agree more  I feel the pursuit to answer these question is an adventure 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

You sure know how to make a good point. Great post Stubbs. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 4/23/2018 at 7:08 PM, Aquila King said:

Thanks for the numerous sources. I'll most definitely check them out.

I'd say my views on such matters have grown and evolved, even since being on here, rather significantly. I started out a fundamentalist Christian, then a staunch atheist, then a committed spiritualist, and now I'm about at the point where the only thing I'm actually certain of is that I'm uncertain about any of it. I've tried racking my brain to figure out the answer for years, and so far I haven't come any closer to the truth then I was to begin with. And honestly, I'm not so sure that I even care that much anymore.

Just chiming in with my point oh two here.....I agree with your viewpoint on uncertainty.  If anything, that is the most logical one....IMHO.  For example, when someone speaks in absolutes, I've found them to be generally absolutely wrong.  This  goes for people who post up six pages of scientific information about a thing as well.

Science isnt about "proving" things.  And what science "knows" is in a constant change of flux.  That's the way science works.  Science is based on observation, testing and reaching conclusions about what is observed.  Conclusions are based on the best information available at the time.  This changes.  So, what science actually "knows" today can be discarded tomorrow when new or better information becomes available.  And when this happens, which it frequently does BTW, then what is "known" today is actually false.  Just for kicks and giggles.....go pick up a science textbook from the nineties and see how accurate it is in today's world of scientific views.  I think you'll be surprised how much of it is no longer in vogue.   

For example.....let's just take the statement that we know the mind is the brain.  Do we?  Or do we think we know that the mind is the brain, in the same way that people used to think the mind was in the heart, or that bloodletting was actually an effective means of cure?  In the field of "mind studies" and in the world at large, there are some anomalies that defy what is known about the mind.  For example, it is documented that people who have received vital organ transplants have received "information" as a result of these transplants that change them as people.  Upon further examination, one can find a strong and undeniable correlation between the person who has received the organ, and the original organ donor.  This doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that there is more to know.  LINK

Now, having posted that link.....no doubt someone will pop in and say...."see....it's refuted."  Well, no....it's not understood and some people poo-poo the idea.  That doesn't mean it's refuted, it means there are people who will not accept it.  More research needs to be done in the field before any kind of definitive claims can be made.  This is just one example.  Confirmation bias as a "real thing" is most closely associated with scientific research and deals with experimenters favoring outcomes that confirm their initial opinions on a thing, and that's why it needs to be guarded against.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

For example.....let's just take the statement that we know the mind is the brain.  Do we?  Or do we think we know that the mind is the brain, in the same way that people used to think the mind was in the heart, or that bloodletting was actually an effective means of cure?  In the field of "mind studies" and in the world at large, there are some anomalies that defy what is known about the mind.  For example, it is documented that people who have received vital organ transplants have received "information" as a result of these transplants that change them as people.  Upon further examination, one can find a strong and undeniable correlation between the person who has received the organ, and the original organ donor.  This doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that there is more to know.  LINK

Now, having posted that link.....no doubt someone will pop in and say...."see....it's refuted."  Well, no....it's not understood and some people poo-poo the idea.  That doesn't mean it's refuted, it means there are people who will not accept it.  More research needs to be done in the field before any kind of definitive claims can be made.  This is just one example.  Confirmation bias as a "real thing" is most closely associated with scientific research and deals with experimenters favoring outcomes that confirm their initial opinions on a thing, and that's why it needs to be guarded against.

I fully agree with all the above, and could name numerous other anomalies as well. Though I guess what I'm getting at is is that I used to use those anomalies as positive evidence of the existence of the 'soul', whereas now I simply see them for what they are: anomalies that I can't explain. In essence, I'm simply saying I don't know. I think there's most likely something more to the mind than just biological hardware, but I have no clue what, how, or even if.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Just chiming in with my point oh two here.....I agree with your viewpoint on uncertainty.  If anything, that is the most logical one....IMHO.  For example, when someone speaks in absolutes, I've found them to be generally absolutely wrong.  This  goes for people who post up six pages of scientific information about a thing as well.

When you say, you've found them wrong  I take it that's from a personal viewpoint, not a supported one? 

If you found a large body of supporting evidence 'wrong' you would surely just post correcting information to refute that? 

I can't say I've seen you do that to be honest. 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Science isnt about "proving" things. 

That depends, science can prove things to be incorrect, it's not in the business of proving things correct, that's 'discovery' 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

And what science "knows" is in a constant change of flux.  That's the way science works.  Science is based on observation, testing and reaching conclusions about what is observed.  Conclusions are based on the best information available at the time.  This changes.  So, what science actually "knows" today can be discarded tomorrow when new or better information becomes available.  And when this happens, which it frequently does BTW, then what is "known" today is actually false.  Just for kicks and giggles.....go pick up a science textbook from the nineties and see how accurate it is in today's world of scientific views.  I think you'll be surprised how much of it is no longer in vogue.

But your oversimplifying greatly. 

Science is not rewritten constantly  its adjusted. What we knew about atoms in the 1800s is not changed, bits have been expanded upon. Science is fluid, it can change, but there are also many basics that are very unlikely to change 

And that's what science does. It accommodates new information as it becomes available. The fringe claims simply fail. 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

For example.....let's just take the statement that we know the mind is the brain.  Do we? 

Yes we do know that. 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Or do we think we know that the mind is the brain, in the same way that people used to think the mind was in the heart, or that bloodletting was actually an effective means of cure? 

Really? 

You're comparing current technology to ancient ideas that were amongst our very first techniques at medicine and mapping the body? 

No we aren't taking huge leaps of faith. Today we have MRIs, we have treated brain trauma and disease and have performed lobotomy operations with success. None of that would be possible if the mind was not the brain. 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

In the field of "mind studies" and in the world at large, there are some anomalies that defy what is known about the mind.  For example, it is documented that people who have received vital organ transplants have received "information" as a result of these transplants that change them as people.  Upon further examination, one can find a strong and undeniable correlation between the person who has received the organ, and the original organ donor.  This doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that there is more to know.  LINK

Now, having posted that link.....no doubt someone will pop in and say...."see....it's refuted."  Well, no....it's not understood and some people poo-poo the idea.  That doesn't mean it's refuted, it means there are people who will not accept it.  More research needs to be done in the field before any kind of definitive claims can be made.  This is just one example.  Confirmation bias as a "real thing" is most closely associated with scientific research and deals with experimenters favoring outcomes that confirm their initial opinions on a thing, and that's why it needs to be guarded against.  

Why do you feel that these anecdotes have significance? And where do you feel Susan E. Smith was wrong in her evaluation? What makes you think modern techniques could not ascertain real information regarding such claims? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
52 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

When you say, you've found them wrong  I take it that's from a personal viewpoint, not a supported one? 

A personal viewpoint is a supported one when it's based on experience.  

Quote

Why do you feel that these anecdotes have significance? And where do you feel Susan E. Smith was wrong in her evaluation? What makes you think modern techniques could not ascertain real information regarding such claims? 

That should be self-apparent.  They have significance because they are real experiences.  The fact that they are not understood or documented scientifically has no bearing on that reality......if indeed they are real events, and they may be.  That's why it's important to remain open minded about all such things.  If indeed it can be shown that "memory" can be stored in places other than the brain as some studies indicate possible.....then it completely refutes your statement about the mind being only the brain and nothing more.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

A personal viewpoint is a supported one when it's based on experience.  

But that's in the eye of the beholder when repeatability or predictability cannot be obtained surely. There can be many personal viewpoints on a certain idea and none of them correct. 9nly empirical evidence determines fact from fiction, and it doesn't support the hypothesis of body memory. 

5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That should be self-apparent.  They have significance because they are real experiences. 

But they have been and determined to most likely be a hallucinatory effect. 

5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

The fact that they are not understood or documented scientifically has no bearing on that reality......if indeed they are real events, and they may be.  That's why it's important to remain open minded about all such things.

If science was not open minded, there would not have been a study that reached a conclusion based on the claims. It didn't support the more unlikely claims of independant brain function, it supported a hallucinatory effect, why would that be wrong, and what warrants second guessing that conclusion? 

5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

  If indeed it can be shown that "memory" can be stored in places other than the brain as some studies indicate possible.....then it completely refutes your statement about the mind being only the brain and nothing more.  

There's no good reason to think that's what's happening though, are you sure you're not starting with a conclusion and looking for something to support that? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Why do you feel that these anecdotes have significance?

In personally avoiding any discussion of whether or not such anecdotes are inherently true, I would like to just say one thing.

Whether you believe in or agree with the factual substance of certain anecdotes or not, I find it to be somewhat callous of some skeptics to flat-out deny the personal experiences of some people in such a way that paints them as delusional nutcases or flat-out liars. Don't get me wrong, there are undoubtedly those who fit such a description, but at the same time there are many perfectly reasonable average Joes out there who have had unexplained personal experiences that radically change them, many times even for the better.

For instance, many near death experiencers have had many positive life changes occur as a result of said experiences, and many are perfectly rational, sane people in pretty much every other avenue of life. Yet it seems like many skeptics want to smear them as delusional idiots or outright liars because of it, and I don't think that's a fair assessment really.

Look, whether you agree with these people or not, these people's experiences are indeed significant to them, and so to smear them as liars and delusional morons is not really accurate and in the very least, it doesn't help your case.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what you're doing exactly, it just happens to be a common trend among skeptics that I find frustrating to say the least.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
42 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

In personally avoiding any discussion of whether or not such anecdotes are inherently true, I would like to just say one thing.

Whether you believe in or agree with the factual substance of certain anecdotes or not, I find it to be somewhat callous of some skeptics to flat-out deny the personal experiences of some people in such a way that paints them as delusional nutcases or flat-out liars. Don't get me wrong, there are undoubtedly those who fit such a description, but at the same time there are many perfectly reasonable average Joes out there who have had unexplained personal experiences that radically change them, many times even for the better.

I am not doubting that people have experiences that they cannot explain. 

I'm saying that attributing myths of the supernatural is shortsighted. How is not akin to considering santa as a real explanation for a sound on your roof that you can't explain? 

Quote

For instance, many near death experiencers have had many positive life changes occur as a result of said experiences, and many are perfectly rational, sane people in pretty much every other avenue of life. Yet it seems like many skeptics want to smear them as delusional idiots or outright liars because of it, and I don't think that's a fair assessment really.

I think the only people who deserve to be smeared are people like Eben Alexander, who undermine scientific inquiry by offering these myths as answers when there are better explanations that they are fully aware of. 

Explanations that don't sell paperbacks. 

He is considered very sane, that doesn't mean his influence on others is valid. In a scientific circle, he gets torn apart, so he preys on the ignorant to sell hopes and dreams. 

Quote

Look, whether you agree with these people or not, these people's experiences are indeed significant to them, and so to smear them as liars and delusional morons is not really accurate and in the very least, it doesn't help your case.

Projects like AWARE would not exist if that was the case though 

I feel your lumping all cases under one conclusion, that's not the case. If someone decides to propose myths as real world answers, why shouldn't that be challenged when there is better information available? 

With the evidence we have today, there is just me reason to accept afterlife myths as genuine contenders for answers to things like NDEs. Are you damir with physicist Sean Carroll and his detailed scientific examinations that well illustrate why death is final? 

To my experience, its these pioneers challenging cultural myths that are dismissed as arrogant and overbearing, yet its people ignorant of their fields dismiss them.  They are not ignorant of the myths we have passed down for generations, That sets a tense discussion from page one. Why do people insist such cutting edge knowledge is displaced by myth? 

Don't we want to find the truth? Why be satisfied with ancient philosophy when we have the ability to seek out these answers? 

Quote

I'm not necessarily saying that's what you're doing exactly, it just happens to be a common trend among skeptics that I find frustrating to say the least.

I'd just suggest you do a background check in the people and claims first. Remember science doesn't have am agenda, people do. And from my experience, it's those who's world views are challenged and don't wish to meet that challenge  but seek validation are those who cast the first stone do to speak. I've started out many a discussion in an amicable nature only to find some of opposing views turn the discussion ugly when facts come out. It tends to go downhill from there. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
19 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

And let's  not forget 'with God all things are possible'.

It sounds  great right? Giving hope to the hopeless, strengthening the faith of the faithful....

...but in reality it is a totally idiotic phrase.

In reality what it says is...the physical universe has no rules...if God wants to override gravity, for instance, he can. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:
22 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

Actually I find most Theistic claims of 'proof' are based on some variation of the God of the gaps  the most common being the big bang. Now we have QM predicting virtual particles which is removing that argument, albeit slowly as the theories are becoming more well known to the public. 

Could not agree more  I feel the pursuit to answer these question is an adventure

I wonder though, about when one uses these phrases. Is it for the benefit of who they are telling them to, or for themselves only? And what are there thoughts, when they happened to be challenged by those who they tell them these phrases to? 

I just wonder, if in honesty, it's for themselves and they feel a bit shaky about their own belief? 

But, that's just me. I know, it sounds weird, I have do have a belief, maybe at times I feel it's challenges in believing it, but that is up to me to deal with. And, I don't know if not being raised secular has me with my issues on honesty, self honesty really, but I think in the end, self honesty wins out. Things in life, should be known the truth about. Going through life, trying to be told one hundred percent certain things, certain phrases to answer the 'mystery' of things, is in the end, I think cheating yourself. 

I'm all for being guided by your belief, but I think live the honesty of what is as a priority. And if the the truth still ..... bothers....... at least allow the self denial be a solitary thing and you realize you're doing it on purpose for your own self. :devil:  

You know........................ like I do from time to time. :o  :w00t:  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
9 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Yet it seems like many skeptics want to smear them as delusional idiots or outright liars because of it, and I don't think that's a fair assessment really.

Look, whether you agree with these people or not, these people's experiences are indeed significant to them, and so to smear them as liars and delusional morons is not really accurate and in the very least, it doesn't help your case.

I really haven't seen much of what you are talking about, accusations that people who have had NDEs are liars or delusional; most skeptics I know of accept that they had the experience.  What I usually see criticism of is the leap from "I had an NDE" to "therefore the afterlife exists"; that's not the same as criticizing the people themselves. 

Yes, there are mean people everywhere, I don't see skeptics being disproportionately so.  Especially towards people as opposed to the ideas they hold; you can't be mean to ideas.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
14 hours ago, Sherapy said:
22 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

You sure know how to make a good point. Great post Stubbs. 

:blush:  :blush:   

 

............... oh, man, I hope so. There are times I am afraid I need to lay off the caffeine!!  

:sk  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
10 hours ago, Guyver said:
11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

When you say, you've found them wrong  I take it that's from a personal viewpoint, not a supported one? 

A personal viewpoint is a supported one when it's based on experience. 

I'm just saying this, for me to assume this, but to read this I feel it wouldn't be the case all of the time. Subjectively. :w00t:  There are times, when I may have had some physical situations, and sometimes I could be thinking an experience is supporting my answers to certain things. I would think that, yes, and probably on many occasions. But sometimes, the memory, or we'll just talk about mine, might change it a bit through out the years. So, I then doubt an experience I had years ago. 

And using my 1989 car accident, I may have some form of memory, but because of the head injury I received, I'm not so sure of what I remember or not. My point is, that it's understandable to have a personal viewpoint, based on experience, a personal experience, but even then I don't think that can be trusted. 

10 hours ago, Guyver said:
Quote

Why do you feel that these anecdotes have significance? And where do you feel Susan E. Smith was wrong in her evaluation? What makes you think modern techniques could not ascertain real information regarding such claims? 

That should be self-apparent.  They have significance because they are real experiences.  The fact that they are not understood or documented scientifically has no bearing on that reality......if indeed they are real events, and they may be.  That's why it's important to remain open minded about all such things.  If indeed it can be shown that "memory" can be stored in places other than the brain as some studies indicate possible.....then it completely refutes your statement about the mind being only the brain and nothing more.  

:hmm:   I wonder though, ( I see where you coming from, I think. ) Does this also pertain to phantom pains in a missing limb? This happened to a family member whose leg was amputated. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

For instance, many near death experiencers have had many positive life changes occur as a result of said experiences, and many are perfectly rational, sane people in pretty much every other avenue of life. Yet it seems like many skeptics want to smear them as delusional idiots or outright liars because of it, and I don't think that's a fair assessment really.

I think the only people who deserve to be smeared are people like Eben Alexander, who undermine scientific inquiry by offering these myths as answers when there are better explanations that they are fully aware of. 

Explanations that don't sell paperbacks. 

He is considered very sane, that doesn't mean his influence on others is valid. In a scientific circle, he gets torn apart, so he preys on the ignorant to sell hopes and dreams. 

Reading this post, (your response to A.King) has me considering some things. I see where you are getting at, ( I totally feel the same ) that you're discussing those who publish books and go on lecture tours about their myths and feel they are backing them up. (If I'm getting that correctly.) In which, I can see that. I think, though, what about those who have had personal experiences, and are not on the path with an agenda to make everyone believe, just to have this bit as part of their point of view? Maybe like............. me! :D  I do get the feeling, you don't have anything against people who have these 'ideals' because of their experiences, and are not trying to pass them off as truth for everyone else to believe, just wanting to keep them within their own sole world view or point of view. (And yeah, hoping that there is always the understanding of logic and facts as their priority in their point of view) In which, I do think you know I have............................... :devil:     ................. you do, right? 

Anyhow, there are things, that I find fascinating. If it's to read about it as a hobby, or to validate in one sense, (just wanting to know, if there is more than just me having these same experiences), I'm glad there are books, and tv programs and such. And forums, like this one, (in which is how I got here! :devil:  ............ wait................. :D  ) And all I want, is to just read fellow experiences, or different one's, just to see and understand things for my benefit alone. I think, this is just awesome to have, as well as your science books, and such, to read and be educated about. 

I guess, it depends if the goal for selling books for the entertainment and personal education or it's to push an agenda. But, in the end, as a past bookseller for so many years, one has to have a main genre to categorize such book, and hoping that it's contents is understood as to the topic it's filed under. Even though the paranormal and the separate religious books are filed under None fiction, I myself tend to reflect on that a bit, as oppose to other none fiction genres like science, business, and history, etc. But, it is also not filed under fiction either. 

In the end, the books are for the reader, and the reader has their path to deal with. 

My point is, the author of the various books, are the writing for themselves or for their readers. I think it's should be considered if it's for their readers, and realize a lot of readers are doing this for themselves and are still logical to see the world for what it is. (I have disputed the romance reader, and think, really?!?!  :unsure2:  

Then, all of a sudden I have this desire to read about dukes and poor helpless young ladies and then.............................. 

Never mind! That's different!!!  ................................................. :w00t:   

But, my point is, what about those who just want to read about experiences, that they themselves have and want different perspectives on? 

But, yes, I agree with you on most of this. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 hours ago, joc said:
22 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

'God works in mysterious ways'

'God has a plan for you'

'God won't give you more than you can handle'

I often wonder, does lines and others like these, really convince some of this? 

I think, (and it can be heavily disputed, I will admit that. ;) ) and I like to think my beliefs says this to me, ( I know, probability of oxymoronic sentencing and thought.) when there is a gap of not knowing, I think it's best to attach that with, 'let's investigate this so we can try to find an answer'. I don't think it's best to fill it in with .................. certain assumptions. ;) 

 

And let's  not forget 'with God all things are possible'.

It sounds  great right? Giving hope to the hopeless, strengthening the faith of the faithful....

...but in reality it is a totally idiotic phrase.

In reality what it says is...the physical universe has no rules...if God wants to override gravity, for instance, he can.

Exactly! :tu:  

And let me assure you on something. If God want to override gravity, like say when I need to get to the top shelf of something, or what ever, he's welcome to do so anytime! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think the only people who deserve to be smeared are people like Eben Alexander, who undermine scientific inquiry by offering these myths as answers when there are better explanations that they are fully aware of. 

Explanations that don't sell paperbacks. 

He is considered very sane, that doesn't mean his influence on others is valid. In a scientific circle, he gets torn apart, so he preys on the ignorant to sell hopes and dreams. 

That's one viewpoint.......another viewpoint is that he has had an experience that he completely believes in and he's willing to go on record about it.  I admit, this idea is completely different from yours. 

Do you criticize people like Richard Dawkins for attempting to make money selling paperbacks?  Just curious....because the title "The God Delusion" seems as much or more the kind of tactic that you just accused Alexander of using.

In any event, have you praised Dawkins for that work?  If so, then wouldn't you be able to consider yourself a person who is extremely cognitively biased?  I mean, you can't praise Dawkins for doing something you disparage Alexander for.......right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

In any event, have you praised Dawkins for that work?  If so, then wouldn't you be able to consider yourself a person who is extremely cognitively biased?  I mean, you can't praise Dawkins for doing something you disparage Alexander for.......right?

Where did Dawkins 'offer myths as answers where there are better explanations' available?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.