Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What does the Bible say about unicorns?http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
What does the bible say about the platypus?
Yu don't have to answer; we all know the answer.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What does the Bible say about unicorns?http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
What does the bible say about the platypus?
Yu don't have to answer; we all know the answer.
Originally posted by dadudemonIs that a "coward's bet"? Is it? Or are there an almost infinite number of reasons to "believe" or "not believe"? Can you lump everyone in as having the same reason?
No, you cannot. That would be idiocy, obviously.
I'm not speaking of everyone now am I, just JIA since he consistently brings up "what if you're wrong" tactic, ie "it's a safer bet to believe than not believe." This makes Jesus cry.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not speaking of everyone now am I,
Actually, you spoke of JIA's particular bet, not JIA, himself.
Originally posted by Robtard
This makes Jesus cry.
You're probably right. Like I said, Jesus would prefer (it's in the book of Revelations, mang!) a moral atheist rather than a fence sitting Christian.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are more afterlives than "JIA's particular flavor of Chistianity" and "Atheism".
I think what I said still applies, actually. The only other major denomination I can think of that might get him into trouble would be Islam...but I believe there are mercy allowances for the infidels just the same as there are for non-Christians.
But if you want to consider them all equal, cool.
I don't. The 2 man church that believes you must poop in the garden while singing "wheels on the bus" to receive eternal salvation from the Cupcake Baboon God is not really a religion I'd care about, anyway, even if it actually ends up being the one that was really right about everything. I'm sure JIA wouldn't care either.
Gasp...it comes down to personal preference! 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you spoke of JIA's particular bet, not JIA, himself.You're probably right. Like I said, Jesus would prefer (it's in the book of Revelations, mang!) a moral atheists than a fence sitting Christian.
It was directed to JIA, though I can see how you took it in the general sense.
Yup.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think what I said still applies, actually. The only other major denomination I can think of that might get him into trouble would be Islam...but I believe there are mercy allowances for the infidels just the same as there are for non-Christians.But if you want to consider them all equal, cool.
They all make pretty much the same argument as far as I'm concerned. I really see no reason to say that Lovecraftican cosmology is less likely to be true than Islam simply because Islam has billions more believers.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They all make pretty much the same argument as far as I'm concerned. I really see no reason to say that Lovecraftican cosmology is less likely to be true than Islam simply because Islam has billions more believers.
I believe Lovecraft's "philosophy" is called cosmocism or something. I don't know the spelling but that's about what it sounds like.
But I tend to think that in matters of religion, argumentum ad populum might play a little role. Sure, psychology also plays a role (probably the biggest). But I also think there is divine influence going on here.
I also hold all positive religions to be generally good for a person and "godly".
Originally posted by Digi
Here's the video. There was an accompanying article in a Skeptic Magazine, where they went into it a bit more fully. But I think the video does a pretty good job of explaining what's going on:Iirc, the article went into a bit more detail about the chemical affects of sudden trauma, fear and terror, and fight or flight responses that are often triggered. but again, I don't want to spout details for fear of being only partially correct (i.e. wrong).
ya, I sort of thought thats what you meant
the problem is, while I totally believe these mechanisms are what is responsible (maybe not specifically superior temporal, but whatever) for many paranormal experiences, knowing there are biological origins to similar experiences isn't the same as saying we know what areas are active or which specific areas are causing the NDE.
For instance, schizophrenia (which they mention in the video as causing similar experiences) is associated with temporal and frontal areas, and likely mediated by dopamine regulated connections between the two. Basically, because of how interconnected stuff is, we may be able to produce what are "frontal lobe" experiences by influencing activity in the temporal lobe simply by changing the input/output in these connections.
not to be pedantic or anything, I just always give Deadline shit about this when he tries to say there is no brain activity during a NDE. Given the context, any doctor who tried to put a dying patient into a MRI scanner (or even a full EEG cap) would be guilty of criminal negligence causing death, and no ethics/funding agency would ever let an experiment go forward where the goal was to let people die without trying to save them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's an over-exaggeration.Some of the experiences have been marginally reproduced in labs.
I read that link you posted. Most of the "traits" are explainable, and some have been reproduced. I'd consider that strong evidence for my position. Not irrefutable, but strong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We do not have a pretty good understanding.For every single case that we can explain with reasoned science, there are multiple exceptions to that same situation. It is frustrating science, at best, and pseudoscience, at worst.
Pseudoscience presupposes a lack of controls and/or empirical evidence. What I've read, and to a certain extent posted, is neither.
Science as a whole deals with provisional truths. You know this. All we're talking about is degrees of believability. I'm sure you'd concede that a scientific explanation is the most likely, because we know for a fact that elements of these experiences are reproducible and caused by brain states. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to say "this is truth." All I'm asking is that we look at the evidence and realize that a scientific underpinning to NDE's is not only possible but likely.
Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I sort of thought thats what you meantthe problem is, while I totally believe these mechanisms are what is responsible (maybe not specifically superior temporal, but whatever) for many paranormal experiences, knowing there are biological origins to similar experiences isn't the same as saying we know what areas are active or which specific areas are causing the NDE.
For instance, schizophrenia (which they mention in the video as causing similar experiences) is associated with temporal and frontal areas, and likely mediated by dopamine regulated connections between the two. Basically, because of how interconnected stuff is, we may be able to produce what are "frontal lobe" experiences by influencing activity in the temporal lobe simply by changing the input/output in these connections.
not to be pedantic or anything, I just always give Deadline shit about this when he tries to say there is no brain activity during a NDE. Given the context, any doctor who tried to put a dying patient into a MRI scanner (or even a full EEG cap) would be guilty of criminal negligence causing death, and no ethics/funding agency would ever let an experiment go forward where the goal was to let people die without trying to save them.
Ha. That's somewhat of a conundrum.
Your point about similar or identical experiences is well-made. But look at it like this: we can induce an OBE, for example, in a controlled setting, proving it can be induced simply through neural stimulus. Even if it's not identical to an NDE's OBE, we know brain states can cause one, and for a more paranormal interpretation to be plausible, they'd have to show that it in no way emerges from brain activity. There may in fact be more than one biochemical way to experience an OBE, but given what we know, it seems almost impossible that it's not related to brain state in some way.
And I use OBE because it was covered most specifically in the video. We can sub in other NDE phenomenon with the same rationale, though probably not every single one.
Originally posted by Digi
I read that link you posted. Most of the "traits" are explainable, and some have been reproduced. I'd consider that strong evidence for my position. Not irrefutable, but strong.
I consider the "For every aspect of an NDE, there is at least one scientific explanation for it. And for every scientific explanation, there seem to be five NDE cases that defy it." to not be in support of your strongly worded position and in favor of my "this is more nebulous than some would have you believe" position. Keep in mind that I do not think you are explicitly wrong, I only disagree with the degree at which you are expressing you perspective.
Pretend you're a 10 on this topic. I am a 7. Pretend that a 1 would be the most backwards, red neck, bible thumping, Christian.
Originally posted by Digi
Pseudoscience presupposes a lack of controls and/or empirical evidence.
Which is what happens in some of these limited studies. Also, pseudoscience can be that science which has a problem in the setup and or controls.
Real science may not have explicit controls, as well. Just depends on what you are doing. Of course, people create controls from the data, I suppose...but it is not the same thing as designing an experiment with a control or something.
Originally posted by Digi
What I've read, and to a certain extent posted, is neither.
What I have read it is a mixture of science and pseudoscience from both sides of the argument. Not all of it is bad, from both sides, though.
Originally posted by Digi
Science as a whole deals with provisional truths. You know this. All we're talking about is degrees of believability. I'm sure you'd concede that a scientific explanation is the most likely, because we know for a fact that elements of these experiences are reproducible and caused by brain states. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to say "this is truth." All I'm asking is that we look at the evidence and realize that a scientific underpinning to NDE's is not only possible but likely.
Yes, you definitely know that I would concede that because I claim all perceived supernatural is just the natural without insight, yet.
And, no the explanations you refer to also go against your position. Some of it points to genuine OBEs and continuation of consciousness outside of the corporeal flesh. I am quite sure that that is not the position you intended.
Lol @ the Pascal's Wager talk.
That's an extremely weak argument considering there is an infinite number of ways you can be wrong and thus be damned given there are infinite possible ways the Universe could conceivably work.
Not believing and not bothering to live according to the rules of some hypothetical being just happens to be more cost effective.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider the "For every aspect of an NDE, there is at least one scientific explanation for it. And for every scientific explanation, there seem to be five NDE cases that defy it." to not be in support of your strongly worded position and in favor of my "this is more nebulous than some would have you believe" position. Keep in mind that I do not think you are explicitly wrong, I only disagree with the degree at which you are expressing you perspective.Pretend you're a 10 on this topic. I am a 7. Pretend that a 1 would be the most backwards, red neck, bible thumping, Christian.
There would be degrees past 10, then, in that example. Provisional truths, like I said.
I think some of what you're referring to is probably where we simply have insufficient evidence because the occurrence wasn't directly observed in any objective manner. I'd post a Bill O'Reilly "You can't explain that" meme for humor's sake, but I'm too tired to look it up. Obviously, though, we can't explain everything because we don't always monitor it. inamilist's ethical concerns earlier come to mind as well.
I'm also curious about these cases that openly defy it. Because for it to "defy" scientifically reproduced OBE's or NDE's, not being explainable isn't sufficient to suggest a continuation of consciousness. You'd need particular phenomenon that couldn't be reproduced by the brain, which would require some sort of specialized observation to begin with. I'm happy to peruse some examples if you have them though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But I tend to think that in matters of religion, argumentum ad populum might play a little role.
In what? Surely not in defining what is likely to be true about the world.
The wager is based on the principle that we don't know for sure what happens after you die. People's opinions are not a good basis for calculating probabilities about things none of them know anything about. If they have some special knowledge, of course, their opinion does matter but then you're rejecting the premise of the wager.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I also hold all positive religions to be generally good for a person and "godly".
The use of the word "positive" makes that sounds like a tautology.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In what? Surely not in defining what is likely to be true about the world.
Yup. That's exactly what I mean. That's not the only element, of course.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The wager is based on the principle that we don't know for sure what happens after you die. People's opinions are not a good basis for calculating probabilities about things none of them know anything about. If they have some special knowledge, of course, their opinion does matter but then you're rejecting the premise of the wager.
I disagree. Why should I trust your opinion over the next? What the masses do should persuade you as that is how a normal person functions. At the end, I think prayer also can play a role in the decision. As I have expressed in the past, for one, Hinudism is the best course of action for their life. For another, strong atheism is the best course of action for their life. For me, Mormonism seems the best answer for my life.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The use of the word "positive" makes that sounds like a tautology.
More like a truism.
"Positive religions are generally good for a person."
Duhhh!
Originally posted by Digi
inamilist's ethical concerns earlier come to mind as well.
That was brought up by the how things work article, as well...I believe.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm also curious about these cases that openly defy it. Because for it to "defy" scientifically reproduced OBE's or NDE's, not being explainable isn't sufficient to suggest a continuation of consciousness. You'd need particular phenomenon that couldn't be reproduced by the brain, which would require some sort of specialized observation to begin with. I'm happy to peruse some examples if you have them though.
lol
No thank you. 😐
You are more than welcome to research them on your own, however.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol @ the Pascal's Wager talk.That's an extremely weak argument considering there is an infinite number of ways you can be wrong and thus be damned given there are infinite possible ways the Universe could conceivably work.
Not believing and not bothering to live according to the rules of some hypothetical being just happens to be more cost effective.
Not in my version of the wager. 🙂
*Relishes Mormonism even more*
Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.
Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, most of the affects of NDE's have been reproduced in laboratory settings. These include hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. By sending electrical impulses to the brain areas that are most active during common NDE's, people can experience the same affects without the trauma.The "tunnel" or "light" affect also has to do with this. When our bodies go into shock or are afflicted with severe trauma, various bodily functions shut down. The body thankfully prioritizes these functions so that the first ones to go aren't life-threatening. Among those shut down very early is eyesight. Vision becomes blurred, and actually goes dark around the edges as our visual functions are shut down. This is often while retaining consciousness. Thus, you're given the sensation of seeing a white tunnel, because only the center of your vision is receiving light for a period of time.
Which isn't to say we understand everything about NDE's. The science behind them isn't perfect. But we have a pretty good understanding of where a lot of it comes from.
The fact that you're making that arguement shows you haven't done enough research. Stop pretending that because you're an athiest that automaticallly makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundemantlist.
Originally posted by Deadline
Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.The fact that you're making that arguement shows you haven't done enough research. Stop pretending that because you're an athiest that automaticallly makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundemantlist.
I'm not pretending to be right a priori. I go on in a later post to talk about how I see this as likely but not irrefutable, and how science as a whole deals with provisional truths that can be refuted or changed based on evidence. Fundamentalism implies a dogma, which this is not. If I'm presented with a stronger argument, I will consider it. So far, the explanation I provided seems like the one with the most explanatory power. I realize it doesn't yet know everything about NDE's, but that's also not a reason to throw out what we do know.
My dealings with you on this forum have generally ended with you making accusations against me or "atheists" in general. I'd like to avoid that if possible. It accomplishes nothing, regardless of whether or not we agree on a matter.