My curiosity about your intellectual honesty has been quenched.
Now you are saying different things.
Scientists have already condemned spiritual experiences, it is a done deal. Is it because it goes against a tons of data? What data, I have never seen any data showing spiritual experiences are false. I have heard a lot of scientists say spiritual experiences are nonsense, but never seen any research proving such.
I have heard about that positioning brain thing also, but just how does that explain the accurate descriptions giving by those out of body. These near death experiences are called veridical NDEs. The University of Virginia psychology dept. has collected hundreds of these experiences. They are veridical because the accuracy of the patient in describing the events going on around him while his brain was not functioning has been verified by the doctors present. I have never seen a brain jump out of a body during cardiac arrest, look around and jump back in again.
Explain that.
Thank God I have been of service to you.
It would help to remember that the point in question was why spiritual experiences are not inherently credible. Spiritual experiences impart contradictory impressions or information; ergo, they are by nature capable of leaving the experiencer with false beliefs. So, testimonies about such experiences are not inherently credible.
As for the knowledge of scientists, keep in mind that a lot of scientists hold personal religious beliefs. So, the claim that scientists “know spiritual things are all false” is clearly a strawman, not to mention it’s a statement that could be perceived as an insult to any theistic scientists out there, whose faith you are cavalierly dismissing. (Just so you know.)
Scientists (even theistic ones) merely recognize that the available evidence in favor of spiritual stuff is darned poor. It’s mostly comprised of unverifiable testimonies about spiritual experiences, which as noted above are provably not reliable, after all. And, since most spiritual stuff is pretty implausible by it’s very nature, it behooves a rational person to be skeptical, given such poor evidence for it. Further, some religious belief systems include things that are internally contradictory or that conflict with available physical evidence; those belief systems may be summarily dismissed, if a person desires. Others are simply put on the shelf with other implausible, unproven things like unicorns, dragons, ufo abductions, etcetera.
Scientists don’t magically know that spiritual stuff is untrue. They do know that your say-so isn’t a good reason to believe it though. Not even if 90% of the population says the same, well, no, similar, well actually not so similar, well actually downright contradicting things.
Stop posting this lie–on which you have been called multiple times–or provide evidence of a scientist making this claim as a scientist (and not as a person philosophically ruminating on his or her life experiences).
You make really bold claims about the statements of other people all the while engaging in exactly the form of closed minded dishonesty of which you accuse them.
*I’m afraid it doesn’t. All my argument says it that there beliefs that are contradictory cannot all be true. Going back to the Christian, Jew, and Muslim; clearly at most one can be right, since if one is, by necessity the other two are wrong. It’s possible that none are right. My point coming from that was that since the majority of the people in the world are mistaken, we should treat such claims with caution. However, one of them could still be right. The Jew could be right; this means that the Christian and Muslim must be wrong, since their beliefs are contradictory, but it is certainly possible. Likewise, one of the others could be right, meaning the other two are wrong.
I’m not claiming this argument proves no belief can be real. All it proves is that if some beliefs are real, others cannot, and it further suggest we need to take such claims with caution. That’s it. If someone had an argument proving all belief wrong, I imagine we’d both have heard of it before now. 
I’d also make the point towards something you seem to be hinting at; they “call their gods different names and worship them in different ways”. You do realise that people worship actual different gods, right? Not just different concepts of the same god?
**Not at all. I call corn corn. Others call it maize. The belief that “This is the item referred to as corn” and the belief that “This is the item referred to as maize” aren’t contradictory. It can be called both. And it is!
Compare this with belief. Christians may believe that the top guy up there is called God. Muslims may believe he’s called Allah. Again, no contradiction; he could be both. On the other hand, Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. Muslims believe that he isn’t. These are contradictory, since he cannot both “be the son of God” and “not be the son of God”. Either only one is right, or neither are. So yes, your argument there is certainly bad logic, but it is not the argument I am making.
***Why, exactly? If these societies believe that their languages is the only one, then certainly they’re contradictory; the statements “French is the only language” and “English is the only language” are of course contradictory, and again, either one or none must be correct. But simply speaking another language doesn’t imply contradictions. Perhaps you could point them out for me?
****Again, they don’t think there’s is the only food, or the only clothes. If they did, it would be a contradiction. But there isn’t one there, whilst there is one in beliefs of different people (among other places). I’m afraid you haven’t understood my argument; it hinges on the idea of “contradiction”. I hope now i’ve explained it you’ll get the picture. Your impression of my argument is certainly irrational, but it’s not the argument i’m making.
OK, you have given me the position of science which I already knew, but nothing else. It is only the opinion of scientists that personal experiences are not believable. I have never met a near death experiences that didn’t know his experience was real, the most real experience of his life. Now you are asking me to accept the opinion of someone who has never had a near death experience over the knowledge of those who have had near death experiences. Do you consider that wise. If your computer went down, would you take the advice of someone with no computer experience over the advice offered by someone with computer experience. Maybe you would, but not me, and not most other people either.
On the contradiction thing, if scientists had a near death experience they would understand the so-call contradiction thing perfectly.
What I am saying if you bothered to read the material and/or have a near death experience yourself, you would see there is no contradiction. It’s a little like looking at the people in an airplane terminal, going in all different directions at one time, yet you know that it is not a contradiction, each one has a reason and a purpose. So do spiritual experiences, but you have to study them to understand them.
All serious researchers of near death experiences have become believers, and a few that weren’t very serious about it until it happened to them.
You are a little late, or haven’t you read the posts, the news, the science journals, etc.
:rolleyes:
In a documentary in the 80’s that dealt with this subject (A documentary that was much in favor of the phenomenon being proof of life after death) there was even the case of an atheist that reported even the big light and he still remained an atheist after what happened to him. Going the faithful way the experiences have been used to certify the faith of Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. It remains a contradiction not only in the faithful sense, but also in the sense that it is impossible to deny there are physical and mundane explanations of the phenomenon too.
Actually, I seem to recall talking about spiritual experiences in general. And, if you’ll remember, I have read the material, since I studied it at university both in classes and on my own time. And I find it amusing to be lectured on this by a person who hasn’t had an NDE themselves. But explain it to me, if you will;
Let’s say a Christian has a spiritual experience in which Jesus talks to him; this is Jesus, the son of God. This Christian knows that what he has experienced is true. Likewise, let’s imagine a Muslim, who has a spiritual experience in which Jesus talks to him; this Jesus, on the other hand, is a holy prophet but not the son of God. Our Muslim knows that what he has experienced is true.
Now, to me, there seems to be a contradiction. Jesus cannot be both “the son of God” and “not the son of God”. And I say this as someone who’s read the material and not had an NDE, so we’re on equal footing here. Please, could you explain why there is no contradiction? I wait with baited breath.
I’ve got to admit, you take the rules of logic far past their limits. It’s extremely impressive.
Of course there’s no contradiction to people going different places in an airport. However, there is a contradiction in that a person cannot be both one thing and also not that thing at the same time. A cube cannot be red and not red. You cannot be a human and not a human. Me going one way, you going another? Fine! Me going one way and also not going that way? Contradiction. I can only be doing one, or the other, or neither. Not both.
I live in Canada.
Hah! I have read your explanations before, you are not late, you are stuck in the past.
I don’t think scientists are the ones having the problem understanding contradictions. If your NDE told you that Jesus can both be God’s son, and not be God’s son simultaneously, then your NDE gave you false information. Perhaps you dreamed it? Imaginings can include false information and treat contradictions as real.
There’s a difference between a person with experience, and an expert. I know people who have been using computers for ten years and have no idea how they work. And you haven’t even been dead for one year, much less ten! call again when you’ve logged some real dead-time.
More seriously, there is a difference between a person who has experiences something, and a person who knows why it happens. You don’t have to have had an NDE to have some idea of what’s going on. Refusing to listen to the opinons of persons (like brain specialists and scientists) who merely have neglected to have an NDE themselves is not wise. It’s like thinking that a person who merely watches a lot of television is better equipped to explain how it works than somebody who repairs televisions. Maybe you would think that, but not me, and not most other people either.
And, when somebody says they know something, it means one of two things:
-
That the thing is defined to be true (within some artificially created and controlled scenario). An example of this is when I say that I know that 1+1=2.
-
That the person has a very strong belief in the thing, perhaps an absoute personal certainty. This doesn’t mean they’re not wrong, though. An example of this is when I say that I know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
NDE-experiencers do not fall under meaning 1. So, they can be wrong. Period.
Emphatic personal testimony does not impress me. In my experience, the more fervently the person cries that they are correct, the more likely they’re arguing from emotion and not anything that has any relation to actual reality.
So you insist on repeating your lie? And you have the temerity to continue to (falsely) criticize scientists?
lekatt, you should know the trail by now.
Sorry, don’t post in pit with those who use gutter language.
Have you been keeping count of how many times you have called me a liar?
Is there a contest or something?
Past what?
Beg pardon? I don’t “use gutter language.” In addition, you may want to–for apparently the first time in your life–actually review what the thread says before you condemn it out-of-hand.
I know I have said this before, but what you are talking about has nothing to do with near death experiences. The only way to learn about them is to read the experiences as they have been written by actual near death experiencers.
The big problem here is communication, I am talking about one thing and most others are talking about something else, only by reading the material will this change.