Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

[spidergoat]

Since the mind is volnerable to hallucinations, hysteria, mass hysteria, optical illusions, auditory illusions, insanity, and personal generation of powerful hallucinogens within the pineal gland, then personal anecdotal reports are not reliable evidence for anything. That's why such reports are not trusted in a court of law. All they prove is that the mind does various things.

 

[Norsefire]

The problem is that you, spidergoat, immediately dismiss such ideas off hand without even giving them consideration.

 

[spidergoat]

Do you have any evidence worthy of consideration? The concept of the soul is a religious interpretation of subjective experiences. There isn't anything about these experiences that make a soul an obvious explanation.

 

[Myles]

The problem is that you, spidergoat, immediately dismiss such ideas off hand without even giving them consideration.

What have you offered for consideration ? Throughout this thread you have done nothing but make statements based on speculation. Why do you expect your claims to be taken seriously if you can offer no evidence ?Repeating your wild assertions won't make them true.

What you need is a course of instruction at James Randi's academy.

PS :You have yet to mention ectoplasm, ghosts, disembodied voices, astral projection in any detail to , the Tarot, Palmistry, astrology and lots of other neglected "sciences"

 

[Norsefire]

Do you have any evidence worthy of consideration? The concept of the soul is a religious interpretation of subjective experiences. There isn't anything about these experiences that make a soul an obvious explanation.

I suppose the testimony of countless people and the afterlife hypothesis and study of the spirit particle isn't evidence enough?

 

[Myles]

Oh Christ!

 

[Oli]

I suppose the testimony of countless people and the afterlife hypothesis and study of the spirit particle isn't evidence enough?

Testimony is NOT evidence.

 

[Norsefire]

Testimony is NOT evidence.

Sure. But when it's so widespread, and even when there is an actual study of DMT and the afterlife hypothesis, that definitely is enough to warrant the idea serious consideration.

 

[Oli]

Sure. But when it's so widespread, and even when there is an actual study of DMT and the afterlife hypothesis, that definitely is enough to warrant the idea serious consideration.

Have you actually read any statements on eye witness reliability?
People are just about the least reliable method of gathering information available.

 

[Norsefire]

Have you actually read any statements on eye witness reliability?
People are just about the least reliable method of gathering information available.

I know and you're right, especially in cases of law; but as I said, these things have been happening for ages to a large number of people.

What does that prove? That SOMETHING is happening. The question is, what? There are two theories: the dying brain hypothesis and the afterlife hypothesis. I think the latter makes more sense.

 

[Oli]

these things have been happening for ages to a large number of people.

No, slight difference: they have been CLAIMED to have been happening.
Like all the claims of telepathy, psi-powers, ghosts and all the other mythological crap that cannot be shown to have a factual basis.

What does that prove? That SOMETHING is happening.

No it shows that humans, all being human, suffer from much the same delusions...

The question is, what? There are two theories: the dying brain hypothesis and the afterlife hypothesis. I think the latter makes more sense.

So why doesn't EVERY person that nearly dies experience it?

 

[Norsefire]

No, slight difference: they have been CLAIMED to have been happening.
Like all the claims of telepathy, psi-powers, ghosts and all the other mythological crap that cannot be shown to have a factual basis.

Wow, if you really can't differentiate....well, it's not worth it. Atheist stubbornness.

No it shows that humans, all being human, suffer from much the same delusions...

Rofl, delusions? Not when the people can ACTUALLY ROAM ABOUT AND KNOWINGLY OBSERVE THINGS. That immediately disproves your ridiculous delusion theory.

So why doesn't EVERY person that nearly dies experience it?

"nearly dying" isn't dying. NDE's are after a person is clinically dead and comes back to life.

 

[Oli]

Wow, if you really can't differentiate....well, it's not worth it. Atheist stubbornness.

It's me that's differentiating.
Should we accept ALL mass claims as worthy of consideration?

Rofl, delusions? Not when the people can ACTUALLY ROAM ABOUT AND KNOWINGLY OBSERVE THINGS.

Erm, when people AHVE THE ILLUSION OF ROAMING ABOUT ETC.

That immediately disproves your ridiculous delusion theory

Hardly.

"nearly dying" isn't dying. NDE's are after a person is clinically dead and comes back to life.

NDE = Near Death Experience.
That's what I mean by "nearly dying"

 

[Myles]

Norsefire,

Thanks to neuroscience we know something about brains. On the other hand we know nothing about a putative afterlife, so until some form evidence comes to light we can safely neglect it. We cannot be expected expect to chase every will-o'-the-wisp that someone brings to out attention.

When you agree that witnesses are unreliable, "especially in cases of law", you are agreeing that witnesses are unreliable, which is what was suggested by Oli. The law is not a special case.

 

[Norsefire]

It's me that's differentiating.
Should we accept ALL mass claims as worthy of consideration?

Actually, yes. Consideration being the key word. Mass claims of telepathy are always moot, or cannot be demonstrated. The afterlife, on the other hand, has been experienced by people of all cutlures, backgrounds, ages, races, health, etc.

Erm, when people AHVE THE ILLUSION OF ROAMING ABOUT ETC.

No, you misunderstand. people who have NDE's can actively roam about and RECALL (therefore disproving illusions) what they see.

NDE = Near Death Experience.
That's what I mean by "nearly dying"

Most people who die don't come back...

Norsefire,

Thanks to neuroscience we know something about brains. On the other hand we know nothing about a putative afterlife, so until some form evidence comes to light we can safely neglect it. We cannot be expected expect to chase every will-o'-the-wisp that someone brings to out attention.

What does neuroscience have to do with spirit? Psychologists and neuroscientists are studying the existence of the soul.

 

[Oli]

Actually, yes. Consideration being the key word. Mass claims of telepathy are always moot, or cannot be demonstrated. The afterlife, on the other hand, has been experienced by people of all cutlures, backgrounds, ages, races, health, etc.

Much like telepathy, ghosts etc.

No, you misunderstand. people who have NDE's can actively roam about and RECALL (therefore disproving illusions) what they see.

How does it disprove hallucination?
They have the impression that it's happening while it's happening and tell about it afterwards...
Is a dream an actual event since I can reacll moving about in my dream?
What makes you think you can't recall hallucinations?

Most people who die don't come back...

Granted: but NOT ALL those who do have the NDE experience.

 

[Norsefire]

Much like telepathy, ghosts etc.

Telepathy will become possible with the advent or neurotechnologies, I'm sure.

And guess what? People actually DO give consideration to ghosts and telepathy. When you have something happening all over the world to all sorts of people on a widespread scale, that means something's up. I'm not saying it means it's true, but SOMETHING is happening.

How does it disprove hallucination?
They have the impression that it's happening while it's happening and tell about it afterwards...
Is a dream an actual event since I can reacll moving about in my dream?
What makes you think you can't recall hallucinations?

They move about in the REAL world, and can recall events that REALLY happened to people far away. This has been confirmed.

Granted: but NOT ALL those who do have the NDE experience.

I'm sure most do, it's just they think people will think they are crazy

Regardless, if you say there is no afterlife or reincarnation, you're saying there is nothing beyond the material world. I highly doubt that.

Not to mention many NDE accounts are surprisingly similar, with people going to a "heaven" and some going to a "hell". How do you explain that?

 

[spidergoat]

I suppose the testimony of countless people and the afterlife hypothesis and study of the spirit particle isn't evidence enough?

That's correct.

Nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist. So, all natural explanations must first be ruled out. Consideration is reasonable, but that isn't really anything, just thinking about it. Upon consideration, the idea of a soul or spirit isn't confirmed by any evidence, so it remains an idea, just like bigfoot and the loch ness monster.

 

[Oli]

Telepathy will become possible with the advent or neurotechnologies, I'm sure.

But there's no scientific basis for it at the moment and nothing to suggest it's anything other than mass delusion or fraud.

And guess what? People actually DO give consideration to ghosts and telepathy. When you have something happening all over the world to all sorts of people on a widespread scale, that means something's up. I'm not saying it means it's true, but SOMETHING is happening.

It's been studied for decades and has no real basis.

They move about in the REAL world, and can recall events that REALLY happened to people far away. This has been confirmed.
I'm sure most do, it's just they think people will think they are crazy

Far away? Link please.

Regardless, if you say there is no afterlife or reincarnation, you're saying there is nothing beyond the material world. I highly doubt that.

Tut: I'm saying that what we have so far isn't sufficient to state that there is an afterlife or something beyond the material world.

Not to mention many NDE accounts are surprisingly similar, with people going to a "heaven" and some going to a "hell". How do you explain that?

Humans, being human, are all subject to the same influences and delusions.

 

[Norsefire]

That's correct.

Nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist. So, all natural explanations must first be ruled out. Consideration is reasonable, but that isn't really anything, just thinking about it. Upon consideration, the idea of a soul or spirit isn't confirmed by any evidence, so it remains an idea, just like bigfoot and the loch ness monster.

But an afterlife isn't supernatural. Let me go through this logically:

People die
Naturally, we question what happens after people die
We come to two conclusions:
Nothing, and they are simply dead
They go somewhere, or there is something beyond death.

And again with the "ruling out"; that doesn't apply to something that is UNKNOWABLE. It's ignorant and stupid to claim you know EXACTLY what happens after death is you aren't dead.

Bigfoot and the loch ness monster are entirely different; they aren't unknowns. As in, they CAN be proven or disproven, since they are supposedly in our material world.

But there's no scientific basis for it at the moment and nothing to suggest it's anything other than mass delusion or fraud.

I wouldn't say that; I think people think that because our neurons can communicate, maybe our minds can too

It's been studied for decades and has no real basis.

They are examining the unknown; just like UFOlogists.

Far away? Link please.

Just check the website I mentioned earlier

Tut: I'm saying that what we have so far isn't sufficient to state that there is an afterlife or something beyond the material world.

Not to mention, since we are conscious we MUST have a soul. Non living material isn't going to suddenly create consciousness. It can create connections, but SOMETHING has to be perceiving these connections, and that something would be our souls

Humans, being human, are all subject to the same influences and delusions.

Delusions? Why are you saying the afterlife is impossible?