To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?

If you where a Christian you would believe in the Prophecies related to the anti-christ and you would realise that any attempted assassination would fail. Even when the bullet hits the target the false prophet will restore the assassinated anti-christ. If you became a Christian then you would know that the Anti-christ will only be defeated at the battle of Armageddon.

So you would never accept the mark of the beast or even attempt to assassinate the anti-christ, you would refuse to worship his image that moves and you would accept being beheaded for refusing. :)

What a dull way to go. Wouldn't they at least torture you or something before the beheading?

The evil horde will be taken care of by the returning messiah Jesus and those that accompany Him upon his return. :) There is not need to pick up any gun and blaze at anyone.

God has the future under control.

If Jesus was an omnipotent life form, why the heck would he need an army?
 
How do you figure? That doens't prove materialsim at all. Take the placebo effect. The palacebo effect creates physical changes, but the person has not taken any actual physical thing that creates those changes. Those changes were created by a belief. And bleiefs are not physical things.

Beliefs ARE physical things. They follow the same cause and effect that any material process abides by.

What are Buddhists doing when meditating? Training the brain to work in certain ways. Pure materialism.

How does acupuncture work?

Don't know much about acupuncture, but I'm assuming it works in much the same way as the bogus practice of Homeopathy that gives false medicine (ie. WATER) that works as a placebo. Person thinks he is getting treatment, is being treated by someone they see as an 'expert' with an enormous power of suggestion. The method of implementing 'treatment' by this new-age bullshit, is actually better than you'd get from a doctor in terms of time and care given to you, but the big difference is at least with a doctor, you are getting real treatment.

You as a mystic dumbass, may say that patients say it works, so something must be happening. But have a look at this to illustrate my point:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg

The point is you have never meditated and yet you have the audacity to think your in a positon to make claims about it. It's preposterous.

You don't need to be a practitioner of religious practices to see that there is no supernatural aspects to it. Meditation is just brain training like I said before. If you want to call it being 'spiritual', go right ahead, but it's just a play on words which atheist and mystic meditators will disagree on.

YOu've never meditated and you are just making judgements about an activity you have no knowledge about. If you think it has merits try instead of passing your ignorant inconsequential judgements.

You are repeating age-old arguments from believers vs the non-beliver. Ultimately you need belief in mystical things. With belief, prayer works, mediums speak to the dead, people reincarnate, meditation makes you see reality. Etc. All impossible without belief.

Well, your already off to a bad start since previously you claimed to be an expert on all religions and felt yourself to be in a position to judge eastern religions despite the fact that you know nothing about them.

When did I ever claim I was an expert in all religions? I'm sure I even stated I knew nothing about Buddhism and never claimed that reading 3 lines makes me an expert.

Who gives a fuck what is offensive to you. Do whatever makes sense to you. I didn't say you should become a buddhist. I said you should educate yourself on subjects you are going to talk about instead of spouting off like your an expert. Doesn't that at least clue you in a little bit that you're ignorant?

Well from memory this all started when you raised an example of something you thought sounded mystical that was objective... then later admitted you knew nothing about it either. My statement that there is no such thing as 'psychic centers' in the body still stands until medicine comes forward and says it does. I trust doctors more than I trust Buddhists who make claims about what the body is made up of.


When ones mind is concentrated you are free of distracting thoughts. Yes, many people enter into meditative states all the time.

Yes, I am aware of what it is like to be concentrated, believe it or not.

Look at the research done by Ian Stevenson. I provided several links already. Are you too lazy to open them?

How surprised am I to find that Ian Stevenson was criticized for the objectivity in his reports. The fact that he dedicated all of his 'scientific' career to the paranormal raises questions about his credibility and bias.

So what if he has found a few occasions were we can not come to any conclusions on reports of 'reincarnation'? In the end, there is still no evidence for it and perhaps other more likely explanations.

Perhaps I should go and research an unknown farmer who died in 1950 and claim I have memories of his life. People who find that my 'memories' matched this persons existence and all of a sudden, a few gullible people will believe that I am the reincarnated spirit of a 1950's farmer.

The trouble with anecdotal experiences of the paranormal, is that these beliefs already exist in culture in the sense that people want to believe them, so it's not surprising that there also exists people who have 'experienced' them. I'm only surprised that they aren't more common.

In any case, reincarnation, ghosts, life after death, god etc, will never be proven under science since they are all metaphysical claims. Ian Stevenson pretty much conceded this in the case of reincarnation. But in another act that calls his credibility into question, is his comment that there exists enough evidence to believe reincarnation to be true. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence, and that's something he failed in.

-----------------------------------
Bottom line: You don't know anything about these subjects you are tlaking about and yet you act like you are some kind of expert in them. You are totally ignorant and have the arrogance to think your uneducated opinion means something. Reading 3 sentences of a wiki article doesn't make you an expert. Your opinion amounts to shit.

You can study a religion and know everything about it, but in the end, you need belief for it to be true. This is why the paranormal is nothing but pseudoscience, not just from me, but the scientific community as a whole. I, being ignorant, side with them on this issue.
 
Nothing illogical about it. People often forget that people are motivated to make false claims. When a claim rides too long without any evidence what's left is human motivation. Remember we're talking about claims... not ideas. There is a huge difference between claiming and speculating.
But it is illogical, the time duration doesn't matter, you don't know shit about logic....if it takes hundreds of years to determine which interpretation in QM is true it doesn't mean that before that time they were false...just like how it took hundreds of years to discover that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the fact that it took hundreds of years didn't indicate that it was false, its 100% illogical, and irrational, but then again anything that favors atheism is great, who cares if it's illogical...

Crunchy Cat said:
Regarding your 'soul' question, I would be happy to answer. Which definition of 'soul' would you like an indicator for?
You know, something existing independantly of the brain that gives us free-will, control, etc...

Crunchy Cat said:
The only objective indication that consciousness might persist after death (i.e. out-of-body experiences) have been invalidated by an experiment in American hospitals. Beyond that there are no objective indicators that support the notion. There is no reason to believe its true.
ROFL....what indication can there be that life continues after death?

Crunchy Cat said:
I meant, what are the reasons to accept claims of truth as truth without evidence? If I claim the zaboombafoo dimension exists, do you accept that as truth?
The reason you can believe that something is true without evidence is because there are innumerable things that are ALREADY true that in this present time there's no evidence for...what can't you understand about this? Using your rationality no one should've even considered that the Earth revolved around the Sun UNTIL there was evidence that it did, prior to this only delusional fools would say the Earth revolved around the Sun, regardless of it's true...

Crunchy Cat said:
Would they? I bet you I could get 90-100% of all the atheists on this site to sign an affidavit stating otherwise if you could had such evidence.
Well things like this happen all the time, it doesn't convince any atheist of anything even to the slightest extent, you foolish atheists all know you've already firmly made up your mind to never believe in God you just pretend that you'll believe to make yourself appear rational...

Crunchy Cat said:
Are you saying that hope doesn't matter?
In relation to the truth, yes...
 
ROFL....what indication can there be that life continues after death?

Was crunchy cat referring to an experiment in an American hospital that set out to debunk near death accounts? How could they have conveniantly arranged for someone or persons to have an NDE??

If all pychic phenomanae is bull, why is it that agencies like the FBI and the police use leading pychics in some of their investigations?
 
nova900 said:
If all pychic phenomanae is bull, why is it that agencies like the FBI and the police use leading pychics in some of their investigations?

You know how the most likely explanation always tends to be it? There are hundreds of tactics that psychics use... they are not stupid.

I've heard of many psychics that use contacts who have access to information, and this contact feeds the 'psychic' person information which they use in their psychic show. The contact and the psychic share the profits.
 
But it is illogical, the time duration doesn't matter, you don't know shit about logic....if it takes hundreds of years to determine which interpretation in QM is true it doesn't mean that before that time they were false...just like how it took hundreds of years to discover that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the fact that it took hundreds of years didn't indicate that it was false, its 100% illogical, and irrational, but then again anything that favors atheism is great, who cares if it's illogical...

I do think the point is being missed. An idea might be true, but to claim it is true and accept the claim without evidence is rather silly with high-stakes claims. Notice how no interpretation of QM is being claimed as absolute truth for example.

You know, something existing independantly of the brain that gives us free-will, control, etc...

I was going along just fine until you hit free-will. What's 'free will'?

ROFL....what indication can there be that life continues after death?

How about someone who died, decomposed, and communicates just fine with the living? That would be a great indication.

The reason you can believe that something is true without evidence is because there are innumerable things that are ALREADY true that in this present time there's no evidence for...what can't you understand about this?

This isn't a matter of 'can'. This is a matter of 'why'. Why would you accept my claim that the 'Zaboombafoo' dimension exists as truth?

Using your rationality no one should've even considered that the Earth revolved around the Sun UNTIL there was evidence that it did, prior to this only delusional fools would say the Earth revolved around the Sun, regardless of it's true...

That's not my rationality. Thats something you are inventing and calling it my rationality. If we were in a time where someone said that they think the Earth revolves around the sun, I would ask "why do you think that"? If they had compelling evidence my response would be "looks like you're right". If they had no evidence and neither did I then I would not accept the claim as true; however, if there was no evidence for any alternative, I wouldn't accept the claim as 'false' either. It would remain in the "I dont know" category.


Well things like this happen all the time, it doesn't convince any atheist of anything even to the slightest extent, you foolish atheists all know you've already firmly made up your mind to never believe in God you just pretend that you'll believe to make yourself appear rational...

I accept the challenge. Go ahead and collect 100 retarded people and document the process of prayer making them smart. If you do that I will guarantee that I can get an avidavit from 90-100% of the Athesists active on this bord. We can even put the whole thing in a legal contract where if either of us fail to deliver we owe the other $5000 USD (or pick some other number of your choosing that you feel is significant).

In relation to the truth, yes...

Why?
 
Was crunchy cat referring to an experiment in an American hospital that set out to debunk near death accounts? How could they have conveniantly arranged for someone or persons to have an NDE??

Its not just one hospital, its alot of them. Most American hospitals have cardiologists and surgeons whom routinely stop and start the hearts of patients for various medical procedures. They discovered that many of the patients whose hearts were stopped encountered NDEs (the sterotypical floating above the body looking down, seeing everything, recalling it, etc.). What these hospitals did was face several computer monitors upwards with big easy to see and recognize color images. The monitors were placed so that their contents would be in full view of anyone experiencing an NDE but could not be seen otherwise. The results are that 100% of all NDE patients did not see the images.
 
Crunchy Cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you could create life from matter, sure

I meant, if science destroyed your hope, would you (as a human) just give up?
atheistic scientists are almost on par with bad poets in the sense that they have a strong reserve of confidence

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in my opinion you are barking up the wrong tree

You never know.
and you do?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I imagine so

Do all those people then just give up, got to bed, and stay in bed?
no they would change their belief
it happens all the time - a christian becomes a muslim, a muslim becomes a christian, a jew becomes an atheist, an atheist becomes a christian etc etc

world still seems to go on
 
How could they have conveniantly arranged for someone or persons to have an NDE??

You can arrange for people to have oobes, (typical NDE occurrences):

'By deliberately scrambling a person's visual and tactile senses, it is now possible to give them an "out-of-body" experience.

Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences.

"The brain can trick itself, and when it is trying to interpret sensory information, the image it produces doesn't have to be a real representation," says Henrik Ehrsson, of the Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK, who designed the first experiment.

To trick his subjects, Ehrsson gave had them wear a head-mounted display that showed them footage of themselves filmed from behind, while preventing them from seeing anything else. He then used a plastic rod to prod the subject in the chest and simultaneously held a second rod in front of the camera behind them, to make it seem that the illusory "person" viewed from behind was being prodded in the chest too.

Subjects physically felt themselves being prodded, but also had the weird sensation that it was their alter ego in the film footage being prodded. "It gives you a very strong sensation you're sitting somewhere else," Ehrsson said at a press conference held in London.

Not madness
His conclusion is that our perception of self within the body is tightly bound to how our brains process information from our senses. "I'm not interested in out-of-body experiences," says Ehrrson. "I'm interested in why I, as myself, am located in my body – why we have 'in-body' experiences, if you like."

He says the work is important because it de-stigmatises reports of out-of-body experiences by people who are on drugs, or ill with conditions such as migraine or epilepsy. "They don't have to be mad to experience these things," he says.

Ehrrson's results are echoed by a second out-of-body experiment, conducted by Olaf Blanke and colleagues at the Federal Polytechnic of Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland. This group also deliberately scrambled the visual and tactile experiences of subjects to create a sense of disembodiment.

In Blanke's set-up, people were fitted with 3D headsets and forced to watch virtual "figures" standing two metres ahead being stroked on the back.

They either saw live footage of themselves, of a dummy, or of an inanimate black board being stroked. Sometimes the subjects themselves were stroked at the same time, and sometimes not.

After watching the images for a minute, the subjects were blindfolded, move directly backwards and asked to walk forward to where they had been originally standing.

Relocated self
Blanke found that those who had seen either themselves or the dummy being stroked while also being stroked, overshot their original position by 25 centimetres on average, suggesting they were drawn towards the "person" they had watched, thinking it was actually them. But the trick did not work if they watched the blackboard being stroked, or if they had not simultaneously been stroked.

Blanke says the experiment demonstrates that the sight of a human-like figure combined with stroking can trick a person into subconsciously relocating their sense of self away from where it should have been. "The self was no longer within the body borders," he said at the same press conference. But he admits that the illusion did not create a full "out-of-body" experience like Ehrsson's.

Both researchers say their experiments reinforce the idea that the "self" is closely tied to a "within-body" position, which is dependent on information from the senses. "We look at 'self' with regard to spatial characteristics, and maybe they form the basis upon which self-consciousness has evolved," says Blanke.

The researchers add that the procedures could perhaps be used to create more realistic avatars in virtual reality computer games. The same technology might also be used to enable tasks such as surgery to be carried out remotely, linking distant surgeons more realistically to remotely-operated surgical tools'.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1142175)
 
I do think the point is being missed. An idea might be true, but to claim it is true and accept the claim without evidence is rather silly with high-stakes claims. Notice how no interpretation of QM is being claimed as absolute truth for example.
Why is it silly if it really is true? I guess you agreed with me then, if someone told you the Earth revolved around the Sun before there was any evidence, you would laugh at them and say they were delusional, the actual truth DOESN'T matter to atheists...

Crunchy Cat said:
I was going along just fine until you hit free-will. What's 'free will'?
The ability to control things, change things...the soul also gives us awareness or consciousness and exists independantly of the brain

Crunchy Cat said:
How about someone who died, decomposed, and communicates just fine with the living? That would be a great indication.
What do you mean communicate? If the soul is not made of matter, how can someone communicate except through dreams, and other things atheists won't accept as evidence?

Crunchy Cat said:
This isn't a matter of 'can'. This is a matter of 'why'. Why would you accept my claim that the 'Zaboombafoo' dimension exists as truth?
Ok...the reason WHY is because there are already many things that are true that there's no evidence for...THATS WHY..., you're thinking that something is only true after there's evidence that its true...I wouldn't accept your claim because you're just trying to make a cheap atheistic point, its not an actual attempt to discover the truth, its just another atheistic attempt to ridicule religion and proclaim atheistic supremacy over everyone else...

Crunchy Cat said:
That's not my rationality. Thats something you are inventing and calling it my rationality. If we were in a time where someone said that they think the Earth revolves around the sun, I would ask "why do you think that"? If they had compelling evidence my response would be "looks like you're right". If they had no evidence and neither did I then I would not accept the claim as true; however, if there was no evidence for any alternative, I wouldn't accept the claim as 'false' either. It would remain in the "I dont know" category.
So then why don't you say that "You don't know whether God actually exists or not" if there's no way to measure if God exists or not? You're lying to yourself, that IS your rationality, otherwise if it wasn't you would be agnostic not an atheist...

Crunchy Cat said:
I accept the challenge. Go ahead and collect 100 retarded people and document the process of prayer making them smart. If you do that I will guarantee that I can get an avidavit from 90-100% of the Athesists active on this bord. We can even put the whole thing in a legal contract where if either of us fail to deliver we owe the other $5000 USD (or pick some other number of your choosing that you feel is significant).
Well I don't accept this challenge, its not concretely measurable and its also an insult to retarded people...

Crunchy Cat said:
What do you mean "why"?
 
atheistic scientists are almost on par with bad poets in the sense that they have a strong reserve of confidence
Interesting. Scientists have generated every significant aspect of the modern world. You still using that computer LG?

Care to deny that science generates provable and practical results?
 
Why is it silly if it really is true? I guess you agreed with me then, if someone told you the Earth revolved around the Sun before there was any evidence, you would laugh at them and say they were delusional, the actual truth DOESN'T matter to atheists...
This little thing of yours is fascinating. Your obsession with the "actual" truth and whether things are true or not based on their ultimate discovery or not.

I tell you now VO that the center of the earth is populated by small, heat resistant organisms that telepathically rule us all.

You will, of course, believe me and base all of your future thinking around this. Yes?

Because if it's "actually true" you would be a fool to ignore such an important thing.

Will you laugh at me or praise me for my insight VO?

Why or why not?
 
Interesting. Scientists have generated every significant aspect of the modern world. You still using that computer LG?

Care to deny that science generates provable and practical results?
atheistic scientists would propose that their manufacturing a computer somehow establishes that god doesn't exist
 
Crunchy Cat


atheistic scientists are almost on par with bad poets in the sense that they have a strong reserve of confidence

Now that its out of your system, let me know if science destroyed your hope, would you (as a human) just give up?

and you do?

Nope and I have a really good visibility into computer science and biotechnology. I can certainly follow the patterns and make reasonable predictions.

no they would change their belief
it happens all the time - a christian becomes a muslim, a muslim becomes a christian, a jew becomes an atheist, an atheist becomes a christian etc etc

world still seems to go on

What do you think would happen if there were no alternatives available?
 
This little thing of yours is fascinating. Your obsession with the "actual" truth and whether things are true or not based on their ultimate discovery or not.

I tell you now VO that the center of the earth is populated by small, heat resistant organisms that telepathically rule us all.

You will, of course, believe me and base all of your future thinking around this. Yes?

Because if it's "actually true" you would be a fool to ignore such an important thing.

Will you laugh at me or praise me for my insight VO?

Why or why not?
No, I won't believe you, the reason I won't is because you're just saying that in order to make cheap atheistic point, not in an attempt to actually to discover the truth....also it doesn't agree with my rationality, you foolish atheists, when will you learn that this foolish argument doesn't make any sense at all, not to ANY degree or extent....although I do agree that there are small, heat resistant organisms that do affect our minds....

"What if I told you the center of the earth is populated by small, heat resistant organisms that telepathically rule us all? You don't believe me, see checkmate, God doesn't exist!!!"

This argument goes beyond stupidity, you atheists will try all imaginable tactics to convert people into atheists, thats why Dawkins says he wrote his book just for the purpose of getting more people to become atheists...
 
you foolish atheists

You continually make this statement. It certainly seems you don't like atheists very much. However, I shall provide you with some free advice:

"anyone who says you fool will be in danger of the fire of hell"

Listen to jesus, dipshit.
 
Why is it silly if it really is true? I guess you agreed with me then, if someone told you the Earth revolved around the Sun before there was any evidence, you would laugh at them and say they were delusional, the actual truth DOESN'T matter to atheists...

I established quite clearly I would ask "why" and the Earth revolving around the sun isn't exactly a high stakes claim (unless it contradicts an existing one which Theists might kill you for contradicting... heresy and all).

It is silly to accept a high-stakes claim as truth without evidence because it could lead you down a path that retards your potential, is outwardly destructive, and inhibits your ability to comprehend, learn, and adapt.

The ability to control things, change things...the soul also gives us awareness or consciousness and exists independantly of the brain

In that case, make a clone of someone and see if they are conscious and free willed. Seeing as cloning is strictly 'materialistic' in nature, no soul should be bound to that body.

What do you mean communicate? If the soul is not made of matter, how can someone communicate except through dreams, and other things atheists won't accept as evidence?

If a soul can control an entire human body, then it has the capability of interacting with matter with quite a large degree of control.

Ok...the reason WHY is because there are already many things that are true that there's no evidence for...THATS WHY...,

Thats a seperate assertion, not a reason.

you're thinking that something is only true after there's evidence that its true...

That's what you are thinking I think.

I wouldn't accept your claim because you're just trying to make a cheap atheistic point, its not an actual attempt to discover the truth, its just another atheistic attempt to ridicule religion and proclaim atheistic supremacy over everyone else...

What if someone came to you that in the spirit of discovery claimed the zaboombafoo dimension exists and life forms within it have discovered that the Earth will be destroyed tomorrow unless you kill the closest person to you today. Would you believe it?

So then why don't you say that "You don't know whether God actually exists or not" if there's no way to measure if God exists or not? You're lying to yourself, that IS your rationality, otherwise if it wasn't you would be agnostic not an atheist...

It seems my position is very different than what you believe it to be (which is ok because its small stakes belief). I don't know whether a generic 'God' exists or not. I do know that all specific claims of 'God' that have any detail objectively bound to reality are false. Thats my position.

Well I don't accept this challenge, its not concretely measurable and its also an insult to retarded people...

If we made it concretely measurable, would you change your mind? Why is it an insult to retarded people to make them smart? It would lead to a better quality of life and attainment of a new level of personal development for sure.

What do you mean "why"?

Why is hope irrelevant in relation to truth?
 
Last edited:
I established quite clearly I would ask "why" and the Earth revolving around the sun isn't exactly a high stakes claim (unless it contradicts an existing one which Theists might kill you for contradicting... heresy and all).

It is silly to accept a high-stakes claim as truth without evidence because it could lead you down a path that retards your potential, is outwardly destructive, and inhibits your ability to comprehend, learn, and adapt.
It WAS a high stakes claim in ancient times...how could it retard your potential? That doesn't make sense...people can believe all types of strange things and still be very very instlligent, able to comprehend, learn, etc...This is the typical atheistic propaganda...

Crunchy Cat said:
In that case, make a clone of someone and see if they are conscious and free willed. Seeing as cloning is strictly 'materialistic' in nature, no soul should be bound to that body.
What? That doesn't make sense, the clone would also have a soul...

Crunchy Cat said:
If a soul can control an entire human body, then it has the capability of interacting with matter with quite a large degree of control.
Yeah I agree...so whats the point? After the death of the body, how can the soul effect anyone besides in ways that effect their thoughts (causing dreams, thoughts, etc...)?

Crunchy Cat said:
Thats a seperate assertion, not a reason.
No thats a reason, the reason a physicist can believe the MWI is true is because it really can be true and agrees with their rationality...

Crunchy Cat said:
That's what you are thinking I think.
No I'm not, I'm the opposite, I constantly stated that the truth is the truth with or without evidence, hope, belief, etc...

Crunchy Cat said:
What if someone came to you that in the spirit of discovery claimed the zaboombafoo dimension exists and life forms within it have discovered that the Earth will be destroyed tomorrow unless you kill the closest person to you today. Would you believe it?
Well if that happened then I would have to get a detailed explanation, then if it agreed with my personal rationality I would accept it...

Crunchy Cat said:
It seems my position is very different than what you believe it to be (which is ok because its small stakes belief). I don't know whether a generic 'God' exists or not. I do know that all specific claims of 'God' that have any detail objectively bound to reality are false. Thats my position.
Why is this? If God is within you, the cause of reality, why would you say that it's false?

Crunchy Cat said:
If we made it concretely measurable, would you change your mind? Why is it an insult to retarded people to make them smart? It would lead to a better quality of life and attainment of a new level of personal development for sure.
No, I would prefer you choose something else concretely measurable that doesn't deal with people...

Crunchy Cat said:
Why is hope irrelevant in relation to truth?
Because the truth exists regardless of what you believe, if you have hope, what the evidence shows, etc...
 
You continually make this statement. It certainly seems you don't like atheists very much. However, I shall provide you with some free advice:

"anyone who says you fool will be in danger of the fire of hell"

Listen to jesus, dipshit.

Well I have to agree with Jesus, I really am in danger of the hell fire, if I go to hell then it was my own anger that had manifested the hellish reality...
 
Beliefs ARE physical things.
Then post a pictue of one.

What are Buddhists doing when meditating? Training the brain to work in certain ways. Pure materialism.
Yes, certain areas of brain are more active. How do you think that proves materialism. I will admit it is possible that at some point that it may be shown how subjective experiences are identical to the material state of the brain. There is however currently no science that backs this up. To assert it is to make a metaphysical assertion wiothout evidence. The exact thing you say is wrong about religion. Makes you a hypocrite.

Don't know much about acupuncture, but I'm assuming it works in much the same way as the bogus practice of Homeopathy that gives false medicine (ie. WATER) that works as a placebo. Person thinks he is getting treatment, is being treated by someone they see as an 'expert' with an enormous power of suggestion. The method of implementing 'treatment' by this new-age bullshit, is actually better than you'd get from a doctor in terms of time and care given to you, but the big difference is at least with a doctor, you are getting real treatment.
More ignorance from the all-knowing materialist oracle. No, they've done double-blind studies of acupuncture and there is something goinf on besides the placebo effect. Acupucnture is based upon chinese medicince which deals with 'chi' (a tyoe of energy). The question is, if there is nothing to these eastern systems of medicine that have to do with energy centers in the body then why were they able to come up with effect therapies based upon these conceptual models that have been proven by western science to be effective?

You don't need to be a practitioner of religious practices to see that there is no supernatural aspects to it. Meditation is just brain training like I said before. If you want to call it being 'spiritual', go right ahead, but it's just a play on words which atheist and mystic meditators will disagree on.
But you are not a meditator of either category - that's the reason why your opinion on this doesn't amount to shit. By the way, there is less disagreement between these groups than you think - and they both agree that the conceptual models of what is perceived is far less important than the direct experience of what is perceived.

You are repeating age-old arguments from believers vs the non-beliver. Ultimately you need belief in mystical things. With belief, prayer works, mediums speak to the dead, people reincarnate, meditation makes you see reality. Etc. All impossible without belief.
Beleif has absolutely nothing to do with. It has to do with what one direclty perceives during meditative states.

When did I ever claim I was an expert in all religions? I'm sure I even stated I knew nothing about Buddhism and never claimed that reading 3 lines makes me an expert.
You said you are right "100% of the time when it comes to religion."

Yes, I am aware of what it is like to be concentrated, believe it or not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

How surprised am I to find that Ian Stevenson was criticized for the objectivity in his reports. The fact that he dedicated all of his 'scientific' career to the paranormal raises questions about his credibility and bias.
Of course he was questioned. Have you personally yet taken the time to look at one of the cases he investigated?
So what if he has found a few occasions were we can not come to any conclusions on reports of 'reincarnation'? In the end, there is still no evidence for it and perhaps other more likely explanations.
But you still haven't taken the time to take a look for yourself at the evidence he has.
Perhaps I should go and research an unknown farmer who died in 1950 and claim I have memories of his life.
Why would you do that? You don't have these memories. Go ahead and do it if you think it will accomplish something.
People who find that my 'memories' matched this persons existence and all of a sudden, a few gullible people will believe that I am the reincarnated spirit of a 1950's farmer.
You haven't looked at any of his cases or his methodology. Why don't you look at the actual research instead of making your silly assumptions.
The trouble with anecdotal experiences of the paranormal, is that these beliefs already exist in culture in the sense that people want to believe them,
Really? There's alot of people in Virginia that want to believe in reincarnation?
so it's not surprising that there also exists people who have 'experienced' them. I'm only surprised that they aren't more common.
Of what do you think these cases consist? A few superficial coincidences? No, these kids spontaneoulsy start making these claims and when it is objectively investigated they appear to know things about the person they were that there is plain and simply no easy way of dismissing.

In any case, reincarnation, ghosts, life after death, god etc, will never be proven under science since they are all metaphysical claims.
This coming from someone that has bothered to take a look at some evidence that exists.

Ian Stevenson pretty much conceded this in the case of reincarnation. But in another act that calls his credibility into question, is his comment that there exists enough evidence to believe reincarnation to be true. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence, and that's something he failed in.
Well thats a pretty extraordinary claim for you to make that he dind't provide extraordinary evidence since you didnt look at his evidence.

You can study a religion and know everything about it, but in the end, you need belief for it to be true. This is why the paranormal is nothing but pseudoscience, not just from me, but the scientific community as a whole. I, being ignorant, side with them on this issue.
But you didn't look at the evidence. You are just taking someones word on authority. They have a word for that: faith.
 
Back
Top