106 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 6:25 PM, said:

Yes, that's what I mean.Admitting defeat already?

Wait...que?

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 6:21 PM, said:

I guess I didn't explain it right, although after reading it I didn't think it was that hard to see my point.In context of NDEs, the OP asked if they prove anything about an afterlife. I pointed out that many drugs have been found actively causing these, but rather than completely say everyone of them means nothing, because many people have had life changing experiences from them, I feel that if a person has an NDE, it isn't proof of anything, but it could be a meaningful experience for that single person. One that isn't for anyone else.crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.

Crow's not saying what you think he's saying. I believe (and I could be wrong) that his only point is that just because they think they had an out-of-body NDE doesn't mean they actually did (according to the definition of the term). I'm not sure he ever said that this means it's any less meaningful to the person in question.

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 6:21 PM, said:

I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.

To be fair to him, there are almost certainly things that you think science will never explain that it eventually will. But that's neither here nor there.

[crowTrobot]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 7:21 PM, said:

crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.

crowTrobot, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 7:44 AM, said:

nobody is talking about personal meaning (read thread title!!!!)

[crowTrobot]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 7:21 PM, said:

I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.

i never said anything about the metaphysical. i'm not sure that the concept of metaphysics even has any real meaning when you break it down to specifics.

[speedz99]

crowTrobot, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 8:22 PM, said:

i never said anything about the metaphysical. i'm not sure that the concept of metaphysics even has any real meaning when you break it down to specifics.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with any kind of applied science, from what I understand...and from what the dictionary tells me.1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. 2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches. 3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry. 4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 6:21 PM, said:

I guess I didn't explain it right, although after reading it I didn't think it was that hard to see my point.In context of NDEs, the OP asked if they prove anything about an afterlife. I pointed out that many drugs have been found actively causing these, but rather than completely say everyone of them means nothing, because many people have had life changing experiences from them, I feel that if a person has an NDE, it isn't proof of anything, but it could be a meaningful experience for that single person. One that isn't for anyone else.crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.Now if this is what you guys thought I said, and you still want to say these things, than let me know, because I have lots of room on my "people to be pitied" list.

That's it in a nutshell, right? We agree, near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife. Thank you.I'd hate to be on your pitied list.

[crowTrobot]

speedz99, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

Metaphysics has nothing to do with any kind of applied science, from what I understand...and from what the dictionary tells me.1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. 2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches. 3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry. 4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

i'm assuming by metaphysical BG is just referring to stuff that transcends scientific testing of any kind, not the practice of the philosophy of metaphysics. i'm not sure the concept of something transcending the physical world (in the sense of being fundamentally outside the boundaries of science-like testing) has any real meaning. for practical purposes for something to exist it pretty much definitionally has to have physical components or be related to or the product of physical components in some way. again, there are technological/resourse limitations that prevent us from detecting/testing many things in practice, but in principal the concept of something being fundamentally outside the boundaries of science or science-like reasoning seems nonsensical. certainly whether we have souls or not, or whether an afterlife exists or not are absolutely scientific questions.

[rdtedm]

From what I've gathered after reading three or four threads in this forum in their entirety:Balloon guy is religious and funny, and has a good grasp on how to use metaphorical arguments. Sometimes discussion of his beliefs is taken as aggressive missionary action, to which many just get angry at.Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.Speedz and Randy share crow's mindset for the most part.But pretty much all of the threads have this in common:contentcontentcontentconfusion, misinterpretationNO GOD, YES GOD, NO GOD, YES GODagree to disagreesnide commentssnide commentssnide comments

[crowTrobot]

rdtedm, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 9:07 AM, said:

Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.

not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 3:49 AM, said:

That's it in a nutshell, right? We agree, near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife. Thank you.I'd hate to be on your pitied list.

You do still live in Ohio...

[Balloon guy]

crowTrobot, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 9:39 AM, said:

not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.

But you would agree that all these subjective likes and dislikes have come about through evolution of our societal decisions just a compassion, empathy and deciding to allow women to vote?

[Balloon guy]

rdtedm, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 9:07 AM, said:

From what I've gathered after reading three or four threads in this forum in their entirety:Balloon guy is religious and funny, and has a good grasp on how to use metaphorical arguments. Sometimes discussion of his beliefs is taken as aggressive missionary action, to which many just get angry at.Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.Speedz and Randy share crow's mindset for the most part.But pretty much all of the threads have this in common:contentcontentcontentconfusion, misinterpretationNO GOD, YES GOD, NO GOD, YES GODagree to disagreesnide commentssnide commentssnide comments

I got these two covered, I'll let someone else have the last one because I'm a giver

[rdtedm]

crowTrobot, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts. Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything? There is partial evidence of evolution, but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans? We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions. Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe? Many can say that we don't want to think about a "higher power" or anything but science being behind everything that exists. But that is because we narrow our minds to think that science can, and will eventually explain everything just because today it's the most accepted procedure that we are able to use.To some, science is the only objective entity. To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth. It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

[Balloon guy]

crowTrobot, on Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 7:44 AM, said:

there is nothing intrinsic keeping science from explaining the beginning of our universe. it may well happen in your lifetime.

I forgot I wanted to give action on this, laying of course the standard 1,000-1 against. Please feel free to send me any amont up to and including $400 and I will cover this action

Quote

nobody is talking about personal meaning (read thread title!!!!)

Except some idiot in post #10

[rdtedm]

Balloon guy, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

I forgot I wanted to give action on this, laying of course the standard 1,000-1 against. Please feel free to send me any amont up to and including $400 and I will cover this action

Read: BG has a net worth of at least $400,000. Thinly veiled brag post?

[Balloon guy]

rdtedm, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

Read: BG has a net worth of at least $400,000. Thinly veiled brag post?

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

[rdtedm]

Balloon guy, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

:x

[Randy Reed]

rdtedm, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 8:51 AM, said:

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts. Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything? There is partial evidence of evolution, but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans? We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions. Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe? Many can say that we don't want to think about a "higher power" or anything but science being behind everything that exists. But that is because we narrow our minds to think that science can, and will eventually explain everything just because today it's the most accepted procedure that we are able to use.To some, science is the only objective entity. To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth. It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

Yippe me first!We don't think people come from random genetic mutations it's from natural selection. God is as objective as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Athiests have wonder in their lives if not more.Science has reason and truth as opposed to faith wich is just wishful thinking. You can wish to believe anything you want, doesn't make it true.So, you think objectively using science to explain things is narrow minded but you think believing in the FSM is objective?

[Sal Paradise]

Balloon guy, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 1:14 PM, said:

Don't blow this opportunity for me to make an easy $400 off these mooks okay?

but you won't be able to collect if you win. not quite the businessman we propose ourselves to be now are we hum ho!

[crowTrobot]

rdtedm, on Friday, August 15th, 2008, 9:51 AM, said:

The problem with using the words "objective" and "reality" is that they are also humanly defined concepts.

objective = mutually verifiable. objective reality = truth about the world that is mutually verifiable external to and not subject to what an individual believes or feels. those are straightforward concepts that there is certainly no problem with in terms of the subject of this thread.

Quote

Who are we to say that seeing is believing, and that science as we know it must explain everything?

i didn't say either of those things.

Quote

There is partial evidence of evolution

say goodbye to your credibility.

Quote

but do you really believe that through random genetic mutations we have come from microscopic bacteria to advanced, intelligent, and intricate humans?

i'm not sure why anyone wouldn't. even for a religious person to think it's impossible would just be placing limits on god. also, note that while mutations are random, evolution by natural selection is not. it is the opposite of random.

Quote

We are capable of making decisions, hypothesizing, dreaming, thinking, reacting, and of having emotions.

yeah so are dolphins & chimps, to a somewhat lesser extent.

Quote

Science, of course, is undoubtedly the most solid way we have about thinking of the world. But does that make it the only way that we can attempt to explain what we see and observe?

if you'd like to propose another way that's of any use at all for anyone other than the individual employing it i'd certainly listen.

Quote

To other, God and other religious beliefs are objective truth.

you mean subjective, of course. faith by definition is about as far from objectivity as you can get.

Quote

It's about perception and belief. If you choose to believe that everything in this world is scientific and worldly explainable, then that is your path. Like BG said, it's really up to the person whether or not they want to let a little wonder in their lives.

what does wonder have to do with discovering truth about objective reality? as i said it may be helpful in discovering personal values, but those are entirely subjective. wonder is utterly useless in determining if NDE's are proof of an afterlife.also science and a sense of wonder are obviously not mutually exclusive. atheist scientists are typically just as awed by the universe and reverent of their place in it as religious people, frequently much moreso.