Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, I know you didn't direct your message to me, and I don't mean to take sides in whatever you are discussing with whomever, but it's interesting the way I am inferring some of what you wrote and, at the risk of pulling you out of context, I'd like to gently comment, please.
I never thought of my Faith as a substitution for (scientific) evidence. As if I had ever said, "What? You have no science for this? Oh, crap, I'm stuck with faith!" Faith was just a given, explained to me by others, and it fit the topic at hand. When it's all you've got for something, you bet it will be important. That's kinda pragmatic and expected, don't you think, to make Faith important when it's all you've got? Pragmatic Faith. Ha, watch out, it's not an oxymoron like it might sound!
Also, it isn't like I try to make Faith the reason for belief, or force it into place, when it was simply explained to me by others as the reason. Then, as I got to an age to think for myself, it was for me to buy into or not. I cheerfully acknowledge there is not a (scientifically acceptable) reason for the things for which I have Faith so it's not like a "confession" to say Faith is my reason, as if I had to be coerced to admit something in defeat (as if in an argument with someone).
Sorry if I am holding you out of context.
Thank you.
No,that's Ok. It's rather like atheism as a rationale, and in fact the rationale is held by many atheists. But many also don't do it for rational reasons but just don't believe. That doesn't alter the rationale of atheism itself.
So the rationale of Faith is what I have inn mind, even if many theists don't arrive at it that way. It is perfectly possible to arrive at faith by way of evidence. There's plenty of it. But when we get the discussions here and it is shown that the evidence isn't valid, then we see it being rejected, and it is hard o see any reason for that other than a desire to hold to what is believed and never mind the way th evidence really points. This is what we call believing on Faith rather than evidence, and is the rationale of Faith, even if some of the faithful don't do it, and didn't arrive at Faith that way.
We do seethe results all the time. The rejection of science - where it conflicts with Faith. The accusations of having some personal problem that leads us o reject the god -claims. The efforts to fiddle evidence through logical constructs, semantic juggling and misrepresenting the evidence is betraying the rationale of believing on Faith and trying to prop it up after the fact.
I have seen atheists do that, too. But the advantage we have there is that the evidence doesn't have to be fiddled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
With regard to your last statement above, as a theist I could offer you that, in terms of the continuing operation of the universe, which is what I am guessing you mean, there may be no need for a god in the sense of an ongoing maintenance technician, since the machinery of the universe (the physics) has already been set in perpetual motion. I mean, it's not like I ever pray to God to keep the universe running. Huh, even so, maybe the universe requires Godly maintenance or supervision on a scale we will never know. I do pray to God pretty much exclusively for what I consider my little place in this universe. But not for the operation of the universe itself. Never have. You know, I don't recall ever discussing with any Christian a need to pray for the general continuation of the laws of physics. Gee, did God create the universe but let it operate in a secular fashion while He focuses on the sentient stuff within? Ok, by saying that I have just stumbled into my reincarnation model. How interesting a stumble.
Hm. Well, I don't see prayer as a way of asking God to continue keeping the engine running. Rather I see it, where not just a meditation or reinforcing of faith, a request to adjust the engine a bit to suit someone. The salient point is that the engine is more like something that grew. It doesn't show signs of anyone building it, but it growing by itself though the 'Genetic plan' of inherent physical laws.
There is a case (I concede) for "Someone" making the laws in the first place, though I can't rule out a natural explanation, as we simply don't know. But it does seem that Divine design has been debunked.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2016 at 08:53 PM..
Right here, dude: You want me to respond to you but you also make fun of me that I do.
No. What I WANT is for people to be honest. And when they say something is true, they provide the substantiation. And when they say they will (or will not) do something, then to follow through on that. You are doing none of these things. You are not defending your points. You are not substantiating your claims. You are dodging my points and rebuttals and then accusing ME of being the one dodging. Despite the fact I just summarized my whole position for you again only to have you, yes you guessed it, dodge and ignore the lot again.
And then you are saying you will not post or reply any more and then hours later you post and reply again. So no I am not "making fun". I am highlighting dishonesty and suggesting you rectify it. You do not have to of course. But the suggestion is there all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
And you tell me that you are unaware of how to be more cooperative than you have been.
How can I be? I have made points, clearly, concisely, and without personal insult. You have not responded in kind. In what way could I be any more cooperative, patient, adult, or coherent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
Your mind is whacked.
I think we can leave personal insults to the children on school yards, and allow the people here to act and talk like adults. I have a motto in life that "insults demean only the insulter, never the target, ever". So if you want to insult me at the cost of your own credibility then I am happy to facilitate that, but as I said I will not be responding in kind, and I can only suggest you raise your game.
And then you are saying you will not post or reply any more
I never said that. You made that up. I said I thought we should not communicate further. I also said you are not worth it. You fabricate here to protect that ego.
Quote:
and then hours later you post and reply again.
It is no contradiction that I posted again when I never said I wouldn't, but you tried above to dishonestly make it appear as one. You twist here to protect that ego.
And you make these adjustments to truth in order to criticize me about responding, even as you know you have been addressing me and provoking me into responding. Such machinations are your victories worth claiming? That's sick in the head, dude. You don't realize it.
Quote:
So no I am not "making fun".
Oh, yes you are. C'mon! Twice you made comment about your first law of internet forums in direct relation to my responses. That is making fun of me. Grow up.
BTW, anyone who refers to himself in the third person ("nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums") has an excessive need to draw attention to himself. I know just what you are. Hint: it's young.
Quote:
I am highlighting dishonesty and suggesting you rectify it.
No, you fabricate and twist. And blame switch. And dance around what I say. You just can't admit to any of it. You've made this very clear in extended responses. So, yes, I suppose in this way you are indeed highlighting dishonesty. Ha. This is a bellwether for how you will play head games with any of my input for discussion. I don't plan on talking with you about God, atheism, NDE, the rotation of the earth, or anything else like that as long as you continue your brand of sophistry which you deny. So, make up your mind how long you want to drag out your ego parade with me. I can keep calling you a clown as often as you keep prompting me to.
Let's point out that you are again soliciting my response. I don't want to hear any more juvenile crap from you even remotely pretending that you are not prompting me and that it is all me being contradictory.
I know you have a lot of your Pride and Ego invested in this forum in front of your many friends here, so you are not about to admit to anything in front of your two gods whom you serve. You loathe to take ownership of errors that are yours to take. Even innocent ones that only you care about. You even find fault where fault is unnecessary, such is your unease. You are so unwell you cannot even figure the way out of this jam that you and I are in except pile on more of the same two-stepping that caused it. I bet you don't even know what I am talking about. And if you did, you won't act to resolve because that would be a giving thing. I guess evolution did not send humility your way. Pray to God for some.
I figure I just have to be heading for heaven someday because it's atheists like you who bore the hell out of me.
Last edited by sylvianfisher; 06-22-2016 at 03:24 AM..
I never said that. You made that up. I said I thought we should not communicate further. I also said you are not worth it. You fabricate here to protect that ego.
Exactly. You said you think we should not communicate further. Then you instantly continued to communicate further. That is EXACTLY what I am referring to. So no, I am not making anything up. The point was, as I said, not to "make fun" of you, but to highlight the inconsistencies and dishonesty in what you are saying.
And you are still attacking me personally, making comments about "ego" and the like, which continuing not to reply to anything I have actually written on the topic of the thread. Yet you falsely accuse ME of being the one dodging? Who is fabricating now? Clue: Not me.
If you want to attack the poster and not the post, with ego comments and even outright insults as you have done, then that is on you. I will not be joining you at that level and I will be staying ON TOPIC. So here ONCE AGAIN is my ON TOPIC position summarized. Let us see if you will reply to it THIS time or continue on this fetid personal campaign against me personally:
To summarize what you are dodging:
1) NDE does not qualify as evidence for an after life because the patient did not die. That is what NEAR death experience means. They were NEAR death, not dead. So any experience they had was an experience of THIS life, not an after life.
2) The claims around NDE are usually centered on the patient in question obtaining some information that the speaker otherwise claims they could or should not have obtained. The issues with this are many however.
2A) Firstly they have not established that they should not be capable of obtaining the information. They assume this by pretending that clinically dead = dead and the brain was shut down. But this is not a safe assumption.
2B) Secondly they rarely if ever cite a controlled example of such a patient obtaining such information. It is all after the fact, hearsay, with no sign of effective interview procedures or procedures for establishing the truth of the claim.
2C) Any controlled studies I am aware of of things like OBE which try to establish that a patient actually did leave their brain and go floating around somewhere not only fail to evidence the claim but.... given the nature of some of the studies and how they are constructed..... actually do the opposite by evidencing that they did NOT leave their body or brain.
3) Much of the anecdote around NDE assumes the experience was had during the period of "clinical death" or pre-ressusitation. This is also not safe to simply assume. Much like dreaming happens on the way into or out of a sleep cycle, even though the dreamer likely would report it as being DURING the sleep cycle..... it is equally possible the experiences such patients have occur on the way into or out of "clinical death".
4) All the experiences and feelings people describe with NDE are reproducible by perturbing the brain in other ways. Using electricity, magnetism, extreme forces on the body, or drugs. Which suggests these experiences are a product of a preturbed brain, and not of some supernatural or paranormal plain of human existence.
SUMMARY: Now despite your pretense to the contrary all those points are concise, clear and robust and you have failed to rebut a single one of them. Nothing there is "impenetrable" as you claimed. Nothing there is founded on "ego" as you claimed. Nothing there is me being dishonest or dodging, as you claimed. It is straight forward, on topic, to the point, and it addresses the points not the poster. I do it entirely without personal attacks on you, even if you do not return that decorum in kind.
So it is really up to you at this point how you conduct yourself in response to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
And you make these adjustments to truth in order to criticize about me responding
Except that was not my criticism at all. Not the first time. And not when I clarified it the second time. And not when I clarified it in this post for the third time. And you accuse ME (falsely) of fabrication? Nice. I will even clarify it for you a fourth time. My criticism is NOT of you replying. It IS of you not being consistent by doing things like suggesting no more communication, but then communicating regardless.
If you want to reply to my ON TOPIC positions and points do. If you do not want to don't. But I see no utility in talking about not doing so. Just simply: dont. Simples. But I have quite clearly, concisely and usefully summarized the points for you and you can choose to reply to them, not reply to them, or continue this off topic rant against me as a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
Oh, yes you are. C'mon! Twice you made comment about your first law of internet forums in direct relation to my responses. That is making fun of me. Grow up.
Oh, no I am not. C'mon! Twice I explained what the comment about internet forums was for. That was not making fun of you. Grow up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
BTW, anyone who refers to himself in the third person ("nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums") has an excessive need to draw attention to himself.
Then you will be THRILLED to find I not once, anywhere, ever, referred to myself in the third person on this thread. In fact given I have never done it, it is not even clear why you bring it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I know just what you are. Hint: it's young.
More off topic personal comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
No, you fabricate and twist. And blame switch.
No, you fabricate and twist. And blame switch. For example you claimed I "dodged" when I never have, but you have. Perfect example. I have addressed EVERY point you made so far. I have not dodged a single one. Anywhere. Yet you have not responded in kind. You have instead attacked me personally, ignored the on topic points I have made, made again, and summarized. So the fabrications are all yours, not mine. The dodges are all yours, not mine. The blame switching is all yours, not mine. You just can't admit to any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I don't plan on talking with you about God, atheism, NDE, the rotation of the earth, or anything else like that as long as you continue to act like this.
Except there is nothing wrong with the way I have "acted". All I have done is enter a conversation with you about NDE, read your points on the topic, and rebutted them. In response you have gone on a campaign of personal attack and insult and then blame switched like somehow MY behavior has been poor. Have SOME decorum please. If you do not wish to, or are not capable of, addressing my points then fine. There is NOTHING wrong with that. At all. There really really is not. So why you have this need to cover up your dodging of my points with a campaign of personal attack, invective and insult is really beyond me. So, make up your mind how long you want to drag out your ego parade with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
Let's point out that you are again soliciting my response.
Unlike you I have never indicated I would not do so. This is, last time I checked, a discussion forum. This is, last time I checked, a thread on the topic of things like god and the After life. You did, last time I checked, make a few points on the subject. I did, last time I checked, address a list of issues with your points on that subject. You have, last time I checked, not responded to those points but have chosen to attack and insult me instead. Something I have not done in return because A) I would never do so and B) it is against the rules and charters of this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I don't want to hear any more juvenile crap from you even remotely pretending that you are not prompting me and that it is all me being contradictory.
The "more" is superfluous given I have done no such thing at all yet. The "Juvenile crap" I have seen here is solely from you in the form of outright and blatant name calling and invective and personal comments and attacks. I think if you drop that behavior from your charade we can proceed as adults in the way I have done so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I know you have a lot of your Pride and Ego invested in this forum in front of your many friends here
I am not aware of anything of the sort being true. I do not even consider anyone here "friends". They are, at best, peers or debating partners. So it is funny how you "know" something despite it not being true at all.
Exactly. You said you think we should not communicate further. Then you instantly continued to communicate further.
Because you elected to continue addressing me. Like now. How can you not deduce this? Robot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
The point was, as I said, not to "make fun" of you, but to highlight the inconsistencies and dishonesty in what you are saying.
Twice? And you do this by drawing attention to yourself with some silly law of the internet? All for me? Bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
And you are still attacking me personally, making comments about "ego" and the like, which continuing not to reply to anything I have actually written on the topic of the thread.
If you want to attack the poster and not the post, with ego comments and even outright insults as you have done, then that is on you. I will not be joining you at that level and I will be staying ON TOPIC.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, this is the part where you walk the line so I can then only look like I'm not. I know the maneuver. Gave it up in grade school, though. You have an ego problem, I think it is tied to your youth.
Moderator cut: Insult removed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
So here ONCE AGAIN is my ON TOPIC position summarized. Let us see if you will reply to it THIS time or continue on this fetid personal campaign against me personally:
I said I'm not going to talk to you about it until Moderator cut: insult removed . If we stop talking first, that will serve as [mod] insult removed].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
If you want to reply to my ON TOPIC positions and points do. If you do not want to don't. But I see no utility in talking about not doing so.
Really? Do you promise? Do you promise to stop talking to me about why I won't engage you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Oh, no I am not. C'mon! Twice I explained what the comment about internet forums was for. That was not making fun of you. Grow up.
Bull. And your repetitive mirroring of my wording is telling. How old are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Then you will be THRILLED to find I not once, anywhere, ever, referred to myself in the third person on this thread. In fact given I have never done it, it is not even clear why you bring it up.
Now you are just flat-out lying, or nuts, or don't know what speaking in third-person means. You did it twice in communicating with me in this thread, it's a matter of record here. This is not Moderator cut: insult removed .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
More off topic personal comments.
That's a matter of perspective, isn't it? I'm exactly on my topic, talking about what is wrong with you as you relate to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I have addressed EVERY point you made so far.
Moderator cut: Offensive language removed. , son. You talk too much. You gotta learn how to pick your battles instead of challenging every word and phrase. I know these atheist debates are your church, but I don't care about
Moderator cut: Offensive language removed. . Has any theist ever turn that statement back onto you before? How's it feel? You assume I am required to engage you in exactly how you expect or then out come your arsenal of polished tricks on trapping someone to engage with you. You got all stupid that the definition of the word NEAR negates the testimonials. That was really immature what you said but you were so strident about it, and from that I knew nothing after that was worth discussing with you about NDEs. My option to stop. I exercised it. Life happens. Get used to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I am not aware of anything of the sort being true. I do not even consider anyone here "friends". They are, at best, peers or debating partners. So it is funny how you "know" something despite it not being true at all.
And you mince meanings needlessly. How old are you?
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-22-2016 at 06:31 AM..
Reason: Several edits required
The quantity of invective and bad language and personal attacks and off topic content in the above post is too much to find anything in there to actually reply to. So I can merely repeat my request for you to go back on topic and then refer the rest to the moderator team at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Propulser
However, I am open to new information, and would ask if anyone has any direct evidence, please present it.
Two basic standards apply:
1. It has to be verifiably true
2. It has to have direct evidentiary value. IOW, it has to speak directly and substantively to the premise that there is, in fact, a god.
Again my position on the After Life and god and the like is that not only is there no evidence for such, the evidence we DO have goes against it. And when 100% of evidence points one way and 0% the other, that has to be acknowledged.
NDE is a poor example of evidence for an after life because it is not experience of an after life. It is experience of THIS life. You appear to have an issue with that being pointed out but I am not sure why because it is not only highly relevant, but it is true. NDE is called NDE for a reason. It is the experiences of a nervous system NEAR to death. Not at death or after death. NEAR it. And this is not "immature" or irrelevant but key and central. NDE is about as much an experience of the after life as walking up to a plane in the US but not boarding it is an experience of a day trip in Morrocco.
I am not a definition dictator by any means, but I also do not go to the opposite extreme of throwing them out altogether when they do not fit an agenda.
And several studies on OBE for example have not only failed to substantiate OBE at all, but the nature of the results obtained are actually evidence AGAINST OBE. (The Sam Parnia studies spring to mind).
Further, the fact we can stimulate and obtain pretty much all the experiences associated with NDE and OBE strongly suggests that there is nothing mystical or magical about them, and they are simply normal reactions to a perturbed nervous system.
If you are aware of any NDE cases or studies or evidences that validate linking NDE to an after life I am all ears. But your reaction to this request so far, and the depths of hate and invective they have illicited from you, is very suggestive that you do not have any.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
