MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
We shouldn't take "reports of NDEs" as evidence because they do not meet the standard of evidence. They do not mean anything.
Nobody has got ghost, according to Quran.
- Thread starter Emre_1974tr
- Start date
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
If one wants to remain in the belief in Emergence Theory, then indeed, your statement is true enough, but is not what I am arguing re the position of non-belief either way.
My position affords me the opportunity to take into consideration all evidence, be it scientific or not.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,137
Your position certainly lets you to take into consideration all the scientific evidence (although you seem to ignore at least parts of that) and other wild speculation which is completely unsupported by any evidence.
That isn't really much of an advantage.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
An advantage to what ends?
In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
But that of course would be a very foolish thing to do, given what we know about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence (no matter how much of it there is).
We didn't need to, scientists have been studying NDEs for decades.
Several such studies have been done, as you would know if you had really investigated the subject. But you didn't, did you? You searched for and looked at the (entirely anecdotal) reports of them and never even attempted to find out if there was any actual objective evidence on the subject.
If you "steer away" from a conclusion without even bothering to find out if there is any objective evidence to support it, let alone look at it, then your mind is in fact firmly closed on the subject. You are going to believe that NDEs mean what you would like them to mean, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
What has this diatribe to do with ghosts?
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,137
An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
So what you are sayin is that Allah is a racist and unjust monster.... he will make all humans that have ever died wait for millennia rotting and turning into nothing.... but his girlfriend and her ill begotten son along with Sumerian Pimps and their offspring are immediately resurrected upon their death and have been all these millennia enjoying being alive in this other universe you concocted???
Wow... what a lump of maggot infested rat's dropping this Djinn Allah must be.
Emergent Theory has the huge advantage that it isn’t contradicted by physics. No other theory that I know of can boast of this.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Nebulous connection, but I seem to recall that the biblical Jesus is a ghost. Leastwise people claim to have encountered him after he died.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Vaguely recall from Sunday school the story was that he died and then came alive again. That's supposedly the whole theme of his religion. If so, Jesus became a "zombie", not a "ghost".
But again, I'm not seeing the relevance of what our friend Emre is going on about Jesus as Islamic prophet and the subject of ghosts.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Ok, I have no knowledge of how zombies are supposed to work so I will just accept that you are correct. And yeah, Emre has rather singular ideas of how things in his religion are connected.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
I fully admit my knowledge of zombies is limited mainly to what I learned by watching Shaun of the Dead years ago. So who knows!
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
And if one did that, they'd be an idiot. Because it's well proven that NDEs and OOBEs are various forms of hallucination. Ever hear of sleep paralysis?
gabeygoat
Master Poster
Luke 23:46 KJV
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
And the ghost thought he had gotten away with it to, before Jesus gave him up.
Btw, the way that is written, it contends that when Jesus was alive he was...inhabited by a ghost who kept him alive??
Jeez it's almost as if the story God sending his son who was also himself to Earth so he could have a really bad weekend for our sins but then not die so what was even the point of that doesn't make sense or something.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
The origin of belief in souls / ghosts is spiritualism and pantheism.
And pagan christianity is trojonhorse of spiritualism ofcourse.
Islam and spiritual doctrine are completely different from each other.
Our video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXA38GeVM6k
And pagan christianity is trojonhorse of spiritualism ofcourse.
Islam and spiritual doctrine are completely different from each other.
Our video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXA38GeVM6k
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Re - Emergence Theory.
P1: From my own studies, which also include reports of NDEs and other alternate experiences, coupled with the realization that the bible is made up of differing beliefs about what happens after a personality's body dies - the stories which claim said personalities die along with the body made be incorrect.
P2: The "personality" is just an emergent property of the body though. No soul, no magic, just chemicals and electrical impulses and matter.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
P2: NDE's are junk. People see what they expect to see, there's no evidence any of them went anywhere.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk' - I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
P2: According to reality, that's what it is.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
The Mind is a powerful thing, and we don't even know if what we are experiencing, is inside some unseen Mind, so even then, there are places to go and experience as a reality.
I prefer to remain alert rather than fogged-up in belief.
P2: We shouldn't take "reports of NDEs" as evidence because they do not meet the standard of evidence. They do not mean anything.
P1: If one wants to remain in the belief in Emergence Theory, then indeed, your statement is true enough, but is not what I am arguing re the position of non-belief either way.
My position affords me the opportunity to take into consideration all evidence, be it scientific or not.
P2: Your position certainly lets you to take into consideration all the scientific evidence (although you seem to ignore at least parts of that) and other wild speculation which is completely unsupported by any evidence.
That isn't really much of an advantage.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
P2: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
P2: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
_______________________________
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: But that of course would be a very foolish thing to do, given what we know about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence (no matter how much of it there is).
P1: But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk'...
Emergence theory believer: Several such studies have been done, as you would know if you had really investigated the subject. But you didn't, did you? You searched for and looked at the (entirely anecdotal) reports of them and never even attempted to find out if there was any actual objective evidence on the subject.
P1: I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
Emergence theory believer: If you "steer away" from a conclusion without even bothering to find out if there is any objective evidence to support it, let alone look at it, then your mind is in fact firmly closed on the subject. You are going to believe that NDEs mean what you would like them to mean, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
Emergence theory believer: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
Emergence theory believer: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
Emergence theory believer: Emergent Theory has the huge advantage that it isn’t contradicted by physics. No other theory that I know of can boast of this.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: And if one did that, they'd be an idiot. Because it's well proven that NDEs and OOBEs are various forms of hallucination. Ever hear of sleep paralysis?
P1: From my neutral position I remain rightly skeptical of claims coming from either side of the Question of Emergent Theory which suggest that folk are idiots for not joining the believers of either camp.
Further to that, presumptions about what I have or haven't done re investigating the various theories are opinions, and have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Re. not contradicting Physics, it has been known for some time now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math has shown the physicists that this universe is not fundamental to itself, and as such, implies there is something unknown which is fundamental to the existence of this universe.
All in all, as it currently stands, I remain skeptical of both theories and am not interested in joining the believers in either camp while consciousness remains a problem.
P1's position appears to embrace remaining skeptical rather than assuming belief for or against Mergence Theory and sees no "advantage "claimed by those who believe in Emergence Theory over any other theory re consciousness...
The important thing is too remain skeptical of any belief-based claims...
P1: From my own studies, which also include reports of NDEs and other alternate experiences, coupled with the realization that the bible is made up of differing beliefs about what happens after a personality's body dies - the stories which claim said personalities die along with the body made be incorrect.
P2: The "personality" is just an emergent property of the body though. No soul, no magic, just chemicals and electrical impulses and matter.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
P2: NDE's are junk. People see what they expect to see, there's no evidence any of them went anywhere.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk' - I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
P2: According to reality, that's what it is.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
The Mind is a powerful thing, and we don't even know if what we are experiencing, is inside some unseen Mind, so even then, there are places to go and experience as a reality.
I prefer to remain alert rather than fogged-up in belief.
P2: We shouldn't take "reports of NDEs" as evidence because they do not meet the standard of evidence. They do not mean anything.
P1: If one wants to remain in the belief in Emergence Theory, then indeed, your statement is true enough, but is not what I am arguing re the position of non-belief either way.
My position affords me the opportunity to take into consideration all evidence, be it scientific or not.
P2: Your position certainly lets you to take into consideration all the scientific evidence (although you seem to ignore at least parts of that) and other wild speculation which is completely unsupported by any evidence.
That isn't really much of an advantage.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
P2: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
P2: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
_______________________________
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: But that of course would be a very foolish thing to do, given what we know about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence (no matter how much of it there is).
P1: But even if anyone is looking for some way in which to do the science and perhaps confirm the phenomena as 'junk'...
Emergence theory believer: Several such studies have been done, as you would know if you had really investigated the subject. But you didn't, did you? You searched for and looked at the (entirely anecdotal) reports of them and never even attempted to find out if there was any actual objective evidence on the subject.
P1: I continue to steer away from accepting belief in that conclusion, just as certainly as I keep an open mind about the data of experience aforementioned.
Emergence theory believer: If you "steer away" from a conclusion without even bothering to find out if there is any objective evidence to support it, let alone look at it, then your mind is in fact firmly closed on the subject. You are going to believe that NDEs mean what you would like them to mean, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
P1: An advantage to what ends?
Emergence theory believer: An advantage to understanding the way things are or could be.
P1: In what way does one have an advantage embracing the belief in Emergence Theory?
Emergence theory believer: The understanding that it represents the best evidence we have, and the best theories about what that evidence represents.
P1: According to Emergent Theory, you are correct that anyone who believes in said theory, would see it that way.
Emergence theory believer: Emergent Theory has the huge advantage that it isn’t contradicted by physics. No other theory that I know of can boast of this.
P1: Unless one takes their *collective reports[NDE/OOBE et al] as evidence. [*Data of Experience]
Emergence theory believer: And if one did that, they'd be an idiot. Because it's well proven that NDEs and OOBEs are various forms of hallucination. Ever hear of sleep paralysis?
P1: From my neutral position I remain rightly skeptical of claims coming from either side of the Question of Emergent Theory which suggest that folk are idiots for not joining the believers of either camp.
Further to that, presumptions about what I have or haven't done re investigating the various theories are opinions, and have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Re. not contradicting Physics, it has been known for some time now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math has shown the physicists that this universe is not fundamental to itself, and as such, implies there is something unknown which is fundamental to the existence of this universe.
All in all, as it currently stands, I remain skeptical of both theories and am not interested in joining the believers in either camp while consciousness remains a problem.
P1's position appears to embrace remaining skeptical rather than assuming belief for or against Mergence Theory and sees no "advantage "claimed by those who believe in Emergence Theory over any other theory re consciousness...
The important thing is too remain skeptical of any belief-based claims...
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, Islam—like every other religion—has its own idiom that may include animism or some form of body-spirit dualism. You are correct to say yours is unlike Christianity. But keep in mind your audience here are mostly atheists. Our view of religious animism is that it's all basically bunk. Trying to say yours is best because you don't think it arose from paganism doesn't differentiate it very far from what an atheist or skeptic might want to see in animism. There's no evidence for any of the religious or pagan dogmas, so we just reject them all categorically on that basis.