arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Since when are my own thoughts evidence of anything?
Heaven and the after-life, the skeptic's hell
- Thread starter Pardalis
- Start date
Genesis 11: 7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
I would not be sorry, and I would not feel that I was wrong to disbelieve in God if I ever came face to face with him in Heaven. Likewise, I would not feel stupid for denying that there are monsters under kids beds, if I found out tomorrow that scary monsters do actually teleport into our Universe from another realm of existence, to scare little children. Believing that a decision is a bad one, based solely on the outcome, rather than the actual quality of the decision itself, is known as an outcome bias. It is perfectly possible for an irrational person to make a poor decision, and end up being right. I am sure if people tried, they could find many real life examples of bad decisions, invalid arguments, and careless accidents, that have led to positive outcomes, or conclusions that are in fact true.
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,487
So USA is a land of confusion because it's military actions cause confusion on the enemy? That's a very illogical premise you are proposing.
BTW
The language differentiation wasn't brought about for confusion's sake. It was inflicted in order to prevent the disorder mankind was planning in violation of the mandate given to Noah and his descendants.
Last edited:
Radrook Radrook Radrook no fair rewriting the “infallible word of god” just to make your blather justified. The bible says repeatedly that god hardens hearts and prevents folks from seeing the truth. DON”T YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE.
Jesus stated that “All those who speak my name will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
What will all the Fundys think when after a life of Fundy-ness they don’t have ticket for admission.
Jesus stated that “All those who speak my name will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
What will all the Fundys think when after a life of Fundy-ness they don’t have ticket for admission.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
The people were God's enemy?
According to Radrook. According to Genesis 11:6, it was because:
"...the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Nothing about mandates or disorder. Ever try actually reading the book? The people were trying to reach heaven by building a tower of mud bricks. God was concerned that they might succeed. Would you say that His concerns were well founded?
But I would still be me right? If I'm still me, then I would consider the possibility that this is not really heaven, and that guy not really god. I would try to find out for myself where I am, and find out independently who that guy is.
Maybe we won't know god's secret plans, but I get the impression Christians believe we'll get all the answers we seek.
Your quote doesn't support that, just the fact that we're dead and still existing would contradict a few physical laws. And what is an unphysical law? As I was saying, Heaven would be a materialist's nightmare.
Last edited:
Sigh... near-death experiences explained by medical science
So let me get this straight, Plumjam - you are essentially arguing that this knowledge would be magically revealed without any reference to our sensory organs?
If that is the case, what is to distinguish the supposed "revelation" from a really wicked acid trip?
And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?
I'll see your article in Skeptical Inquirer by an anesthesiologist and raise you an 8-year long NDE study published in The Lancet:
“Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients' medication was also unrelated to frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important as fear was not associated with NDE.”
…
“Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.”
And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.”
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
Edit:
"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.
Last edited:
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Your point, Malerin?
Perhaps I should have stated earlier that medical science is in the process of explaining NDEs, not having completely explained them. This point I concede as I erred in the manner in which I posted the link. My point is that modern medicine & science is making inroads into explaining the supposedly-unexplainable NDE - no miracles or supernatural required.
But if your post is meant to say that NDEs cannot be explained by medical science, then I say you are simply engaging in an argument from ignorance - as are those who maintain that NDEs are supernatural.
Incidentally, should I even pay attention to you, Malerin, seeing as how you're just a figment of my imagination? Who am I talking to, anyway? Hmmph, those crazy leprechauns again...
Perhaps I should have stated earlier that medical science is in the process of explaining NDEs, not having completely explained them. This point I concede as I erred in the manner in which I posted the link. My point is that modern medicine & science is making inroads into explaining the supposedly-unexplainable NDE - no miracles or supernatural required.
But if your post is meant to say that NDEs cannot be explained by medical science, then I say you are simply engaging in an argument from ignorance - as are those who maintain that NDEs are supernatural.
Incidentally, should I even pay attention to you, Malerin, seeing as how you're just a figment of my imagination? Who am I talking to, anyway? Hmmph, those crazy leprechauns again...
Last edited:
Yup, fairly well known paper, this one. Not replicated, unfortunately, and has a lot of misassumptions that have been discussed before, as well. Still, dualists seem to love it. Not sure why, though.
This is one hell of an assumption. There could be numerous contributing factors. In any case, let's look at the converse - if all of those patients had 'duality' of mind and body, then by the same token they also should all have experienced NDE. The fact that they didn't shows there is a physical variation...unless we assume some of them simply had no 'souls' to begin with...
The 'verified observations' were not blinded (Sabom, 1982), from what I understand of Sabom's anecdote. Which detracts majorly from their validity, allowing for a number of possible and more likely causes behind this piece of evidence. This reflects poorly on the paper. As this would be the only way to confirm that some form of consciousness remained during the flat EEG period, the entire paper falls flat.
Nobody disputes that EEG could flatline and a person could recall memories afterward. Yet memories are tricky things, especially regarding unconscious states - try waking up in the morning and giving an exact time of each dream you had and their duration. You'll find they won't match external quantifications.
Athon
This is one hell of an assumption. There could be numerous contributing factors. In any case, let's look at the converse - if all of those patients had 'duality' of mind and body, then by the same token they also should all have experienced NDE. The fact that they didn't shows there is a physical variation...unless we assume some of them simply had no 'souls' to begin with...
The 'verified observations' were not blinded (Sabom, 1982), from what I understand of Sabom's anecdote. Which detracts majorly from their validity, allowing for a number of possible and more likely causes behind this piece of evidence. This reflects poorly on the paper. As this would be the only way to confirm that some form of consciousness remained during the flat EEG period, the entire paper falls flat.
Nobody disputes that EEG could flatline and a person could recall memories afterward. Yet memories are tricky things, especially regarding unconscious states - try waking up in the morning and giving an exact time of each dream you had and their duration. You'll find they won't match external quantifications.
Athon
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Thanks Athon.
I had wondered how long it was going to take for this NDE paper to be shot full of holes on this thread. This is one reason I love hanging around on skeptic forums, as woo like this gets nailed pretty quickly & thoroughly. Btw, do you have a link to an analysis of that paper?
So, we now have reference to a poorly-constructed, non-blinded study which has questionable results which, apparently, cannot be replicated. And this is evidence of the supposed "reality" of NDEs being supernatural?
Wow, talk about low standards
I'm guessing because they think it offers "scientific proof" upon which they can hang their philosophical hats. You know, standard woo.
I had wondered how long it was going to take for this NDE paper to be shot full of holes on this thread. This is one reason I love hanging around on skeptic forums, as woo like this gets nailed pretty quickly & thoroughly. Btw, do you have a link to an analysis of that paper?
So, we now have reference to a poorly-constructed, non-blinded study which has questionable results which, apparently, cannot be replicated. And this is evidence of the supposed "reality" of NDEs being supernatural?
Wow, talk about low standards
I'm guessing because they think it offers "scientific proof" upon which they can hang their philosophical hats. You know, standard woo.
Last edited:
This online article does a pretty good job of showing the weaknesses in it. One could always argue it is clearly a 'skeptic' rebuttal, but I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning in it, or the medical facts on it.
It's more that the study is trying to argue that it's highly unlikely that physiological factors can explain NDEs. It relies on two points - one is that the patients EEG were flat during the period of claimed experience, and the second is that the hypotheses such as anoxia and high-stress neurochemical variations can't be true for various reasons. The problem is that the first point has never been blind-tested, and relies solely on anecdotes (more so, from nurses who were relating patient recollections...hence third hand), and the second point's reasoning would stand equally for a dualist hypothesis as well; indeed would sooner reduce one's confidence in a dualist hypothesis than any physiological one, given that physiology is known to contain more variables.
Wow, talk about low standards
Well, pseudoscience is defined essentially as low-standard science.
Athon
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
***Derail***
Stanley Kubrick's Boxes was on the Sundance channel last night. It was quite good and worth a watch if you haven't seen it already.
Nice OP btw.
You seemed to be suggesting medical science had explained NDE's. The Lancet is one of the most respected journals in the world. The study's findings were criticial of standard theories, like oxygen deprivation.
Well, that's why I posted a rebuttal source.
The way I read it, there's still a lot of mystery involved. Within the study itself, they reported a nurse who supposedly verified a flat-lined patient's OBE.
No, my point was to show that no one really knows why NDE's occur. The study in the Lancet was the longest study ever done (don't know if it's the largest).
Incidentally, should I even pay attention to you, Malerin, seeing as how you're just a figment of my imagination? Who am I talking to, anyway? Hmmph, those crazy leprechauns again...
Whatever floats your boat.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Food for thought, Malerin.
I don't think Malerin is quite saying he supports the paper, as such, but rather is trying to hide in that vague zone where so long as something isn't 'proven', all options are therefore equal. As science doesn't deal in proofs, he's free to speculate whatever he wants and feel that it has equal weight to our own position.
I don't need to tell you where this falls down...
Athon
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Crap in a respected journal is still crap. Did you read the criticism of that paper that Athon posted? Seems pretty damning to me.
Yes, I see that. How about a credible rebuttal?
And just how does a nurse's anecdote "confirming a patient's OBE" provide evidence of anything? I cannot believe that you're seriously arguing on a skeptic forum that anecdote = evidence.
As Athon pointed out, the study is flawed. And, imo, it is fatally flawed. As for your claim that NDEs are completely unexplained, I have to disagree - we have much evidence that explains many aspects of these events. Not the whole story, but we're filling in the gaps.
Are you going to make an argument similar to that put forth by creationists? You know, the one where they say we cannot accept evolution because we still have some gaps in the fossil record? It seems that you're heading in that direction.
Hey, you're the one who goes on and on in other threads about solipsism being a valid argument. Get over your non-existent hurt feelings
