S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Your handle here is humble catholic.
Yet you have the most offensive posting I have seen in all the years posting here.
Can I ask you what you did to determine if what you read was true or accurate?
- Status
Yet you have the most offensive posting I have seen in all the years posting here.
Can I ask you what you did to determine if what you read was true or accurate?
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Strawberry, I guess that is your opinion and you are. It’s definately entitled to it . What is I did was bring scientific evidence to an atheist who claims to value science above all else and showed that he doesn’t in fact value science above his atheism but the otherway around. What I also showed is that we are both men of faith .
If you find that offensive I’m sorry . I’m simply stating a fact .
As far as what I did to determine what I read was accurate or not, I’m nit sure what subject your talking about ? Was it Nde’s or demonic possessions .
If it’s Nde’s , well , it would be the peer reviewed studies done that have pointed against the direction that the mind equals the brain. The aware study as well as the lancet study . The aware study introduced many protocols , which tells me that doctor parnia built on doctor van Lommel’s earlier studies . The preponderance of evidence is in favor of survival , and the explanations like low oxygen levels in the brain, the brain surge and other materialistic explanations don’t hold up to scrutiny in light if what’s happening with Nde’s , especially veridical Nde’s .
I also made an accurate claim that there is a huge disconnect between current neuroscientists and nde researchers .
If you don’t believe this simply listen to the patricia churchland interview on skeptiko . Again she is considered to be one of the top experts in neuroscience and yet she still holds archaic beliefs in this area which don’t match up at all with the current nde research .
If someone claims to value science above all else , yet will abandon science when it doesn’t fit his worldview shouldn’t they be held to their word on this ?
M
mamlukman
Guest
I’ve only read the first two pages of this thread, but the answers seem to be all over the place. A lot seem to be off base.
First, I don’t think you can prove that God exists. You can point to this and that as evidence that might lead you to that conclusion, but you can’t prove it, and it’s futile to try.
Second, the Bible and theology have nothing to do with math and science. Math and science explain how the world works. Theology explains why. These are separate questions. It’s folly to mix them.
Third, I think Kierkegaard had it right: You need a “leap of faith” to get to a belief in God. You can’t get there by reason alone (sorry, Aquinas).
Fourth, everyone would benefit from reading about how inspiration and revelation are seen in the Catholic Church. It’s a very logical and reasonable approach that I think even atheists would appreciate. It’s the overall message that is important, not the details. If I read the beginning of Genesis, what is the message? Simple: God created the universe and the universe is good. That’s it. All the business about what was created first, second, third, the seven days, etc. is all a nice story, but that’s not the message, and it doesn’t matter. To try to defend all the details–as many Protestants do–is a futile undertaking. And unnecessary.
Fifth, watch some of the videos by Cristina Rad on youtube. She’s a cute Romanian, brought up Orthodox, but now an atheist. She is hilarious. But as a Catholic, I can happily agree with 99% of what she says.
First, I don’t think you can prove that God exists. You can point to this and that as evidence that might lead you to that conclusion, but you can’t prove it, and it’s futile to try.
Second, the Bible and theology have nothing to do with math and science. Math and science explain how the world works. Theology explains why. These are separate questions. It’s folly to mix them.
Third, I think Kierkegaard had it right: You need a “leap of faith” to get to a belief in God. You can’t get there by reason alone (sorry, Aquinas).
Fourth, everyone would benefit from reading about how inspiration and revelation are seen in the Catholic Church. It’s a very logical and reasonable approach that I think even atheists would appreciate. It’s the overall message that is important, not the details. If I read the beginning of Genesis, what is the message? Simple: God created the universe and the universe is good. That’s it. All the business about what was created first, second, third, the seven days, etc. is all a nice story, but that’s not the message, and it doesn’t matter. To try to defend all the details–as many Protestants do–is a futile undertaking. And unnecessary.
Fifth, watch some of the videos by Cristina Rad on youtube. She’s a cute Romanian, brought up Orthodox, but now an atheist. She is hilarious. But as a Catholic, I can happily agree with 99% of what she says.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
She looks familiar. Did she used to go by the name ZomGitsChriss (or something like that) before YouTube had every one use their Google+ name?
M
mamlukman
Guest
Yes, she’s the one. I am mostly interested in Islam, so I started watching her videos on Islam, but she was so funny I began watching her others as well. She should have her own TV show! I don’t know her family background, but in one video she talks about reading “The Origin of Species” --in English–when she was 16. I for one am impressed.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
It’s important that we never confuse proof for evidence . I don’t think u can get absolute proof for anything . I never use Nde’s to absolutely prove God’s existence . What I do use it is to take out one of the major leg that most atheists stand on and that is materialism . Notice I said most not all. A recent pew poll shows that 36% of atheists , agnostics and non religious people believe in the soul and the afterlife . . I’m taking an educated guess and saying that they probably believe this because of the evidences from these nde studies .
Now if someone have absolute proof of God we would t need faith, which I think God himself would never allow us to have . Faith like love requires a free will choice to achieve .
But Nde’s give good evidence towards 2 of the biggest claims made by religion for thousands of years and that is the soul and the afterlife .
Notice again I said evidence and not proof
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Sapien as far as the paywall, I’ll give you a small hint in that Much of that study is talked about on the skeptiko forum . You can get much of the study there without frikin giver the cash
Another good interview u should look at is the skeptiko interview with professor patricia churchland . This interview highlights how far behind the top people in academia art when it comes to nde research and the mind brain problem.
It’s a shame that they won’t allow access to these studies in college classes as they are not ready to allow an honest look into them , but what is that famous saying about how science advances one funeral at a time ?
M
mamlukman
Guest
What are Nde’s???
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Near Death Experiences.
But as with most experiences, they are extremely personal and not very transferable.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’m not sure one has to appeal to NDE’s for proof; day-to-day experience is pretty awesome and inexplicable - a mystery.
However, because it is everywhere, in everything we do, see and understand, it is difficult to study.
I was thinking how if one considers human beings as out-there-physical-objects and studies them as such, all one’s findings will be of out-there-physical-objects;
that is complex organizations of biochemical activity pieced together along the lines of interconnected cellular networks.
So what does one make of this, here experience where the reader is reading - perceiving and understanding, communicating with another?
We can say this is all occuring in the time and space physical reality of the brain; however, what is that but the most facile of answers?
A stroke in one location or another will clearly affect the phenomenon;
but then, so can a blown component in most systems.
Neuroscience studies merely one dimension of what is the human person.
Just as everything on a 3-D chart cannot be reduced to what exists on the x-axis,
not everything human is just neurological.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
I get what your saying on everyday human perception , but the reason I started studying Nde’s (besides the evidence being so strong again t materialism) is that particularly veridical Nde’s make a strong case against the brain being the manufacturer of veridical Nde’s but if you use the "brain as a receiver " theory it fits in perfectly .
An example would be a TV set . If materialism is true and the signal in the tv is only coming from the brain then we wouldn’t be expecting any station reception at all, but if the signal is broadcast from a satellite or station that is not located in the brain then the signal still exists but the reciever isn’t working to receive the tv program we are supposed to be watching .
This is exactly what we are starting to find out with Nde’s especially of the veridical variety .
As far as where concsiousness goes in a person that is in a vegetative stats , that’s a vry good question. My answer would be I don’t know .
Atheists have tried every trick in the book to try to debunk this theory . The latest one was the deep brain surge that happens right befire death in mice and seen in a few humans .
The problem here is that there is no deep brain surge in mice when they were put under anesthesia , and nde researchers know that many patients have had Nde’s when they were under general anesthesia .
Neuroscience within our educational institutions has lagged tremendously behind the nde research and part of this is that many neuroscientists at these institutions like professor patricia churchland are atheists and simply refuse to allow their students to gain access to he peer reviewed nde research even though they are scientific evidence .
This is precisely why I made the claim that atheists claim to love science but when it points even indirectly to God, the afterlife or the soul they will reject it in a dogmatically rabid fashion and will ridicule anyone that believes this.
The skeptiko interview with professor churchland shows us that these neuroscientists don’t care about scientific evidence , they only care about their dogmatic religiously atheistic point of view . Is venture that. Christina rad if asked about Nde’s would respond first by ridiculing them .
I put in a questiin to her on twitter but I don’t expect an answer .
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Correct sapien , except for the types of Nde’s that were veridical or verifiable within this real by outside witnesses .
There are types of Nde’s (and these are a very minority subset) of Nde’s in which an experiencer brings back information from another realm that is verifiable in this realm.
One such example would be doctor even alexander who was an atheist (though still went to church with his family even though he didn’t believe in God at the time) when he had his nde experience where he said he went to heaven and saw many wondrous things while being guided by a very beautiful woman who was his spirit guide .
The spirit guide told him that while he is here (meaning heaven ) that he can do no wrong and that he is loved unconditionally .
When he returned and he found his real parents (he was adopted as a child) they sent him some family photographs , but one photograph in particular immediately caught his eye .it turned our that his paternal family had a daughter later on who died while she was still a young adult . When he saw her picture he immediately recognized her as the spirit guide in heaven . He said that it was if she was trying to tell him “do you finally get it now ?”
Now when he goes to church he goes to church as a believer and not someone who is going through the motions to be there with his family .
H
humble_catholic
Guest
This is the video in which doctor alexander talks about his nde
youtu.be/S61vrWBPSHI
At the 5:40 mark he starts to talk about the beautiful spirit guide that was giving him a tour of heaven .
youtu.be/S61vrWBPSHI
At the 5:40 mark he starts to talk about the beautiful spirit guide that was giving him a tour of heaven .
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You haven’t shown me any science even after I asked you to show me some science.
Show it already.
A
Aloysium
Guest
You weren’t asking me but :twocents:
Giving examples of these sorts of experiences falls under the category, I believe, of naturalistic observation. It is employed in areas of study that focus on complex behaviour where altering the environment would produce changes in a wide-range of variables and/or possibly give rise to ethical concerns. No one is going to bring volunteers, even if they could be found, to the point of death to record their physiological and psychological reactions. Science is not restricted to physics, chemistry and simple biology. I couldn’t find the posts that discussed the issue and where you asked for this. What are you looking for in terms of proof?
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
May I ask why atheists care what Christians think about God? Or why many just can’t let us just stay Christian? My religion tells me to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). I don’t believe atheism is given that charge. I appreciate honest atheists, but Dawkinitism and scientism have got to stop. Just because something is not physically observable does not mean it does not exist. Do these people not believe truth, beauty, and justice? Where’s the physical evidence these things exist? Apologies if I come across, well, angry, but I am so sick of this attitude “Christians worship a skyfairy”. (I would like to note, that more than a few atheists have stated that atheists need to stop making that assertion, and I am much appreciative). Anyway, I’m a bit tired, and I have spilled much ink over that. God bless y’all.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think the answer to that will depend on the individual’s interaction and experiences with the religion (s) of their environment. In the USA you may find that many ĺthough not all) non-religious people are apathetic about Hinduism or a number of other religions that they may encounter. I think some of these religions are largely viewed as part of one’s cultural identity and not to much more.
Within the USA many people that are in the non-religious spectrum were at some point religious or lived within a religious community. Their interaction with a set of people that called themselves Christian was probably more than casual. And one doesn’t have to look very far before seeing an act perform or law passed or something else occur on TV under the name of Christianity. It’s frequent enough such that it may be difficult to ignore. You may be seeing individual responses to disagreements on what had been seen. There are even Christians that have been disenchanted by some of these observations which may be why the “Nones” tend to be the fastest growing religious category.
The choice to convince people to become apostates of their religion would be an individual decision for someone in the “None” spectrum, including atheist. Some will do it, some don’t. But trying to convince people of a perspective isn’t strictly a religious activity. People do that over relatively unimportant things such as which phone operating system to use.
I believe those things are seen as concepts and abstractions. So there would not be said to be existing an independent object labeled “truth”, rather it would be a label for a proposition meeting some criteria.
I’m personally concede people will always find ground for disagreement. Disagreements get people more socially involved. (youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc time marker 3:15 to 4:06 )
- Status