Atheists - A Question...

[mikkel_the_dane]

How could anyone possibly know that there's no natural explanation?

Because it can't be observed objectively, yet it is still known. But then we enter what knowledge is and that is philosophy in the end.
Though it is not relevant for this kind of religion in the OP.

 

[Polymath257]

@nPeace ,

Before we go on, please clarify what you mean by the term 'supernatural'. There are a lot of different definitions of the concept out there. Please let me know which one you are using.

Then, look at your scenario. What about it says to you that it is evidence of a supernatural? Please be specific. Why would a supernatural explanation be a candidate for this scenario?

I would assume that if I drop a ball and it falls, you don't feel the need to suggest a supernatural explanation. Why not?

If I give someone medicine and they get better, I assume you don't feel the need to suggest a supernatural explanation. Why not?

If I give someone a massage, and they feel better after, I assume you don't feel the need to suggest a supernatural explanation. Why not?

Do you believe that coincidences can happen? if so, how do you distinguish them from supernatural occurrences? If not, please explain.

Is the fact that a phenomenon hasn't been explained evidence of it being supernatural? How would it being so constitute an explanation of that phenomenon?

 

[Polymath257]

Because it can't be observed objectively, yet it is still known. But then we enter what knowledge is and that is philosophy in the end.
Though it is not relevant for this kind of religion in the OP.

OK, how is it known (justified) without observation?

 

[Lekatt]

There are scientific theories for NDEs. Have you read Sam Harris?

I have read many, many scientific theories for NDEs. They all come from those without the experience.

I have no doubt that the experience and subsequent experiences I have had are totally real. But I don't want to argue about them with those who never had such an experience.

There is plenty evidence to show this for those who wish to know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, how is it known (justified) without observation?

E.g. it is justified to you without knowledge as it makes subjectively sense to you, that only with observation there is knowledge.
That is your trick and that is philosophy for a certain version of empiricism for which there is another version, if you look closer.
But you don't do that because your science solves all that by doing a certain kind of philosophy, which is to you not really philosophy and thus you have solved philosophy by doing it and not doing, because you do science to you without doing philosophy.

That is it. You have solved it by ignoring as not useful and irrelevant to you, that there are other ways of doing it, but they don't work for you and thus they are totally irrelevant for humanity. That is the sum of your posts as I recall them. You might have changed, but I doubt it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no doubt that the experience and subsequent experiences I have had are totally real.

Neither do I. I totally accept you had experiences.
Same with alien abductees. I totally accept they had experiences.

Maybe I'm an optimist or naive, but I think that for the most part people are rather honest and sincere about such things.

I don't doubt they had experiences.

What I DO doubt however, is their explanation and / or interpretation thereof.

I don't doubt for a second that alien abductees had weird experiences that they have interpreted as being kidnapped by aliens. I don't think they were actually kidnapped by aliens. I do believe that they believe they were. Which is supported by evidence also, as they pass lie detector tests. They are being honest about their beliefs.

But beliefs can be wrong.

I totally believe they experienced stuff which they then interpreted a certain way.
I don't doubt their experience.
I doubt their interpretation thereof.

And I think it's mention worthy that you see it as a negative that the people that came up with scientific hypothesis about NDE's (for example) are people that never experienced one. I see that as the exact opposite. I think that puts them in a more neutral and unbiased place, whereas with the believer it is the opposite.

 

[Polymath257]

E.g. it is justified to you without knowledge as it makes subjectively sense to you, that only with observation there is knowledge.
That is your trick and that is philosophy for a certain version of empiricism for which there is another version, if you look closer.
But you don't do that because your science solves all that by doing a certain kind of philosophy, which is to you not really philosophy and thus you have solved philosophy by doing it and not doing, because you do science to you without doing philosophy.

That is it. You have solved it by ignoring as not useful and irrelevant to you, that there are other ways of doing it, but they don't work for you and thus they are totally irrelevant for humanity. That is the sum of your posts as I recall them. You might have changed, but I doubt it.

What other ways do you suggest? How reliable are they? if they produce a wrong answer, do they have a way to correct themselves?

I'm not ignoring other ways. I have just not seen any other ways that self-correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What other ways do you suggest? How reliable are they? if they produce a wrong answer, do they have a way to correct themselves?

I'm not ignoring other ways. I have just not seen any other ways that self-correct.

Okay, here is your problem. Wrong is a 1st person experience that has no objective properties itself.
And in practice there are at least 3 different kinds of wrong for the objective, inter-subjective and subjective. But the methodologies are different and you can't understand that if you only use the objective one.
As for self-correction that is always a 1st person process even in your science, though it happens as inter-subjective.

In short, I combine natural science, sociology, psychology and philosophy different than you as for different axiomatic assumptions or definitions and my method will always be wrong to you, because of your axiomatic assumptions or definitions.

In short you have to learn a version of metacognition to do this, but you don't have to do it, because what you do now, works for you.

 

[Watchmen]

I have read many, many scientific theories for NDEs. They all come from those without the experience.

I have no doubt that the experience and subsequent experiences I have had are totally real. But I don't want to argue about them with those who never had such an experience.

There is plenty evidence to show this for those who wish to know.

I’m not doubting the NDE experience. I’m doubting the cause you suggest.

 

[Lekatt]

E.g. it is justified to you without knowledge as it makes subjectively sense to you, that only with observation there is knowledge.
That is your trick and that is philosophy for a certain version of empiricism for which there is another version, if you look closer.
But you don't do that because your science solves all that by doing a certain kind of philosophy, which is to you not really philosophy and thus you have solved philosophy by doing it and not doing, because you do science to you without doing philosophy.

That is it. You have solved it by ignoring as not useful and irrelevant to you, that there are other ways of doing it, but they don't work for you and thus they are totally irrelevant for humanity. That is the sum of your posts as I recall them. You might have changed, but I doubt it.

This is the reason I don't want to argue the point. People tell me what my philosophy is and how I think as if they really knew those things.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In short, I combine natural science, sociology, psychology and philosophy different than you as for different axiomatic assumptions or definitions and my method will always be wrong to you, because of your axiomatic assumptions or definitions.

In short you have to learn a version of metacognition to do this, but you don't have to do it, because what you do now, works for you.

Out of curiosity: Who are you to trying to impress?

 

[Lekatt]

And I think it's mention worthy that you see it as a negative that the people that came up with scientific hypothesis about NDE's (for example) are people that never experienced one. I see that as the exact opposite. I think that puts them in a more neutral and unbiased place, whereas with the believer it is the opposite.

I find this a little strange that you would think people who didn't experience would know more than those who did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Out of curiosity: Who are to trying to impress?

You of course, Didn't you know that? I can't live without you.

In other terms I am just doing my religion and culture. How about you?

 

[Lekatt]

I’m not doubting the NDE experience. I’m doubting the cause you suggest.

Fair enough. I can understand that and appreciate the logic.

I have spent 30 years studying the subject through thousands of others' experience. I know for me I am right. It changed my life completely. It has the same effect on most experiencers.

 

[nPeace]

To illustrate the point that we don't need to assume magic to make sense of the scenario.

Nah.
You changed the scenario, because unless you did, you cannot explain it without the supernatural.
Here... See for yourself.

Imagine that what you described happened without the mysterious figure: you're feeling unwell, go to the doctor, and then feel much better by the time the doctor sees you. You wouldn't think anything magical or "supernatural" had gone on, would you?​

Nothing in the scenario says the doctor sees you.
If the doctor does not see you, how do you suddenly get well - all 31... including you, the atheist?
There is no physical explanation.

Then you came with the other one...

...wouldn't it be plausible that the mysterious figure placed a temporary curse on the people who ended up at the doctor's office?​

How would you exclude the possibility that your runny nose / headache / diarrhea / whatever was a temporary spell​

...where you gave a supernatural explanation... not a physical. Why? No, it does not illustrate the point that we don't need to assume magic to make sense of the scenario.
You assumed it does... from both directions.

I don't care. It's your OP.

Exactly!

 

[nPeace]

Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. How would you exclude the possibility?

You do agree that pranks sometimes happen, right?

What about you? Were you part of the prank?

 

[nPeace]

And it's just one out of an unknown number of coincidences.

@nPeace didn't specify, but presumably there were all sorts of other things that happened: the air conditioning cycled on and off precisely ____ times in an hour. The radio played a sequence of songs that would have been very unlikely to occur randomly. The pattern of vacant and occupied seats in the waiting room was precisely _____, which hadn't occurred since _____. The receptionist was thinking about ____ precisely at the moment that the phone rang. The eighth-closest 7-11 to the clinic dispensed its _____th Slurpee of the day.

nPeace has given us one coincidence to insinuate that it's important, but it's just as correct to say that a bunch of people felt better after some specific commercial came on the waiting room TV as it is to say that they felt better after some mysterious figure stood in the doorway.

There is no TV. No song.... Oh wait. It was a subliminal manipulation of the mind. Nothing spiritual. Just physical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find this a little strange that you would think people who didn't experience would know more than those who did.

Think about it.

Should universities that offer a psychiatric education have a requirement that only students that suffered from psychosis should be allowed to enroll?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fair enough. I can understand that and appreciate the logic.

I have spent 30 years studying the subject through thousands of others' experience. I know for me I am right. It changed my life completely. It has the same effect on most experiencers.

Alien abductees feel the same way.

Think about it.

 

[nPeace]

What other method would you suggest?

The same one you use here.