Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

So fine, let me rephrase it, he said...."Atheism is not the rejection of spiritual knowledge.". Dan From Smithville, do you believe Atheists who believe Atheism is not the rejection of spiritual knowledge reject or not reject spiritual knowledge?

And I ask you the same simple unambiguous question since you are an atheist, do you reject or not reject spiritual knowledge?

Let's answer with an analogy, since you don't seem to comprehend.

Question: "do you or do you not beat your wife?"
Answer: "I don't have a wife".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe the belief in aliens is on a par with belief in Jesus Christ?

Belief in aliens is not on par with belief in magical miracle workers, no.
Aliens are a lot more plausible then magical miracle workers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is like saying to someone who can't yet, but would like to be able to ride a bike, you must try riding the bike in order to learn. They will never be able to ride a bike until they practice trying until the they can. But if they don't want to be able to ride a bike, that's ok, later they may change their mind.

"Knock and the door will be opened, ask and you will receive".

Bikes demonstrably exist.
Anyone can literally independently observe people riding bikes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's answer with an analogy, since you don't seem to comprehend.

Question: "do you or do you not beat your wife?"
Answer: "I don't have a wife".

Yeah, but if we view this using methodological naturalism and try to explain spirituality as a human behavior, then it ends up as a form of combination of psychology and morality. And that is something we all do, unless you are radically different from all other humans.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's answer with an analogy, since you don't seem to comprehend.

Question: "do you or do you not beat your wife?"
Answer: "I don't have a wife".

FYI-
That is an answer for someone who doesn't have a wife. It is also true that someone who doesn't have a wife cannot beat their wives. Likewise (just as a fun example I happen to like and which stuck with me), "the statement, 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
-p. 5
Hubbard, J. H., & Hubbard, B. B. (2009). Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach. Matrix Editions

You have to be careful when dealing with the empty set and/or with what you can derive or deduce (in the logical inference sense) from a falsehood.
Here we have a person for whom the set of women they are married to is empty (they have 0 wives). Thus it is true that they beat every wife they are married to and ALSO true that they do not beat their wife. In either case, for the assertion to be false, there must exist some wife which they do not beat (in case one) or a wife they do (case two).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If an event is a subjective one, then making demands for objective evidence is unrealistic as it is impossible.

Demanding evidence and support for affirmative claims regarding a personal, subjective experience is possible and not at all unrealistic. If a person makes a claim, they should be able to support that claim or recognize that it is just their personal opinion based on bias, desire, and willingness to believe. It certainly is not based on objective evidence that can be shared. The unrealistic and impossible are in the attempt to provide that evidence.

Do you believe every opinion that any person tells you? Why not? Do you accept any claim any person makes based on their subjective experience? Why not?

If you believe NDE's are a spiritual experience and meet someone that claims they are evidence for the existence of aliens since they are the result of advanced alien technology. Do you ignore their claim? Do you ask for evidence to support the claim? Do you accept it and try to reconcile it with what you already believe?

Others on here have attempted to provide what they have mistaken for evidence for the spiritual nature of NDE's. While it is not evidence showing what they claim, they made an attempt to provide evidence. Why do you think they did that?

You can believe what you want, but coming on an internet forum making claims about something, even a subjective experience, requires support or the claims can be dismissed without comment.

Beyond that, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Claiming that NDE's are spiritual events that reveal the existence of life after death requires evidence to support the claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So someone makes the claim that there is a God, do you demand objective verification before you believe?

I already believe in God. I have nothing concrete to offer to verify and validate the existence of God. Belief, by its very nature does not require objective evidence. It is based on faith.

I believe in God is a statement about me and what I believe. That I make the statement is evidence to support the fact that I believe. That I attend church is also evidence to that effect. There is more evidence in my study of the Bible and the applications I make to my life regarding the teachings of Christ. However, evidence is not proof. My statement is also not a claim about the existence of God. It is a claim about me. Claiming that God exists is a very different statement. I cannot speak for atheists, but I imagine that they may accept the claim that I believe in God while seeing no reason to believe in God themselves. I do understand the objection. I also understand that belief can be wrong.

Do you believe in God? If so, what do you say to someone that asks you what evidence have you used to verify your belief? If not, do you have a subjective belief that you hold that you have tried to explain and defend? How did you do that?

What do you think is reasonable for someone that uses evidence to make decisions to do when presented with a claim of belief for which there is no evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

FYI-
That is an answer for someone who doesn't have a wife. It is also true that someone who doesn't have a wife cannot beat their wives. Likewise (just as a fun example I happen to like and which stuck with me), "the statement, 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
-p. 5
Hubbard, J. H., & Hubbard, B. B. (2009). Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach. Matrix Editions

You have to be careful when dealing with the empty set and/or with what you can derive or deduce (in the logical inference sense) from a falsehood.
Here we have a person for whom the set of women they are married to is empty (they have 0 wives). Thus it is true that they beat every wife they are married to and ALSO true that they do not beat their wife. In either case, for the assertion to be false, there must exist some wife which they do not beat (in case one) or a wife they do (case two).

Well, truth is cognitive and there is no one version of truth. So yes, if you accept a given version of truth, you can make further statements based on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Atheists don't even believe there is such a thing.
When you "reject" something, you first need to acknowledge its existence.

So the idea that atheists "reject" god or "spiritual knowledge" or the supernatural or whatever, is rather meaningless.

Do you "reject" santa clause? Or do you simply not believe that there is such a thing?

I am trying to wrap my head around your answer. Is it rejection of the spiritual or rejection of a claim of the spiritual that has no evidence to support it? I think the latter can be rejected. I am not certain of the former or that you are wrong in how you presented it in your response. As I was writing and thinking, my ideas have become too convoluted to translate to this page. I'll leave further discussion to future responses and further thought.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheists don't even believe there is such a thing.
When you "reject" something, you first need to acknowledge its existence.

So the idea that atheists "reject" god or "spiritual knowledge" or the supernatural or whatever, is rather meaningless.

Do you "reject" santa clause? Or do you simply not believe that there is such a thing?

Please feel free to replace 'reject' with 'don't believe in'.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Life is totally meaningless without life after death. There would be no reason to build or learn or study if when you die that is the end of all your efforts wasted. People intuitively know that they are spirit, but the physical is a tough place. It is only knowing that what you are learning is going to continue that makes people try harder.

I think this says more about why you want to believe in life after death than much else, and hence why you might have a bias as to such beliefs. Plenty find meaning within their lives and in that of others, and in the human race as a whole. Does all other non-human life also lack meaning if they don't have some afterlife? Such a waste of life - but which of course has happened anyway, what with all those species now extinct.

You might intuitively believe you have spirit but we tend to believe all sorts of things that are not true, so where does that leave you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am trying to wrap my head around your answer. Is it rejection of the spiritual or rejection of a claim of the spiritual that has no evidence to support it? I think the latter can be rejected. I am not certain of the former or that you are wrong in how you presented it in your response. As I was writing and thinking, my ideas have become too convoluted to translate to this page. I'll leave further discussion to future responses and further thought.

I think the youtube user darkmatter2525 worded it excellently. Had to look for the clip as it's been a long time since I've seen it, but found it:

It's about 6 minutes. Excellent video also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please feel free to replace 'reject' with 'don't believe in'.

That's your job, since you are the one who's using that word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

FYI-
That is an answer for someone who doesn't have a wife

Which is the analogy. You can't beat or not beat something that isn't there or isn't believed to be there.
Likewise, you can't reject or accept something that isn't there or isn't believed to be there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Life is totally meaningless without life after death.

Perhaps for a nihilist.
I don't agree to that at all. I don't require an afterlife to find meaning in life.
So this, is just your opinion which smells like nihilism.

There would be no reason to build or learn or study if when you die that is the end of all your efforts wasted

My efforts aren't wasted at all. My peers and off spring will benefit from it, just like I benefit from the efforts of others and my ancestors.

People intuitively know that they are spirit

People intuitively believe (not "know") a lot of things that are just wrong.

It is only knowing that what you are learning is going to continue that makes people try harder.

Clearly that is not true since atheists who don't believe it will continue after death try hard also.
You are just projecting your own nihilist opinions and thus pretending they go for everyone. But they don't.

 

[KWED]

I personally decide whether to accept or not, the veracity of other's claims, I do have an intuitive faculty that I've learnt to have reasonable confidence in.

So you don't need to assess the evidence or argument to support a claim, you just know if it is valid or not.
Crikey! That's almost a superpower. I hope you use it for the good of mankind.

 

[KWED]

As I have had religious experiences for which I can not provide objective evidence, I keep an open mind as to what others may have experienced. It is true that some people are just plain 'nuts' (I don't mean that in the derogatory sense) and so I don't take their claims seriously, but I also don't argue with them. The saying that truth is stranger than fiction is imho quite correct, our minds are gateways to our perception of reality and our beliefs therefore act as filters to exclude any perceptions that are antithetical to these beliefs.

So you accept that some people's claims of religious experiences, visions, NDEs, etc are just delusion (despite them believing them to be true just as much as you do with yours), but yours are different.
And how do you know this?

 

[KWED]

True, reality is forever on the other side of beliefs, all beliefs!

Do you know what we call a belief that has been shown to be true? (Clue: it is not "a belief").

It's like the joke - What do we call "alternative medicine" that actually works? ... "Medicine".

 

[KWED]

Beliefs are conceptualizations of reality

They might be, but they might not be.

 

[KWED]

There is no burden of proof required for someone who claims there is an afterlife, no more than burden of proof is required for someone who says there is no afterlife. Reality is forever on the other side of the human conceptual mind and endless conceptualizing will never give you true understanding.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of "burden of proof". It is on the one making the positive claim.
If you say "There is an after life", the burden is on you to demonstrate that claim.
If someone is sceptical of your claim, it is not their responsibility to disprove it.

Example, "I had sex with your mum".
Is the burden on me to prove my claim, or you to disprove it?
If you cannot disprove it, does that mean that it happened?