Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't claim anything

Please......

, it is your dualistic mind that imagines there is no such thing as a non-dual state of mind. That's why you do not understand what I'm saying to you, you imagine my mind operates like an atheist's mind, ie., dualistically, thinking consciousness.

Try talking in even more vague and abstract terms. Perhaps that will help.




How about you try supporting your statements with some evidence for a change, instead of these vague semantics?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Replace "god" by "dragon" and repeat that while assuming it's the guy from my example who says it.

The statement has the exact same merit coming from him concerning dragons as it has coming from you concerning the god you happen to believe in.

Names and concepts are not real, the reality is on the other side, if one want's to use the name 'dragon' to represent God, not a problem, it is the non-dual state of mind where the source of your existence is realized, the name is meaningless.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please......


Try talking in even more vague and abstract terms. Perhaps that will help.



How about you try supporting your statements with some evidence for a change, instead of these vague semantics?

That's funny, you are wanting me to act and behave as an atheist so you can understand me. You can't understand what I'm saying to you because your mind is unable to cease thinking. When and if you learn to still your mind, you will understand directly without explanation, there is no other way, the real can never in all eternity be conveyed in words or concepts or numbers or symbols, etc..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Names and concepts are not real, the reality is on the other side, if one want's to use the name 'dragon' to represent God, not a problem, it is the non-dual state of mind where the source of your existence is realized, the name is meaningless.

Another thing that is meaningless, was this reply of yours.

Classic case of trying hard to avoid the point made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's funny, you are wanting me to act and behave as an atheist so you can understand me

No. I expect you to hold your religious claims to the same standard as you do with ALL OTHER CLAIMS.
Claims require evidence.

Do you believe every claim people make, regardless of what the claim is and what the evidence in support of said claim is?

You can't understand what I'm saying to you because you mind is unable to cease thinking.

So I need to shut down my brain in order to understand and believe your nonsense?

Sounds about right.
No can do though.
I actually value my intellect and critical / skeptical mind.
It prevents me from believing obvious nonsense.

When and if you learn to still your mind, you will understand directly without explanation, there is no other way, the real can never in all eternity be conveyed in words or concepts or numbers or symbols, etc..

Neither can the undetectable dragon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Another thing that is meaningless, was this reply of yours.

Classic case of trying hard to avoid the point made.

Please understand, you are an atheist, your mind is dualistic and can not in its present state ever understand what I'm saying. Non-duality is a state you will need to realize to understand religious truths.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. I expect you to hold your religious claims to the same standard as you do with ALL OTHER CLAIMS.
Claims require evidence.

Do you believe every claim people make, regardless of what the claim is and what the evidence in support of said claim is?

So I need to shut down my brain in order to understand and believe your nonsense?

Sounds about right.
No can do though.
I actually value my intellect and critical / skeptical mind.
It prevents me from believing obvious nonsense.

Neither can the undetectable dragon.

Ok, so an atheist thinks that if they are not thinking, their brain is shut down! Nothing could be further from the truth, it only when the mind is not in thought that reality is perceived directly as an undivided whole beyond the movement of time, there is no thinker thinking about reality, but just reality itself!

 

[gnostic]

Subjective reality is not dualistic, but memory of and thinking about it is.

No, you are playing word game.

The word "subjective" is memory and thinking as you say, but it is also about believing about some things that you think about...and, that are no different from personal opinions, personal beliefs of one person.

Adding "reality" to "subjective" - "subjective reality" - is no different from personal opinions and personal beliefs.

The problem with anything "subjective", not only because it doesn't necessary mean it is true, the issue is that it can be also "imaginary" or worse still, "biased".

Having imagination is a good thing, if you were an author, poet, painter, singer, musician, etc. But imagination can lead one astray, especially in hallucination or delusion, hence not good for those afflicted with schizophrenia or other mental disorder.

Biases can exist any sphere of human interactions or activities, like politics, cultures, religions, and yes, in science too. Biases exist, because we are humans, and we all have our faults and ego.

But the things about science (especially natural sciences and physical sciences, is the needs to test what model (hypothesis or theory) by drawing conclusion from the available evidence.

The evidence are used by the science to mitigate personal biases and preference.

Of course, scientists can be biased too, and he or she (or they) might not accept the outcomes of the tests. If they cannot accept the evidence that debunked their hypotheses or theories, other scientists would eventually find the weaknesses of their models.

Scientists, who don't accept the outcome of tests (evidence and data) that refuted models, will only hurt their own credibility as scientists.

Take Michael Behe, for instance, the biochemist who authored a model on Irreducible Complexity. He had no evidence, no experiments and no data that support his Irreducible Complexity; hence his concept failed the testing part of Scientific Method. He refused to accept his model doesn't even qualify to be called hypothesis, because his concept is unfalsifiable and untestable; which mean his model has failed in Falsification department. And no Peer Review would accept his model, because he failed both Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

What does he do when, he can't get his work peer-reviewed? He tried to bypass Peer Review, and got publisher to publish his work through a number of different books, especially with Darwin's Black Box, trying to advocate and promote Irreducible Complexity, trying to appeal general masses.

There is no doubt that Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

This is a man, who allow his ego and bias cloud his judgment and ruined his credibility as a biochemist and a scientist.

Scientists are humans too, and they make mistakes. But any good scientist would recognize the weakness of his or her model, accept the losses, and tried to learn from his or her mistakes. Behe clearly didn't.

But this is really about Behe or about Intelligent Design.

This is about you thinking "subjective reality" is real, "as is".

Sorry to say, but your subjective reality of god or spirit, is based on biased belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't understand what is being said to you, you can't know God if you do not perceive God and you can't perceive God unless you know God exists.

You don't understand what is being said to you, you can't know the dragon if you do not perceive the dragon and you can't perceive the dragon unless you know the dragon exists.





Repeating your meaningless tautologies is not going to make them sensible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please understand, you are an atheist, your mind is dualistic and can not in its present state ever understand what I'm saying. Non-duality is a state you will need to realize to understand religious truths.

Are you about done with the word games?
When are you going to add some substance to your word salad?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is not going anywhere, I'll explain it this way, wrt the reality represented by the concept of God, most devoted religious folk know what they know from personal experience, atheists naturally don't know what they don't know, nor will they until they experience God first hand.

It's not going anywhere because you're applying a special standard because it's a religious belief.

If I asked you what an elephant is, you could describe it for me, show me pictures of them, etc. in order to show me that they exist. I wouldn't necessarily have to have a personal experience with an elephant, in order for you to demonstrate to me that elephants exist. Everyone can know what elephants are, and that they exist even if they haven't personally met an elephant because it's demonstrable. You wouldn't say, "well I've had experiences with elephants but until you've had a one-on-one experience with an elephant, you can't know what an elephant is." Right? So why does this kind of thinking you've described here only seem apply when it comes to religious beliefs? Why do we have to suspend the regular rules of reason and logic in order to "know" that some God exists? And can you really say you know something if you can't actually demonstrate it to anybody?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's funny, you are wanting me to act and behave as an atheist so you can understand me. You can't understand what I'm saying to you because your mind is unable to cease thinking. When and if you learn to still your mind, you will understand directly without explanation, there is no other way, the real can never in all eternity be conveyed in words or concepts or numbers or symbols, etc..

What we're wanting you to do is to behave and think rationally, as you would about most other non-religious claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please understand, you are an atheist, your mind is dualistic and can not in its present state ever understand what I'm saying. Non-duality is a state you will need to realize to understand religious truths.

Sorry, but this is a cop out.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you are playing word game.

The word "subjective" is memory and thinking as you say, but it is also about believing about some things that you think about...and, that are no different from personal opinions, personal beliefs of one person.

Adding "reality" to "subjective" - "subjective reality" - is no different from personal opinions and personal beliefs.

The problem with anything "subjective", not only because it doesn't necessary mean it is true, the issue is that it can be also "imaginary" or worse still, "biased".

Having imagination is a good thing, if you were an author, poet, painter, singer, musician, etc. But imagination can lead one astray, especially in hallucination or delusion, hence not good for those afflicted with schizophrenia or other mental disorder.

Biases can exist any sphere of human interactions or activities, like politics, cultures, religions, and yes, in science too. Biases exist, because we are humans, and we all have our faults and ego.

But the things about science (especially natural sciences and physical sciences, is the needs to test what model (hypothesis or theory) by drawing conclusion from the available evidence.

The evidence are used by the science to mitigate personal biases and preference.

Of course, scientists can be biased too, and he or she (or they) might not accept the outcomes of the tests. If they cannot accept the evidence that debunked their hypotheses or theories, other scientists would eventually find the weaknesses of their models.

Scientists, who don't accept the outcome of tests (evidence and data) that refuted models, will only hurt their own credibility as scientists.

Take Michael Behe, for instance, the biochemist who authored a model on Irreducible Complexity. He had no evidence, no experiments and no data that support his Irreducible Complexity; hence his concept failed the testing part of Scientific Method. He refused to accept his model doesn't even qualify to be called hypothesis, because his concept is unfalsifiable and untestable; which mean his model has failed in Falsification department. And no Peer Review would accept his model, because he failed both Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

What does he do when, he can't get his work peer-reviewed? He tried to bypass Peer Review, and got publisher to publish his work through a number of different books, especially with Darwin's Black Box, trying to advocate and promote Irreducible Complexity, trying to appeal general masses.

There is no doubt that Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

This is a man, who allow his ego and bias cloud his judgment and ruined his credibility as a biochemist and a scientist.

Scientists are humans too, and they make mistakes. But any good scientist would recognize the weakness of his or her model, accept the losses, and tried to learn from his or her mistakes. Behe clearly didn't.

But this is really about Behe or about Intelligent Design.

This is about you thinking "subjective reality" is real, "as is".

Sorry to say, but your subjective reality of god or spirit, is based on biased belief.

You think too much! When one has a subjective experience, there is no memory of it as it is happening in real time, likewise there yet is no reflection on it for the same reason. When the experience is over, one is able to remember and think about it in retrospect. I am saying that on the religious path, one tries to avoid ever reflecting or thinking about say, a subjective experience of a transcendent state of divine bliss. One tries to stay in the here and now without thought, to stay in the 'light' of pure awareness continuously. Keep the mind free from duality, ie., thinking, remembering, that is all people of the world ever do.

If you serve the world, you must think because the dualistic state of mind is the way of the world..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You don't understand what is being said to you, you can't know the dragon if you do not perceive the dragon and you can't perceive the dragon unless you know the dragon exists.


Repeating your meaningless tautologies is not going to make them sensible.

But I do understand, and you are correct, if one has not perceived a dragon, they can't know one. Perhaps you are getting it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not going anywhere because you're applying a special standard because it's a religious belief.

If I asked you what an elephant is, you could describe it for me, show me pictures of them, etc. in order to show me that they exist. I wouldn't necessarily have to have a personal experience with an elephant, in order for you to demonstrate to me that elephants exist. Everyone can know what elephants are, and that they exist even if they haven't personally met an elephant because it's demonstrable. You wouldn't say, "well I've had experiences with elephants but until you've had a one-on-one experience with an elephant, you can't know what an elephant is." Right? So why does this kind of thinking you've described here only seem apply when it comes to religious beliefs? Why do we have to suspend the regular rules of reason and logic in order to "know" that some God exists? And can you really say you know something if you can't actually demonstrate it to anybody?

Hmmm, religious practice is not about belief, and of course religious experience is different from worldly experience, one is of a spiritual nature and the other is of the material nature.

So it is simple logic, an atheist will not be capable of having the subjective experience of spiritual bliss unless they cease their mind's thought processes. Do you understand?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What we're wanting you to do is to behave and think rationally, as you would about most other non-religious claims.

I am not an atheist, what an atheist considers rational is a mental path that leads to the waste of the soul's potential to discover what and who they really are in the context of all existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but this is a cop out.

You would say that as an atheist for to accept what I'm saying as truth would be an admission of error. The reason imho why atheists tend to want to challenge the teaching about God is that at a deeper level, their soul is hoping that they may see the light and return to the path that leads to immortality.

And hey, perhaps that's why I'm here, to keep your feet held to the flame.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you about done with the word games?
When are you going to add some substance to your word salad?

The ball is not in my court, if you want to know the truth of God, you must do the religious practice, there is no other way, it is a subjective state of existence.

 

[gnostic]

You think too much! When one has a subjective experience, there is no memory of it as it is happening in real time, likewise there yet is no reflection on it for the same reason. When the experience is over, one is able to remember and think about it in retrospect. I am saying that on the religious path, one tries to avoid ever reflecting or thinking about say, a subjective experience of a transcendent state of divine bliss. One tries to stay in the here and now without thought, to stay in the 'light' of pure awareness continuously. Keep the mind free from duality, ie., thinking, remembering, that is all people of the world ever do.

If you serve the world, you must think because the dualistic state of mind is the way of the world..

You are still playing word game about subjective.

It is still personal opinions or personal beliefs, regardless if you experience it or not.