Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

Dodging the actual point I see.

Dodging the point, are you serious, just go to a confectionary shop during lent and you will see all the easter bunnies your little face can eat, chocolate and candy, go for it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The "pure" atheist says (s)he doesn't believe such a realm exists
The "pure" agnostic says (s)he considers it unknowable that such a realm exists.

Not sure what the "pure" qualifier is supposed to mean, but there you go.

So skeptic thinker stated.in post 1286 that she does not rule out spiritual realms, do you also not rule our spiritual realms?

Just a plain yes or no will suffice, anything more I will treat as an attempt at obfuscation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Go back and find out who I was talking with and show the last two exchanges between us (not you), only then will the context be determined. If you are not prepared to do that, an apology would be in order.

I already did that when I replied. I was reading through the conversation.

But nevermind. You don't wish to answer my inquiry. I get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dodging the point, are you serious

Yes. The point of the easter bunny analogy is to make you understand what agnosticism actually is.
That, to make it clear why I'm agnostic about gods - just like I am agnostic about easter bunnies.

But I see it went over your head.
That's fine.

, just go to a confectionary shop during lent and you will see all the easter bunnies your little face can eat, chocolate and candy, go for it.

Is that supposed to disprove the magical easter bunny?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So skeptic thinker stated.in post 1286 that she does not rule out spiritual realms, do you also not rule our spiritual realms?

Again: how can you rule out that which is unknowable?

Can I rule out the unfalsifiable? No.
Will I consider the unfalsifiable? No.

Neither would you in daily life.
When your wallet is missing after getting out of the subway, you will assume you got robbed or that it fell from your pocket. You will not assume that some "spirit" or "ghost" took your wallet, right?

Just a plain yes or no will suffice, anything more I will treat as an attempt at obfuscation.

Sorry, you don't get yes/no answers to questions that require further elaboration to avoid ambiguity or misunderstandings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. The point of the easter bunny analogy is to make you understand what agnosticism actually is.
That, to make it clear why I'm agnostic about gods - just like I am agnostic about easter bunnies.

But I see it went over your head.
That's fine.

Is that supposed to disprove the magical easter bunny?

The problem with comparing agnosticism about magical easter bunnies with Deity is that no one except kids and the mentally deficient believe in easter bunnies whereas literally billions of adult human beings believe in God, many of whom have experienced the Divine subjectively. So long as you are a part of a loony atheistic minority who think the easter bunny God comparison is sound logic, I shakes me head.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again: how can you rule out that which is unknowable?

Can I rule out the unfalsifiable? No.
Will I consider the unfalsifiable? No.

Neither would you in daily life.
When your wallet is missing after getting out of the subway, you will assume you got robbed or that it fell from your pocket. You will not assume that some "spirit" or "ghost" took your wallet, right?



Sorry, you don't get yes/no answers to questions that require further elaboration to avoid ambiguity or misunderstandings.

You do not know the spiritual realm is unknowable, that is just your present personal belief. Stick to your agnosticism as not believing until you have proof, and one day, God willing, you will have your personal divine experience. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again: how can you rule out that which is unknowable?

Can I rule out the unfalsifiable? No.
Will I consider the unfalsifiable? No.

Neither would you in daily life.
When your wallet is missing after getting out of the subway, you will assume you got robbed or that it fell from your pocket. You will not assume that some "spirit" or "ghost" took your wallet, right?



Sorry, you don't get yes/no answers to questions that require further elaboration to avoid ambiguity or misunderstandings.

I don't get that anyone, if their wallet went missing in the subway, would assume that a spirit tool it, so what is your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem with comparing agnosticism about magical easter bunnies with Deity is that no one except kids and the mentally deficient believe in easter bunnies, whereas literally billions of adult human beings believe in God

And there you have the evidence that it went over your head.

(a)gnosticism doesn't pertain to beliefs. It pertains to knowledge; more specifically concerning if it is (un)knowable.

, many of whom have experienced the Divine subjectively.

Kids experience the easter bunny subjectively.
Alien abductees experience their abduction subjectively.
Scientologist experience their "clear" level subjectively.
Some incarnation believers experience remembering their past lives subjectively.

Subjective experiences are not a pathway to truth.

So long as you are a part of a loony atheistic minority who think the easter bunny God comparison is sound logic, I shakes me head.

As long as you continue to confuse knowledge with beliefs and (a)gnoticism with (a)theism, you'll continue shaking your head in ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do not know the spiritual realm is unknowable

I have never been presented with a definition thereof that wasn't unfalsifiable.
Every time someone described to me what they meant by it, it concerned something undetectable. Something without detectable manifestation. Something unverifiable. Something unfalsifiable.

So according to such definitions, it is unknowable.

If you can define it in a falsifiable way, by all means: go ahead.

, that is just your present personal belief

I'm not the one making claims about such a realm. I don't have any beliefs concerning such a realm.
It's people like you who claim it exists. It's people like who need to define it.

If you define it in unfalsifiable ways, then it's on par with the easter bunny.
If you define it in falsifiable ways, then great! Then you are ready to take on your burden of proof.

Stick to your agnosticism as not believing until you have proof

1. agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not to beliefs
2. Yes, I tend not to believe claims that don't have evidence.

, and one day, God willing, you will have your personal divine experience

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't get that anyone, if their wallet went missing in the subway, would assume that a spirit tool it, so what is your point?

Can you give an example of a real-life situation in which you would consider it necessary to invoke the "spiritual realm" to explain the situation?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And there you have the evidence that it went over your head.

(a)gnosticism doesn't pertain to beliefs. It pertains to knowledge; more specifically concerning if it is (un)knowable.



Kids experience the easter bunny subjectively.
Alien abductees experience their abduction subjectively.
Scientologist experience their "clear" level subjectively.
Some incarnation believers experience remembering their past lives subjectively.

Subjective experiences are not a pathway to truth.




As long as you continue to confuse knowledge with beliefs and (a)gnoticism with (a)theism, you'll continue shaking your head in ignorance.

You kid yourself, people of religion mind's are much more open to the potential to understand their existence in the context of the bigger picture than narrow minded atheists who will only believe what their five senses allow them to experience. That there is the potential for an extension of perception beyond the five senses is self evident to anyone who open their mind and souls to efficacious religious practices of any religion. That atheists do not avail themselves to this opportunity is their bad karma, their loss, all because they believe only in physical reality, that which they can touch, taste, smell, hear, and see. If you would like to experience the spiritual, then stop believing you are limited to the physical (the 5%), and open to the infinite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have never been presented with a definition thereof that wasn't unfalsifiable.
Every time someone described to me what they meant by it, it concerned something undetectable. Something without detectable manifestation. Something unverifiable. Something unfalsifiable.

So according to such definitions, it is unknowable.

If you can define it in a falsifiable way, by all means: go ahead.



I'm not the one making claims about such a realm. I don't have any beliefs concerning such a realm.
It's people like you who claim it exists. It's people like who need to define it.

If you define it in unfalsifiable ways, then it's on par with the easter bunny.
If you define it in falsifiable ways, then great! Then you are ready to take on your burden of proof.



1. agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not to beliefs
2. Yes, I tend not to believe claims that don't have evidence.








I won't be holding my breath.

No one of religion would care less about your resistance to experience spiritual growth, they are growing spiritually and have all the evidence they need to continue their evolution. Poor souls who miss this opportunity in their short life to evolve can not blame the saved, they had the same opportunity as the leaders but clung to the physical reality as being the extent of reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you give an example of a real-life situation in which you would consider it necessary to invoke the "spiritual realm" to explain the situation?

Sure, when one is in a state of out of body awesome bliss due to meditating on God. Everyday, hours upon hours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You kid yourself, people of religion mind's are much more open to the potential to understand their existence in the context of the bigger picture than narrow minded atheists who will only believe what their five senses allow them to experience.

That's demonstrably nonsense.
There are plenty of things I accept which I don't "experience".

For example, I don't experience radioactivity but I very much accept its reality.

That there is the potential for an extension of perception beyond the five senses is self evident to anyone who open their mind and souls to efficacious religious practices of any religion.

At this point, that only seems true if one opens up his mind so much that ones brain falls out.

You seem to think that being "open minded" means that one has a low standard of evidence and therefor more easily believes all kinds of things.

That is, off course, not at all what being open minded is about.
Being open minded is about being open to (new) evidence which might potentially disprove beliefs you currently hold, and being willing to accept that if that turns out to be the case.

One is closedminded when one says things like "I believe X and that's final and there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise!"

So when one isn't keen on just believing undemonstrable things, one isn't being "closed minded". Instead, one is just being rational.

That atheists do not avail themselves to this opportunity is their bad karma, their loss, all because they believe only in physical reality, that which they can touch, taste, smell, hear, and see.

That which "they" (I, at least - can't really speak for others) have evidence for, is more accurate.

As I already noted, there are plenty of things that I accept to be real that I can NOT "touch, taste, smell, hear or see", but which nevertheless are backup up by sufficiently solid evidence to warrant accepting it.

If you would like to experience the spiritual, then stop believing you are limited to the physical (the 5%), and open to the infinite.

I don't know what that means, nor is saying something like "you believe you are limited to the physical" representative of my actual position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one of religion would care less about your resistance to experience spiritual growth, they are growing spiritually and have all the evidence they need to continue their evolution. Poor souls who miss this opportunity in their short life to evolve can not blame the saved, they had the same opportunity as the leaders but clung to the physical reality as being the extent of reality.

So, you don't have a definition you could share, or ...?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, when one is in a state of out of body awesome bliss due to meditating on God. Everyday, hours upon hours.

I asked for a real-life example.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's demonstrably nonsense.
There are plenty of things I accept which I don't "experience".

For example, I don't experience radioactivity but I very much accept its reality.




At this point, that only seems true if one opens up his mind so much that ones brain falls out.

You seem to think that being "open minded" means that one has a low standard of evidence and therefor more easily believes all kinds of things.

That is, off course, not at all what being open minded is about.
Being open minded is about being open to (new) evidence which might potentially disprove beliefs you currently hold, and being willing to accept that if that turns out to be the case.

One is closedminded when one says things like "I believe X and that's final and there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise!"

So when one isn't keen on just believing undemonstrable things, one isn't being "closed minded". Instead, one is just being rational.





That which "they" (I, at least - can't really speak for others) have evidence for, is more accurate.

As I already noted, there are plenty of things that I accept to be real that I can NOT "touch, taste, smell, hear or see", but which nevertheless are backup up by sufficiently solid evidence to warrant accepting it.




I don't know what that means, nor is saying something like "you believe you are limited to the physical" representative of my actual position.

Ok, so what is the extent of your perception? Have you ever experienced prescience? Have you had seen an aura? Have you experience telepathy? Have you experience out of body spiritual bliss?
If you have not, then it means you self identify with the physical reality exclusively and have not evolved further in this life so far.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you don't have a definition you could share, or ...?

Religious practice is about the transcending of the conceptual mind, not about concepts and definitions.

"When a wise man points at the moon the foolish man examines the finger" ― Confucius The finger represents conceptual explanation of reality, the moon represents actual reality. Or in the purely religious context...the finger represents the conceptual teaching to reaize enlightenment, the moon represents enlightenment.

I keep saying, the real is forever on the other side of the concept of the real. The spiritual can not be apprehended by the ego mind, the thinking mind, that is the wisdom of religious teaching, to point out that concepts are not real Naturally there is this irony that I have to use concepts to teach that one must go beyond concepts, concepts create an illusion of reality, reality itself is not mental.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I asked for a real-life example.

There is no more real life example than the one I gave. Naturally it means nothing to you because you have not yet experienced it. No one is forcing you to experience the divine, nor do they care, it is up to you.