Near Death experiences to atheist

[RJ50]

When my husband was in a coma and critically ill after a brain haemorrhage in 2006, he claims to have had an experience which convinced him beyond all shadow of doubt that there is no God or afterlife. As he was an atheist anyway, I think it was just his brain backing up his thought processes. I believe all near death experiences are the result of brain activity, nothing more.

 

[ArtieE]

How do they qualify that idea without a god source?

Why do they think they are reincarnating over and over and over?

*

"Based on his no-soul (anatta) doctrine, the Buddha described reincarnation, or the taking on of a new body in the next life, in a different way than the traditional Indian understanding. He compared it to lighting successive candles using the flame of the preceding candle. Although each flame is causally connected to the one that came before it, is it not the same flame. Thus, in Buddhism, reincarnation is usually referred to as "transmigration."
Reincarnation and Afterlife in Buddhism - ReligionFacts

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Because we evolved to this stage of human being that brakes down over a period of time - leading to death - and worm food.

Those bodies don't reanimate, etc. What do they think is the "THEM" that has the power to create another body and live again?

Most reincarnation people believe they have a soul that transcends death - usually associated to a Divine Deity - and their soul is coming back over-and-over to reach some state of perfection.

So how did these Atheists come up with this "outside know science" idea that some part of them lives past the grave - AND can CREATE a new body?

*

You'd have to ask one of them. I personally view the existence or non-existence of an afterlife to be a complete non-issue. I'm still alive...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I've said above in this thread, the teachings of the Hindu masters can not be tested with the 'scientific method'. We all agree to that.

But again my concern here is not pure 'Science' but what is the most reasonable beliefs for me to hold about the structure of the universe. And in that regard I consider information not yet amenable to the scientific method in this century.

Wait one minute: when it gets right down to it, all "science" is is logical inference from evidence. If you're saying that your beliefs can't be tested by science, aren't you conceding that your beliefs aren't rational?

Or are you using some other definition for "science"?

 

[Magic Man]

They literally use more of their brains.

No, they don't.

 

[Magic Man]

Sages/mystics/gurus and not scientists. Scientists are more like us, they can't directly experience these other realms as a part of reality.



As I've said above in this thread, the teachings of the Hindu masters can not be tested with the 'scientific method'. We all agree to that.

But again my concern here is not pure 'Science' but what is the most reasonable beliefs for me to hold about the structure of the universe. And in that regard I consider information not yet amenable to the scientific method in this century.

Then you will be limited to the stage science happens to be at during your lifetime.

I, on the other hand, see it reasonable to also consider things not currently testable by the 'scientific method'.

Yes, you've made it clear that you like to believe the teachings of these gurus of yours because you like what they say. Looking at it objectively, though, there's no good reason to take them seriously.

Funny, but I've also heard that 'Remote Viewing' has been statistically confirmed independently in multiple labs.

I'm sure you have, but I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you have no support for this.

Some of us also consider analyses not written by the so-called 'skeptics'.

Yes, some of you consider analyses written by people with absolutely no credibility at all simply because it aligns with your pre-conceived notions about the world. Some of us dismiss such things when they have no support.

Some of us consider the same evidence and come to a different point of view. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, some of you come to a different conclusion based on your desire for your ideas about the world to be true, not based on an objective consideration of the facts.

 

[George-ananda]

Wait one minute: when it gets right down to it, all "science" is is logical inference from evidence. If you're saying that your beliefs can't be tested by science, aren't you conceding that your beliefs aren't rational?

Of course not. Here's some rational thought for you.

I believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways (a rational belief). Hence it is reasonable to consider teachings beyond science's current reach (another rational position).

So, show me where I abandon rational thought.

Certainly you can't take the position that science in 2013 AD knows everything there is to know.

Or are you using some other definition for "science"?

That's already been covered in this thread. To avoid confusion let's use the words teachings/theories/whatever (not 'science') for those things not amenable to the scientific method in 2013 AD.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways (a rational belief). Hence it is reasonable to consider teachings beyond science's current reach (another rational position).

So, show me where I abandon rational thought.

Easy. Rationality is belief based on reason and evidence. If you "believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways" without evidence then you are irrational and have faith. Everybody knows that science is "incomplete" and we have no evidence that those teachings are beyond science's current reach. They may very well be reached tomorrow.

 

[johnhanks]

I believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways (a rational belief). Hence it is reasonable to consider teachings beyond science's current reach (another rational position).

Only if you can show that those "teachings" possess the authority in such areas that you claim science cannot attain; otherwise they are more accurately "speculations".

 

[Magic Man]

Of course not. Here's some rational thought for you.

I believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways (a rational belief). Hence it is reasonable to consider teachings beyond science's current reach (another rational position).

So, show me where I abandon rational thought.

Certainly you can't take the position that science in 2013 AD knows everything there is to know.

You keep using the term "consider". Sure, it's fine to consider all kinds of things. You don't stop at that, though. You believe some of these things, even though there is no evidence for them. Of course science doesn't know everything there is to know, but that doesn't mean we should just believe anything that comes along because it claims to explain something we want explained. You don't even have to test it scientifically (at least not in the strict sense). But for a rational person to believe something, there has to be some sort of support for it.

 

[George-ananda]

Easy. Rationality is belief based on reason and evidence. If you "believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways" without evidence then you are irrational and have faith.

I do claim evidence though (i.e. veridical near-death experiences for one). I think you missed the last 30 pages of posts and many other threads where I've discussed these things with these people here.

Everybody knows that science is "incomplete" and we have no evidence that those teachings are beyond science's current reach. They may very well be reached tomorrow.

As far as science goes, my prediction is that we will all reach the end our lives with the issues still in controversy. Science doesn't have a clue yet how far out is the reach of reality.

 

[George-ananda]

Only if you can show that those "teachings" possess the authority in such areas that you claim science cannot attain; otherwise they are more accurately "speculations".

Isn't 'authority' a matter of opinion? I could list here the names of many Hindu saints/scholars/gurus.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't 'authority' a matter of opinion? I could list here the names of many Hindu saints/scholars/gurus.

Indeed, many people readily place authority in charlatans and whack-jobs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course not. Here's some rational thought for you.

I believe things exist that show physicalism/materialism/science to be incomplete in some important ways (a rational belief). Hence it is reasonable to consider teachings beyond science's current reach (another rational position).

So, show me where I abandon rational thought.

Certainly you can't take the position that science in 2013 AD knows everything there is to know.



That's already been covered in this thread. To avoid confusion let's use the words teachings/theories/whatever (not 'science') for those things not amenable to the scientific method in 2013 AD.

"The scientific method in 2013" is nothing more than the rigorous application of logic to derive inferences from evidence. What part of that do you think is unnecessary: rigour, logic, or evidence?

 

[George-ananda]

You keep using the term "consider". Sure, it's fine to consider all kinds of things. You don't stop at that, though. You believe some of these things, even though there is no evidence for them.

NO EVIDENCE you claim. I dispute that rather emphatically after months of debating.

Of course science doesn't know everything there is to know, but that doesn't mean we should just believe anything that comes along because it claims to explain something we want explained.

I agree. That's why I don't 'just believe anything that comes along because it claims to explain something we want'. I require evidence and argumentation.

You don't even have to test it scientifically (at least not in the strict sense). But for a rational person to believe something, there has to be some sort of support for it.

I agree with that statement too.

 

[George-ananda]

Indeed, many people readily place authority in charlatans and whack-jobs.

Right, like those people that just cling to whatever confirmed skeptics say.

 

[George-ananda]

"The scientific method in 2013" is nothing more than the rigorous application of logic to derive inferences from evidence. What part of that do you think is unnecessary: rigour, logic, or evidence?

When did I say any of those three things are unnecessary for the scientific method? :thud:

I consider (and sometimes believe to be highly likely) things not amenable to the 'scientific method'.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Right, like those people that just cling to whatever confirmed skeptics say.

No, not like that at all. I mean deluded or dishonest people who just make magical crap up and the credulous people who believe them because they don't have the desire and/or ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did I say any of those three things are unnecessary for the scientific method? :thud:

You didn't; you talked about using methods that aren't compatible with the scientific method to figure out what's real.

Well, anything that uses rigor, logic, and evidence works just fine within the scientific method. So... when you're pursuing knowledge by whatever method you were referring to, which elements of the scientific method are you giving up? Is it the rigor, the logic, or the evidence?

I consider (and sometimes believe to be highly likely) things not amenable to the 'scientific method'.

I don't doubt it. But what makes you think that your beliefs about these things are reliable?

 

[George-ananda]

No, not like that at all. I mean deluded or dishonest people who just make magical crap up and the credulous people who believe them because they don't have the desire and/or ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

I make it a point to do my homework and not fall for those 'deluded or dishonest people who just make magical crap up'.

I'm aware that your school of thought considers ALL spiritual teachers and ALL gurus as 'deluded or dishonest people who just make magical crap up'.