173 replies to this topic

[kismet]

This threads definitely needs more action.

I do not think anyone here deny evolution, however that some of us is asking is why did it happen? Was it just random, or was there perhaps an intelligence behind evolution? Was there some God or force guiding nature to the way it is to day. You see believing in a God do not mean one have to believe that there sit some magickal dude with a white beard someplace pointing at the world and poof things happen, perhaps there is Something influencing the world in more subtle ways, have you ever considered that?

Yes, that has been considered and so far there is no proof. There's no way to test most of those claims, though, and all tests of "subtle influence" have failed so far. It's also highly implausible. It sounds like you are proposing a "god of the gaps". Instead propose a way to test it and a mechanisms of action and we'll see. But until we have those results, consider your hypothesis as unlikely as those billions of other implausible yet possible explanations (e.g. kobolds, gnomes, etc).
By the way, I'm sure you didn't notice, but if you say there was some intelligence driving evolution (and if you do not mean the deistic variety), you are making testable, scientific claims. Either you stop making those claims, or show some proof for them.

The designer of evolution? The best theory is abiogenesis, because there are experiments supporting it (e.g. Miller & Urey) and it's mechanistically plausible. Postulating abiogensis also has far more predictive power than 'godidit'.

Theistic evolution? (i.e. a force guiding nature) If you concur that evolution with or without this force would look the same, then the answer really doesn't matter. After all, whether little fairies, elves, gnomes or dragons have created the world is irrelevant, if it looks the same and acts the same (and we have no way to prove fairies exist).

I have heard this from several Atheists, and I show a complete lack of understanding for religion. I have dedicated my life to the Spiritual, to understand it, to understand how it work. I do not sit on my ass and say God did it. try to find out how it happened. What would make you think I am less curious even if I use a different method to gain knowledge than you do?

Nothing. but drunkfunk's post definitely sounded complacent as if he did not accept any alternative hypotheses (i.e. that there might be no god afterall). If you have your "one and only" hypothesis ready and do not even consider the possibility that you might be wrong  then you definitely give that impression (hint: all atheist from Dawkins, over Myers to Denett know that they could be wrong and that there might be a deistic god, but it's just extremely unlikely).

I do not believe there is an ultimate truth, nor an ultimate proof, only likelihoods and assumptions.

Ok, so let me frame it accordingly. The likelihood of spiritual things that affect the real world is low, i.e. practically zero.

Yes here is one theory, one may be, how do it make one less curious and inquisitive to seek out other possibilities to? I would think not being content with one possible answer would make one more curious than if one accept one idea right away.

Ok, now's the time to show your open-mindedness. Drunkfunk, Hagazussa, do you hear me?
So you concur that there might be no god, on the one hand, and also nothing spiritual to this world? That a naturalistic explanation of the universe could be true? You concur that I could be right? If not, then you are not open-minded and are crying "godidit" no matter the evidence.

Edited by kismet, 27 July 2009 - 11:28 PM.

[kismet]

Science is a way to examine something, it is not a thing in itself that can or can not work, it is a method for finding knowledge. Alchemy is an art, I do not really see what they have to do with one another. And my dear how do you know that Alchemy do not work if you have never tried it?

Alchemy is commonly understood to be a precursor to chemistry deeply rooted in a flawed understanding of the world and based on magical thinking. What you seem to be talking about, i.e. present day "alchemy", is so uncommon (I've never heard of it) that I don't know how to respond if that is what you mean. But talking about alchemy as a precursor to chemistry, no, it does not work. That's a fact.

And how do this make my statement that your complete lack of respect for what others believe make you in the same boat as others that think the same from their own point of view?

Not much, just that I have evidence on my side. But tell me what evidence makes you so sure that your particular variety of spiritualism is right? Why not Vishnu, Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Xenu? Or just no god and no magic?

There really is not difference between a Christian saying you are evil and your ideas are wrong since you do not believe like me and an Atheist saying you are stupid and your ideas are superstition because you do not believe like me.

First, the ideas people hold are stupid, not always the people believing them. I'm not going to tell anyone they're stupid; either it's self-evident from their own posts or it isn't and I'm not going to make assumptions. Many intelligent people hold stupid beliefs and vice versa.
Secondly, I'm merely claiming that your ideas are superstition based on a very narrow definition of superstition that I have already presented and which I will repeat ad nauseam: Superstition is believing in things which affect the real, material world, but cannot be proven by science. If you think that your gods or spirits can change and alter the world we live in, you are venturing into the realm of science: we can either (try to) prove or rebut your hypothesis and we can talk about plausibility.
So far all such proposed effects have been refuted by well-designed studies and are highly implausible. If you do not claim any effects on the real world, then your belief is not a superstition. Just some (boring - because there's an indefinite number of them) abstract philosophical drivel and as such probably irrelevant to our everyday life and should not influence decision-making. I can claim god is a pink cephalopod but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant because it's unprovable, after all he could be a green cephalopod too.

What about my right to believe as as I want, and not just what one group or another approve of?

I've already said that's your right, but don't be mistaken: being a sceptic does not mean to always go against the mainstream out of principle. It means to inquire.

You are free to ridicule whoever you want, but in my opinion this make you a very short sighted and small human being. And while I respect your belief that there exist nothing supernatural. I do not respect your ridiculing the ideas of others, that is childish and just say far more about you, than about any belief system you direct your criticism against. You see debate to not equal insults, and those of us who have mentally made it out of kindergarten have learned this.

You see that is the difference. Your post is a clear ad hominem attack. You are telling me that "I'm small, short-sighted" or "not out of kindergarten". You are attacking me, while I ridicule your beliefs.
That is a major difference, but it doesn't matter: You are forgiven, but in the future make sure to first attack and ridicule ideas and not the people behind those ideas. Afterall that's the definition of a meaningful discussion (discuss the ideas, do not sidetrack).

Edited by kismet, 27 July 2009 - 11:37 PM.

[kismet]

Science is a method of gaining knowledge, it have nothing to do with religion or Spirituality, if science is used to prove the existence of a molecule or of a God do not matter. Science can not be either superior or inferior to religion as it is a method to gain knowledge about the world around us, nothing more, nothing less.

Correct, but religion and spirituality venture into the territory of science way too often. You've already done it, postulating some intelligence that could be involved in evolution. You make testable claims and we refute them. Most of the bible has been refuted that way and has now to be taken as a metaphor to be acceptable and "believable". This is a common mistake of accomodationalists. First, they say that those two are different, but then they want to be treated like equals: they want us to believe what they say, based on zero evidence. Nope. Instead they make claims and we point out how ridiculously improbable they are.
Based on their completely immaterial beliefs religions & believers want power (e.g. influence on policies and laws). You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your beliefs are immaterial, get them out of real world politics and our everyday life.

If you do not make ANY claims about the real world and accept that your little philosophy has no influence on anyone but your own feelings and is not testable, ok. If you agree that therefore it is irrelevant to the material world and just an abstract, philosophical idea just like billions others, then I'm fine with it.

How can a belief be in conflict with a method of gaining knowledge? Both religion and science try to find answers about this world, and then it is up to the individual which answer or both one want to accept.

First, religion and spiritualism quite often make testable claims and do not accept that they are just abstract, philosophical ideas which are not backed by any evidence. Don't forget that science is highly corrosive and contrary to the antiquated theistic beliefs of the Abrahamitic religions (still the most prevalent religions out there), but it also applies in the reverse. If you interpret what they say about the real world, even part of it, literally, you are effectively making a scientific claim (long proven wrong, though).
Secondly, it is a fair assumption that some people holding mystic, irrational or religious beliefs will be negatively influenced by those. Furthermore, the statistics clearly show that religious people tend to be not as well-educated and/or intelligent (for what it's worth).
Quite obviously there's a "war". Call it what you want.

In conclusion. I do not see a conflict here, I do not see a war. I am perfectly content to let everyone believe as they may for I think one of us will ever find the one and only truth, so no matter what we decide to place our faith in, it is just that, faith, nothing more.

Just make sure that you do not make any testable claims and you are free to believe in satan, Vishnu, Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Xenu or what you have. But don't be surprised if some stranger ridicules your unjustified belief in this one variety of spirituality (maybe he beliefs in Xenu).

That's enough for tonight. 

Edited by kismet, 27 July 2009 - 11:42 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ok, so let me frame it accordingly. The likelihood of spiritual things that affect the real world is low, i.e. practically zero.

What do you mean by spiritual?

[kismet]

Ok, so let me frame it accordingly. The likelihood of spiritual things that affect the real world is low, i.e. practically zero.

What do you mean by spiritual?

Oh, yeah. Still the same type of spirituality Hagazussa apparently claims to wittness. Some "things" which are unprovable by science but nonetheless interact with the real & material world (e.g. via "subtle" influences on evolution*). I.e. "superstition" as per my definition and also a complete contradiction. Either it influences the material world and is in the realm of science or it does not.*
*excluding the deistic variety of a trickster god: a "god" who hides his "interference", because such a god cannot be proven per definition.

Edited by kismet, 28 July 2009 - 06:14 PM.

[drunkfunk]

kismet, since you're ridiculing something you can't disprove either, i wonder what makes your 'logic' superior?
and why should one choose to believe somebody, that can only believe what is dissectable in a lab? how open-minded is that?

this whole debate can go on forever, because neither party can prove or disprove anything, but one should be able to believe in whats REAL in THEIR life, without having to be subject to ridicule and intelligence-insults.
unless of course you can cough up some proof instead of 'logical' theories. or better yet, create something out of nothing, yea, like make me an atom, no wait, that would be copyright infringement. how bout a mota?
also make sure, there's some reason behind it

[kismet]

Please first answer my question:

Ok, now's the time to show your open-mindedness. Drunkfunk, Hagazussa, do you hear me?
So you concur that there might be no god, on the one hand, and also nothing spiritual to this world? That a naturalistic explanation of the universe could be true? You concur that I could be right? If not, then you are not open-minded and are crying "godidit" no matter the evidence.

kismet, since you're ridiculing something you can't disprove either, i wonder what makes your 'logic' superior? If you read my posts with more attention you'd know, but, yeah, I have to admit my posts are long-winded! I said " what evidence makes you so sure that your particular variety of spiritualism is right? Why not Vishnu, Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Xenu?" I acknowledged that there are millions, no even billions, of equally (im-)probable hypotheses trying to explain the unexplainable. Nothing less and nothing more. But I acknowledge that "There is no god and no spirituality" is one of those alternative hypotheses and equally if not better backed by science than all the others. You apparently don't -- or at least you have dodged answering that question so far.
and why should one choose to believe somebody, that can only believe what is dissectable in a lab? how open-minded is that? You are misportraying my position. I state that only material forces can affect the material world and anything else is baseless and irrelevant speclation. It's not that I don't believe that one of those billions of crazy hypotheses could be right (incl. the no god hypothesis). I just don't care because there are so many of them and the answer I'd come up with, wouldn't even affect my life.

this whole debate can go on forever, because neither party can prove or disprove anything, but one should be able to believe in whats REAL in THEIR life, without having to be subject to ridicule and intelligence-insults. No ad hominems indeed. But no one should be safe from ridicule, when spouting ridiculous nonsense. And I consider believing in one variety of spiritualism while not believing in all other varieties, which are equally as likely, patent nonsense. Therefore I asked (to repeat myself): why do you believe in your particular spirituality and not in Xenu? What proof do you have that Xenu does not exist but your flavour of spirituality does?
unless of course you can cough up some proof instead of 'logical' theories. or better yet, create something out of nothing, yea, like make me an atom, no wait, that would be copyright infringement. how bout a mota?  You do know the inevitable defense when using that cheap and old argument, right? So, who created your god? (and I know your inevitable answer to that one)  Something out of nothing? Easy, even without violating physics. http://en.wikipedia....tum_fluctuation
also make sure, there's some reason behind it

Edited by kismet, 28 July 2009 - 09:29 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ok, so let me frame it accordingly. The likelihood of spiritual things that affect the real world is low, i.e. practically zero.

What do you mean by spiritual?

Oh, yeah. Still the same type of spirituality Hagazussa apparently claims to wittness. Some "things" which are unprovable by science but nonetheless interact with the real & material world (e.g. via "subtle" influences on evolution*). I.e. "superstition" as per my definition and also a complete contradiction. Either it influences the material world and is in the realm of science or it does not.*
*excluding the deistic variety of a trickster god: a "god" who hides his "interference", because such a god cannot be proven per definition.

What do you mean by scientifically proveable/unproveable?

[drunkfunk]

Please first answer my question:

Ok, now's the time to show your open-mindedness. Drunkfunk, Hagazussa, do you hear me?
So you concur that there might be no god, on the one hand, and also nothing spiritual to this world? That a naturalistic explanation of the universe could be true? You concur that I could be right? If not, then you are not open-minded and are crying "godidit" no matter the evidence.

kismet, since you're ridiculing something you can't disprove either, i wonder what makes your 'logic' superior? If you read my posts with more attention you'd know, but, yeah, I have to admit my posts are long-winded! I said " what evidence makes you so sure that your particular variety of spiritualism is right? Why not Vishnu, Jahwe, Allah, Zeus or Xenu?" I acknowledged that there are millions, no even billions, of equally (im-)probable hypotheses trying to explain the unexplainable. Nothing less and nothing more. But I acknowledge that "There is no god and no spirituality" is one of those alternative hypotheses and equally if not better backed by science than all the others. You apparently don't -- or at least you have dodged answering that question so far.
and why should one choose to believe somebody, that can only believe what is dissectable in a lab? how open-minded is that? You are misportraying my position. I state that only material forces can affect the material world and anything else is baseless and irrelevant speclation. It's not that I don't believe that one of those billions of crazy hypotheses could be right (incl. the no god hypothesis). I just don't care because there are so many of them and the answer I'd come up with, wouldn't even affect my life.

this whole debate can go on forever, because neither party can prove or disprove anything, but one should be able to believe in whats REAL in THEIR life, without having to be subject to ridicule and intelligence-insults. No ad hominems indeed. But no one should be safe from ridicule, when spouting ridiculous nonsense. And I consider believing in one variety of spiritualism while not believing in all other varieties, which are equally as likely, patent nonsense. Therefore I asked (to repeat myself): why do you believe in your particular spirituality and not in Xenu? What proof do you have that Xenu does not exist but your flavour of spirituality does?
unless of course you can cough up some proof instead of 'logical' theories. or better yet, create something out of nothing, yea, like make me an atom, no wait, that would be copyright infringement. how bout a mota?  You do know the inevitable defense when using that cheap and old argument, right? So, who created your god? (and I know your inevitable answer to that one)  Something out of nothing? Easy, even without violating physics. http://en.wikipedia....tum_fluctuation
also make sure, there's some reason behind it

yea, it might be cheap and old, but it still holds, lol
and no, i never said my God was better than your Non-God or whoever, i just said that it's extremely unlikely that all this supreme complexity of our universe came on by chance, just because.
and though you can ridicule this idea, you cannot disprove it, so tuff tuff titty puff.

and again (just to repeat myself): whatever floats your boat

[100YearsToGo]

If there is nothing spiritual in this universe. What do you guys think of the NDE of Pam Reynolds?
remember no brain activity is NO brain activity.

[kismet]

Now that we're down to deistic fluff, we can explore what point it makes to believe (imagine) all sorts of possible explanations without proof either way. I'm wondering why you or other deists don't say "I don't know" or "I don't care [for as long as no answer can be known]" and call it a day? I'd certainly do that. Maybe I'm just lazy, but if anything I'd waste my time on more earthly things...

Who is Pam Reynolds and what about hir NDE? When answering consider that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence and consider the scientific consensus about NDEs.

Edited by kismet, 02 August 2009 - 10:16 PM.

[100YearsToGo]

Now that we're down to deistic fluff, we can explore what point it makes to believe (imagine) all sorts of possible explanations without proof either way. I'm wondering why you or other deists don't say "I don't know" or "I don't care [for as long as no answer can be known]" and call it a day? I'd certainly do that. Maybe I'm just lazy, but if anything I'd waste my time on more earthly things...

Who is Pam Reynolds and what about hir NDE? When answering consider that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence and consider the scientific consensus about NDEs.

Hmmm.. I don't consider it anecdotal. It happened under controlled conditions, with documented timeline. NDE's happen frequently. You can not deny that they exist. Anyone care to prove that it's all about oxygen deprivation or remembering ones own birth? Are these people lying?

All swans are white? It takes only one white swan to disprove that theory. BTW I think the dutch study is pretty impressive. Are NDE's discussed in some obscure IMMINST thread? I doubt I'm the first to mention it.

[thughes]

but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions

Most (at least 2/3's according to latest polls) rocket scientists do not agree, so you may want to give some thought to where your assumptions are wrong. Apparently the case is not as clear cut as believers like to convince themselves. This isn't surprising. Belief is about convincing yourself of things for which there is little/no/only poor evidence.

We're pattern seeking animals, we like to find patterns everywhere, even where none exist.

- Tracy

[russianBEAR]

Hey, I was wondering why I can't find any spiritual discussion in this spirituality and religion forum.

All the threads I've seen so far seem to focus on what someone says about religion/spirituality and how they're "religious deathists" or some other term, and basically how they're wrong and stupid while science is great and how some proverbial "WE" need to convince "THEM" that their beliefs are wrong.

Is there actually any discussion on spiritual soul searching, stuff like esoteric/traditional shamanic practices etc. ?


Seems like this part of the forum was created only to bash ? 

[kismet]

Hmmm.. I don't consider it anecdotal. It happened under controlled conditions, with documented timeline. NDE's happen frequently. You can not deny that they exist. Anyone care to prove that it's all about oxygen deprivation or remembering ones own birth? Are these people lying?

There's certainly a continuum between anecdote and well-designed, placebo-controlled, double blind clinical trial. A case-report, even if it's pretty good, is still rather accidental and n=1 makes it closer to anecdote on this continuum.

All swans are white? It takes only one white swan to disprove that theory. BTW I think the dutch study is pretty impressive. Are NDE's discussed in some obscure IMMINST thread? I doubt I'm the first to mention it.

That depends on your chance of getting a false-positive. Therefore, it usually takes much, much more than one black swan to abandon a well-established theory and consensus.
But I still don't get in how far NDEs are related to spirituality, let alone deities (the topic of this thread). Just because (and I'm assuming this is the case for simplicity's sake) science cannot explain it (yet?) does not mean there is a god.
I hope the whole study is not as weak as this guys reasoning: "According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE" I think someone needs to study the concept of "sufficient and necessary". What if it's necessary but not sufficient, eh?

All the threads I've seen so far seem to focus on what someone says about religion/spirituality and how they're "religious deathists" or some other term, and basically how they're wrong and stupid while science is great and how some proverbial "WE" need to convince "THEM" that their beliefs are wrong.

Well, that is because science is great. You can either accept the truth or continue to deny it, but then I suppose you should get off the internet and move into the woods and enjoy your short and painful life, totally free of science. Other than that (little fact about science), you are obviously right, although you are giving it a very negative spin. Yes, I think there are religious deathists, they are dangerous and wrong and we need to convince them. And, no, no one ever says they're stupid. We do not use petty insults or ad hominems - saying their belief is stupid is a whole different ballgame. Intelligent people have stupid beliefs, e.g. religion.

Is there actually any discussion on spiritual soul searching, stuff like esoteric/traditional shamanic practices etc. ?

I don't believe in it, so there's nothing to discuss. You did not provide any convincing evidence that your form of spirituality is more than placebo or my belief in pink unicornism.

Seems like this part of the forum was created only to bash ?

This forum was created to exchange opinions. If most members are extremely critical of religion and spirituality, so be it!

Edited by kismet, 30 August 2009 - 07:14 PM.

[russianBEAR]

Ok then I knew I just got misled by the forum title. The "religious deathists" are driven out by the "science buffs" haha.

Again, why go to extremes of either science or caveman? I was just wondering if anyone here actually discusses stuff like esoteric practices, increasing your levels of consciousness, maybe some literature on the subject? And I guess I know now that the answer is an adamant no. Moving on...

Also, there's not absolute and set 'truth'. Truth is very different for each person and their life experience, so I wouldn't put all the eggs in one basket.

[kismet]

Again, why go to extremes of either science or caveman? I was just wondering if anyone here actually discusses stuff like esoteric practices, increasing your levels of consciousness, maybe some literature on the subject? And I guess I know now that the answer is an adamant no. Moving on...

If science wasn't great or at least extremely convenient, the only option would be to abandon it all.  I think we're all seeking to increase our level of consciousness, but most of us are using a hardcore scientific approach. Maybe you should look into the nootropic forum, those people might better fit your description. My interest in lucid dreaming is probably as close as it gets to "esotetric practises", though.

Edited by kismet, 30 August 2009 - 07:47 PM.

[russianBEAR]

Again, why go to extremes of either science or caveman? I was just wondering if anyone here actually discusses stuff like esoteric practices, increasing your levels of consciousness, maybe some literature on the subject? And I guess I know now that the answer is an adamant no. Moving on...

If science wasn't great or at least extremely convenient, the only option would be to abandon it all.  I think we're all seeking to increase our level of consciousness, but most of us are using a hardcore scientific approach. Maybe you should look into the nootropic forum, those people might better fit your description. My interest in lucid dreaming is probably as close as it gets to "esotetric practises", though.

Or another option would be to admit that both have a place in life/society/world/planet and think less one-sided. You know, I realized that I don't even see half the world that's around me because I was too caught up in meaningless bs. Spiritual practices helped me open my eyes and become more observant, develop better intuition, and generally a much improved sense of surroundings and especially other people. 

I thought that's it's a bunch of bull at first, until I got to learn more about the subject and realized that there are tremendous benefits. I mean I was so caught up in routine that I'd literally see the same people every day in a city populated by millions. Because I always did the same routine. Then I started to do little things to change that and break the routine ever so slightly. Some funny "coincidences" started happening quite often, a lot of them very symbolic on levels that cannot be ignored no matter how much meaning is assigned to it initially. I'm starting to see the bigger picture as well as much more detail in everything. Not to mention realizing the constant need to keep my ego in check at least somewhat.


As people living in industrial society we have lost touch with nature for the most part, and forgot about the amazing things it can teach you and show you. 

Of course it's easy to just write everyone off as a religious deathist then act like you're trying to save the stupid sheep who cannot think for themselves and you here are the select few that can show them the light.

You seem to be stereotyping like someone who doesn't really think "outside the box". Science has enormous benefits, but the benefits of being spiritually in touch with your being and the planet you're on are easily as great if not better. For instance, proficient esoteric "gurus" will always be in the right place at the right time and can disappear without a trace if need be - people call it luck, but there's a different element to it. Can science get you that ? 

[TigerMask]

I do believe there is no God, but it seems a little bit of blind faith helps a lot of people out. I have plenty of respect for them.

[russianBEAR]

I don't believe in god either, just that there are plenty non-scientific things you can discover about yourself and this world. Why limit yourself to just labs and studies when there are plenty of examples such as monks meditating and then being put into a grave for 70 years like they asked. They check them and they're alive and have very little pulse, still in a deep meditative trance. 

That is one of many examples of spirituality, but all I see discussed here is: let's make religion illegal, get these blind sheep to accept what we think, etc.

Anyone care to discuss ?

[TigerMask]

...such as monks meditating and then being put into a grave for 70 years like they asked. They check them and they're alive and have very little pulse, still in a deep meditative trance. 

Do you have a source handy for this information?

[russianBEAR]

http://humanx.ru/nep...st_tleniyu.html

A Russian language collection of various post-exhumation miracles involving monks in particular. Can't find that other piece of news that I was talking about it, I'll get back to you when I check all of my RSS feeds.

Dont have english-language sources here sorry.

[kismet]

Or another option would be to admit that both have a place in life/society/world/planet and think less one-sided. You know, I realized that I don't even see half the world that's around me because I was too caught up in meaningless bs. Spiritual practices helped me open my eyes and become more observant, develop better intuition, and generally a much improved sense of surroundings and especially other people.

Even assuming for simplicity's sake that you are completely right about spirituality, it doesn't change my core sentiment, that science is powerful, important and convenient.

Of course it's easy to just write everyone off as a religious deathist then act like you're trying to save the stupid sheep who cannot think for themselves and you here are the select few that can show them the light.

I couldn't care less about them, in theory at least, it's everyone's right to die in vain at any time they wish. In reality there are people worth saving, yes, and more importantly there ar genuinely dangerous luddites (e.g. Bush & Kass, the pope or some islamic leaders) who are (were) threatning transhumanism, no, even civilisation as a whole.

You seem to be stereotyping like someone who doesn't really think "outside the box". Science has enormous benefits, but the benefits of being spiritually in touch with your being and the planet you're on are easily as great if not better. For instance, proficient esoteric "gurus" will always be in the right place at the right time and can disappear without a trace if need be - people call it luck, but there's a different element to it. Can science get you that ?

I don't believe in it, as long as no controlled experiment shows there is such an anomaly. If there really are things that cannot be explained by science, there must be well-documented, peer-reviewed evidence of such anomalies.
The real problem is people focusing on spirituality while losing track of science and completely desecrating and forgoing rationality and in effect harming society. I don't mind closet-spiritualists as long as they don't try to convince me of spirituality or forgo science in favour of spirituality.

[russianBEAR]

The real problem is people focusing too much on science forgetting that noone really knows anything.

If we haven't answered the "big questions" yet like how did this world come about, what makes it go and why are we here, then one is as good as the other. 

Of course people wanna try to act all powerful and arrogant about it

Sounds to me like you're afraid to try out something that doesn't fit into a controlled experiment scheme. Try getting some evidence and some study out of a shamanic ritual for instance. Doesn't happen. 

[kismet]

Look if you as a person can wittness it and it's presumably spiritual than science can assess it and science can prove that there ain't no natural explanation - it's as simple as that. If there's no way to prove that it is anomalous, though, then we cannot trust it. It could equally well be your imagination if the event can't be validated.

Big questions, eh? As I said *try* living without science, apparently you're also scared to do it, as I told you to go live in the woods and see if there won't be a difference (afterall we don't know anything from science). But maybe, just maybe you should ask yourself what gave birth to this medium that you're right now using to defame and downplay science?

Also I am wondering how spirituality can gives us objective answers to those big questions? And why those answers are superior to science or even any good? Sure everyone can come up with his own story via drugs, rituals and whatnot, but this story won't be discernible from imagination (because it is imagination).

Edited by kismet, 07 September 2009 - 08:22 PM.

[mentatpsi]

But if religion is a subjective experience then how can you hope to assess it with something used to assess objective experience. Spirituality serves both psychological purposes as well as a means of self-transformation towards some perceived end goal. Some may be content to hold no foundations and practice pure scientific thought, but others desire more, and if someone supports anti-aging but believes there's more to life unperceived then what's the purpose of criticizing other than to stroke your egos. Look for instance at Buddhist monks who have the capacity to increase temperatures within certain areas of their bodies or access certain trance states with will power alone. My point is spirituality can give will power and perspective to those who desire more of it and at least there is a personal progress.

Anyways critic away, but i cannot see why those who criticize haven't actually questioned those they are arguing with and seen that they might have a benefit in believing in a purpose.

[castrensis]

Now that we're down to deistic fluff, we can explore what point it makes to believe (imagine) all sorts of possible explanations without proof either way. I'm wondering why you or other deists don't say "I don't know" or "I don't care [for as long as no answer can be known]" and call it a day? I'd certainly do that. Maybe I'm just lazy, but if anything I'd waste my time on more earthly things...

Who is Pam Reynolds and what about hir NDE? When answering consider that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence and consider the scientific consensus about NDEs.

Hmmm.. I don't consider it anecdotal. It happened under controlled conditions, with documented timeline. NDE's happen frequently. You can not deny that they exist. Anyone care to prove that it's all about oxygen deprivation or remembering ones own birth? Are these people lying?

The experience of OOBE & NDE is common in test pilots subjected to extreme centrifugal force that causes the blood to momentarily drain from their brains. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Connor MacLeod]

Look if you as a person can wittness it and it's presumably spiritual than science can assess it and science can prove that there ain't no natural explanation - it's as simple as that.

If you think that science is capable of proving there "ain't no natural explanation", then you are very confused about the nature of science and what it can and cannot do. Stop for a moment and try to think of a rigorous definition of "natural." Once you are satisfied with your definition, see if you can come up with some "physical" phenomena that rigorously meet your definition.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 08 September 2009 - 09:57 AM.

[kismet]

Look if you as a person can wittness it and it's presumably spiritual than science can assess it and science can prove that there ain't no natural explanation - it's as simple as that.

If you think that science is capable of proving there "ain't no natural explanation", then you are very confused about the nature of science and what it can and cannot do. Stop for a moment and try to think of a rigorous definition of "natural." Once you are satisfied with your definition, see if you can come up with some "physical" phenomena that rigorously meet your definition.

I am not really trying to put it this way. The statement, which is basically rephrasing the post I made just before it, has to be seen in the context my other responses (where I used the better phraseology: anomalies). Neither am I really talking about "proving" in its strictest definition, just in case you want to mention Popper and the shortcomings of science.
But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does); that something is biologically implausible and in violation of currently accepted theories (that is not a *proof* of much, but a requirement for many of those so called spiritual experiences). Science can show that there is something "special" about spirituality, if there really is anything to it, without necessarily being able to explain what it is.

So do you deny that showing levitating buddhist monks or some interventionist force breaking the laws of physics would constitute a proof of an anomaly? Or more to the point: where is proof of even such basic claims like "Buddhist monks who have the capacity to increase temperatures within certain areas of their bodies or access certain trance states [whatever that means] with will power alone."?

Edited by kismet, 08 September 2009 - 04:42 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Look if you as a person can wittness it and it's presumably spiritual than science can assess it and science can prove that there ain't no natural explanation - it's as simple as that.

If you think that science is capable of proving there "ain't no natural explanation", then you are very confused about the nature of science and what it can and cannot do. Stop for a moment and try to think of a rigorous definition of "natural." Once you are satisfied with your definition, see if you can come up with some "physical" phenomena that rigorously meet your definition.

I am not really trying to put it this way. The statement, which is basically rephrasing the post I made just before it, has to be seen in the context my other responses (where I used the better phraseology: anomalies). Neither am I really talking about "proving" in its strictest definition, just in case you want to mention Popper and the shortcomings of science.
But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does); that something is biologically implausible and in violation of currently accepted theories (that is not a *proof* of much, but a requirement for many of those so called spiritual experiences). Science can show that there is something "special" about spirituality, if there really is anything to it, without necessarily being able to explain what it is.

So do you deny that showing levitating buddhist monks or some interventionist force breaking the laws of physics would constitute a proof of an anomaly? Or more to the point: where is proof of even such basic claims like "Buddhist monks who have the capacity to increase temperatures within certain areas of their bodies or access certain trance states [whatever that means] with will power alone."?

Source
In a striking difference between novices and monks, the latter showed a dramatic increase in high-frequency brain activity called gamma waves during compassion meditation. Thought to be the signature of neuronal activity that knits together far-flung brain circuits, gamma waves underlie higher mental activity such as consciousness. The novice meditators "showed a slight increase in gamma activity, but most monks showed extremely large increases of a sort that has never been reported before in the neuroscience literature," says Prof. Davidson, suggesting that mental training can bring the brain to a greater level of consciousness.

Using the brain scan called functional magnetic resonance imaging, the scientists pinpointed regions that were active during compassion meditation. In almost every case, the enhanced activity was greater in the monks' brains than the novices'. Activity in the left prefrontal cortex (the seat of positive emotions such as happiness) swamped activity in the right prefrontal (site of negative emotions and anxiety), something never before seen from purely mental activity. A sprawling circuit that switches on at the sight of suffering also showed greater activity in the monks. So did regions responsible for planned movement, as if the monks' brains were itching to go to the aid of those in distress.

Source
An attempt to study the physiological effects of Tummo has been made by Benson and colleagues (Benson et al., 1982; Cromie, 2002) who studied Indo-Tibetan Yogis in the Himalayas and in India in the 1980s. In the first experiment, in Upper Dharamsala (India), Benson et al. (1982) found that these subjects exhibited the capacity to increase the temperature of their fingers and toes by as much as 8.3°C. In the most recent experiment, which was conducted in Normandy (France), two monks from the Buddhist tradition wore sensors that recorded changes in heat production and metabolism (Cromie, 2002).

While the physiological effects of Tummo are well known, they are not the primary purpose of the meditation practice. Tummo is a tantric meditation practice that transforms and evolves the consciousness of the practitioner so that 'wisdom' (prajna) and 'compassion' (karuna) are manifested in the individual[citation needed].

I find it rather disturbing that you rush to the critique without at least finding information of the opposing side.

Edit: Broken Link Fix

Edited by mentatpsi, 08 September 2009 - 09:01 PM.