Atheism and the afterlife.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 09:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Don't get too attached the the idea of a singularity; Hawking and Penrose have given it up.

I'm not a physicist, so singularity or no, the important thing here is where the particles of the universe came from. Because no matter what we learn about the universe, we will never have an explanation for why there is anything at all.

Things just exist, and somehow always have.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 10:27 AM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 09:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 07:47 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Don't even bother if you're not able to provide a peer-reviewed source for this 'theory'.
Have you checked the link? There isn't any theory, just me responding to Dark Light.
By the way, the Reich and post-Reichian research stands on its own, regardless of what I say.
My bad, I must have misread something about it being a theory. Anyway, the part of the post I linked you to I called woo was the following

(12-09-2012 01:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And what about the odds? The universe is mostly made of invisible, intangible exotic materials and energies. Unless they're completely inert, I think odds are pretty good there's some within us too, it's the way we evolved. Since Wilhelm Reich (and a few other people) did his experiments and my perception confirms it, I'm fairly confident. But nope, all these clever scientists will search for exotic matter in the most empty and lifeless places, if possible in another galaxy.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:00 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 10:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  My bad, I must have misread something about it being a theory. Anyway, the part of the post I linked you to I called woo was the following

(12-09-2012 01:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And what about the odds? The universe is mostly made of invisible, intangible exotic materials and energies. Unless they're completely inert, I think odds are pretty good there's some within us too, it's the way we evolved. Since Wilhelm Reich (and a few other people) did his experiments and my perception confirms it, I'm fairly confident. But nope, all these clever scientists will search for exotic matter in the most empty and lifeless places, if possible in another galaxy.

So basically, you say nobody can judge the JDM's and Reich's research on its own merits, only through peer review.
I have searched around the net for big journal names to throw at people like you, but so far didn't found many, just a few references. Which is weird. For someone who has decades of scientific work in the field and in his own lab and research institute and regular books and publications and so on.

What if there is a problem with the process of peer review? What if there are no peers within an academic institution or prestigious journal? Nobody who studied orgonomy and therefore is able to review it properly? What if the things that people review reflect on them politically, so they hesitate to review unusual studies?
Wilhelm Reich was publically persecuted and denigrated countless times. He was never proven scientifically wrong, his arrest was because of trade and legal regulations. This line of research is therefore a fine candidate for a failure of the peer review process. I see so much corruption in the fields related to science (politics and business) that I would not be surprised if there wasn't some there too, particularly in the journals. Journals watch science, but who watches the journals?

Anyway, pretty much every annoying and dangerous fraud out there isn't dismissed by a lack of peer review, but his claims are carefully studied and demolished by logical arguments of enraged skeptics. We don't see such a thing with JDM or Reich, their opponents reduce themselves to misrepresenting, lies and double-talk. If these slanderers have more attention than the original source, what does it say about the journals?
I can't imagine how bad this situation had to be back in 70's and later, when the Internet wasn't yet invented or widespread.

"We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2012 01:00 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 12:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So basically, you say nobody can judge the JDM's and Reich's research on its own merits, only through peer review.
I'm saying that I dismiss it as woo if you're unable to provide me with a peer-reviewed/unbiased source.

(13-09-2012 12:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I have searched around the net for big journal names to throw at people like you, but so far didn't found many, just a few references. Which is weird. For someone who has decades of scientific work in the field and in his own lab and research institute and regular books and publications and so on.
Decades of pseudo-scientific work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone#Evaluation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Rei...h_Einstein

(13-09-2012 12:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What if there is a problem with the process of peer review? What if there are no peers within an academic institution or prestigious journal? Nobody who studied orgonomy and therefore is able to review it properly? What if the things that people review reflect on them politically, so they hesitate to review unusual studies?
I don't care for unfounded speculations. Did you know that Creationists ask the same questions in order to justify the lack of peer-reviewed sources for their claims?

(13-09-2012 12:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Wilhelm Reich was publically persecuted and denigrated countless times. He was never proven scientifically wrong, his arrest was because of trade and legal regulations. This line of research is therefore a fine candidate for a failure of the peer review process. I see so much corruption in the fields related to science (politics and business) that I would not be surprised if there wasn't some there too, particularly in the journals. Journals watch science, but who watches the journals? Anyway, pretty much every annoying and dangerous fraud out there isn't dismissed by a lack of peer review, but his claims are carefully studied and demolished by logical arguments of enraged skeptics. We don't see such a thing with JDM or Reich, their opponents reduce themselves to misrepresenting, lies and double-talk. If these slanderers have more attention than the original source, what does it say about the journals?
I can't imagine how bad this situation had to be back in 70's and later, when the Internet wasn't yet invented or widespread.
Apparently, you don't see the problem here at all. You need to work on your sense of skepticism. You need more than one (possibly biased) source to back up your claims. Being able to offer external, unbiased and perferably peer-reviewed ones is crucial.

(13-09-2012 12:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.
And his evidence for this assertion is ... ?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
13-09-2012, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2012 12:49 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(12-09-2012 09:29 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Of course, I think every person that accepts science as fact. ...

Don't do that. Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. It ain't fact and never represents itself as such. We built the flexibility to change and adapt into it. We are some clever fucks at least. Wink

(13-09-2012 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 09:17 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is impossible for the two ideas to coexist if one is relying on rationality and reason.

I disagree. One has to be a dualist (mind/body), but not necessarily a theist or deist.

The rub is that there is no evidence of any mechanism for dualism, therefore the rational conclusion is that it is not the case.


Note: No gods were harmed in the making of this argument.

Au contraire, mon ami. The real rub is that no one has ever even been able to posit any reasonable, let alone tenable, mechanism of action for dualism. Girly never rejected any particular religion or God, but I learned to reject dualism early on. And yet many still feel compelled to deny their impermanence. What's up with that? Some sort of unanticipated artifact or byproduct of inventing a pilot for the ship is all I can think. ... Unintended consequences, I see them everywhere. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:50 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 09:17 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is impossible for the two ideas to coexist if one is relying on rationality and reason.

I disagree. One has to be a dualist (mind/body), but not necessarily a theist or deist.

The rub is that there is no evidence of any mechanism for dualism, therefore the rational conclusion is that it is not the case.


Note: No gods were harmed in the making of this argument.

Chas nailed it. No need to respond.Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:55 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 12:50 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree. One has to be a dualist (mind/body), but not necessarily a theist or deist.

The rub is that there is no evidence of any mechanism for dualism, therefore the rational conclusion is that it is not the case.


Note: No gods were harmed in the making of this argument.

Chas nailed it. No need to respond.Thumbsup

So yer a dualist. Consider

We don't like yer kind round heah.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:59 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
if I gots a "religion," it is Tao. I mean, come on, ain't you tired of thinking?

There ain't no "after," there's now, there's not now. And if it ain't now, I ain't got nothing to say. Big Grin

Of course it's that dang Gwynnies, too. Love cannot be over-stressed.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 01:01 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 09:17 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is impossible for the two ideas to coexist if one is relying on rationality and reason.

I disagree. One has to be a dualist (mind/body), but not necessarily a theist or deist.

The rub is that there is no evidence of any mechanism for dualism, therefore the rational conclusion is that it is not the case.


Note: No gods were harmed in the making of this argument.

The only explanation I have seen for any belief in an afterlife requires a belief in some form of the supernatural. This is not rational or reasonable thinking.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Atheism and the afterlife.
(13-09-2012 10:20 AM)Elesjei Wrote:  ...the important thing here is where the particles of the universe came from.

I.

The first thing is, I remember, then I start typing. Causality is only good for gauging "intent," (as much as that word sucks), but the particles are just following rules that would bore us to tears.

Think about it, you got a birthday? I wanna know what you did from day one. I know what I did. Jack. Squat. Then on 5/15/00 I drew my Gwynnies. No way this universe existed before then.

Which doesn't make me nor my Gwynnies right, makes now right. :/

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: