What is our soul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2016, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 10:31 AM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: What is our soul?
(10-03-2016 10:05 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Yes, seriously. My bio openly states my belief, where do you expect I spend the majority of my time online?
You are posting on an atheist website. You should expect skepticism and questions in regards to religion.

(10-03-2016 10:05 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  He references multiple peer reviewed journals, 4 studies in specific, and over a dozen different doctors, both religious and secular. He even offers I believe 4 or 5 secular explanations. If you guys are majorly concerned with being offended by Christian based propositions just avoid the conclusion and you'll be good. It's a very objective paper.

Looking at the "About Magis Center", I see that they are touting the physics-proves-god argument and quoting Hoyle.

This does NOT look encouraging.

ETA: Added "NOT" above. Oops.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 09:13 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  And unbeliever I'd love to read a recent source to prove that it is indefinitely hallucinations. Secondly even if it were hallucinations can you explain to me why many report visual empirical evidence of findings for example the dentures in the OR and the shoe on the ledge? That can't possibly be hallucination, they are too accurate to be a hallucination.

When these reports are investigated they invariably turn out to be misrepresentations, exaggerations, witness leading, or plain fabrications.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vsten.../LADNO.htm

Quote:The first is, I think, the same as one Gary mentioned last night. At least it’s similar. In the 1980s, a Seattle woman named Maria reported a near-death-experience after a heart attack. She told social worker Kimberly Clark that she had separated from her body and floated outside the hospital. There she saw a tennis shoe with a worn patch on the third floor ledge near her room. Social worker Clark checked the ledge and retrieved the shoe.

However, there is no independent corroboration of this event. And this is typical of so many of these reports. We only have Clark’s report. No one could ever trace down Maria to verify her story. We have to take Clark’s word for it. Later investigators found that Clark had misrepresented the difficulty of observing the shoe on the ledge. Placing their own shoe in the same position they found it was clearly visible as soon as you stepped into Maria’s room.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
11-03-2016, 11:18 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 09:13 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  My link shared previously.

Which is not evidence, as has been explained. It is flatly wrong in almost every particular.

Quote:And unbeliever I'd love to read a recent source to prove that it is indefinitely hallucinations.

Leaving aside, for the moment (largely because I am on my phone and posting links is difficult), that there actually have been recent studies into near-death experiences which have established that people who claim to be "looking down on the scene", or anything similar, universally give inaccurate reports, NDEs are entirely consistent with hallucinations in every respect.

By definition, NDEs occur when a subject is in the process of dying. The brain is failing, largely due to decreased oxygen flow in the blood. This is a known cause of hallucinations, and nothing about the nature of NDEs indicates that this isn't one.

The burden of proof is on the believers to establish that something more is happening. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that it is just another hallucination.

Quote:Secondly even if it were hallucinations can you explain to me why many report visual empirical evidence of findings for example the dentures in the OR and the shoe on the ledge?

They don't.

Really. They don't. This is, in fact, what I was referring to when I said that the article was relying on data from known crank sources and repeating outright falsehoods. This does not happen, and we know it does not happen. Every properly conducted investigation into this confirms it.

But your article takes its data from the "peer-reviewed, scientific" Journal of Near-Death Studies, a known crank magazine for bullshit peddlers. The journal itself is run - and "peer-reviewed" - by the International Association for Near-Death Studies, Incorporated.

Note the last word. IANDS is not a scientific organization. It is not run by staff with scientific training. It is a business dedicated to making money by getting gullible people to subscribe to its "scientific" journal, where they publish bogus articles to confirm their readers' preconceived beliefs on the subject.

People experiencing NDEs do not experience accurate visions of their surroundings. Literally every properly-conducted study on the subject has concluded this. If there actually had been a study which proved that they did, it would have been the single most earth-shattering discovery of all time.

It would not be published in a crank journal and forgotten about.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-03-2016, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 10:48 PM by Babakazoo.)
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 09:59 AM)unfogged Wrote:  When these reports are investigated they invariably turn out to be misrepresentations, exaggerations, witness leading, or plain fabrications.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vsten.../LADNO.htm
This is a very interesting read and I think he makes some reasonable points. I just see a few problems with his very reasonable points. Everything he said is chalked up to your willingness to believe his word. All of his claims are based off of his comparison to the scrutiny within scientific community which is fine. But how he defines scrutiny is a fallacy in itself he says "So, I think I have a good idea of the kind of evidence needed to demonstrate the reality of any extraordinary claim. And surely, life after death is an extraordinary claim." How can we trust his thoughts on what good evidence is? How can we trust his definition of an extraordinary claim? He makes multiple fatal fallacies throughout this paper. Like I said he makes good points but he has no grounds for his points and the grounds he does have are mostly fallacious. Secondly as opposed to my source which references "The Lancet" one of Britians most prestigious medical journals this link has literally no citations. I can't even verify his claims about a simple test of a card in the OR that has not once produced results. He could have made this up. I really wish you guys would review your own sources with the same scrutiny and skepticism that you approach my sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:33 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 10:55 PM by Babakazoo.)
RE: What is our soul?
For the most part I see your skepticism and completely understand it. I'm just trying to figure out your grounds for your claim.
(11-03-2016 11:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The burden of proof is on the believers to establish that something more is happening. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that it is just another hallucination.
I agree that the burden of proof falls on the believer or if I may add, whoever makes an assertive claim. If you can agree with this would you not agree that you claim and believe with your statement from earlier in the feed "there is no soul?" So with an assertive claim like that the burden of proof also falls on you not just me. You also cannot make a proof similar to 'you have no evidence, therefore that is my evidence' or anything along those lines. If you do I can reasonably make the same claim about yours. So if you still falsify my evidence then we haven't gotten anywhere with this debate and unfortunately we just have groundless claims on both ends. I didn't quote the rest of your statement and it's entirely because I accidentally deleted a bunch of it and I'm on my phone so I don't want to rewrite all of this sorry lol. But referencing everything after what I commented on you just made a bunch of claims again but had no proofs or evidence behind them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(09-03-2016 08:00 AM)doggers Wrote:  Really interested in some discussion about your thoughts on the soul. How do you define it? Where does it go when we die?

[Image: Evidence+or+GTFO.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
11-03-2016, 11:05 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 10:33 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  For the most part I see your skepticism and completely understand it. I'm just trying to figure out your grounds for your claim.
(11-03-2016 11:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The burden of proof is on the believers to establish that something more is happening. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that it is just another hallucination.
I agree that the burden of proof falls on the believer or if I may add, whoever makes an assertive claim. If you can agree with this would you not agree that you claim and believe with your statement from earlier in the feed "there is no soul?" So with an assertive claim like that the burden of proof also falls on you not just me. You also cannot make a proof similar to 'you have no evidence, therefore that is my evidence' or anything along those lines. If you do I can reasonably make the same claim about yours. So if you still falsify my evidence then we haven't gotten anywhere with this debate and unfortunately we just have groundless claims on both ends. I didn't quote the rest of your statement and it's entirely because I accidentally deleted a bunch of it and I'm on my phone so I don't want to rewrite all of this sorry lol. But referencing everything after what I commented on you just made a bunch of claims again but had no proofs or evidence behind them.

Null hypothesis. Drinking Beverage

If there exists zero evidence for the soul, then stating 'there is no soul' has already met it's burden. Saying that something, for which there is no evidence for, doesn't exist is just a restatement of the fact that said thing has no evidence in favor of it's existence. Something cannot be said to exist as a fact, until there is evidence for it; and thus pointing out the nonexistence of things that have no evidence doesn't require additional evidence of nonexistence. Facepalm

You're trying to rearrange words as if they were pieces in a game, without actually understanding what those words mean when they're presented. It's not a word game that you can win or draw by rearranging the words, because the ideas they represent don't work that way.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 11:10 PM
RE: What is our soul?
The man he referenced is Victor Stenger, one of the most respected scientists in the atheist community and a highly respected scientist in general.
Stenger

(11-03-2016 10:16 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  This is a very interesting read and I think he makes some reasonable points. I just see a few problems with his very reasonable points. Everything he said is chalked up to your willingness to believe his word.

This is a key point. We are willing to believe his word because he was a respected and published scientist. His work was peer reviewed for his entire career. His work stood up in court.

He was a respected scientist for decades. He is literally an expert in his field. His work withstood the scientific process.

IIRC, you said you are a college student. You are questioning the writings of a scientist who worked and published in his field for his entire career. You are questioning his understanding of the basic methods of doing his work.

This is akin to a layperson questioning a bishop about his understanding of the mass.

(11-03-2016 10:16 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  I really wish you guys would review your own sources with the same scrutiny and skepticism that you approach my sources.


A simple wikipedia search would have told you enough to validate the article and the writer. A basic google would have given you enough to verify further, should you desire.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 11:19 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 11:39 PM by Babakazoo.)
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Null hypothesis. Drinking Beverage

If there exists zero evidence for the soul, then stating 'there is no soul' has already met it's burden. Saying that something, for which there is no evidence for, doesn't exist is just a restatement of the fact that said thing has no evidence in favor of it's existence. Something cannot be said to exist as a fact, until there is evidence for it; and thus pointing out the nonexistence of things that have no evidence doesn't require additional evidence of nonexistence. Facepalm

You're trying to rearrange words as if they were pieces in a game, without actually understanding what those words mean when they're presented. It's not a word game that you can win or draw by rearranging the words, because the ideas they represent don't work that way.
So I'm genuinely curious because I don't know. Isn't this special pleading though? Originally he said the burden of proof falls on the one with the belief. I'm curious as to why the statement "there is no soul" is not a belief? Isn't a similar statement like "the world is not flat" a belief? Just because it's a negative claim doesn't make it a not claim. I would offer that only if the claim is a claim of not knowing does it not hold a burden of proof.
edit: I also wonder why this is true because I thought science in specific but also just logical thinking in principal has to be open to new hypothesis so if you null everything without current evidence then science would literally be verifying things into existence and then existence takes a really limited definition. Second to that literally all metaphysics is null because it is all hypothetical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 11:26 PM by Babakazoo.)
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 11:10 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The man he referenced is Victor Stenger, one of the most respected scientists in the atheist community and a highly respected scientist in general.
Stenger

(11-03-2016 10:16 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  This is a very interesting read and I think he makes some reasonable points. I just see a few problems with his very reasonable points. Everything he said is chalked up to your willingness to believe his word.

This is a key point. We are willing to believe his word because he was a respected and published scientist. His work was peer reviewed for his entire career. His work stood up in court.

He was a respected scientist for decades. He is literally an expert in his field. His work withstood the scientific process.

IIRC, you said you are a college student. You are questioning the writings of a scientist who worked and published in his field for his entire career. You are questioning his understanding of the basic methods of doing his work.

This is akin to a layperson questioning a bishop about his understanding of the mass.

(11-03-2016 10:16 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  I really wish you guys would review your own sources with the same scrutiny and skepticism that you approach my sources.


A simple wikipedia search would have told you enough to validate the article and the writer. A basic google would have given you enough to verify further, should you desire.
This is the fallacy appeal to authority I think. Just because it doesn't make sense to not question the authority doesn't mean they are right.
Edit: isn't this also special pleading as Dr. Spitzner is probably more educated than all of us aswell and is also respected by many amongst the scientific community.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: