Why you choose to not believe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:09 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 09:33 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Thinking you can survive your own death is a 50/50 proposition is like thinking you can survive being hit by a train is a 50/50 proposition. I don't think you understand probability.

no my man I don't think you know what I meant, I'm sorry.. I don't think this is a 50/50 scenario.


I think
A. We don't know how to test in a valid way at this time.
B. Can't form a likelihood then (well we can, but that estimation isn't worth shit, and to use it in an argument is perplexing)



This could be for any scenario, and I think the choice of 'after-life' has tainted my point. You could say you want to entertain the scenario of unicorns, and If that makes you happy then You should. That was my point!

I'm not even here, at this time, to defend this afterlife scenario to be honest. I'm here to find out how some claim to have an estimation

You are unduly obsessed with testing and measuring. There are all kinds of things that we don't believe, not because we have established anything by tests and measurements, but simply because there is no good reason to believe them. The existence of an afterlife is one of these things. You don't seem to want to accept that, but that's your problem, not ours. Not everything requires measurement.

Having said that, there is plenty of scientific data linking consciousness to electrical activity in the brain, and damage to the brain, or deterioration of the brain, is always accompanied by deterioration of conciousness. It would be insanity to think that consciousness survives the death of the brain. I don't know why you have such a hard time accepting that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
31-10-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
Let me try my hand at crafting a more clear statement. The OP was not thought through, and I want to apologize for this.

if 'nothing of any meaning' can be said about X/nonX ('evidence to contrary, a meaningful probability showing unlikely etc..')
and entertaining X makes you happy
you should entertain X

This would not mean you believe in X. This means that in this case you entertain X despite lack of evidence because it makes you happier.

Do you guys think that this is better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
Neuroscience has plenty to say about X - you just don't wanna listen.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-10-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:05 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I clicked on the link. In the Huffington article there is a story of a patient who had a NDE named Marie. She claims to have seen a shoe on a ledge outside her hospital room while in a NDE condition. A nurse named Kimberly Clark climbed out on the ledge and did indeed find a shoe, the nurse also claims that there was no way the patient Marie could have seen it.

I came across an article about a month ago which investigates this claim and which I bookmarked. Here's a copy of part of the report with a link of the entire lengthy article at the bottom.

"As part of our investigation, Ebbern and Mulligan visited Harborview Medical Center to determine for themselves just how difficult it would be to see, from outside the hospital, a shoe on one of its third-floor window ledges. They placed a running shoe of their own at the place Clark described and then went outside to observe what was visible from ground level. They were astonished at the ease with which they could see and identify the shoe."

"Clark's claim that the shoe would have been invisible from ground level outside the hospital is all the more incredible because the investigators' viewpoint was considerably inferior to what Clark's would have been seventeen years earlier. That is because, in 1994, there was new construction under way beneath the window in question and this forced Ebbern and Mulligan to view the shoe from a much greater distance than would have been necessary for Clark (32)."


"They easily placed their running shoe on the ledge from inside one of the rooms and it was clearly visible from various points within the room. There was no need whatsoever for anyone to press his or her face against the glass to see the shoe. In fact, one needed only to take a few steps into the room to be able to see it clearly. To make matters worse for Clark's account, a patient would not even need to strain to see it from his or her bed in the room. So it is apparent that many people inside as well as outside the hospital would have had the opportunity to notice the now-famous shoe, making it even more likely that Maria could have overheard some mention of it (32)."

[Maria's shoe] would have been visible, both inside and outside the hospital, to numerous people who could have come into contact with her. It also seems likely that some of them might have mentioned it within earshot....

"[And Clark] did not publicly report the details of Maria's NDE until seven years after it occurred. It is quite possible that during this interval some parts of the story were forgotten and some details may have been interpolated.... [Moreover], we have no way of knowing what leading questions Maria may have been asked, or what Maria might have "recalled" that did not fit and was dropped from the record (32-33)."

So much for the shoe story.

Here's the full article.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith...HNDEs.html

It's less detailed than what you described, but the article I linked also says:

Quote: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.


The other thing I read about this particular NDE story involving Marie, was that she knew where her room was located within the hospital after she woke up from her experience and even though she was unconscious when she was brought to the hospital. She knew her room was over the emergency room. This doesn't take a much to figure out when one is hearing ambulances arriving daily and the sounds are just below you.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
31-10-2014, 12:52 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:49 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Neuroscience has plenty to say about X - you just don't wanna listen.

As written this wasn't about afterlife. I want this argument to be taken on its merit, and how its written.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:47 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Let me try my hand at crafting a more clear statement. The OP was not thought through, and I want to apologize for this.

if 'nothing of any meaning' can be said about X/nonX ('evidence to contrary, a meaningful probability showing unlikely etc..')
and entertaining X makes you happy
you should entertain X

This would not mean you believe in X. This means that in this case you entertain X despite lack of evidence because it makes you happier.

Do you guys think that this is better?

In general, no, because entertaining X might be entertaining what is in fact not true as opposed to what is in fact true, but you simply wouldn't know the difference. If "entertaining" what is in fact not true means taking some action on it, then there is even the risk that doing so may cause harm. Why guess at all? Why not assume and do nothing until you have more conclusive information? Consider

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:52 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:49 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Neuroscience has plenty to say about X - you just don't wanna listen.

As written this wasn't about afterlife. I want this argument to be taken on its merit, and how its written.

So... what? Become increasingly more vague until you stop getting your ass handed to you? I can see where that might appeal. :/

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-10-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:58 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:52 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  As written this wasn't about afterlife. I want this argument to be taken on its merit, and how its written.

So... what? Become increasingly more vague until you stop getting your ass handed to you? I can see where that might appeal. :/

If we take his prior "argument" at face value, he's speaking only of things (X) about which "nothing of any meaning" can be said, but that would in fact preclude any "as likely [to be] as not" qualifier, which is saying something of meaning with regards to X.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 01:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:58 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So... what? Become increasingly more vague until you stop getting your ass handed to you? I can see where that might appeal. :/

If we take his prior "argument" at face value, he's speaking only of things (X) about which "nothing of any meaning" can be said, but that would in fact preclude any "as likely [to be] as not" qualifier, which is saying something of meaning with regards to X.

So there's that.

[Image: dumbfounded+looks.jpg]

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:47 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Let me try my hand at crafting a more clear statement. The OP was not thought through, and I want to apologize for this.

if 'nothing of any meaning' can be said about X/nonX ('evidence to contrary, a meaningful probability showing unlikely etc..')
and entertaining X makes you happy
you should entertain X

This would not mean you believe in X. This means that in this case you entertain X despite lack of evidence because it makes you happier.

Do you guys think that this is better?

You like fantasy, we got it(a long time ago)!! There isn't a need to clarify.

It's still as silly as your OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: