On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Uh, I suffer from a couple diagnosed (like, by a real psychiatrist) DSM disorders. I'm not prejudiced against people having them, but you obviously are, because you're using them to dismiss the credibility of Dawkins/Hitchens even though you have literally no evidence that either of them has any mental illness. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness on the basis of them vehemently opposing religion. You just can't. It doesn't make any sense.
In particular:
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
is just an assumption on your part. I could be wrong about Dawkins/Hitchens having a mental illness, but since no psychiatrist has ever diagnosed or even suggested that they have/had any, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't. Your understanding of mental illness appears to be something like "wow this guy is really angry/emotional; he must have some sort of mental illness." No. Sometimes people just have a cutting rhetorical style. Dawkins in particular comes across as a really friendly guy most of the time unless he's talking about, I don't know, Muslims performing genital mutilation on women. You rarely hear Dawkins/Hitchens get angry about abstract notions like whether God exists or not. They tend to get angry when someone either misrepresents what atheists believe (e.g. the assert that all atheists are nihilists or immoral) or when someone attempts to defend an obvious moral atrocity/unscientific theory masquerading as science. All of these are justifiable reasons to be angry with someone.
The God Delusion is a book of pop philosophy. It's not a work of scholarship. It's written in an appealing style which is deliberately antagonistic in order to be more provocative. Yes, many of the arguments Dawkins presents in that book wouldn't be taken seriously by professional philosophers (although a couple would) and many of them don't even apply to what one might designate "mainstream religious groups" but nevertheless it's completely ridiculous to conclude that Dawkins has "emotional problems" on the basis of reading that book. I'll agree that he has a large ego, but you'll find that pretty much every public figure is arrogant/egotistical in some way (with a few honourable exceptions).
And besides, there are plenty of utterly crazy religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens, generally speaking, don't debate with people of that ilk because there's no hope of reasoned, civil debate. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they do participate in debates regularly and do follow the rules of those debates without resorting to a barrage of petty name-calling or hysterics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does every time someone suffers an aneurysm and allows them to make a televised statement.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Bit long for what is just a simple ad-hominem. You just don't like atheists and you are apparently willing go to any lengths to slander the characters of any that are too outspoken. Atleast Dawkins never degenerates into these kinds of personal attacks. Admittedly Hitchens did like personal attacks, but atleast he was funny about it.
How can I not like atheists when I am an atheist?
I do not believe in a personal god......I'm pantheist (like Albert Einstein) which in the words of Dawkins is just "sexed up atheism".
I would never go around telling people that I'm an atheist straight up though because they've got a bad reputation of being immature, name calling, & basing everything around scientific evidence and getting pissed off when someone says they believe in a God whereas I'm the opposite and am open minded & spiritual.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Uh, I suffer from a couple diagnosed (like, by a real psychiatrist) DSM disorders. I'm not prejudiced against people having them, but you obviously are, because you're using them to dismiss the credibility of Dawkins/Hitchens even though you have literally no evidence that either of them has any mental illness. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness on the basis of them vehemently opposing religion. You just can't. It doesn't make any sense.
In particular:
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
is just an assumption on your part. I could be wrong about Dawkins/Hitchens having a mental illness, but since no psychiatrist has ever diagnosed or even suggested that they have/had any, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't. Your understanding of mental illness appears to be something like "wow this guy is really angry/emotional; he must have some sort of mental illness." No. Sometimes people just have a cutting rhetorical style. Dawkins in particular comes across as a really friendly guy most of the time unless he's talking about, I don't know, Muslims performing genital mutilation on women. You rarely hear Dawkins/Hitchens get angry about abstract notions like whether God exists or not. They tend to get angry when someone either misrepresents what atheists believe (e.g. the assert that all atheists are nihilists or immoral) or when someone attempts to defend an obvious moral atrocity/unscientific theory masquerading as science. All of these are justifiable reasons to be angry with someone.
The God Delusion is a book of pop philosophy. It's not a work of scholarship. It's written in an appealing style which is deliberately antagonistic in order to be more provocative. Yes, many of the arguments Dawkins presents in that book wouldn't be taken seriously by professional philosophers (although a couple would) and many of them don't even apply to what one might designate "mainstream religious groups" but nevertheless it's completely ridiculous to conclude that Dawkins has "emotional problems" on the basis of reading that book. I'll agree that he has a large ego, but you'll find that pretty much every public figure is arrogant/egotistical in some way (with a few honourable exceptions).
And besides, there are plenty of utterly crazy religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens, generally speaking, don't debate with people of that ilk because there's no hope of reasoned, civil debate. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they do participate in debates regularly and do follow the rules of those debates without resorting to a barrage of petty name-calling or hysterics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does every time someone suffers an aneurysm and allows them to make a televised statement.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
Thank you for proving my point that most atheists will only listen to the evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore the evidence that supports anything that goes against the grain even if it is scientific evidence.
You wantdevidence for reincarnation?
He dedicated his whole life to the research.
Done.
Also some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go.
You have to remember that science itself is founded around the use of the 5 senses to come up with scientific data for something and it does not extend beyond that.
There are people who can recall memories from their past lives, they might be making it up of course but some of them are remarkably detailed, so its interesting. But no wai, someone said the word religion in their OP, call the Fedorapatrol! Their euphoria shall serve all humanity!
I love the ...actual... theme of this thread. The feeling of love is extremely dangerous. Love as a construct leads people to do really stupid things to express or fulfill it. Mainly because love is confused for lust sometimes, so you meet this qt3.14 and your religion says you have to marry her to have sex with her but then you discover shes really really evil later on, lol.
If we were to say, "go Vulcan" and moderate our feelings this society would see a huge improvement IMO because you hear of crimes of passion so often, people murder their kids to get back at a wife, and I could go on but you see too much passion between people. OP I agree with you, we could move humanity forward by deciding to find mates by using logic, and outcome science over just blind following of lusts.
True love I believe has been given to us by God, its not about lust for physical needs, it does not need to be between a man and woman, you can, love thy neighbor as yourself (love of yourself) you can love your pets or your community.
The Bible has a good quote, 1 Corinthians 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."
The commentary: "13:4-7 In this beautiful description of the nature and effects of love, it is meant to show the Corinthians that their conduct had, in many respects, been a contrast to it. Charity is an utter enemy to selfishness; it does not desire or seek its own praise, or honour, or profit, or pleasure. Not that charity destroys all regard to ourselves, or that the charitable man should neglect himself and all his interests. But charity never seeks its own to the hurt of others, or to neglect others. It ever prefers the welfare of others to its private advantage. How good-natured and amiable is Christian charity! How excellent would Christianity appear to the world, if those who profess it were more under this Divine principle, and paid due regard to the command on which its blessed Author laid the chief stress! Let us ask whether this Divine love dwells in our hearts. Has this principle guided us into becoming behaviour to all men? Are we willing to lay aside selfish objects and aims? Here is a call to watchfulness, diligence, and prayer."
Anyway I think people treating love as charity and kindness to our various paramours would go a long way to seeing good love instead of just lustly love that the media tends to glorify.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Bit long for what is just a simple ad-hominem. You just don't like atheists and you are apparently willing go to any lengths to slander the characters of any that are too outspoken. Atleast Dawkins never degenerates into these kinds of personal attacks. Admittedly Hitchens did like personal attacks, but atleast he was funny about it.
How can I not like atheists when I am an atheist?
I do not believe in a personal god......I'm pantheist (like Albert Einstein) which in the words of Dawkins is just "sexed up atheism".
I would never go around telling people that I'm an atheist straight up though because they've got a bad reputation of being immature, name calling, & basing everything around scientific evidence and getting pissed off when someone says they believe in a God whereas I'm the opposite and am open minded & spiritual.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Uh, I suffer from a couple diagnosed (like, by a real psychiatrist) DSM disorders. I'm not prejudiced against people having them, but you obviously are, because you're using them to dismiss the credibility of Dawkins/Hitchens even though you have literally no evidence that either of them has any mental illness. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness on the basis of them vehemently opposing religion. You just can't. It doesn't make any sense.
In particular:
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
is just an assumption on your part. I could be wrong about Dawkins/Hitchens having a mental illness, but since no psychiatrist has ever diagnosed or even suggested that they have/had any, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't. Your understanding of mental illness appears to be something like "wow this guy is really angry/emotional; he must have some sort of mental illness." No. Sometimes people just have a cutting rhetorical style. Dawkins in particular comes across as a really friendly guy most of the time unless he's talking about, I don't know, Muslims performing genital mutilation on women. You rarely hear Dawkins/Hitchens get angry about abstract notions like whether God exists or not. They tend to get angry when someone either misrepresents what atheists believe (e.g. the assert that all atheists are nihilists or immoral) or when someone attempts to defend an obvious moral atrocity/unscientific theory masquerading as science. All of these are justifiable reasons to be angry with someone.
The God Delusion is a book of pop philosophy. It's not a work of scholarship. It's written in an appealing style which is deliberately antagonistic in order to be more provocative. Yes, many of the arguments Dawkins presents in that book wouldn't be taken seriously by professional philosophers (although a couple would) and many of them don't even apply to what one might designate "mainstream religious groups" but nevertheless it's completely ridiculous to conclude that Dawkins has "emotional problems" on the basis of reading that book. I'll agree that he has a large ego, but you'll find that pretty much every public figure is arrogant/egotistical in some way (with a few honourable exceptions).
And besides, there are plenty of utterly crazy religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens, generally speaking, don't debate with people of that ilk because there's no hope of reasoned, civil debate. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they do participate in debates regularly and do follow the rules of those debates without resorting to a barrage of petty name-calling or hysterics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does every time someone suffers an aneurysm and allows them to make a televised statement.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
Thank you for proving my point that most atheists will only listen to the evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore the evidence that supports anything that goes against the grain even if it is scientific evidence.
Also some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go.
You have to remember that science itself is founded around the use of the 5 senses to come up with scientific data for something and it does not extend beyond that.
I'm not an atheist, so stop making assumptions.
First you tell me that you have scientific evidence, then you turn around and say "some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go" which, to me, is interesting because I don't understand how anyone could know about these things if they go beyond the senses.
The problem with the guy you linked is that his evidence is methodologically flawed. I don't doubt the man's honesty or anything like that, but if you actually take a look at his research, you can see that it's affected by confirmation bias, and that many of his claims just aren't falsifiable. Furthermore, there aren't any blindness qualifiers for his experiments. I mean, many of the people he interviewed had a relationship with the family of the deceased person who would hypothetically have been reincarnated within the interviewee. That's a pretty huge weakness right there. Secondly, most of his interviews took place years after the fact and amount to nothing more than anecdotes/hearsay. It's a pretty huge stretch to say, as you have, that there is "overwhelming evidence" in support of reincarnation/mediums. This is super-anecdotal evidence at best, and it definitely doesn't conform to accepted standards of scientific methodology.
What's more, from what I can see, scientists actually liked this guy. They thought he was gullible and misguided, sure, but they thought he was an honest guy and a hard worker. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with this idea that scientists are just ignoring the evidence in support of these outlandish paranormal phenomena. They were as gentle as can be with this guy, and his work was widely published/read. It wasn't ignored. It was just criticized for being wrong, lol.
On July 07 2013 08:31 Falling wrote: What makes something arbitrary? Because you declare it to be so? Why should I consider love to be an arbitrary construct?
In other news, if this is a sneaky attempt to get a religious debate going, this thread will have a very short end.
There seems to be a lot of bashing on atheists lately (judging popular atheists without even giving proof of these claims).
I guess the only decent philosophical start we can have is state out a clear, concise, operational definition of arbitrary and work from there. A basic google search gives: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" which, to me, seems a perfectly decent definition of the word. In other words it means that there is no logical/methodological system underpinning the belief. For love there seems to be a multitude of reasons, but these reasons are all personal and subjective which lends itself to an ironic sort of mix of arbitrary/non-abitrary. Unless we want to change the definition to make things clearer of course.
The OP cunningly failed to give an actual definition of love (you know, the same thing that philosophers and authors have been disagreeing about since the advent of writing) so it's impossible to say whether it's arbitrary.
On July 07 2013 09:00 Shiori wrote: The OP cunningly failed to give an actual definition of love (you know, the same thing that philosophers and authors have been disagreeing about since the advent of writing) so it's impossible to say whether it's arbitrary.
nothing to add except that I love your usage of the word cunningly.
On July 07 2013 08:31 Falling wrote: What makes something arbitrary? Because you declare it to be so? Why should I consider love to be an arbitrary construct?
In other news, if this is a sneaky attempt to get a religious debate going, this thread will have a very short end.
There seems to be a lot of bashing on atheists lately (judging popular atheists without even giving proof of these claims).
I guess the only decent philosophical start we can have is state out a clear, concise, operational definition of arbitrary and work from there. A basic google search gives: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" which, to me, seems a perfectly decent definition of the word. In other words it means that there is no logical/methodological system underpinning the belief. For love there seems to be a multitude of reasons, but these reasons are all personal and subjective which lends itself to an ironic sort of mix of arbitrary/non-abitrary. Unless we want to change the definition to make things clearer of course.
If you gather from the way the OP presented his post, he wants to single out religion and love for being unusually arbitrary in what the rest of us understand as a world of choices with some rationale, plenty of rationale, and hardly a scrap of rationale whatsoever. I talked about this in my previous post in the thread:his arbitrary (pardon the tongue in cheek) selection of the relentless march of knowledge in the face of false ideas is declared at the start. Why should humans possessing a variety of shades of intelligence not scrap it all in the face of other pursuits than the overturn of false ideas? I know some ambitious people that have every reason to know something is not the case, but pretending that it is means more wealth and comfort for them. I see a poster not acknowledging the competing claims of shades of arbitrariness.
That's really all to see here. He'll single out two things and call them arbitrary, and act like the world stands behind him in his selection of which ideas and things to put in the ARBITRARY bin and the NOT ARBITRARY bin. It is exactly those kind of choices that make societies different? As Falling wrote, should I believe something to be arbitrary "because you declare it so?"
I don't think there is any difference between a pack mentality amongst wolves and the pack mentality of patriots.
If that were the case there'd be new wars popping up every 2 weeks. The pack mentality of wolves is to show domination over other packs they encounter through intimidation or butt-kicking. That is one way nations interact with each other but there are a lot more that don't involve baring of teeth or bombing.
You mean like the 10 year war in Afghanistan that the US just ended? Or the 5+ year war that the US was in before that?
Maybe you ment the Kosovo altercations in the late 90's? Or the gulf war in the late 80's?
Or maybe you meant the war torn history of the US for most of the 20th century?
And that's just the US. What about war in other nations?
No, there is no difference.
I think an important difference is that a third-party wolf pack would not dream of assisting a weaker wolf pack being preyed upon by a stronger pack. But this is pretty much what happened in many of those conflicts (imo).
I could totally imagine a third-party wolf pack helping a weaker wolf pack if they had something to gain (eg by helping to defeat the stronger pack they are now the strongest pack in the area).
The difference is that wolves don't have trade, and while they are social animals they social networks are nowhere near as large, complicated or as powerful as our own.
We are capable of much deeper levels simulation of the world in order to understand it, and so we are able to consciously comprehend concepts like deterring conflict in order to reduce damage to potential markets, defence of weaker nations in order to stop them from being subsumed by competitors, helping allies or third parties in order to better one's comparative position against competitors.
Ultimately, these are still rooted in selfish motivations, we might have a superior ability to predict and manipulate the future, and have more tools at our disposal to do so than just 'barring teeth' and 'bombing', but there really isn't any conclusive evidence that our actions are not primarily rooted, in what are essentially selfish reasons.
I genuinely believe that support for most current armed conflicts on both sides come from moral convictions (no matter how deluded) rather than simple self-interest.
I would say exactly the opposite. Firstly, armed conflicts based on moral convictions would be no less motivated by self interest. It is no coincidence that the things we find morally offensive also match up pretty well with things that either directly, or indirectly, would make our own societies worse to live in should we allow them to occur. Morals are essentially a instinctual aversion to activities that would erode the social-cooperative system we humans have carefully constructed should we allow them to occur. Just because we don't tend to consider them consciously as selfish doesn't mean they don't serve self interest.
More importantly however, most major armed conflicts of late have been pretty unpopular among citizenry of the aggressor countries. Afghanistan and Iraq were wildly unpopular not only in the US, but also in the UK and Australia, and all 3 countries went in anyway. That would suggest most people found these conflicts morally questionable at best, but the governments of these nations decided it was in their best interests to go in, and self interest won out in the end over any sort of moral conviction.
This thread is obnoxious. People are using the term "evidence" very loosely.
The idea that there's "evidence for reincarnation" because "kids seem to remember previous lives" and have birth marks and birth defects is dubious at best... I remember almost drowning in a pool and that was actually my brother, and my "memory" was forged when my aunt mistakenly told me that it was me who fell in the pool when I was a child. And I have a bad heart as a birth defect, does that make me a reincarnation of someone who couldn't swim and got shot in the chest or something?
Defend with positions with the tools that you've got. Don't try to suggest that some "scientist" trying to make a case without the scientific method somehow constitutes proper evidence. Scientist =/= science.
On July 07 2013 22:30 Djzapz wrote: This thread is obnoxious. People are using the term "evidence" very loosely.
The idea that there's "evidence for reincarnation" because "kids seem to remember previous lives" and have birth marks and birth defects is dubious at best... I remember almost drowning in a pool and that was actually my brother, and my "memory" was forged when my aunt mistakenly told me that it was me who fell in the pool when I was a child. And I have a bad heart as a birth defect, does that make me a reincarnation of someone who couldn't swim and got shot in the chest or something?
Defend with positions with the tools that you've got. Don't try to suggest that some "scientist" trying to make a case without the scientific method somehow constitutes proper evidence. Scientist =/= science.
Stop with the cheap rhetoric -_-
Not that I disagree with you--but science is also about progress and innovation. Without some scientists doing something "obviously wrong" or "pointless" we will never the validity or invalidity of said research. It's okay for scientist to pursue paths outside of dogma--even if all it does is serve as a case study of malpractice.
I do agree with you, just warning you to not accidentally treat science like Catholics treats Christianity.
On July 07 2013 22:30 Djzapz wrote: This thread is obnoxious. People are using the term "evidence" very loosely.
The idea that there's "evidence for reincarnation" because "kids seem to remember previous lives" and have birth marks and birth defects is dubious at best... I remember almost drowning in a pool and that was actually my brother, and my "memory" was forged when my aunt mistakenly told me that it was me who fell in the pool when I was a child. And I have a bad heart as a birth defect, does that make me a reincarnation of someone who couldn't swim and got shot in the chest or something?
Defend with positions with the tools that you've got. Don't try to suggest that some "scientist" trying to make a case without the scientific method somehow constitutes proper evidence. Scientist =/= science.
Stop with the cheap rhetoric -_-
Not that I disagree with you--but science is also about progress and innovation. Without some scientists doing something "obviously wrong" or "pointless" we will never the validity or invalidity of said research. It's okay for scientist to pursue paths outside of dogma--even if all it does is serve as a case study of malpractice.
I do agree with you, just warning you to not accidentally treat science like Catholics treats Christianity.
Don't misjudge my intentions though! I'm all for people looking into whatever they want to. I'm an atheist, but if someone wants to do any kind of research in reincarnation or anything I don't believe in, more power to them. Some areas of science sometimes study things which appear to be a complete waste of time, and then they turn out to be right and we all have to (or at least should) adjust our beliefs accordingly.
I'm just advocating that having a PhD doesn't mean that your work is automatically science, nor does automatically constitute evidence. That does not outright discredit their work, though. I guess I'm arguing semantics, which can be annoying to some but language is important sometimes .
I want to add that I make a point to be modest about most of my beliefs, but I'll admit that I'm not likely to be convinced about the validity of supernatural claims with a youtube video. Nor should anybody.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Bit long for what is just a simple ad-hominem. You just don't like atheists and you are apparently willing go to any lengths to slander the characters of any that are too outspoken. Atleast Dawkins never degenerates into these kinds of personal attacks. Admittedly Hitchens did like personal attacks, but atleast he was funny about it.
How can I not like atheists when I am an atheist?
I do not believe in a personal god......I'm pantheist (like Albert Einstein) which in the words of Dawkins is just "sexed up atheism".
I would never go around telling people that I'm an atheist straight up though because they've got a bad reputation of being immature, name calling, & basing everything around scientific evidence and getting pissed off when someone says they believe in a God whereas I'm the opposite and am open minded & spiritual.
On July 07 2013 07:53 Shiori wrote:
On July 07 2013 07:52 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On July 07 2013 06:21 Shiori wrote:
On July 07 2013 06:01 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Uh, I suffer from a couple diagnosed (like, by a real psychiatrist) DSM disorders. I'm not prejudiced against people having them, but you obviously are, because you're using them to dismiss the credibility of Dawkins/Hitchens even though you have literally no evidence that either of them has any mental illness. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness on the basis of them vehemently opposing religion. You just can't. It doesn't make any sense.
In particular:
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
is just an assumption on your part. I could be wrong about Dawkins/Hitchens having a mental illness, but since no psychiatrist has ever diagnosed or even suggested that they have/had any, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't. Your understanding of mental illness appears to be something like "wow this guy is really angry/emotional; he must have some sort of mental illness." No. Sometimes people just have a cutting rhetorical style. Dawkins in particular comes across as a really friendly guy most of the time unless he's talking about, I don't know, Muslims performing genital mutilation on women. You rarely hear Dawkins/Hitchens get angry about abstract notions like whether God exists or not. They tend to get angry when someone either misrepresents what atheists believe (e.g. the assert that all atheists are nihilists or immoral) or when someone attempts to defend an obvious moral atrocity/unscientific theory masquerading as science. All of these are justifiable reasons to be angry with someone.
The God Delusion is a book of pop philosophy. It's not a work of scholarship. It's written in an appealing style which is deliberately antagonistic in order to be more provocative. Yes, many of the arguments Dawkins presents in that book wouldn't be taken seriously by professional philosophers (although a couple would) and many of them don't even apply to what one might designate "mainstream religious groups" but nevertheless it's completely ridiculous to conclude that Dawkins has "emotional problems" on the basis of reading that book. I'll agree that he has a large ego, but you'll find that pretty much every public figure is arrogant/egotistical in some way (with a few honourable exceptions).
And besides, there are plenty of utterly crazy religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens, generally speaking, don't debate with people of that ilk because there's no hope of reasoned, civil debate. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they do participate in debates regularly and do follow the rules of those debates without resorting to a barrage of petty name-calling or hysterics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does every time someone suffers an aneurysm and allows them to make a televised statement.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
Thank you for proving my point that most atheists will only listen to the evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore the evidence that supports anything that goes against the grain even if it is scientific evidence.
Also some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go.
You have to remember that science itself is founded around the use of the 5 senses to come up with scientific data for something and it does not extend beyond that.
I'm not an atheist, so stop making assumptions.
First you tell me that you have scientific evidence, then you turn around and say "some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go" which, to me, is interesting because I don't understand how anyone could know about these things if they go beyond the senses.
The problem with the guy you linked is that his evidence is methodologically flawed. I don't doubt the man's honesty or anything like that, but if you actually take a look at his research, you can see that it's affected by confirmation bias, and that many of his claims just aren't falsifiable. Furthermore, there aren't any blindness qualifiers for his experiments. I mean, many of the people he interviewed had a relationship with the family of the deceased person who would hypothetically have been reincarnated within the interviewee. That's a pretty huge weakness right there. Secondly, most of his interviews took place years after the fact and amount to nothing more than anecdotes/hearsay. It's a pretty huge stretch to say, as you have, that there is "overwhelming evidence" in support of reincarnation/mediums. This is super-anecdotal evidence at best, and it definitely doesn't conform to accepted standards of scientific methodology.
What's more, from what I can see, scientists actually liked this guy. They thought he was gullible and misguided, sure, but they thought he was an honest guy and a hard worker. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with this idea that scientists are just ignoring the evidence in support of these outlandish paranormal phenomena. They were as gentle as can be with this guy, and his work was widely published/read. It wasn't ignored. It was just criticized for being wrong, lol.
I showed you the scientific evidence. Science still has a long ways to go before it can prove some thing. There has been scientific evidence that supports the claims of those that can speak to some that passed and for reincarnation. Whether you accept this evidence or not is on you but I'd believe in the research from that a DR that dedicated his whole life before accepting some small rebutle from a random person on the internet.
You chose to not accept his evidence. So a lot of atheists like to pick & choose just like bible thumpers when it comes to the evidence.
People with an open mind (like me) see the evidence and it's possibility for it being true. The evidence is actually quite overwhelming and there has been more research done on it than from just that DR....you're just too close minded to look it up as you automatically unconsciously mark it as "false" due to you having a set belief pattern.
Have you read all of his books? No.
Have you looked into the other reincarnation evidence and documentary's? No.
So what makes you think that the few things that you said have not been looked into by the DR that has been conducting research all of his life into reincarnation???
Like I said, current science still has a long ways to go, we can't even cure AID's or Herpes and there is evidence out there supporting people that have lived all of their lives without drinking water or eating food some which have sat and just mediated in a tree for days on end with nothing but again, since you're close minded you would deny this and say that based upon the ignorance of current science it is not able to be confirmed.
Also it may very well possible to go over to other states through the mind in which science can not read into or conduct experiments into but close minded people would deny this.
Modern science/atheism has turned into a religion whether you like it or not....hell there's a religion out there called "Scientology".
Modern science/atheism supports the belief that everything is a mistake and that since we're here once, we will never come back or that and deny's anything spiritual even if there is evidence for it such as the third eye, the possibility of life being a simulation, and so forth.
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Bit long for what is just a simple ad-hominem. You just don't like atheists and you are apparently willing go to any lengths to slander the characters of any that are too outspoken. Atleast Dawkins never degenerates into these kinds of personal attacks. Admittedly Hitchens did like personal attacks, but atleast he was funny about it.
How can I not like atheists when I am an atheist?
I do not believe in a personal god......I'm pantheist (like Albert Einstein) which in the words of Dawkins is just "sexed up atheism".
I would never go around telling people that I'm an atheist straight up though because they've got a bad reputation of being immature, name calling, & basing everything around scientific evidence and getting pissed off when someone says they believe in a God whereas I'm the opposite and am open minded & spiritual.
On July 07 2013 07:53 Shiori wrote:
On July 07 2013 07:52 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On July 07 2013 06:21 Shiori wrote:
On July 07 2013 06:01 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
On July 07 2013 05:46 Shiori wrote: Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens (the former is is a poor philosopher whereas the latter was actually just irascible about everything, religious or otherwise) but to claim that they have(had) mental illnesses is really offensive (and false).
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
You seem to be prejudice against mental illness.......there's nothing wrong with it and most people suggest from it even if they don't realize it as a modern society pretty much labels anything besides being "normal" as a trait of having a mental illness.
A case example is ADD....not interested in mathematics/school??? Automatically they want to label you with ADD and put you on Ritalin.
That's the reality that we live in.....theres nothing wrong with mental illness I'm just being honest here that both Dawkins & Hitchens suffer(ed) from some sort of mental illness that keeps(ed) them depressed or so fired up to debate against religion and talk so bad about it even to the length of writing nasty books about it and manipulating data to make it appeal to their views.
I have "The God Delusion" and all that I have to say that it's evidence that Dawkins has an inflated ego and definitly some emotional problems....the book was depressing and didn't really teach me anything that I didn't know besides how he basically turned Atheism into a religoion or some would call it a cult (Heck, Matt Dillihunty from The Atheist Experience coined some new term called "Atheism +" and obviously has a lot of hate in his heart a lot with most of these atheism movement leaders.
At least most of the religious people that I see debating them seem to be well grounded, free from most anger, and seem to be happy people.
Even if what they believe in is false I'd rather be like them and be a happy loving person vs some person that has hatred in their hearts and gets pissed off the moment you say you believe in a God in one form or another.
Uh, I suffer from a couple diagnosed (like, by a real psychiatrist) DSM disorders. I'm not prejudiced against people having them, but you obviously are, because you're using them to dismiss the credibility of Dawkins/Hitchens even though you have literally no evidence that either of them has any mental illness. You cannot diagnose someone with a mental illness on the basis of them vehemently opposing religion. You just can't. It doesn't make any sense.
In particular:
How do you know that it's false? Also if you knew anything about psychology you would know that most are alcoholics to hide their mental issues I know this from people that I have known from the past and doing research into psychology myself.
is just an assumption on your part. I could be wrong about Dawkins/Hitchens having a mental illness, but since no psychiatrist has ever diagnosed or even suggested that they have/had any, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't. Your understanding of mental illness appears to be something like "wow this guy is really angry/emotional; he must have some sort of mental illness." No. Sometimes people just have a cutting rhetorical style. Dawkins in particular comes across as a really friendly guy most of the time unless he's talking about, I don't know, Muslims performing genital mutilation on women. You rarely hear Dawkins/Hitchens get angry about abstract notions like whether God exists or not. They tend to get angry when someone either misrepresents what atheists believe (e.g. the assert that all atheists are nihilists or immoral) or when someone attempts to defend an obvious moral atrocity/unscientific theory masquerading as science. All of these are justifiable reasons to be angry with someone.
The God Delusion is a book of pop philosophy. It's not a work of scholarship. It's written in an appealing style which is deliberately antagonistic in order to be more provocative. Yes, many of the arguments Dawkins presents in that book wouldn't be taken seriously by professional philosophers (although a couple would) and many of them don't even apply to what one might designate "mainstream religious groups" but nevertheless it's completely ridiculous to conclude that Dawkins has "emotional problems" on the basis of reading that book. I'll agree that he has a large ego, but you'll find that pretty much every public figure is arrogant/egotistical in some way (with a few honourable exceptions).
And besides, there are plenty of utterly crazy religious people, but Dawkins/Hitchens, generally speaking, don't debate with people of that ilk because there's no hope of reasoned, civil debate. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they do participate in debates regularly and do follow the rules of those debates without resorting to a barrage of petty name-calling or hysterics like, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does every time someone suffers an aneurysm and allows them to make a televised statement.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
Thank you for proving my point that most atheists will only listen to the evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore the evidence that supports anything that goes against the grain even if it is scientific evidence.
Also some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go.
You have to remember that science itself is founded around the use of the 5 senses to come up with scientific data for something and it does not extend beyond that.
I'm not an atheist, so stop making assumptions.
First you tell me that you have scientific evidence, then you turn around and say "some things go beyond the realms of the 5 (or 6) senses where scientific evidence can not go" which, to me, is interesting because I don't understand how anyone could know about these things if they go beyond the senses.
The problem with the guy you linked is that his evidence is methodologically flawed. I don't doubt the man's honesty or anything like that, but if you actually take a look at his research, you can see that it's affected by confirmation bias, and that many of his claims just aren't falsifiable. Furthermore, there aren't any blindness qualifiers for his experiments. I mean, many of the people he interviewed had a relationship with the family of the deceased person who would hypothetically have been reincarnated within the interviewee. That's a pretty huge weakness right there. Secondly, most of his interviews took place years after the fact and amount to nothing more than anecdotes/hearsay. It's a pretty huge stretch to say, as you have, that there is "overwhelming evidence" in support of reincarnation/mediums. This is super-anecdotal evidence at best, and it definitely doesn't conform to accepted standards of scientific methodology.
What's more, from what I can see, scientists actually liked this guy. They thought he was gullible and misguided, sure, but they thought he was an honest guy and a hard worker. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with this idea that scientists are just ignoring the evidence in support of these outlandish paranormal phenomena. They were as gentle as can be with this guy, and his work was widely published/read. It wasn't ignored. It was just criticized for being wrong, lol.
I showed you the scientific evidence. Science still has a long ways to go before it can prove some thing. There has been scientific evidence that supports the claims of those that can speak to some that passed and for reincarnation. Whether you accept this evidence or not is on you but I'd believe in the research from that a DR that dedicated his whole life before accepting some small rebutle from a random person on the internet.
You showed me some studies. I pointed out that scientists have read these studies (rather than ignoring them, as you claimed). I pointed out that scientists noted serious methodological flaws in these studies that make the conclusion not something we can establish/verify. Furthermore, the evidence lacks a coherent experiment to actually repeat and it fails to provide any sort of physical mechanism by which reincarnation could actually occur.
You chose to not accept his evidence. So a lot of atheists like to pick & choose just like bible thumpers when it comes to the evidence.
I choose not to accept the evidence because there is a better explanation for the data than "reincarnation is true" and that is that the methodology had serious flaws + that the data does not actually establish anything about reincarnation or how it would work to start with.
People with an open mind (like me) see the evidence and it's possibility for it being true. The evidence is actually quite overwhelming and there has been more research done on it than from just that DR....you're just too close minded to look it up as you automatically unconsciously mark it as "false" due to you having a set belief pattern.
It is possible that reincarnation is true; it's just incredibly unlikely given our current scientific knowledge and understanding of reality. Without any compelling reasons to believe that reincarnation is real, we can't say that it's true from the point of view of science. I'm not going to tell you what to believe based on your own intuitions or personal values or faith or what have you. That's totally up to you, and if you find it convincing I can't argue with that. But it definitely isn't scientifically proven.
Have you read all of his books? No.
Tonnes of scientists have reviewed them. Why do I need to read them again?
Have you looked into the other reincarnation evidence and documentary's? No.
I've looked into some of it. The problem is that there's really no way to establish whether reincarnation is true because nobody can really define what it is and because nobody can supply even a hypothetical explanation of how it might actually work. How, for example, does one person transmit themselves imperfectly to another person? On what basis does this occur? What reasons do we have to believe that this occurs that can't be explained by simpler things? How come body Y receives personality X?
So what makes you think that the few things that you said have not been looked into by the DR that has been conducting research all of his life into reincarnation???
I'm sure he was aware of the criticisms, but that doesn't make him correct.
Like I said, current science still has a long ways to go, we can't even cure AID's or Herpes and there is evidence out there supporting people that have lived all of their lives without drinking water or eating food some which have sat and just mediated in a tree for days on end with nothing but again, since you're close minded you would deny this and say that based upon the ignorance of current science it is not able to be confirmed.
Science is completely open to people claiming to be able to survive without food coming forward. It would be hugely beneficial to the human race is we could discover a way to live without food or water for days on end. I don't doubt that there exist people who claim to be able to do these things. But until we have more than someone's personal testimony (which can easily be false, misled, or imprecise) it's dishonest to say it's "confirmed."
Also it may very well possible to go over to other states through the mind in which science can not read into or conduct experiments into but close minded people would deny this.
I don't understand what this means. What are these other states of mind? What is the definition of them, and why is science incapable of touching them? If science is not capable of touching them, then how can we know anything about them, since most of our experiences seem to be based on sensory perception and deductive reasoning?
Modern science/atheism has turned into a religion whether you like it or not....hell there's a religion out there called "Scientology".
Scientology has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or science; the similarity in name is because both take the Latin word scientia as a root.
Modern science/atheism supports the belief that everything is a mistake and that since we're here once, we will never come back or that and deny's anything spiritual even if there is evidence for it such as the third eye, the possibility of life being a simulation, and so forth.
What is the evidence of the third eye (what is the definition of the third eye?)?
Many scientists are interested in the idea that life is a simulation, and philosophers/scientists have been arguing about it and thinking about it for decades (more, if you count Descartes).
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
How do you explain ghosts then? you can't just say they aren't real because people have seen them all over the world. If they were made up by historians then we'd only expect to see ghosts in the english speaking world but they are seen all over the world even in japan. I mean don't get me wrong I am skeptical of things like god and UFOs but ghosts and polterguyts seem too widespread and physical to be put down purely to imagination.
Actually most psychiatrists would say that both suffer from anger problems which is a mental illness in itself.
Dawkins/Hitchens both turned Atheism into a cult or rather a religion. A religion that is based around believing in scientific evidence and nothing else despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for things such as reincarnation and people that are possibly capable of speaking to those that passed.
They pick and choose their evidence to back up their beliefs.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for reincarnation or mediums. Absolutely none.
How do you explain ghosts then? you can't just say they aren't real because people have seen them all over the world. If they were made up by historians then we'd only expect to see ghosts in the english speaking world but they are seen all over the world even in japan. I mean don't get me wrong I am skeptical of things like god and UFOs but ghosts and polterguyts seem too widespread and physical to be put down purely to imagination.
I think you can explain them in two ways: firstly, define what a ghost actually is. This usually helps us narrow down whether there are similarities across cultures or whether things that have huge differences are being treated as the same for the sake of advancing a point of view. Secondly, I would argue that it is a universal human phenomenon to fear death and to dwell on those who die, particularly if you're close to them or happen to know who they are (e.g. if they're famous/important). These things, combined with sleep paralysis, auditory hallucinations, optical illusions, and confirmation bias can, I'd argue, explain a great deal of ghost-related cases.
You'd also think that if ghosts were all over the place we'd sooner or later end up with one showing up completely well-defined in front of a crowd of people, or speaking with someone in an obvious way and giving them inexplicable knowledge, or being caught unambiguously on film all the time, since everyone has a camera these days.
EPT
.
