Comments

  2. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Because, so long as you can reason that intelligence is required for a matter to appear from nothing by itself and expand into a finely tuned universe necessary for life, then that leaves the door open to a creator and leaves you requirement to show evidence that your statement that a creator is imaginary is correct.

    This is the most assbackwards use of “logic” to support your claim I’ve seen.

  3. says

    scifi, would you please answer these questions:

    Are all unknowable things equal in probability?

    Do you believe in a god?

    Do all internal experiences represent external reality? If I vividly dream myself roasted to death and then consumed by a dragon, do dragons actually exist?

    Many people dream they are at school or work and suddenly realize they have no pants. Does this common experience mean many people show up at school or work not wearing pants?

    What is a null hypothesis, and why does it not require evidence?

    If you’d be so kind to answer some or all of these questions, I’d be terribly grateful.

  4. theophontes 777 says

    @ scifi

    Here a like mind to your own, on youtube. He makes the exact same arguments as you. And fluffs every argument. And claims to be a “former atheist” (yeah right!). Please tell me don’t own a motorcycle!

    (Sane people: Don’t bother clicking, you have seen it all before. All the same desperate lying for jeebus. And all the exact same bullshit arguments as “agnostic” bullshitter scifi. Go dualism!)

  6. cm's changeable moniker says

    theo777, linking:

    We have the mirrored helmet to fight the blazing sun. I do not want the sun burning my eyes.

    Such intelligent design, eh? (And less than 3 minutes in. I’m stopping there.)

  7. chigau (副) says

    So what shall we talk about on this
    [fine cold hot windy aarrggh {choose one}]
    [evening morning night whatistime aarrggh {choose one}]?

  8. chigau (副) says

    I think should watch Fast Times at Ridgemont High again.
    It’s been 30 years…

  10. chigau (副) says

    All I really remember is that Spicoli had a Martian for his history teacher.

  13. Ichthyic says

    after you chop the limbs from a troll, they have to go somewhere to regenerate before trying to battle again.

    no worries, the only way to permanently rid yourself of them is with copious use of fire.

  14. chigau (副) says

    A. R

    Are all of the trolls gone?

    I think Page2 confuzzels them.

  16. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Are all of the trolls gone?

    Where have all the trolls gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where have all the trolls gone,
    Long time ago?
    Where have all the trolls gone?
    Pharyngulites ate them everyone.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have the Pharyngulites gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where have the Pharyngulites gone,
    Long time ago?
    Where have the Pharyngulites gone?
    Gone to the liquor, everyone.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where has all the liquor gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where has all the liquor gone,
    Long time ago?
    Where has all the liquor gone?
    Gone to the pisspot, everyone.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have all the pisspots gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where have all the pisspots gone,
    Long time ago?
    Where have all the pisspots gone?
    Gone to the sewers everyone.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have all the sewers gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where have all the sewers gone,
    Long time ago?
    Where have all the sewers gone?
    The trolls have taken everyone.
    When will they ever learn?
    When will they ever learn?

    (Tossed up with profound respect for, admiration of, and apologies to, Pete Seeger.)

  17. scifi says

    Menyambal,
    “Seriously, dude, if there were anything to NDEs, students would be doing papers, scientists would be winning Nobels”

    Seriously? I could see it all now, scientists bringing people to the point of death and then reviving them afterwards. And you don’t think there wouldn’t be ethical issues? That said, there are very good books out there which have studied those people who claim to have these experience. The books also address pretty much all the scientific claims that these NDEs can be reproduced, and they have show that they really do not match true NDEs. The on author has set up a web site which allows those who have had the experiences to record them. There are numerous questions designed to weed out those who are faking it, but, obviously, the personal interviews are going to be the most accurate.

  18. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I demand that Syfy and slavek have a formal meeting!

  19. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I could see it all now, scientists bringing people to the point of death and then reviving them afterwards.

    And this is ethical how? And would show what? All it would show is a consistent response to hypoxia, and the brain shuttting down and starting up, and the false memories resulting from such an event. It proves nothing about your imaginary soul. And you know that. What a non-thinker you are.

    There are numerous questions designed to weed out those who are faking it, but, obviously, the personal interviews are going to be the most accurate.

    Actually no. That isn’t scientific evidence, which requires you to physically show evidence for your imaginary soul Say with the Soultron 3000™.

    This isn’t evidence you keep yapping about. It is self-delusion by True Believers™, not real scientists and skeptics.

  21. scifi says

    Nerd of Redhead,
    “I’ll give you an example of what I mean. In bigfoot lore, the Patterson film is allegedly evidence bigfoot exists. Never mind, if one looks at the wiki article under hoax allegations, a man has come forward claiming he wore the ape suit and gave details on how it was carried out.”

    What the flock had bigfoot have to do with NDE experience is beyond me? On bigfoot, you obviously did not watch the PBS special in which they showed an insurance ad that never was used. It was a very tall man in suit, the now famous bigfoot. They even filmed an 8 foot guy and showed that he has the same type of walk as the bigfoot in the insurance commercial.

    Your claim that NDEs are failed memories has never been proven.

  22. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Nerd, you know that the hostile reactions of scientists like you puts a damper on acts like NDE’s. They are a very delicate operation that gets blocked by your negative energy.

    Or is that the stench of the seven-day-old grog?

  24. scifi says

    Consciousness razor,
    “, but everything we do understand has come with science and careful, rigorous logic. That’s how you can discover the truth.”

    Yes, that’s how you can discover the truth….for natural occurrences, but not supernatural ones. Also, you can find out a lot about the working of our universe, but not necessarily how it all started.

  25. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Your claim that NDEs are failed memories has never been proven.

    Some one has been ignoring the links.

    Also, some one does not seem to understand the damage that being deprived of oxygen does to a brain.

    I am having kenny flashbacks.

  26. theophontes 777 says

    @ A.R

    Where is this “Justin” of whom you speak?

    Justin is a troll that I tried luring in here. Sadly it got all het under the collar and flounced. A sad waste for our chewtoy recycling efforts. linkypooh

    @ cm’s

    And less than 3 minutes in. I’m stopping there.

    I did warn you. I did make it a bit further. Essentially it is a mirror image of scifi (reflected in the biker visor).

    @ Brogg

    Vous et tres drol!

    @ scifi

    Did you get to watch my linked video (comment #6)? You sound so much like that goddist biker former atheist. Is there some correlation? You went to the same church?

  27. says

    scifi:

    Yes, that’s how you can discover the truth….for natural occurrences, but not supernatural ones.

    What is this “supernatural” of which you speak?

    Also, you can find out a lot about the working of our universe, but not necessarily how it all started.

    And how do you propose we find out how the universe started? What methodology would you employ to verify we have discovered the correct model?

  29. A. R says

    Janine: That can be arranged

    TZT Politburo Members: Hoe kan ons hierdie werk? Uitlokking slavek iets waardig van tzt kwarantyn om te sê?

  30. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What the flock had bigfoot have to do with NDE experience is beyond me?

    Ah, Scifi admitting that the concept of evidence is beyond him. I was using bigfoot to describe the level of evidence needed for a claim to be considered scientific. And extraordinary claims, like NDE’s meaning a soul, need an extraordinary level of evidence; completely and utterly scientific, with the interpretation of the scientist out of the loop. Instrumental data would be more conclusive. Present NDE data doesn’t even meet the level of ordinary scientific evidence. You and your fellow True Believers™ need to up your game. And you can’t.

    Science, with hypoxia, the brain shutting down and starting up, and resulting false memories (you need to prove they are true, not us to show they are false), is the null hypthesis. Science is always the null hypothesis. You lose, as always, for being a delusional fool without intelligence. If you had intelligence, we wouldn’t have to keep explaining evidence, the null hypothesis, and parsimony to you ad nauseum.

  31. consciousness razor says

    Given that people experience NDEs, it does not follow that their experiences are veridical. For example, brain states one has while experiencing a dream do not tell us anything about the world except that people’s experiences of it cannot be assumed to be reliable. You can dream that you’re flying, but that does not mean there is actually some reality in which you can fly. There is a reality in which you can dream of being able to fly.

    The books also address pretty much all the scientific claims that these NDEs can be reproduced, and they have show that they really do not match true NDEs.

    Illusions, hallucinations, and other altered states don’t need to exactly match a “true NDE.” They are merely demonstrating the underlying causes of these types of brain states. How does your dualistic explanation fit any of the data?

    For example, the way people see things is by light interacting with their retinas, which is interpreted and represented by our visual systems. Take those away, and you’re claiming they’re still able to see, which means you have to explain what eyes and the visual system actually do. This goes for every other function of the nervous system. What would any of it do, if a soul were generating our experiences? And if a soul is responsible, how does it do that?

  32. scifi says

    Menyambal,
    “A lot of people have really crazy, realistic dreams. They can describe them in detail. There are books about these dreams. ”

    Many have ‘realistic dreams’, but they are all very different. The NDEs occur only when someone’s heart stops and they are considered clinically dead, and they are very consistently similar.

  33. scifi says

    Amphiox,
    “Still ignoring everything it has been told about parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition.”

    You still don’t get it, do you? You can use your parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition arguments all you want, but it still does not eliminate a creator as a possible necessity. And you have call me dishonest? Try looking in a mirror.

  38. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Your claim that NDEs are failed memories has never been proven.

    Are you a fucking moron? Why is it so fucking impossible for you to get it through you thick skull that science does not deal with fucking proofs! That’s mathematics, you numbskull! Science deals with evidence that either supports or invalidates an hypotheosis! What the fuck is so hard about this?

    And, are you Shiloh?

  39. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but it still does not eliminate a creator as a possible necessity.

    Actually it does liar and bullshitter. Anything that refutes the necessity, and they all do, makes your claim for necessity invalid.

    Poof, that which is claimed without evidence (and you admit you have none) is dismissed without evidence. Your claim doesn’t exist.

    Still the loser on logic Scifi/Shiloh.

  40. says

    scifi:

    The NDEs occur only when someone’s heart stops and they are considered clinically dead, and they are very consistently similar.

    No,they are not.

    NDE experiences vary by culture. This indicates they are hallucinations produced by the brain while in an oxygen-deprived state.

    Really, scifi, you should check your facts before you make ridiculous and easily-disproved claims.

  41. consciousness razor says

    What about cosmic universe creating prawns? Are they not a possible necessity?

    They are. So are Russell’s Teapot and Sagan’s Invisible Dragon.

  42. says

    scifi:

    You can use your parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition arguments all you want, but it still does not eliminate a creator as a possible necessity.

    “Possible necessity.” Where have I heard that before?

    Ah, yes. William Lane Craig, the master of “hide the begging of the question.”

  43. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Anya: You could have, like, a world with no shrimp. Or with, you know, nothing but shrimp.

    ———————————————————

    Buffy: Anya, tell them about the alternate universes.
    Anya: Oh, okay. Um… say you really like shrimp a lot. Or we could say you don’t like shrimp at all. “Blah, I wish there weren’t any shrimp,” you’d say to yourself —
    Buffy: Stop! You’re saying it wrong.

    ———————————————————-

    Buffy: I think that Jonathan may be doing something so that he’s manipulating the world, and we’re all like his pawns.
    Anya: Or prawns.
    Buffy: Stop with the shrimp! I am trying to do something here!

  45. consciousness razor says

    “Possible necessity.” Where have I heard that before?

    Ah, yes. William Lane Craig, the master of “hide the begging of the question.”

    I think of Plantinga, because that’s somewhat less traumatic.

  47. scifi says

    “Illusions, hallucinations, and other altered states don’t need to exactly match a “true NDE.””

    Why not? There have been numerous cases of NDEs and they are all pretty much similar.

    “For example, the way people see things is by light interacting with their retinas, which is interpreted and represented by our visual systems. Take those away, and you’re claiming they’re still able to see, which means you have to explain what eyes and the visual system actually do. This goes for every other function of the nervous system. What would any of it do, if a soul were generating our experiences? And if a soul is responsible, how does it do that?”

    Yes, it appears they can still see after the heart has stopped and, in some cases, under general anesthesia. Some have describe things going on that they would not know unless they were conscious and their eyes were open. There are claims that they see things with much more clarity than normal and even in 360 degrees. Also there are those who have seen dead relatives and with questions how they could have seen a sister who they thought was still alive only to find she had suddenly died. How do you explain this away as impossible since it violates what physics currently knows? You ask how a soul does this. I don’t know, but what I do know is that it doesn’t rule it out as possibility.

  48. says

    it still does not eliminate a creator as a possible necessity.

    Slavek zit op de ‘Republican communications skills’ thread. Hij verdedigt blijkbaar die crappy billboards.

    (Sorry, I don’t actually speak Afrikaans. I’m hoping dutch is close enough for you to follow)

  50. says

    How the hell did I do that? Replace the blockquoted bit in my previous comment with this:

    Wat is hierdie “slavek” waarvan jy praat?

  51. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    There have been numerous cases of NDEs and they are all pretty much similar.

    Nope, the unevidenced claims, lies and bullshit continue. You have no idea of what real evidence is. Try the Soultron 3000™, which can actually see souls with 100% accuracy. Then get back to us with evidence for souls…

  52. says

    Scifi:

    Even if NDEs only occurred when the heart had stopped (has this been confirmed?), and if the experiences were very consistent between cases (which I’m fairly certain has been shown to be highly variable by cultural background), they would not be conclusive – or even very strong – evidence, on their own, of an immaterial soul.

    All they would be evidence of is a consistent perceptual experience of a specific sort of death.

    Here is an interesting question: Are there reports of NDEs from patients who were congenitally blind? If so, what was their report of the experience like?

  53. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Strewth, why would you ask such a silly question? Spirits have perfect sight.

  54. KG says

    Stone me scifi, will you never tire of spewing your fuckwitted bullshit?

    Illusions, hallucinations, and other altered states don’t need to exactly match a “true NDE.”

    Why not?

    Because the people in those other altered states were not in the same situation, nor would they have the same brain chemistry.

    There have been numerous cases of NDEs and they are all pretty much similar.

    No, they are not. Lying doesn’t help your case.

    For example, the way people see things is by light interacting with their retinas, which is interpreted and represented by our visual systems. Take those away, and you’re claiming they’re still able to see, which means you have to explain what eyes and the visual system actually do. This goes for every other function of the nervous system. What would any of it do, if a soul were generating our experiences? And if a soul is responsible, how does it do that?

    Yes, it appears they can still see after the heart has stopped and, in some cases, under general anesthesia.

    Strike as unresponsive. You didn’t answer the question posed.

    Some have describe things going on that they would not know unless they were conscious and their eyes were open. There are claims that they see things with much more clarity than normal and even in 360 degrees. Also there are those who have seen dead relatives and with questions how they could have seen a sister who they thought was still alive only to find she had suddenly died. How do you explain this away as impossible since it violates what physics currently knows?

    Simple: none of these anecdotes are adequately supported by contemporaneous evidence. Claims “to see things with much more clarity than normal and even in 360 degrees” are completely impossible to check in any way. Claims about information they could not have got by normal means require detailed corroboration from impartial witnesses. If you knew of any such evidence, you would link to it. Without that, there is nothing to explain.

    You ask how a soul does this. I don’t know, but what I do know is that it doesn’t rule it out as possibility.

    Yes, it does, in any useful sense of the word “possibility”. It’s not logically impossible, but it is as physically impossible as vampires, werewolves and wizards turning people into toads. But probably this point is wasted on you, because you believe in all those as well.

  55. consciousness razor says

    Yes, it appears they can still see after the heart has stopped and, in some cases, under general anesthesia.

    What does the heart being stopped have to do with it? The mind is brain activity, not heart activity. Galen could demonstrate this over 1800 years ago. Are you really that far behind?

    Some have describe things going on that they would not know unless they were conscious and their eyes were open.

    Descriptions of experiences don’t require us to assume those things actually happened.

    How do you explain this away as impossible since it violates what physics currently knows?

    I don’t need to claim souls are impossible, dipshit. Get that through your thick skull, or through whatever contains your idiotic soul. We know that we have nervous systems, and we do not know that we have souls. Nervous systems are not merely possible but actual, so you need to explain them. Once you do that, then you need to explain what souls do if they exist. But you do none of that. All you do is bleat ignorantly about possibilities and engage in science denialism.

  56. chigau (副) says

    When someone’s personality changes after a brain injury does that mean “The Soul” was damaged in the car accident?

  58. says

    It really annoys me that my experience is not even acknowledged by Shiloh/Scifi. You have someone who has a NDE, but it’s ignored because the hallucination aspects didn’t match an afterlife. Almost everything else does but that one thing disqualifies it to these idiots…and then they talk about how consistent NDE are.

  59. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Ing, your negative energy invalidates your NDE.

    D’uh.

  60. chigau (副) says

    Ing
    It’s not a True™ NDE if it doesn’t do floating and tunnels.

  62. says

    *Floaty feeling
    *Tunnel Vision
    *bright light
    *360 degree perception
    *Hallucination

    I was a believer at the time, but the event had no impact because no one reinforced it as important because of it’s lack of religiosity.

    The only differences between that and NDE is a) I wasn’t in any actual death situation and b) lack of religiosity

    I suppose Shiloh is discounting my claim because of my bias as an atheist…while accepting the religious claims of NDE.

  63. chigau (副) says

    Ing

    *Floaty feeling
    *Tunnel Vision
    *bright light
    *360 degree perception
    *Hallucination

    No dead relatives?
    There ya go. Not a Real™ NDE
    {sets fire to goalposts}

  64. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Duh, havn’t you ever damaged a radio and picked up Strauss on what used to be the frequency for Country Western?

    Does not even have to be a damaged radio, a change in the ionosphere or a change of location can do that.

    *raspberry*

  66. says

    @Janine

    Oooh ooh, or what about people with Synesthesia? Cardiac patients finding themselves in a very 7-ish tunnel, being beckoned by beings surrounded by an aura of the smell of pine-sol, and filled with a warm sensation of mauve?

  67. chigau (副) says

    Sometimes if I stand between my radio and the radio station, I cause static.
    What does that mean?

  69. theophontes 777 says

    @ scifi

    You can use your parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition arguments all you want, but it still does not eliminate X as a possible necessity.

    Where X is:

    Attis, The Almighty Zeus, jeebus, FSM, Wotan, Shaka, scifi’s intellect, Tammuz,… luminiferous aether, heaven, flat earth… shit, I could go on for months .. Russel’s teapot, Hogwarts, Nirvana, …. *yawn* … allah, YHWH, space prawns, creator of the universe, Loki,….make shit up as I go… {farts} …

    Why is your imaginary creatorcreature any more or less likely than The Almighty Zeus ™? Do you have a methodology to test which is the more likely?

    You do realise you could replce every reference you have made to “a creator” with any of the above? Why not “my imaginary cat”?

  70. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Chigau, you are obviously made of static.

    Strewth, what strange dead relatives you have.

  72. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Theophontes 777, devotees of the ceiling cat want to have a few words with you.

  77. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Your cat probably not not approve of your choice of radio stations.

  78. theophontes 777 says

    @ tdb418 / bratty1

    Welcome, welcome, welcome. Please feel free to tell us about your lord and saviour. We are all ears.

    @ Janine

    What if X is a hungry wolf?

    Or Cruella de Vil?

  80. A. R says

    theophontes: Ons moet slavek en die tol te kry oor op die SB op hierdie draad sukkel om dit uit met Scifi

    pentatomid: Ek is bly om jou aan te bied met tzt burgerskap. Hangende goedkeuring tzt Politburo-afdeling van die burgery. Verantwoordelikhede van burgers om trolle om dit te beveg op tzt, en lok trolle te tzt.

  81. scifi says

    nigelthebold,
    “NDE experiences vary by culture. This indicates they are hallucinations produced by the brain while in an oxygen-deprived state.”

    Wrong again. They have studied NDEs in varying cultures, they all are essentially similar. Oh, and they are similar with atheists as well.

    “Really, scifi, you should check your facts before you make ridiculous and easily-disproved claims.”

    The one who doesn’t have the facts straight is you. You need to look at the views by those who have closely studied NDEs and feel NDEs are fact. I have looked at the views that say there are natural explanations and have yet to see anything concrete.

  82. scifi says

    theophants777,
    “Where “X” is:

    “Attis, The Almighty Zeus, jeebus, FSM, Wotan, Shaka, scifi’s intellect, Tammuz,… luminiferous aether, heaven, flat earth… shit, ”

    theophant, you really can’t be that thick, can you? I have already stated numerous times that I have found all religious beliefs false, that there is no way anyone can determine what a creator, if it exists, would be like. Something responsible for the creation of an entire universe would be far beyond what anyone could imagine.

  85. says

    Wrong again. They have studied NDEs in varying cultures, they all are essentially similar. Oh, and they are similar with atheists as well.

    Bullshit. Serious bullshit. What nigel said was entirely correct. For example, convinced christians often see angels or jesus or associated symbolism, while followers of the Hare Krishna movement tend to experience things typically associated with their own religion and see Krishna (or other figures from their mythology). Also, please take a look at what Ing has to say about the matter!
    The whole NDE thing is probably best explained as the effects of a dying, oxygen deprived brain. Their is absolutely no evidence that points to anything supernatural going on. In fact, even if all the NDEs were highly similar (which they are not; you are merely discounting those that are different as ‘not real NDEs’), this could be attributed to the biological and physical characteristics of a brain. At least that would be a more likely explanation than simply invoking anything supernatural.

  87. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Ah so you are closed minded,

    Yep, his mind is closed to the concept that its creator/deity, and the soul (stupornatural), are all imaginary. It just can’t conceive of it, due to its limited imagination.

    Something responsible for the creation of an entire universe would be far beyond what anyone could imagine.

    Typical theist bullshit, like eternal, that avoids having to really think about what they presuppose exists. Whereas we evidence based types recognize the lies behind the weasel words, and ask the questions to find any evidence. And of course, we find none. Parsimony says that non-existence is the easiest explanation for no evidence.

  88. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    there is no way anyone can determine what a creator, if it exists, would be like. Something responsible for the creation of an entire universe would be far beyond what anyone could imagine.

    Now, see, that is just a flat religious statement. Plus it shoots itself and your previous arguments in the foot—which makes it extra religious.

    We could determine what a creator would be like by examining its creation. For an earthly example, I can determine a lot about the maker of a piece of pottery, just by examining the pot—I may not be able to tell you the colour of his eyes, but I can tell you that it was an inexperienced potter with a wheel, a poor kiln, cheap glazes and crappy taste, plus an inflated sense of the value of his work. In this universe, we could see a creator who arranged things neatly beforehand, set it in motion, and failed to intervene since, with no interest in the infection on the third glob out from one of the decay hotspots.

    Saying that a creator would be far beyond what anyone can imagine is stating a personal belief, not a fact. It’s also an argument from personal limits. And self-defeating, as you just imagined it as the creator, and as unimaginable. Why must it be incomprehensible—and why do you keep trying to get us to comprehend it (seriously, dude, you keep wanting us to see lack of necessity as evidence for unimaginability)—I can easily see a group of Discworld wizards, or a pseudo-Japanese craftsman, making a copy of their own universe in a bottle. See? Easy-peasy.

  89. KG says

    They have studied NDEs in varying cultures, they all are essentially similar. – sci-fi

    This can only be a deliberate lie, as I have pointed sci-fi to this link, which argues, citing copious research, that the cross-cultural similarities are minimal, and the differences huge; and xe has not attempted to refute it. Why do you feel the need to lie about this, sci-fi?

  91. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    Scifi, your creator is unimaginable because you can’t imagine any reason for it.

    See, if the creator showed an inordinate fondness for beetles, we could postulate that it was either a beetle, an insectivore, or a Victorian entomologist. We could deduce his possible purpose from any evident purpose of the universe.

    But there is no evident purpose to the universe—none. We can only imagine that it has one. So any creator must be unimaginable.

    You, scifi, with your constant yapping about an unimaginable creator, are admitting that it has no purpose, which is to say there is no evidence for it—not even your dippy “fine tuning”.

    If a creator is unimaginable, we have no reason to imagine it.

  92. says

    @Scifi

    Menyambal has a good point there. If this creator is unimaginable, and no naturalistic method of measurement or detection can tell us anything about it at all…

    what’s the point? Really? What honest difference does it make to any of our lives whether there was/was not a creator entity?

  94. says

    @Ing

    If we do this fast enough, often enough, and find a backbeat, can we become the next club music sensation? Presuppascratch?

  95. scifi says

    If anything, it is obvious for me to see that most everyone here is pretty consistent with their belief that a god doesn’t exist, though some will cry out that that isn’t so, but I’m afraid I have seen no other evidence than that. But, I will admit that I cannot prove the existence of a creator, and though I will again get vocal objections, neither has anyone here shown me any evidence of the universe coming about by chance. Like me, only speculation. So, even though you will continue to stubbornly disagree, we are at an impasse.

    But, let’s look again at the belief here that Jesus was an invention by Christians. I’m afraid you have a big problem with that one. You see, the Jews were expecting a powerful military leader who would overthrow the Romans, they had no conception of a crucified messiah. It simply does not make any sense, if you are going to invent something, to invent a messiah who was crucified like a common criminal. Not only that, Moses made the statement “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree”. If they had really invented Jesus, they certainly would not have invented him as a crucified messiah. Therefore, the likelihood that Jesus existed is very high. Hmmm, sounds a bit like your argument for parsimony, doesn’t it, only I have evidence for my argument here. Back at you then. I’ve read 240 pages of Bart Erhman’s book, Did Jesus Exist, and he has thoroughly destroyed the arguments made by maverick scholars. There is no evidence that Jesus was invented as a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god. There are very serious doubts over whether any pagans believed in such gods. There is no evidence to locate such beliefs among Palestinian Jews of the first century. But even more important, Christians did not see Jesus as a dying and rising god because they at first did not even see him as God. Final comment on this. You need to do some due diligence before you start spouting off about how Christians invented Jesus because you come across as some housewife who believes everything she reads in the National Enquirer.

  96. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But, I will admit that I cannot prove the existence of a creator,

    Then be an adult of honor, honesty, and integrity, and drop the concept. Or you are a liar and bullshitter who’s word is nothing but trash.

    Like me, only speculation.

    Nope, not like you. Science is the null hypothesis, to be disproved. You are the lies and bullshit that must show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary claims.

    But, let’s look again at the belief here that Jesus was an invention by Christians.

    No, lets not look at lies and bullshit from proven liar and bullshitter, namely you. Point, don’t talk. But you talk, which means you have nothing but the opinion of a liar and bullshitter.

    You need to do some due diligence before you start spouting off about how Christians invented Jesus because you come across as some housewife who believes everything she reads in the National Enquirer.

    Who said that? You are the one who believes in lies and bullshit of the tabloids, repeating the lies and bullshit to us like it is anything other than what it is.

    Your opinion is worthless, and must be backed up with a citation to the peer reviewed scientific literature for each and every claim. That is what happens when you lie and bullshit for months, and can’t shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do. We presume you lie. After all, the lie rate is over 90%. You need to change that.

  97. Amphiox says

    But, let’s look again at the belief here that Jesus was an invention by Christians.

    Does the scuffy even remember how it was indignantly huffing that it did NOT, NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, believe in Christ or the Christian god? And that it was SURE that the Christian god did not exist?

    Pathetic intellectual liar reveals its dishonesty yet again.

  98. Amphiox says

    Something responsible for the creation of an entire universe would be far beyond what anyone could imagine

    Scuffy repeats YET ANOTHER LIE, almost word for word. Has it forgotten that it, itself, has been busy IMAGINING that this “thing responsible for the creation of an entire universe” was busy FINE-TUNING that universe for life, and busy TRYING MORE THAN ONCE to get it right?

    Pitiful hypocrite.

  99. Amphiox says

    You can use your parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition arguments all you want, but it still does not eliminate X as a possible necessity

    Only someone who has deliberately ignored EVERYTHING we have tried to tell it about parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition would have the dishonest gall to even think about writing such a sentence.

    For the very last time, I will repeat: Parsimony, probability, null hypotheses, and presupposition mean than the statement “still does not eliminate X as a possible necessity” a MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS, AND USELESS THING TO SAY.

  100. Amphiox says

    ((you’d think that by this time any actual human would have at least asked “who the hell is Shiloh?”))

    Only if that actual human was not, in fact, Shiloh.

    The silence is telling.

  101. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Scifi, you lie and bullshit each time your fail to:

    Acknowledge the null hypothesis for each of your claims, which is the naturalistic (scientific) explanation.

    Acknowledge that parsimony makes both your imaginary creator and imaginary soul unlikely compared to the naturalistic explanation.

    Acknowledge your whole arguments are nothing but presupposition.

    Acknowledge to yourself that your presuppositions could be false.

    Pretend you have something to say when you don’t.

    When you present suggestive evidence like it is conclusive evidence.

    When you deliberately lie about the quality of the evidence.

    When you acknowledge you have no evidence, but can’t drop the allegation.

    When you repeat yourself ad nauseum, because you really don’t have anything new to present as evidence.

    When you repeat already refuted arguments like they weren’t refuted.

    When you won’t acknowledge refutation of you arguments.

    Etc, etc. etc., ad nauseum.

    Boring inane troll who has nothing cogent to say or argue, but is stubborn as hell. PZ?

  102. Snoof says

    Scifi, so far you’ve failed to successfully argue for

    * ignoring parsimony;
    * fine tuning; and
    * near-death experiences.

    And now you’re moving on to “Christianity is so historically justified!” As far as I can see, you’re the first person to bring up the historicity of Jesus, presumably in an attempt to distract people from your utter failure to honestly engage with the other topics. This is called “moving the goalposts” and is a symptom of a lack of intellectual integrity.

    Is there any reason we should keep reading your posts? Do you have any justification for your appalling behaviour? Are you _ever_ going to answer Nerd’s demands for reliable evidence for any of your beliefs?

  103. Snoof says

    …a brief clarification.

    We’ve established that NDEs do exist as recalled experiences. What we have not established is that they are in any way indicative of substance dualism or of the existence of souls, afterlives or deities.

    Oh, and scifi? _Are_ you Shiloh? Your refusal to answer the question is making me curious.

  104. says

    Oops you did it now. Prepare for Scifi to rewind and restart the convo at a previous save state. I bet it’s about how a creator is logically needed or how neither side has evidence.

    If anything, it is obvious for me to see that most everyone here is pretty consistent with their belief that a god doesn’t exist, though some will cry out that that isn’t so, but I’m afraid I have seen no other evidence than that. But, I will admit that I cannot prove the existence of a creator, and though I will again get vocal objections, neither has anyone here shown me any evidence of the universe coming about by chance. Like me, only speculation. So, even though you will continue to stubbornly disagree, we are at an impasse.

    Called it.

    Also Jesus? What the hell does he have to do with anything? The Creator is beyond human imagination and all religions are wrong, RIGHT?

    ARE YOU SHILOH?

  105. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    It’s so sad that mr. bongo (aka. Ron McNut) has posted his little screed/challenge on every thread but here. I fear that TZT will be locked in the eternal scifi loop unless something unusual happens.

  106. consciousness razor says

    And now you’re moving on to “Christianity is so historically justified!” As far as I can see, you’re the first person to bring up the historicity of Jesus, presumably in an attempt to distract people from your utter failure to honestly engage with the other topics. This is called “moving the goalposts” and is a symptom of a lack of intellectual integrity.

    This was very predictable.

    1. NDEs
    2. Fine tuning by a “possible creator”
    3. Historicity of Jesus
    4. Despite this, claims to be a non-religious agnostic

    You’ll find the same shit from Shiloh a year ago, along with other threads before and after it, especially this one about Hawking. No point in reading them. There’s never even a hint of learning anything or responding with anything like a cogent argument, just following the same script as always.

  108. theophontes 777 says

    @ scifi (liar-for-jeebus)

    I have found all religious beliefs false

    Contradictio in terminis. Yours is a religious belief.

    there is no way anyone can determine what a creator, if it exists, would be like.

    Aaah! You are a muslim? God is … GREATER! Our puny human minds can not encompass a Being that is forever greater than that which we can conceive. الله أكبر

    But the same can be said about Almighty Zeus ™ Who’s Ways are beyond the ambit of mortal ken.

    Who are you kidding, other than yourself? The jaded far-beyond-what-anyone-could-imagine trope is a feature of pretty much all religions. Why is your imaginary creator-god any different from any of the gods I referred to?

    they had no conception of a crucified messiah.

    A religious apologist now? The whole “crucified” story is controversial anyway – even amongst liars-for-jeebus. The most we can say was that he was stuck on a pole. (A common trope for the death of a year-god.) Linky here.
    What must we make of the simple fact that it was not jeebus, but a stand in that was “crucified” anyway?

    Christians did not see Jesus as a dying and rising god because they at first did not even see him as God.

    Oooh. You are saying that christinanity has evolved and changed over the years? I thought his sky-daddy’s plans where eternal.

    @ AR/Pentatomid

    Jissus Mavis, dit is ongelooflik swaarkry om die blerrie trolle hierheen te kry!

  111. theophontes 777 says

    @ Amphiox

    the dishonest gall to even think about writing such a sentence.

    Heh. I wrote that sentence.

    (It was a response to scifi/shiloh’s comment at #35 . I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of its comments wrt “a creator”. The original sentence was scifi’s. It is still struggling with the concept of the lack of falsifiability for any imaginary “X”)

  112. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    Who is “Mavis”? It is part of the expression “Jissus Mavis”. It is similar to the softening of (blasphemous) expressions in English.

    eg: Good God! —> Good Gosh! or Good Golly!
    Jesus! —> Jeez! or Sheesh!…

  113. Colin J says

    Scifi #84:

    I have already stated numerous times that I have found all religious beliefs false

    Scifi #97: …except JESUS!!! (Praise the Lord!!!!)

    I’ve got to say, if I was inventing a new religion back in the 1st century, I would totally make up a kick-ass messiah who could destroy the Roman Empire with one wave of his hand. Not some pissant preacher who got crucified. Except… how do you explain to your potential converts why the Roman Empire is still around?

    I know! You make up a kick-ass messiah who’s going to destroy the Roman Empire with one wave of his hand LATER. Not much later. He’s definitely going to do it soon. Like, before everyone you’re speaking to dies. Yep, some of your audience are totally going to see it happen. And they’d better convert now, because when it does happen it’ll be too late.

    Yeah, that’s what I’d do.

  114. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    Bongo is banished. And deleted. Please adjust your comment numbers accordingly.

  115. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes
    darn!
    I thought Mavis might have been a real person.

  116. Amphiox says

    Heh. I wrote that sentence.

    Ha! You fooled me there – I thought you were quoting scuffy directly. I should have guessed. Scuffy doesn’t have the mental acuity to substitute ‘X’ for its favorite hobby horses.

    The comment with reference to scuffy’s original post, though, still stands in its entirety.

  117. theophontes 777 says

    Bongo is banished.

    It is always sad to see a chew toy tossed in the trash rather than into our play-pit. I think danielhaven‘s jumping the TZT fence may be part of the reason.

    (Any computer boffins out there that can suggest a way to ringfence this thread properly? Where is the pitbull when we need him?)

  118. Amphiox says

    Scifi #97: …except JESUS!!! (Praise the Lord!!!!)

    Yep. That one post pretty much reveals that the scuffy has been deliberately lying the whole time it has been here.

  119. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    scifi:

    most everyone here is pretty consistent with their belief that a god doesn’t exist, though some will cry out that that isn’t so

    That isn’t so. It isn’t a belief, for the dog’s sake. You are the one who builds beliefs on a smattering of confusion.

    Scientists assign probabilities to various scenarios. They don’t do beliefs.

    neither has anyone here shown me any evidence of the universe coming about by chance. Like me, only speculation

    But you keep yapping that there is evidence. Why the fuck are you being so damned fixated, if all you are doing is speculating? I’m willing to speculate that the universe is the dream of some pan-dimensional blue mice, but I don’t fucking natter on about it on a biology blog. And I wouldn’t keep flinging my fixation at people just to see their disgust.

    let’s look again at the belief here that Jesus was an invention by Christians.

    Oh. My. Fucking. Jesus.

    Again, not a belief.

    You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    they had no conception of a crucified messiah

    Excuse me, but when you need to kill a man, and don’t want to get your hands dirty, you railroad him to the authorities. The idea that the Jews weren’t expecting their messiah to be crucified can easily be attributed to the fact that they’d never imagined crucifixion until the Romans showed up.

    It’s like I don’t expect my messiah to be blasted apart by a particle beam.

    Moses made the statement “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree”.

    Which implies that “tree” meant “Roman cross” to everyone, and that your translation is perfect. Didn’t Judas hang himself—was it from a tree? And wasn’t Jesus cursed at by the Romans, and cursed/destined to get crucified? And who gives a flying flip what Moses said—I certainly hadn’t heard that line before—do you assume the legend-makers would have known it and cared, provided they agreed with your interp of it?

    Therefore, the likelihood that Jesus existed is very high.

    Ow. My. Fucking. Ribs.

    There is no evidence that Jesus was invented as a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god. There are very serious doubts over whether any pagans believed in such gods. There is no evidence to locate such beliefs among Palestinian Jews of the first century.

    Evidence?

    You keep using that word ….

    A dying and rising god doesn’t have to be a copy of someone else’s. It’s a fairly obvious concept. Who has the doubts about it, and what conspiracy are you assuming for the fact that I’ve heard a dozen versions of such? As for the Jews not having such a belief, I’d refer you to the goobers I went to church with, who see plenty of evidence for it in the Old Testament, and as an alternative, suggest that if one wants to run a scam, bringing in a new concept isn’t always contraindicated.

  120. Amphiox says

    There is no evidence that Jesus was invented as a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god. There are very serious doubts over whether any pagans believed in such gods.

    *cough* Mythras *cough*
    *cough* Osiris *cough*
    *cough* Herakles *cough*

    Seriously, the hero-god who dies and rises again, conquering death and hell and ascending to heaven is just about THE MOST COMMON mythic figure there is.

    Scuffy is lying through its teeth, yet again.

  121. Amphiox says

    But seriously, after spending more than five zombie threads solemnly insisting that it regarded Christianity as a puerile myth, and that its concept of a creator did not correspond to any known gods, and that the creator was too ineffable to be grasped or described or even imagined by lowly mortals, and then to turn around and start arguing for the historicity of Jesus is just a stunning level of intellectual dishonesty.

    Truly, truly, pitiful.

  122. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    There’s a belief that Jesus’s father was a Roman centurion named Pantera. That belief must be based on historical facts, because because there were Romans in Iudeae, some were centurions, and some of those were named Pantera. One Pantera was quite famous, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera — they found his frakking tombstone, even. You cannot argue with that.

    Besides, the greatest band ever was named Pantera, and they were finely tuned. They played heavy metal, and Jesus was nailed to the cross with heavy metal nails, so that proves that.

  123. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    That “because because” was a typo, but it works.

  125. theophontes 777 says

    *cough* Mythras *cough*
    *cough* Osiris *cough*
    *cough* Herakles *cough*

    *cough* Tammuz *cough*
    *cough* Adonis *cough*
    *cough* Ulysses *cough*

    Even Ulysses’ (Odysseus (Nala)) wife, Penelope (Penelope(Damayanti)), was placed in a death like sleep so that she could be made more beautiful and be granted the “Immortal gifts” of Minerva (Athena). (Actually, one immediately thinks of Sleeping Beauty ™ . Jeebus was perhaps the Sleeping Beauty ™ of teh religious patriarchy? Hell, it gets really difficult to tell all those overlapping myths and fairytales apart. At least we know jeebus was the “original” one (*snark*).)

  126. opposablethumbs says

    And scifi moves the goalposts to another pitch altogether, hurriedly paints them a different colour and then blows them up as an afterthought, all in the hope that nobody will notice what it’s done.
    Really, the historicity of Jesus? Whatever happened to your creator beyond-the-capacity-of-human-imagination schtick? Plumbing new depths there, sci-loh – way to convince us of the soundness of your “argument”.

  128. Amphiox says

    Calling scuffy’s behavior is pretty easy at this point. (But I’m sure Ing will take that beer!)

    It is nothing if not predictable. Evidently it was finely-tuned to be that way by some unimaginable creator.

  129. scifi says

    Nerd of redhead,
    “Boring inane troll who has nothing cogent to say or argue”

    Now you are talking. Fits you to a tee.

  130. consciousness razor says

    It is nothing if not predictable. Evidently it was finely-tuned to be that way by some unimaginable creator.

    Only if he or she behaves deterministically. Would anyone want to bet that scifi doesn’t believe in free will? I will put 15 million CR virtual-credits on it that scifi does.

  132. says

    Theophontes,

    Jissus Mavis, dit is ongelooflik swaarkry om die blerrie trolle hierheen te kry!

    Yep, niet bepaald simpel. Iemand ideeën om ze naar hier te lokken? Koekjes?

    On a different note, has scifi learned to blockquote yet?

  133. cm's changeable moniker says

    This is fun.

    I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    For the love of imaginary godz, it’s “do not”. Click here.

    —

    If we do this fast enough, often enough, and find a backbeat, can we become the next club music sensation? Presuppascratch?

    I was in a club once, and the people walking past had fluorescent twirly moustaches, and the lights were swizzling into words that I could almost read, and two people walked past and their heads were joined together into a beatbox that was playing along with the DJ.

    Um, therefore souls. And God.

    And abstinence (at least from that stuff).

    —

    Seriously? I could see it all now, scientists bringing people to the point of death and then reviving them afterwards.

    Eh, they (the doctors) did that to my father during his heart surgery. And he had the whole tunnel-of-light, out-of-body experience, and remains atheist. Funny, that.

  134. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    For the love of imaginary godz, it’s “do not”. Click here.

    As you wish.

    (I was so busy deciding not to attempt a Spanish accent that I didn’t check source like a good science person. Thanks.)

    I once read a speculation that the classic near-death experience is a remembering of the birth process. A tunnel with light at the end, large godlike figures all clothéd in white …

  135. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Now you are talking. Fits you to a tee.

    I’m boring and repetitive, because you are Scifi/Shiloh. If challeneged for evidence, and you actually produced some, you would advance your cause. The same if you showed honesty and integrity by dropping every claim you can’t back up with physical/scientific evidence. So, you do something different, I will. Until then, the same old, as has been for many threads.

    You will produce the evidence, or shut the fuck up.

  136. Amphiox says

    So the shiffy (SSOOUULLLSSS) is caught out redhanded in a puerile lie, and upon returning ignores all challenges made to it concerning that lie and instead snipes futilely at Nerd. A snipe incidentally that it has already previously attempted and failed spectacularly to make?

    Intellectual dishonesty cubed!

    Utterly pitiful.

  137. says

    scifi:

    Wrong again. They have studied NDEs in varying cultures, they all are essentially similar. Oh, and they are similar with atheists as well.

    Bullshit. You didn’t even follow the link I provided, did you?

    The similarities in NDEs are superficial at best. Most of the relatively common attributes (disembodiment, bright lights or tunnels, hallucinations) are identical to the effects of hypoxia, and so are easily explained by oxygen deprivation.

    So excuse me if I think you’re a fucking liar. Your claims are very easily proven false. I’ve provided a link (a courtesy you have failed to do to justify any of your bare-assed assertions) describing cultural differences in NDEs.

    Also, atheists steeped in western culture would be expected to generally share the same kind of culturally-based NDEs as western theists.

  138. Amphiox says

    I’m boring and repetitive, because you are Scifi/Shiloh.

    Nerd doesn’t need to be anything but repetitive, because everything the Nerd has said is true, and the shiffy (SSSSOOOOOUUUUULLLLSSSSSS…..) hasn’t done anything but endlessly repeat its original set of “arguments”.

  140. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    If all near-death experiences were alike, across all cultures, it would not be evidence FOR anything. You couldn’t say, say, “Say, everybody sees a grey-granite ogive-arched tunnel and a blonde woman clad in shimmering white samite, which proves that the Arthurian legends are true and Avalon awaits.”

    Because the case could well be that the samite NDE is just some randomly freakish brainfart from the pituitary, and the storied Isle of Avalon was based upon that image. The religion is co-opting something already in existence, as religions tend to do.

    But yes, it would be more likely to be a true event, if everyone got the same great details. In which case there wouldn’t be the chaos of various religions across the world.

    So all NDEs must not be alike.

    Similarly, all biblical prophecy could be accounted for by just a touch of ESP.

  142. Amphiox says

    Whether NDEs are similar or different (how similar? how different? What is the mean? The variance?) doesn’t really matter.

    Either way, the neurologic brain-based hypotheses are more parsimonious, AND have actual evidence supporting them, whereas soul and afterlife “hypotheses” have jack fapping squat.

  143. scifi says

    Nenyambal,
    “I once read a speculation that the classic near-death experience is a remembering of the birth process. A tunnel with light at the end, large godlike figures all clothéd in white …”

    I read that too, but it has been shown to be false. I’d have to look for it, but it was explained rather convincingly why it is a false assumption.

  144. scifi says

    Nerd of redhead,
    “If challeneged for evidence, and you actually produced some, you would advance your cause. ”

    That goes for you as well.

  145. scifi says

    nigelthebold,
    Don’t you ever tire playing the idiot? I would recommend to you a couple of very good books on NDEs, but you wouldn’t read them because you are stuck with tunnel vision. You only want to believe what your narrow mind will allow. Sad!

  146. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    That goes for you as well.

    Libraries of science worldwide, at institutions of higher learning. You, those places where people, unlike you, learn how to think. Like what the null hypothesis is, and how science is always the null hypothesis.

    Why don’t you look for evidence for your imaginary creator while you are at it, looking to prove a negative.

  147. scifi says

    Amphiox,
    “Whether NDEs are similar or different (how similar? how different? What is the mean? The variance?) doesn’t really matter.”

    If you are really seriously interested, I will recommend to you a couple of books to read. They pretty much address all the arguments against NDEs being genuine.

  148. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but it has been shown to be false.

    Without a citation, this unevidenced assertion is Poof, dismissed.

    I would recommend to you a couple of very good books on NDEs,

    The problem with books compared to the peer reviewed scientific literature: Vanity Press and lack of solid peer review by skeptical scientists. And you should acknowledge this as a problem if you are an honest inquirer, and not a presuppositional bullshit artist.

  149. scifi says

    Nerd,
    “Libraries of science worldwide, at institutions of higher learning. You, those places where people, unlike you, learn how to think.”

    Really? Do you really think that scientists have a monopoly on the ability to think? Guess again. You know what is amusing? 85% of the population believe there is a creator, including, you guessed it, scientists.

  150. consciousness razor says

    I would recommend to you a couple of very good books on NDEs, but you wouldn’t read them because you are stuck with tunnel vision. You only want to believe what your narrow mind will allow. I’ve got nothing but absurd bluster. Sad!

    Go ahead and recommend your books, asshole, or just learn how to think. Could you explain it to us yourself, since your mind isn’t so narrow as ours? If so, then fucking prove it.

  151. Brownian says

    Could you explain it to us yourself, since your mind isn’t so narrow as ours?

    This should be good. scifi couldn’t do anything but cut ‘n’ paste when the subject was the cosmological argument (wait, that’s not strictly true: scifi is quite fond of “You don’t know for sure either!”); I doubt it’ll be anything resembling cogent without a script this time either.

  152. says

    Do you really think that scientists have a monopoly on the ability to think? Guess again. You know what is amusing? 85% of the population believe there is a creator, including, you guessed it, scientists.

    Where scientists seem to have a monopoly is on their willingness to test hypotheses in a manner that controls for all the cognitive mistakes and biases known to affect the human brain.
    Oh, and nice job with the 85% statistic and the misleading “including scientists” remark, who in fact do not believe in a creator at anywhere near that high of a figure. You must have read How To Lie With Statistics.

  153. says

    And I should also point out that your 85% lumps together a whole lot of people who believe in creators (note the plural) who have very different, and often mutually incompatible, properties.
    And that’s assuming you didn’t just pull the number out of your stupid butt.

  154. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You know what is amusing? 85% of the population believe there is a creator, including, you guessed it, scientists.

    Sorry fuckwitted idjit, no citation *Poof*, dismissed as lies and bullshit. Lets look at the TRUTH. As usual, reality has a liberal and scientific bias, and Scifi is WRONG (no surprise there, par for the course). Nothing but DISHONESTY all the way down.

  155. Amphiox says

    The shiffy has forgotten it seems, that it has ALREADY tried BOTH the fallacy ad populum AND the fallacy from authority, and has ALREADY had BOTH thoroughly destroyed on this thread.

    To repeat an already countered argument without acknowledgement of the earlier counter with the only change being a different wholly made up and unsupported number is a truly PATHETIC level of intellectual dishonesty.

  156. Amphiox says

    IF the shiffy were actually honest, it would have posted the books it refers to, with full titles and authors, for EVERYONE to see and evaluate. Let’s see if it has even that level of integrity.

    But I, personally, will only read citations to PRIMARY literature, scientific papers with proper controls are peer review. All the rest is as valid as Harry Potter fan fiction is to the question of the real-world existence of horcruxes.

    This should of course be EASY for shiffy, if it is really being honest, as those books it refers to, of they are real and serious, will have bibliographies that will cite the primary literature, and all the shiffy needs to do is look them up.

  157. Brownian says

    To repeat an already countered argument without acknowledgement of the earlier counter with the only change being a different wholly made up and unsupported number is a truly PATHETIC level of intellectual dishonesty.

    Well, it’s previously used the tactic of repeating an already countered argument without acknowledgement of the earlier counter with no change, so I suppose this is a step up.

  158. Amphiox says

    I also see that the shiffy continues to dishonestly ignore everything we have been telling it about burden of evidence and null hypotheses in its continuing pitiful attempts to respond to Nerd of Redhead. This is why I stopped being even remotely interested in directly engaging with the shiffy (85% likely sockpuppet) long, long ago.

    Utterly pitiful.

  159. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    To repeat an already countered argument without acknowledgement of the earlier counter with the only change being a different wholly made up and unsupported number is a truly PATHETIC level of intellectual dishonesty.

    And this is conclusive evidence Scifi is Shiloh, who always stooped to that level of dishonesty. But then, nothing less is expected from theist liars and bullshitters. They have no honesty and integrity, unlike a vast majority of scientists

  160. Amphiox says

    The shiffy “conveniently” does not mention that at one time, 85% of people, INCLUDING scientists, believed the earth was flat. And at another time, 85% of people, INCLUDING WOMEN, believed that men should be dominant over women. And at another time, 85% of people, INCLUDING LAW EXPERTS, believed that heretics like shiffy, who claim that the creator of the universe was unimaginable and unknowable, we’re dangerous criminals who should be burned at the stake for undermining the divine authority of the church and the pope.

  161. Brownian says

    And this is conclusive evidence Scifi is Shiloh, who always stooped to that level of dishonesty.

    Meh. The world has no shortage of stupid liars. I don’t see why we should assume any two are necessarily the same person.

  163. Amphiox says

    I will even give the shiffy some user-friendly instructions:

    1. Open that book it feels is such a great source of evidence for NDEs being caused by souls.
    2. Find the chapter with the sentence that it thinks contains that wonderful piece of evidence.
    3. Look at the end of the sentence (that’s the part with the period) for a little number, in superscript.
    4. If there is no number, the book is trash and should be thrown away.
    5. Go to the index or bibliography for that chapter, or the whole book, and find the entry marked by the same number that was written in superscript after the sentence.
    6. Copy, exactly, letter for letter, the citation that is printed after the number in the index or bibliography.
    7. Post it here, openly, where everyone can see it.

  164. Brownian says

    Maybe scifi is Shiloh.

    scifi’s behaviour, including sockpuppetting, would not be inconsistent with shiloh’s level of dishonesty.

  165. scifi says

    Nerd of redhead,
    “The problem with books compared to the peer reviewed scientific literature: Vanity Press and lack of solid peer review by skeptical scientists.”

    Unfortunately, that may very well be the problem, i.e., scientists refusal to consider the possibility that NDEs could be factual. They are placing their bets on such thinks as drug and magnetic experiments even though the resulting symptoms do not truly match genuine NDEs. Pretty much all of the arguments that scientists have presented as natural explanations for NDEs have been successfully rebutted. You know as well as me that there are a number of instances where peer scientists will belittle and censor a maverick’s presentation only to have it turn out that the maverick is right. Scientists are human too.

  166. scifi says

    Amphiox,
    Every chapter has subscripts and there are 13 pages of bibliography. Why not order the book and read it with an open mind? Too many people here with closed minds since they have built a stone wall around themselves called “only natural can be the right answer”.

    Science and the Near-Death Experience by Chris Carter

    Evidence of Afterlife by Jeffrey Long, M.D. with Paul Perry, has notes for all chapters. It is worth reading as well.

    Enjoy!

  168. says

    scifi:

    nigelthebold,
    Don’t you ever tire playing the idiot?

    I guess not, as I keep playing you.

    I would recommend to you a couple of very good books on NDEs, but you wouldn’t read them because you are stuck with tunnel vision. You only want to believe what your narrow mind will allow. Sad!

    Have you bothered reading any of the links I’ve posted? No? Why am I not surprised?

    I’ve provided analysis of documented cases backing up my claims that NDEs vary by culture (which you haven’t bothered to read, which I guess makes you a fucking hypocrite). What have you provided? Oblique and non-cited references to “very good books,” which are probably nothing more than gushing recounts of undocumented cases that have been cherry-picked from the entire oeuvre of second-hand accounts of people who might have found a shoe outside a hospital window.

    Sorry, Shiloh. I’m not buying your “oh, I’m so much better educated and open-minded than you” shuck-and-jive. While you’re adorable in your wide-eyed credulity, you get kinda boring with your repetitious assertions that are backed by nothing but more assertions.

    But you really are adorable in your naiveté.

  169. Amphiox says

    And notice how the shiffy STILL doesn’t bother to post any links to the primary literature, which again, WOULD HAVE BEEN AS EASY AS LOOKING UP THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ITS OWN BOOK. Just a couple references, out of ALL THOSE IT SUPPOSEDLY MENTIONS, that people here can immediately look up, read on pubmed, and evaluate.

    Pathetic dishonesty.

    Why not order the book and read it with an open mind?

    Because I have better things to spend my money on, including lots and lots of other books that I would like to read.

  170. consciousness razor says

    Someone comb and compare those to the books Shiloh hawked!

    It wouldn’t be too surprising if they were the same. There are only so many books NDErs are going to cite. But here you go. Compare and contrast:

    scifi 9 May 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Science and the Near-Death Experience by Chris Carter

    Evidence of Afterlife by Jeffrey Long, M.D. with Paul Perry, has notes for all chapters.


    Shiloh April 7, 2011 12:13 AM

    The first is Science and the Near-Death Experience How Consciousness Survives Death by Chris Carter. The 2nd is Evidence of Afterlife The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long, M.D. with Paul Perry.

  171. Amphiox says

    It’s funny as well how the shiffy wants US to take the time and effort to read all its stuff (which it doesn’t even give us in an easily accessible form), but deliberately ignores EVERYTHING we have given it, even when we POST IT DIRECTLY HERE FOR IT TO READ, or give it a link that is a single mouse click away.

    Pitiful hypocrite.

  172. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Ah, books, worthless as scientific evidence, and I explained why above. What does Shiloh the fuckwit cite? Not the peer reviewed scientific literature, the gold standard of evidence. But books, vanity press and all…

    cientists refusal to consider the possibility that NDEs could be factual.

    Well, you could solve that problem by publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Manuscript submission information for Science and Nature. Put up (write the damn paper) or shut the fuck up Shiloh. But a tankard of 7-day-old grog says Shiloh can’t put up or shut the fuck up. Showing he is nothing but a liar and bullshitter without honesty and integrity. Which everybody already knew. He is just being a dishonest troll.

  173. says

    Science and the Near-Death Experience by Chris Carter

    Evidence of Afterlife by Jeffrey Long, M.D. with Paul Perry, has notes for all chapters.

    Shiloh April 7, 2011 12:13 AM

    The first is Science and the Near-Death Experience How Consciousness Survives Death by Chris Carter. The 2nd is Evidence of Afterlife The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long, M.D. with Paul Perry.

    Exactly the same. What a surprise.

  174. says

    scifi:

    Unfortunately, that may very well be the problem, i.e., scientists refusal to consider the possibility that NDEs could be factual.

    I think many scientists accept NDEs are factual. They just don’t accept the dualistic bullshit that goes along with assuming they are accurate reports of objective events.

    There’s a reason scientists don’t accept NDEs as actual “out of body” experiences. It’s really a very simple reason. There’s no indication there’s any such thing as a mind that is not a process of the mind. That’s a rather important sticking point to the whole concept of NDEs as accurate reports of objective dualistic events.

    Couple that with the fact that there are perfectly logical (and evidence-based) explanations for NDEs (and the vague similarities thereof), that jumping to the conclusion that the mind is separate from the body is just ludicrous. In fact, I’d go as far as to say it’s stupid.