Posts: 30673
Threads: 2117
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 19, 2015 at 10:50 pm
(March 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (March 19, 2015 at 4:30 pm)Faith No More Wrote: T...you're pulling shit out of your ass to justify your beliefs. To say NDE's are less than compelling evidence for the soul would be an egregious understatement. Except that not only did I say anything about souls, I even said that the article does not speak to the issue of afterlife. Ready, fire, aim.
You quoted one source, I quoted several.
There is no need to go beyond neurological, chemical, biological reasons. If those who had these events claimed it I doubt doubt the thought it felt real because those phantom sensations do get intense, but they are NOT anything but a brain malfunction.
And even if you are not raised a believer but are not deeply educated as to how your body works, if you have an "event" it can cause life changing experiences because they are intense. BUT what they are not is real.
I am sure if you get sold afterlife crap your entire life, or don't believe it but hear and see those claims on an almost daily basis those bad claims can creep out in that state, just like having a wet dream or a nightmare.
I had a re occurring nightmare after seeing one movie when I was a kid. Those can feel just as real as an NDE. All those are natural disruptions in your brain functions. Nothing more.
Posts: 30673
Threads: 2117
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 10:57 am
(March 18, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Sionnach Wrote: I only remember her from the show named after her.
If you can find it, you can see her boobies in "The Last Picture Show".
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am by Faith No More.)
(March 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Except that not only did I say anything about souls, I even said that the article does not speak to the issue of afterlife. Ready, fire, aim.
It was a preemptive strike. Anyone following this forum with half a brain knows where you were leading.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm
(March 20, 2015 at 11:24 am)Faith No More Wrote: (March 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Except that not only did I say anything about souls, I even said that the article does not speak to the issue of afterlife. Ready, fire, aim. It was a preemptive strike. Anyone following this forum with half a brain knows where you were leading. Then you are wrong about what I actually believe. I think human beings are hypostatic unions of the material and the ideal, in the same sense that all living things are. This union results in things having a specific nature, or soul. The difference between my position and that of a physical reductionist is that I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
Posts: 30673
Threads: 2117
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm
(March 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The difference between my position and that of a physical reductionist is that I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
No Chad, there is no such thing as a "soul". If "souls" were part of evolution all life would have "souls" and you know damned well that you don't assign that to all life. This is a claim by all religions. It is an attempt to give humans self importance.
99% of species in our evolution have gone extinct. There have been 5 mass extinctions in our evolutionary history for ALL LIFE. Are you claiming T Rex had a soul too?
Quote:I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
Doesn't matter what you think, it matters what evolutionary biology of all life says. Now unless you are willing to give virus and bacteria and cockroaches "souls" too, you are doing nothing but special pleading.
You are projecting human qualities on non existent things, the word for that is "anthropomorphism". Cave dwellers thought deer were gods. Other humans thought volcanos were gods.
The idea of a "soul" is merely a projection of your evolutionary desire to continue.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm
@Chad
Here's my my question, how do you explain the larger percentage of people that didn't report anything? You seem to be just ignoring that larger percentage.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm
(March 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Then you are wrong about what I actually believe. I think human beings are hypostatic unions of the material and the ideal, in the same sense that all living things are. This union results in things having a specific nature, or soul. The difference between my position and that of a physical reductionist is that I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
A dualist huh. If you have two different things, material and ideal, how do they interact with each other. There has to be some mediator that is both part material and part ideal. If there is a mediator that is both material and ideal, then the material and ideal are not two different things since one object can have both. They are just different attributes of the same thing.
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2015 at 7:44 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(March 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: @Chad
Here's my my question, how do you explain the larger percentage of people that didn't report anything? You seem to be just ignoring that larger percentage. The same way that you explain the efficacy of a drug during trials. Sometimes only a very small percentage of people respond to a drug. For example, the effectiveness of aspirin to prevent heart disease only shows up in a small but significant portion of the subjects. Most people gain no measurable benefit.
(March 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (March 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Then you are wrong about what I actually believe. I think human beings are hypostatic unions of the material and the ideal, in the same sense that all living things are. This union results in things having a specific nature, or soul. The difference between my position and that of a physical reductionist is that I do not think the motions of sensible bodies provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for sentience.
A dualist huh. If you have two different things, material and ideal, how do they interact with each other. There has to be some mediator that is both part material and part ideal. If there is a mediator that is both material and ideal, then the material and ideal are not two different things since one object can have both. They are just different attributes of the same thing. That stock objection is a straw man. Imagine a single sensible body like a boat. It has both a material of which it is made, say aluminum, and also partakes of a particular form. Anyone can see that the form 'acts' on the material by giving it properties, like buoyancy, and that the material allows the form to manifest. Form and material are inalienable and yet distinct, i.e. dualism.
(March 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No Chad, there is no such thing as a "soul". If "souls" were part of evolution all life would have "souls" and you know damned well that you don't assign that to all life. ...unless you are willing to give virus and bacteria and cockroaches "souls" too, you are doing nothing but special pleading. Soul is just another way of referring to the essential nature of a thing. All living things, including viruses and cockroaches, have souls because they have essential natures. To a lesser extent non-living things, like photons, also have souls because they have essential natures.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 7:46 pm
(March 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That stock objection is a straw man. Imagine a single sensible body like a boat. It has both a material of which it is made, say aluminum, and also partakes of a particular form. Anyone can see that the form 'acts' on the material by giving it properties, like buoyancy, and that the material allows the form to manifest. Form and material are inalienable and yet distinct, i.e. dualism. There are as many forms as there are possibilities in the material world. Why? Because you've done nothing but make an unnecessary and arbitrary cut between the design space of geometry and objects that actually exist.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 20, 2015 at 7:49 pm
(March 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (March 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Surgenator Wrote: A dualist huh. If you have two different things, material and ideal, how do they interact with each other. There has to be some mediator that is both part material and part ideal. If there is a mediator that is both material and ideal, then the material and ideal are not two different things since one object can have both. They are just different attributes of the same thing. That stock objection is a straw man. Imagine a single sensible body like a boat. It has both a material of which it is made, say aluminum, and also partakes of a particular form. Anyone can see that the form 'acts' on the material by giving it properties, like buoyancy, and that the material allows the form to manifest. Form and material are inalienable and yet distinct, i.e. dualism.
The foam and the aluminum are allowed to interact because they're are both made out of material things. The mediator between them is the electromagnetic force between the atoms of the foam and the atoms of the aluminum. If the electromagnetic force didn't exist between the foam and aluminum, then those two would pass right through each other.
|
