(November 26, 2013 at 2:12 am)Natedeezy Wrote: How can "all chemical" explain the examples I gave?
What do you know about about chemicals that allows you to so glibly limit their explanatory power?
(November 26, 2013 at 2:12 am)Natedeezy Wrote: Science changes. To think we finally have it figured out is really narrow minded.
But doesn't that cut both ways? Aren't you also arguing for a summary evaluation of the limits of science? Science isn't the best tool for every question but it has been the gold standard for determining questions of empirical fact. What exactly are you proposing in its stead?
(November 26, 2013 at 2:12 am)Natedeezy Wrote: And I don't have a God I'm trying to sell you on, I'm just saying ignoring all I've said because you have 20 years believing one thing is choosing to look at life in a real bleak way, especially since there is another way to look at it that's equally as logical. Kinda shows the inner state of the atheist, and the posts demonstrate it...
Seems to me agnosticism is called for on both sides. Whatever it is you may believe and whatever it is you base that on instead of science, if you believe something that science can't support, all you really have is hand waving and empathy. It may take a while to earn the empathy for your non-science supported beliefs. I'm not sure anyone is entitled to a sympathetic hearing, only a fair one.
Personally I'm unimpressed with NDE's. What, if anything, they mean is subject to speculation. I've never been persuaded that they are evidence for anything which can't be cross checked in other ways. Of course NDE's can ground speculation, but speculation is generally only good for supporting one's own bias. Isn't that what's going on on both sides?
