Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[The Grand Nudger]

---

So that's a no, then?

Wrong once again Khem.
The fact that you can not see anywhere a dead consciousness next to a dead body clearly means that the consciousness is immortal.  

Oh, is that what that means?  Sort of like how, when you cant find any cake left in the cake pan, this demonstrates the immortality of the cake, or?  

Can you provide a single example of a consciousness which is not of a physical nature?

Obviously you toss sentences after sentences without even thinking what the hell you are talking about.

It would be like saying..............Can you provide a single example of a a driver that is not of a vehicle nature.
Since when the driver is of the vehicle nature and since when the consciousness which is abstract by nature is of a physical nature?  

So, another hard no, then?  Howsabout this..rather than me asking you if you can provide an example of anything you make claims to..why not just skip to some example for some claim which you -are- willing to or capable of providing?

I think you'll get more traction that way.  Just an opinion.

[Crossless2.0]

So you're yet another theist who doesn't understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. No surprise there.

And you're beyond imbecilic if your takeaway from the tentative nature of science is that it is therefore 'pure fantasy'.

But we already knew that about you.

Wrong again Cross.  

There is no need for getting all these intellectual jargon of .......... metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism in the way.
My understanding of what exist is so so much more simple.

Jargon . . . Lol. It's called a distinction. Apologies for the syllables. I forgot who I was writing to.

First there is the physical reality and physical science job is to study and find out this particular reality.

You don't say!

Second there is the non-physical reality which physical science can not study.

Not in terms of consciousness as a collection of experienced qualia, but it can certainly study it indirectly as conscious states are represented directly in MRIs. It's only your dogmatic insistence that consciousness does not arise from brain activity that blinds you to this.

For this second reality we need a different type of science better known as intuitional science.

You'd do well to just call it what it is: intuition. There's no need to dress up your yogic experiences as a different type of science. They are what they are. Others who meditate and experience (for them) significant, even profound, states of consciousness don't necessarily ascribe it to anything more than deliberately induced changes in their brain activity. If we were to perform an MRI scan on you during meditation and/or pranayama, what do you suppose we'd see?

As the consciousness is NOT of physical nature come natural that physical science can not possibly study it.

See above.

Atheists unfortunately got the demented idea that consciousness is a product of the brain so physical science suppose to be able to study it.

You've never convinced anyone that consciousness isn't a product of the brain, notwithstanding your incessant yammering about NDEs. Let's perform radically invasive surgery on your brain and find out what becomes of your consciousness. You game?

Never mind Cross.
Unfortunately in this life you sunk in a sea of dogmas and fantasies but if you are smart maybe in the next life time you may be able to wake up and grow up and start the way up to human emancipation by developing your consciousness awareness.
Good luck.  

Fuck off with your condescension, you dogmatic mental midget.

[I_am_not_mafia]

For this second reality we need a different type of science better known as intuitional science.

[Edwardo Piet]

Careful Little Prik's now using a Chewbacca defense!

Except he is invoking a Wookiee that can’t rip a wet paper bag, much less arms out of sockets.

Silly Little Prick (I bet he has a small penis too!) He's confusing rookie with Wookie.

[Little Rik]

Wrong again Cross.  

There is no need for getting all these intellectual jargon of .......... metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism in the way.
My understanding of what exist is so so much more simple.

Jargon . . . Lol. It's called a distinction. Apologies for the syllables. I forgot who I was writing to.

Jargon indeed Cross.

To understand consciousness physical science is not of any help but this is a point that you will understand later on.
If you need a plumber to fix your leaking pipes you call a plumber not an electrician and if you need to fix your
electrical wiring you call an electrician not a plumber.
All these ideas such as the metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism come from people that are totally outsider to the science that study consciousness.  

Second there is the non-physical reality which physical science can not study.

Not in terms of consciousness as a collection of experienced qualia, but it can certainly study it indirectly as conscious states are represented directly in MRIs. It's only your dogmatic insistence that consciousness does not arise from brain activity that blinds you to this.

What a foolish statement Cross!  

As far as the body is alive you may well see some degree of consciousness states by using MRI that however stop once the body-brain die because the consciousness is gone and that was the point we were talking about.
You try to see any consciousness activity once the bloke is dead if you can.
All you can see at that stage is a body-brain in a stage of meltdown so to speak.
No consciousness to be found anywhere inside the body-brain.  

For this second reality we need a different type of science better known as intuitional science.

You'd do well to just call it what it is: intuition. There's no need to dress up your yogic experiences as a different type of science. They are what they are. Others who meditate and experience (for them) significant, even profound, states of consciousness don't necessarily ascribe it to anything more than deliberately induced changes in their brain activity. If we were to perform an MRI scan on you during meditation and/or pranayama, what do you suppose we'd see?

1) You would see that the main glands or cakras radiating light according to the individual and if you would perform an MRI on a rapist or murderer you would see a very dark image.
2) Intuitional science is the most important science available to humans.
It is the science that allow you to reach the goal of life.

Atheists unfortunately got the demented idea that consciousness is a product of the brain so physical science suppose to be able to study it.

You've never convinced anyone that consciousness isn't a product of the brain, notwithstanding your incessant yammering about NDEs. Let's perform radically invasive surgery on your brain and find out what becomes of your consciousness. You game?

Wrong again Cross.  

1) For me this is a confrontation rather than trying to convince anyone so whether I convince or no this is secondary.
2) NDEs are clear evidence not BS.
A brain void of blood and oxygen can not put together such experiences.
If you would ask a doctor whether a dead bloke can put together such experiences he-she will think that ou are nuts.  

---

---

Wrong once again Khem.
The fact that you can not see anywhere a dead consciousness next to a dead body clearly means that the consciousness is immortal.  

Oh, is that what that means?  Sort of like how, when you cant find any cake left in the cake pan, this demonstrates the immortality of the cake, or?  

Obviously you toss sentences after sentences without even thinking what the hell you are talking about.

It would be like saying..............Can you provide a single example of a a driver that is not of a vehicle nature.
Since when the driver is of the vehicle nature and since when the consciousness which is abstract by nature is of a physical nature?  

So, another hard no, then?  Howsabout this..rather than me asking you if you can provide an example of anything you make claims to..why not just skip to some example for some claim which you -are- willing to or capable of providing?

I think you'll get more traction that way.  Just an opinion.

When you came in this world Khem you got a body from your parents but you parents can not possibly give to you a consciousness.
Consciousness is something that you conquer life after life.
Nobody can give that to you or take away from you.
Life teach us that you are the master of your life in the good or the bad.
But don't hurry too much trying to understand how the system works or where the evidences will come from.
Piece by piece the puzzle will be complete.
A pity that an atheist will take double the time to complete this puzzle but that is your choice Khem.  

[Astreja]

As far as the body is alive you may well see some degree of consciousness states by using MRI that however stop once the body-brain die because the consciousness is gone and that was the point we were talking about.

And at that point, the most logical assumption to make is that the personality, memories and all other distinguishing mental characteristics of that person are also gone.

You keep on beating the NDE / immortal soul drum, a tedious and tuneless dirge based primarily on the scientifically unsupported and unproven nonsense known as spirituality.  I've been down that path and rejected it.  Rik, I believe that you are deceiving yourself and are wasting the only life you will ever have on a myth.   I neither believe you nor envy you nor want to emulate you.

As far as I'm concerned, your belief in life after death is just your ego talking, telling you that *you* need to survive death in order to find meaning in your mortality.  I don't feel such  a need as that.  Any good insights or experiences I might come up with can easily be rediscovered without any causal connection to me, and in fact we all could be re-imagining things that have lived in others' brains at another place and time.  That does not mean that we ever were those "others," though.

[Fake Messiah]

Religion and science are opposite because it seems that science is constantly trying to fix what "god created" (if you believe such things) like finding cures, making people travel and live at places they couldn't before, not to mention other stuff that we frequently discuss here. So no wonder religion constantly meddled into scientific progress, because it always seemed as if "against god" like opposing something so trivial and logic like anesthesia with an argument that people have to suffer because Adam's sin. So in a way science is a mockery of religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you came in this world Khem you got a body from your parents but you parents can not possibly give to you a consciousness.
Consciousness is something that you conquer life after life.
Nobody can give that to you or take away from you.
Life teach us that you are the master of your life in the good or the bad.
But don't hurry too much trying to understand how the system works or where the evidences will come from.
Piece by piece the puzzle will be complete.
A pity that an atheist will take double the time to complete this puzzle but that is your choice Khem.  

So, hard no on ever giving an example of anything? It's going to be rough to convince me that you're describing something so fundamental and vast, if you can't scare up a single representative.

For the above claim..an example of conscious parents that have non-conscious offspring. Or two non conscious parents that produce conscious offspring. Anything at all, really, to suggest that consciousness isn't as hereditary as it appears to be. That shows it;s an individual achievement, of some sort. Got anything like that?

[Cyberman]

For this second reality we need a different type of science better known as intuitional science.

This again?

Hey rik (see what I did there?) - a little present for you:



Guess what I'm going to ask now?

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, I'll never know why you guys waste your time with little sick Ricky. He's just a single-page, idiotic script playing in an endless loop.