tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8452567047423371790..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A J Ayer's Near Death ExperienceVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59169638680834387622013-12-24T09:51:14.995-07:002013-12-24T09:51:14.995-07:00"The point is that NDEs appear to happen to p..."The point is that NDEs appear to happen to people who don't believe already."<br /><br />My point is the NDEs happen as a result of physical causes. There is nothing religious about them, except that they invoke feelings that can be interpreted as a religious experience. But if that's all it takes to meet God, doesn't that prove that God is nothing more than a physical phenomenon produced by the brain?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36461799872563714972013-12-23T19:47:01.895-07:002013-12-23T19:47:01.895-07:00"The point is that NDEs appear to happen to p...<i>"The point is that NDEs appear to happen to people who don't believe already. "</i><br /><br />Correlation is not causation.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31252319357119471082013-12-23T18:28:53.682-07:002013-12-23T18:28:53.682-07:00The point is that NDEs appear to happen to people ...The point is that NDEs appear to happen to people who don't believe already. <br />Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70423253151814509122013-12-22T15:37:00.354-07:002013-12-22T15:37:00.354-07:00Evidence of what? That Ayers had an NDE? But then ...<i>Evidence of what? That Ayers had an NDE? But then everyone who experiences an NDE can be said to have had an NDE. An NDE is not a death. </i><br /><br />Precisely so, Paps. The observant among you will have noticed that not a single, solitary person has answered my reasonable question, which let me remind you, was to ask what Victor's point was. A man doesn't die and somehow his experience of what happened when he didn't die is supposed to tell us....something. The implication is that it can tell us something about what happens when we do die, but you will search the theist posts in vain to find any hint of what inferences we are supposed to draw from it. And if they had an answer they would have put it forward by now.<br /><br />What happens when someone doesn't die is no evidence at all of what happens when you do die. <br /><br />Anyway, "bored now" as Vampire Willow used to say.<br /><br />Have a good Xmas & I'll be back in the New Year, when no doubt all the wannabe apologists from DI will have made it their New Year resolution to argue instead of pick fights. LOL! Not holding my breath, or the result would be more than just an NDE.franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88911897776695448272013-12-22T14:25:40.867-07:002013-12-22T14:25:40.867-07:00suffusionsuffusionPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33154027021798833332013-12-22T06:32:23.160-07:002013-12-22T06:32:23.160-07:00" It's pretty simple: Ayer's NDE is e...<i>" It's pretty simple: Ayer's NDE is evidence. Is it compelling? That's another question. But it's evidence. Why is it so hard to admit that?"</i><br /><br />Evidence of what? That Ayers had an NDE? But then everyone who experiences an NDE can be said to have had an NDE. An NDE is not a death. The only rational, commonsense and logical recall of that experience is an hallucination, precipitated by either oxygen deprivation or carbon dioxide suffution or a combination of both. It is both unnecessary and silly to go beyond that pontificating on some imagined weirdoworld filled with floating phantasmagoria. It really does go beyond a joke when supposedly intelligent people doggedly persist in this netherworld nonsense. Do do so is a mark of perpetuated ignorance.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56531296226447797062013-12-21T21:52:46.134-07:002013-12-21T21:52:46.134-07:00Frances,
That is a personal attack. You have not ...Frances,<br /><br /><i>That is a personal attack. You have not actually presented any argument against my position.</i><br /><br />No, it's not a personal attack. It's an attack on your argument - it is little more than yammering.<br /><br />And I haven't 'presented an argument against your position' because, as I illustrated, there's not much there to argue against. It was a bald assertion with little to support it. I said as much.<br /><br /><i>I could play that game, if I wanted. I could have opened this reply by saying "Crude, your posts are so full of shit, you should just cut out the middleman and send them straight down the toilet." Do you see how silly this way of arguing is?</i><br /><br />What I see as silly is having to pretend that your 'arguments' have merit when they don't. Likewise, the comparison is nonsense, since I pointed out that your argument was weak - it was little more than a presupposition that we all agreed that NDEs are just 'a lack of brain oxygen.'<br /><br />Now, I never said I was polite. In fact, I'm not - when people argue poorly and behave poorly, I don't feel the need to treat them with respect. Notice: I treat various atheists with respect, because they're sincere, civil, and they reject Cult of Gnu antics. Got a problem with that? Consider ditching the cult.<br /><br /><i>Show don't tell, Crude. If you show, if you really show, then you don't need to tell. </i><br /><br />I already have, Frances. See, what you should really consider doing instead of complaining and whining is actually, you know, paying attention to valid criticisms. If you say something weak and unsupported and another person points it out, whimpering about how they haven't provided a compelling argument for the position you're attacking is not the proper response. As I said: when I point out the flaws in your arguments, I'm doing you a favor.<br /><br />Now, you can certainly continue to ignore what I point out, or - in other engagements - my arguments, and continue to hope you can get by simply by complaining and pouting. Your call. But I'll still point out when your comments fall short and your arguments fail. That's my call.<br /><br /><i>I don't have any problem with admitting that there can be evidence for a view I don't accept myself. In fact, I'd like to know what your evidence is for saying otherwise. I don't see in the story about Ayer's NDE any evidence for life after death. </i><br /><br />Thanks for illustrating your problems, Frances. If someone has what seems to them at the time to be a convincing experience of the sort they'd expect to have if (there were life after death / if theism were true), that's evidence. It doesn't mean those things are now true, but evidence it is. Even the mere existence of an alternate explanation doesn't suffice to remove it as evidence, or else you wouldn't have evidence you even wrote these posts - alternate explanations are available.<br /><br />It's pretty simple: Ayer's NDE is evidence. Is it compelling? That's another question. But it's evidence. Why is it so hard to admit that?<br /><br /><i>More chest-thumping. Those who wish to assess the truth of his claims are advised to check out Crude's previous posts for themselves.</i><br /><br />I advise them to do exactly that. It's funny, Frances - you love to use this line, but I endorse checking out my past posts, and your past exchanges, happily. I even go out of the way to hold them up on my blog to illustrate points about Cult of Gnu atheist thinking. Based on the reactions I've seen so far - including from atheists - the consensus is pretty much what I told you in the past: you're not nearly as good at reasoning as you want to believe you are.<br /><br />As the resident liar and plagiarist would say - boom. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8821537700278178582013-12-21T06:35:19.166-07:002013-12-21T06:35:19.166-07:00" More chest-thumping. Those who wish to asse...<i>" More chest-thumping. Those who wish to assess the truth of his claims are advised to check out Crude's previous posts for themselves.</i>"<br /><br />BOOM!)Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13538589021046268192013-12-21T06:03:48.842-07:002013-12-21T06:03:48.842-07:00When do I attack you personally?
Well, let's...<i>When do I attack you personally? </i><br /><br />Well, let's see:<br /><i>Just because I'm skeptical of NDEs doesn't mean someone waltzing in and yammering 'oh I bet it was because oxygen' is making a reasonable criticism.</i><br /><br />That is a personal attack. You have not actually presented any argument against my position. All your comment amounts to is an unsupported assertion that I am not being reasonable. That's obviously a bit thin, so you pad it out by using imagery like"waltzing"& "yammering" which are intended as insults. So now, instead of bare unsupported assertion, yay! Result! You have bare unsupported assertion <i> with insults thrown in!</i> Well done Crude. <br /><br />I could play that game, if I wanted. I could have opened this reply by saying "Crude, your posts are so full of shit, you should just cut out the middleman and send them straight down the toilet." Do you see how silly this way of arguing is?<br /><br /><i>I attack your arguments and claims. You should be thanking me - they're rotten</i><br /><br />Show don't tell, Crude. If you show, if you really show, then you don't <i>need</i> to tell. Leave your arguments to speak for themselves. Saying "That was a terribly good point I made just now! See how clever I am! See how I have annihilated my opponent!" is what lawyers call a "self-serving statement". Self-serving statements are not admitted in evidence because they are worthless. <br /><br />I don't have any problem with admitting that there can be evidence for a view I don't accept myself. In fact, I'd like to know what your evidence is for saying otherwise. I don't see in the story about Ayer's NDE any evidence for life after death. If you think it constitutes evidence, in what way do you say it evidences it? <br /><br /><i>No, I argue plenty. I think the big difference between us is that I argue and point out flaws in your reasoning, and I'm willing to go into detail. You avoid details at all costs and prefer to speak in terms of broad generalizations and unwarranted assumptions.</i><br /><br />More chest-thumping. Those who wish to assess the truth of his claims are advised to check out Crude's previous posts for themselves.<br />franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42303441966230648072013-12-21T04:07:42.947-07:002013-12-21T04:07:42.947-07:00"Positivism still fails the test of itself so...<i>"Positivism still fails the test of itself so how can we by it's own standards know it to be true?"</i><br /><br />Oh dear. In this age of illogical positivism, no one wants to sound negative, right Ben?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78354691207632089092013-12-20T21:26:34.112-07:002013-12-20T21:26:34.112-07:00Frances,
And do your posts have any aim other tha...Frances,<br /><br /><i>And do your posts have any aim other than to attack me personally?</i><br /><br />When do I attack you personally? I attack your arguments and claims. You should be thanking me - they're rotten. Make better ones. Criticism will help in that respect.<br /><br /><i>Do you think that Ayer's story is evidence of life after death or not? What position is it that you are trying to defend vis a vis this particular story? If any?</i><br /><br />Some evidence, sure. That's another problem you have - you seem unwilling to admit that there can be evidence for a view you don't ultimately accept for yourself. I can accept that there is evidence for say... Islam, without committing myself to believing Islam is true. You need to learn this.<br /><br />What I am criticizing is your flippant remark of 'Well of course we all know this had to be the product of low oxygen in the brain or the like', which was A) presumptive, and B) weak. Someone claims to have had an experience of type X and you don't believe in experience X so you rush to 'mental fluke'. It's not impressive.<br /><br /><i>The big difference between us is that I want to argue, whereas you only want to quarrel.</i><br /><br />No, I argue plenty. I think the big difference between us is that I argue and point out flaws in your reasoning, and I'm willing to go into detail. You avoid details at all costs and prefer to speak in terms of broad generalizations and unwarranted assumptions.<br /><br /><i>PS - Paps was being ironic.</i><br /><br />Or stupid. Trust me, Frances, you don't want to appeal to his track record on this one.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48523642820789157722013-12-20T05:30:08.389-07:002013-12-20T05:30:08.389-07:00Ben,
See what?Ben,<br /><br />See what?franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25673647478247965222013-12-20T01:49:02.366-07:002013-12-20T01:49:02.366-07:00>The optimal approach is, consistent, testable,...>The optimal approach is, consistent, testable, verifiable evidence, first; interpretation of data and conclusion second.<br /><br />Positivism still fails the test of itself so how can we by it's own standards know it to be true?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5530479061944036012013-12-20T01:46:18.917-07:002013-12-20T01:46:18.917-07:00I just find it interesting that even if you see yo...I just find it interesting that even if you see you don't believe.<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87586264156992013962013-12-19T06:34:33.788-07:002013-12-19T06:34:33.788-07:00Crude,
You have got completely the wrong end of t...Crude,<br /><br />You have got completely the wrong end of the stick. <br /><br />"experience which presumably we all agree was just the product of his oxygen starved brain" -my reference to its being "just this one" referred to the agreement, not the experience. <br /><br />And do your posts have any aim other than to attack me personally? Do you think that Ayer's story is evidence of life after death or not? What position is it that you are trying to defend vis a vis this particular story? If any?<br /><br />The big difference between us is that I want to argue, whereas you only want to quarrel.<br /><br />PS - Paps was being ironic.franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29148438697121026242013-12-19T06:21:40.361-07:002013-12-19T06:21:40.361-07:00PapaL: "Be careful with your response, France...PapaL: <i>"Be careful with your response, Frances. You might well be about to throw Skep and me under a bus, again, as we apparently are want to do with each other."</i><br /><br />Crude: <i>"Yeah, Frances. You're on Team Atheist, don't you know? Free thinking means marching ......."</i><br /><br />So bound by his own anxieties he fails to recognise the parody of his own making, although I have to acknowledge it was Karl who actually framed the bus bit. Crude nonetheless, has uttered similar responses to either frances, Skep or me inadvertently blowing up the others' arguments or some such nonsense. <br /><br />But I try hard not to 'put' Crude down. That's just negative. Oh no. I have a much more positive strategy. I try very hard to <a href="http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/send%20him%20up!" rel="nofollow">'send him up'</a>. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76406295368456323772013-12-19T05:30:49.892-07:002013-12-19T05:30:49.892-07:00"revealing yourself to be completely pig igno..."revealing yourself to be completely pig ignorant about whatever subject you're speaking with authority about"<br /><br />When it comes to science, I'm always ready to point out your misguided attempts to sound like you know what you're talking about. It is your own ignorance that keeps you from understanding just how shallow your understanding is. As for marching in lockstep, we all know how you like to project all the worst characteristics of religion onto the rest of the world.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35961446113184380162013-12-18T23:30:12.810-07:002013-12-18T23:30:12.810-07:00There is no mystery about "religious experien...<i>There is no mystery about "religious experiences". They clearly result from various physical conditions, and can be induced fairly reliably. </i><br /><br />Skep, considering you can't go a thread without revealing yourself to be completely pig ignorant about whatever subject you're speaking with authority about, let's just fast forward to the part where you start babbling about how everyone's misunderstanding you and you didn't mean to quote that crazy Illuminati conspiracy buff to support your NDE points, but you think his science is pretty solid anyway. ;)<br /><br /><i>Be careful with your response, Frances. You might well be about to throw Skep and me under a bus, again, as we apparently are want to do with each other.</i><br /><br />Yeah, Frances. You're on Team Atheist, don't you know? Free thinking means marching in lockstep and making sure you have the same story as all the other atheists, so none of you feel left out of the group. That's what skepticism and independent thinking means!Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41110406838164486352013-12-18T23:00:15.904-07:002013-12-18T23:00:15.904-07:00"Just because I'm skeptical of NDEs doesn..."Just because I'm skeptical of NDEs doesn't mean someone waltzing in and yammering 'oh I bet it was because oxygen' is making a reasonable criticism. "<br /><br />There is no mystery about "religious experiences". They clearly result from various physical conditions, and can be induced fairly reliably. The interesting thing about these experiences is that they tend to be consistent with the subject's notions of God and heaven, so people who have very different conceptions of God have different religious experiences. There's powerful evidence that these experiences are simply manufactured by the brain.<br /><br />Incidentally, even atheists have some kind of conception of what God would be like if it existed. They too can have one of these experiences, and sometimes it fools them into believing, even as it serves as confirmation for theists.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14888746255429539532013-12-18T18:50:39.627-07:002013-12-18T18:50:39.627-07:00Be careful with your response, Frances. You might ...Be careful with your response, Frances. You might well be about to throw Skep and me under a bus, again, as we apparently are want to do with each other. What's more, I hate that view. It brings not so happy memories of having to look to the heavens for answers.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90408031742858759932013-12-18T18:05:22.059-07:002013-12-18T18:05:22.059-07:00Frances,
I wasn't talking about NDEs in gener...Frances,<br /><br /><i>I wasn't talking about NDEs in general. Just this particular one.</i><br /><br />I suppose my criticism about Cultists of Gnu lacking oxygen in the brain gains more ground if I say I don't believe it's true of Gnus in general - just the ones in this thread.<br /><br /><i> But if you think that Ayer's experience of meeting 2 beings in charge of the universe</i><br /><br />Are you getting enough oxygen, Frances? Remember what I said:<br /><br />"And I'm skeptical of them myself."<br /><br />Just because I'm skeptical of NDEs doesn't mean someone waltzing in and yammering 'oh I bet it was because oxygen' is making a reasonable criticism. Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4216395494166301672013-12-18T17:21:30.292-07:002013-12-18T17:21:30.292-07:00"I find it interesting a blind non-rational U...<i>"I find it interesting a blind non-rational Universe "conspires" to make humans believe they live on after death.<br />That is a mega-coincidence if you ask me."</i><br /><br />We know about hallucinations big time. I suspect an NDE, the operative descriptor being 'near death' and this side of the existential event horizon rather than death itself, is a state about which it is reasonable to infer either a condition of oxygen-deprived or carbon dioxide-rich state is well within bounds of an explanation for induced hallucination.<br /><br />Punting right through that event horizon is sheer speculation of the deeply religiously-inspired kind, one for which we rightly assume a negative. The optimal approach is, consistent, testable, verifiable evidence, first; interpretation of data and conclusion second.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33971342780001453032013-12-18T15:17:18.891-07:002013-12-18T15:17:18.891-07:00I find it interesting a blind non-rational Univers...I find it interesting a blind non-rational Universe "conspires" to make humans believe they live on after death.<br /><br />That is a mega-coincidence if you ask me. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35033437187266502242013-12-18T14:12:28.945-07:002013-12-18T14:12:28.945-07:00crude,
No, I don't think an oxygen starved br...crude,<br /><br /><i>No, I don't think an oxygen starved brain suffices to explain NDEs. And I'm skeptical of them myself.</i><br /><br />I wasn't talking about NDEs in general. Just this particular one. But if you think that Ayer's experience of meeting 2 beings in charge of the universe and trying to impress them with his grandfather's fob watch, is some form of real event, then fine. That's what you think. It's always interesting to know what people think.franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9649274163091624752013-12-18T11:36:29.487-07:002013-12-18T11:36:29.487-07:00which presumably we all agree was just the product...<i>which presumably we all agree was just the product of his oxygen starved brain</i><br /><br />No, I don't think an oxygen starved brain suffices to explain NDEs. And I'm skeptical of them myself.<br /><br />Oxygen-starved brains are decent explanations of Gnu atheism, I grant you.<br /><br /><i>I would be interested To see more discussion on the emotional underpinning of atheism - there is likely to be some as we are emotional beings.</i><br /><br />I think it's great that the first response to this is an immediate, reactionary change of the subject to anything BUT the emotional underpinnings of atheism.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com