No, the Trinitarian (that is, Mainline Christian) stance has been perfectly clear since at least Athanasius of Alexandria. "Neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance". God the Father is a distinct Personage (consciousness) from Jesus.
"Thus transpersonal events may be possible within the new physics, if subatomic events are involved in consciousness. Ketamine may be a drug which 're-tunes' the brain to allow awareness to enter the quantum sea. If this is indeed the case, then we may have to regard some of the reports of eternity, infinity, multiple universes and linkage with other beings as phenomena demanding a more sophisticated explanation than a brief dismissal as 'hallucinations and mental illness' requiring no further consideration."
So, he rejects your position. Good show. I'll wait for better.
Though, really, in this particular case, there is also the issue of prioritization. You probably haven't collected much of interest yet in your lifetime. You still have some time. Get moving.
You simply dismiss it as "self-delusion", and have never tested it. You have nothing to do even with science, the only leg you're standing on.
I don't even know what you're talking about with your confused "thoughts" about "men in power" and "religion" as if they mean the same thing, or don't, or... oh, nevermind. Lazy nonsense categorization on your part, as expected by your level of coherence so far.
No, they aren't "constantly being modified to yield more power". This claim doesn't even make sense as a present reality. Did you mean to make another sloppy generalization of all religions to early Catholicism here? Otherwise, you have zero evidence of that. But apparently you need neither evidence nor even sensible claims for -your- preferences.
And no, I am not saying they were wrong. I would say there is more to know. And there will be more to know in the future. That's life, for every field of knowledge and activity.
Eh, I'll do just fine with my day job writing software, which I hear is a difficult job to do and get paid well for if crazy.
But, no, you've offered nothing but nonsense here and knee-jerk reactions of someone almost totally ignorant of every aspect of all relevant fields. Eh, I'll write a shell script to thoroughly emulate you, there are plenty of reference points, as your fellow atheists are so banal and plagiarizing your pseudo-thoughts from each other, it'll be trivial to code up your equivalent. Even more time savings.
Have you tested it? Many have, and have had their test validated. I suggest the test of "asking".
Overall, though, this has been thoroughly analyzed by the Logical Positivism movement, as an attempt to bring all knowledge and experience under a scientific methodology and paradigm. It utterly failed, in the end. Existence is not like that.
Either Bach is a better composer than Beethoven, or Beethoven is a better composer than Bach. Neither is testable or provable scientifically. And in fact, -most- of human domains of thought are like this. I'd encourage yourself to avoid the self-imposed brain damage of thinking in the "it's scientific, or it is not real" false dichotomy. It has been formally and thoroughly disproven.
While I understand your rejection of attempting to create influence over people with your post attempting to create influence over people, specifically me for now, I think upon investigation you'd find the motivations much broader than you suppose--particularly among the people who had no personal gain (i.e. monks), or negative personal gain (i.e. martyrs to Rome). I'll happily place that up against Tyson's self-aggrandizement or any other populist atheist intellectual (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) in terms of what they sacrificed for their beliefs, that is, nothing. Lots of book sales, though.
That the religion "didn't exist" hardly matters, as it isn't an issue of existence, but rather of when revealed to humans. God not being understood is not equivalent to God not existing, for any time span of your choosing.
Anyway, I have no sense that your automatic bias will be changing any time soon. Good luck with failing with your personal re-enactment of Logical Positivism later, rather than sooner.
That's what you have to believe as a materialist, sure.
It's just that you're wrong.
And yes, it is astonishing that one has these experiences during brain failure, and thinking it's causally explained by cultural expectations is a complete failure to even attempt to explain it. Particularly given the experiences are had even by those rejecting cultural religious notions or not having been exposed to them.
Again, try reading the study. You'll be in a much better position to win your argument and your goal of inevitable elimination by natural selection. I propose we save time and end the conversation here, since that outcome for you works fine for me as well.
Reading the actual study would give you not just a disingenuous handwaving "clue", but actual knowledge. For the actual states at hand--including conscious perception during EEG flat-line.
"Near" is a broad term that is inclusive of clinical death.
In any case, the drugs issue simply a red-herring, that you perceived something under the influence of a drug does not mean you perceived it correctly, and equivalently doesn't mean you -didn't- perceive it correctly. Furthermore, you are still left with the fact that such a particular distinctive set of experiences is what is perceived "by happenstance" by a failing brain, and that a few out of thousands of chemicals can create phenomena broadly like NDE's, with nowhere near the consistent correlation of what the hallucinations from the drugs are, does not change that. That -these particular- phenomena indicated by religion are 'baked into" our neurology is phenomenally low odds by happenstance.
It's as if you are arguing against gravity by countering the assertion that a dropped object falls, with throwing the object down forcefully and considering that to negate the evidence of gravity. It doesn't. That in the brain's natural state, the event of death so consistently produces the experiential phenomena predicted by theology, is remarkable, regardless of whether those phenomena can be simulated to some degree by other means. And those "other means", as many researchers and practitioners regarding psychoactives have noted, do not negate a spiritual dimension. That one experiences something spiritual does not call for the conclusion that experience means one didn't experience something spiritual. Even if one is a rabid materialist.
Of course it is related. The theology predicts one will experience what one does indeed experience, with high correlation. Hypothesis proposed, then tested, and validated by results, if you prefer a more scientific-paradigm rendering.
Those experiences as documented and peer-reviewed being well beyond in content what one could plausibly "just happen to happen" as a consistent consequence of brain failure from a naturalistic perspective--including meeting and interacting extensively with deceased relatives.
One may as well claim shorting out your computer will create the interactive experience of playing a pre-release Doom 6.
If you disagree, however, it doesn't matter regarding the issue at hand. An alternate explanation for evidence does not alter its status as evidence for the thing it is clearly evidence of. At most, the evidence then becomes evidence for multiple possibilities. I am not claiming "proof", nor thereby forced-converting you due to the fact you could not choose to not accept proof without going to a mental hospital.
No, Mormons propose that God has (by default) a physical human-like body, and that's what "image" means. Mainline Christianity has never held such a restrictive and unimaginative notion of what "in one's image" means.
Most people, hearing that, say, Prince's "1999" was a work "in his image" would have no difficulty understanding what was conveyed. When talking about religion, some seem to choose to lose intelligence rapidly.
There you go. Now you can stop saying there is no evidence. In all likelihood, you knew already there was -evidence-, and were perfectly clear about this in your own mind while you were lying. It's hard to miss the fact that between people contemporaries of Jesus dying rather than recant their experiences (yes, persecution is historical fact), improbabilities of prophecy fulfillment, even if we discard 90% up front as possibly "self fulfilling" or on the basis of other objections, and modern testimony of experiences, there is unquestionably -evidence-.
Yes, I know you'll probably do the standard thing here and conflate "evidence" with "proof" or redefine "evidence" to mean "evidence that satisfies me personally, which I will never allow it to".
Evidence doesn't mean either. Evidence means evidence, and you were just provided with it. Try to avoid the compulsion to simply continue lying about it.
Yes, your "counterpoint" of repeated suggestions that I kill myself was simply childish rhetoric appropriate to someone with no logical reasoning capabilities at all.
So, again, is clear there is "Climate Change". That is a simple tautology. Apparently you're hoping that I'm arguing against that so that your stock responses can be shoehorned into the question.
I'm not in any way suggesting the climate doesn't change. That, in itself, is uselessly self-evident. The serious discussion starts at the point of what the trade-offs in terms of action given a -baseline- of expectation and what is therefore a "problem", and what enforced modification of human behavior is warranted on the basis of variation from that -baseline-.
I am proposing you have no baseline. You literally have nothing to offer beyond "Climate Change bad". I propose your pseudo-counterpoint is full demonstration you neither have anything, nor have the personal capacity to develop anything.
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
If you prefer, same temperature, 2F change, but it -would have been- 3F mitigated by a -1F attributable to non-anthropogenic variation.
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
And yes, this was very much a "conspiracy" in the political sense, and absolutely factually so.
1. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was anthropogenic in origin.
2. March was the highest average on record by 2F, 1F of which was anthropogenic, and 1F was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
3. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
What modifications of human industrial/consumption/energy behavior would you recommend for each of these cases, given that which is actually the case is not determinable? Implicit in this is the question of what the "right temperature" would be.
As an avid Facebook user, I've been helped to see that the only satisfactory political resolution to the current marriage and anti-discrimination conflicts, is that 50% of straight males be required to marry gay males. This will naturally result in the optimal outcome for all involved, eliminating all personal discrimination within the core institution of marriage--and also discriminatory uneven demographic representation, even more important there than in the workplace.
Er, "cisgendered" belongs in there somewhere, I think.
"And so I wondered, if you also would conclude that because humans die all the time, and this is seen as natural, we shouldn't care if humans die because of human involvement."
Of course we should care. And then we should do something about it that has more than zero possibility of changing that outcome.
I suggest theism.
As for lunch, by what moral principle do you declare that the animal in your hamburger (substitute non-vegetarian dish of your choice) has no right to exist, but you do? I know the answer from my worldview. Do you have some basis for your hominid species being "special", from yours?
Scientists say it's my fault, personally and specifically?
Go ahead and cite that.
As for the rest, you don't really need to understand it, all that needs to happen is for time to pass. Try making some personal projections from time's tendency to reliably do that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Trinitarian (that is, Mainline Christian) stance has been perfectly clear since at least Athanasius of Alexandria. "Neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance". God the Father is a distinct Personage (consciousness) from Jesus.
You mean him?
"Thus transpersonal events may be possible within the new physics, if subatomic events are involved in consciousness. Ketamine may be a drug which 're-tunes' the brain to allow awareness to enter the quantum sea. If this is indeed the case, then we may have to regard some of the reports of eternity, infinity, multiple universes and linkage with other beings as phenomena demanding a more sophisticated explanation than a brief dismissal as 'hallucinations and mental illness' requiring no further consideration."
So, he rejects your position. Good show. I'll wait for better.
No real trick. I wait, I win. Automatically. According to both of us.
Refer to the study for the facts of the matter. Basing your argument on what is demonstrably not the case neither works scientifically nor logically.
Don't you have someone to call?
Find me an NDE study featuring extensive recountings of seeing bunnies post-death, across a broad demographic, quantified, and peer-reviewed.
Stop being useless by your painfully bad attempts to think. Again, get collecting with your little time left. It doesn't require much brainpower.
Do that, and eventually, I'll show you the Easter egg--Easter egg.
People who completely reject a domain of inquiry come up with bad tests for it, what a surprise.
Try this.
Though, really, in this particular case, there is also the issue of prioritization. You probably haven't collected much of interest yet in your lifetime. You still have some time. Get moving.
You simply dismiss it as "self-delusion", and have never tested it. You have nothing to do even with science, the only leg you're standing on.
I don't even know what you're talking about with your confused "thoughts" about "men in power" and "religion" as if they mean the same thing, or don't, or... oh, nevermind. Lazy nonsense categorization on your part, as expected by your level of coherence so far.
No, they aren't "constantly being modified to yield more power". This claim doesn't even make sense as a present reality. Did you mean to make another sloppy generalization of all religions to early Catholicism here? Otherwise, you have zero evidence of that. But apparently you need neither evidence nor even sensible claims for -your- preferences.
And no, I am not saying they were wrong. I would say there is more to know. And there will be more to know in the future. That's life, for every field of knowledge and activity.
Enough hominid trolling yet?
Eh, I'll do just fine with my day job writing software, which I hear is a difficult job to do and get paid well for if crazy.
But, no, you've offered nothing but nonsense here and knee-jerk reactions of someone almost totally ignorant of every aspect of all relevant fields. Eh, I'll write a shell script to thoroughly emulate you, there are plenty of reference points, as your fellow atheists are so banal and plagiarizing your pseudo-thoughts from each other, it'll be trivial to code up your equivalent. Even more time savings.
Have you tested it? Many have, and have had their test validated. I suggest the test of "asking".
Overall, though, this has been thoroughly analyzed by the Logical Positivism movement, as an attempt to bring all knowledge and experience under a scientific methodology and paradigm. It utterly failed, in the end. Existence is not like that.
Either Bach is a better composer than Beethoven, or Beethoven is a better composer than Bach. Neither is testable or provable scientifically. And in fact, -most- of human domains of thought are like this. I'd encourage yourself to avoid the self-imposed brain damage of thinking in the "it's scientific, or it is not real" false dichotomy. It has been formally and thoroughly disproven.
While I understand your rejection of attempting to create influence over people with your post attempting to create influence over people, specifically me for now, I think upon investigation you'd find the motivations much broader than you suppose--particularly among the people who had no personal gain (i.e. monks), or negative personal gain (i.e. martyrs to Rome). I'll happily place that up against Tyson's self-aggrandizement or any other populist atheist intellectual (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) in terms of what they sacrificed for their beliefs, that is, nothing. Lots of book sales, though.
That the religion "didn't exist" hardly matters, as it isn't an issue of existence, but rather of when revealed to humans. God not being understood is not equivalent to God not existing, for any time span of your choosing.
Anyway, I have no sense that your automatic bias will be changing any time soon. Good luck with failing with your personal re-enactment of Logical Positivism later, rather than sooner.
That's what you have to believe as a materialist, sure.
It's just that you're wrong.
And yes, it is astonishing that one has these experiences during brain failure, and thinking it's causally explained by cultural expectations is a complete failure to even attempt to explain it. Particularly given the experiences are had even by those rejecting cultural religious notions or not having been exposed to them.
Again, try reading the study. You'll be in a much better position to win your argument and your goal of inevitable elimination by natural selection. I propose we save time and end the conversation here, since that outcome for you works fine for me as well.
Really? All equivalently implausible? Either you are simply lying, or you have no actual specific knowledge of world religions.
I'll leave question that to you.
Reading the actual study would give you not just a disingenuous handwaving "clue", but actual knowledge. For the actual states at hand--including conscious perception during EEG flat-line.
"Near" is a broad term that is inclusive of clinical death.
In any case, the drugs issue simply a red-herring, that you perceived something under the influence of a drug does not mean you perceived it correctly, and equivalently doesn't mean you -didn't- perceive it correctly. Furthermore, you are still left with the fact that such a particular distinctive set of experiences is what is perceived "by happenstance" by a failing brain, and that a few out of thousands of chemicals can create phenomena broadly like NDE's, with nowhere near the consistent correlation of what the hallucinations from the drugs are, does not change that. That -these particular- phenomena indicated by religion are 'baked into" our neurology is phenomenally low odds by happenstance.
It's as if you are arguing against gravity by countering the assertion that a dropped object falls, with throwing the object down forcefully and considering that to negate the evidence of gravity. It doesn't. That in the brain's natural state, the event of death so consistently produces the experiential phenomena predicted by theology, is remarkable, regardless of whether those phenomena can be simulated to some degree by other means. And those "other means", as many researchers and practitioners regarding psychoactives have noted, do not negate a spiritual dimension. That one experiences something spiritual does not call for the conclusion that experience means one didn't experience something spiritual. Even if one is a rabid materialist.
So long as the drugs produce those effects while you're dead, sure.
Of course it is related. The theology predicts one will experience what one does indeed experience, with high correlation. Hypothesis proposed, then tested, and validated by results, if you prefer a more scientific-paradigm rendering.
Those experiences as documented and peer-reviewed being well beyond in content what one could plausibly "just happen to happen" as a consistent consequence of brain failure from a naturalistic perspective--including meeting and interacting extensively with deceased relatives.
One may as well claim shorting out your computer will create the interactive experience of playing a pre-release Doom 6.
If you disagree, however, it doesn't matter regarding the issue at hand. An alternate explanation for evidence does not alter its status as evidence for the thing it is clearly evidence of. At most, the evidence then becomes evidence for multiple possibilities. I am not claiming "proof", nor thereby forced-converting you due to the fact you could not choose to not accept proof without going to a mental hospital.
It is evidence, and you already knew that.
The parasitical attention and money benefits of attacking the one he and most of the world find most plausible, presumably.
No, Mormons propose that God has (by default) a physical human-like body, and that's what "image" means. Mainline Christianity has never held such a restrictive and unimaginative notion of what "in one's image" means.
Most people, hearing that, say, Prince's "1999" was a work "in his image" would have no difficulty understanding what was conveyed. When talking about religion, some seem to choose to lose intelligence rapidly.
Peer-reviewed evidence.
There you go. Now you can stop saying there is no evidence. In all likelihood, you knew already there was -evidence-, and were perfectly clear about this in your own mind while you were lying. It's hard to miss the fact that between people contemporaries of Jesus dying rather than recant their experiences (yes, persecution is historical fact), improbabilities of prophecy fulfillment, even if we discard 90% up front as possibly "self fulfilling" or on the basis of other objections, and modern testimony of experiences, there is unquestionably -evidence-.
Yes, I know you'll probably do the standard thing here and conflate "evidence" with "proof" or redefine "evidence" to mean "evidence that satisfies me personally, which I will never allow it to".
Evidence doesn't mean either. Evidence means evidence, and you were just provided with it. Try to avoid the compulsion to simply continue lying about it.
A simulation... for which there is precisely one hypothetical creator Tyson excludes.
Yes, your "counterpoint" of repeated suggestions that I kill myself was simply childish rhetoric appropriate to someone with no logical reasoning capabilities at all.
So, again, is clear there is "Climate Change". That is a simple tautology. Apparently you're hoping that I'm arguing against that so that your stock responses can be shoehorned into the question.
I'm not in any way suggesting the climate doesn't change. That, in itself, is uselessly self-evident. The serious discussion starts at the point of what the trade-offs in terms of action given a -baseline- of expectation and what is therefore a "problem", and what enforced modification of human behavior is warranted on the basis of variation from that -baseline-.
I am proposing you have no baseline. You literally have nothing to offer beyond "Climate Change bad". I propose your pseudo-counterpoint is full demonstration you neither have anything, nor have the personal capacity to develop anything.
So, next. Moving on.
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
If you prefer, same temperature, 2F change, but it -would have been- 3F mitigated by a -1F attributable to non-anthropogenic variation.
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
And yes, this was very much a "conspiracy" in the political sense, and absolutely factually so.
1. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was anthropogenic in origin.
2. March was the highest average on record by 2F, 1F of which was anthropogenic, and 1F was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
3. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
What modifications of human industrial/consumption/energy behavior would you recommend for each of these cases, given that which is actually the case is not determinable? Implicit in this is the question of what the "right temperature" would be.
(sig)
As an avid Facebook user, I've been helped to see that the only satisfactory political resolution to the current marriage and anti-discrimination conflicts, is that 50% of straight males be required to marry gay males. This will naturally result in the optimal outcome for all involved, eliminating all personal discrimination within the core institution of marriage--and also discriminatory uneven demographic representation, even more important there than in the workplace.
Er, "cisgendered" belongs in there somewhere, I think.
"And so I wondered, if you also would conclude that because humans die all the time, and this is seen as natural, we shouldn't care if humans die because of human involvement."
Of course we should care. And then we should do something about it that has more than zero possibility of changing that outcome.
I suggest theism.
As for lunch, by what moral principle do you declare that the animal in your hamburger (substitute non-vegetarian dish of your choice) has no right to exist, but you do? I know the answer from my worldview. Do you have some basis for your hominid species being "special", from yours?
Scientists say it's my fault, personally and specifically?
Go ahead and cite that.
As for the rest, you don't really need to understand it, all that needs to happen is for time to pass. Try making some personal projections from time's tendency to reliably do that.