-->
@n8nrgmi
You would be surprised. Out-of-body experiences, meeting God, etc.
atheists can't meet their burden of proof - miracles
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you are engaged in a black swan fallacy right now in regards to an argument that I have not actually made but us in fact a straw man and that is over and above the confirmation bias, survivors bias, the sharpshooter fallacy and the argument from incredulity that are baked into your positive claim.
Again the burden of proof is yours.
-->
@n8nrgmi
From "Fingerprints of God" by Barbara Hagarty
But for every study suggesting that prayer heals a person’s body, there is another one showing that prayer has no effect — or even makes you worse. Does prayer help people with heart problems in a coronary care unit? Reasearchers at the Mayo Clinic found no effect. Does it benefit people who needed to clear their arteries using angioplasty? Not according to researchers at Duke. In another study, prayer did not ease the plight of those on kidney dialysis machines. And don’t even mention skin warts: Researchers found that people who received prayer saw the number of warts actually increase slightly, compared with those who received no prayer.
The most famous study, and probably the most damaging for advocates of healing prayer, was conducted by Harvard researcher Herbert Benson in 2006. He looked at the recovery rates of patients undergoing cardiac bypass surgery. Those patients who knew they were receiving prayer actually did worse than those who did not know they were receiving prayer. One possible explanation was that the people who knew they were getting prayer may have thought, “Oh my goodness, they’re praying for me — I must be really sick,” and there was a psychological backlash. Perhaps. But in the end, there is no conclusive evidence from double-blind, randomized studies that suggests that intercessory prayer works.
-->
@Reece101
You would be surprised. Out-of-body experiences, meeting God, etc.
These experiences, whatever they are, necessarily must be anecdotal.
-->
@secularmerlin
These experiences, whatever they are, necessarily must be anecdotal.
Not to mention all perception is based in chemical processes which we share in common.
-->
@Reece101
These experiences, whatever they are, necessarily must be anecdotal.Not to mention all perception is based in chemical processes which we share in common.
Well stated.
-->
@Reece101
-->
@Reece101
i still maintain that you can't show elaborate afterlife stories from a drug like occur with NDEs. you can show similiaries, only.
-->
@secularmerlin
it looks like u r on a hunting expedition and like to throw around fallacy buzzwords that have no basis in reality. can you specifically state where i committed a fallacy?
-->
@n8nrgmi
See ‘SPIRITUAL SCIENCE’ IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS
Response to Steve Taylor
FRANK VISSER
Response to Steve Taylor
FRANK VISSER
-->
@n8nrgmi
So you are engaged in a black swan fallacy (that because you know of no seemingly impossible events happening to atheists that such events must not happen) right now in regards to an argument that I have not actually made but us in fact a straw man (I am not arguing that anything has happened to any particular atheist) and that is over and above the confirmation bias (looking for evidence of a thing may result in a false positive), survivors bias (counting instances of praying theists who survived some illness as giving more weight to your argument than praying theists who did not survive some illness give weight to some other conclusion), the sharpshooter fallacy (beginning with a specific conclusion and "aiming" all available evidence at that conclusion even if the evidence is inconclusive or might support other hypotheses) and the argument from incredulity (I personally cannot think of a better explanation therefore my undemonstrated explanation) that are baked into your positive claim.
-->
@n8nrgmi
optic nerves dont just heal themselves.
Then stem cells must not exist.
an incurable skin disease
according to whom? incurable by what standard?
Don't get me wrong. I believe miracles happen. But miracles do not occur for the purpose of convincing faithless people to have faith; otherwise, their lives would change radically, and seldom do they. They occur for the faithful to support and sustain their existing faith, strengthening it if weak, increasing it if already strong.
-->
@n8nrgmi
As I suggest in Spiritual Science, there is a powerful argument in favor of the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe rather than just produced by the human brain. As a result, there are some circumstances in which consciousness can continue independently of the brain.
--The last sentence of that article you linked. It’s an opinion piece. The author didn’t do studies.
Steve Taylor (the author) is a transpersonal psychologist, which mixes spirituality and science.
Science doesn’t work from conclusions.
-->
@Reece101
his argument was sound, though. he pointed out that there are similarities with NDE and drugs, but there are even bigger dissimiliarities.
again, drugs dont cause elaborate afterlife stories like NDEs do.
-->
@fauxlaw
jesus said if you dont want to believe him for what he says, then you should believe him for the signs and wonders that he does. ie, miracles.
-->
@n8nrgmi
his argument was sound, though. he pointed out that there are similarities with NDE and drugs, but there are even bigger dissimiliarities.again, drugs dont cause elaborate afterlife stories like NDEs do.
Can you link me a study he referred to?
-->
@secularmerlin
you are confusing opinions that i have with firm conclusions that you think i have.
here is an example.
"that because you know of no seemingly impossible events happening to atheists that such events must not happen"
i didn't say they dont have happen as a fact. that would be a fallacy. i admit i could be wrong. i always am open to be shown i'm wrong and atheists never can pass the mustard. it's possible and rational to have my opinion. we see empirically that things science says are impossible, happen with praying theists. i believe they are miracles, you think it's proof that they weren't impossible things to begin with. my opinions are very much heavy on science. that's why the catholic church has the saint making machine, to prove miracles despite that best skeptics... because we are heavy in science.
if we were getting into calling unscientific opinions as fallacies, then you would be the prime suspect.
unlike you, i'm not going to say you commit a bunch of fallacies other than calling my arguments fallacies.... i can point out you have stupid opinions without saying you committed a fallacy.
-->
@n8nrgmi
He also states ‘As I describe in my new book, spiritual science...’
This guy’s a fraud.
-->
@Reece101
"DMT Models the Near-Death Experience" by a team of UK researchers associated with the Psychedelic Research Group at Imperial College London
i'll let you do the google work
that's the study that he critiqued.
-->
@n8nrgmi
i didn't say they dont have happen as a fact. that would be a fallacy. i admit i could be wrong. i always am open to be shown i'm wrong and atheists never can pass the mustard.
What are your actual criteria for "passing the mustard"?
Also you have not adequately defined miracles in so much as I would be able to differentiate them from events which are merely very unlikely. What even is a miracle?
-->
@Reece101
look at his arguments, not who he is.
-->
@secularmerlin
i'm not sure why you are making this complicated. atheists always do that, pointlessless, in these debates. a miracle is when something occurs that is impossible according to science. the doctors said optic nerve damage is irreversible. yet it was reversed. i call it a miracle. you say it was possible all along. not sure what your line of questioning has to do with anything except to be obtuse.
-->
@n8nrgmi
The article pretty much starts off with...
”Also, we found significant relationships between the NDE scores and DMT-induced ego-dissolution and mystical-type experiences, as well as a significant association between NDE scores and baseline trait ‘absorption’ and delusional ideation measured at baseline. Furthermore, we found a significant overlap in nearly all of the NDE phenomenological features when comparing DMT-induced NDEs with a matched group of ‘actual’ NDE experiencers. These results reveal a striking similarity between these states that warrants further investigation.”
Would you care to read?
-->
@n8nrgmi
something occurs that is impossible according to science.
Science merely describes what is. The moment we observe an event it is by definition possible.
Nothing impossible happens definitionally. I think your definition needs work.
-->
@Reece101
and the article i posted showed that there were dissimiliarities that were even greater between drugs and NDEs.
can you show me one example where there's an elaborate afterlife story from a drug? not just overlaps, but an elaborate narrative.
-->
@n8nrgmi
I can tell you my own if you want.
-->
@Reece101
you mean, you took some drugs and you basically experienced an afterlife narrative?
-->
@n8nrgmi
I’m just making a point. I haven’t actually had a NDE or psychedelic induced one. But there’s plenty of stories out there which go into detail.
-->
@Reece101
i think u r confusing NDE like themes, and afterlife narratives. one of the key distinguishing points that article i cited had, was that many afterlife themes were absent with drugs. maybe you can say a dude thought he met God, but that's not an elaborate afterlife story.
-->
@n8nrgmi
drugs can have some similarities, but no one hallucinates elaborate afterlife stories from drugs.
May I introduce you to shamanism...