Is there a hole inside you?

Author: Paul

Posts

Total: 105
#61
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It seems to me that you lack fundamental skills in logic and reasoning and in scientific methodology. 
Classic hypocrisy. There isn't a scientist on the planet who would agree with anything you're saying about people coming back from the dead. They understand the concept of dead tissue, where clearly you do not. They base their understanding on the biology and not just on the fact that 100% of people who died stay dead. Their bodies immediately begin to decay and will never work again.

For you to continuously invoke science only tends to destroy your argument, not mine.

#62
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You keep going back to the black swan error.
Again, the black swan story does not apply here and shows you don't understand the story at all. Strawman fallacy.

The fact is some people do claim that at least one person has come back from the dead.
Hopefully someday, you'll understand that claims aren't evidence of anything and that claims are made all the time that have no evidence. In fact, you are doing that right now in this thread, making claims that have no evidence.

To simply close your mind to this claim is prejudice, it is not scientific.
Yet, no scientist would ever take that clam seriously simply because they understand things about nature that you do not. It is YOU who is closing their mind to knowledge and understanding and are instead invoking magic.

You state dead people do not come back from the dead, and yet some people make a different claim.
Wrong, it is not my claim, it is common knowledge that people don't come back from the dead, science will support that with evidence. Those who make the claim in contrast to science are the ones who have to show the evidence and prove people come back from the dead. That would be you.

So, prove it.

Now one possibility is that they are insane or making it up or delusional.
Exactly. Now you're talking sense and are being reasonable and logical. Well done.

Another possibility is that they correct.
Yet, there is no evidence to support them. None. And, not only that, they have to show how dead tissue can come back to life. Of course, they can't.

A scientist may well start - and I would be surprised if they did not, with plenty of skepticism. After all, dead people don't normally come back from the dead.
Since scientists understand biology and the fact dead tissue cannot be reanimated,  no scientists would bother with such a ridiculous claim. Can you find any research on bringing people back from the dead? Anything at all?

So if a dead person did come back from the dead, it would certainly be something investigating.
But, there's nothing to investigate because no one has ever come back from the dead and scientists already understand biology and the fact dead tissue can't be reanimated for obvious reasons.

But you, no - you shut your eyes and simply repeat your mantra "all swans are white, all swans are white, all swans are white". Hence the question is not about continuing your prejudice but about examining the evidence and seeing where it leads.
But, there is no evidence to examine and there is no prejudice of people coming back from the dead. It's all about your ignorance of science, facts and evidence.
#63
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
The white swan example is well known because it is unusual.
TS is fallaciously invoking this story. Swans exist and the story is about their coloring, which is something that could easily be in error simply because the possibility and probability of different colored swans can be found.

Not so with people coming back from the dead as this is something entirely different considering what science understands about dead tissue.

TS is invoking a Strawman fallacy.


#64
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
All the swans europeans had seen for hundreds or thousands of years were white.  Hence 'All swans are white' seemed a safe bet.  Then, in 1697, black swans were discovered in australia!

All the corpses seen so far have stayed dead, but whose to say one won't re-animate tomorrow?   It's doesn't seem likely, but neither did finding a black swan.



#65
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
The problem is conflating things that violate the laws of nature with those that don't.

It's often been pointed out that men never dreamed of flying, yet now we have commercial airliners.

Flying doesn't violate any laws of nature, coming back from the dead does. Huge difference. Hence you can't compare the black swan story with people coming back from the dead.
#66
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Hi Keith,

I don't disagree with anything you said in principle in your post. Yet we are talking about people coming back from the dead currently verses people who have claimed to come back from the dead in history. Scientists, I imagine are correct in relation to the current generation - and this is in total accord with the NT. Nor am I suggesting or implying that it is something we need to expect to see today. I don't and I have no expectations about this. Nevertheless, this is quite different to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago. Jesus is also an unusual case which is very well known. The science I am talking about is not about physically getting Jesus into a laboratory and getting his dna into test-tube. Not only is that crazy talk but it is quite at odds with what I am discussing. 

History has produced lots of very unusual events which can never properly be investigated in a test tube. Yet,  scientific investigators examine the data they are able to collect and work towards conclusions. Christianity is a significant religion in the world. Is it true or false is hardly relevant for this investigation. Nevertheless, this significant religion commenced somehow and for particular reasons. I say the same thing for the JWs and for Islam. Investigating these things which commenced somehow - should investigate the claims and not just begin with a prejudice no matter how difficult the claim seems to be. To be perfectly honest, I find the theory of the big bang completely laughable. It does not sound plausible or even possible and really sounds more like atheist scientists grasping at straws - any straw to continue their denial of a divine creator. Yet, even with that I totally would think that I would not dismiss it in prejudice because I am more inclined towards truth than simply accepting things. I am of the view that Jesus was very unusual and his views ought not be dismissed. I certainly concur that people don't come back from the dead as a normal course of events. Yet, Jesus was not ordinary in any sense of the word. 

#67
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Goldtop
It seems to me that you lack fundamental skills in logic and reasoning and in scientific methodology. 
Classic hypocrisy. There isn't a scientist on the planet who would agree with anything you're saying about people coming back from the dead. They understand the concept of dead tissue, where clearly you do not. They base their understanding on the biology and not just on the fact that 100% of people who died stay dead. Their bodies immediately begin to decay and will never work again.

For you to continuously invoke science only tends to destroy your argument, not mine.

Well you are incorrect. I know many scientists who are of the view that Jesus did rise from the dead. And like me they are unafraid of asking the difficult questions. 

#68
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Sure, that would be their religious opinion, but wouldn't their professional opinion if they had any integrity.
#69
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The science I am talking about is not about physically getting Jesus into a laboratory and getting his dna into test-tube. Not only is that crazy talk but it is quite at odds with what I am discussing. 
Then, it probably isn't science you're talking about.

I find the theory of the big bang completely laughable. It does not sound plausible or even possible and really sounds more like atheist scientists grasping at straws
And all this time you berate me for not being scientific, yet here you are spewing anti-science rhetoric. Hypocrisy at its best.

their denial of a divine creator.
That's exactly the crux of your argument, you're upset because we don't believe in Jesus as our lord and savior. Nothing else matters.

I am more inclined towards truth than simply accepting things
That is the exact opposite of what you do. You accept people can come back from the dead. This is not in any way seeking truth but simply accepting something written centuries ago, most likely myth.
#70
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Goldtop
Using the black swan example is not an example of a strawman argument. The black swan example is quite apt. The original position was premised on a generalisation, not truth.  It was their observation, on their current evidence at the time. Nevertheless, like those before Galileo they were wrong. I think dead people stay dead. I base this however on a theological premise before a biological one. Dead people stay dead because they are sinners. sinful people MUST die and stay dead. The fact that biology accords with this is well and good. And clearly is what we observe in history and even in the bible. Dead people stay dead or if resuscitated like Lazarus inevitably die anyway. Jesus was not resuscitated, he was resurrected. Death could not hold him down. He saw no decay. This is the claim of the NT believers. And so far you have said nothing that draws me to conclude this is false.

You continue to say no evidence for Jesus death. You deny the bible's record. If Josephus has stated that he had seen Jesus alive, you would not believe it either. Gee if Einstein saw Jesus alive - after he has died, you would deny it. Why? Because it is not in accord with your prejudice. That is why.

  
#71
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The black swan example is quite apt
I explained how it wasn't in post #65.

I base this however on a theological premise before a biological one. Dead people stay dead because they are sinners.
It's unfortunate you view humans in that way, but its far more foolish to base your worldview on theological premises than reality. This would demonstrate you have thrown away logic, rationale and reason and replaced it with blind faith, That view is antithetical to anything based on facts, evidence or science, something you've often thrown back in my face even when it is me who observes the scientific view because it supports my argument.

sinful people MUST die and stay dead.
You have a very bleak and morbid view of humanity, how sad.

The fact that biology accords with this is well and good. And clearly is what we observe in history and even in the bible. Dead people stay dead
Terribly sorry, but you are quite mistaken, biology in no way supports the belief that humans are sinners and that this is the reason they stay dead. Looks like your argument is sinking fast.

Jesus was not resuscitated, he was resurrected. Death could not hold him down. He saw no decay.
That would be your blind faith without evidence speaking again.

This is the claim of the NT believers. And so far you have said nothing that draws me to conclude this is false.
Don't get me wrong, I know only too well that some NT believers claim it, there is no question of that. And I know only too well nothing anyone ever says would have you believe or think otherwise. You have admitted faith over reason, logic and facts, so it's highly unlikely they are going to have any effect on you.

You continue to say no evidence for Jesus death.
Technically, there's no evidence for Jesus' existence, but what I've been saying is there is no evidence for people coming back from the dead, Jesus or other-who.

You deny the bible's record.
I don't accept the bibles claim of Resurrection.

If Josephus has stated that he had seen Jesus alive, you would not believe it either.
Did he state that?

Gee if Einstein saw Jesus alive - after he has died, you would deny it.
Einstein never said he saw that, but there are inmates in asylums that have,

Why? Because it is not in accord with your prejudice. That is why.
I accept your concession. Thank you.
Topic's author
#72
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
This "hole" is metaphorical which means the person feels"empty" emotianally, or spiritually so to speak.

If you don't feelyou have a hole to fill is because you're fine... emotionaly again,of course. But if you want to go through that sensation of "havinga hole to fill" I suggest you to take up some appaling actions,like taking drugs or get into burglary. Nevertheless, I recommendotherwise, which is not to be so curious.

So according tochristians those who need to fill this hole need Jesus. I rememberJesus saying that the people who need more the kingdom of God are theones in need, say prostitues, poor people, sick people and sinners ingeneral. I think it goes that way, correct me if I'm wrong.

There are other waysto fill that hole, though, one of them is the psychiatry.

Would you say that when you teach someone a religion you make a hole in them that they then must keep filled?

#73
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Paul
I would't know what to say because I don't see myself as a religious guy. I'm very honest and I feel uncapable of decieving others.

But if you see all these preachers from various religions you will notice that all of them sell a solution to people's problems. or in other words they promise "fill the hole". They don't make any hole, people come with a hole already. "You can't walk? Geezes will cure you". "You have problems with your wife? Geezes will fix it." Haha. I don't mean religions are useless, they are necessary though. It's a sort of tool to cope with human problems.

Il Diavolo
#74
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
Why is that the teacher's problem? If you have issues is it the religions fault? Why does anyone view religion as a cure for anything? 
#75
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't mean religions are useless, they are necessary though. It's a sort of tool to cope with human problems.
No, religions merely mask problems, they don't actually deal with or solve them. It's basically exchanging one vice for another.

#76
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Goldtop
No, religions merely mask problems, they don't actually deal with or solve them. It's basically exchanging one vice for another.
I didn't say otherwise. If you read my post again I said that religion is a tool that help to cope with common problems, even with big ones. People can avoid distress if they believe there is a God that will save them, there it is the psychological effect of religions. Whether it solves their problems or not, I don't kwno. What I'm pretty sure is that people can think clearly to solve their problems when they stay calm, and religions can give that tranquility.

Il Diavolo
#77
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo

But if you see all these preachers from various religions you will notice that all of them sell a solution to people's problems.
They sell them the problem first.

#78
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Lying shit bag
#79
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@disgusted
How so? Could you elaborate, please?
#80
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm sorry, what did you say?

I would like to remind you that I'm not used to this vocabulary.
#81
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
Hell
#82
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
Spirituality/religion is not just a coping "mechanism", there is an objective nature to Theism and therefor there are facts that deal with the nature of our experience. Spirituality is not really a method to minimize or to cope/tolerate stress or fears in as much as it is a method of understanding the nature of our being itself, not just a coping mechanism but learning and applying what is necessary about reality itself. 
#83
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@disgusted
Being afraid of hell is a moral issue, it has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here, which is people's problems.

I'm talking about "holes to fill", which means people who feel empty inside, or have emotional problems derived from a particular event, like a disease or a loss of a loved one. Going to church is just a choice to overcome that problem, religions don't create those problems.

If you refer to hell as a way to create a moral issue in people, that is another thing, which by the way I totally agree.

Il Diavolo
#84
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
Spirituality/religion is not just a coping "mechanism", there is an objective nature to Theism and therefor there are facts that deal with the nature of our experience. Spirituality is not really a method to minimize or to cope/tolerate stress or fears in as much as it is a method of understanding the nature of our being itself, not just a coping mechanism but learning and applying what is necessary about reality itself. 
I know what you're talking about, the so called religious experience. I tell you, I've met a lot of people who experienced it, but I could count them on the fingers of one hand. If we talk about buddhists, that would be different.

My point is that in general the ignorant masses use religion as a coping mechanism, or even as a life motivator. That is why the abrahamic religions are so popular.

Il Diavolo
#85
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Anyone who truly believes in a soul or an afterlife does not get warm fuzzies from their spiritual practice. If religion helps you cope you are doing it wrong.
#86
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
+1.
#87
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
I know what you're talking about, the so called religious experience. I tell you, I've met a lot of people who experienced it, but I could count them on the fingers of one hand. If we talk about buddhists, that would be different.

Does that matter?

My point is that in general the ignorant masses use religion as a coping mechanism, or even as a life motivator. That is why the abrahamic religions are so popular.

How would you know without asking every one individual what there reason was for belief? That sounds like a subjective opinion to me.

#88
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
use religion as a coping mechanism, or even as a life motivator. That is why the abrahamic religions are so popular.

...or perhaps.....just perhaps there is an objective nature of our experience that transcends the material boundaries and souls want to know about it naturally....
#89
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
One of the most interesting things about spirituality most unbelievers are unaware of, is that spirituality deals with the "grasping" nature of man and the mind and that it opposes the very nature of what man imagines and what man wants/desires, it highlights the contrast between reality and fiction on so many levels.....the objective nature of spirituality and the cultivation of the soul is one of the most compelling aspects of spirituality besides the nature of consciousness. It does not conform to the natural state of man, it transcends it, opposes it and therefore should be recognized as such!
#90
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,517
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
One of the most interesting things about spirituality most unbelievers are unaware of,...

I have very little time to elaborate on that but I really appreciate you bringing up this subject since there is some confusion about it.

Firstly, spirituality is not religion and religion is not spirituality. I have never denied the spiritual dimension of human beings, I embrace it, though. You should know that even though I call myself "the devil", I'm a fervient follower of buddhism. I actually practice meditation and some praying as a way to reach the spiritual enlightment, but I know it's going to take really long. At any rate, when it comes to spirituality many people confuse it with what religions are used to show us, like Gods, angels and deamons. No, spirituality is not about paranormal experience, let alone about invisible beings watching us. Rather, it is a way to know us, to discover our nature and what we really are. It's explore our mind in order to connect with the whole universe, and feel what people define as happiness.

On the other hand, religions are completely different. I will take on that later because I don't have time. The only thing I'm going to say so you can think about it is that religions are a human construction based on the basic principles of spirituality, but aimed to satisfy the needs of the ignorant masses, mostly changing and distorting those pristine principles. For example, Jesus was a simple mortal, like you and me, who wanted to teach the real spirituality to his community, but failed to do that because his people not only deifed him but also distorted his teachings conflating them with judaism, resulting in a new religion called Christianism.

Il Diavolo