I'm not offended at all. I'm just showing you where the evidence is leaning and there is nothing that says it's going in any other direction but the soul and the after life . You can believe whatever u want .
Would you mind posting some actual evidence then?
I just posted the link to sam parnia's aware study published in a major respectable UK journal . If that doesn't seem trustworthy to you then you can keep moving the goalposts all you want but it isn't going to change the evidence at all.
Actually, you posted a link to a news article, not the study. If you could dig up the actual study so we can see the methodology used, etc, then you might have some evidence for your case.
Furthermore, have you looked into what the critics of Parnia's work are saying? Do their criticisms stand up, or has Parnia been able to address those concerns / criticisms adequately?
Parnia was a very popular speaker at atheist conferences a few years ago., and he himself said that he initially believed that Nde's were hallucinations and that if nothing significant came out of the aware study (which was the biggest study ever on Nde's ) in 3 years he would shut down the study. It's 5 years now and he is going to extend the study to make the next round even bigger. This study was also published in a major uk medical journal called resuscitation , but them again it could be a Christian or new age spiritualist conspiracy
Just because he's an atheist doesn't make him correct. I love how Christians continually point out "he's an atheist" or "he spoke at atheist conferences" as if that makes him right, or the quality of his research any better.
Again, it all comes down to the quality of his research, the methodology he used, etc. If he's legitimately on to anything, great. However there's been a great deal of well run studies which would lead us to believe that there's nothing to NDE's. If Parnia is getting different results, we need to investigate why that is. Is it because he's found something that nobody else has, or is it because he's using poor methods to go about his research. That's the question.
That's basically what a soul is , consciousness outside the body. Like I said if it looks like a duck
. If u don't want to call it a soul, ok lets call it a hotdog or a poodle, but it all comes out the same in the end . It just sounds like u are uncomfortable with anything that has a religious or spiritual connotation to it .
Seeing as everything we understand about consciousness would lead us to believe it's generated from your brain, I don't see how it could possibly exist outside of your body.
For example, brain damaged patients sometimes lose the ability to regain consciousness. Furthermore, assuming your personality goes hand in hand with your soul, we also know brain damage can irrevocably alter someones personality. If a soul is real, and your personality is part of your soul, then how can physical damage ever possibly alter your personality? It makes no sense.
Yes and u can keep on finding ways to deny it by pushing the goalposts further back and back, but this is for people that are open to the evidence not people that will deny anything in a hyper skeptical fashion.
The irony is the vast majority of research on this topic would indicate there's nothing to NDE's (outside of them being hallucinations). Except you're cherry picking the evidence, you're trumpeting anything that already agrees with your viewpoint and ignoring everything that doesn't.
On the flip side, given the previous work that has been done in the field I am highly skeptical of the claims. With that in mind though, I'm still asking to see studies that support your case on the chance there might actually be something solid there.
I'm open to evidence, but until I see that evidence I'm simply not willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt.
That is ur opinion . Now if this aware study refuted the claims of survival of consciousness ask urself if you would have backed this evidence 100% instead of finding ways not to believe it now.
If this was the only study that had ever been done on the issue, then I'd find it interesting, but would take the findings with a grain of salt.
If this study had argued that the survival of consciousness doesn't happen, I would have accepted the findings not based upon the single study, but only because there's a multitude of other work out there that shares that position. If you have 1,000 studies that are well run and all reach the same basic conclusion, study #1,001 that reaches the same conclusion again is credible.
Except what we have with this study is 1,000 studies that say there isn't anything to NDE's, and one study that says that an afterlife is possible. It's possible the one study is correct, but it also must show why the consensus view is wrong. What was the basic flaw in the consensus work that this study uncovered?
In science, when someone does something like that they go down in history as an Einstein or Galileo. It'd be a guaranteed Nobel Prize as well. The trick is though is that Einstein and Galileo could demonstrate their work, so their work became widely accepted in time. How does Parnia plan to demonstrate his work in a similar vein?
Scientists are just like other human beings and can interpret the data according to their world view and have done so . Your putting them up on a pedestal.
That's exactly why peer review exists. Individual people do have biases and are prone to mistakes. When you put your work out for people with no personal stake in the work to examine, errors in methodology, flaws in your research, or other mistakes are quickly pointed out.
That's why I'm asking what sort of response has Parnia's work got, and has he been able to account for any perceived problems with his work? Simply running a study (even if its the largest study of its kind) means very little... the quality of the research is what matters. That usually comes out through peer review.
This is also why we have people that are philosophers of science and that is why David Albert whose phd is in the philosophy of quantum physics refuted lawrence krauss in his philosophical interpretations of something out of nothing.
And who cares at all about philosophical interpretations? Krauss himself addressed this issue in his book "A universe from nothing". Had you read Krauss's work, you'd know that.
I didn't say this was proof but the evidence so far is heading towards survival .
No, it's not actually. The research that has been done overwhelmingly points against your opinion. The fact that you found one particular study that agrees with you is pretty well meaningless, unless you can show why this study is particularly profound in some way.
As a major atheist blogger said "" calm down folks , this isn't evidence of the after life , it's just evidence that consciousness can survive without a functional brain "" lololol An dust as this blogger is doing you are also denying it.
We're not denying it, we're asking for the evidence to sway our opinions. We are not prepared to take it on face value just because you say so.
Like I said I'm going to present the evidence so that seekers and others unbiased people can take a look at it and come to conclusions on their own.
Go for it then, lets see the study, lets see the criticism from the scientific community, and lets see how he has addressed any concerns.
Back when I was an evolutionists I gave the same standard replies about it that you are giving me now . That if scientists aren't agreeing with the philosophical conclusions then either would I.
The fact you even call people "evolutionists" makes me dubious of the claim you were even one... that's typical fundamentalist language.
But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, what was it that caused you to change your mind and reject the theory of evolution, when its backed by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence? For example, it's the cornerstone of modern biology.
The same can be said fir atheists and humanists can't it ? What does your statement prove?
Some Atheists and Humanists aren't trustworthy. Same goes for anyone of any demographic. Just because they share a particular demographic with you doesn't mean they're right.
Of course you don't, your a humanist , and then your fellow atheists will turn around and say that there is no scientific evidence for God.
This is called having your cake and eating it too. As for tyson , you can believe it all you want but he's been quoted as saying this
NAS at 85% atheists Lets bump it up to 100% | Uncommon Descent
That's the thing though, there is no scientific evidence for god. My guess is that's why Tyson is advocating for scientists to use a scientific view when it comes to their theological beliefs.
As I said before and I'll say it again, you can believe whatever u want to believe but if the study came out the other way you would have stood by it 100% . I post this fir seekers and agnostics , not people that have already made up their minds and have a bias against it.
I've already explained why above. If this was a single stand alone study it wouldn't be enough to definitively sway my opinion one way or the other. The overall body of research however says one thing, and the study you cited contradicts the vast majority of work in the area.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, but we also have very little reason to accept it simply because it's a study that says X. We need to see the study itself, and figure out why it says X. You have not provided that info to us as of yet.
Again , if it quacks like a duck it is a duck. Survival of consciousness is what we call the immaterial soul , information is also immaterial, no difference but semantics . If you want to call it information or the soul or quantum physics it all comes out the same in the end .
The only reason the "if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" phrase works is because we know what a duck is to begin with. Even then, it's not necessarily correct.
We have no idea what an "immaterial soul" or "consciousness outside of the body" is or what it means. There's a multitude of vague or nebulous definitions, many of which don't really line up with each other. We can't really say anything looks like an immaterial soul, because we have no proper understanding of what that is exactly. We can't even demonstrate that one exists.
Then I would suggest studying pantheism a bit more be uses pantheism believe in an intelligent universe , this is why I I said he is coming dangerously close to flirting with pantheism . An intelligent universe is what pantheists believe in . Now maybe u have a others belief as to what pantheism is , but that isn't the standard definition. You can also redefine Christianity while it at it but it still doesn't make your personal definition of it true .
I'd argue on the other hand that there is no widely accepted definition of Christianity. There are nebulous definitions of what it is, or what it means to be a Christian, but nothing concrete. For example, you may not consider the Westboro Baptists to be true Christians, and they probably wouldn't consider you a true Christian either. In reality, both of you have equal justification for your claims... it all depends on what you personally consider to be a Christian. There is no objective definition of the term Christian.
If it fit in with an unbelievers view I'm pretty sure that you would .
And like I said I will let the seekers and agnostics decide if this evidence is good or not , not someone who has already come into this with a confirmation bias
The irony is you're the one who is displaying a textbook confirmation bias by relying only on the work which agrees with your preconceived notions. We are looking at the overall body of research, and drawing our conclusions based on that. If you have anything substantial that would show the consensus to be incorrect, then by all means present it, and I'll happily change my mind on the issue.
