6
   

Is The Bible Just a Good Book?

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 06:46 am
@tvfan,
Nicely, if not slightly 'blunt', put.
Neale Donald Walsch.

Let me know what you think of him/his version of 'reality' if you ever have the time and inclination to peruse - Youtube.

0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 06:51 am
@oralloy,
And you accept such as absolute 'truth'?

correlation between more than one party or 'ad populum' = Truth?
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 06:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
That doesn't mean that there can't be something happening that we don't understand.

Sure, and we also can't prove that the vanguard of an alien invasion isn't lurking behind Neptune, but that is hardly justification for actively believing it is so.

Indeed. Thus it is irrational to believe that there is definitely no afterlife when there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

I agree completely, which is why I have never in my life said there is definitely no afterlife.

I will also never say that there is definitely not the vanguard of an alien invasion hiding, as we speak, behind Neptune. How would I know that? I will only say that it is irrational to believe that there is such an alien force without any evidence that it is so.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 06:40 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
How does this imply that it is an established fact that there is no afterlife? I only said that it is what people want to hear. I said that there is insufficient basis for believing these things, not that they're false.

You referred to the alternative as an unpleasant truth. Saying that one of the options is a truth, is claiming that that option is the one that reflects reality.

Alright, an unpleasant likelihood, then. From what we do currently know, our bodies are machines that can break and eventually do break. On the surface of things, it appears that thoughts are activity taking place in the brain. Therefore, based on what is known, it very much appears that when the brain stops, the thoughts stop. People often will accept the idea of an afterlife, because it is easier to accept than the unpleasant idea that you just stop. From what we can see of the relationship of the body to life, the body seems to just be a machine. There is no evidence to indicate that after death you live on somewhere else, but it kind of seems like you wouldn't if your brain stops working. Anything might be different from what the evidence shows, but in the absence of a contrary indication, I will go with the evidence. It would not be justified to say that there is definitely no afterlife, but it doesn't appear that there is.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 01:28 am
@Brandon9000,
I did come across a scientific article some time ago (I'll try and find it again on the internet) stating that there is a particular chemical in the brain which activates images or hallucinations just before people die completely, like the tunnel of light that people supposedly see when they have temporary death experiences. I found it very interesting. Maybe the chemicals in the brain do create images of the bright light experiences and seeing loved ones etc. when we die, but maybe only if we belive in that stuff. I don't know, what do you think?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 05:54 am
@Amoh5,
I would be open to a response, also.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 10:03 am
@mark noble,
I found something on the supposed brain chemical DMT that make people have afterlife or near death hallucinations, but I'm not sure if its the same one that I read before. DMT is supposed to help people deal with the transition from life to death...
http://littleatoms.com/science/psychedelic-drug-could-explain-our-belief-life-after-death
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 10:22 am
@Amoh5,
Graham Hancock is your next destination - Then Dolores Cannon, then Neale Donald Walsch.
My journey is over, amoh.
Hope yours comes to.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 10:40 am
@mark noble,
I'm only speculating on scientific research. I think theres more to it than just that...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 10:44 am
@Amoh5,
You maybe speculating - But you hit the nail on the head.
I don't say that often.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 10:47 am
@Amoh5,
Wait till you see the results on 'ayahuasca' research...
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 11:25 am
@mark noble,
I think theres more to the transition from life to death than just chemicals or man-made drugs. Factors like how you feel about yourself, other people, the world around you, your sense of morality, your loves and hates, God, etc etc...
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 01:02 pm
If there is any validity to the book, looking for the answers in brain chemistry is futile. If we are what the book says, the brain is the equivalent to a 'smart terminal'. It just appears to have consciousness but that is like mistaking a smart phone as having all this information within it. It's actually the internet it's linked to that has the info.

But I suppose it's possible that drugs/chemicals could enhance or degrade the connection to what we really are.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 06:11 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
If there is any validity to the book, looking for the answers in brain chemistry is futile. If we are what the book says, the brain is the equivalent to a 'smart terminal'. It just appears to have consciousness but that is like mistaking a smart phone as having all this information within it. It's actually the internet it's linked to that has the info.

But I suppose it's possible that drugs/chemicals could enhance or degrade the connection to what we really are.

Yes, let's all rely on a book written by our ancient, pre-scientific ancestors for which there is not a jot of evidence except for a few of the background historical facts.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2016 06:33 pm
There are extremely few "facts" of historical background to the bible which have genuine historical evidence. The only one i can think of right off hand is the so-called Babylonian captivity--and even that does not have any direct historical source.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 12:54 am
@Leadfoot,
I told Mark about a research on near-death or afterlife experiences where people consciously see images and have out the body experiences which scientists are pinning on the brain chemical DMT. Its supposed to help us transition from life to death.
I told him I think there is more to the transition from life to death than just brain chemicals. I think it would primarily be how you think about everything in life which would affect your transition from life to death...
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:46 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Yes, let's all rely on a book written by our ancient, pre-scientific ancestors for which there is not a jot of evidence except for a few of the background historical facts.
Pre-scientific? Where do you get that? Aristotle predated Jesus by 500+ years.

But my main point is that I said "IF" there is any validity to the book. If you are incapable of taking something very unlikely as a hypothesis, you won't get very far in science.

And if you discount it because you doubt the historical accuracy of events mentioned, you're not getting the point of the book.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 08:50 am
@Amoh5,
Quote:
I think it would primarily be how you think about everything in life which would affect your transition from life to death...
Can't argue with that. If you dread death it's bound to be a different experience than if you are looking forward to it. Same is true of an LSD trip though.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 09:00 am
@Amoh5,
Nice - Want to get there?
Or just spout **** on a forum?
Thread - Thumbed-down.
Good journey to you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:23 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Yes, let's all rely on a book written by our ancient, pre-scientific ancestors for which there is not a jot of evidence except for a few of the background historical facts.
Pre-scientific? Where do you get that? Aristotle predated Jesus by 500+ years.

But my main point is that I said "IF" there is any validity to the book. If you are incapable of taking something very unlikely as a hypothesis, you won't get very far in science.

And if you discount it because you doubt the historical accuracy of events mentioned, you're not getting the point of the book.

By "pre-scientific," I meant before 99% of our science was known. In science, we generally adopt hypotheses because there is some evidence to suggest them. Then we test them and reject them if they fail to pass the tests repeatably. You doing that with the Bible?

I certainly am not discounting the Bible because I doubt the historical accuracy of the events it mentions. I am discounting it because there is little evidence that any of its main points are true, e.g. the existence of God, the life of Moses, the miracles performed by Jesus, etc.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 05:54:15