A good review. Sounds like a thought provoking book.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/its-nexplicable-a-broken-radio-suddenly-plays-soothing-music-at-just-the-right-time/2018/01/26/ffc4fcc8-d480-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.62b15faf69c9

Reading the review, it didn't take long to realize that the dividing line here on RfM is already set; we know who will approve of Shermer's skepticism and who won't.

It is ok to be 'skeptical' but another thing to deny there is any evidence of an after life just because there is no 'scientific evidence'. Remember 'scientists' just identified 'unknown' rooms in the great pyramid after how many 'thousands of years'???? This is something 'physical and highly verifiable' they just couldn't seem to figure it out very quickly.

As the article points out 'many' believe in an after life and many claim experiences. Just because claimed experiences can't be turned into 'scientific evidence' certainly doesn't mean the after life does not exist. It means so far, if an after life exists, it can't be 'scientifically proven'.

I think it was an important thing in my life to search for this truth out personally and for me to find out what I could do to get an experience for myself and then get a number of different experiences.

I totally understand others may not want to waste the time or effort. If an after life exists everyone will find out soon enough!

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is ok to be 'skeptical' but another thing to
> deny there is any evidence of an after life just
> because there is no 'scientific evidence'.

It's not only OK to state there is no evidence of any after life, it's the only honest and rational position.

> Remember 'scientists' just identified 'unknown'
> rooms in the great pyramid after how many
> 'thousands of years'???? This is something
> 'physical and highly verifiable' they just
> couldn't seem to figure it out very quickly.

Despite you seeming to think you were reinforcing your position with that observation, you were actually reinforcing the rational position. Until there was *evidence* of the "unknown rooms" in the great pyramid, there was no reason to declare there were any such things. Now there is reason to think so -- because there's EVIDENCE of them.

Until there's evidence of "after lives," there's no reason to think there's any such thing. And there isn't any evidence yet.

That doesn't mean there ISN'T an "after life" of some sort. There might be. It does mean there's no reason to assume there is, or to pretend we know something about such a thing. We don't.

Sometimes (as with rooms in the pyramid), something somebody supposes turns out to be reality -- and evidence supporting it is found. Just as often -- no, more often -- things people suppose (and assume) turn out NOT to be reality. And no evidence is ever found to support what they assumed. The way we determine if they're real is with evidence -- not with assumptions, suppositions, stories, etc.

> As the article points out 'many' believe in an
> after life and many claim experiences.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. The number of people who believe something has no bearing whatsoever on whether what they believe is "true" or not.

> Just
> because claimed experiences can't be turned into
> 'scientific evidence' certainly doesn't mean the
> after life does not exist.

Correct. But it also doesn't mean an after life DOES exist, either.

> It means so far, if an
> after life exists, it can't be 'scientifically
> proven'.

It means there is no evidence for an "after life." Meaning we don't know. And you can stop putting scientifically proven (which isn't how science works anyway) in quotes.

> I totally understand others may not want to waste
> the time or effort. If an after life exists
> everyone will find out soon enough!

Or not.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spiritist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is ok to be 'skeptical' but another thing to
> > deny there is any evidence of an after life
> just
> > because there is no 'scientific evidence'.
>
> It's not only OK to state there is no evidence of
> any after life, it's the only honest and rational
> position.
__________________________________________

That is a total 'dishonest and not rational' position from a person capable of using a dictionary and knowledge to research 'eye witness and witness' testimony is involved in 'almost every' case in a court of law versus 'scientific evidence'!

>
> > Remember 'scientists' just identified 'unknown'
> > rooms in the great pyramid after how many
> > 'thousands of years'???? This is something
> > 'physical and highly verifiable' they just
> > couldn't seem to figure it out very quickly.
>
> Despite you seeming to think you were reinforcing
> your position with that observation, you were
> actually reinforcing the rational position. Until
> there was *evidence* of the "unknown rooms" in the
> great pyramid, there was no reason to declare
> there were any such things. Now there is reason
> to think so -- because there's EVIDENCE of them.
________________________________________________________

I wonder why you just couldn't ask your 'scientific godhead' Bill Nye, Al Gore and now Sagan and find out without having to go through the embarrassment of saying it only took our top (scientific genius's) 3-7 thousand years to discover anther room!
>

>
> That doesn't mean there ISN'T an "after life" of
> some sort. There might be.
____________________________________________

Finally some honesty and some rational thinking!!!!


>>
> > As the article points out 'many' believe in an
> > after life and "many claim experiences".
>
> Appeal to popularity fallacy. The number of
> people who believe something has no bearing
> whatsoever on whether what they believe is "true"
> or not.
___________________________________________________

Appeal to 'evidence' fallacy more like it!!!!! Just like juries in court cases do!!!!

>
> > Just
> > because claimed experiences can't be turned
> into
> > 'scientific evidence' certainly doesn't mean
> the
> > after life does not exist.
>
> Correct. But it also doesn't mean an after life
> DOES exist, either.
_____________________________________________________

I never said it did! How observant of you ---- strange someone can read and not know how to use a dictionary!!

Maybe if we give 'scientists' enough time they may discover hula hoops are hollow!


Cheers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2018 03:16PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is a total 'dishonest and not rational'
> position from a person capable of using a
> dictionary and knowledge to research 'eye witness
> and witness' testimony is involved in 'almost
> every' case in a court of law versus 'scientific
> evidence'!

You're mistaken.

"Eyewitness testimony" in a court of law can only be about something a person saw or heard with their senses. It can't be about things that only occurred in their heads (which *might* be "visions" or "out of body experiences" or whatever, but aren't things they saw or heard). If you tried to "testify" in court that "I remote-viewed, and saw the defendant doing the crime," the "testimony" would be thrown out as inadmissible.

> I wonder why you just couldn't ask your
> 'scientific godhead' Bill Nye, Al Gore and now
> Sagan and find out without having to go through
> the embarrassment of saying it only took our top
> (scientific genius's) 3-7 thousand years to
> discover anther room!

Gee, every single thing in that sentence is false.
Science doesn't have a 'godhead.'
Bill Nye and Al Gore have nothing to do with Egytology.
And since humans haven't been using the scientific method for 3-7 thousand years (not that the pyramid is that old anyway...so your timeline is also off), "scientific geniuses" didn't take that long to find other rooms.

Try the truth: some new technology became available. Using it, scientists could "see" inside the pyramid without tearing it apart, something that wasn't possible before. When they used it, they found what might be some other rooms.

See, isn't honesty so much better?

> Finally some honesty and some rational
> thinking!!!!

Always. You should try it (see above for your dishonesty).


> Appeal to 'evidence' fallacy more like it!!!!!
> Just like juries in court cases do!!!!

Not at all like "juries in court cases." See above.

> I never said it did! How observant of you ----

Actually, you have. A number of times.
I've got your quotes.

> strange someone can read and not know how to use a
> dictionary!!

And of course, you can't comment on something without personal insults. Typical.

> Maybe if we give 'scientists' enough time they may
> discover hula hoops are hollow!

Oh, and let's not forget to try and dishonestly insult all scientists, too. 'Cause generalizations and ad-hominems make for such good arguments.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spiritist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is a total 'dishonest and not rational'
> > position from a person capable of using a
> > dictionary and knowledge to research 'eye
> witness
> > and witness' testimony is involved in 'almost
> > every' case in a court of law versus
> 'scientific
> > evidence'!
>
> You're mistaken.
>
> "Eyewitness testimony" in a court of law can only
> be about something a person saw or heard with
> their senses. It can't be about things that only
> occurred in their heads (which *might* be
> "visions" or "out of body experiences" or
> whatever, but aren't things they saw or heard).
> If you tried to "testify" in court that "I
> remote-viewed, and saw the defendant doing the
> crime," the "testimony" would be thrown out as
> inadmissible.
__________________________________________________________

So the 'paranormal expert wombat who obviously has not read very much on the subject' ----- wants to go fishing by bringing up a 'red herring'.

Many 'paranormal experiences' are when people are wide awake and they do sense them with their eyes, ears, etc. --- which anyone that would 'continue to infer they are an expert in' would know from 'studying' the subject.

Please at least show us some 'scholarship to support' your frankly 'clearly uneducated conclusions'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I said somewhere else, take your own advice. If you don't know because of a 'lack of education' ----- just say you don't know!!!!

I know the 'truth' may hurt the 'uneducated' but hopefully it will help in the long run for you to 'wake up' and just be honest!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2018 10:59AM by spiritist.

Since you can't stop name-calling and making stuff up, I'm done with this discussion.

There's no point.

Amen. It's like arguing with a rock.

Dorothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amen. It's like arguing with a rock.

___________________________________________________

So you are finally coming out!!! It takes one to know one!

Thank you for not trying to show any of your 'scholarship' on any issue as it would likely go 'very, very, very,' badly for you as wombat as in the past!

Insults, such as wombat uses, are always the easier way to show your 'scholarship' when that about sums up your 'scholarship'!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2018 01:23PM by spiritist.

saying a behaviour is not honest or rational is calling names in the mormon passive aggressive way.

you do not agree with many things, yet YOU claim you are the only one who can say if a belief is rational or not. YOU only have AN OPINION, (scientifically based or not), not a fact generator.

Please be more respectful when you insist on disagreeing with something and please stop taking over threads after you have re-stated your opinion for the world to see.

WE KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE.

Now please let some threads continue without your muck slinging and name-calling.

(I shall now read the rest of the thread)

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> saying a behaviour is not honest or rational is
> calling names in the mormon passive aggressive
> way.

Saying a behavior that isn't honest isn't honest is honest.
I don't give a crap if you think it's "mormon passive aggressive."

> you do not agree with many things, yet YOU claim
> you are the only one who can say if a belief is
> rational or not.

Here, let's use what I wrote above in practice:

That is a dishonest statement.
I have never claimed any such thing.

> YOU only have AN OPINION,
> (scientifically based or not), not a fact
> generator.

Your statement above is dishonest. I have never claimed any such thing. That is a fact, not an opinion.

> Please be more respectful when you insist on
> disagreeing with something and please stop taking
> over threads after you have re-stated your opinion
> for the world to see.

There were no personal insults, nothing "disrespectful" (in my OPINION) in anything I wrote. You're free to disagree.

I didn't take over any thread. If you don't like something I write, don't read it.

> WE KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE.

You're free to not read what I write.
I'm free to write it.

> Now please let some threads continue without your
> muck slinging and name-calling.

There was not a single instance of name-calling.
And you're not in charge of who can write in a thread.

> (I shall now read the rest of the thread)

You could have done that without the dishonest nonsense above.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anonuk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > saying a behaviour is not honest or rational is
> > calling names in the mormon passive aggressive
> > way.
>
> Saying a behavior that isn't honest isn't honest
> is honest.
> I don't give a crap if you think it's "mormon
> passive aggressive."
>

again, you claim opinion, not fact and you 'indirectly' call people names. Then, after stating your opinion, you do not discuss the subject matter at hand (subject of thread) but instead bait, then pick apart someone's words to justify your continual high-jacking and derailing of threads.

If I say to someone repeatedly that what they are doing is not honest or rational, I am slyly calling them irrational and dishonest. No two ways about it. Deny it all I want, everyone knows (me included) what I meant. It would not stand in a court of law due to any denial I give, but we all know I'm lieing.

You are exactly the same, otherwise you would state categorically that you do not believe this because it does not meet your criteria, then you would allow people who do not think the same way as you the privilege of discussing a topic you do not wish to discuss.

Please, show some common curteousy which is sadly missing in our society. I respect your right to believe what you wish but in return YOU must allow others the same right, which in my opinion you do not. Please respect others' rights to believe what they wish - and discuss it - without shouting them down (an 'anti-fascist' tactic against 'fascists'), or worse dismissing them as dishonest or irrational in the same way mormons dismissed you and your beliefs.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I say to someone repeatedly that what they are
> doing is not honest or rational, I am slyly
> calling them irrational and dishonest.

If what they are doing IS not rational or honest, then it's simply stating facts.
Why is that a problem with you?

Are you trying to insist that nobody should ever call out dishonesty when it's obvious and demonstrable?

> Deny it all I want, everyone knows
> (me included) what I meant.

You're right, everyone knows what you meant.
It just isn't what you think.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Are you trying to insist that nobody should ever
> call out dishonesty when it's obvious and
> demonstrable?


nice turnaround - the mormon training still holds, I see.

I only insist that opinions are voiced without passive aggressive name calling and then allowing others to discuss the matter at hand. Alternatively, tell us how the film referenced in the article could not be feasible according to your understanding. Tell us how a transistor radio could be powered by wireless energy fields and even pick up some station or other.

Or not.

Just spend the entire thread arguing over words instead of discussing concepts, because it is 'unscientifically proven, therefore not rational or honest'.

By that standard, every unproven hypothesis is not rational nor honest. No advances would ever be made with that attitude. Instead of ridiculing and arguing, perhaps you could discuss the article instead?

Good post, spiritist.

So where's your evidence ?

Wow !
I'm convinced now.
I'm now a christian.

There is a world of difference between objective and subjective.
Evidence is the former, experiences are the latter.
Conflating the two is where trouble brews.

There is no firm evidence on how aspirin works to relieve pain, however, the experience of millions of users over thousands of years proves it does relieve pain. In that respect there is no scientific evidence that it relieves pain.

The only 'evidence' that aspirin works is anecdotal experience of those who have used the drug to relieve pain.

Shall we just start saying there is no objective evidence of it's veracity and convince pharmaceutical companies to stop selling this unproven analgesic?

Have any of you ever taken aspirin and found it relieved a pain? Shall we just decide all these successful cases of pain relief are placebo based and therefore worthless?

I am just applying your advice not to conflate objective and subjective evidence to another matter to see if it still stands, and I believe it does not. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates quite clearly that aspirin works as an analgesic.

When I was a child, I knew explosions didn't happen without ignition. I questioned the big bang when instructed on it and asked what started the big bang, to which I was ridiculed and informed 'obviously nothing' which troubled my childish understanding. Now, theoretical physicists are settling on the 'bounce back' theory (out of 4 theories of what may have preceded the big bang) and I feel vindicated for all those years of ridicule for asking what happened before the big bang. Now I just need an answer to what is outside the universe, ie what does it expand into and how can we ever find that out, but I won't hold my breath for that one.

Maybe one day I'll be proven right or wrong but until then, no-one has the definitive right to say one way or the other as we simply do not know.

My point is this, those scientists had to wonder against orthodoxy to have developed their curiosity enough to consider there had to have been a catalyst that preceded the big bang. If they had constantly dismissed an idea because it was subjective and therefore 'unproven' we would never have new discoveries, or all discoveries would be accidental, like microwaves are great for cooking, not so great for weapons.

We are being 'told' that as a people we should not be 'closed minded' and we should embrace 'progressiveness'. Is science or spirituality exempt from this 'open-mindedness' we are instructed to practice?

I think if we are to open our minds in respect of society being progressive, we should apply the same approqach to all areas of our lives. We cannot be progressive in one area and repressive in another.

the book review states the author does not believe in god or preternatural forces, the author does, however, state:

“Revel in the mystery and drink in the unknown. It is where science and wonder meet.”

It does sound like a thought provoking read, and I suppose that unless we as a people 'wonder' we will never discover anything 'new', scientific or otherwise.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no firm evidence on how aspirin works to
> relieve pain, however, the experience of millions
> of users over thousands of years proves it does
> relieve pain. In that respect there is no
> scientific evidence that it relieves pain.
>
> The only 'evidence' that aspirin works is
> anecdotal experience of those who have used the
> drug to relieve pain.

Sorry, but that's not at all true.

Aspirin relieves pain by preventing the production of pain messengers called prostaglandins in the body by inhibiting COX1 and Cox2, which are needed to produce prostaglandins. It also inhibits the aggregation of platelets to “thin” the blood, which can help to prevent the formation and reduce the risk of blood clots.


http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950817/aspirin.shtml

(that article is from 1995 -- when the research it mentions, which clearly demonstrated how aspirin removes pain -- came out. That was 23 years ago. You should keep up)

> Shall we just start saying there is no objective
> evidence of it's veracity and convince
> pharmaceutical companies to stop selling this
> unproven analgesic?

Since your "example" is completely false...no, we shan't.

okay, but instead of proving my point as 'wrong', it actually reinforces the point I was trying to make.

It proves the anecdotal evidence that aspirin's unexplained effectiveness made someone wonder HOW it worked, and the reason was finally known and published in 95, as you state. Aspirin has been used for millenia, as I stated previously, and until that particular study, the exact mechanics were unknown, just as the exact mechanics of the transistor radio - sans batteries - playing a comforting song at a coincidental time in the linked story is unknown and unexplainable at this time.

As the author states, and I agree, it does not prove 'god' or 'preternatural', it proves 'we don't know'. It does NOT prove there is no 'god', either.

The article about the book talks about a film and the theorum in presented in the film, which could be plausible, but we do not know so discussion of the matter is all hypothetical. Yet, that is how new ideas get formed, then tested and either proven or disproved: they start off as imagination. That just made me think of the buddhist mantra 'the thought precedes the action'.

I believe it is right to speak hypothetically about subjects we know nothing about; pure speculation, nothing else, but some have a better imagination than others and ideas can bounce back and forth.

It was a long time before professor Higgs was proven correct in his hypothesis about the 'goddam' boson particle. One day we will better understand things we have no understanding of now. But to dismiss it as irrelevant is to do a disservice to science in my opinion as eventually, as an idea spreads, someone will design an experiment to either prove or disprove an idea once considered 'silly' or 'ridiculous' - they once called them heretical.

It’s turttles all the way down.

.....swimming through space

Wasn't able to read review without subscribing to the Washington Post.

Is there a different link to the article?

You can probably get a good feel for the book at it's Amazon page:

https://www.amazon.com/Heavens-Earth-Scientific-Afterlife-Immortality/dp/1627798579

I got the impression that deists would find the book less useful...

A gag order from God?

Once again, gullible believers prove how easily they can be bamboozled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2018 05:05AM by steve benson.