Witch Burnings

[Parson]

Originally Posted by TheEndIsNigh

What. Have I missed something in my soon to end existance. All this time there has been evidence of life after death. Ooooh nooooooo, so many years of repenting and remorse to make up. Is there still hope? Can I still be saved? Where's that camel, pass me my needles.

The evidence is not incontrovertible, there are alternative theories for these but they could be used for evidence.

If I were to marshal evidence for life after death outside of specific religious teachings I would say first that I find it very significant that all (or nearly all) human cultures have some sort of idea of a continued existence after death. This might be significant.

Second, I would point to the number of "near death" reports many of a place of peace and even a few known ones of a place of torment which the people involved recognized as their destination.

As far as miraculous healings go, take a hard look at the documentation of Lourdes. You might go for "spontaneous remission" but that too could be understood as a healing.

so many years of repenting and remorse to make up. Is there still hope? Can I still be saved? Where's that camel, pass me my needles.

As to the above comment. This does not show a true Christian view of salvation. If you want to know more pm me and we will talk.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Parson

JD & Mosaix,

I am not sure I understand the nuance between "posited possibility" and "belief." If you limit belief to something for which there is no evidence, I am at a loss. Even such things as miraculous healing and life after death have some evidence, no matter how flimsy some might see it.

Now if you mean belief as something for which there is no known evidence by the people who believe; then you have a lot more open field. You could begin by the first human to believe that fire was not magic and could be controlled and even started by human intervention.

OK, Parson I'm taking a gamble here. I think is is unlikely that you believe in fairies. If you do then I don't think we need to take this discussion any further.

If you don't, now imagine trying to explain to some one who does exactly why you don't.

Well that's how I feel about explaining to you why I don't believe in life after death.

BTW there is NO evidence for life after death - flimsy or otherwise. Near death is not death, it is near death. If people are alive to explain their near death experiences then they didn't die did they? What they described was near death not death.

And as for your suggestion of a place of torment, such teaching is a disgrace and any organisation that teaches such a thing has no place in a civilised world.

[j. d. worthington]

As for "near-death experiences", you might want to take a look at the following:

Howstuffworks "How Near-death Experiences Work"

near-death experiences (NDEs)

One thing frequently brought up is that feeling of hovering over and seeing one's body, others gathered around it, etc. One test posited for such would be to post a note of some sort on a fixture above where the people in, say, an operating room, would be standing, and see if any of those reporting NDEs actually see it. Or, if there's fear of contamination, then some other sort of object that would be sterile enough to be introduced into such an environment, or where they have artificially induced the same response. If no one does see this, then that's a pretty good indication what we have are simply physiological responses coupled with psychology, nothing more.

There was, incidentally, a fellow a few years ago who was dying of terminal cancer, who allowed them to film (and monitor) what happened to him all the way to death, and all the evidence gathered there pointed to it being simply (if one can use such a word for such complex mechanisms) physiological responses of the body attempting to preserve life as long as possible, shutting down various "inessential" aspects of the brain going back to the most primitive parts of that organ. These responses, we know from various other medical experiences, induce exactly the sorts of things claimed for NDEs; which again indicates a sort of psychological self-preservation at work, as the closer one actually approaches death, the more the body imposes a sort of calm peacefulness, which preserves the person's emotional as well as physical energy for a longer time.

As for why all human cultures have such beliefs/experiences... again, this goes to our earliest development, long before we developed the tools to understand the world (let alone the universe) around us, and to a point when we first began to understand the distinctions between life, sleep, and death. While much of the anthropological writing on this involves some speculation, it is backed by evidence garnered from more primitive tribes as well as children, which would argue for a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

And, of course, once a belief system evolves and becomes established, even the younger members of that society will pick up enough of it to have a fair amount show up in their responses to questions or experiences associated with these subjects; it colors their perceptions to an enormous degree.

The only way to reach an even reasonably objective answer to whether these things have any basis or not is to begin from a position of non-acceptance of anything beyond the demonstrable physical reality, without evidence of something that exceeds the bounds of that reality. If it is something that can and does (usually quite often) happen within the bounds of the natural world, there is no reason to give credence to any sort of supernatural explanation. If, on the other hand, something crops up which does seem to go beyond that, then is the time to investigate and find out whether it truly is beyond natural or merely apparently so, but found to actually be natural upon further inquiry.

And keep in mind, too, that the majority of scientists would absolutely love to find such evidence; it would be the most exciting thing in the world, as it would open up whole new realms of unknown territory to explore. It'd be much like a kid in a combined candy and toy shop, with no spending limit. Yet, with all the millennia since the earliest Greek skeptics, no one has been able to provide any solid evidence to open up these realms; not one single person.

[Lith]

I don't know how you're supposed to find physical evidence of meta-physical things. Science can only measure the natural world, we have no "equipment", so to speak, to go beyond.

(sorry guys, but these conversations get rather too exhaustive and time-consuming for me.)

[j. d. worthington]

As I noted before, if it is truly "metaphysical" (more properly here, supernatural, as metaphysics covers a wide range of subjects including ontology), then that's fine. Something that remains on that level alone is simply a philosophy. But once something supposedly enters into the physical realm and influences it, it must by definition have some physical aspect to it. So far, no evidence supporting such claims have ever been found. The problem is, that all such systems claim to influence physical reality, yet there is absolutely nothing that is claimed to be a result of these things that is not perfectly explainable without the supernatural. With no evidence to back up its existence, why on earth should anyone believe it save from a desire to do so, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the matter? And believing in falsehood over reality tends to lead to poorer choices in life....

[Parson]

Originally Posted by mosaix

OK, Parson I'm taking a gamble here. I think is is unlikely that you believe in fairies. If you do then I don't think we need to take this discussion any further.

If you don't, now imagine trying to explain to some one who does exactly why you don't.

Well that's how I feel about explaining to you why I don't believe in life after death.

BTW there is NO evidence for life after death - flimsy or otherwise. Near death is not death, it is near death. If people are alive to explain their near death experiences then they didn't die did they? What they described was near death not death.

And as for your suggestion of a place of torment, such teaching is a disgrace and any organisation that teaches such a thing has no place in a civilised world.

I was not asking, nor did I ask, you to explain your views to me. It seemed clear to me that you were pillaring Christian belief without really understanding it. Therefore I said that if you would like more information about the Christian understanding you could pm me.

If you don't want to ask about it. That's your privilege. I was not going to turn this thread into a Christian theological dialog by posting outside of the thread. (at least any further than is already apparent.)

[Parson]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As for "near-death experiences", you might want to take a look at the following:

Howstuffworks "How Near-death Experiences Work"

near-death experiences (NDEs)

One thing frequently brought up is that feeling of hovering over and seeing one's body, others gathered around it, etc. One test posited for such would be to post a note of some sort on a fixture above where the people in, say, an operating room, would be standing, and see if any of those reporting NDEs actually see it. Or, if there's fear of contamination, then some other sort of object that would be sterile enough to be introduced into such an environment, or where they have artificially induced the same response. If no one does see this, then that's a pretty good indication what we have are simply physiological responses coupled with psychology, nothing more.

There was, incidentally, a fellow a few years ago who was dying of terminal cancer, who allowed them to film (and monitor) what happened to him all the way to death, and all the evidence gathered there pointed to it being simply (if one can use such a word for such complex mechanisms) physiological responses of the body attempting to preserve life as long as possible, shutting down various "inessential" aspects of the brain going back to the most primitive parts of that organ. These responses, we know from various other medical experiences, induce exactly the sorts of things claimed for NDEs; which again indicates a sort of psychological self-preservation at work, as the closer one actually approaches death, the more the body imposes a sort of calm peacefulness, which preserves the person's emotional as well as physical energy for a longer time.

As for why all human cultures have such beliefs/experiences... again, this goes to our earliest development, long before we developed the tools to understand the world (let alone the universe) around us, and to a point when we first began to understand the distinctions between life, sleep, and death. While much of the anthropological writing on this involves some speculation, it is backed by evidence garnered from more primitive tribes as well as children, which would argue for a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

And, of course, once a belief system evolves and becomes established, even the younger members of that society will pick up enough of it to have a fair amount show up in their responses to questions or experiences associated with these subjects; it colors their perceptions to an enormous degree.

The only way to reach an even reasonably objective answer to whether these things have any basis or not is to begin from a position of non-acceptance of anything beyond the demonstrable physical reality, without evidence of something that exceeds the bounds of that reality. If it is something that can and does (usually quite often) happen within the bounds of the natural world, there is no reason to give credence to any sort of supernatural explanation. If, on the other hand, something crops up which does seem to go beyond that, then is the time to investigate and find out whether it truly is beyond natural or merely apparently so, but found to actually be natural upon further inquiry.

And keep in mind, too, that the majority of scientists would absolutely love to find such evidence; it would be the most exciting thing in the world, as it would open up whole new realms of unknown territory to explore. It'd be much like a kid in a combined candy and toy shop, with no spending limit. Yet, with all the millennia since the earliest Greek skeptics, no one has been able to provide any solid evidence to open up these realms; not one single person.

JD,

I agree with everything you've said here. I said that the evidence was flimsy, but it is more than no evidence. I said there were other explanations and there are. Unlike some, I don't make a big deal of NDEs for this very reason.

The religious impulse can be explained by the need to organize data that we don't/didn't have the ability to understand, or it could be an inner longing for the Creator. I choose the latter, and doubt very strongly that either option will ever be proven in what we Christians call "this life."

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Parson

JD,

I agree with everything you've said here. I said that the evidence was flimsy, but it is more than no evidence. I said there were other explanations and there are. Unlike some, I don't make a big deal of NDEs for this very reason.

The religious impulse can be explained by the need to organize data that we don't/didn't have the ability to understand, or it could be an inner longing for the Creator. I choose the latter, and doubt very strongly that either option will ever be proven in what we Christians call "this life."

Oh, I would imagine it will remain at least something of an open question, yes, considering science very seldom (if ever) completely denies the possibility of anything these days, on the even microscopically small chance that some evidence may surface to support it. Essentially, though, what we have here is indeed a matter of choice: to go with that which is supported by the evidence, regardless of where it leads us; or to go with that which satisfies an emotional longing. In which case, it has little or nothing to do with actual truth, but simply with what appeals to the emotions.

The one thing we can say with certainty is that, while there may possibly be some form of deity, it is nothing like the ones depicted in the religious texts we've been given so far. Those all conflict in too many ways with demonstrable reality, whether it be history or the nature of reality as we've arduously come to understand it. In the meantime, there may be a deity, yes; but we have about as much evidence supporting the existence of such as we do for Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Lovecraft's Azathoth and/or Nyarlathotep... and we have even less evidence to support the existence of witchcraft and spiritual phenomena....

[Parson]

Or the Apostle Paul is right in 1 Corinthians 2

11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[j. d. worthington]

The problem with that sort of reasoning, Parson, it that it is also the sort of thing that allows (nay, encourages) con artists to thrive. It becomes a self-justifying excuse for not having to show evidence and then blaming those who find this less than convincing....

Which is, once again, why skepticism is a better approach to such matters. After all, if you're dealing with a conscious force (a god) who created human beings, then that also includes their intelligence. And, if that god is also omniscient, then he/she/it would know that intelligence would require evidence of such extraordinary claims... yet none is provided. Which, again, is very much like a cosmic form of the old shell-game, and hardly an honest action we'd respect in any other aspect of life....

Which brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of this thread (as well as bringing the thread back to its original topic): Beliefs such as these, which condemn people to torture and death without even the slender palliative of any form of evidence to support such beliefs, need to be eradicated from the species; attack them at the root, demonstrate the complete and utter falsehood of such beliefs, and demonstrate by example the genuine way the world works, help people to understand these things instead of reinforcing beliefs that should have perished centuries ago, and you'll be doing the human race an enormous favor....

[Parson]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

The problem with that sort of reasoning, Parson, it that it is also the sort of thing that allows (nay, encourages) con artists to thrive. It becomes a self-justifying excuse for not having to show evidence and then blaming those who find this less than convincing....

The Christian faith has certainly had more than its share of these. It seems an obvious opening. In the long run though these con artists are revealed because the Bible also sets a standard of behavior and tells believers that you will recognize those who are true "by their fruit." From Pelagian to Jim Jones and Jim Bakker and thousands of those between who have tried to set themselves above God's standard have fallen.

Which is, once again, why skepticism is a better approach to such matters. After all, if you're dealing with a conscious force (a god) who created human beings, then that also includes their intelligence. And, if that god is also omniscient, then he/she/it would know that intelligence would require evidence of such extraordinary claims... yet none is provided. Which, again, is very much like a cosmic form of the old shell-game, and hardly an honest action we'd respect in any other aspect of life....

This is a logical argument and carries weight as such. But this logic might be flawed in a way that we do not understand. I see the gulf between human intelligence and God as near infinite. When I brought my daughter to school for the first time she broke my heart crying that she did not want to go. (This occurred occasionally for 4 years!) There was no logic that she understood that made sense to her to go to a place where she struggled mentally and socially. Now that she has children of her own she understands but it took a lot more maturity and comprehension than she possessed at that time to understand the requirement. I believe I will understand some day, but in this life we don't have the categories or the foresight to understand all the reasons for God's actions.

Which brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of this thread (as well as bringing the thread back to its original topic): Beliefs such as these, which condemn people to torture and death without even the slender palliative of any form of evidence to support such beliefs, need to be eradicated from the species; attack them at the root, demonstrate the complete and utter falsehood of such beliefs, and demonstrate by example the genuine way the world works, help people to understand these things instead of reinforcing beliefs that should have perished centuries ago, and you'll be doing the human race an enormous favor....

If I understand what you are saying here we have no disagreement. People should not be condemned to torture and death because they believe differently. I would go further. I would say that they should not be condemned at all. I would say that in the world of ideas including faith we let all of them exist in honest competition. No one should fear this.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Parson

I was not asking, nor did I ask, you to explain your views to me. It seemed clear to me that you were pillaring Christian belief without really understanding it. Therefore I said that if you would like more information about the Christian understanding you could pm me.

If you don't want to ask about it. That's your privilege. I was not going to turn this thread into a Christian theological dialog by posting outside of the thread. (at least any further than is already apparent.)

Parson, as for 'understanding Christian belief' and 'information about Christian understanding' - I am a an ex-Methodist lay-preacher so any pillaring of Christian belief that I choose to do (and I didn't) I do with a full working knowledge of the subject.

As for PM'ing me - I think you are confusing me with TEIN so if there's any misunderstanding going on then I think you are the one who is doing it.

[The Procrastinator]

And now, a word from our sponsors:

[Lith]

Half-empty, or half-full?

[The Procrastinator]

That is not for me to say. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder.