Time, death and the universe

[thir]

T:There are no "good" religions. There are only some that are less bad than others. They all seem to require a belief in something that cannot be shown to be real. They all seem to promote poor thought processes.

I disagree. The religions that are non-dogmatic and which are considered private do not hurt anyone, and thoughts are free, you know. Religion has fuddled people's head's in the past and can do so now, agreed. But not necessarily. I think the reason I can be more tolerant here is that my home country is not very religious and my present one not much more. It is not a problem.

Thir: makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!
T:I don't know. I think it runs a close second to telling people that they are born bad and can only be redeemed by believing in an invisible man in the sky who has a fetish for human sacrifice.


Same thing. For many it is fear of hell that gets you in line.

Thir: I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

T: [I]Not at all,

But yes. Your main arguments are 1) that science does not know of any such thing (people having visions while in coma or some sort of dead), therefore it does not exist, and when people say they have in fact had such experiences they are lying, or it is magic or religious humbug. Because the dogmatic book of science does not know of this, even if you also acknowledge that we know little about how the brains works.

Thir: I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..
Thorne: Even if that were so, where are the cultural differences between Lutherans and Catholics? Between Baptists and Episcopalians?
Between Sunni and Sufi? These aren't cultural differences, they are religious differences. Different interpretations of the magical words of ancient books.

Oh yes, they are, there are major different cultures within a nations borders.

Thir Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

Thorne: And does she answer your prayers? Does she protect you from harm? Nature is a capricious bitch with no concern for our welfare.

Correct. Therefor no prayers, she is simply nature, and everything else.

Thorne: If we had to rely only on her mankind would still be huddling in caves, wondering where our next meal was coming from.

You do not get it, Thorne. Nature fed us, roots, berries, fruit, grain, occasionally meat. Where did that come from, if not nature?

Thorne: It's from the advances of science and technology that we are able to build structure to protect us from nature's ravages; that we can transport food and medicines across deserts and oceans; that we can live well into our 80's and 90's rather than dying in our 30's.

Where do you think your meals come from? Build in a lab? Where do the cattle graze, where does the wheat grow? Of course we live off nature.

There have been many technical advances - what has that got to do with anything?
Apart from the fact that we are now weak and cannot survive without our many technological incubators. If something major happens, we are lost.

Thorne: Anthropomorphizing nature doesn't make her a goddess. It's just more fuzzy thinking.

Well, I like to think of it that way. And I am not fuzzy headed, not for that reason anyway ;-)

[Thorne]

I disagree. The religions that are non-dogmatic and which are considered private do not hurt anyone, and thoughts are free, you know. Religion has fuddled people's head's in the past and can do so now, agreed. But not necessarily.

While these private religions may not hurt others, they can, and do, harm the person believing in them. They can create emotional/mental problems, even physical problems, by allowing the believer to bypass reality. If you believe that prayer alone will solve your problems, you can reach the point where you do nothing for yourself except pray. That's a problem.

But yes. Your main arguments are 1) that science does not know of any such thing (people having visions while in coma or some sort of dead), therefore it does not exist,

No, science DOES know of these things. They have been reported upon and studied. The phenomena exist, scientifically. The CAUSES are also generally known to science, and there a sound physiological explanations for them. They are, as far as can be determined, inner processes of the brain and not OBE's.

and when people say they have in fact had such experiences they are lying, or it is magic or religious humbug.

Not quite. When they report their visions they are, mostly, telling the truth. Their minds have, in all likelihood, experienced this thing. It's when they start writing books, going on speaking tours, claiming to KNOW what happened and it was all God, or something, that they devolve into misrepresentation and lying.

Oh yes, they are, there are major different cultures within a nations borders.

Yes, there are. And you can have these different cultures, side by side, all practicing the same religion. Sure, there might be minor differences in ritual between them, but the belief structure will be the same. You can also have representatives of a single culture with major differences in religions belief. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are a prime example. Pretty much identical cultures, outside of their religions, but major differences in belief.

Correct. Therefor no prayers, she is simply nature, and everything else.

So what's the point in worship?

You do not get it, Thorne. Nature fed us, roots, berries, fruit, grain, occasionally meat. Where did that come from, if not nature?

But she gave us barely enough to feed the small groups wandering the plains. And often not enough even for that, resulting in conflicts between groups for the scant resources left.

Where do you think your meals come from? Build in a lab? Where do the cattle graze, where does the wheat grow? Of course we live off nature.
There have been many technical advances - what has that got to do with anything?

It's only when we began using our brains to cultivate the land, learned to protect our crops from weather and pests, became able to grow more than we need, allowing us to barter with others, that we began to progress. In spite of nature, not because of it.

Apart from the fact that we are now weak and cannot survive without our many technological incubators. If something major happens, we are lost.

It's true, our technology allows far more people to thrive than would be possible if we were dependent solely upon nature. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[thir]

While these private religions may not hurt others, they can, and do, harm the person believing in them. They can create emotional/mental problems, even physical problems, by allowing the believer to bypass reality. If you believe that prayer alone will solve your problems, you can reach the point where you do nothing for yourself except pray. That's a problem.

I do not see it that way. You seem to believe that all religions entail prayers of some sort, and that, if you pray, you are in danger of doing nothing. I think you are wrong. If you believe in gods, you might just as well believe that gods help those who help themselves.

So what's the point in worship?

The worship I talk about is more a love of nature and a realization that we live of her and need to not destroy her.

But she gave us barely enough to feed the small groups wandering the plains. And often not enough even for that, resulting in conflicts between groups for the scant resources left.

Why do you think there was 'barely enough'? There was plenty!
And not that many conflicts either..that came later, with much more people.

It's only when we began using our brains to cultivate the land, learned to protect our crops from weather and pests, became able to grow more than we need, allowing us to barter with others, that we began to progress. In spite of nature, not because of it.

The really bad thing was to go to farming. Far too many people, many of whom had a rotten and short life, and far too many people, resulting in far too many conflicts. We can now destroy ourselves in war, and we are busy destroying earth. That is not intelligence, that is greed and stupidity.

'Progress' is a manipulative word, meant to imply that everything that went before is worse than the new, and so that all new is good.

It's true, our technology allows far more people to thrive than would be possible if we were dependent solely upon nature. I don't see that as a bad thing.

I do. Because we are taking more than earth can regrow and using up resources that cannot be replaced.
We are on a wrong track.

[thir]

No, science DOES know of these things. They have been reported upon and studied. The phenomena exist, scientifically. The CAUSES are also generally known to science, and there a sound physiological explanations for them. They are, as far as can be determined, inner processes of the brain and not OBE's.

Yes, they have been studied some. I have managed to dig out the program I was talking about, in which several scientists talked about near or death experiences.
More of that later. My own conclusion is that the jury is still out on that one.

[Thorne]

You seem to believe that all religions entail prayers of some sort, and that, if you pray, you are in danger of doing nothing.

Not at all! I was using prayer as an example. In fact, I do understand that prayer can have beneficial effects, similar to meditation. And, while there are those who do believe that praying is more important than actual actions, most people will generally try to do something first, then pray. Those deeply ingrained in religious thought then tend to credit the prayers, rather than the hard work, for any accomplishments.

I think you are wrong.

Is that even possible?

If you believe in gods, you might just as well believe that gods help those who help themselves.

Which would negate the reason for prayer, would it not? Or for worship.

The worship I talk about is more a love of nature and a realization that we live of her and need to not destroy her.

We can find many beautiful things in nature, for sure. Mostly because we are evolutionarily inclined to find such things beautiful. Just as the dung beetle finds the droppings of other creatures to be beautiful. But such things are cultural more often than not. A desert-dwelling nomad may find the golden sand dunes to be extraordinarily beautiful, but might be dismayed by the ugly barrenness of the frozen north. The Eskimo, on the other hand, would have the opposite experience. In either case, it's the people who have adapted to nature, and not the other way around. Nature is not a 'she' or a 'he' or even an 'it'. It's merely a concept we have devised for explaining the natural world.

Why do you think there was 'barely enough'? There was plenty!

There was plenty for the limited number of small bands of people. As tribes grew larger, resources became more scarce. Which forced the tribes to move more often, creating conflicts with other tribes.

And not that many conflicts either..that came later, with much more people.

There have been conflicts for as long as there have been creatures. Conflict is also a part of nature. We humans have simply elevated it to an art form.

The really bad thing was to go to farming. Far too many people, many of whom had a rotten and short life, and far too many people, resulting in far too many conflicts.

Farming actually improved the lives of people, stabilizing the food supply, allowing for larger families, and groups of families, which meant greater protection against predators, the animal kind at least. And even against the human kind. Conflict has always been, and likely will always be, with us. It's a part of our 'nature'.

That is not intelligence, that is greed and stupidity.

Also a part of our nature, sadly.

Because we are taking more than earth can regrow and using up resources that cannot be replaced.
We are on a wrong track.

Then perhaps we should reduce the population of the world? Limit ourselves to only a few million people rather than several billion? Who is going to decide who will go? Are you willing to volunteer?

Or should we perhaps use our minds to make things better for everyone, while educating everyone about resource use? Just remember, going back to nature means going back to lives that were short, insecure and brutal.

[thir]

After having seen various programs (asking questins, having no answers) I got interested, but I think we are discussing in east and west here, at least partially.

1) I have said nothing about afterlife or religion.

At least one researcher thinks that what people experience in these situations have to do with what they expect to experience, hence religious people see something religious, non-religious see something else.

Almost always something extremely good, though some have nightmares.

2) What I do say is that reason for these experiences is not known. Yes, there are many hypothesises (how do you spell that?) but no actual proof of anything. "We do not have have the neural correlate of consciousness."

3) I am very interested in the idea that consciousness is not actually restricted to the brain.
It is Pim Van Lommen who has come up with that idea, and obviously met with lots of criticism and skepticism.As far as I can follow this, the criticism is that it goes against what you know about the brain,. The reason it interests me even so is that he is a cardiologist who has researched these things for 20 years, by being a person who receives persons with a stroke and who resuscitates them if possible.
He has studied his patient's death symptoms (can you say that) people with no heart beat, and flat brain. And some of these people tell him things. I think that such a long period must count for more than people who argue out of their books.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/arc...DE.htm#results


My own conclusion: something is going on, and the jury is out in what.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=thir;989412]

1) I have said nothing about afterlife or religion.

At least one researcher thinks that what people experience in these situations have to do with what they expect to experience, hence religious people see something religious, non-religious see something else.

This is what I've been saying. Which is why most scientists think these experiences are subjective and internal and not actual OBE's.
And while you may not necessarily be talking about afterlife or religion, the majority of those who experience such things ARE talking about them.

2) What I do say is that reason for these experiences is not known.

Again, we agree. But that does not mean we can just decide to believe they are real events, in which an untethered 'soul' (consciousness) escapes the body. Almost all of the studies done seem to indicate that such things are internal, within the brain.

3) I am very interested in the idea that consciousness is not actually restricted to the brain.
It is Pim Van Lommen who has come up with that idea, and obviously met with lots of criticism and skepticism.

Skepticism is always justified. Perhaps the criticism comes from the fact that he makes the claim without actually showing any evidence for it.

As far as I can follow this, the criticism is that it goes against what you know about the brain,. The reason it interests me even so is that he is a cardiologist who has researched these things for 20 years, by being a person who receives persons with a stroke and who resuscitates them if possible.
He has studied his patient's death symptoms (can you say that) people with no heart beat, and flat brain. And some of these people tell him things.

His being a cardiologist does not necessarily qualify him to study psychological phenomena. And based on a scan of the study you posted, his conclusions appear to be somewhat premature, at least to an amateur like me. His own study shows that only 18% of those studied had an experience, or could remember having one, and even that number is inflated. He states in the study that it could be as low as 5% who actually have them. I'm not a statistics whiz, but that seems to be a rather low percentage. And even of those who had them, the depth, or intensity, of the experiences vary. I honestly don't see how he could conclude that these are anything other than subjective, natural, organic experiences.

I think that such a long period must count for more than people who argue out of their books.

It certainly counts for his skill and understanding of cardiology. I can't comment on his expertise in NDE's.

My own conclusion: something is going on, and the jury is out in what.

I agree, something is going on, and it should be studied. It HAS been studied, extensively. And from what I can see, the skeptical view is still justified. There's no reason to believe that these are anything other than natural processes within the brain.

A couple of comments on the study you posted:
He seems to include those who underwent CPR outside of the hospital. How were they able to determine that these patients were brain dead? I don't think EMT's perform brain scans while transporting patients.

He notes that the majority of NDE-type experiences can be induced artificially, whether through direct stimulation of the brain or through high stress activities (high G-forces, for example) but states that these "induced experiences are not identical to NDE". He doesn't seem to discuss the idea that the psychological stresses of the induced experiences are far different than those of someone actually dying!

So I'm going to stick with my skepticism. I haven't seen anything to show that these experiences are anything but natural processes occurring in an organic body, with no real evidence of a non-biological/psychological cause.