h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> Also, I am trying not to get heated about this point<<

That's probably our problem then? I like *heated*. Don't worry benj, I'm leaving this thread for definite now. But I'm sure there's others here who will be happy to debate with you.

once again goes the dummie out the pram . ok what would be better kids being brought up in a faith like go to church or on the other hand learn drugs or sell there bodys and end up in jail . i have never seen such evil in kids and teens in todays age now who do we blame not the church .

<< ok what would be better kids being brought up in a faith like go to church or on the other hand learn drugs or sell there bodys and end up in jail >>

With all due respect, Rusty, that is the classic fallacy of creating a false dichotomy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the foregoing are the only options available? Do you genuinely believe that all people who are brought up in different faiths from yours or even no faith at all "learn drugs or sell there bodys and end up in jail" ?

Please!

Hmmm no they dont i'm trying to make a point to those who rubbish all kinds of faith.

Sorry, but perhaps you could clarify that point for those of us who don't quite see the connection between rubbishing faith and selling one's body and learning drugs.

"I dont like this idea that because something cannot be defined (i.e. the idea that there's something we cannot fully comprehend yet, therefore cannot be defined) it MUST not exist or is a fantasy.

I can understand arguing against specific types of belief that you feel are unproveable, but accepting a possibility there might be more out there that we cant even really understand yet, let alone name or prove? Pure woo woo if you ask me. It's a very strong atheist belief."

That would Indeed be extremely narrow minded, but that's not what we're talking about here. There are many things we don't know about yet, which as Effers says is why scientists still get up in the morning. There are many known unknowns, like the basic structure of matter, dark matter and energy, a quantum theory of gravity. There are also (probably) loads of unknown unknowns - things we haven't even discovered yet, things for which there is no evidence either way.

But what we're talking about here are not even unknowns. They are things for which there is no evidence for, but considerable evidence against. And by evidence against, I mean negative results - studies done but nothing found. No test has ever indicated that people *can* speak to the dead. The results aren't negative because these things are "unproveable", they're negative because, in arriving at a conclusion based on evidence alone, there is nothing there to "prove". And to pre-empt the response - no, they are not "disproved" either, but most rational people would make a decision based on strength of evidence.

It's not a case of it MUST not exist because we cannot define it; it's a case of it MOST LIKELY doesn't exist because we've looked and found nothing.

And of course that applies to the fundamental tenets of all religions as well as the other woo woo beliefs.

I still fail to see why religion keeps coming in to this argument, it's got nothing to do with it. Sure, religions identify an afterlife but that doesn't mean that the idea of people continuing to exist after their body has died is necessarily a religious idea and it doesn't mean that it needs to be considered -or dismissed- in terms that require it to be accepted on faith without evidence. If it's tests we're talking about I have the vaguest recollections of experiments involving dual brain wave patterns and demonstrations that people close to death experience 'out of body' episodes which enable them to describe the room they are in detail they could not otherwise have known about. I do not, as I say, no the details but I am happy to do some exploring on this front and see what I can find.

I guess as soon as you start taliking about beliefs, particularly belief in propositions that run counter to the evidence, that have no empirical support, defy reason, and are counterintuitive to rational thinking, some of us don't see such a sharp distinction.

It seems to me that religion fits in eminently well.

I would also say there is no reason to bring religion into this. NDE´s is such a thing that we can actually investigate, in a proper scientific way.

There are some kinds of studies we can do on NDEs. Of course, they all meet with the same difficulty that all psychological studies encounter: the problem that there is no way of verifying reported internal experience.

In any case, this thread started out being about people who claim to talk to the dead. That, one would presume includes a great number of traditional religion members as well as secular frauds. That there is some sort of spiritual "survival" or even an "afterlife", to make that possible is surely a component of religion, isn't it?

Yes but that doesn't mean the two have to be linked, all religions believe in live after death doesn't mean that all beievers in life after death are religious. Therefore you can't despite what effers has tried to do, disprove or smear the one idea by attacking the other.

I understand the distinction between <>. I just don't understand why you object to bringing such a significant component (although not the only one) of the discussion into play.

Why should a religious belief in a proposition like that of the existence of an afterlife be unexamined while a secular one is subject to scrutiny? Surely, as long the proposition is shared, the discussion should include both.

If both the religious and the secular beliefs are found to be wanting in terms of reason or empirical support, where is the "smear"?

Some people (Effers for one, me for another) find sloppy thinking a little distasteful when engaged upon deliberately. Perhaps that's what you detect as an intent to "smear".

mengerti mr smear indeed upper class by the sounds of it ok i was not meaning all kids turn out in a life of crime etc i meant id rather see kids been brought up beliving in god taught the bible in schools than going down hill now not everyone does some do

Nope i'm not closing my mind to it i have took on board what you have all said and it is dam clever how 1 A person you never knew can tell you something you only knew and never told anyone so how could they know or things that happen by chance or friends who you never see for years and they come it to your mind and the next day or 2 you bump in to them sorry there is more to this than meets the eye

Rusty:

I'm not sure what you mean by "upper class". I was born to a relatively poor family. I worked hard at learning things and worked my way through university. I have an education, yes. Should I apologise?

As to the substance of your post: <>

Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to see kids brought up to think for themselves, to think rationally, and to think critically rather "than going down hill".

So what's your point?

Didn't spiritulism and claiming to talk to dead people rise in popularity just after the first world war ? Mainly due to thousands of people loseing loved ones without being able to say goodbye to them or in many cases not even having a body to bury . This coupled with 'photographic evedence' that claimed to show ectoplasm and ghostly imagies .

best fishes.......tod

That period might have been a spike, but the forlorn hope of speaking with people who are no longer alive has persisted for all of mankind's history. That suggests a near universal wish; it's shame there's absolutely no evidence for the phenomenon.

If wishes were horses, etc.

'I just don't understand why you object to bringing such a significant component (although not the only one) of the discussion into play.'

Because one of the arguments against life after death seems to rest on an ttack against religion. Effers and others have bleated on about what they refer to as 'woo-woo'. The main arguments seem to be that the thinking around it is sloppy and that it is force-fed to kids in schools. These are both arguably true of reliion but I do not believe is is true of the concept of life after death. To my mind the argument that religion is founded on non-empirical thinking is being used to suggest that life after death is also, of necessity, based on the same principal, which I find to be sloppy thinking. Also, I am still uncertain why the fact that effers was force fed religion at school makes him so aggressive towards Vicky. Did she teach him RE at school?

We're going around in circles here.

If a religion espouses life after death, its reasoning for that proposition needs to be examined, as does any other doctrine that has an afterlife as a critical component. I can't see why you want to exempt religion from scrutiny. Or maybe I do

And BTW. Read the history of Della (vicky's) posts. Effers is far from aggressive. In fact, I would say that Della has been responsible for more rational, reasonable people leaving threads and even this site than any other still-active troll. Effers' response is exasperation at being gratuitously insulted time and again despite her many efforts to extend a hand in peace.

The record speaks for itself.