That doesn't even make sense. You're combining two different believes, belief that souls go to a heaven or a hell and the belief in a soul to which many cultures believe in. Neuroscience is the study of the living brain, so what people believe or do not believe about a dead brain doesn't concern them and again you don't have to be such a conceited ass about it. Ever watch the show House? You and Hugh Laurie's character have much in common. Contrary to what you believe, it is possible to make your point and remain civil. Suppose we can't consider any of the paranormal research an iota, speck, mote, or particle of proof /eyeroll
I mean no disrespect but... Instead of trying to leave this world, dimension, realm or whatever you may call it and live there for eternity, why not push the limits and try to become immortal within our current one? To me, it seems even less ambitious than the former. (Which, admittedly, is very ambitious.) It is obvious that life expectancy of a human continues to grow so why not? If not for yourself, why not for others yet to be born? If you cannot be happy within this world, how can you be so sure that you will enjoy the next one? You don't decide who goes where so you might eventually be just as miserable as you once were here. (Especially if you don't believe in a Hell, or equivalent, at all.) On a more personal note, I don't seek said immortality/eternity because it seems more like a punishment more than it does a reward. I like to think of time as some proprietary mineral like gold or silver. It is very valuable to me but more so if it is limited. Eternity and immortality essentially turns my gold into dirt.
..who says I don't want that. Did I say I want to rush to said afterlife. Belief in one and wanting to experience it are two very different things
So why is this your view when there is no evidence for it? You have no other reason to believe this but for consolation. But we weren't imposing you want to rush to it. It's no surprise that most people of acclaimed religious status seek power and success in this life and not in any other.
That did not make grammatical or argumentative sense. If those people didn't believe in the existence of souls, they wouldn't have been fleeced into giving their money to the church. If Buddhists didn't believe in the reincarnation of souls, they wouldn't attribute sickness and misfortune to bad Karma and blame the victims of disease. The belief in souls isn't a standalone belief that exists independently. When you have people attacking neuroscience (or medical science) because materialism is incompatible with their beliefs and attempting to block research, or telling their children to reject treatment for preventable diseases, it is a concern. If you expected me to say anything other than that "paranormal research" is an oxymoron, I'm surprised.
I base my view on paranormal research and a little faith which despite you and shuman's bitter outcry against faith of any form is important to me. Just because paranormal research hasn't yet been vetted as accurate in any way doesn't mean it isn't "no" evidence. There is more evidence of "ghosts" then there is of string theory, just because the latter explains a lot more and makes a lot more sense in context of scientific understanding doesn't make the former any less warranted of attention. You obviously haven't spent much time looking into it then. Try again when better informed. Because that is happening. You show me a medical journal from neuroscientists saying their research has been poorly funded or blocked all together because of religious zealots and I'll concede my point. Hell I'll even take a tabloid. Mind you, I'm even throwing you a bone by saying religious zealots and not just a person who happens to believe in a soul. I suggest you look up the word oxymoron before you incorrectly use it to defend your conceited stance.
Take notice of what I actually said. Oh string theory is a well thought out theory, and its probably right, I believe it. But it is theoretical physics not applied physics. There is no actual evidence of string theory. It explains a lot of things and a lot of things don't work without it which is why I believe string theory is correct, however, more evidence (no matter how bogus you think it is) has been recorded by electronic audio recorders, electromagnetic field detectors, etc of "ghosts". There is no arguing that its a simple obvious statement. The only argument would be how legit any of that "evidence" is for paranormal things but I'm not arguing that currently. But hey, you show me the data unequivocally proving string theory and hey you won't only win this debate but you'll win every scientific award imaginable.
Do you not know about Martin Luther? Do you not know about various religious universities that not only seek but encourage scientific understanding? e.g. Wheaton college. One of their main objectives is to to cultivate a campus atmosphere that encourages spiritual, moral and intellectual growth. I believe you see a rash misconception of Christianity and haven't taken the time to see the positive/reaslitic outlook. I think the basic atheist believes in something like this. However, the Bible is full of paradoxes, not contradictions. Just to be clear, Paradox - a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true Like I have said before, there is reasoning for every doubt in the Bible and you should look for that reasoning from someone with understanding. I cannot say that I have a very good understanding because I'm young and naive (there's a reason people devout their lives to this). However, my Christian beliefs is that the Old Testament is the word of God, and Jesus came to revitalize humanity by establishing a new covenant through his death. He says, "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (in the New Testament). I see older accounts of stoning, etc, etc. as being directed towards its time frame and that's why Christians put such an emphasis on Jesus, because his statements are the "new truth", so to speak. It's not to say the Old Testament isn't the Word of God and truth, because it was the teaching of a different time...and that's where you get the misunderstanding of a "cafeteria" of picking and choosing.. in the context of Biblical understanding. There's my crude understanding.
...no there are a fair amount of contradictions in there. Just flat out contradictions of modern scientific understanding.
I'm with Pac on this one, people only believe things with solid evidence. So I guess they'll be refunding that money now yes? All I had to do was type in "Contradiction" and it auto-completed "Bible contradictions" for me, i'm fairly sure this has already been posted, but what the hey. Maybe this is the time you read it. A List Of Biblical Contradictions Genocide ~2000 years ago, acceptable, genocide now, unacceptable. And to think I was *this* close to being born in a century where I could murder my kids, throw rocks at bound women, rape, slaughter, and commit genocide with impunity if god asked me too.
I'm sorry, the meaning of ironic must have changed lately? At no point have I said I believed anything in the bible so the first part of that quote doesn't apply to any of the things I have talked about. The second part was specific to the viewpoints of a soul which...unless neuroscience has gotten a lot more advanced since I last checked has disproved no such conclusion. Current scientific belief is there is no such thing but that's far from a contradiction now is it. Now furry I don't know why you're latching so hard on to things I'm saying but at least don't insult my intelligence by putting up such a half assed effort at it. I feel transhuman is being way over the top (like Bill Maher but not so funny) in his attacks at me but at least he raises solid points. Also, I'm more a believer of the "I saw a ghost" thing then the "I think I'm a psychic" thing. Though I understand "paranormal" implies all of that even the absolutely bat **** crazy stuff. Which is all fair to say and I don't disagree with you on that, doesn't change the point I was making regarding which theoretical construct actually has more physical proof. Only reason I even pointed it out is because you keep saying "why do you believe despite absolutely zero evidence". You might disagree with the crediability of that evidence but then say that and not false statements. What's sad is I'm basically telling you how to argue what I'm saying and you'll still most likely respond back with a not so subtle insult lumping a multitude of different viewpoints into one poorly phrased generalization about religious people (probably more toward Christians than any of the other thousands of religions that believe different things). All I'm saying is how about tailor your response to the statements you read and actually do some research into both sides before responding with bland "you're an idiot I'm smarter then you here is some words I conjured together to form a mild counter response"
I just found it ironic that String Theory needs to be "unequivocally" proven when your own set of beliefs are not anywhere near proven. You're essentially making the stretch that ambient noises and thermal mappings* are relative to the paranormal. On top of that, you're saying it is more evident than String Theory. The paranormal could be proven at any time because of the fact that it is not as reliant on time in comparison to String Theory. However, there has been no substantial amount of paranormal evidence (if any at all) to make it true. If there is a link between the deceased and the living, why would it only be kind of apparent? By saying you believe in paranormal evidence more than String Theory, you're basically saying you believe more in the Lochness Monster than you do in gravity. May I ask if you have had any paranormal experiences personally? As for "latching on so hard," I'm not. I just found it to be funny. I'm not even mad and I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or your beliefs. If I have, I apologize, I've been drinking a little bit. *I honestly don't know what the technical name for these things are...
Pac, have you looked into Noetic science much? It seems like it would be very compatible with your beliefs.
String theory is and isn't well thought out, it depends which model you look at and for what purpose. My dispute is not which of the two will be more likely, you said there was more evidence. Moreover, classifying theories by your standard makes absolutely no sense given today situation. No longer are all understandings comparable with one another, and no longer are any scientific principles sacred, particularly concerning the very small. And what exactly doesn't work with String Theory out of curiosity? You seem to always doubt my view without providing any reason. Core principles of String Theory have withstood 40 years of scientific scrutiny and adaptation. It has provided insight into new fields and introduced new mathematical principles in quantum mechanics. The breadth of information it has produced for science has resulted in it being part of university degree curriculum for particle physics. Now if you can tell me that ghostbusting is a course at Stanford, or if you can show me to some ghostbusting mystic, who happens to have acquired a Nobel prize on his journey, then i would be forced to concede my statement about String theory having far more evidence than the mythical lure of ghosts will ever hope to achieve. I wish you would stop trying to ****ing know everything, don't dispute with me over topics i actively study if you aren't even going to bother reading something about it.
Then like I said you don't know what the term "ironic" means. It doesn't mean believing in one thing that seems to contradict another which is how you're using it and I explained how what I believe doesn't contradict the other. The point was they are both theories, one of which has more actual "evidence" for it and not just mathematical proofs. But, like I said that "evidence" does come with a grain of salt. I agree none of it has been vetted and it isn't "accepted" science. As I explained in my edit that isn't the point, it was to show why I believe as I do "despite zero evidence" as transhuman said and this isn't the place to debate each and every finding. First off, "substantial" is such a subjective term that is entirely based on how biased you are towards it. Does substantial mean this needs to be proved like gravity? If you've ever looked into it you'd find there is a lot of evidence, thousands of sights and groups devoted to finding physical proof of life after death. Second, and I bolded this one, read anything I've said and not just glean it from one or two key words. I'll repeat this one in large letters, I mentioned string theory, not because I believe it less but because it is a theory accepted by current scientific belief as a very likely way our universe is put together however it is a theoretical theory that until someone actually observes the strings or observes something that proves the strings exist there is no physical proof of their existence. Ghosts on the other hand have plenty of physical evidence of their existence. Which, as I keep saying was the point, to show why I believe as I do, it just doesn't come out of nowhere with no reason to believe. If you want to actually debate each piece of evidence piece by piece with me and tell me why you think it isn't credible or worth being called "evidence" then so be it, give me a pm and I'd be glad to talk to you. I feel like the word "evidence" needs to be better explained. Evidence isn't words that wrap up things in neat little bows. It isn't mathematical proofs that make a whole lot of sense. Observing a neutrino go faster then the speed of light was evidence. It was an experiment that yielded observable, measurable, and agreeable data. String theory, and like I keep explaining I don't "doubt your view" I don't know how this keeps getting confused, has no actual observed evidence of its existence. Do you want me to pick another theory maybe that has more observed evidence of its existence to compare with? Would that satisfy or are we stuck on this misconstrued notion that I believe one theory more then the other. As for the "what doesn't work" you explained that in your next few sentences....so I don't think you understood what I meant by that either. This part manages to again misuse the definition of the word "evidence" while showing an amazing lack of scope on the topic. I can "dispute" with you because YOU DON'T EVEN BOTHER READING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, that argument goes both ways. As this will keep on getting confused in infinitude, I'll just give this google link to what I'm talking about. https://www.google.com/search?q=par...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a If you want to explain why each piece of documented, observed, measurable etc evidence is false, not credible, etc fine, pm me and we can discuss that but please don't continue to waste my time, we get it you know the science. At no point have I doubted the science. The original stance was why do I believe as I do, I've explained why I believe as I do. That isn't a questionable ambiguous statement, that is a point, and counter point.
If you looked at my statement above, you would notice I clarified substantial with "any evidence at all" after it. Evidence implies that something furnishes proof (as defined by Merriam-Webster). String Theory is restricted by time and travel because it requires a better understanding of the Universe which we have not fully explored because we haven't had the time to. (Which might not even be possible, because we are ignorant on the matter.) On the other hand, these ghosts you speak of have the opportunity to fully show themselves to us because in the case of the paranormal, we're not restricted by time like with the string theory to understand it. Ghosts and other paranormal anomalies have had the "chance" to come forth with undeniable proof way before our lifetime. Why do they insist on providing "inconclusive evidence" or coincidence or no evidence at all? What? If there was plenty of physical evidence we wouldn't be having this conversation. If ghosts have plenty of physical evidence then there wouldn't be much denying it. Do you know what evidence is? I don't deny the fact that string theory could be wrong. If there were a paradigm shift, I would openly accept it. However, I'm arguing that string theory makes way more sense than invisible people flying around. And just because I found it funny: I'm still curious though, have you had any experiences with the paranormal? Care to share?
Growth Because reading the Bible like a literalist will surely prove something. So I admit, paradoxes isn't the right term, but don't read it literally. 30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. -John 20:30-32 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness -2 Timothy 3:16 (King James version at that) 4 Good Reasons Not to Read the Bible Literally