by The wanderer 149 Replies latest jw friends
The Book speaks of life after death, however, I did not read anywhere in the section of life after death for unborn babies when they die or severely retarded himans. Only of those who are conscious of how they lived. http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter27.html
Are we to take the author of this book at his word and eyewitness accounts of life after death?
I don't think I could ever just take a persons word for anything like that. It's just that there are is a very large group of people offering eyewitness accounts. That plus the actual experiments and studies by several renowned scientists make a rather convincing arguement. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not at all familiar with many of the scientists, never even heard of them. There are however quite a few that I am quite familiar with. It's not empirical proof for sure, but that kind of proof is hard to come by. Even evolution cannot be proven empiricly. You gotta admit it is a fascinating read.
later,
chappy
even more LOL @ the wanderer
"The bible is a highly unreliable record of actual specifics of events, highly biased." -Daystar
"For what it's worth, I did not put the bible down." -Daystar
Yes, Daystar, I have decided half of you is right.
The Wanderer
Perhaps the difference is that you expect the bible to be a precise record of events, where I do not. A book can be unreliable regarding a precise record of events and yet still be a valuable tool, or just a good read. I can say that The Hobbit is an unreliable record of actual events and not be putting it down. It's still a classic, IMO.
Perhaps my first statement offended you. I'm sorry you think my estimation that a fictional record of events, the bible, as unreliable is putting it down. But that is because you put more faith in its infallibility than I do, simply put.
And if the paranormal refuses to perform on demand, say for James Randi or anyone similar, why does it seem to prefer to perform for the "not very tightly wrapped," as jaguarbass mentioned? Randi might be a clown, but he sure makes more sense than any of his counterparts! One of my favorite writers, Colin Wilson, made quite a study of this idea, and found only one case worthy of following up on.
Thats a whole heap of garbage.
First up - the guy I mentioned and his girlfriend are down to earth individuals and this guy in question who has had really odd encounters with what I would determine 'the supernatural' , is an atheist and a sceptic. He also manages to hold down a full time job and I have a hard time convincing him of anything beyond his 5 senses. Where this "not tightly wrapped" crap comes from is the product of a 'tightly closed off' imagination and the desire not to take a leap of faith.
As for Colin Wilson - thats not what I've read. I have two of his books where he has investigated many cases; concluding that indeed "there is something going on" beyond the 5 sense reality.
Seeker4 and valkyrie: great posts!
I used to be attacked by demons just as I was going to sleep at night. Sometimes in the morning while waking up, I would be attacked. The demons would hold me down in my bed. Then I found out about "sleep paralysis"...
The God of the old testament loves the smell of burning flesh. That god makes me nervous...
I usually despair when I read these threads. They ultimately end up as a mud-slinging match.
I offer two pieces of information and a qualification, to hopefully round out the debate from the entrenched sides:
That having been said, there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural as it seems to resist replication, therefore the scientific model is wholly unsuitable for recording it, and Randi will continue to hold onto his million. That neither confirms or denies the actuality of heretofore unmeasurable entities. However the foundation of good science is the imagination to push the boundaries of what is measurable. As this occurs the god-of-the-gaps diminishes.
Meanwhile questioning the intelligence of your opponent, regardless of which side of the debate, is an unimaginative thought-stopper and counterproductive. As the old adage goes, the more you learn, the more you realise how little you know. Maybe that explains why so few dedicated scientists involve themselves in such a debate...
~pokes at stale popcorn~
LT, as usual, a voice of reason. I was wondering when you'd stop picking popcorn out of your teeth long enough to make comment.
Hi LT,
|
The argument that I assume you are making is a non-sequitur.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the novels about Sherlock Holmes, someone who used his critical thinking skills to solve crimes.
So we know Sir Arthur understood what it meant to think critically, but this did not stop him being a very credulous person.
His friend Harry Houdini repeatedly tried to convince him to employ reason in the issues for which he was credulous (communication with the dead, the cottingley fairies, etc), even putting together very elaborate demonstrations to show Sir Arthur how easy it is for the human mind to fool it's owner, or be fooled. But all to no avail.
There is a difference between possessing the capability to think critically, and actually employing it in all situations.
You can no more prove there is a God,than I can disprove there is a God.....In answer to your question about ThirdWitness..Go to Member Directory,look up his name,find his post and topic history and read his jibberish...OUTLAW
