ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by billybongo

Which does not, in any way, add any veracity to any of the assumptions and conjecture that christianity is founded upon.

Veracity = God is highly intelligible; Christ highly plausible; ideas/concepts a) verifiable in social practice over time - True to Life b) life politics carry resemblance c) stands to reason; Bible a) contains consistent motifs/characters that resemble lived experience e.g. life struggle with 'the good' b) plausible for a faith community recording its experience of living by faith.

But, ultimately for me, its Truth is consistent with subjective experience.

It's a brute fact we live life subjectively and inwardly which defies the Truths offered by the systemising philosophies, such as objective theory which fails the test of life. We are constantly becoming as human beings encountering new events all the time. No static theory or model of life could survive life itself as the social world moves too quickly. A Living Faith serves Life as we experience it. By the time we've read the self-help books and psychological theories its objective truths are out of date as the world has moved on. This answers for me why Faith is necessary for Life as it is Lived.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Veracity = God is highly intelligible; Christ highly plausible; ideas/concepts a) verifiable in social practice over time - True to Life b) life politics carry resemblance c) stands to reason; Bible a) contains consistent motifs/characters that resemble lived experience e.g. life struggle with 'the good' b) plausible for a faith community recording its experience of living by faith.

Nope. Veracity = Conformity to facts. Accuracy. You can try and shoehorn whatever you want into it in order to suit your purpose, but it will never be veracity.

Originally Posted by Dwarf

We managed perfectly well before without resorting to naafi-speak. It wasn't heckling, and by your standards extremely mild, it was more of a sigh.

Again you seem to fit what people really say with what you want them to say. I am not by any means anti-science, though it isn't my discipline, so I fail to see why you attribute it to me, just as you previously attributed beliefs to which I don't subscribe and never will, especially as I have distanced myself from Christianity and religion as such.
On page 27 I posted about Pim Van Lommel a non-religious scientist who gives evidence based on his life's work that there is survival of the self after brain death. He states that this merely accords with Quantum Physics and I understand what he is getting at.
Yet this was blithely ignored, despite all 'scientist' pleas for evidence of God or something. It isn't evidence for 'God' and certainly not a man-made one. But it is potential evidence for something, a continuation. Tangible enough?

From the article
"Science ignores or denies that which it can not explain, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Dr. Van Lommel’s life is a commitment to truth, however inexplicable it may seem, beyond the beaten path of orthodoxy."

From the full Lancet article:

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands : The Lancet

(I had to register to get the full text.)

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29, 30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception "

This on face value contradicts the concept that when we flat-line it's all over.

I am full of busy at the moment and don't have time for Arrse except weekends perhaps. Maybe in a couple of weeks when I'm on holidays if you want to follow this through.

Dwarf, I agree with you that the standard of debate here has dropped dramatically.

You mentioned in your post that an avenue to an afterlife is "quantum physics". As I think we've discussed before I've got a couple of degrees in physics (yeah, get me, I'm great) and during my undergrad and post-grad studies there was nothing, not a sausage, absolutely bugger all, about any sort of afterlife. Instead we concentrated on lasers, sub-atomic and high-energy physics, wave-particle duality and its application to electron and scanning microscopes, water (I spent twice as long studying water as I did relativity, it's very strange), quantum-electrical bonding (and, as an aside, why some metals such as gold aren't magnetic), holograms (that was hard work, really it was), quantum-electrodynamics (the movement of things in stuff) and many other areas.

None of this made even the slightest sense without a mathematical basis, but the maths are so difficult as to put almost anyone off (I'm not that clever and had to put in a lot of extra time to keep up). Like anyone else I sat back and asked what it meant, but that's just a human construct. The best way to sum it up is the old physics saying of "shut up and calculate".

Those that push "quantum" are very rarely qualified to do so and not one of them, not a single one, has published the maths to prove their point. There's a very good reason why they don't publish in journals. It's because they can't.

Given that quantum mechanics is so far away from everyday experience and so mathematically difficult it's no surprise that some dishonest people will misappropriate it in order to make money. If any of these people had a track record of publication in physics journals as well as their websites, books and other money making endeavours I would take them seriously, but they don't. They are at best wrong , but most likely dishonest and on the make.

I will accept one point. According to the present understanding of quantum mechanics no information is destroyed. The papers for this are almost unintelligible (thanks, Prof. Hawking, you lazy git. Try getting up and making your own tea once in a while), but come down to a perseverance of information based on Hawking radiation (he bloody would say that, rather than getting up and making the tea).

What that means (apart from me sitting there without a cuppa) is that if no information is destroyed it can be analysed and recreated. However, and this should be stressed, there is as yet not the slightest evidence for this (or of my cuppa, I might add, despite my polite waiting).

Originally Posted by ScouseD

Dwarf, I agree with you that the standard of debate here has dropped dramatically.

You mentioned in your post that an avenue to an afterlife is "quantum physics". ....

Great post, I agree with regards to the physics etc, not that I have the faintest idea about any of it and I'm certainly in no position to say, but if someone wants to make spurious claims they should be checked by a credible, peer reviewed journal. That's the only way of establishing fact after all.

As a sidenote, with regards to the strangeness of water this may interest you:

Water in Biology

Philip Ball has also written an interesting book on the weirdness of H2O.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

!

Christians pioneered science and the scientific revolution.

!

If true...and it's not, you are now claiming that your "evil science" is from a faith in god. It's christians who founded the juggernaut of destructive technology that you hate, mankind has fallen because of jesus!

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Serious concern for truth (faith) and goodness trumps all. Career scientists serve the science industry as career priests serve the institution. Neither maybe concerned for 'the good'.

More of the same contradictory stuff... Science is only concerened with truth otherwise it's not science. Faith is counter to your assertion... Scientists and priests are involved in different roles but neither are seeking 'the bad'...who therefore is able to say that they are concerned for 'the good'?

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Faith is distinct from religion.

The notion that men and women of conviction were shaped profoundly by their Christian conscience digging into their daily practice, life choices and life politics and even party politics, is self-evident. That some lost sight of Christ as central and went on to build Christendom is also self-evident. Passion for Christ and his teaching inspired many and got the better of many.

No...faith is derived from religion and nothing else. C(c)hristianity is your religion. Only you appear to have lost sight of the dogma...the babble that is watered down like an absurd homeopathic dose of the dusty book. Showing an inordinate and irrational amount of passion for a few lines of hearsay philosophy. The silly and supernatural basis of your faith is even more disturbing. You can't get around that with a trillion to one remedy.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

You're collapsing meaning into the centre to avoid any distinctions. The meandering course of this debate is about proportion and judgement. The modern secular fashion is to flatten out all meaning and difference in a politically correct blancmange of sameness.

Intellectual movements in language or thought are worthy of credit. If proponents of Islam reflect 'the good' in their course it is good. But I don't find anywhere the teaching or life that equates to Christ. From horse trough to donkey to a criminal's death no figure trod his path. The story stacks up, over time, in practice. It is tested and found solid.

It is you who is collapsing meaning into meaningless mush from which nothing tangible exists. And yet you scream from the rooftops that a few words in a book have ultimate meaning...that a message from conflicting books have shared meaning. Only this assertion happens to be false...and from the books of any faith comes very little 'good' BSL. Prove otherwise if you can... observation alone reveals more harm than 'good'.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Shaping is a good word. I like Michael Mayne's book Enduring Melody; the notion that our lives over their length can either strike a long good note or not. What helps recover our shape when we've fallen through the drum kit from a great height seems important.

Seems many Christians are shaped in the sappy drippy mould too often trying to strike a cheesy note, if I had any criticism. Seems a real life is striking out, trying, and if cocking up after good intent we know the world is on hand to kick our teeth in when down but Christ in my experience is there to shovel up the pieces and restore my self worth but also say 'this way' as 'the way' you're ploughing is hurting isn't it? To which he's right.

Interesting metaphors are getting you into trouble with all other christians... What the hell is your faith? Why have you no self worth without a jesus quote...no life without an invisible friend? Your senses are in denial...perhaps you are in the sappy drippy mould but don't realise it. The flavour of your escapism is certainly cheesy mate.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

My obfuscation is less obfuscatory than your obfuscation

Christ tore down all barriers to God. He'd despise religious dogmas set up to build the barriers back up via Priests or Ritual Practices or Grand Performances. He could only do this if he was more than a prophet. Otherwise it's all puff and bluster.

Gawd... Your super hero worship is built upon an image more absurd than Superman. I can still see those barriers that you claim were torn down BSL and note that crosses were more commonly available than Kryptonite way back then.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Because Rome was a fascist regime with little interest in Christ and his message.

Christ came to destroy Rome, its power structures.

Anyone can construct a building and put a label on the outside and call itself anything. Barclays calls itself a bank!

The caped crusader swooped into action with his goats and sandals... but according to your analogy completely failed in his quest! Rome stands for all that you ridicule...religion at it's worst.

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Veracity = God is highly intelligible; Christ highly plausible; ideas/concepts a) verifiable in social practice over time - True to Life b) life politics carry resemblance c) stands to reason; Bible a) contains consistent motifs/characters that resemble lived experience e.g. life struggle with 'the good' b) plausible for a faith community recording its experience of living by faith.

But, ultimately for me, its Truth is consistent with subjective experience.

It's a brute fact we live life subjectively and inwardly which defies the Truths offered by the systemising philosophies, such as objective theory which fails the test of life. We are constantly becoming as human beings encountering new events all the time. No static theory or model of life could survive life itself as the social world moves too quickly. A Living Faith serves Life as we experience it. By the time we've read the self-help books and psychological theories its objective truths are out of date as the world has moved on. This answers for me why Faith is necessary for Life as it is Lived.

God intelligible? christ plausible? Not from where I am sat...explain that. The remainder of your abstract and amorphous waffle fails to convince... It is probably an internal conflict that you are having with reality. Faith just happens to be unnecessary by the way.

Originally Posted by Dwarf

That wouldn't be a problem. But why not address the point in hand first? Scientifically it means looking at the article, reading, understanding and discussing. He raises a serious point, if there is a continuity then ADE is discussable, as he says, a facet of Quantum physics.
Sneering is not scientific, it's evading.

Dwarf, I have looked closely at the NDE stuff and have decided it not worth further discussion. It has been explained away by equal amounts of plausible information. There exists no evidence for life after death.

Originally Posted by oggie

Here's an interesting website. THE AFTERLIFE

THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OR PERSONAL BELIEF!

On this site you will get to know the findings of many of highly intelligent scientists, empiricists and other professionals who systematically investigated the afterlife and psychic phenomena over more than a century. AND you will get to know with absolute certainty that everyonesurvives death. The afterlife is inevitable and has huge consequences.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE? Death is inevitable. Do you know exactly what is going to happen to you when you pass on? http://www.victorzammit.com/

This is just the stuff of religions... If there is some 'real' evidence let's have it.

It is apparent that in a sense we never die... In another sense perhaps we were never alive. Draw a line based upon likelyhood. It's all about consciousness... This I am quite sure cannot survive the physically destructive nature of death any more than an iPad will work after passing through an industrial crusher. All that is left are the bits of non functioning material and the information that was stored exists elsewhere anyway.

After death your memory is gone along with senses.. The mind is matter and it only works during the phase we call sentience. If there is something wrong with that assertion please let me know.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Nope. Veracity = Conformity to facts. Accuracy. You can try and shoehorn whatever you want into it in order to suit your purpose, but it will never be veracity.

Yep. Facts of Life.

Veracity for subjective experience entirely different to status of physical objects.

Originally Posted by Higgs_bosun

If true...and it's not, you are now claiming that your "evil science" is from a faith in god. It's christians who founded the juggernaut of destructive technology that you hate, mankind has fallen because of jesus!



More of the same contradictory stuff... Science is only concerened with truth otherwise it's not science. Faith is counter to your assertion... Scientists and priests are involved in different roles but neither are seeking 'the bad'...who therefore is able to say that they are concerned for 'the good'?



No...faith is derived from religion and nothing else. C(c)hristianity is your religion. Only you appear to have lost sight of the dogma...the babble that is watered down like an absurd homeopathic dose of the dusty book. Showing an inordinate and irrational amount of passion for a few lines of hearsay philosophy. The silly and supernatural basis of your faith is even more disturbing. You can't get around that with a trillion to one remedy.



It is you who is collapsing meaning into meaningless mush from which nothing tangible exists. And yet you scream from the rooftops that a few words in a book have ultimate meaning...that a message from conflicting books have shared meaning. Only this assertion happens to be false...and from the books of any faith comes very little 'good' BSL. Prove otherwise if you can... observation alone reveals more harm than 'good'.




Interesting metaphors are getting you into trouble with all other christians... What the hell is your faith? Why have you no self worth without a jesus quote...no life without an invisible friend? Your senses are in denial...perhaps you are in the sappy drippy mould but don't realise it. The flavour of your escapism is certainly cheesy mate.




Gawd... Your super hero worship is built upon an image more absurd than Superman. I can still see those barriers that you claim were torn down BSL and note that crosses were more commonly available than Kryptonite way back then.




The caped crusader swooped into action with his goats and sandals... but according to your analogy completely failed in his quest! Rome stands for all that you ridicule...religion at it's worst.



God intelligible? christ plausible? Not from where I am sat...explain that. The remainder of your abstract and amorphous waffle fails to convince... It is probably an internal conflict that you are having with reality. Faith just happens to be unnecessary by the way.

As you wish.