Thread: Science kills religion.

So...where is your proof that science is wrong, and you are right? science does not have proof, but they have an answer. You can't skip over what they know as "a grain of salt", when the functions actually do work in the way that look to produce NDE's.

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

I've read a book once about a scientist who was fascinated by NDEs and went out to investigate them with an open mind. It turns out when they asked the patients to describe a specific detail about any specific object in the room, they invariably failed; i.e. they were hallucinating.

He basically ended up concluding that it's due to various physiological effects in the brain, such as oxygen starvation; not a genuine extrasensory experience.

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

This is the point, see. Perform a conclusive test that will enable you to determine the truth, instead of madly jumping on any random story which supports what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Xei

I've read a book once about a scientist who was fascinated by NDEs and went out to investigate them with an open mind. It turns out when they asked the patients to describe a specific detail about any specific object in the room, they invariably failed; i.e. they were hallucinating.

He basically ended up concluding that it's due to various physiological effects in the brain, such as oxygen starvation; not a genuine extrasensory experience.

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

This is the point, see. Perform a conclusive test that will enable you to determine the truth, instead of madly jumping on any random story which supports what you want to believe.

Well, i do hear we got parts in us that are basically useless, so the eye thing really does not matter much.

As for the NDEr's being wrong. They are probably just hallucinations. You also gotta be EXACT, and people do sometimes tend to forget some stuff.

Originally Posted by juroara

a good half of the religions you mentioned, I never learned about in school

That's reasonable I suppose. Perhaps it's a regional thing.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It's true if you think about it.

In the beginning of time people didn't understand what made their crops grow, so they put the blame on a sky-daddy, or something else. They thought that plagues were caused by sky-daddy, or the equivalent.

This time and age we know why crops grow, we know the reason for plagues, we can make alternatives for these things too. As in we can grow crops without sunlight, and we can make/replicate viruses/diseases whatever.

Science is always growing, and has more than likely infinite possibilities.

So, my question is.. do you think centuries from now, maybe longer, maybe less, religion will be totally gone? Of course science will never be able to disprove some Gods, but it will definitely shine glimpses of light on places people believe is caused by the hand of a supernatural being.

And before anyone says it, yeah, yeah, science isn't the only reason. We all know intellect has evolved over the centuries, and people are smarter and think for logically now than before, but still science plays a major role in that too. :]

So just give your opinions on if you believe religion will ever die! I really don't think it ever will, and if it does I believe it will be thousands of years before it does. But at least some people are opening up their eyes now and seeing how ridiculous some religions are. :]

This the the typical athiest trying to prove there is no god because of science.
You believe in science....i do too...but we differ in, i believe in a god. I dont know what god is, i dont think he is "in the sky" but there is a god and we wont understand it until we die. I follow no "religion" besides my own spirituality.
I dont understand how some athiest just believe in science...that is like a thiest saying he only believes in god and doesnt trust science.

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

spiritual people don't need to treat science in that matter. they accept scientific discoveries, with a grain of salt. that grain of salt is knowing that scientists can have clouded judgements and make false statements that they have put the lid on something. when really, they have just found one tiny little point of view of the truth, but lack the whole picture

there is no discovery in the brain that goes against the depth of spirituality

you just can't understand it, unless you understand spirituality

The hallucinogenic chemical DMT is released in very large amounts by the pineal gland at these moments. I don't know for sure, but that may be the scientific answer.

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

spiritual people don't need to treat science in that matter. they accept scientific discoveries, with a grain of salt. that grain of salt is knowing that scientists can have clouded judgements and make false statements that they have put the lid on something. when really, they have just found one tiny little point of view of the truth, but lack the whole picture

there is no discovery in the brain that goes against the depth of spirituality

you just can't understand it, unless you understand spirituality

You clearly have no understanding of science or how it works, this unfortunatly makes your points on science invalid.
Educate yourself about the scientific community and method before you make comments about how it works. You are simply uneducated on the subject and are making incorrect statements.
I seriously suggest you watch this video to educate yourself about the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro


As for how science explains NDEs read the later work of Susan Blackmore for a very interesting take on the subject. She was a trained scientist who had an NDE, so dedicated 20 years of her life to "prove other small minded scientists wrong"... in the end, she had to conclude that there was no evidence to support it. Research her.

Science never EVER finds something that "pisses it off" - that is absurd. Educate yourself before you criticise the very way of thinking that has allowed you to post on this forum, watch TV, call your friends, get medical help, sent men to the moon etc. etc. etc.
You can't pick and choose the science that suits you. If you disagree with science go live in a cave and let your "spirituality" sustain you. You wont need a mobile phone because you'll just be able to astrally contact your other spiritual friends.
No? oh why not? BECAUSE ITS NONSENSE.

Live in a delusion if you like. But don't get defensive when you share your delusional views with the rest of the world and they start pulling it apart with facts and evidence to the contrary.

Of course you'll have to accept science to be able to reply to me, which must really piss you off.
Or was the internet born from a spiritual revelation?

^ genius.

Such a tragedy that it goes unrecognised in this area of the forum which is right where a dose of common sense is most needed.

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

^ genius.

Such a tragedy that it goes unrecognised in this area of the forum which is right where a dose of common sense is most needed.

This is called a "religion/Spirituality" forum, this is dedicated to religious, and spiritual people, and beliefs. This is not a science forum, but this is also a debate forum, but science does not hold the whole forum.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

This is called a "religion/Spirituality" forum, this is dedicated to religious, and spiritual people, and beliefs. This is not a science forum, but this is also a debate forum, but science does not hold the whole forum.

You should read the rules and advice section on this part of the forum!
It's actually a Lucid Dreaming forum. And the religious forum is an area for open debate not "for spiritual people" only... it's for everyone, wth any views to discuss the topic. Go to beyond dreaming if you want a little safe haven where no one ever questions your delusions.


Anyway: science is the study of reality.
So unless you yourself are choosing to put religion into the category of the imaginary or fictional, then science has a perfect right to assess the claims made by the religious. If they do not hold up against reality, evidence and testing... then well... it'll end up in the imaginary and fictional category anyway.

And my personal opinion is it should have ended up in fiction hundreds of years ago... certainly before the invention of the atomic bomb!

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

No, science says "Where's your evidence that the things you saw were real?". Listening to a spooky story doesn't count, because people AUTOMATICALLY will distort the truth, even if reporting an event in good faith. Why? Because we miss things, are unaware of things, forget things. We tend to exaggerate the truth to make a better story. In short, because we're human. These are things we KNOW.

When someone says "I saw X happen when I was unconscious", how is anyone supposed to know how accurate that is without access to independant information? And furthermore, why does it automatically mean something? The patient might have known what was going on before they started seeing things, and in the case of conversations, it's actually possible that outside stimuli was being incorporated into the imagery; we already know this happens to normal people when they dream/hallucinate as well. Or they might have seen something highly regular which was very likely to happen anyway.

And I do find it amusing that someone can come on to a lucid dreaming forum, and have not picked up on the realistic nature that dreams/hallucinations/whatever can take. I mean, if I dream something that happens I MUST HAVE MAGIC POWERZ, right?

Oh and then there's the nonsense about stuff "pissing science off", which again shows your lack of understanding on the subject. Science cares about finding facts about our reality. Provide it with adequate evidence that the moon is really made of cheese or that unicorns exist and it will accept it. But if you expect it to accept annecdotes - a person's word - when it comes to determining these facts, then you're insane, and if we all did that, then we'd be stuck in the stone age.


Oh, and I've been meaning to comment on your sig for a while now:

Scientists have no problem seeing the process of life in a puffball bursting to scatter its spores, but they do tend to have difficulty seeing the process of life in a star bursting to scatter its dust, for all that we are made of that dust

I find it very funny, given it was scientists who discovered supernovae, information on planetry formation, and generally found out this stuff in the first place, and accept that such events are responsible for Earth's formation and thus life's formation, even though those events are not actually life. Yes, scientists are so closed minded and find it difficult to see that they actually accept it played a part in the creation of life!

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

There are a lot of things that science does not explain. What makes up a quark, for example. Or where all that pesky dark matter is.

But as of yet I see no empirical evidence confirming that "NDE" even happens.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You should read the rules and advice section on this part of the forum!
It's actually a Lucid Dreaming forum. And the religious forum is an area for open debate not "for spiritual people" only... it's for everyone, wth any views to discuss the topic. Go to beyond dreaming if you want a little safe haven where no one ever questions your delusions.

Don't be a tard now. You said it yourself, it's open to debate, what did i say? it's to be debated....please read before you respond, or you look pretty bad. The person was saying this forum needs a dose of common sense, if there was common sense this wont be a religious/Spiritualist forum, now would it? this is a place for common sense, and non sense to be, not only for common sense.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Don't be a tard now. You said it yourself, it's open to debate, what did i say? it's to be debated....please read before you respond, or you look pretty bad. The person was saying this forum needs a dose of common sense, if there was common sense this wont be a religious/Spiritualist forum, now would it? this is a place for common sense, and non sense to be, not only for common sense.

No need to be offensive.

This is partially my view on religion. All of those things mankind blamed God for, because they didn't know how they worked, were eventually figured out. The reasons theists give for believing such as consciousness and thoughts are just those same reasons. If we have scientific reasons for disease and crop growing now that we didn't 2,000 years ago, why is it so out of the question that there is one for these as well.

I'm an optimist: Organized religion will die out, but spirituality will live on.

people will always want to cling to the idea that there is something greater than themselves....doesnt matter how many things science figures out...I am not of the belief that science and spirituality cant live side by side. who knows, some day we may invent a divice that CAN detect some kind of etheric energy of sorts. Organized religion as WE know it will surely die out...but might just be replaced by groups of spiritualist gathering for open discussion. Which would be much better.

Originally Posted by Bosco

This the the typical athiest trying to prove there is no god because of science.
You believe in science....i do too...but we differ in, i believe in a god. I dont know what god is, i dont think he is "in the sky" but there is a god and we wont understand it until we die. I follow no "religion" besides my own spirituality.
I dont understand how some athiest just believe in science...that is like a thiest saying he only believes in god and doesnt trust science.

I'm not an Atheist.

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it. Should I start believing if a God exists, that means there's a chance for me to travel at the light of speed, with no protection what so ever, and not be destroyed by it?

You shouldn't believe in everything possible. You need to question some things.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it.

I disagree.

The scientific method yields verifiable data. This alone is the appeal (and reason) that draw people (both atheist and religious alike) to its process.

To suggest that the appeal of the scientific method is due solely to the atheist's lack of belief in a higher being is to assume that science's popularity comes from the failure of other systems of belief to produce hard evidence, which is not the case. Its popularity comes from its ability to produce hard evidence on its own. There's a great difference between the two.

Religion will die out.

























When our race does.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

At least in Australia, it's always either an elective or a mandatory subject in religiously motived privately funded high schools (anything named St-Whatever), and always relating to the religion of the school. So mostly all catholics.

To the best of my understanding, they only teach about the Catholic faith. Not the other 2500 sects of Christianity or Islam, Buddism or anything else.

I have a non-religious friend that went to a religious school, and he took Religion as an elective out of pure curiosity. He says it actually turned him more AWAY from religion after taking the class.

We are talking about all faiths being taught not just Catholic... That is a huge difference.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

You really ask a question when you should already know the answer. Evolution picks the most useful routes for us correct? So of course our eyes would be given precedence as its far more accurate than sensing it some other way. But that doesn't mean that we don't have the ability. It's really not hard for me to imagine that over thousands and thousands of years the majority of society would be unable to control an ability that could have been overtaken by our eyes many ages ago.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I'm not an Atheist.

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it. Should I start believing if a God exists, that means there's a chance for me to travel at the light of speed, with no protection what so ever, and not be destroyed by it?

You shouldn't believe in everything possible. You need to question some things.

For some reason, i always seem to question everything, i am never content with something unless it's proven by science, or people here say something that makes sense to me and it can be backed up scientifically. It's kind of brutal in a way, sometimes all you need is a dose of pure fantasy to get by the day, and you can't if it's proven wrong. Then again, who says what is right and wrong? always seem to be 2 sides to a story, so what makes 1 side right when someone can argue the other (assuming they do it backing themselves up). It kind of makes you question everything, even when you think some things are right. It is also weird how in an argument, the other side alays point things they missed out, and the other guys always point things THEY missed out, and it's a never ending battle. How can you even believe in something 100%?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

For some reason, i always seem to question everything, i am never content with something unless it's proven by science, or people here say something that makes sense to me and it can be backed up scientifically. It's kind of brutal in a way, sometimes all you need is a dose of pure fantasy to get by the day, and you can't if it's proven wrong. Then again, who says what is right and wrong? always seem to be 2 sides to a story, so what makes 1 side right when someone can argue the other (assuming they do it backing themselves up). It kind of makes you question everything, even when you think some things are right. It is also weird how in an argument, the other side alays point things they missed out, and the other guys always point things THEY missed out, and it's a never ending battle. How can you even believe in something 100%?

Well, some things are impossible to prove 100%.

So understanding how things work disproves God?

You don't even know what you mean by the WORD God.