former speed of light

To arkathon: Although I don't see the connection between this and the former speed of light (note: I am not ASKING for a connection), I am nevertheless interested in a spiritual explanation of the "light at the end of the tunnel" phenomenon.Why tunnel? Why light? Is this phenomenon restricted to Christians, or is everyone subject to it regardless of religious inclinations? Can you give a full explanation for why you believe this phenomenon is restricted to a spiritual explanation, or do you believe that science can explain this phenomenon as well (if not better)?Furthermore, can you explicitly state the reasons why you believe it.********************************************************************************************This is my two cents: My opinion is that religion is not scientific, and science is not religious. You cannot scientifically prove God, nor can you religiously deny that HCL + NAOH => H2O + NACL. Science is objective (all theories assumed wrong until physical evidence suggests otherwise) while religion is subjective (core belief(s) that influence(s) interpretations, explanations and future understanding of physical phenomenon).Religion assumes truth while science rejects falsehood. The two are NOT compatible. Religions don't have theories (or, at least not "scientific" theories), and sciences don't have dogma.But this is only my opinion, and you are very welcome to challenge it.Patiently awaiting your reply.**********************************************************************
(Edited to add the following)And while I'm here, I would appreciate it if mike_the_wiz can reply to some of the threads/posts from me ("Lucifer is...bad?" and "Payer vs. Divine plan). Actually, scratch that. I would appreciate it if he/she can reply to them all.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-24-2004 10:32 PM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: So...you're expecting me (us) to accept your postulation that NDEs are spiritual (supernatural) in nature - specifically Christian in origin - based on the fact that it "seemed to you" to be the case.Well, you're very welcome to your views and opinions, as long as you understand that your view is a mere opinion and that it is not supported by any evidence (I don't think even the bible has records of NDEs, but then again I am bible-ignorant).Also, I believe that there actually was a scientific explanation for NDEs. Try googling "NDEs scientific explanation" and read the first 10 results and see if they are better (and perhaps, more probable) explanations of NDEs. I can give you exact links if you want.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-25-2004 09:17 AM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: A couple of points need to be made.Firstly, you're still relying on the fact that all of the above is correct and true because it "seemed" to you to be the case. By stating this, you are declaring that your view is purely subjective and not based on any objective reasons. IF what you think/say is true, THEN everything else follows. Ever considered the possibility that what you believe may NOT be true? No, of course not...Secondly, some people see religious representations of other religions (e.g. Buddhas) during their NDEs. Please explain its significance in relations to what you have already claimed.Thirdly, I don't understand what you mean by: Care to explain why people should feel comfortable with a tunnel and light at the end? Personally, I feel most comfortable on a sunny beach, but that's just me.********************************************************************* Well....yes...yes it certainly mentioned the after-death. But then again, so do other religious texts. "Believe what I believe, and you'll see what I see" seems to be prevalent in all your posts. This adds much validity to post 64 from Loudmouth, where he/she demonstrated that anyone who believes in anything can argue that their belief is the truth (even if the belief is complete bollocks).You cannot refute that if you use subjectivity as a solid basis (that is, bible as the "rock").Also, after death experiences have nothing to do with NDEs. You're basing your case of spiritual lights experienced during NDEs on a book that does not talk about any tunnels or any lights at the end of it. Your views are purely subject to your interpretations. This is unwise for obvious reasons (see post 64).********************************************************************* Well, they are experts at explaining physical phenomenon (NDEs)without the use of subjective assumptions (such as a spiritual world), so I guess they wouldn't be experts in providing Christian interpretations of NDEs, no.However, scientists are also unable to disprove the existence of fluorescent green unicorns, goblins, elfs, magic potions, dragons, UFOs, Hades, Treants, Flying carpets...etc., but this inability to disprove something does not (I think you would agree) PROVE that they do exist. So I think you can understand my failure to see the difference between your case (NDEs and Christianity) and the above cases.Patiently awaiting your reply.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-25-2004 10:44 PM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

{Much apologies to Loudmouth for cutting in.}To arkathon: Ouch. I don't think you know what science is at all. You seem to believe that science is the nemesis of religion. It is not. Science and religion are completely separate entities until you try to explain physical phenomenon. Science does NOT explain morality (what is good and evil). Religion does NOT explain processes (how something is done/made). They are NOT opposing.And I would very much like to know how science, an objective procedure that is used to gather objective knowledge based on physical evidence in the aims of explaining the mechanisms underlying the processes functioning in the world/universe, is "evil". Care to shed some light?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Sorry, but I wasn't aware of the distinction. I know of "psedo-science" which translates into "false science", but I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to. Please elaborate on the difference between "false science" and "real science", giving examples. Which of the following are "real", which are "false", and which are not science at all: Mathematics, Sociology, Scientology, Economics, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Anatomy, Geology, Astronomy, Astrology, Criminology, Psychology, Psychiatry, Medicine, Law. "Let there be light - and light appeared" is NOT an explanation of how light was created: it is, at best, an observation that a command was issued and light appeared.If this is your idea of "explaining very clearly and precisely" the process of creation, then cook book recipes can all be simplified to: "Mix dough, bake and serve". You truly see no problems with what you're saying? I am amazed.Also, I am afraid I don't "get the drift". Can you explain the difference between "good" knowledge and "bad" knowledge, in particular, emphasizing on the difference(s) between the two, and provide examples.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:Point A: You really have NO idea what science is about, do you. Science is not about "truth" - it is the rejection of falsehood. ALL scientific theories (even laws) are considered to be inherently flawed (false) and are expected by the scientific community to be superseded by newer, better theories as knowledge accumulates.Science is not about what is "right": it is about what is "useful" at this point in time. We use a theory because all (or most) of the evidence gathered at this point in time may be explained by the theory, yet this in no way suggests that the theory will remain the best way to explain whatever phenomenon it examines in the future.Newtonian physics was superseded by Einstein's Relativity, and we expect Relativity to be superseded by something more useful in the future. This is scientific progress.Thus in summary, science is ALWAYS based on falsehood, yet it perpetually tries to reject falsehood so that our understanding may approach "truth" (this is assumed to be unattainable) with subsequent theories.Now that I have given you a brief description of what science is, perhaps you can now see why they don't need to disprove the existence of anything - science automatically dismisses any theories that are not supported by objective, physical evidence, and this includes yours.*********************************************************************Point B: You are using circular reasoning:1) God exists
2) God/spiritual world cannot be tested/detected by scientific means.
3) Because science cannot detect the metaphysical, therefore we should abandon science as a means of demonstrating the existence of the spiritual world.
4) Without science, we can only rely on the bible for reference in relations to what the spiritual world is like.
5) The bible says that God exists.
1) Therefore God exists.In case you don't realise, this means that your case is invalid - false.*********************************************************************Point C: No this isn't. I haven't read ONE post on this thread about any "light" in regards to the "after-death" environment. Are you actively engaging in MSU?*********************************************************************Point D: Thus IF other religious texts constitute evidence for the after-life, then the bible is not unique in a portrail of after-life, and we have no way of knowing which religious text we should adopt (since they all have "something to it").*********************************************************************Point E: Actually, the OTHER line is "I can't see it, so I don't have any reasons to think it real until evidence shows otherwise, so be skeptical with me". You know, the line of thought rational people (including you, I believe) use when confronted with claims that Dragonball is real, David Copperfield can fly, or that there exists one ring to rule them all. I'm just using the same line of thought to dismiss your unsupported claim.*********************************************************************Point F: But the above is, of course, what you THINK is the case because it SEEMS to be true.*********************************************************************Point G: A couple of major issues with this, please do bear with me:1) I never said you dreamt it up. I said whatever you observed (be it testimonies, biblical text, or whatever) SEEMS to suggest to you that there exists a spiritual world. I am challenging your subjectivity, not the innovative processes that accompanied your opinion (yet).2) "Tunnel" is first mentioned in this thread on post 10 (yours) regarding NDEs. There is no evidence to suggest ANYTHING goes ANYWHERE (except that our body goes rigid and cold) after death. And tunnel-and-light vision can be adequately explained by science:Page not found | Skeptical InquirerNote that I am not endorsing the explanation in the above source as the TRUTH. Yet as outlined and explained, science has provided an alternative explanation for the same phenomenon WITHOUT the assumption of spiritual world, implying that the religious explanation is contestable - though you don't seem to realise this.3) It is VERY unwise to compare logical reasonings with mathematic equations - they are unlike concepts and only serve to confuse the audience. Anyway, your claim that "people go somewhere at death, a known quantity" is moot at best.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Ahhhhh.....so I see. You appear to possess the same mindset as Hangdawg13. Allow me to ask you several questions:1) Define "religion". Is Christianity, in your opinion, a religion?
2) Define "objective". Is Christianity, in your opinion, objective?
3) Define "subjective".By define, I am asking you what YOU mean when and if you use these words. Thank you for your time. Actually, I'm trying to make it clear that I see no evidence (and hence no reason) to believe in an after-life. I am not trying to convert you, because my opinion of religion is that if it is good for the individual (re: you) and doesn't harm others, it is a good thing to have. I am only questioning the reasons underlying your beliefs.See, if you had said: "I believe that there is an after-life. I believe that it is exactly the same as what the bible says. I believe that NDEs are a product of God's doings (or whatever)." then I will say that you are very welcome to your opinion because you seem to like it (it is, afterall, your opinion) and it doesn't affect me.HOWEVER. IF you state that after-life is the truth, and that NDEs are the transition of whatever (soul?) into the after-life, as well as making assorted other claims as the true face of reality, then you are stating them as real and this is where problems arise.There is a line (though sometimes vague) between believing something to be true, and stating that it is true. I hope that you will heed this line more carefully next time. Useful for human, of course. See the cars on the road? See the tap on the sink? See the wealth of knowledge on the internet? These are the indirect consequences of scientific progress/discoveries, and they make our lives more convenient. This is how science "helps" us. Falsehood is anything that has been shown to be inconsistent with physical evidence. For example: water boils at 20 degrees celcius at 1 atm pressure is falsehood. Anything that has not been supported by physical evidence (such as the existence of King Arthur, Santa Claus, or God) is dismissed as an unsupported claim and will not be accepted until physical evidence which lends support to the theory has been found.If you need me to explain this to you, you should study some science before formulating ANY scientific theories. Right. So then you believe that other religions are credible. I just wanted to make sure because most Christians don't seem to hold this view. You kind of haven't defined/described "true" science yet. Can you please do that in your next post please?*********************************************************************You seemed to have skipped over quite a number of points from my last post. May I ask that you address: 1) the claim of your use of circular reasoning, 2) your idea of true/false science, 3) your idea of good/bad knowledge, and 4) the claim that the bible explains the process of ANYTHING in detail (see post 77).Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Like I said, "mix dough, bake and serve". Where is the detail? We're talking "how", not "what" or "why". You have failed to answer the question entirely. You really have NO idea, do you? All knowledge falls into the category you called "not so bad or good". Like someone has already mentioned in this thread, it is the individual who pulls the trigger of a loaded gun that kills a person, not the gun itself. Knowledge does NOTHING on its own. Whether it is used for good (nuclear power stations, radiotherapy, etc.) or bad (nuclear warheads, radioactive waste dirty bomb, etc.) is dependent on WHO uses it. You are one confused puppy. Great. So you don't even know what circular reasoning is. *sigh* I rest my case. You misunderstood. The problem is with the supported claims (including yours). The receiver of this claim, whether it be believers, non-believers, or noble metals, is irrelevant to the validity (or lack of) of the claim itself. I don't see the relevance of this point. Is this cannon fodder? Which of the following is evil: a butcher knife, or the murderer who killed 29 individuals with it?Similarly, which of the following is evil: a nuclear warhead, or the politician who exploded it over an enemy city, killing millions?And exactly HOW is porn scientific? You seem to classify all items you view immoral as scientific in nature.Your arguments astound me. Well no. Science is not stating that only the physical exist. It merely dismisses metaphysical items as unsupported by physical evidence (which is quite natural, otherwise it won't be "metaphysical" now, would it?). Science is not concerned with importance, that's a subjective concept.As for your example, yes I believe I have a brain (though I've never seen it). If you want me to prove it to you, I guess you can ask medical surgeons to slice open my head and take a peek. Either way you would agree that my claim (that I have a brain) is falsifiable.Thoughts? If you define thoughts as changes in neural activities that lead to changes in behaviours, then there is ample evidence to suggest the existence of thoughts.EEGs changes between relaxed and intense concentration, blood sugar usage in the brain during different activities, as well as psychological disorders which affects the process of coherent thoughts are all evidence of "thoughts". It is abstract and intangible, but it is still a physical phenomenon, so we expect to find physical evidence in support for its existence.It may seem blasphemous to you, but scientific (or psychological, to be precise) theories have been formulated to explain love as a by-product of environmental stimulus/biological responses associations and biochemical (hormonal) factors. Much attention has focused on the the phenomena of physical attraction, and it is unsure if more intimate elements of human romantic relationships may be revealed by future research.And so you see, your opinion appears to be based upon a foundation of knowledge that is hopelessly lacking in the scientific department. If you want to debate some more on this, please read up on the current theories and definition/limitations of science. At this point in time, your "theory" is laughably inadequate.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: I am sorry, but not everybody shares your childhood tramua and fantasies. The fad of Freudian psychoanalysis has passed and your current views on Psychology is approximately 60 years out of date.And in case you're interested, we have no idea if animals feel love in the human sense of love, but evidence suggests that many exist in beneficial symbiotic relationships similar to human communities.Your response appears to be a mere waste of time and effort. Please put some meat (re: research) into your argument in subsequent posts please. Thanks. So how do YOU define thoughts? Why do you define them thus? Do you have academic support for such a definition, or is it a dreamt up, unsupported whim like the one you are currently proposing? Evidence for their existence? Yes. Are you mysterized by modern technology yet? And should a nuclear warhead be used to pulverise an approaching asteroid, it would be evil science/knowledge used for good? Your defintion of good and evil is subjective at best (and completely pointless at worst).Dark forces? Hellish inspiration? Did I just stumble into a Goth board by mistake?Where DID all this wild speculations come from? Thanks. Not only is this a raving pointless non-sequitur, but you've insulted a medical/scientific profession through prejudice stereotyping. Oh arkathon, can't you stoop lower?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Con't.And before you can wiggle away like a worm, please answer me:How IS porn scientific?andHow has the bible explained the process (that is, the "how") of creation via Genesis?Indulge in idiosyncracy all you want, but when you make foolish, unsupported remarks, you stand to be challenged and corrected.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Your pathetic attempt to pass off ignorance as humour was not lost on me. I use "we" to denote myself and the scientific community on the topic of "Display of love in animal behaviours". If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a respectable science paper that reveals "love" in animal behaviours. Note that the terms are specific - "love-like" is not acceptable. Your ignorance and naivety appear to know no bounds.Mathematician John Nash suffered from Schizophrenia, yet he was respected and praised by the world for his achievements and contributions in Mathematics and Economics.Abraham Lincoln suffered from severe depression (occasionally suicidal), yet he was respected and praised for the emancipation of slaves in USA.Issac Newton and Ludwig von Beethoven suffered both from manic depression, yet they were respected and praised for their contributions to and genius in the field of Physics and Music respectively.Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt were both manic depression sufferers also, yet they were respected and recognised for their charismatic leadership in World War II.I can go on but I think the point is made. You have undermined the achievements of an individual due to his psychological disorder. You have insulted the profession of Psychology and Psychiatry through gross ignorance and prejudice. To top it off, you have ridiculed and satirized the misfortunes and sufferings of a fellow human being.You call yourself a Christian? You, sir, disgust me. And as I have demonstrated, the fact that love and thoughts are intangible (possessing no physical form) does not rule out the evidence for their existence. You have demonstrated a very shallow knowledge of all aspects of science. So why were you arguing against the notion that ideas contrary to physical evidence constitute falsehood? It is foolish to argue against a notion you agree with. So? The fact that evil items can be used for good, and items meant for good can be used for evil means that your definition of good/evil objects/knowledge/science is entirely useless. Please don't embarrass yourself any further. Your comments abide by the Rule of Ignorance fully: When challenged, make no sense. Are you going to push conspiracy theories around all day long? I am sorry but your paranoia is not the least bit amusing and your ignorance is apparent even without further evidence. If you insist on using arguments even toddlers would frown upon, I suggest you peddle your pathetic "theories" to an audience with a lower intellectual capacity. Try plants, I heard they're not renown for critical thinking.********************************************************************* Well! It's fairly difficult to misunderstand the implications when you answered... ...with... I was discussing the consequences of scientific progress and discoveries, and you suggested "Porn, air pollution, war" as examples of "evil" consequences of science. I simply asked the most direct question that came to mind: How is porn a consequence of science? Please show how I have misunderstood. Or perhaps you're just being deceitful?********************************************************************* That is a process? OK.Recipe to bake a cake: It takes 45 minutes. I poured, then mixed, then baked. I baked because I love to. It's done when I come and eat it. Does that sound like "how" to you?And anyway, my initial point was that science focuses on the "how" of things while religion focuses on the "why". If you agree that the Bible didn't tell us the "how": then why did you argue against my point? Are you just bitter and twisted and needed to argue for the sake of arguing even though you agree with the point presented?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon:You have got to be kidding me.First, you created the premise of "spiritual light" (out of thin air or creative imagination) that cannot be detected/measured/manipulated by any physical instruments.Then you applied this hypothetically metaphysical concept on physical reality, while providing no limitations on its properties.And finally, you conclude from the introduction of this unsupported/ uneducated/unfalsifiable assertion (no, it is NOT a theory) that its properties (e.g. arrive from one point to another in zero time) must be possible unless proven otherwise.*********************************************************************Consider:I believe that in the World of Infinite Enlightenment, 20,000,000 years ago, there was a perfect substance called "gob". If you're hungry, you eat gob and it will replenish your strength. If you're thirsty, you drink gob and it will quench your thirst. If your car's not moving, pour some gob into the tank and you can drive forever. If your shirt's ripped, smear some gob onto the rip and the shirt will be good as new. It fixes all problems and improves on the imperfect, regardless of situations and circumstances.Unfortunately, the last unit of gob was consumed by the hobgoblin "Spearmefish" some twenty-million years ago, which is the reason why there's no gob around today. However, unless someone can prove that it could not be, then gob's existence must be true.You see no problems with your reasoning?

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To arkathon: Please state ANY quote from the bible (or otherwise) that suggests the existence of an entity/substance called "spiritual light" whose properties (speed, wave-properties, frequency ranges, etc.) differs significantly from those of our good-old "normal lights".Failure to do so implies that "spiritual light" is a make-believe product generated from the deepest and darkest (and dimmest) recesses of your imaginations. I know that the existence of "gob" doesn't check out with your bible, but the existence of your god does not check out on my scientology textbook (or Buddhist literatures, or Hindu myths, etc.).What I want to know is, how do you "know" that "'there just ain't no such thing'" as gob?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13: I am sorry, but this is far from adequate. For all we know, we may not even need any "light" (normal or spiritual) to "see" the metaphysical world.Also, it would be fairly pathetic if arkathon had based the entire assertion - complete with speculations on properties of "spiritual light" and its ties with Genesis - on a single quote from the Bible that didn't even STATE the existence of said entity.I was hoping that he/she could provide better justifications than that.Thanks for your reply anyway. Let's hope arkathon replies to this instead of slinking away.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Coragyps:Well, I can see the reason why hallucinogenic plants might work. I've heard that sensory deprivation and meditation works too. ^_^.Thanks for your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"