Brilliance.

For those of you that don't know, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) are a phenomenon in which people still experience and continuation of awareness and identity even while clinically dead. So, having an out-of-body experience while flat-lining, entering a tunnel of light, having a panoramic life "review", communicating with a non-physical yet substantial entity (God, essentially).

The term was coined by Raymond Moody in his book Life After Life, in which he retells the subjects' experiences while clinically dead. Moody was heavily criticised for his research method and his personal bias towards the paranormal, but subsequent studies by the likes of Bruce Greyson, Kenneth Ring and and P.M.H. Atwater have confirmed Moody's initial findings and conclusions.

And of course, there was the instance of Colton Burpo's NDE, which was recounted in the 2003 book Heaven is for Real, which was heavily Christian, unreasonable and has a whole load of problems with its consistency in relation to Christian eschatology. But, nonetheless, there's no question that these experiences do occur.

The idea of some sort of transcendent or spiritual substance which exists apart from the material has myriad philosophical problems (if you want to know more, it has to do with Hume's bundle theory vs various substance theories like Plato's Theory of Forms and Aristotelian Hylomorphism), but first and foremost it should be noted that empirical evidence for these experiences isn't evidence for the transcendent, merely that we can say such experiences exist. It's an unjustified leap to just assume resurrection or reincarnation.

However, most of the scientific challenges that have sought to meet and explain these phenomena have fallen flat on their faces. We know it isn't simply a matter of hallucinations, because hallucinations aren't so similar between people, and explanations like cerebral anoxia and an endorphin rush have been resoundingly disproved by the work of Melvin Morse. However, Morse's hypothesis of a "God spot" in the right temporal lobe has, in turn, been disproved by the University of Montreal.

If I had to choose an explanation--there was a study conducted by the University of Michigan on dying rats which found that, thirty seconds prior to death, there was a sharp increase in neurological activity across the brain (supporting the work done in Montreal) which would be experientially similar to take psilocybin, the key psychedelic in Magic Mushrooms. If it holds true that dying people have similar such neurological spikes, it could explain the existence of NDEs.

I know this seems extensively similar to the other thread of Kiyo's, but I wanted to create a thread in which I lay forth a "complete collection" of propositions and pieces of evidence to suggest why one should view Israel as the morally superior force in the region.

So, first of all, allow me to express my genuine opinion that both sides have serious faults I'm willing to admit to. However, it seems clear to me that it's a case of horse shit vs bird shit and which one you'd rather end up with on your face (Hamas is the horse shit).

First and foremost, Israel gets a lot of flack for just bombing the shit out Gaza. Which is, of course, fair enough--I can see why that would upset people. However, what most people don't seem to realise in these instances is that Hamas fires rockets from residential areas, essentially forcing the Israeli's hands into retaliating against an area (consider how densely populated Gaza is) which will yield massive civilian casualties. It doesn't seem to me especially questionable why Hamas do this; they want civilian casualties, and if you disagree you can tell that to the women they've used as human shields.

It's quite clear that Hamas is only interested in one thing: the advancement of it's toxic, fundamentalist and pan-Islamic ideology. It is so blinded by anti-Semitic hatred that it willfully worked 160 children to death in the construction of tunnels, with which they attack Israel. It isn't surprising either, the Charter of Hamas (apparently disowned by the group) explicitly refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion an anti-Semitic fabrication created in Tsarist Russia under Nicholas II and later adopted by the Nazis.

It's not at all a mystery as to why Hamas is the way that it is, either, and no that isn't Israel's fault. Israel occupied Gaza following the Six-day War in 1967, and actually showed tolerance to Islamic activists (lifting the restrictions of the previous Egyptian rulers) while it pursued the secular PLO, which at that time was considered a terrorist group for not recognising Israel's right to exist. Hamas originally began as the sort of "Gazan branch" of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928 as a pan-Islamic group), where it extended charities and improved education. With the backing of the Israeli Civil Administration, the number of Mosques in Gaza doubled between '67-'86.

The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, had also founded a militant wing which was recognised as a charity by Israel and allowed to build infrastructure like schools, mosques and a library. Hamas, however, wasn't founded proper until the First Intifada, when the Palestinians rose up when an IDF truck struck a car, killing four Palestinians. It's generally thought that economic grievances, as well as population dynamics, was the main cause of the Palestinians' grievances.

Hamas first began conducting terrorist activities in the 90s, against both military and civilian targets. It began suicide bombing in the West Bank, and then in Israel following the mass murders by Baruch Goldstein in 1994. Although these actions by Hamas violated the Oslo Accords, PA President Arafat was reluctant to do so and some analysts believe he chose not to (read: Arafat's War).

Hamas moderated itself for the 2005 elections, and managed to win a plurality. Israel disengaged from Gaza (as well as having 9,000 Israelis forcibly expelled from where they were living in the region), and Hamas would go on to fight the secular Fatah, win and then begin enforcing Islamic law in the region.

A lot of you are probably wondering why I'm only discussing Hamas and not the Palestinians at large. Well, unfortunately, Hamas isn't as reviled by the Palestinians as we'd like them to be; they enjoy a support from 89pc of Palestinians, who we know are already radicalised as 68pc claim suicide bombing against civilians in the defence of Islam is justified.

We can't afford to surrender to this sort of fundamentalism.

I've done a lot of filthy Zionist Muslim-bashing recently, so I'd like to turn my attention to Christianity.

It seems to me that the fundamental tenet of Christianity is the afterlife; the soul of personal identity and continued existence. And of course, Christian moral teaching is all in the defence of the purity of our souls, in order to secure us a righteous place at God's side following our physical demise. However, it seems to me to be the case that this isn't the canonical afterlife.

The continued existence promised to Christians (and Jews) is one of physical, bodily resurrection and reconstitution and further examination of such an idea should reveal it as logically impossible.

First, let me establish that my claim to a bodily resurrection is supportable--if not absolute. It is true to say that most Christians believe in the soul and a spiritual, non-physical afterlife; this belief pervades 80pc of American Christians. Most Christians seem to believe that upon the moment of death they'll travel to heaven and leave their physical bodies behind; yet most Christian denominations (Catholicism and Lutheranism, to name two) believe that Judgement happens in one fell swoop at the End Times.

However, the idea of bodily resurrection seems better supported that this nebulous, spiritual idea. The only source I'm aware of which promulgates spiritual resurrection are the writings of St. Paul (mainly in Corinthians). However, the NT Gospels, the Book of Isaiah, the writings of the Jewish scholar Maimonides and St. Augustine's book City of God all profess a physical afterlife.

It's difficult to tell how even an omnipotent God would be able to sort this out, we go through a near-complete cellular reconstitution every decade or so and we have atoms belonging to us that existed within the bodies of Edgar Allen Poe, Napoleon, Goethe or any other great person you could name--it's difficult to see how this physical recreation could be logically accomplished. 

St. Augustine, luckily for us, however, goes into great detail about the nature of this physical resurrection. Apparently, everybody will be resurrected as they would've been at age thirty (emulating Jesus) and, he says of other things:

That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.

What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred.

How did he know this? The man was either dishonest or a lunatic, and we should probably disregard what he says either way. However, given the fact that the 325 Council of Nicaea gave no ruling on the nature of resurrection (and no other ecumenical council has done since, to my knowledge) it seems very unsettling for the Christian faith that they cannot decide on what sort of resurrection awaits them, and that the side which has the most scriptural and historical weight is the one which seems logically impossible.

Why is it when Nazis murder Jews and other minorities by the millions it's a product of their ideology.

Yet when Islamic fundamentalists are willing to hit the wall at 400mph--as well as blow each other up, commit genocide in Northwest Iraq, be in league with a Middle-Eastern demagogue and psychopath, shoot little girls for wanting an education, call for the death of apostates, fire rockets from beside schools and hospitals, air anti-Semitic cartoons and murder Australian tourists for not being allowed to commit annexation and genocide--it is somehow the fault of American and Zionist imperialism?

Pure masochistic bullshit.

SORT IT OOT

qeq

I'm really, really stuck on this one.

I mean, I know I'm a bit of a UKIP apologist but this is just disconcerting. I'll post the exchange.

(Story about UKIP spokesperson for energy saying climate change is "open for discussion")

Me:

That's unfortunate.

Him:

Why?

Me:

Because it really isn't open to question.

Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it.

Him:

Quote

Because it really isn't open to question.

All science is open to question, always.

Quote

Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it.

This is how the model's predictions stack up next to the real world temperatures.

Me:

Yet warming is quite clearly occurring. I'm not saying the scientists are and always will be 100pc right, I'm saying the ideas that warming is currently occurring and humans are the main cause are, at this point, pretty much indisputable.

The extent and speed of this warming is debatable, but the foundations are essentially laid.

Him:

There has been an 18 year "pause" in the rise of temperatures, despite a significant rise in CO2 levels. Warming is NOT currently occurring. The warming trend ended in 1998.

Me:

The climate isn't nearly as facile as you're making it out to be. You can't look at one set of aggregate data and think it immediately discredits the still solid idea. You think science should be open to question and inquiry? Of course you do, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and use one piece of data to discredit the whole idea, listen to the scientists and think about how it factors in to climatic dynamics.

And no, there hasn't been a "pause" in warming, there's been a slowdown. Indeed, actually looking at the available evidence too we can see scientists are able to formulate hypotheses, for instance this paper has endeavoured to show how the slowdown correlated with the strengthening of easterly surface winds in the tropics, and how that could impact global temperatures. Secondly, this study shows that had today's models been available in the 1990s, the slowdown in global warming could've been predicted.

Him:

No, there has been a distinct "pause" in global warming. It has stopped, not slowed down.

Me:

Okay then, even if that is the case it has no bearing on the assertions made by scientists to explain it.

So when you want to either try or refute them, or admit you probably have some more digging to do then I'll be willing to listen. And virtually any scientist will tell you (plus this paper), it doesn't even begin to discredit the theory.

Him:

Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong. They did not predict a pause in temperature increase, or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink. There were also predictions that the poles would be ice free by 2013, which buoyant did not happen.

A theory is validated, or not, by its predictive value; by that criteria, there is plenty of scope to say that climate change is "open to question", as Roger Helmer has.

Me:

Quote

Point is, their predictions have been proven wrong.

Due to a variable which wasn't accounted for and has now been explained. I've also demonstrated how models back in the 1990s were inefficient and presented you with a paper which shows why this doesn't discredit the theory.

Quote

or that the Antarctic ice caps would grow, not shrink.

Except we know that happened because of the decline of CFCs in the atmosphere and the repairing ozone layer.

Quote

A theory is validatee, or not, by its predictive value

Right, and the theory still has considerable value--especially given all the evidence I've presented you with. Like I say, if you want to try and refute it in some way, I'm willing to listen.

Him:

Okay, get on your real account, not some troll throwaway, and let's have a proper conversation.

Me:

This is my real account; I disabled my last one.

Since I've presented you with the evidence from climate scientists themselves, and tried to engage you in a proper discussion, it's a bit rich for you to try and call me a troll. I haven't been rude to you at all, and if it seems like I have then I apologise of course, but all it feels like now is that you're refusing to engage the evidence on an ideological ground. And now you're just falling back on ad hominem.

If you want to have a discussion, then great let's have one. But only if you're going to do it properly and not throw your toys out of the pram because you don't like what you hear.

Him:

Quote

Because it really isn't open to question.

Really, you discredited yourself with this statement.

To claim anything scientific "isn't open to question" betrays that your commitment to the idea is no longer rational, and is more of an act of faith.

Me:

Now you're just misrepresenting what I said.

Immediately after it I said: "Of course, we ought to check the models and tweak the variables and constantly update the data, but there is such a thing as too much scepticism, and this is symptomatic of it." If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.

And you are the one trying to use a single (explained) occurrence to discredit an entire theory. Don't accuse me of taking something on faith and not being rational when I'm the one actually looking at the explanations and studying the science of the matter.

Him:

When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.

The fact they produce an explanation after the fact proves nothing - other than how unreliable their understanding of climate is. What else are they going to have to provide an explanation for, after the fact?

Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.

Quote

If you truly thought I had actually discredited myself, you wouldn't still be talking to me.

No, I'm allowing other readers to see how weak your arguments are by continuing the discussion.

Me:

When a theory makes one very specific preeiction - that CO2 correlates with temperature, because it is the main driver of "climate change" (previously known as global warming) - and that turns out not to be the case, it absolutely raises questions about the theory.

Except no scientist has ever claimed that this correlation is on a one-for-one basis which isn't affected by other exogenous variables. . .

Quote

Since the entire global warming scare rested in the predictions of those models, and the predictions turned out to be false, that absolutely calls the theory into question, as well as the usefulness of their predictions and models.

But the predictions aren't completely discredited because an 18-year slowdown/pause in the warming of the earth is the exception (since the Industrial revolution) and not the rule. Like I said above, no scientist has ever claimed that the relationship is exactly one-for-one, and when you find deviations you need to look for altered variables which account for that.

If there were no altered variables which account for that, then you'd have something in your argument, but you don't because we've identified that variables have shifted.

I fucking despair, sometimes.

To kick things off, the UK Polling Report reported back in 2006 that 78pc of British Muslims (according to a poll commissioned by Channel 4) believed Kurt Westegaard, the Danish cartoonist who drew pictures of Muhammed, should've been prosecuted and 68pc believed those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted.

CBS News reports 25pc of British Muslims supporting the 7/7 bombers.

Pew Research shows 24pc believing suicide bombing is justified, which rises to 35pc for young Muslims.

Civitas tells us that 33pc of British Muslims believe apostates should be killed. That same poll shows us 28pc want Britain to be an Islamic State and some 60pc didn't believe the Holocaust had happened.

Pew again with statistics claiming only 7pc of British Muslims consider themselves British before Muslim, with 81pc explicitly thinking of themselves as Muslim first and foremost.

This truly does worry me, and I really do feel sorry for the large minority (depending on where you draw the line) of decent Muslims who have to live with the legacy of their barbaric cousins.

He says that all our actions and decisions are the result of free will, and we are fundamentally responsible for what we do. He asks you if you agree with this statement.

If you say "yes", he asks you to demonstrate your free will by exercising your ability to decide to now disagree with him instead.

Given the strongly linked nature of some of them, you can nominate a user for more than one category. Yes, you can suggest more categories. Yes, the Flood is just one big circle-jerk tonight.

Literature:

Music:

Religion:

Philosophy:

Politics:

Economics:

Mathematics:

Logic:

Science:

History:

Current affairs:

I fucking hate when teachers at my college say this. "There are no stupid questions", fuck you, yes there are.

Most people try their hand at philosophy in very ugly and stupid ways. Hell, it's probably the same with most other subjects.

Give me a fucking break.

The Iraq War is one of those wars that nearly everybody agrees was a shit idea. Well, thankfully for you, I'm not everybody.

I've gained a bit of a reputation for supporting the War in Iraq; it's made people think of me as a hawk in foreign policy. Not a label I care for, but not one I necessarily reject.

First of all, turning to the beginnings of the Ba'ath Party; it was intimately linked with Nazism, dating back to the Nazi coup in Iraq of 1941. Even despite these dire origins, the Ba'ath Party was seen as something of a viable party for governance - especially by left-wing journalists - in conjunction with the Iraqi Communist Party. This. . .  optimism about Iraq, specifically Hussein, led journalist Christopher Hitchens to write, in 1976, that Hussein could provide a secular, socialist leadership for the country, worthy of admiration.

However, Hussein proved to be nothing more than extremely efficient at building on the party's Nazi origins. He began purging the Communist Party to the Left of him, and using methods extremely reminiscent of Stalin to gain power (he would go on to have the head of his secret police killed). He had Abu Nidal as head of Palestinian liberation and began a campaign of vile racial hatred against Kurds - murdering about 200,000 with chemical weapons erroneously supplied by the Reagan administration.

On top of this, he also disappointed hopes of secularism. Turning his regime into one of Islamic fundamentalism and a cult of personality, suppressing the Shi'a majority in Iraq and having a fucking Qur'an written in his own blood. Top this off with his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (two years after an eight-year-long war with Iran), and various ecological disasters he caused, including the essential rape of Kuwait during his retreat and his destruction of the Mesopotamian Marshes.

All in all, the only mistake was leaving him in power in 1991.

From the Independent

A United Nations’ committee approved a new resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to negotiate a solution to their dispute over the Falkland Islands, essentially favouring Argentina's stance in the long-running feud.

The 24-nation Decolonization Committee passed the resolution by consensus despite passionate speeches from two Falkland Islands representatives who said most islanders wanted to keep things as they are.

The decision showed that the committee members have been largely unmoved by a referendum in the Falkland Islands last year in which more than 99 per cent of voters favoured remaining a British Overseas Territory.

The UK has rebuffed Argentina's calls to negotiate the sovereignty of the south Atlantic islands, saying it is up to people who live there to decide.

Argentinian Foreign Minister Hector Timerman attacked the UK for ignoring dozens of UN resolutions urging the two countries to talk.

“It is imperative that the United Kingdom sits down again at the negotiating table,” Mr Timerman said.

The UK asserted control of the islands by placing a naval garrison there in 1833, but Argentina claims Britain stole the territory.

The Falkland Islands Government is a direct democracy and largely self-governing, although the UK handles its defence and foreign affairs. Excluding the British military and civilian contractors, the territory has a population of about 2,563 people, according to a 2012 census.

Argentina argues that the Falkland Islands dispute is a matter of “sovereignty”, while the UK prefers to refer to “self-determination” by the people.

Mr Timerman pressed Argentina's claims that islanders are an “implanted” population, kept stagnant with strict immigration policies for the purpose of occupying territory that does not belong to them.

Roger Edwards, a member of the Falklands Islands Legislative Assembly, said such claims were false. He said he and many other islanders come from families who have been there for generations and “have a strong wish to be master of our own affairs”.

“We are confident in our future,” he said. “The only inhibition to our development is the continuing spiteful aggression of our people by Argentina.”

The British Mission to the UN criticized the committee for ignoring the outcome of last year's referendum.

“It is disappointing that once again the C24 [the Decolonization Committee] has not respected the clear and democratic expression of the Falkland Islanders' wishes and continues to describe the Falkland Islands' constitutional relationship with the UK as a ‘colonial situation,’” the mission said.

Fucking Argies.