@Jabe73
“There is a big difference between blind faith because of religious beliefs. ”
I didn’t mention religion above. But I don’t think they are all that different. All are beliefs held despite evidence, not because of it.
“There are times you have to trust your personal experiences and instincts over other people’s opinions. The greatest scientists and inventors in history were critised by the majority opposition during their times.”
These scientists kept on because they had enough evidence to be relatively certain that they were right. It was their persecutors who were acting without the facts and due to emotion rather than reason.
“I have another question for you. Do you really think that you know everything.”
Not by a long shot.
“If something does not fit into a certain convenient belief system then we will just reject it? ”
No. We’ll figure out what the appropriate tests would be to investigate it. Then we’ll run those tests and see what happens. We won’t just believe; we won’t imagine what we want to be true and say it is true.
“How do you know that the phenomenom I’ve mentioned is not a part of physics we have not uncovered yet?”
Because it has nothing to do with physics, and isn’t suggested by the physical laws we know.
“Maybe (and I believe eventually will) the “paranormal” will actually be accepted by mainstream science in the future, though maybe the distant future.”
I doubt it, because there is absolutely zero credible, reproducible evidence that any of it exists now, despite repeated scientific tests.
“Any intelligent person leaves themselves open to doubt even on their own theories.”
Of course. But what the intelligent person is looking for is reproducible, independent, observable evidence. Until that’s found, the theory is sound.
“Getting back to my own experiences yes I believe, I mean quote I know what happened to me was a very real experience. ”
There is no doubt it was a “real experience.” But that doesn’t mean that what you think happened is what actually happened.
“You sound like a liberal atheist fundamentalist to me from your statements above”
Ad hominem attack that doesn’t address what I actually said.
“Why can’t someone agree with your statements above and be a theist or dualist?”
They could. As I said, you’re the one who brought up religion.
“You are creating a simple-minded one way type of thinking in the same way that many conservative Christians do with their issues. No leeway allowed here.”
Not at all. The fundamentalist says, “If the facts don’t fit my theory, then I throw out the facts.” I say, “If the facts don’t fit my theory, then throw out the theory.”
“I will add one more thing here, usually the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.”
Actually, it’s on the person who claims that something exists.
“Where’s your evidence that my obe based on personal experience not blind faith should be reconsidered by myself as something else? I’m still waiting for this “hard” evidence that you claim “science” has.”
I think some studies were linked to above- did you read them?
We have zero evidence- none- that OBEs of the type you describe actually exist. We have ample studies of the neural phenomena that can cause people to experience what they think is OBE, and we can explain those phenomena. We have many studies of the fallibility of eyewitness reports. So, yes, I doubt your story-because it is non-reproducible and unverified. That’s how science really works.
