atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 618
#151
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
People don't understand the significance of NDE's in that they are very distinctly reporting an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE. This is distinctly outside the parameters of a brain, and the physical body. This isn't some mental disorder or hallucination of a malfunctioning brain which takes place within those confines folks...these are conscious experiences of people specifically leaving their body, they watch themselves literally leave their bodies behind! meaning they are able to travel freely away from their body. Under normal conditions (confined to a brain that is) our conscious parameters never leave the observation point of our earthly body...our consciousness is always present where our physical body is.

When the soul (which exists independent of the physical body) separates from the human form, the observation point at which you experience everything is distinctly separate from the confines of the brain and body. This is paramount in defining a specific reference to consciousness surviving a physical death, the shutting down of the physical body. Through NDE cases we can specifically show that people observe themselves leave their body, they can literally watch their material body as they continue to experience a parallel world (an afterlife).

This is not a coincidence that religion has provided very precise propositions of both a soul and an afterlife, and here we have evidence that correlates perfectly with both propositions. It IS very significant, claiming and speculating alternative explanations that have no clear and precise answers to what is most certainly a clear and precise (repeatable) event which can be distinctly matched with a Theistic proposition.

Now, had we just had NDE's alone with no awareness of what spirituality has been showing us for as long as humans have walked the earth we would have only a first hand testimony and we'd probably be scratching our heads. But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved. I mean I understand we need to examine and be skeptical to make sure we have all the dots connected but honestly the dots are already clearly connected here.
Being clinically dead (no pulse and no signs of brain activity) souls should not be leaving the physical body and having very vivid and clear conscious experiences right? wrong, if it is true that the soul (consciousness) exists independent of the physical body and brain, and there is some form of an afterlife then our conscious experience will continue after the heart stops beating and brain shuts down.
This is exactly what we see with NDE's, the soul leaving the body and experiencing a parallel universe....it is so precise to what we would define as clear evidence that correlates perfectly with both claims we would have to be real pathetic to sweep it under the rug as some other explanation. It is exactly what it reports to be, and each of you will all experience the very same thing when you leave this world. It is not something to shun or mock, it is something that every soul should be waiting for and looking forward to.

#152
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgmi

Memories Are Passed Through DNA From Your Grandparents, Say Scientists. This is why people that have always been blind think they see in NDE's.
#153
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
In a recent book by a leading figure in
transpersonal psychology, the psychiatrist Stanislav Grof:
There are . . . reported cases where individuals who were blind be
cause of a medically confirmed organic damage to their optical sys
tem could at the time of clinical death see the environment. . .
Occurrences of this kind, unlike most of the other aspects of near
death phenomena, can be subjected to objective verification. They
thus represent the most convincing proof that what happens in near
death experiences is more than the hallucinatory phantasmagoria
of physiologically impaired brains. (1994, p. 31)
Yet there is reason, we think, not to leap too quickly to the conclu
sion that the evidence supporting visual perception in the blind is as
solid as Grof's statement would imply. In fact, when one begins to
look into the basis for these claims, they appear to dissolve into the
mists of hearsay, unsubstantiated anecdote and other dead ends-and
even, in one case, outright fabrication. For example, Kubler-Ross and
Schoonmaker have never documented the cases they have mentioned
or published any details concerning them. Similarly, when one of us
(K. R.) pressed Raymond Moody for further particulars about the blind
person he described in one of his books, he could only remember that
he had heard that account on an audio cassette provided to him by
an elderly physician, but he no longer had the tape and could not
recall the physician's name (R. Moody, personal communication, 1992).
And the compelling case of Sarah, so vividly portrayed by Dossey,
turned out, as he confessed in a letter to K. R., to be a complete
fiction, though Dossey justified it on the grounds that such cases
seemed to be implied by the literature on NDEs (L. Dossey, personal
communication, 1990). Indeed, Susan Blackmore (1993) has recently
reviewed all this evidence and concluded that none of it holds up to
scrutiny. In short, according to her, there is no convincing evidence
of visual perception in the blind during NDEs, much less documented
support for veridical perception (Blackmore, 1993).


#154
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
When I first started going on the internet and interacting with atheist where there's no filter, they don't know you they don't know any of the people they're talking to so they say exactly what they think, I found out exactly how much atheist hate me for believing in a higher power and spirit. And that's never gone away over the years if anything is always reinforced over and over and over and over and over again. I'm reaching a point where I honestly believe they're just evil. Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil. It goes beyond just I don't like you because of this or I hate you because of this. They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live. And they try to say they're not yet their post repeatedly say it over and over again. I don't know how any of them speak to their parents, I don't know how any of them speak and marry people that are theist, and I can't imagine what happens if their kids find religion. It's reached a level of total disgust for me. I'm not sure that it's anything that could ever be repaired I just know too much at this point they could never talk me out of it.
#155
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
To be fair, I doubt all atheists hate theists.
Maybe not even a significant number,
Internet often results in vocal minority of individuals,
Resulting in an illusion of truth in statistics.
I 'think.
#156
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Nobody has to listen to other's opinions about NDE's, and how they theorize BS out of their own biased azzes when there are many solid sources to learn from people who've actually witnessed an event or witnessed the clinical facts associated with them like in this documentary below....



#157
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgmi
u just keep ignoring all the evidence.
No, I keep explaining to you why it doesn’t qualify as evidence. Do you have a response to the points I made? Would you like to explain how something qualifies as evidence to you and have a real conversation about it instead of just repeating the same refuted allegations?

Do you understand what validity means? Do you understand what necessity in this context means and why it’s important? 

by definition when people r dying and say they're experiencing the afterlife, that's evidence for the afterlife
Then you are accepting the tautological definition of evidence, which is meaningless and a complete waste of time. We might as well be debating whether “it is what it is” is an accurate statement.

it's a really big number where when measured, people almost always get it right.
There is no way to measure it because that would require a controlled environment. I’ve already explained this. Respond to it.

but really it's more than just consistent given it's not plausible for the alternatives to be true. for example, it shouldn't be the case that people only hallucinate family and dead people... if all it is is a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent.
First of all, I’ve already alluded to the fact that these are not mere hallucinations. NDE’s occur when the brain is in a state unlike any normal hallucination or when the brain is on drugs, so there is no reason we would expect their experiences to follow the exact same patterns. Given that they typically occur in a state where the individual believes they’re going to die, suggesting it’s unreasonable for the brain in this state to consistently produce visions of family and/or the afterlife is absurd.

But more importantly, your incredulity is not an argument. It’s not logic, it’s not reason. It’s just you making shit up and then claiming others are being irrational for not accepting what sounds right to you.

The way we determine what is likely to happen in this situation is by studying what happens in these situations. That’s called observation, the essence of science.

you just dont like the 'degree' by which NDEs are shown to be valid or repeatable. anyone can measure all the evidence i've shown, and reach the same conclusion... plus many people consistently experience this, another aspect showing repeatability. just because you can't go to a lab and do all this stuff, doesn't mean it's absolutely not repeatable
Being able to reproduce the experiment in lab settings is the literal definition of repeatability. We’re not using these terms colloquially, you want to have a conversation about logic and reason, so we are talking scientifically.

The fact that it has happened a bunch of times is not repeatability. Being able to look at someone else’s data is not repeatability.

#158
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved.
I’ve already explained all of this. Feel free to respond to it.

#159
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Bill Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
#160
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live.
That's not true. All the strippers I know are theists amd I love them. I bet Trump says the same thing about Melania.
#161
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
When I first started going on the internet and interacting with atheist where there's no filter, they don't know you they don't know any of the people they're talking to so they say exactly what they think, I found out exactly how much atheist hate me for believing in a higher power and spirit. And that's never gone away over the years if anything is always reinforced over and over and over and over and over again. I'm reaching a point where I honestly believe they're just evil.
That's known as a hasty generalisation. 

Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil. It goes beyond just I don't like you because of this or I hate you because of this. They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live.
I don't know any atheist who believes that theists don't deserve to live. I do, however, know theists who think atheists do not deserve to live, in fact history is littered with such people. 

I'm not sure that it's anything that could ever be repaired I just know too much at this point they could never talk me out of it.
Perhaps it is because the topic of God is one which if true, is the most important discussion that exists. A topic with such at stakes is bound to be controversial. 
#162
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Bones
It's more the movement and momentum that they lack, theist or atheist, to kill those, not of their persuasion.
Though that's common of 'many beliefs and values.

Not that I mean to say all atheists or theists would get on board such a movement,
But such movements 'do occur.
#163
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well, notwithstanding the fact that I am a lifelong atheist.

Your above response was so weak, that it died before I got to "that".


So a chance to resuscitate and have an NDE.


NDE's are internally generated imagery.
Prove me wrong.

#164
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Perhaps it is because the topic of God is one which if true, is the most important discussion that exists. A topic with such at stakes is bound to be controversial
Perhaps it's because they are bigots and that will not change. Nothing to do with gods. 
#165
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Perhaps it's because they are bigots and that will not change. Nothing to do with gods. 
With this attitude, I see where the issue may have arisen. Perhaps the reason "close-minded" people follow you around is because you are the one who is close-minded. And you also ignored my comment 

Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil. It goes beyond just I don't like you because of this or I hate you because of this. They honestly believe we're subpar human beings who don't deserve to live.
I don't know any atheist who believes that theists don't deserve to live. I do, however, know theists who think atheists do not deserve to live, in fact history is littered with such people.

#166
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Yes I ignored your lie and if you're saying close-minded people are following me around then you basically just admitted that the atheist who post here or closed-minded thank you.
#167
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes I ignored your lie 
I remember it was the roman catholics killing apostates and nonbelievers, not the other way around. 

if you're saying close-minded people are following me around then you basically just admitted that the atheist who post here or closed-minded thank you.
Not what I'm saying but you're proving my point by being obtuse. 
#168
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Depending on point of view.

Both Atheists and Theists can be regarded as bigots.

You're clearly stoically biased Poly, and therefore inevitably, somewhat bigoted.

Whereas I accept  people for the conditioned units that they have become.
#169
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Why atheists are irrational and immature: Let's talk about current atheist/theist relations. Atheist brings up the Inquisition. Talk about obtuse.
#170
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why theists are irrational and immature: Questions their position. Theist that all atheists are evil. Theists states that all atheists are bigots. Talk about obtuse.
#171
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Calling me mentally is questioning my position? Calling me sub human is questioning my position? Calling me evil is questioning my position? Yeah bigot fits fine for you all.
#172
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Atheism is no different than religion, Atheists believe what they believe and so does everyone else. That is why there is no more standards in society. Any behavior can be justified for any reason, who are you to judge anyone's behavior or set any kind of behavioral standard? You are just as awful and evil as the next guy. To say you are not is saying you are better than everyone else. and only what you think and believe is good and righteous. Welcome to subjectivity, a world where nothing matters and there are no standards.


#173
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite
Atheism is no different than religion
That is not true. Being an atheist is because of one's reasoning ability. Being religious is based on one's lack of reasoning ability. Elon Musk doesn’t claim to have any religious beliefs. In an interview with Rainn Wilson (Dwight from the US version of The Office) when asked if science and religion can coexist, Musk replied, “Probably not”. To the next question, “Do you pray?”, he answered, “I didn’t even pray when I almost died of malaria.”
#174
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
"atheist is because of one's reasoning ability. Being religious is based on one's lack of reasoning ability.  So with that said all people on earth agree with this "Belief" even religious people. You are  stating this as irrefutable fact are you not and not a belief among some people right? I can ask anyone and they will give the same answer right?

#175
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Calling me mentally is questioning my position?
First off, mentally is an adverb which describes process occuring in the mind or with regard to the mind and it's capacities. Secondly, I questioned your intial statement being "not sure about irrational but it's immature as fuck" which right of the bat represents a close minded invidiaul who doesn't want a propper conversation. Mind you, I engaged in conversation quite politely simply asking "how so", to which you gave a rambled response littered with phrases such as "I honestly believe they're just evil. Not bigots, not close-minded, but evil... I don't know how any of them speak to their parents, I don't know how any of them speak and marry people that are theist", and to top it of with another kick to ensure that no productive conversation can be had "I'm not sure that it's anything that could ever be repaired". Are these the words of someone who wants to have a productive conversation, or does it sound more like phrases from a "close minded bigot".  

Calling me sub human is questioning my position?
Please link and quote where I referred to you as a sub human . 

Calling me evil is questioning my position?
It was you who called me a bigot. 

Yeah bigot fits fine for you all.
Do you want to debate? I assume you're just like ethang - you'll hide in the forums and  never step into the arena. 
#176
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite

Of course people with a lack of reasoning ability will not agree with this.
#177
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
I am not religious and don't agree. I do not identify as being part of any group think organization. I question your ability to reason as you think anyone who doesn't hold your view has no ability to reason. You think you are better than everyone else because you believe what you believe is superior to everything any one would think. For example: You are posed with a problem to solve. You and your superior reasoning abilities come up with a solution the the problem and then it fails.  But a religious person comes up with a solution that works. Are you now the one with no reasoning  abilities? And shouldn't everyone with your reasoning abilities come up with the same failed solution as yours? You cant tell me that atheists are the only people who can reason and solve problems. Or is your problem with religious people the fact that they set boundaries on vulgar and perverse behavior that interfere with your life style.

#178
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite

Well, I did graduate from MIT and Harvard and I am older than Fauxlaw. There are 3 other people on this topic with high reasoning ability. They are Double_R,Bones and zedvictor4. Why don't you ask them?
#179
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite

Oh, I forgot to add Stephen and Envisage.
#180
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Wait what’s this about? I want to see if I qualify.