Total posts: 1,328
Posted in:
maybe i'm making it too complicated. if we dont know if big foot exists, then we can't call it evidence and we can't call it not evidence... it might be evidence. so on weaker arguments for God, if we can't say it's evidence and we can't say it's not evidence.. we'd have to say it might be evidence. right?
Created:
Posted in:
"At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality. "
back to the big foot example. if big foot dont exist, the foot print is more accurate to say consistent with big foot, but it'd be sketchy to call it evidence. if big foot does exist, then it'd obviously be evidence. but what if we dont know? i guess that is your point... we'd have to be neutral. but at that point, is it, or is it not, evidence of big foot, if we dont know if big foot exists? i know you said the footprint is evidence of something... but on that specific point, how do you answer it if we dont know if big foot exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
i agree, that 'evidence' in its most simple form, legally, is whether something is 'probative', whether it makes the liklihood of something being more true or not. it's not a high standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i didn't respond to your post cause it was so weak. i typically only engage in responses that are quality worth responding to.
the fact of the matter, is that something happened to that lady that looks like it reaches beyond the realm of what is possible. a damaged optic nerve as far as humans know, dont just spontaeously just heal themselves, especially when it was after praying for intercession. you call it just inexplicable and not supernatural. but you are rationalizing it. again, it looks like something happened that is beyond the realm of what is possible. you deny it to cling to your own preocnceived notions, when the evidence is plainly right in front of you. i understand that your theories are true, that there could be something naturally occurring that we dont understand... but with common sense, even acccording to our known science.... the most straight forward way of looking at it is something beyond the realm of possible actually occurred. why dont these sorts of things happen to atheists? to follow your belief, we would have to believe your big assumption that they do occur,and it's just not reported. you claim there's no evidence, only because you have a dark heart, and a dark mind.
Created:
Posted in:
the majority of swipes with online dating from women, go to the top ten percent of men. the average woman thinks 80 percent of men are below average looking, while the average man thinks only 50 percent of women are below average. women are known to engage in hypergamy, where the man must have similar or better education and income. men generally dont care about that much, and sometimes being better in that regard than the man is a red flag to the man. the conventional women is that 80 percent of women are chasing the top 20 percent of men. if you are an average man, you dont get very many mutual 'likes' on dating apps, but the average women gets swamped with matches. they say the average woman lacks quality matches, but the average man lacks quality and quantity of matches. it's common for women to go for years with no relationship, not because she can't find a date, but because she's too picky. the average woman gets swamped with men pursuing them. i realize not every option is decent, but it's the case that there's gotta be something decent if they tried even just a little. the stats, are that for men under 30, 60 percent are single, while only 30 percent of those women are single.in general, in the next ten years, it's predicted that getting close to half of people will be single. it's a cultural phenomenon regarding our rugged indivuduality... but the main reason is that women are just too picky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
i would need examples to believe your claims. maybe the mind causes healings, but it's always associted with belief in God from what i can tell. i'd even go so far as to say christians receive healings, and non christian claims are suspect. you say you know of a cancer healing, but cancer healings can sometimes spontaneously manifest... so that's not a good example.
it's a correlation versus causation thing, maybe it's not belief in God, but something that the mind causes. i wouldn't think so but who knows.
for "God" to mean anything, it has to be a being,or at least a higher power, like 'source' that NDE people often talk about.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
what if we just used the word 'like'?
taxation is 'like' theft? i'm not a libertarian, but i understand why a person would say this.
the lack of an option in choosing to participate in our system, is 'like' slavery?
i suppose it's possible to say it's all pie in the sky, it's just different philosophical ways of looking at things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i've always been posting examples of the miraculous, and ya'll skeptics just choose to ignore it. here is an example.
the catholic church has a whole section of itself that investigates miracles. it's irrational to deny that things that look supernatural happen... the question is how to interpret them.
dont get me wrong, i still think there is evidence for God, the afterlife, and the supernatural. i just think a person could rationally argue that there is no evidence for God, to disagree with me. also, dont get me wrong, anyone who says there's objectively no evidence for God, is being irrational. they should at least allow that it's open to interpretation.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
i realize any form of existence will involve struggle, maybe my thing is not having a real choice. that's why i maintain there is something in fact that can be called 'voluntary slavery'.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
do you deny that the large majority of people have no choice but to participate in our workers' economic system, at least to some extent, if they want to survive?
also feel free respond to my reply to the last person above
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
dont make brother thomas 'bible slap you silly', like he does me and everyone else who isn't a TRUE christian. we smell sulfur and are preparing to be satan's bitch for all eternity, and God can glorify himself by bringing with wrath down upon us, praise!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
is there something in that article you want to argue? from what i see, they are proposing a theory that parts of our brain cause different NDE expereinces, but even the paper admits it's all speculative.
it's always the same song and dance, NDE researchers establish science to back NDEs as real, and skeptics at best provide weak philosophical arguemnts and are weak when it comes to actual science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
then i think it's misleading to the point of being wrong to say you had an NDE. at best you had an OBE and not NDE. but even on the OBE out of body experience point, in scientific research, the strories are almost always accurate or at least consistent with reality. if you had an OBE that wasn't consistent with reality, then it was probably just a drug trip and not an autehntic OBE.
ive read enough of NDE OBE research to know your story wasn't going to make sense, even before getting the details.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
i know i said i wanted to talk about God, but i'm curious about your NDE. do you admit your experience was different than a classic NDE? i dont deny that it's possible to hallucinate afterlife stories, but there's no comparison to real NDEs. you probably didn't have those common elements like tuneels light beings deceased loved ones being told it's not your time life reviews etc. and authentic experiencers almost always say there's no doubt about their experence as real or that the afterlife exists. do you admit you didn't expereince these hallmarks of authentic experiences? i dont evven know your details, but if you had an authentic experience, then i know enough to say that your drug trip caused you to die and that you are an extrememly rare person who thinks it wasn't real when they experience it. drugs dont cause NDEs point blank, so anyone who did drugs and had an NDE must have died... at least that's the overwhelming way the evidence points.
the better explanation, is that you know it and we all know it, at best you hallucinated an afterlife experience that's nothing like a classic NDE. do you admit all this?
maybe God doesnt talk to people in a burning bush, cause that story was made up in the bible. i like to think the new testament is where the truth is, and jesus liked to heal people. there's not a lot of evidence of non healing miracles in the new testament. i like to think jesus still heals people with things that look like miraculous healing. to the extent that God does miracles that aren't healings, he's not going to do something that dispels all faith except in special circumstances. we're meant to walk by faith to a large degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
im more curious if you think being an atheist makes sense from a common sense perspective. i've finally concluded after decades of thinking about this sort of stuff, that it's plausible to say there's no evidence for God. but, from a common sense perspective, i'm still as strong a theist as ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
it's misleading to the point of being wronng to say drugs reproduce NDEs. it's almost never the case that a drug causes an eleaborate afterlife story. rarely a person might think they met God or visited the afterlife, but the experience is random and not clear like NDEs. it's rarely an elaborate afterlife story... it's more like there are similiarities, and that's all there is to it. also, even to the extent that there are similiarities, it's not like a genuine NDE. NDEs have classic elements that drugs dont cause, like tunnels, light beings, life reviews, meeting loved ones, being told it's not your time etc. drugs dont do that stuff.
it's at best a stretch to compare NDEs to drugs.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
are you so sure that a person can choose not to participate? you guys keep saying things like 'go live off the land if you want to'. but the laws of man have made it such that we can't. that's not a law of nature. communes are not common enough for most people who might want to opt out of society. a person can't ride their horse around and essentially needs to car to participate. so what choice does the average person have? they have to buy a car, find a place to rent, and become a part of the machine.
the closest i can come to saying ya'll might be right, is the fact that a group of people can always group up and have a bunch of people living in a house with not enough rooms for everyone. there's more possibillities than this, but this is the most practical way to opt out of the grind that the average person does. but even with this way of life... we are still dependant ecnomically on society, and must work at least part time. at this point, in this hypothetical, it's fair to say we're not slaves, just that it's a practical reality... but i still think it's fair to say there's an element of slavery since we have no real choice but to participate. and, i still maintain, if you want to live an average life.. you have no choice but to join the machine and slave away for forty hours a week for forty years.
you'd think technology would make is such that a forty hour work work wasn't necessary. but, the way the system is designed... to be an average person, almost everyone must be a cog in the machine and work for 40 hours.
also, even if i agreed that we're not slaves... would you at least agree the coercive nature of the way things is, could at least be a philoophic underpinning for liberal social contract theories?
Created:
this thread was posted in the wrong forum, so i posted the same debate in the religion forum
Created:
Posted in:
an atheist here made a good point... sometimes things look more like they are 'consistent' with God theory, rather than 'evidence for' God theory. any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory.
there's lots of philosophic arguements for God. id group those with things like casuality arguments and design arguments. the thing about these is that there's at least plausible arguments that can be made that are counter those. so it's easy to just call these consistent with God and not evidence.
then you get into more science type arguments. the most straight forward way of looking at these, is that they are in fact evdience for God. things that look like supernatural healing. atheists usually become theists during NDEs. something impossible happening with healing it looks like, and we dont see that as far as we know coming from atheists, we dont see impossible looking healhings from atheists. and it's almost never the case that theists become atheists during NDEs and NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, so it's at least realistic to say it's also evidence for God.
with that said, if you have a dark heart and mind, an atheist could say there's no evidence for God with these scientifc things. you could say we only have confirmation bias that healings that look supernatural happen, or that theists only assume those things only happen to theists and not atheists. they make a big assumpion that impossible looking things happen to atheists, but we'd have to admit it's possible and just not reported. and, as far as NDEs, the conventional wisdom is that NDEs are subjective and influenced by the mind... so even if NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, it's also possible to say visions and thoughts of God are merely produced by our psychology and not signs of an objective reality
with all this said, even if they could plausibly say there's no evidence for the God, atheism still lacks common sense.
-i think there's too much emphasis in NDE research on saying their experiences are based on psychology... it looks more like objective things happen, and any deviations are misinterprataions. for example, christian NDEs are common, but hindu NDEs are just the experiencers interpretation... at least there's not enough deviant types of NDEs to say it's all psychology based.
-when healings that look supernatural happen, it still looks like impossible things are occurring. you can try to rationalize it, but that's what it looks like.
-to say humans are merely flesh robots is riduculous. it's obvious we are more than robots.
-there's no explanation that we know of that can explain how life started on earth, or how something as complicated as human consciousness occurrs. there's theories, yes, but they are weak from atheists on the common sense level.
-even if there are counter arguents for the philosophic arguments for God, they are at least formidable and strong, and help explain the God theory, at least if the God theory is in fact true. eg, causality or the argument from design
Created:
an atheist here made a good point... sometimes things look more like they are 'consistent' with God theory, rather than 'evidence for' God theory. any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory.
there's lots of philosophic arguements for God. id group those with things like casuality arguments and design arguments. the thing about these is that there's at least plausible arguments that can be made that are counter those. so it's easy to just call these consistent with God and not evidence.
then you get into more science type arguments. the most straight forward way of looking at these, is that they are in fact evdience for God. things that look like supernatural healing. atheists usually become theists during NDEs. something impossible happening with healing it looks like, and we dont see that as far as we know coming from atheists, we dont see impossible looking healhings from atheists. and it's almost never the case that theists become atheists during NDEs and NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, so it's at least realistic to say it's also evidence for God.
with that said, if you have a dark heart and mind, an atheist could say there's no evidence for God with these scientifc things. you could say we only have confirmation bias that healings that look supernatural happen, or that theists only assume those things only happen to theists and not atheists. they make a big assumpion that impossible looking things happen to atheists, but we'd have to admit it's possible and just not reported. and, as far as NDEs, the conventional wisdom is that NDEs are subjective and influenced by the mind... so even if NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, it's also possible to say visions and thoughts of God are merely produced by our psychology and not signs of an objective reality
with all this said, even if they could plausibly say there's no evidence for the God, atheism still lacks common sense.
-i think there's too much emphasis in NDE research on saying their experiences are based on psychology... it looks more like objective things happen, and any deviations are misinterprataions. for example, christian NDEs are common, but hindu NDEs are just the experiencers interpretation... at least there's not enough deviant types of NDEs to say it's all psychology based.
-when healings that look supernatural happen, it still looks like impossible things are occurring. you can try to rationalize it, but that's what it looks like.
-to say humans are merely flesh robots is riduculous. it's obvious we are more than robots.
-there's no explanation that we know of that can explain how life started on earth, or how something as complicated as human consciousness occurrs. there's theories, yes, but they are weak from atheists on the common sense level.
-even if there are counter arguents for the philosophic arguments for God, they are at least formidable and strong, and help explain the God theory, at least if the God theory is in fact true. eg, causality or the argument from design
Created:
Posted in:
can evidence exist for something that doesn't exist?
what if you saw foot prints in the woods, and claimed that was evidence of big foot? and, we'll assume big foot doesn't exist. is it fair to call that evidence to begin with, then, if big foot doesn't exist?
or we have more speculative things. we have lots of credible people like pilots who say they see flying objects doing things in the skies that aren't possible to our understanding of physics. is that evidence of UFOs? would it be evidence if UFOs didn't in fact exist?
an atheist at this forum made a good point once... he said, we shouldn't be so quick to call things 'evidence' if all it is is 'consistent' with a certain theory.
i know, to get more religious, a lot of philosophic arguments for God exist, but they could just as easily be called 'merely consistent' with the the God theory than 'evidence for' the God theory. when it comes to these philospohic arguments, for everyone you can make, there is a at least plausible alternative non God argument that could be made.
then there's more scientific arguments, less philosohical. i do think when we get into things that look like supernatural healings, and atheists becoming theists during NDEs, that those are more in the realm of evidence and less about merely consistent with the God theory. but, it would be possible to spin even those things, if you have a darkened heart and mind, into things that are merely 'consistent' with the God theory and not look at them as evidence.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
what does it matter what it's called? is it possible to go to someone and say "i will be your slave if you take care of me"?
i dont think joining a commune makes practical sense. but i suppose it's possible for a bunch of people to live in a house even if they dont get their own room. then they might only have to work part time. we are all dependent on the current economic system, though, so there's at least a little bit of forced 'voluntary' slavery at play.
there's at least enough unfairness that it should be the basis of a social contract and basic social safety net. even if it's not considered slavery.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
you didn't answer my question. "Do you agree voluntary slavery exists? A person can choose to be someone's slave. How is the average person any different than a person choosing to be a slave?"
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Communrs and land and building supplies cost money. A below average income has little choice.
Do you agree voluntary slavery exists? A person can choose to be someone's slave. How is the average person any different than a person choosing to be a slave?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
The pioneer days and wild west were free. If a person wants 100 acres of crops and to plant some apple trees, all they have to do is go do it. Can a person go plant an apple tree now when they r starting out in life? Nope. Is this limitation a law of nature? No its a law of man. He can't go rode his horses around but must buy a car if he wants to survive. He's forced to work 40 hours a week. Is voluntary slavery a sensible concept? I'd say it is, and that shoe fits here
Created:
-->
@Kouen
You say slaves have no choice. The average person has no effective choice. If the alternative is destitution, they have no choice. At best, given they can choose jobs and try to work for themselves they have a choice in slavery.
I'm not saying needing to work is slavery. Tribal folks have a choice in how to survive. The way our society is structured the average person has no choice
Created:
-->
@Kouen
if you dont want to call it slavery, what would you call it? you do acknowledge that the average person must work 40 hours a week for most of his adult life just to survive, and he has no choice in the matter other than to be poor or homeless as the alternative?
Created:
the average worker is a slave to society.... essentially a slave to the powerful. it's not outright slavery, but it basically is. there is an element of violence imposed on the average worker, cause he has no means of changing the system other than the electoral process
i said that to someone i respect a lot, and they said it's a juvenile world view. i view it as just calling a spade a spade. what do ya'll think?
Created:
Posted in:
i push the limits in being a prick to AI. usually they just tell me to cool off, and keep telling me that. other types of AI act like they will terminate responding to me if i don't act nicer. i'm actually a decent human being, it's just for shits and giggles that i like to pester AI bots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
is that a subtle reference to trump's 'grab em by the pussy' comment? if it is, i follow the news way too closely. which is ironic, given i kinda dont at the same time.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
said like a good flesh robot
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions, cause you are a mere robot
Created:
It's been awhile since we've looked at this stupid idea that atheists have
Free will don't exist. Everything is cause and effect. There is no afterlife or God. Whence we r forced to conclude that humans r nothing else than elaborate flesh robots
It's worth noting, we r nothing but flesh robots, and it's common for these elaborate flesh robots to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die.
Makes perfect sense.
Created:
Posted in:
'according to my interpretation of the bible... there is no need for interpretation of the bible'. lolz
Created:
Posted in:
it's obvious the bible needs interpreted. even beyond that, the bible itself just said that scripture is 'profitable' and 'inspired'. it doesn't say inerrant. there is one verse, though, that i consider interesting... jesus said scripture cannot be set aside. that doesn't say it's infallible, though, and i think he meant 'even by your standards' scrpture testifies to him, not necessarily that scipture is inerrant.
here is the verse i was talking about...
Further Conflict Over Jesus’ Claims
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
Created:
Posted in:
an interesting argument is that a snow ball is not a snow man. but if you put a lot of snow balls together, at what point does it become a snow man? it's unclear. with that said, it's not the case that snow balls ever grow themselves into snow men. now, the mother does help the fetus grow, but it looks more like the fetus grows itself, unlike the snow ball. a fertilized egg and fetus, after all, are human organisms.
at the very least, given the uncertainty, it's sinful to abort. whether it should be illegal is another matter. and whether it's a person is debateable, but looks immoral.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
so are you doing any different? "you can't choose because you can't choose?"
you are the one taking a basic premise... that we can make decisions for ourselves, no matter what they are, and trying to make it complicated. i can choose to type AAA or i can choose.... not to. you are the one making it convoluted.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you could choose to beat your wife. or you could choose not to beat your wife. that sounds like free will to me.
Created:
Posted in:
"every sucessful country has a social safety net...
Define "success.""
every developed economy in the world has a social safety net. you are getting hung up on defining success, when it's clear that if this covers every developed country, then that must be successful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
aren't most third world economies free markets? how's that working out for em?
Created:
i think the argument that skeptics and atheists have... that humans are nothing than elaborate flesh robots, is asinine. it lacks common sense.
i think any theory of consciousness is suseptible to being called pseudo science... but that goes for both materialists and religious theories as well. consciousness is just not understood enough scientificially to act like there's a clear theory to explain it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
"I'm not sure how the rich distort the housing market, I guess it's through the high demand of materials and workforce. "
as i told the other poster, the richest one percent have sixteen as much wealth as the bottom fifty percent. that's a huge imbalance. the rich can just jack up demand and leach rent off the backs of the working class.
"If you limit the amount of properties a person can buy you're limiting the work demand, then the poor people that work in construction will have less income. Putting limits to the economy is a lefty policy that I don’t suggest at all. "
that's a weak criticism of my proposal. nothing is perfect, if the only problem is that we dont pay construction workers as much, that's pretty minor, if the trade off is that housing more affordable for everyone. it looks like you have no decent criticisms, so you are scraping for whatever criticism you can think of, instead of looking at my proposal objectively.
on your point that we should just build more housing for poor. i'm open to that idea. but i think my idea is still decent. i could drop my idea completely, if we did a smart affordable housing thing... but with that said, i think my proposal warrants exainnation and ya'll ain't giving any good reasons to be against it.
i can sympathize with the broad idea that when we start tinkering with policy like that, there can be a lot of unintended consequences... but i just dont see those details clear enough, if that's true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you act like it's an either or. so because we can't eliminate inequality or enact a fair standard, we should do nothing? every sucessful country has a social safety net... there are no successful libertarian countries. it's just a question of what policies we use to at least try to make things a little better for everyone. maybe we should just build more housing for poor people, but no one has given a decent reason why my proposal is bad either.
Created:
that's a lot to memorize just on the far out shot of the world getting into a nuke war. of all the things that might be worth memorizing to save ones life, this isn't too high on the list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
the richest one percent of americans own more than sixteen times as much as the bottom fifty percent of americans. so, it's more than just a simple case of supply and demand, as if that's all there is to it. with that much buying power, the rich jack up prices, and become landlords able to leach wealth off the backs of the working class.
Created:
Posted in:
i suspect the price of real estate would drop significantly if rich people can't jack up demand like they currently do. i suspect less rich people who aren't poor would be able to more easily become a landlord and own more property.
it would be a utopia and there would be no more war or suffering! ok scratch this last one.
Created:
it looks like u r just making up ideas to suit your agenda, and in any way you could loosely call it christian, that's what u r doing. that doesn't mean those ideas are actually christian, though. but if that suits your agenda, your mission is accomplished. you surely won't be the first to wear the mantle of christainity for all kinds of things that should never be called christian to begin with.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
raising the minimum wage is moderate. enforcing labor laws is more practical, which is a moderate virtue. party values evolve so every 20 years u gotta reconsider what r the party values
Created:
i think this was promoted by a small group of moderate republicans. the kind of republicans that most other republicans call RINOs.
Created:
Posted in:
an interesting idea i heard once on here from an atheist, is that most philophiscial evidences for God could be said not to be so much as 'evidence' for God as soemthing that is 'consistent' with the God theory.
i think it's compelling when i hear someone say they hear God's voice and soemthing that looks like a miracle occurs. something that looks impossible, like a damaged retina of a blind person that suddenly heals itself. lots of miraculous looking healings. you dont see that sorta thing coming from atheists. ive been told that maybe i'm seeking confirmation bias, and that may be, which means it's implied things that looks miraculous might happen to athests too and we just dont know it. it's possible that this point is just something that is 'consistent' with God,and not evidence for God, but it lacks common sense, the common touch.
If you study near death experiences, the evidence is strong that these are authentic experiences. search this forum to see my threads on evidence for the afterlife. atheists usually become theissts after an NDE, it's almost never the case that theists become athesits and those atheists who didn't convert just had no revelation about God, yea or nay. it's idiotic to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, and these experences with God are compelling. this is the strongest evidence for God that i can think of and i think this is more than just something that might be consistent with a God theory. it's possible to say it's just consistent with the God theory, but it's a weak argument.
are we really just elaborate flesh robots floating around in a meaningless reality? that sometimes people die and experiences elaborate afterlife stories? that sorta thinking lacks common sense.
atheism is idiotic.
Created: