Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 321. (Read 901367 times)

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

I'm going to regret this, I know, because this thread has long become the stomping ground of the delusional, the clinically insane and the downright dangerous (I recall catching a comment a while back from some psycho stating that he believed atheists should die. WTF?)

But, here goes, this is directed at Bl4kjaguar, a guy who bases his belief on the validity of "The Phoenix Journals" by way of stating how an old lady wrote a shit-ton of books during a short period, so, you know, totallymustbelegit, while he absolutely ignores the fact that the psychological disorder, Hypergraphia, is far more likely behind these writings and, asides from that, they are just rambling bullshit.


This entire site, the very crux of your belief, no, your insistence that SCIENCE has proven that our mind is capable of survival after brain death, is grossly flawed due to the fact that it is absolutely chock full of argument fallacies.

Why, for example do they put such stock in citing such irrelevance as,
Elsevier has has been exposed a number of times for having published fake journals. But, in any event, it is an, 'Appeal to authority' fallacy. The publisher is irrelevant if the paper still fails critical analysis.

Other citations, such as articles from plosone.org, are also not immune from criticism:
Publication does not equal peer-review-approval. In fact it doesn't equal peer-reviewed anything, because it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, hence the fact that plosone.org contains a great many 'research' papers that are simply appallingly bad science.

Let me give you an example of how easy it is to shred those absurd pieces of 'evidence' you like to insist are valid data. See http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a20 Mellen-Thomas Benedict, a guy who came up with an idea for improving the design of a fucking glass-cutter and claims to have assisted in huge scientific medical breakthoughs:
Except, of course, outside of his book, they ALWAYS have a book to sell, there is no valid reference to him doing ANY of this. To save on thread space, here is a full debunking of that charlatan: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23994

Bl4kjaguar, either you are genuinely wanting to establish the truth of the matter, in which case you will want to seriously consider the actual fact that the websites you base your 'knowledge' on are shockingly poor references for anything objectively scientific, or you are so far gone into full blown psychotic delusion that you will refuse to consider you may be wrong and that you have accepted the word of people for whom there is profit in convincing people like you to believe their stories.

Yes, but, many have used screwdrivers to turn their bar time into a religion.

I want you to stop making up stories that equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.

Fact is that there is hard data supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena, and you did not read it, so now I have to quote it for you; for example, "Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable." There are eight other lines of evidence supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a32

Like I said, your explanation is totally hypothetical and has not been proven scientifically; moreover, "Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing":
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a34

Where is the scientific proof that relates feeling comfortable and the brain producing a last wonderful Grand Finale vision (or "illusion") at the time of death? Moreover, how can the elements of veridical perception in NDE be explained under this paradigm? Are you not ignoring the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs? Please review points 32, 34, 35 in detail.

Once again you are caught equating an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data. Here is the data which contradicts your assertion:
In a study in PLOS ONE, they found that "not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

OK, so this is more than sufficient to demolish your claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence or did not think about it clearly.

This assertion is totally untested and you provided no empirical data to back it, I have completely refuted it; so far there is no evidence to support your conclusion, but to support the survival hypothesis we have the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs.

I have posted my proof of God, I have refuted your disagreement on the first (inductive/scientific) point, so what is wrong with the rest of my proof which only uses deduction once the survival hypothesis is accepted? Please quote my proof and point out the logical error.

Don't bother repeating yourself because the data proves you wrong; you cannot even explain why the brain bothers to make such "illusions" because you are proven incorrect (by the data) in your assumption that NDE is an imagined event.

Here you have posted yet another untested and hypothetical explanation with little to no explanatory power. This is not how science is done, my friend.

Oh really? Maybe a rational atheist can solve a problem by using rational thinking, but you have not.

A pseudo-skeptic like yourself will ask for proof and try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up his/her stories with facts, or in other words IGNORING the proof; then, s/he will go on believing whatever s/he wants to believe, thinking that the problem is solved.

religion is a tool, to manipulate people into things.

that is the answer.

In what way..EXPLAIN YOURSELF PLEASE..
I have never seen anyone turn religion into a screw driver

I am an atheist and I do not hate religion or religious people. I am very much against people using religion as a tool to manipulate people though.

I have told you about the 52 points ...as i told you before its your brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..like when you have a bad accident you don.t feel pain till 10 to 15 mins after
what more do you want me to say..
even the test in your 52 points the pilots said in the test they felt comfortable ..
So what is so hard to understand..
here is a test for you to do..
look around the room your in.. now close your eyes and imagine your swinging off the lights with a clown suit on in the same room your in now..
you can see your self doing this..ITS CALLED AN IMAGINATION ALL BRAINS CAN DO THIS...
another way to prove how your brain works..
if someone takes L.S.D they see things that are not there and will see things they have never seen in there lives before..well how do they see it if they never been or seen these things before..
you see your brain knows what a kettle looks like
your brain knows what a person looks like
your brain knows what a window looks like
so what it does is mix all these things up now what will happen is..
i could be dreaming i hit someone on the head with a kettle then i fell out of the window..
now if i am dying with my eyes closed i could imagine all sorts of things seeing angels ..floating down the street..seeing your dead mum or dad..what ever your brain thinks to make you comfortable before you die..
but as i have stated even if there is an afterlife why would there still be a god would this not just what happens when we die..
NOW HERE IS MY THINKING ON YOUR 52 POINTS ..SO PLEASE DON.T ASK ME TO REPEAT.

plus how many get drugs pumped into them whiles they are dying or in hospital ..
morphine

Did anyone say because old people smell funny?

Because old people churchstink is deffo gross.

Bro, we are in the 21st century, we do not just speak in all-caps ALL of the time, and we behave rationally.

To be rational means that you can think clearly and are capable of intelligently evaluating new ideas when presented.

What does it say about your rational abilities when you ignore literally ALL of the evidence presented?

Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.html

You don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.

BITNOW....SEE YOUR THE ONE I MOSTLY DON.T UNDERSTAND ARE YOU A NUTJOB
WHAT DO YOU MEAN ...OR ARE YOU TO CLEVER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND...
BECAUSE YOU BAFFLE ME

SORRY SHE ..YOUR STILL SMART AND NICE THO..
BUT YOU STILL WASTE YOUR TIME READING ABOUT GOD..
READ ABOUT 3D PRINTERS HOW THEY WORK HOW TO BUILD ONE . ITS THE FUTURE

ALL OF IT ...YOUR BABBLING ABOUT NOTHING..
I AM AN NDEs SO WHY DON.T I BELIEVE IN GOD..STOP FOOLING YOURSELF..
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WILL ..BUT YOUR BELIEF SAYS YOUR NOT TO PUSH RELIGION ONTO ANOTHER .....SO STOP... BEFORE YOU TRIP UP ON YOUR OWN TEACHINGS..SHHHHHHH..
KEEP IT TO YOURSELF..

AND ATON IS ATEN..THE DISK OF THE SUN... SUN GOD  AKA RA...DO YOUR HISTORY..YOU RELIGIOUS NUTS NEED TO KNOW HOW AND WHY PEOPLE  FIRST STARTED TO BELIEVE IN GODS..MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER AND EARTH QUAKES ..

MY THOUGHT IS THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO HEARD THUNDER AND SEEN LIGHTNING MUST OF THOUGHT WHO DONE THAT?
I WHACK MY ROCKS ON ME CAVE AND STILL DON.T MAKE A NOISE LIKE THAT..WOW..
AND I BET THE NEXT TIME HE HEARD IT HE STARTED BOWING THINKING IT WAS SOMETHING HUGE..

PLUS HUMANS LOVE TO BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE..
LETS LOOK AT IT THIS WAY...SAY YOU LIVE WITH 100 PEOPLE...THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE WHO IS THE LEAST LIKED PERSON OUT OF THE 100..FACT..
SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE THUNDER AND LIGHTING AS COME  
SOMEBODY AS SAID THAT IS THAT LITTLE SHIT WHO MADE THAT HAPPEN HE AS UPSET THE HUGE THING LETS KILL HIM..SO THE TRIBE SACRIFICED HIM TO THE WEATHER..ALL AS BEEN GOOD WEATHER WISE ..SO THEY START TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE BEFORE THE BAD WEATHER COMES..
THUS STARTING THE CREATION OF GODS...

WE ARE NOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND WE STILL DO THIS.
.BUT NOW WE SACRIFICE FOR WHOs GOD IS THE RIGHT GOD TO BELIEVE IN..VERY STRANGE...
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE MUSLIMS WILL TAKE OVER WITH THERE COOKOO RELIGION
BECAUSE THERE FUCKIN EVERYWHERE..FLOATIN BED SHEETS ALL OVER THE WORLD..

When God is missing, sex is important.


Thank You.

Fixed that for you.

But I'm not going to be driving myself crazy. I'm chilled as a cucumber.

Here is another example of the most common skeptical fallacy; your "story" is contradicted by empirical facts about NDE; the sensory perception that occurs in NDE is not an imagined event:

"From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

Well, thanks for the compliment; however, my teachings come from GOD OF LIGHT, so do not be confused about "mixing" of teachings, that is just a story you made up (without evidence) to dismiss the reality of what I offer; it is better to read them ALL than to close your mind and ignore the truth.

There is proof; you just choose to ignore it; there is already evidence that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, thus I conclude that your understanding of human consciousness needs to be re-evaluated.

The most common "skeptical" fallacy is to equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.
People who believe in Materialism often try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up their stories with facts. They don't even realize their stories are contradicted by facts because they never investigated the evidence in the first place.


I have a concise logical proof demonstrating that God exists based on definitions; please tell me which step of the proof you disagree with.

My proof defines God sufficiently, and yes it is based on external (observable, scientific) evidence; if my definition is missing something, you can point it out explicitly, hopefully after reading the proof carefully to understand the logic.

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

My advice is to read ALL teachings and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge and discern for yourself which one(s) are valid truth.

1)  Note that I've already given a base definition for what a theory is, and at a basic and fundemtal level.  If you think it should be different or more refined, or if you think the definition I selected, which applies to all dictionary definitions, is inappropriate, then argue why that's the case.

2) Okay, but that is beside the point I'm making, and irrelevant to it.  However, laws themselves are abstract.  We don't observe laws, but rather phenomena that obeys laws.  Hence, we discover physical laws inductively (I.e. Bottom-up reasoning).

3)  Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics haven't been successfully merged in a way that's acceptable by academics.  Quantum phenomena cannot be observed because they occur below the Planck scale, and are therefore metaphysical, not physical in a traditional sense.  In a peer-reviewed setting, there is no currently no means by which to soundly explain observable phenomena in terms of quantum mechanics and vice versa without a lot of skepticism.  There do exist such theories, but not everyone agrees on them.

4) Your conceptualization of cause and effect is a result of the theoretical context of time in which you place it (I.e. A linear one, from past to future).  This is a component of time, not all that time is.  Time is intertwined with space and momentum, and is a stratification of superposition.  Effects also "effect" their causes.  What I'm getting at here is that your demonstrated understanding of cause and effect is at a surface level, and you're not going to explain the fundamental nature of reality by solely analyzing its surface level interactions.

1AGUAR,....SMART NICE PERSON BUT MIXES THE BIBLE WITH ALIEN AND EGYPTIAN TEACHINGS OF THE MEANING OF GOD

BITNOW....  HE IS A FUCKIN NUTTER AND A PLANTPOT WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE WHO WONT BELIEVE IN HIS WAY OF THE BIBLE

BADECKER... NICE PERSON BUT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE GETS CONFUSED WITH SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE..

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HAND
 BUT HE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

you guys or girls above...STOP PREACHING YOUR SHIT TO EACH OTHER NONE OF YOU WILL WIN
BECAUSE YOUR ARGUING OVER NOTHING.. SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST...

AT LEAST WITH AN ATHEIST WE ASK FOR PROOF AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED ..
YOU RELIGIOUS FREAKS CAN NEVER PROVE ANYTHING SO YOU ARGUE AND ARGUE TILL THE COWS COME HOME..A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME

PLUS THE TOPIC SAYS WHY DO ATHEIST HATE RELIGION ?
WE WANT TO KNOW WHY...
WE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT VERSE SO AND SO SAID OR WHAT GOD SAID..
BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO AN ATHEIST

SO CHILL OUT ON THE GOSPELS OF WHO EVER ..ITS ALL BULLSHIT..
AND STOP TALKING BULLSHIT SAYING THERE IS PROOF OF GOD..

BECAUSE IF THERE WAS PROOF WE WOULD ALL BELIEVE IN GOD THE WHOLE PLANET

Actually, I don't require either.

I will survive with our without your prayers.