Which came first: feelings or the brain?"...The brain come first 100%..Why you ask because when people are brain dead you have no feelings
None what so ever...To write to Richard Dawkins was a waste of time when it was such a simple answer
Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 65. (Read 89184 times)
If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Religion is faith based, not evidence based. Kind of like fiat currency.
Neural network is essentially an electrical network.
NOT TRUEFirstly, Providing a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experience has been a difficult challenge for scientists ever since data in the form of NDE testimonials started appearing in the mid 1970's. (Read the Primary Source here)
Also, you have no response to Hammeroff's observations; you obviously have some reading to do.
You have no response to the AECES TOP 40 observations; you have some reading to do there as well.
Similarly to you, Moloch would like to deny veridical perception during NDE despite the fact that it has been shown in a published paper that "NDE memories are more real than real memories"! Where is Moloch's argument??
Many lines of evidence are examples of valid scientific research i.e. conclusions based on observation using methodological naturalism and valid evidential reasoning (my definition), so that is why I present 52 points of scientific evidence for atheists to evaluate with the conclusion being that skeptical criticism of NDE In This Thread is irrational.
Many eminent researchers (like Darwin and Godel) have admitted that materialism is irrational, these educated men and women present a lot of the same arguments that remain unaddressed. The arguments that you present are very weak; it will likely surprise you to learn that your arguments are not based in evidence, and this is easily seen by anyone who has bothered to click and read through all of these references:
ALL 52 points of evidence on the near-death site;
Hammeroff's work as presented here (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer")
The AECES top 40 cases
SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES?
they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference
Science is about drawing conclusions from repeated observations, for example the observation that consciousness has occurred during a period when the brain was non-functional leads to the conclusion that "A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained", and this conclusion is perfectly in line with the discoveries of experimental neuroscience like the following:Quote
a global brain phenomena (consciousness) would always result in a positive measurement of brain activity. The link between neural activity, brain activity, and the brain's higher functions is very well established, for example "ongoing [brain] activity fluctuations ... constitute an essential property of the neural architecture underlying cognition", so a global shutdown of neural activity would cause a disruption in the EEG and total loss of consciousness with no restoration of higher function until the global shutdown is reversed. Cognition, like perception and awareness, is always observed to be a global phenomena, and such a phenomena cannot be expected during a global shutdown.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00020/full If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.
For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.
Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.
That is simply your biased opinion...
The facts are that your "scientific studies" are not scientifically conducted... they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference
I have looked at studies you posted in the past and they are all bullshit... there is not a shred of scientific credulity among them... its completely anecdotal with no substance, like religion
The fact is, you are programmed to talk like this because of your weak faith in God. God looks at the weakness in your faith, and goes back to the Beginning and juggles everything in the universe a little, so that you are programmed to do the things that match your weak faith... all through cause and effect.
If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.
For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.
Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.
That is simply your biased opinion...
The facts are that your "scientific studies" are not scientifically conducted... they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference
I have looked at studies you posted in the past and they are all bullshit... there is not a shred of scientific credulity among them... its completely anecdotal with no substance, like religion
It is very interesting that you bring up dextromethorphan in your original post. You often fail to partition religiosity and spirituality throughout your post.
If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.
For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.
Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.
If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.
For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.
If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased
And when you believe the irrational side to be truth, like atheists do, you have a religion going for yourself.
If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased
Some people get a psychological support from family and friends. Others get it from imaginary friends, aka God(s).
Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them. They can distinguish what is real and what is not.
To answer the OP question:
I'm an atheist because I can think critically.
These days I don't even consider religions worth studying. They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.
Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.
Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them. They can distinguish what is real and what is not.
To answer the OP question:
I'm an atheist because I can think critically.
These days I don't even consider religions worth studying. They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.
Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.
If you could think critically, you would stop being an atheist. Why?
I can think critically therefore I am an atheist.
Not sure what you mean? I gave you my reasons.
So far, cause and effect is a scientific law, that is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, which is law because of the billions and trillions of things that happen daily that show that it is fact, and by the fact that nothing has factually refuted it so far. Pure random has never been shown to exist in anything. In fact, the concept of pure random is not really understandable.
Randomness and cause and effect are not the same. Not sure why you are linking cause and effect to "pure randomness".
The universe cannot exist with random pure random activity.
There is no link between cause and effect and randomness. This is what you are implying. The rest of your reply is incoherent.
Even though entropy is extremely complex, the factual understanding about it is that everything is gradually moving from complexity to simplicity. Given enough time, complexity as we know it would not exist. Further, science is having a difficult time determining exactly what nearly complete entropy would be like.
Evolution shows that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones.
If you think evolution is not possible, I think the conversation is over.
If "evolution" means "change," why not use "change?" If evolution means inanimate chemicals turning into a human being, the math shows that this is so impossible that it is off the reality scale. If you believe this kind of evolution, you are stuck in a religion without even knowing it.
1. If the universe had existed continually forever, without beginning, then entropy would have reduced it to a state of simplicity long ago. We would not exist. Because of this, we can see that there was a beginning.
Big Bang Theory is the only scientific theory we currently have for the beginning of our universe.
You are not showing anything. You are linking entropy to randomness, randomness to complexity, complexity to intelligence, and finally intelligence to God All of your mental leaps are incorrect.
2. Complex intelligence - such as the intelligence of mankind - is part of the universe. Because it is part of the universe, it is affected by entropy, just like the rest of the universe. This means that formerly, intelligence was greater than it is now.
Not sure I understand. You are saying that entropy has something to do with intelligence. I do not see a link. You are making a mental leap and not explaining it.
Again complex organisms evolve from simpler ones. We have indisputable physical evidence of this fact. Your assumption that declining entropy is reducing the complexity of the universe and reducing "the complexity of intelligence" is false. I don't even know what you mean by "the complexity of intelligence".
One sure way to decrease your intelligence is to limit yourself to study from one book (be it Bible, Quran or Talmud).
3. Cause and effect in everything shows that everything was pre-programmed. People are the AI of the universe. The Thing that is behind the pre-programming is intelligent beyond understanding to have been able to pre-program it all, and especially the intelligence of mankind. This great Intelligence fits our dictionary definitions of "God."
No. There is no evidence that anything was pre-programmed. You are pulling this assumption straight out of your you know what.
No it is not. Cause and effect is just that. There is a cause and there is an effect. Nothing to do with re-arranging causes to affect the outcomes, i.e. nothing to do with pre-programming.
You are missing a big chunk of critical thinking regarding Newton's 3rd Law.
There is nothing that is science law that competes with the above. There might be lots of science theory - like Big Bang Theory - that might appear to compete. But even Big Bang Theory doesn't take into account things like intelligence and emotion... doesn't have any explanation for them.
The Big Bang Theory does not deal with intelligence or emotions of sapiens.
As an example. There are 3 major BB theories. There are 4 major Black Hole theories. Yet none of the Black Holes from the BH theories could fit in any of the BB universes. They simply don't sync. It's all guesswork. Fun to play with if you like juggling math and physics. But a waste of time if you are looking for something solid in life.
Intelligence is a neural network. Emotions are chemical reactions in your brain.
We did not exist during BB, life on Earth appeared much, much later. Human intelligence as defined today, was a result of millions of years of evolution.
Not sure what your argument here is.
The point is, the strongest part of science - science law - shows that God exists. Don't you think that it is time that you start to think not only critically, but clearly, as well?
No. Science does not show that God exists. Quite the opposite is true.
My above explanation is exactly why science shows that God exists.
Entropy shows that there is a beginning, and that everything is becoming less complex since the beginning.
Cause and effect show that every little thing exists according to the way the thing(s) that caused it to exist moved it. And each cause was caused by some other cause, which was caused by some other cause... all the way back to the beginning.
Whatever could set the cause and effect of this complex universe into motion, must be very complex in itself. Since there is intelligence in the universe, cause and effect caused the intelligence to exist. Whatever could cause this whole thing including the intelligence, necessarily had to be even more complex. Why? Because entropy is reducing the complexity of everything, even intelligence.
Something that is great enough and intelligent enough to program the universe into existence fits our definition of the word "God."
No, you are not showing that science shows that God exists. Entropy and complexity are unrelated.
The primal cause did not have to be complex. The intelligence is the neural network in the brains of animals. Primal cause did not cause the intelligence to exist during BB.
First, BB is not known to be factual at all. That's why it is called the BB Theory.Second, there is no evidence that anything exists except by cause and effect. And there are countless things that show that cause and effect are fact in everything that we know. This means that even if we were uncertain that intelligence was a result of cause and effect, it should be assumed that it was.
Entropy is not related to complexity or intelligence. You want proof? Software behind everything you touch everyday is becoming more complex every year, yet entropy of the universe is declining. Entropy and complexity are two different things.
Again, the only reason we need or use software, is because we have declined in intelligence so much that we need something else to do our thinking for us.Hint: Universe is expanding...
Anyway, you are a typical Christian religiotard, no fault of your own. Probably your parents are to blame.
I hope you see your own logical fallacies (entropy=complexity, complexity=intelligence).
This is fun, showing people how they have let the science community overrun their thinking by brainwashing them into believing that God doesn't exist.
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52
patients who really were close to death were more likely than those who were not to report an enhanced perception of light and enhanced cognitive powers. The claim of enhancement of cognitive functions despite the likelihood that brain function had probably become disturbed and possibly diminished, deserves further investigation.
You are wasting your time you will never have proof of an after life that's for when you die..
Disagree: Some have already died and came back, and the perceptions they had while unconscious were later verified. Their experiences indicate that there is an after-life, at the least it indicates that mind is independent from brain!
There is also this:
The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven
Not true, that is an ad-hoc explanation, or a "just-so story". Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained.
Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain.
It would help if you read the near-death evidence page for more info:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50
Your trying to get me to believe in your space god ..Come on you know i know it's you..You are wasting your time you will never have proof of an after life that's for when you die..
believe in my god Earthalon it will save your life..
Your body can produce a drug like affect without drugs..
When your sick you can go dizzy like being drunk? and you had no alcohol at all
Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven
Not true, that is an ad-hoc explanation, or a "just-so story". Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained.
Many NDEs occur while the NDEr is under general anesthesia - at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, descriptions of a NDEs differ greatly from those people who experiences "anesthetic awareness." The content of NDEs occurring under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that do not occur under general anesthesia. This is more strong evidence that NDEs occur independent from the functioning of the material brain.
It would help if you read the near-death evidence page for more info:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50
But I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.
I believe merely because of my desire to believe? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I acquired my beliefs by extensive research and careful examination of observations according to the scientific method, primarily using "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking", which is a popular skeptical treatise on evidential reasoning (the opposite of blind belief).
Your assertion that my beliefs have no factual basis is obviously false. I am convinced that you are the one who is not willing to engage with the new ideas that I am presenting, so therefore you are irrational, and not I. So I hope that we continue our discussion, and we will use our reason to see what is fact and what is not, for I certainly believe that two thinking heads are better than one.
I will first compare your claims with one who has actually reviewed the literature in this field:
Braude says that more conclusive evidence of veridical perception during NDE is required and that it is NOT YET "irrational" to NOT believe in the survival of the personality. While atheist critiques of NDE are certainly irrational (NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone), Braude's claim by itself appears to be acceptable, but Braude's position is not nearly as extreme as yours; you are saying that there is "no legitimate factual ground to believe" in the survival hypothesis, but this is obviously false; the near-death page has 52 references to scientific (factual) evidence including:
No matter what the nature of the NDE, it (factually) alters lives (unlike hallucinations and dreams)
Other anomalous (factual) phenomena supports an afterlife
Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs (facts of reality relating to other facts of reality)
Actually, there are many lines of evidence that have brought me to my conclusions: an important line of evidence is The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. There are many other reasons, for example I am inspired by the writings of eminent researchers (like Godel, Turing, Pasteur, etc.) who have also thought about these topics extensively. Other researchers from the recent past and present are also a big source of inspiration; for example, on the TV series "Ancient Aliens" you will find a wealth of fascinating discussions that are virtually always based in factual observations and historical records, likewise with the "censored" TED talks of Sheldrake and Hancock and the documentary "Krishna: History or Myth", and also this scholarly paper (and this one) which present an example of how to think critically about communication, to name but a few sources that I have evaluated. Additionally, I have presented Hammeroff's review of evidence from quantum biology (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer"), but even that level of empirical observation and evidence does not suffice for you; you seem to ignore it just like the AWARE study and other examples mentioned. I think you should evaluate the sources for yourself; there is use in trying to convince THIS believer (I use reason, and was once a committed atheist), but if you cannot evaluate the new ideas that I am presenting, then you are simply believing what you already believe because of your desire to deny reality by NOT THINKING about something new and profound.
"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."
As I said, I am open for discussion via video chat or telephone, in case you would like to engage in a more rapid exchange of ideas.
Well I am really but what i mean is when you take these drugs you see all kinds of things that your mind could never of dreamed of..
So explain how my mind made up things you never seen before?
Now when your dying your body will send signals to your brain your badly hurt or in danger of dying..And if your out cold you will be dreaming that your going somewhere like home or to heaven
to mum dad god what ever your dreaming of..
As everyone on there death bed had a NDE answer no..
I know because it's happened to me I seen myself i floated up spun around and floated out of the room down the shopping mall and just before i got out the door on to the street i woke up with people all around me..My heart stopped and they brought me back to life in the dentist..
Now remember this i was on gas at the time..So could it also be because people are on some sort of drug when lying in hospital or dentist..
And we all have a brain they are the same the work the same?
So now get back to being an atheist only wasting your time..
And when you die you will know for sure then..Yes i know you wont be able to tell anyone but you will know?
Plus imagine if there was an after life WHY WOULD IT BE GOD..Not just what humans do when we die?..
Worship EARTHALON..It will save your life and your future generations lives...
RECYCLE YOUR PLASTIC
You want to go to Earthalon 2 then recycle your plastic much more important than praying..Praying helps no one recycling helps everyone Also ever thought about when people get there heads chopped off by guillotine your suppose to see your body while your heads on the floor..
Now do you know anybody who as had there head cut off and had it sown back on and told you if this is true..?
Do you know anybody who died for lets say 2 weeks and come back and told you there is an after life..
Also when you sleep you dream..guillotine was used in the past and people would say the head would looks at it's body..Old wives tale or was it? just the same as an after life?
Or we could turn into ORBS
there will always be a scientific answer not godBut I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.
I believe merely because of my desire to believe? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I acquired my beliefs by extensive research and careful examination of observations according to the scientific method, primarily using "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking", which is a popular skeptical treatise on evidential reasoning (the opposite of blind belief).
Your assertion that my beliefs have no factual basis is obviously false. I am convinced that you are the one who is not willing to engage with the new ideas that I am presenting, so therefore you are irrational, and not I. So I hope that we continue our discussion, and we will use our reason to see what is fact and what is not, for I certainly believe that two thinking heads are better than one.
I will first compare your claims with one who has actually reviewed the literature in this field:
Braude says that more conclusive evidence of veridical perception during NDE is required and that it is NOT YET "irrational" to NOT believe in the survival of the personality. While atheist critiques of NDE are certainly irrational (NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone), Braude's claim by itself appears to be acceptable, but Braude's position is not nearly as extreme as yours; you are saying that there is "no legitimate factual ground to believe" in the survival hypothesis, but this is obviously false; the near-death page has 52 references to scientific (factual) evidence including:
No matter what the nature of the NDE, it (factually) alters lives (unlike hallucinations and dreams)
Other anomalous (factual) phenomena supports an afterlife
Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs (facts of reality relating to other facts of reality)
Actually, there are many lines of evidence that have brought me to my conclusions: an important line of evidence is The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. There are many other reasons, for example I am inspired by the writings of eminent researchers (like Godel, Turing, Pasteur, etc.) who have also thought about these topics extensively. Other researchers from the recent past and present are also a big source of inspiration; for example, on the TV series "Ancient Aliens" you will find a wealth of fascinating discussions that are virtually always based in factual observations and historical records, likewise with the "censored" TED talks of Sheldrake and Hancock and the documentary "Krishna: History or Myth", and also this scholarly paper (and this one) which present an example of how to think critically about communication, to name but a few sources that I have evaluated. Additionally, I have presented Hammeroff's review of evidence from quantum biology (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer"), but even that level of empirical observation and evidence does not suffice for you; you seem to ignore it just like the AWARE study and other examples mentioned. I think you should evaluate the sources for yourself; there is use in trying to convince THIS believer (I use reason, and was once a committed atheist), but if you cannot evaluate the new ideas that I am presenting, then you are simply believing what you already believe because of your desire to deny reality by NOT THINKING about something new and profound.
"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."
As I said, I am open for discussion via video chat or telephone, in case you would like to engage in a more rapid exchange of ideas.
OP would like to shift the discussion away from his claims. OP will think he's being rational because he is happy with his assumptions and their own consistency.
To be "rational" is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions.
Is this what OP has done with his claims and arguments? I don't think so; I believe that OP has presented arguments from ignorance and used these arguments as unstated assumptions to promote his conclusions.
I think that OP has chosen not to engage with these ideas and references because he cannot think clearly and is incapable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
To be "rational" is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions.
Is this what OP has done with his claims and arguments? I don't think so; I believe that OP has presented arguments from ignorance and used these arguments as unstated assumptions to promote his conclusions.
I must inform you that you present two related arguments from ignorance:
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).
I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).
I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.
I think that OP has chosen not to engage with these ideas and references because he cannot think clearly and is incapable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
I think you know perfectly well that you are a religious person not because of those insignificant cases mentioned on that "aware study" you quoted Ad nauseam. Those cases are just a pretext you present to try to "substantiate" your beliefs. You believe because you want to believe. You have no legitimate factual ground to believe.
I also would like to have an immortal "soul" (I would seriously dispense the god, but if he was the price to pay for eternity, as Unamuno, I could even tolerate at least some gods).
Henry IV of France, faced with the need to convert to Catholicism to be king, said, "Paris is well worth a mass". I guess I could say that eternity is well worth a god, if he wasn't too annoying.
But I try very hard to avoid mixing what I would like and reality. I don't think you do that. Your will to believe blinds you.
Jump to: