Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 72. (Read 89032 times)

Sooooo many brain washed people in the world.

Why does religion matter?
Keep it at home and in your holy temple.

Thats it.. That is where it belongs.
Not in politics or any other place that has any kind of influence of other people.

Science has proven that God exists. Science doesn't tell us much about what God is, but science has proven that God exists. How? Here's how.

Three fundamental scientific points are:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

When you combine these 3 things, the only way the universe could exist is that it was made by something that fits the definition of "God."

The Bible shows in the history of how it was made, and by what it says, that it is the Word of God.

Im an atheist because i simply never believe in something that has been never prooved.
And the only proof that god exists is a bible,a book made thousands year ago by some naive people who got tricked with jesus magical tricks.

I used to be a famous painter..And one day i was painting a scene with gypsies by a camp fire and a space ship hovered over my head and it stayed there for 5 mins and flew away..Now it's Funny because a cannot draw to save my life..

Just like your mad theory i have one...Could it be ORBS flying threw our brains and passing information from person to person?
No i don't believe what i say it's just a thought..But could it be a right thought?..Also are you even here?..

So all this..Are you trying to prove there is a god?..Or just an afterlife?.. Harrrr Now i mention afterlife..After eights Hmmmmmmmm got box in me fridge..bye i am off to scoff the lot  

That does not sound like such a great experiment; I will propose a better one. Why don't you try replicating the results of Stevenson's studies? Just like Cunningham's study of Seth, Stevenson's job "was simply to gather all the anomalous data, investigate them carefully, and rule out, using every possible method available to him, the rational explanations".


Are we skeptics really just cynics?

Yet the fact that cause and effect exist in everything, shows us that something caused us to be inventive, and something else caused the something, and something else caused that, all the way back to the Beginning. So everything is programmed to do what it does. And the Programmer would have to be great enough to fit our definition of "God."

This means that we DO know where life came from. It wasn't evolution, because evolution has been proven to be mathematically impossible anyway. It was God.

There's a big difference. if you believe in a certain god, you will apply what you believe in reality.  So if you think your god doesn't condone homosexuality then there's a high chance that you will become a homophobe.

I believe it makes no difference if you believe in god or not, what matters is to attain self-realisation, and consciousness is the only route to do so

Yeah, and I think people who believe in a god is just being indoctrinated when they are young. Young child is so gullible so anything you tell will mostly make them believe without doubts.

I am an atheist simply because i have no belief in a god or gods.  I don't beleive but choose not to accept,  i simply don't Beleive in fairy tales.  In this day and age religion is the last of the accepted mental illnesses.

We became more clever because that fits our survival ability, it's just that we make it extend to the point where our intelligence is used to participate and other humans to survive for a living, that's why as thousand years passed by. People knew how to have agriculture and industry.

On the other hand, many people believe that we came from inorganic material through a process called evolution. Evolution has been proven to be mathematically impossible. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 It's funny to me how people, especially scientists, can keep on believing it when it has been shown to be scientifically (mathematically) impossible. But...

Let's say that evolution happened to be true for a moment. Why would it not be possible in this great universe for some form of evolution to have developed intelligent creatures thousands of times faster than people developed on earth? And why could they not be a lot more intelligent than we are?

Then, let's say one of them developed a mental way to manipulate space-time using his mind. Could he not change everything in the universe to have been brought into being by way of creation rather than evolution? Wouldn't He be God if He could do this? Why would you think that if impossible evolution could exist, that a seemingly impossible Being like God couldn't exist?

You might say that we have no proof. But we don't have proof for much of anything. In fact, when it comes right down to it, life is impossible, because we have no clue as to how it could exist in the first place. The only reason that we know life can exist is because we are here.

Think about it.

Im an atheist because of the simple reason,it is funny for me that someone believes that in the skies (??) there is some guy who rule's the whole universe.
Common,its 2016 how could someone still believe this? well,i cant change that anyway i dont care about religion.
Maybe except islam because they want to kill me for being an atheist lol

Hardly so. The fact that there were visual experiences which were verified is certainly worthy of further study, and if confirmed it would indicate that the phenomena of veridical experience during brain death is a reality, and this would prove that mind can function independently of the brain.

Like I said earlier: The results of this case study are not considered to be proven? Then which claims are in doubt?

Here is a scientific study for investigators looking into explanations for the sources of information in mediumship and other similar phenomena (a thought experiment where the result of the "proxy" experiment will often be so clear that there will be no need to conduct a physical experiment at all). This experiment presents evidence that allows a skeptic to decide whether or not the Seth material represents a genuine communication from a discarnate entity. Of course, to prove that Seth was really providing these communications, one would need to believe in the possibility that personality and identity are not dependent upon physical form. This requires an openness of mind and "an attitude of humility in relation to the present state of scientific knowledge" that not all investigators find easy to adopt (Kelly et al., 2007, pp. xxiii-xxviii). As Jon Klimo (1987) in his classic study of channeling observes: "The scientist who stays open to the possible reality of channeling runs into this problem by holding what McClenon (1984) calls "beliefs. . . that violate some of the [current] metaphysical foundations of science" (p. 206). Otherwise, investigators would limit themselves to a determination that the source of the material remains unidentified.

http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Actually, I feel it to be quite the opposite. 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.

Your arguments appear to be based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Pseudo-skeptical arguments are being made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical arguments are being made without any scientific evidence.

The evidence of this case is quite clear and has been stated to you numerous times; it is interesting that you give no specific rebuttal to any point of evidence that Parnia claims for his study:

1) "In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat."

2) “This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn't resume again until the heart has been restarted. "

3) “Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events."

The results of this case study are not considered to be proven? Then which claims are in doubt? Do you doubt the medical staff as credible witnesses? Do you doubt that the brain ceases its higher functions after (less than) 40 seconds of cardiac arrest? Do you doubt that the patient had recollections that were consistent with the verified events described by the medical staff? Which of these claims are in doubt and why?

You can rest assure I'm not going to lose time reading more details about a case that just gives "evidence" to support what for me is obvious.

Even if on the case of the only person (on 152) who reported anything relevant there weren't any images facing the ceiling, even so, this lone case still is irrelevant as scientific evidence. It isn't even interesting.

If 152 on 154 said they saw nothing, case close.

Doesn't make any sense to believe in things as strange as the ones believers believe only based on anecdotal cases, contradicted by many more anecdotal cases and by all scientific studies that show no evidence for metaphysical entities.

At least, be honest with your self (no problem if you don't want to be honest with us) and recognize that your believes have nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with willingness to believe.