I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!
You sound like every other religious nut, with his own religious point of view.
Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 83. (Read 89022 times)
You sound like every other religious nut, with his own religious point of view.
I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!
Waiting for the OP to start to talk down the evidence like all the other skeptics try to do:
This rationalization is not impressive AT ALL.
Is this not obviously presupposing the conclusion? How can the other specific details of this case be explained? The many elements of NDE and the totality of the evidence are ignored in favor of a convenient ad-hoc hypothesis with no evidence to back it. It seems like the skeptical explanation is always lacking in explanatory power when the entire situation is accounted for, just like is described in other cases of this class and other cases I mentioned in this thread. The totality of the evidence is more impressive than you realize... at least OP declares himself willing to speak with me about the nitty gritty, as for you I don't believe you would examine the various cases in sufficient detail, you would probably just rely on secondary sources like skepdic or wikipedia or the JREF.
If these experiences are anecdotal cases then we would not expect the perceptions to be verifiable and shared.
Sociologist Dr. Allan Kellehear states that some scientific theories are often presented as the most logical, factual, objective, credible, and progressive possibilities, as opposed to the allegedly subjective, superstitious, abnormal, or dysfunctional views of mystics. The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented as if they were scientific (Kellehear, 1996, 120). Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes 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 claims are often made without any scientific evidence.
He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television."[130][131]
This rationalization is not impressive AT ALL.
Is this not obviously presupposing the conclusion? How can the other specific details of this case be explained? The many elements of NDE and the totality of the evidence are ignored in favor of a convenient ad-hoc hypothesis with no evidence to back it. It seems like the skeptical explanation is always lacking in explanatory power when the entire situation is accounted for, just like is described in other cases of this class and other cases I mentioned in this thread. The totality of the evidence is more impressive than you realize... at least OP declares himself willing to speak with me about the nitty gritty, as for you I don't believe you would examine the various cases in sufficient detail, you would probably just rely on secondary sources like skepdic or wikipedia or the JREF.
If these experiences are anecdotal cases then we would not expect the perceptions to be verifiable and shared.
Sociologist Dr. Allan Kellehear states that some scientific theories are often presented as the most logical, factual, objective, credible, and progressive possibilities, as opposed to the allegedly subjective, superstitious, abnormal, or dysfunctional views of mystics. The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented as if they were scientific (Kellehear, 1996, 120). Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes 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 claims are often made without any scientific evidence.
Actually, I was once a committed atheist!
I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".
I was not raised a Hindu, but I did watch the film "Krishna: History or Myth" and thoroughly enjoyed being informed about the truth thereof. See below.
I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.
In fact there are multiple documented cases involving anoxia and veridical perception after 40 seconds; AWARE is only a prospective study but AWARE is not the first successful attempt to gather evidence of veridical perception during a period of brain non-function.You call it "basic sensations", but by all accounts these sensations and memories are impossible without brain function, so at least you can admit that to have a functioning mind without a functioning brain is absolutely unheard of in materialism and in fact refutes materialism. I do not think that it is a small matter. Neuroscience does not leave room for the phenomena of mind without brain function. Brain function ceases after "40 seconds". This patient had true perceptions during such a period and recalled them. The study is easy to replicate and AWARE2 is a follow-up study that is already in the works, so how is it that this demonstration of mind without brain cannot be replicated?
I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.
Scientists in the West are currently still utilizing the old model of philosophical materialism, but it is logically unsound and in fact many eminent researchers recognize that this model has been discredited. Source: https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchersFurthermore, the evidence of NDE also discredits materialism and it was doing so even in ancient Greek times (see: Mythos of Er):
Come on man... flying horses are not real
Flying horses are make-believe fairy tales, just like the rest of the qur'an, just like the bible, just like the bhagavad gita
Flying horses are make-believe fairy tales, just like the rest of the qur'an, just like the bible, just like the bhagavad gita
Actually, the people of India never had any doubts about the historicity of Krishna until the colonial invaders projected Krishna as a mythical figure cooked up by wonderful stories. Planetary configurations mentioned in the ancient scriptures pertaining to major events and personages connected, help us date events that happened around these personages, centuries and millenia ago.
While Divinity is a matter of faith, historicity is a matter of existence.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalNJ4luBws
Text: http://www.artoflivingsecrets.com/krishna-history-or-myth/
Actually, I was once a committed atheist!
I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".
I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.
I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.
Regarding the question about if we existed before we existed...
The Bible talks about God knowing us before we existed. But, it talks about it more or less like God was making plans. There is nowhere in the Bible that says that we existed before we existed. But there is nowhere that explicitly says we did not. And there are hints that we might have, in some strange way.
God is powerful and full of understanding and knowledge way beyond anything we can conceive of. The fact of cause and effect in all the universe through all time that we are aware of, shows us that God firmly had the plan in mind for our existence. In the greatness that is the mind of God, we might essentially have existed even though we did not in any way that we understand it.
This is a question that is essentially beyond our capability of finding the answer for.
Regarding nothingness, there are several passages in the New Testament that say that nothing is impossible with God. These passages generally are understood to mean that God can do anything. My point is, in the presence of God, perhaps nothingness is something that does not exist. Again, we are talking about something that is beyond our understanding, and perhaps beyond the dimensions of this universe regarding understandability.
Godemichet. he's the god.
Actually, I was once a committed atheist!
I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".
I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.
I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.
you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.
You mean author, not authiest.
Well despite that spelling i he actually has point. Most atheist know more about god than some of those religious people. I was raised and went to a catholic school and most of the elder people in our church despise people by just looking at there clothes and walking. some of them judge by appearance and by speaking and thats some of the things i hate about them. But there are many youth camps for churches and i think thats a good activity for kids to learn stuffs.
People judge each other no matter where they are. Walk down a busy street in Frisco (San Francisco) sometime, and look at all the weird people, and try to not judge some of them. Or in a busy
Walmart where the gals come in, in their pajamas or less.
The point of the Catholic Church is not to focus on the way church members judge. It is to focus on a relationship with God, the salvation of Jesus, and living a good life. Focusing on the way church-goers judge other church-goers makes you one of the judges. Your reason for being in the Church was thwarted as soon as you started judging.
Am I judging you? Some, perhaps. But it is by your own words, and we are not in Church. People make judgments about everything they see in life, and many of the judgments are subconscious.
Q: How do you titillate an ocelot?
A: Oscillate it's tit a lot
A: Oscillate it's tit a lot
you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.
You mean author, not authiest.
Well despite that spelling i he actually has point. Most atheist know more about god than some of those religious people. I was raised and went to a catholic school and most of the elder people in our church despise people by just looking at there clothes and walking. some of them judge by appearance and by speaking and thats some of the things i hate about them. But there are many youth camps for churches and i think thats a good activity for kids to learn stuffs.
you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.
You mean author, not authiest.
you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.
hillary will make homosexualism a national religion thats why I vote her. Every time someone says it,s agains familu values it hurts my feelings
Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-im-an-atheist-1424793
You are saying that awareness comes from "eternal nothing", but there is no evidence to suggest this; you say that "everything" seems to "force [you] to conclude" that we came from "eternal nothing", but when I press you on the details you are suddenly silent. In all reality, everything is suggesting to you that consciousness existed before and will continue to exist."It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."
Relax. All he means is that he can't remember anything from before he was conceived.
Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-im-an-atheist-1424793
You are saying that awareness comes from "eternal nothing", but there is no evidence to suggest this; you say that "everything" seems to "force [you] to conclude" that we came from "eternal nothing", but when I press you on the details you are suddenly silent. In all reality, everything is suggesting to you that consciousness existed before and will continue to exist."It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."
Let's forget about any "soul" for the reasons stated here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-im-an-atheist-1424793
How convenient for you that your reasons do not need to be backed up with evidence, and that the evidence that suggests a soul does not need to be addressed at all!
I STILL need you to explain to me how you will meet your burden of proof for showing that awareness comes from 'eternal nothing' because Currently, your explanation is not in accord with medical evidence about the timeline of awareness during cardiac arrest. Your explanation is not sufficient. I am skeptical and you did not meet your burden. I will patiently ask you for the true reasoning behind your refusal to accept this class of evidence (the patient from AWARE is not the only case from this class).
You can't compare a junkie's hallucinations with scientific experimentation. The patient from the AWARE study had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG (indicating an absence of brain activity), so his experience (a so-called "death experience") cannot be dismissed as hallucinations.
What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.
You just totally made that up. Unless you have a link for that? Dictionary.com won't be your friend here, I think.
Correct. I just authored the words that I used without copying them from somewhere else. I made it up, although someone else might have used the exact same words in the exact same order somewhere else at some other time.
The thing that I didn't make up is that there is a number - maybe 1040 - that if the odds against are greater than 1040 scientifically, it is considered an impossibility by scientists. Now, it is true that I don't remember the number, but you can find it if you search for it. It might not be 1040.
Yes, you totally made up that number and the whole idea. The concept is simply wrong. 1/10^40 != 0
As I said, I don't know what the number is. It is something like that - 1:1040 against. However, I didn't make up the idea. There is a number such as the one I stated (although mine may be wrong) beyond which scientists consider it an impossibility.
From http://sententias.org/2011/01/13/a-probability-so-small-its-impossible/:
Quote
The question is at what probability is the probability so small that it could be considered impossible?
1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150
The unit 1080 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 1045 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
The unit 1025 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).
The product, 10150, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration. Compare this number to Oxford physicist Roger Penrose’s calculation that the odds of the special low entropy condition having occurred by chance in the absence of any constraining principles is at least one in 1010^123. In other words, that’s how many different ways the universe could appear from it’s initial conditions. To understand how large of a number 1010^123 is, take away the exponents and try writing out the number. If you were to write a one and put a zero on every elementary particle in our universe you could then write out 1080, which only makes up an incredibly tiny portion of Penrose’s probability (twice for Dembski’s universal probability).
1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150
The unit 1080 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 1045 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
The unit 1025 is in seconds. This is a generous, upper bound on the number of seconds that the universe can maintain its integrity [before expanding forever or collapsing back in on itself in a “big crunch”]. This number is according to the Standard Model (the big bang).
The product, 10150, is the total number of state changes that all the elementary particles in the universe can undergo throughout its duration. Compare this number to Oxford physicist Roger Penrose’s calculation that the odds of the special low entropy condition having occurred by chance in the absence of any constraining principles is at least one in 1010^123. In other words, that’s how many different ways the universe could appear from it’s initial conditions. To understand how large of a number 1010^123 is, take away the exponents and try writing out the number. If you were to write a one and put a zero on every elementary particle in our universe you could then write out 1080, which only makes up an incredibly tiny portion of Penrose’s probability (twice for Dembski’s universal probability).
Probability that is 1:10150 against, is impossible.
For your reading pleasure, from http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/:
Quote
...
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
A flat eeg doesn't mean absence of brain activity.
Is that claim peer-reviewed or verified in any way that is relevant to awareness during NDE as in the AWARE study? May just mean the eeg can't detect the activity. Like it dropping below a level that can be detected by non invasive methods. Which is how eeg is used most of the time. Happens with deep anesthesia for example.
Do you have any evidence that NDE is related to whatever it is that you are talking about? And have you even taken the time to study the literature and understand the differences between these types of unconscious (e.g. coma, anesthesia) and allegedly conscious (i.e. NDE) phenomena? Also, did you read the below link with the refutations to common skeptical claims?Unless someone comes back from the dead there's no way to be sure that experience during "clinical death" will be the same as that after someone has really, really died.
That is a double-standard. Medical science and neuroscience unite in the understanding that brain function is required for awareness; just like Darwinian theory and the Central Dogma of Biology, this is simply the scientific consensus; I would call it the "functional hypothesis".
An "actual death experience" happens after "40 seconds" in some persons, and the perceptions during that period have been documented on multiple occasions, not just in AWARE; this class of phenomena is called veridical perception; I found a good writeup on the spiritual development site blog:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html
The patient from the AWARE study had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG (indicating an absence of brain activity), so his experience (a so-called "death experience") cannot be dismissed as hallucinations.
A flat eeg doesn't mean absence of brain activity. May just mean the eeg can't detect the activity. Like it dropping below a level that can be detected by non invasive methods. Which is how eeg is used most of the time. Happens with deep anesthesia for example.
Jump to: