A distorted interpretation of atheism?
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
life
after this body disintigrates.
As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
there are established techniques to create such out of body
experiences , first hand?
BOfL
Smiler
There is a logical, medical explanation for OOBEs that has nothing to do
with gods or 'afterlives'.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
j-rod
>
> > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
> >
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
Who is making the claim I do?
>
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life
> after this body disintigrates.
Could you list a few examples of this evidence?
>
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
>
> BOfL
How can I close my eyes to something you haven't shown me?
JAM
Virgil
<08767b9c-79e6-4fcb...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
"bigfl...@gmail.com" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life after this body disintigrates.
Really? I am nor aware of any.
Where is there any evidence of a return to life "after this body
disintegrates"?
>
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence
As an agnostic, I would require considerably better evidence of any such
thing than has yet been presented anywhere.
> even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
Are you claiming that there have been "out of body experiences" by
people who have reanimated "after this body disintegrates"?
If so, there is a lovely bridge I know of that you will certainly want
to buy from me.
>
> BOfL
Olrik
>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life
> after this body disintigrates.
What makes you think some of us atheists wouldn't like some kind of life
after death?
The problem is that there's no evidence that there's actually "life"
after death.
Olrik
Uncle Vic
@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
Because the concept makes no sense, and there's no way to prove it.
>
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life
> after this body disintigrates.
Like what? Out-of-body experience has been accredited to the endorphins
the brain secretes under duress. The smart people know this. The dumb
ones think they've been talking to Jesus.
>
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
Misinterpreted experiences are opinion, not evidence.
>
> BOfL
>
>
ROFL
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Virgil
>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life after this body disintigrates.
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
There is absolutely no evidence that being "out of body" long enough to
allow that body disintegrate is reversible.
Alex W
Out of body experiences are easy and common. All you need
are proper meditative techniques or some really groovy
drugs; peyote will do.
They have nothing in common with alleged afterlife
experiences which are a completely different kettle of tea.
You also forget to mention that curiously, near-death
experiences tend very strongly to conform to the cultural
myths of the patient. This strongly suggests that people
see what they have been told they should see, not what -- if
anything -- is really there.
That said, Flatliners was a decent enough flick.
Don Martin
It takes a real man to survive cremation.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
John Locke
There is no afterlife. But why be concerned about dwelling for
eternity in some supernatural realm. Stop and think about it.
Eternal life without any hope of ending. That would be pure hell.
Sla#s
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08767b9c-79e6-4fcb...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life
> after this body disintigrates.
Really? In that case what's the power source?
Slatts
ed wolf
> > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life after this body disintigrates.
>
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. Any phenomenal amount of it
from whatever source only means there is something worth looking
at. But when you write "it suggests life after this body
disintegrates"
you are stretching anecdotal evidence over the limits. No one who`s
body disintegrated reported anything. Most confusion comes from
definitions. To me , life is maintaining a chemical equilibrium,
metabolism, growing, reproducing, reacting to stimuli.
This is purely physical and a property of the body.
You must be talking about some completely different definition of
life.
How do you use the words "life" and "death" ?
("Anecdotal evidence" tells me people that postulate "afterlife" also
divide humans into body, soul, mind,spirit, ad libitum in millions of
ways, without ever bothering to define the parts.)
> As an atheist, do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
Not "as an atheist". Because I do not take anecdotes and legends
for evidence, I am an atheist, and also I think out of body
experiences can be explained rationally as a symptom of a
dysfunctional brain. I had some myself when I was a kid,
tripping on acid, even then I knew it doesn't prove anything.
It was just fun .
ed wolf
Brian E. Clark
9db343...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bigfletch8
@gmail.com says...
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
There is no evidence of an afterlife. There isn't even any
evidence that a person's consciousness and awareness are
possible sans a functioning brain.
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
in life after death.
I also note that people who claim they've experienced near-
death epiphanies tended, curiously, to encounter the kind
of afterlife foretold by their religions and cultures.
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal
> evidence from many credible, non biased sources, to
> suggest the continuation of life after this body disintigrates.
There are also many people who claim they've been abducted
by aliens.
> As an atheist,
As a rationalist...
> do you close your eyes to such evidence,
Above you described the evidence as "anecdotal," so you've
pretty much answered your own question.
> even though there are established techniques to create
> such out of body experiences , first hand?
No out-of-body experience has been confirmed in a way that
inspires confidence. The evidentiary hurdle is not
particularly high: all it would take is a single instance
of someone correctly ascertaining an otherwise hidden
pattern (e.g., identifying the page to which a book sitting
on a high shelf is turned, or disclosing the contents of a
sealed letter) to gain the interest of sensible and serious
people. This hasn't happened.
Further, as you hint, the perception of an out-of-body
experience can be stimulated in various ways -- drugs,
electrodes fitted to the relevant parts of the brain,
severe oxygen deprivation, deep meditation -- but again
evidence is lacking that any out-of-body travel took place.
Each night we wander the world in our dreams, but in the
morning we don't claim to have been anywhere but in our
beds at the time.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Christopher A. Lee
<brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>In article <08767b9c-79e6-4fcb-8692-
>9db343...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bigfletch8
>@gmail.com says...
>
>> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
>There is no evidence of an afterlife. There isn't even any
>evidence that a person's consciousness and awareness are
>possible sans a functioning brain.
More than that - there's no reason even to think of one. It's merely
somebody else's religious belief that for some reason they don't seem
to understand doesn't apply to us.
>> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
>Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
>religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
>in life after death.
Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the sense
to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
>I also note that people who claim they've experienced near-
>death epiphanies tended, curiously, to encounter the kind
>of afterlife foretold by their religions and cultures.
What a surprise. But I've come across Hindu NDEs which reflect what
they already believe.
>> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal
>> evidence from many credible, non biased sources, to
>> suggest the continuation of life after this body disintigrates.
>
>There are also many people who claim they've been abducted
>by aliens.
I had a friend who was a UFO nut. He was just like the fundies - we
would ask the obvious questions and he'd come up with all sorts of
rationalisation that presumed it was true. If you didn't accept them
you were closed minded. You only had to believe and everything fell
into place.
>> As an atheist,
>
>As a rationalist...
>
>> do you close your eyes to such evidence,
The standard personal lie rather than having the courtesy to admit
that people might have genuine reasons not to share his beliefs.
>Above you described the evidence as "anecdotal," so you've
>pretty much answered your own question.
They don't seem to understand that before something can be considered
evidence for a particular conclusion, it must actually be shown to
lead to it.
Just saying something is evidence doesn't make it so.
>> even though there are established techniques to create
>> such out of body experiences , first hand?
>
>No out-of-body experience has been confirmed in a way that
>inspires confidence. The evidentiary hurdle is not
>particularly high: all it would take is a single instance
>of someone correctly ascertaining an otherwise hidden
>pattern (e.g., identifying the page to which a book sitting
>on a high shelf is turned, or disclosing the contents of a
>sealed letter) to gain the interest of sensible and serious
>people. This hasn't happened.
I seem to remember reading that NASA conducted experiments on hypoxia
and concluding it was the memory of random electrical impulses as the
brain was shutting down.
No source though because it didn't particularly matter to me -
something happened in a dying person's brain that if they recovered
got interpreted in terms of what they believed.
Monotheists tend to be rather narcissistic when it comes to people
ouside their belief system.
The closest I have been to somebody that close to death and surviving,
was a friend whose heart had to be restarted twice after a heart
attack. He said there was pain and it was just like going to sleep.
Alex W
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:05:08 -0400, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
>>religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
>>in life after death.
>
> Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the sense
> to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
There, I beg to differ.
Religious or not, we do tend to subscribe to a belief in a
special seat of our personality -- soul, consciousness, call
it what you will. This has always been of great fascination
to us, espeially as to this day we cannot define let alone
locate it. Clearly, we are possessed of such a quality, but
where is it? What is it? And as a supplementary question
we will often ask ourselves what happens to it when we die.
Christopher A. Lee
And where do you get this idea from?
I come from a place where there are plenty of atheists who were never
taught to be theist and none of the Christian etc presumptions even
occurred to them.
Clearly we are NOT possessed of the things you imagine were. So where
do they come from if not theists who believe it?
thomas p.
"Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ahruujeh6jin.ym1eonz4kodj$.dlg@40tude.net...
A quality does not have an objective existence. It describes something that
does and ceases to exist when the thing it describes ceases to exist.
Consciousness is such a quality.
Les Hellawell
We are often likened to a candle flame. Apply high heat (from a
match)to the wick and and a self-sustaining chemical reaction begins
which generates a very hot gas, so hot it radiates light. Cut off the
oxygen supply and the reaction stops. The brain is also nothng more
than an electro-chemical process that also depends on oxygen albeit a
more complex one than the flame.
The chemical reaction that takes place on the candle is seen as a
random dancing flame which gves the impresson that it is alive, we
talk about a 'living flame' which dies when it is snuffed out.
Everybody knows it is not really alive of course, it is just an
impression of a kind of life. The brain when functioning also
manifests itself as life only this time the bran has that mysterious
ability to be aware of itself. This manifestation we regard as true
life and not just a manifestation as that is what we define life to be
at its highest level. We know to some extent how the brain works at a
basic level just as we know what causes a flame and why it ceases when
the oxygen supply is stemmed.
We do not, however know what makes it able to think and be
self aware. This is still one of our greatest mysteties. A deep
ignorance that people find so disturbing they have to fll it with
something they call god.
The candle is a good metaphor for lsentient life and is often used to
represent what is called the 'soul', that special something that makes
us a self-aware breathing entity. There is nothing religious about
this or 'spritual' it is just a nice concept or fiction. When the
candle flame is snuffed out t ceases to 'be' just as the brain ceases
to be when it is snuffed out.
Souls is nothing more than a convenient label to express our
self-awareness. If you listen to air traffic control you will often
hear ground control ask 'How many souls aboard' a nice
poetic way to ask "How many people about including passengers
an crew. It is nothing more than that.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
BOfL
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life
> > after this body disintigrates.
>
> > As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
> There is a logical, medical explanation for OOBEs that has nothing to do
> with gods or 'afterlives'.
You obviously have not looked very far. There are 'always'
physiological symptoms with most experiences, such as natural high
from athletic activity.
Some would say the endorphines 'cause' the experience, when in fact,
they comply with the chioces of the experiencer as a way of bio
feedback, confirming constructive activities...in a way, the opposite
of pain (of injury that is).
Do you associate such 'possible' realities with the god question? I
dont believe many atheists have actually asked themselves that
question.
BOfL
>
> --
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BOfL
> "bigflet...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> Who is making the claim I do?
Im asking. I dont characterize people by their lables.
>
>
>
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life
> > after this body disintigrates.
>
> Could you list a few examples of this evidence?
If your not interested in looking for yourself, then there's little
point in carrying on the conversation.
The purpose of the thread is to see whether the two positions are
connected. The reluctance to investigate for 'religious' reasons.
>
>
>
> > As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
> > BOfL
>
> How can I close my eyes to something you haven't shown me?
Im a fitness coach. Would you like me to do your exercise for you.
Do you associate the two views?
BOfL
>
> JAM
BOfL
> In article
> <08767b9c-79e6-4fcb-8692-9db34304c...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life after this body disintigrates.
>
> Really? I am nor aware of any.
>
> Where is there any evidence of a return to life "after this body
> disintegrates"?
>
>
>
> > As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence
>
> As an agnostic, I would require considerably better evidence of any such
> thing than has yet been presented anywhere.
Do you associate 'life ongoing' (theory to you)with religious beliefs?
>
> > even though
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
> Are you claiming that there have been "out of body experiences" by
> people who have reanimated "after this body disintegrates"?
If you have experienced for yourself observing your body from a remote
position, it is not unreasonable to suppose there is a seperate
reality not relying on the physical body for support, but looking at
your next line, there is little point in asking you such basic
questions regarding belief associations.
>
> If so, there is a lovely bridge I know of that you will certainly want
> to buy from me.
BOfL
>
>
>
>
>
> > BOfL- Hide quoted text -
BOfL
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life
> > after this body disintigrates.
>
> What makes you think some of us atheists wouldn't like some kind of life
> after death?
>
> The problem is that there's no evidence that there's actually "life"
> after death.
Yes there is, and my summation is that agnostics/atheists dont look
because of religious association.
Part of such discoveries is related to how we each create our own
realities, and the power of belief.Quantum scientists are starting to
get a glimpse of such realities, and some are speculating what
metaphysicians have known for eons, that of parallel universes.
BOfL
>
> Olrik
>
>
>
> > As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
BOfL
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigfletch8
>
> @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Because the concept makes no sense, and there's no way to prove it.
Interpreted "I havnt experienced such reality,therefor it doesnt
exist" .
If you found out, would that change your ag/ath disposition?
>
>
>
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life
> > after this body disintigrates.
>
> Like what? Out-of-body experience has been accredited to the endorphins
> the brain secretes under duress. The smart people know this. The dumb
> ones think they've been talking to Jesus.
Perfect example of the crossover Im referring to. Guilt by
association.
>
>
>
> > As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
> Misinterpreted experiences are opinion, not evidence.
Like your opinion of others opinions of what causes such experiences?
BOfL
>
>
>
> > BOfL
>
> ROFL
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
> your face when you push them down the stairs.
No doubt you associate me with religious views which makes me
ROTFLMAO.
BOfL
BOfL
Of course not. How long would you have to be remotely viewing to be
convinced. If you didnt 're enter' then you wouldnt be able to add to
the countless anecdotal evidence.
I suppose an educated butterfly would be able to see the body of the
pupa disintigrating, as normal.
BOfL
Kadaitcha Man
hailstones go, ye hummed:
> my summation is that agnostics/atheists dont look
> because of religious association.
Well, you'd be a completely stupid fuck then, hey. Agnosticism, despite any
and all of your fuckwitted pleas to the contrary, is the only logical
position there is in the absence of verifiable proof.
So, tell me, how does it feel to be a total fuckwit?
--
Ubuntu 9.10 x64 running Windows Server 2008 in VirtualBox
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM, 10 * SATA2 3GB/s HDDs as dual 3TB RAID5
8-thread Intel Extreme i7-975 @ 3.80GHz, air-cooled Thermaltake
Intel BoneTrail Motherboard
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 1GB
Honda Sabre 1100cc V-Twin
I can wank better than you can.
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage.
BOfL
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If that is a serious question, you will find a very clear answer...you
see, Im not interested in perpetuation beliefs.
BOfL
>
> Slatts
Budikka666
wrote:
> > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
This is a lie. Atheists *do* acknowledge that there is a view that
there are gods and life after death. They don't accept it because
there's no evidence for it. It's that simple.
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
Atheist don't accept it because there is no credible evidence for any
gods or for life after death, or for any other supernatural element
from the Bible, the Koran, or whatever.
How hard is that to understand? If you're going to stack up atheist
straw men to take potshots at, then please don't expect to be taken
seriously or even politely by actual atheists.
Budikka
Kadaitcha Man
released:
> you
> see, Im not interested in perpetuation beliefs.
Or logic, or commonsense.
Budikka666
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life
> after this body disintigrates.
The plural of anecdote isn't data.
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural claims
of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer doesn't
work.
Bring your solid, objective, scientific evidence, in sufficient
quantity, tested and verified, and we'll accept you position. Until
then your position is fiction. End of story. Case closed.
Budikka
BOfL
> On 31 Okt., 02:50, "bigflet...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life after this body disintigrates.
>
> Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.
If twenty people you walk into, tell you that around the corner from
where they have come from, there is a huge hole in the road, would you
take notice?
Of course, it would alert you. We dont all spontaniously qualify for
the full epistemological experience.If so, we would fall down many
holes....which , of course,is what we do, and learn on the way ).
> Any phenomenal amount of it
> from whatever source only means there is something worth looking
> at. But when you write "it suggests life after this body
> disintegrates"
> you are stretching anecdotal evidence over the limits.
I have covered that point in earlier responses. Dont lose track of the
title of the thread.
> No one who`s
> body disintegrated reported anything.
Some Buddhists would disagree, but again, thats not my point. When you
have been out,experiences seperateness, then that is a logical next
step.
> Most confusion comes from
> definitions. To me , life is maintaining a chemical equilibrium,
> metabolism, growing, reproducing, reacting to stimuli.
And where does the motivation come from (equally as valid as 'where
does the energy come from').
Interesting, you didnt say 'life is *made of* ...etc'. The biological
status is obvious.
> This is purely physical and a property of the body.
Of course.Ever seen energy fields that surround the body? Been
depicted in ancient drawings around the world over many millenia, and
identified with kirlean photography in the modern age.
> You must be talking about some completely different definition of
> life.
Different definitions of life? Back to the point...would that
realization change your association between the metaphysical and
religious, assuming you identify with atheism or agnosticism.
> How do you use the words "life" and "death" ?
> ("Anecdotal evidence" tells me people that postulate "afterlife" also
> divide humans into body, soul, mind,spirit, ad libitum in millions of
> ways, without ever bothering to define the parts.)
There are countless people who will make very clear definitions,but
you have already made a case for the anecdotal.
Does your current (anecdotal) belief stop you exploring?
BOfL
Kadaitcha Man
sniggered:
> This is a lie.
No, that is a true statement.
> Atheists *do* acknowledge that there
> are gods and life after death.
BWAHHAHAHAHAGAHGAHGAGAAGHAGHAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHA!
> How hard is that to understand?
> Budikka
Kadaitcha Man
mint, ye evacuated:
> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural claims
> of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer doesn't
> work.
And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
BOfL
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <08767b9c-79e6-4fcb-8692-
> 9db34304c...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bigfletch8
> @gmail.com says...
>
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> There is no evidence of an afterlife. There isn't even any
> evidence that a person's consciousness and awareness are
> possible sans a functioning brain.
Then you have simply not looked.
>
> > Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
> religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
> in life after death.
Exactly my point. That's also a belief that has no validity. Anti
religion is associated with anti metaphysical reality,"Because the
religions promote (and often exploit) such exploration. How many times
have you heard of RC priests warning their parishioners off such
investigation, citing 'the devils work'?
>
> I also note that people who claim they've experienced near-
> death epiphanies tended, curiously, to encounter the kind
> of afterlife foretold by their religions and cultures.
I know people who apply those beliefs in day to day life. Thats to do
with interpretation, not phenomena.
>
> > For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal
> > evidence from many credible, non biased sources, to
> > suggest the continuation of life after this body disintigrates.
>
> There are also many people who claim they've been abducted
> by aliens.
You are demonstarating the very attitude im curious about. Guilt by
association.
>
> > As an atheist,
>
> As a rationalist...
Whoever doesnt rationalise,is deluded, regardlss of the validity of
the topic.
>
> > do you close your eyes to such evidence,
>
> Above you described the evidence as "anecdotal," so you've
> pretty much answered your own question.
Ive covered that point numerous times.
>
> > even though there are established techniques to create
> > such out of body experiences , first hand?
>
> No out-of-body experience has been confirmed in a way that
> inspires confidence.
Im very confident in my ability to discern. Ill take that as your
personal view, which I have absolutely no argument with.Do you think
you religious pre disposition influence your willingness to explore.
Again, the main point of this thread.
> The evidentiary hurdle is not
> particularly high: all it would take is a single instance
> of someone correctly ascertaining an otherwise hidden
> pattern (e.g., identifying the page to which a book sitting
> on a high shelf is turned, or disclosing the contents of a
> sealed letter) to gain the interest of sensible and serious
> people. This hasn't happened.
Then you simply havnt looked very far.
>
> Further, as you hint, the perception of an out-of-body
> experience can be stimulated in various ways -- drugs,
> electrodes fitted to the relevant parts of the brain,
> severe oxygen deprivation, deep meditation -- but again
> evidence is lacking that any out-of-body travel took place.
Two totally different catagories.
> Each night we wander the world in our dreams, but in the
> morning we don't claim to have been anywhere but in our
> beds at the time.
All as you need to do is provide the evidence :-)
I appreciate the civil way you are communicating.Not usual on such a
subject.
BOfL
Christopher A. Lee
He's a Christian. He can't get his mind around people seeing what he
thinks is real, as merely somebody else's religious belief.
>Budikka
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4m0re5l4d0qg9dnlr...@4ax.com...
Theism is, in their minds, the default position.
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...
> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
> mint, ye evacuated:
>
>> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
>> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>
>> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural claims
>> of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer doesn't
>> work.
>
> And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>
BOfL
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:05:08 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>
> >In article <08767b9c-79e6-4fcb-8692-
> >@gmail.com says...
>
> >> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> >There is no evidence of an afterlife. There isn't even any
> >evidence that a person's consciousness and awareness are
> >possible sans a functioning brain.
>
> More than that - there's no reason even to think of one. It's merely
> somebody else's religious belief that for some reason they don't seem
> to understand doesn't apply to us.
"Us"? .....US?? Have I stumbled on a nest of believers?.
I get it..."Not my experience, so it doesnt exist, and I will
strenghen my view by association (beliefs).
>
> >> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> >> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> >Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
> >religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
> >in life after death.
>
> Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the sense
> to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
If you think Im religious, you are absolutely wrong. My point is to
suggest the invalid association of religion and metaphysics.
>
> >I also note that people who claim they've experienced near-
> >death epiphanies tended, curiously, to encounter the kind
> >of afterlife foretold by their religions and cultures.
>
> What a surprise. But I've come across Hindu NDEs which reflect what
> they already believe.
And they also think that their 'caste' is something non
anthopomorphic...
>
> >> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal
> >> evidence from many credible, non biased sources, to
> >> suggest the continuation of life after this body disintigrates.
>
> >There are also many people who claim they've been abducted
> >by aliens.
>
> I had a friend who was a UFO nut. He was just like the fundies - we
> would ask the obvious questions and he'd come up with all sorts of
> rationalisation that presumed it was true. If you didn't accept them
> you were closed minded. You only had to believe and everything fell
> into place.
Then I would rip their views apart that would make Dawkins and even
Hitchins look like sooks.
You are doing what so many others do.Try to invalidate by introducing
irellevent subjects. I asked a simple question, and look what has come
flooding out...so far?
>
> >> As an atheist,
>
> >As a rationalist...
>
> >> do you close your eyes to such evidence,
>
> The standard personal lie rather than having the courtesy to admit
> that people might have genuine reasons not to share his beliefs.
You can stuff your beliefs where the sun dont shine.The misery created
in the world is based on beliefs.Believers can be identified in the
way they herd like sheep.
>
> >Above you described the evidence as "anecdotal," so you've
> >pretty much answered your own question.
>
> They don't seem to understand that before something can be considered
> evidence for a particular conclusion, it must actually be shown to
> lead to it.
Dont try and grab me into the "they" mentality, which is clearly part
of your modus operandi...refer to 'sheep' above...
I simply asked a question ....You obviously have beliefs to defend.
>
> Just saying something is evidence doesn't make it so.
Wow, such wisdom. I would love to hear you question the staff at the
airport of the true destination of the aircraft.
>
> >> even though there are established techniques to create
> >> such out of body experiences , first hand?
>
> >No out-of-body experience has been confirmed in a way that
> >inspires confidence. The evidentiary hurdle is not
> >particularly high: all it would take is a single instance
> >of someone correctly ascertaining an otherwise hidden
> >pattern (e.g., identifying the page to which a book sitting
> >on a high shelf is turned, or disclosing the contents of a
> >sealed letter) to gain the interest of sensible and serious
> >people. This hasn't happened.
>
> I seem to remember reading that NASA conducted experiments on hypoxia
> and concluding it was the memory of random electrical impulses as the
> brain was shutting down.
Thats is established science. Not what Im referring to, but hey, if it
has NASA connected.....but thats a whole different thread.
>
> No source though because it didn't particularly matter to me -
> something happened in a dying person's brain that if they recovered
> got interpreted in terms of what they believed.
What a waste of the information age....much easier to hold on to your
beliefs.
>
> Monotheists tend to be rather narcissistic when it comes to people
> ouside their belief system.
And they bring up irrelevent crap, as you have done here.
>
> The closest I have been to somebody that close to death and surviving,
> was a friend whose heart had to be restarted twice after a heart
> attack. He said there was pain and it was just like going to sleep.
So what? I hope he recovered all right, and passed on the value of his
experiences for the potential good of others....of course, you may
think he such behaviour as acting religiously.
BOfL
>
>
>
> >Further, as you hint, the perception of an out-of-body
> >experience can be stimulated in various ways -- drugs,
> >electrodes fitted to the relevant parts of the brain,
> >severe oxygen deprivation, deep meditation -- but again
> >evidence is lacking that any out-of-body travel took place.
> >Each night we wander the world in our dreams, but in the
> >morning we don't claim to have been anywhere but in our
> >beds at the time.- Hide quoted text -
BOfL
What a breath of fresh air :-)
Care to take a stab at the question of the thread, regarding
association of religious scepticism and an unwillingness to
investigate such evidence further?
BOfL
BOfL
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:20:16 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> Souls is nothing more than a convenient label to express our
> self-awareness. If you listen to air traffic control you will often
> hear ground control ask 'How many souls aboard' a nice
> poetic way to ask "How many people about including passengers
> an crew. It is nothing more than that.
>
> --
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from:
> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you didnt think Geoffrey Boycott was a gift from god?
:-)
BOfL
Kadaitcha Man
muddy rascal, is that all the comfort you bring me?, ye expatiated:
Ah, "you can't prove a negative"; the staple diet of the intellectually
challenged atheist.
My next child does not exist.
My third leg does not exist.
My siamese twin does not exist.
My third kidney does not exist.
Horses do not have six legs.
Leonardo Da Vinci did not watch TV.
A packet of 20 cigarettes does not contain 50 cigarettes.
Mary Queen of Scots is not my mother.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel is not my auntie.
The sixth finger on the hand of my middle arm does not exist.
You were saying, athesit fucktard?
<aside>
Yes, intellectually challenged atheist is a tautology, but really, can you
convey the same idea without the embedded fact?
Kadaitcha Man
proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed,
unfinished, ye pronounced:
> If you think Im religious, you are absolutely wrong. My point is to
> suggest the invalid association of religion and metaphysics.
God = metaphysical X
BWAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Kadaitcha Man
worth a breakfast in the cheapest country, ye muddled:
What does "A distorted interpretation of atheism?" have to do with the
"association of religious scepticism and an unwillingness to investigate
such evidence further?" apart from completely fuckwitted atheism?
Atheism makes you fucking stupid, hey.
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
Ignoring the childish insult, prove that your next child does not exist.
You might be able to show convincing evidence that it doesn't, but you would
have to look everywhere for all time to "prove" that it does not exist. Now
compare that to proving that you next child DOES exist. All you need to do
for that, is simple produce the child. This is basic logic, not theological
musings.
Kadaitcha Man
done good to against my will, ye stuttered:
Ignoring the insult to intelligecne, which you lack, do you want to see the
scars on my bollocks from the vasectomy, the serum laboratory report on my
zero sperm count, the x-rays of my four Inodnesian rent-wives' tubal
litigations, or a copy of my birth certificate showing that I am indeed 40
years beyond being an optimum 34yr-old sperm-producing, sperm-capable male?
Well?
Of course, being the illogical atheist fuckwit that you are, just how would
you go about disproving the fact that all my children are indeed all my
children and that no others exist? Hmmm?
As you can no doubt not see, atheism made you particularily fucking stupid,
hey.
BOfL
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:20:16 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
.
>
> >Clearly we are NOT possessed of the things you imagine were. So where
> >do they come from if not theists who believe it?
Religions are always created by 'followers' , not those who report
their experiences. The anthropomorphic needs also applies to labelling
of such people.
You pay little homage to the imagination, which is often confused with
a fantasy mechanism.
>
> We are often likened to a candle flame.
Interestingly, 'we' dont actualy know what a flame consists of. The
shape (triangular)is intruiging particularly if you associate with Py-
thagoras.
> Apply high heat (from a
> match)to the wick and and a self-sustaining chemical reaction begins
> which generates a very hot gas, so hot it radiates light.
It is not light, it is energy, until it is processed in the brain. A
slight oversight (if you parden the pun)to the majority.
> oxygen supply and the reaction stops. The brain is also nothng more
> than an electro-chemical process that also depends on oxygen albeit a
> more complex one than the flame.
And your electro magnetic meat explained that well. Does it compose
music also?
> The chemical reaction that takes place on the candle is seen as a
> random dancing flame which gves the impresson that it is alive, we
> talk about a 'living flame' which dies when it is snuffed out.
Always interesting to contemplate the symbology at Olympic times and
how we identify a significant stage of homosapien with the discovery
of fire.
> Everybody knows it is not really alive of course, it is just an
> impression of a kind of life. The brain when functioning also
> manifests itself as life only this time the bran has that mysterious
> ability to be aware of itself.
Is your brain aware of itself? Mine isnt.Im well aware of that fact.
Nor is my toe aware of the foot and yet they are neghbours. How
strange.
> This manifestation we regard as true
> life and not just a manifestation as that is what we define life to be
> at its highest level.
Which particular branch of the 'we' are you referring to?
>We know to some extent how the brain works at a
> basic level just as we know what causes a flame and why it ceases when
> the oxygen supply is stemmed.
One of my favorite sayings is "NOTHING appears to be what it seems to
be"
> We do not, however know what makes it able to think and be
> self aware.
Ever heard the statement "they eye cannot see itself?'
> This is still one of our greatest mysteties. A deep
> ignorance that people find so disturbing they have to fll it with
> something they call god.
Which goes back to those who could be called 'enlightened
ones'(Socrates being a particular favorite, together with Rumi, who by
the way, the Sufis make claim) who would cringe if they saw what was
happening in their name. Most did and do understand the nature of the
group conscousness.
>
> The candle is a good metaphor for lsentient life and is often used to
> represent what is called the 'soul', that special something that makes
> us a self-aware breathing entity. There is nothing religious about
> this or 'spritual' it is just a nice concept or fiction. When the
> candle flame is snuffed out t ceases to 'be' just as the brain ceases
> to be when it is snuffed out.
Spoken like a true believer. It sounds just as ludicrous as the
espousing of religious myth.
Can you honestly say you know absolutely and unequivicably that there
is nothing more to a man than a bunch of interacting bilological
processes?
>
> Souls is nothing more than a convenient label to express our
> self-awareness.
"Our" self awarenss is the basis of all illusions and the ultimate in
oxymorons.
>If you listen to air traffic control you will often
> hear ground control ask 'How many souls aboard' a nice
> poetic way to ask "How many people about including passengers
> an crew. It is nothing more than that.
I thought it was because of some association of a religious heaven
being somewhere above the clouds :-)
BOfL
BOfL
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
>
> > religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
> > many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> > life
> > after this body disintigrates.
>
> > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > experiences , first hand?
>
> are proper meditative techniques or some really groovy
> drugs; peyote will do.
Shamans (in many cultures) have to go through extreme rites of passage
befor they are exposed to such drugs. Makes oxygen depletion at high
altitude,kids stuff by comparison.
>
> They have nothing in common with alleged afterlife
> experiences which are a completely different kettle of tea.
When you have seen your body from a remote position, do you not see
that as a reasonable suposition. Many have reported on seeing the
'silver chord', when broken (so the metaphysicians have told us),you
are then seperated from the physical body.
>
> You also forget to mention that curiously, near-death
> experiences tend very strongly to conform to the cultural
> myths of the patient. This strongly suggests that people
> see what they have been told they should see, not what -- if
> anything -- is really there.
Not when they are looking down at their physical body.You dont have to
look deeper than day to day life, to see how that mentality works.For
instance, success equals fulfillment.
>
> That said, Flatliners was a decent enough flick.
There were many such 'creative intros' to open up the western mind
about that time.
Back then the Christos experiment was in vouge...
BOfL
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
I said, you can make a convincing case for the non-existence of your next
child, but you will need to search the whole universe over all time to
"prove" it does not exist. I see you ignored the fact that should such a
child exist, you simply have to produce it to prove that it does. Basic
logic, not theological mumbo jumbo.
Kadaitcha Man
> Religions are always created by 'followers'
Please prove that religions are not created by any god.
Where, god = metaphysical X
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
> BOfL, ye pimply fat-kidneyed rascal, thou sodden-witted Lord, ye fawned:
>
>> Religions are always created by 'followers'
>
> Please prove that religions are not created by any god.
>
> Where, god = metaphysical X
Proof of a negative again . . . .
Kadaitcha Man
shall make your wit bankrupt, ye discharged:
No you did not, you lying shit, blood, sperm, faeces, saliva, sweat and
urine stain on a homosexual's bedsheets. You said, and I quote, "prove that
your next child does not exist."
Now, you were lying^h saying?
Kadaitcha Man
find you twenty lascivious turtles ere one chaste man, ye tweeted:
You know, despite your best efforts to be seen as a stupid atheist
(tautolgy), I reckon you have the smarts to walk away from this discussion
questioning everything you ever held dear to that swinging brick on a rope
you are pleased to call a heart.
If you can prove, as a fact that is unquestionably established, with 100%
certainty, that you are you, that you are your very self, without offering
me a single token representing someone's belief that you are indeed
yourself, then I will prove to you, as a fact unquestionably established,
with 100% certainty, that God = Metaphysical X.
You up for it, or are you chicken?
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
> Dan Listermann, ye swag-bellied rude despiser of good manners, I will
> find you twenty lascivious turtles ere one chaste man, ye tweeted:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
>> news:21lmld$3sv$k...@comp.graphics.befogged-sucker.com.dominican-republic...
>>> BOfL, ye pimply fat-kidneyed rascal, thou sodden-witted Lord, ye
>>> fawned:
>>>> Religions are always created by 'followers'
>>>
>>> Please prove that religions are not created by any god.
>>>
>>> Where, god = metaphysical X
>>
>> Proof of a negative again . . . .
>
> You know, despite your best efforts to be seen as a stupid atheist
> (tautolgy), I reckon you have the smarts to walk away from this discussion
> questioning everything you ever held dear to that swinging brick on a rope
> you are pleased to call a heart.
>
> If you can prove, as a fact that is unquestionably established, with 100%
> certainty, that you are you, that you are your very self, without offering
> me a single token representing someone's belief that you are indeed
> yourself, then I will prove to you, as a fact unquestionably established,
> with 100% certainty, that God = Metaphysical X.
>
I am myself by definition. It would be your job to show that I might be
someone else.
Get on with your "Metaphysical X," whatever that is supposed to be, proof!
Dan Listermann
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
All I can see here is a mere assertion followed by a silly insult. Got
more?
Kadaitcha Man
art a general offence, and every man should beat thee, ye billowed:
Yes, I agree, nor would I disagree in any way whatsoever, but, can you prove
that you are yourself, definition aside?
> It would be your job to show that I might
> be someone else.
Sorry, old mate, but I did not claim that you were someone else. In essence,
I claimed that you cannot prove that you are yourself. I can go through the
motions of showing why it is so that you cannot prove that you are you but
that would spoil the revelation I've got hidden behind my back, which I
intend to smack you fair and square in the atheist psyche with. You know, an
epiphany?
> Get on with your "Metaphysical X," whatever that is supposed to be,
> proof!
Yes, well, I could do that too, but then you'd be left with rationalising
the existence of Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and a clever Irishman
juxtaposed over against God = Metaphysical X, you poor cunt.
You see, if an atheist cannot prove that he or she is who he or she claims
to be, what grounds can that atheist ever have for requesting evidence that
a Metaphysical X exists? Hmmmm?
Kadaitcha Man
lean earth as thee walk along, ye yelled:
My mistake. I assumed you had the intelligence to distingish one set of your
bullshit from another.
Alex W
> On Oct 31, 6:20�pm, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
>>> �Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>>
>>> �Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>>> �religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>
>>> �For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
>>> �many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
>>> life
>>> �after this body disintigrates.
>>
>>> �As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>>> �there are established techniques to create such out of body
>>> �experiences , first hand?
>>
>> Out of body experiences are easy and common. �All you need
>> are proper meditative techniques or some really groovy
>> drugs; peyote will do.
>
> Shamans (in many cultures) have to go through extreme rites of passage
> befor they are exposed to such drugs. Makes oxygen depletion at high
> altitude,kids stuff by comparison.
Shamans are the real professionals, but it is quite common
for them to preside over and organise events where entire
communities partake of such experiences. A fair number of
manhood rites across the world also incorporate out-of-body
events; this makes themexceedingly common among adults of
that society.
>>
>> They have nothing in common with alleged afterlife
>> experiences which are a completely different kettle of tea.
>
> When you have seen your body from a remote position, do you not see
> that as a reasonable suposition. Many have reported on seeing the
> 'silver chord', when broken (so the metaphysicians have told us),you
> are then seperated from the physical body.
How do you exclude that they report what they have been
taught to see? Out of body experiences cna now be induced
in a lab and at will, using little more than versions of
audio-visual trickery. As far as I can tell, none of the
participants report silver cords.
Alex W
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:58:40 +0000, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:33 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:05:08 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>>> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
>>>>religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
>>>>in life after death.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the sense
>>> to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
>>
>>There, I beg to differ.
>>Religious or not, we do tend to subscribe to a belief in a
>>special seat of our personality -- soul, consciousness, call
>>it what you will. This has always been of great fascination
>>to us, espeially as to this day we cannot define let alone
>>locate it. Clearly, we are possessed of such a quality, but
>>where is it? What is it? And as a supplementary question
>>we will often ask ourselves what happens to it when we die.
>
> And where do you get this idea from?
>
> I come from a place where there are plenty of atheists who were never
> taught to be theist and none of the Christian etc presumptions even
> occurred to them.
>
> Clearly we are NOT possessed of the things you imagine were. So where
> do they come from if not theists who believe it?
We are not?
OK then, please explain "consciousness". When you do so,
however, you may wish to bear in mind that science has no
idea what it is, or indeed has no objective scientific proof
of its very existence. We are all agreed that Descartes was
right, but we have no objective proof that consciousness
exists -- a scientific nighmare. The boffins are slowly
figuring out where and how memories are created, stored and
accessed, how sensory input is processed and how decisions
are taken -- but none of that adds up to "consciousness".
And yet, we all have one -- the only people without
consciousness are comatose, dead or dead drunk.
This unsatistfactory state of affairs alone is sufficient to
give rise to questions. What the hell is it? Where does it
come from? How does it develop and evolve? And then,
finally: is this, perhaps, something that endures beyond
biological death? Barring solid scientific evidence,
speculation on this issue is not only legitimate but useful.
Christopher A. Lee
Major dishonest unmarked snip.
> ?
>
>OK then, please explain "consciousness". When you do so,
>however, you may wish to bear in mind that science has no
>idea what it is, or indeed has no objective scientific proof
>of its very existence. We are all agreed that Descartes was
>right, but we have no objective proof that consciousness
>exists -- a scientific nighmare. The boffins are slowly
>figuring out where and how memories are created, stored and
>accessed, how sensory input is processed and how decisions
>are taken -- but none of that adds up to "consciousness".
>And yet, we all have one -- the only people without
>consciousness are comatose, dead or dead drunk.
>
>This unsatistfactory state of affairs alone is sufficient to
>give rise to questions. What the hell is it? Where does it
>come from? How does it develop and evolve? And then,
>finally: is this, perhaps, something that endures beyond
>biological death? Barring solid scientific evidence,
>speculation on this issue is not only legitimate but useful.
Why do you imagine people who weren't brainwashed as childred to start
from the theist's presumptions even have them?
Alex W
> We are often likened to a candle flame. Apply high heat (from a
> match)to the wick and and a self-sustaining chemical reaction begins
> which generates a very hot gas, so hot it radiates light. Cut off the
> oxygen supply and the reaction stops. The brain is also nothng more
> than an electro-chemical process that also depends on oxygen albeit a
> more complex one than the flame.
>
> The chemical reaction that takes place on the candle is seen as a
> random dancing flame which gves the impresson that it is alive, we
> talk about a 'living flame' which dies when it is snuffed out.
> Everybody knows it is not really alive of course, it is just an
> impression of a kind of life. The brain when functioning also
> manifests itself as life only this time the bran has that mysterious
> ability to be aware of itself. This manifestation we regard as true
> life and not just a manifestation as that is what we define life to be
> at its highest level. We know to some extent how the brain works at a
> basic level just as we know what causes a flame and why it ceases when
> the oxygen supply is stemmed.
> We do not, however know what makes it able to think and be
> self aware. This is still one of our greatest mysteties. A deep
> ignorance that people find so disturbing they have to fll it with
> something they call god.
That's one lot.
Does this mean that anyone who asks such questions must
automatically be so deluded?
Moreover, the original premise was that if not for religious
types, we wouldn't even be wondering about such issues.
Given the large numbers of (one dares to presume) blameless
and suitably rigorous scientists interested in this problem,
there is clearly a deep and widespread curiosity not
connected to or inspired by religious belief.
>
> The candle is a good metaphor for lsentient life and is often used to
> represent what is called the 'soul', that special something that makes
> us a self-aware breathing entity. There is nothing religious about
> this or 'spritual' it is just a nice concept or fiction. When the
> candle flame is snuffed out t ceases to 'be' just as the brain ceases
> to be when it is snuffed out.
That is the assumption.
All I wished to do with my earlier post was to point out
that it is no more than that: an assumption. We think that
our sentience dies when our bodies stop -- but since we
cannot nail down consciousness in any scientifically solid
terms, this remains no more than an unfounded assertion.
I'd also like to point out that irrespective of religious
beliefs, we all consider our inner selves to be utterly
special, unique, the centre of the universe. That being so,
how could it not be that many people are not entirely at
ease with the notion that the amazing world that is "I"
should simply cease to be? We do not enjoy contemplating
our mortality at the best of times, and to accept passively
the same oblivion for the sum of our being is even harder.
>
> Souls is nothing more than a convenient label to express our
> self-awareness. If you listen to air traffic control you will often
> hear ground control ask 'How many souls aboard' a nice
> poetic way to ask "How many people about including passengers
> an crew. It is nothing more than that.
Might lead to confusion if you ask this question of an avid
animal-rights activist on board a cattle transporter....
:-)
thomas p.
"Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:l8f7lne9jdsn$.1fxgjiurtvzn.dlg@40tude.net...
Perhaps because it is not an objective thing. It is a quality that we say
we have.
snip
Christopher A. Lee
My bad. You didn't snip it - you just disn't bother to address the
points.
Don Martin
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT), "bigfl...@gmail.com"
><bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>>
>> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>>
>> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>
>> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
>> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
>>life
>> after this body disintigrates.
>>
>> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>> there are established techniques to create such out of body
>> experiences , first hand?
>>
>> BOfL
>
>What did Lazarus teach us of being dead?
Curious, isn't it, that nobody thought to interview the guy once he came back?
CNN would be all over him, today.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
trailbender
> On Oct 30, 7:50 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> there are gods and life after death. They don't accept it because
> there's no evidence for it. It's that simple.
There is no testtube type (scientific) evidence for God or for
eternal
life either. However, modern Christians speak of experiencing these
things in their inner being. God as creator and the fear-destroying
experience of the resurrected Jesus, revealed to the inner mind and
heart, are the basis of Christian theology. The risen material Jesus
appearances in Luke, Matthew and John
of the New Testament are probably metaphors and myths to highlight
the resurrection experience - further understood as going beyond the
risen Jesus to their own anticipated ressurection. Same situation
today.
Also there is historical evidence for the resurrection but only in the
sense the lives of believers are seen remarkably changed - for the
better.
(St. Paul's writings are the earliest witness to the risen Jesus in
the
New Testament. If Jesus has been a resucitated corpse surely, surely
St. Paul would have heard of it and preached same from the roof tops
-at least mentioned same in his letters. Why not? Probably, as he
himself pointed out - flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of
God either on earth or the world to come,.
> > Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
> Atheist don't accept it because there is no credible evidence for any
> gods or for life after death, or for any other supernatural element
> from the Bible, the Koran, or whatever.
>
> How hard is that to understand? If you're going to stack up atheist
> straw men to take potshots at, then please don't expect to be taken
> seriously or even politely by actual atheists.
>
> Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 05:07:37 -0800 (PST), BOfL <bigfl...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Nov 1, 7:58�am, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:33 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:05:08 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>>> > <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
>>> >>religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
>>> >>in life after death.
>>>
>>> > Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the sense
>>> > to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
>>>
>>> There, I beg to differ.
>>> Religious or not, we do tend to subscribe to a belief in a
>>> special seat of our personality -- soul, consciousness, call
>>> it what you will. �This has always been of great fascination
>>> to us, espeially as to this day we cannot define let alone
>>> locate it. �Clearly, we are possessed of such a quality, but
>>> where is it? �What is it? �And as a supplementary question
>>> we will often ask ourselves what happens to it when we die.
>>
>>What a breath of fresh air :-)
>>
>>Care to take a stab at the question of the thread, regarding
>>association of religious scepticism and an unwillingness to
>>investigate such evidence further?
>>
>>BOfL
>
>If there is an existence after this material one, then one must assume
>it's natural, ergo, we're 'all' going to, have to, experience it
>regardless of our beliefs in this world. By 'all' I have to mean all
>living entities as there'd by no reason not to if it's a 'natural
>process'. Unless, of course, you think humanity, that can be likened
>to a cancer, is a 'special' thing.
>
>While I don't believe in a god, I'd be most happy to believe what my
>grand-daughter (7 at the time) told me, a few years ago when I
>tearfully had to put down my pet, about the 'Rainbow Bridge'. Sadly, I
>recognize 'wishful thinking' when I see it.
I'll bet she didn't come up with that on he own.
>To contemplate life-after-death in this realm would be as pointless as
>a life-form, upon conception, while still in the womb, contemplating
>its' existence outside the womb.
It's a religious presumption. Those of us who weren't programmed in
childhood to have it, never came up with it. In spite of what people
who were, seem to imagine.
Rather like most of the theist "concerns" they project on to us.
>Whatever will be after death will be, whether we like it or not. Or do
>you propose, by knowing about it in advance, that we might try to find
>someway to exercise control over the here-after from the here-now?
It's not something I ever gave a thought to, like most kids I knew
what death was at an early age when my grandmother died. And we had
also lost pets.
It's all about how parents explain things to their children at this
time. Mine were atheist and didn't tell me the comforting lie. Instead
they reminded me and my sister of the fun things we had done - like
all grandparents she had done things busy parents don't have time to
do. And yes, we were devastated at first but with time the sick old
lady was replaced in our minds by the happier memories.
So many of these "we all have" are implanted in childhood without our
being aware of it.
It is annoying to refute these by offering yoursself as a
counter-example only for the original poster to insist once again that
evrybody has them.
>Pardon my saying, but it would seem your standard or quality of
>evidence is slipping in this topic. Anecdotal evidence?
>
>If you're an atheist then you are so in the face of billions who can
>offer 'anecdotal evidence' for the existence of a god.
Heck, I knew about the argument ad populum when I was single digit
age, from things like the primitives believing the Sun orbited the
Earth. In fact I might even have used this example when my teacher
tried to rectify my parents' omission by telling me all about God
using the same silly arguments we see here. She was incapable of
explaining it to somebody who didn't already believe.
Alex W
Possibly so.
Still, as this is a truly universal human experience across
all ages and cultures, it bears investigation. ANd science
is making inroads. There is, for example, data from
experiments which can determine the point at which we
achieve self-awareness as a prime indicator of
consciousness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror-recognition_test_for_self-awareness
Smiler
> On Oct 31, 10:20 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
>>
>>> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>
>>> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
>>> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
>>> life
>>> after this body disintigrates.
>>
>>> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>>> there are established techniques to create such out of body
>>> experiences , first hand?
>>
>> to do with gods or 'afterlives'.
>
> You obviously have not looked very far. There are 'always'
> physiological symptoms with most experiences, such as natural high
> from athletic activity.
>
> Some would say the endorphines 'cause' the experience, when in fact,
> they comply with the chioces of the experiencer as a way of bio
> feedback, confirming constructive activities...in a way, the opposite
> of pain (of injury that is).
>
> Do you associate such 'possible' realities with the god question? I
> dont believe many atheists have actually asked themselves that
> question.
>
Why would we, as we atheists believe in no god(s)?
Or put another way:
Do you associate such 'possible' realities with the leprechaun question? I
dont believe many theists have actually asked themselves that question.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Alex W
wrote:
Hmm, I see. So anyone who asks such questions must be a
religious nutter, and any scientist who engages in rigorous
enquiry into the issue must have been brainwashed. Damn,
this is easy. No argument necessary....
To repeat:
item: consciousness exists by virtue of universal
affirmation.
item: we have no idea what it is.
item: any statements we make regarding its formation,
existence and demise have no *scientific* foundation.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
This should be bloody obvious even to them.
Christopher A. Lee
Where did I say that, imbecile?
Smiler
Are you still claiming that 'reading the bible is believing', moron?
Smiler
> BOfL, ye hunch-backed virgin-violator, your peevish chastity is not
> worth a breakfast in the cheapest country, ye muddled:
>
>> On Nov 1, 7:58 am, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:33 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:05:08 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>>>> <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Are you joking? I associate claims of an afterlife with
>>>>> religion because religion is the primary promoter of belief
>>>>> in life after death.
>>>
>>>> Exactly. Nobody would give it a thought if the religious had the
>>>> sense to keep their religius beliefs to themselves.
>>>
>>> There, I beg to differ.
>>> Religious or not, we do tend to subscribe to a belief in a
>>> special seat of our personality -- soul, consciousness, call
>>> it what you will. This has always been of great fascination
>>> to us, espeially as to this day we cannot define let alone
>>> locate it. Clearly, we are possessed of such a quality, but
>>> where is it? What is it? And as a supplementary question
>>> we will often ask ourselves what happens to it when we die.
>>
>>
>> Care to take a stab at the question of the thread, regarding
>> association of religious scepticism and an unwillingness to
>> investigate such evidence further?
>
> "association of religious scepticism and an unwillingness to
> atheism?
>
> Atheism makes you fucking stupid, hey.
Not half as stupid as someone, like you, who believes 'reading is
believing'.
Smiler
> BOfL, ye biting bug-riddled common recreation, curtailed of this fair
> proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed,
> unfinished, ye pronounced:
>
>> If you think Im religious, you are absolutely wrong. My point is to
>> suggest the invalid association of religion and metaphysics.
>
> God = metaphysical X
>
> BWAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
And, according to you, 'reading is believing'.
BWAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Smiler
> On Nov 1, 7:07 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 7:50 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
>> This is a lie. Atheists *do* acknowledge that there is a view that
>> there are gods and life after death. They don't accept it because
>> there's no evidence for it. It's that simple.
>
> There is no testtube type (scientific) evidence for God or for
> eternal
> life either.
Then why should we believe you?
> However, modern Christians speak of experiencing these
> things in their inner being. God as creator and the fear-destroying
> experience of the resurrected Jesus, revealed to the inner mind and
> heart, are the basis of Christian theology. The risen material Jesus
> appearances in Luke, Matthew and John
> of the New Testament are probably metaphors and myths to highlight
> the resurrection experience - further understood as going beyond the
> risen Jesus to their own anticipated ressurection.
Woo woo bullshit.
> Same situation
> today.
> Also there is historical evidence for the resurrection but only in the
> sense the lives of believers are seen remarkably changed - for the
> better.
Then it isn't evidence, simply belief.
> (St. Paul's writings are the earliest witness to the risen Jesus in
> the
> New Testament. If Jesus has been a resucitated corpse surely, surely
> St. Paul would have heard of it and preached same from the roof tops
> -at least mentioned same in his letters. Why not? Probably, as he
> himself pointed out - flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of
> God either on earth or the world to come,.
More woo woo bullshit.
Smiler
> "Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
>> Dan Listermann, ye idle dotant, if you spend word for word with me, I
>> shall make your wit bankrupt, ye discharged:
>>
>>>> Dan Listermann, ye pernicious usurping proditer, here comes those I
>>>> have done good to against my will, ye stuttered:
>>>>
>>>>>> Dan Listermann, ye fly-eating bitch-wolf's son, a pox damn you,
>>>>>> you muddy rascal, is that all the comfort you bring me?, ye
>>>>>> expatiated:
He has nothing more, unless you count his belief that 'reading is
believing'.
Smiler
One sometimes has to point out the stupidity of their questions. Their
cognative dissonence prevents them seeing their own stupidity.
The Doctor
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It's more sociopathy and narcissism. They are incapable of grasping
that others might not see their most cheriched beliefs the same way.
Given that they themselves see all the other religions somewhere
between "what those folk believe" and "they believe in false gods",
they seem incapable of realising that others might see theirs the same
way.
Mitchell Holman
> Dan Listermann, ye rancid hunchback, thou sweats to death and lards
> the lean earth as thee walk along, ye yelled:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
>> news:sot1b4$clx$9...@news.admin.net-abuse.thick-tatas.co.panama...
>>> Dan Listermann, ye idle dotant, if you spend word for word with me,
>>> I shall make your wit bankrupt, ye discharged:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being the illogical atheist fuckwit that you are, just
>>>>> how would
>>>>> you go about disproving the fact that all my children are indeed
>>>>> all my children and that no others exist? Hmmm?
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can no doubt not see, atheism made you particularily
>>>>> fucking stupid,
>>>>> hey.
>>>>>
>>>> More lovely insults!
>>>>
>>>> I said, you can make a convincing case for the non-existence of
>>>> your next child
>>>
>>> No you did not, you lying shit, blood, sperm, faeces, saliva, sweat
>>> and urine stain on a homosexual's bedsheets. You said, and I quote,
>>> "prove that
>>> your next child does not exist."
>>>
>>> Now, you were lying^h saying?
>>
>> All I can see here is a mere assertion followed by a silly insult.
>> Got more?
>
> My mistake. I assumed you had the intelligence to distingish one set
> of your bullshit from another.
>
"distingish" - in a post questioning the intelligence of others.
Oh, the irony.............
Mitchell Holman
$k...@comp.graphics.befogged-sucker.com.dominican-republic:
> BOfL, ye pimply fat-kidneyed rascal, thou sodden-witted Lord, ye fawned:
>
>> Religions are always created by 'followers'
>
> Please prove that religions are not created by any god.
Theists demanding proof.
Sheesh..........
Uncle Vic
> On Oct 31, 1:36�pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigfletch8
>>
>> @gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>
>> > �Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>>
>> Because the concept makes no sense, and there's no way to prove it.
>
> Interpreted "I havnt experienced such reality,therefor it doesnt
> exist" .
Interpreted incorrectly. I've read about what science has to say about
OOBE, and base my opinion on that.
> If you found out, would that change your ag/ath disposition?
Found out what? I've been knocked out twice in my life. Once in a
fall, and once for minor surgery. Both times it was like skipping a
track on a CD. I imagine that's what death is like, except the CD
player turns off.
>>
>>
>>
>> > �Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>> > �religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>
>> > �For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence
>> > from �many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the
>> > continuation of life
>> > �after this body disintigrates.
>>
>> Like what? �Out-of-body experience has been accredited to the
>> endorphin
> s
>> the brain secretes under duress. �The smart people know this. �The du
> mb
>> ones think they've been talking to Jesus.
>
> Perfect example of the crossover Im referring to. Guilt by
> association.
>>
>>
>>
>> > �As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>> > �there are established techniques to create such out of body
>> > �experiences , first hand?
>>
>> Misinterpreted experiences are opinion, not evidence.
>
> Like your opinion of others opinions of what causes such experiences?
>
What?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Uncle Vic
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:50:34 -0700 (PDT),
> bigfl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>>
>> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>>
>> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>
>> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
>> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
>> life
>> after this body disintigrates.
>>
>> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>> there are established techniques to create such out of body
>> experiences , first hand?
>
> Out of body experiences are easy and common. All you need
> are proper meditative techniques or some really groovy
> drugs; peyote will do.
I tried peyote once, back in college. I heard you were supposed to get
sick, and barf before the high happened. I guess I didn't eat enough.
But the high sort of crept up on me. One moment we were cursing the
dealer, the next we were swimmin'. Twelve hours of weirdness. But no
OOBEs. Maybe I forgot to meditate.
>
> They have nothing in common with alleged afterlife
> experiences which are a completely different kettle of tea.
Yup, requires death from which nobody returns to tell about it.
>
> You also forget to mention that curiously, near-death
> experiences tend very strongly to conform to the cultural
> myths of the patient. This strongly suggests that people
> see what they have been told they should see, not what -- if
> anything -- is really there.
And if it was really there, they wouldn't be able to return from it to
tell us about it. So what the theist morons "know" about it is only what
they've concocted about it.
>
> That said, Flatliners was a decent enough flick.
>
Damn, dude, that's one of my faves. It seems, according to the movie,
one's afterlife is spent early on correcting one's wrongs against others.
Which would point to Judaism as the correct religion. Who'da thunk?
Olrik
> On Oct 31, 12:26 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>>> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>>> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
>>> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>>> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
>>> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
>>> life
>>> after this body disintigrates.
>> after death?
>>
>> The problem is that there's no evidence that there's actually "life"
>> after death.
>
> Yes there is
Nope.
>, and my summation is that agnostics/atheists dont look
> because of religious association.
>
> Part of such discoveries is related to how we each create our own
> realities, and the power of belief.Quantum scientists are starting to
> get a glimpse of such realities, and some are speculating what
> metaphysicians have known for eons, that of parallel universes.
And?
> BOfL
>> Olrik
>>
>>
>>
>>> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
>>> there are established techniques to create such out of body
>>> experiences , first hand?
>>> BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Richo
wrote:
> > They dont acknowledge the view that there is a god. No problem.
>
> Many also state that there is nothing after this life. Why so?
>
brain.
The ancient greeks observed that a blow to the head causes confusion,
loss of memory or unconsciousness while a blow to the foot doesnt.
In other words there is clear and obvious evidence that mental
functions are related to the brain.
> Just because most of this subject has been in the realm of the
> religionists and philosophers, why do atheists associate the two?
>
Religion is all about souls and immaterial spirits - havent you
noticed?
> For example, there is a phenomenal amount of anecdotal evidence from
> many credible, non biased sources, to suggest the continuation of
> life after this body disintigrates.
>
No there isnt.
I have seen dead things - they look dead.
> As an atheist,do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> there are established techniques to create such out of body
> experiences , first hand?
Nope.
Its just that all the "evidence" has other-than-magical explanations
and Occams razor kicks in.
Cheers, Mark.
ed wolf
> On Nov 1, 1:31 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.
>
> If twenty people you walk into, tell you that around the corner from
> where they have come from, there is a huge hole in the road, would you
> take notice?
>
> Of course, it would alert you. We dont all spontaniously qualify for
> the full epistemological experience.If so, we would fall down many
> holes....which , of course,is what we do, and learn on the way ).
>
> > Any phenomenal amount of it
> > from whatever source only means there is something worth looking
> > at. But when you write "it suggests life after this body
> > disintegrates"
> > you are stretching anecdotal evidence over the limits.
>
> I have covered that point in earlier responses. Dont lose track of the
> title of the thread.
>
> > No one who`s
> > body disintegrated reported anything.
>
> Some Buddhists would disagree, but again, thats not my point. When you
> have been out,experiences seperateness, then that is a logical next
> step.
>
> > Most confusion comes from
> > definitions. To me , life is maintaining a chemical equilibrium,
> > metabolism, growing, reproducing, reacting to stimuli.
>
> And where does the motivation come from (equally as valid as 'where
> does the energy come from').
>
> Interesting, you didnt say 'life is *made of* ...etc'. The biological
> status is obvious.
>
> > This is purely physical and a property of the body.
>
> Of course.Ever seen energy fields that surround the body? Been
> depicted in ancient drawings around the world over many millenia, and
> identified with kirlean photography in the modern age.
>
> > You must be talking about some completely different definition of
> > life.
>
> Different definitions of life? Back to the point...would that
> realization change your association between the metaphysical and
> religious, assuming you identify with atheism or agnosticism.
>
> > How do you use the words "life" and "death" ?
> > ("Anecdotal evidence" tells me people that postulate "afterlife" also
> > divide humans into body, soul, mind,spirit, ad libitum in millions of
> > ways, without ever bothering to define the parts.)
>
> There are countless people who will make very clear definitions,but
> you have already made a case for the anecdotal.
>
> Does your current (anecdotal) belief stop you exploring?
>
> BOfL
>
>
>
> > > As an atheist, do you close your eyes to such evidence, even though
> > > there are established techniques to create such out of body
> > > experiences , first hand?
>
> > Not "as an atheist". Because I do not take anecdotes and legends
> > for evidence, I am an atheist, and also I think out of body
> > experiences can be explained rationally as a symptom of a
> > dysfunctional brain. I had some myself when I was a kid,
> > tripping on acid, even then I knew it doesn't prove anything.
> > It was just fun .
> > ed wolf
Did it ever occur to you you are not answering a single point?
Just clouds of incense, vague feelings and evasions.
"many millenia":as in 1; 2; many?
"identified with kilian photography":
what exactly are these pretty pictures showing?
that is as precise as you ever get. To me that is
willful ignorance. Where exactly do you differentiate
between "anecdotal evidence", and gossip?
ed
We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken
thomas p.
A process of the brain which we call consciousness or self-awareness etc.
It is not a thing in itself; it is the brain and the reactions of the
individual that are being investigated.
thomas p.
The existence of the central nervous system is very well known, but you are
insisting that a word describing one of the processes of that system exists
as a distinct entity rather than a concept. There is no scientific basis
for this, nor is it required to explain any known phenomena.
thomas p.
"ed wolf" <eduar...@gmx.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:0c9ac5bd-d979-4d8a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 1 Nov., 13:25, BOfL <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:31 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.
>
> If twenty people you walk into, tell you that around the corner from
> where they have come from, there is a huge hole in the road, would you
> take notice?
You miss the one, important point. We already have evidence that holes
exist.
snip
fasgnadh
>
> Religion is all about souls and immaterial spirits - havent you
> noticed?
Modern day atheism have copied that interest in 'Spirits', just like
all the other things derivative and unoriginal atheists plagiarise,
steal or fabricate:
# Subject: Zeitgeist, the Moive
# From: "Tom Keske" <ptk...@comcast.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Message-ID: <h6rHm.2295$jh1....@newsfe19.iad>
# Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:03:52 -0500
#
# Tom Keske wrote:
# > http://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist-Movie-Peter-Joseph/dp/0930852591
#
# > A must-see
#
# > Tom Keske
Zeitgeist - *Spirit* of the Age. B^]
So.. atheists do believe in immaterial Spirits..
but only certain ones! B^D
What HYPOCRITES they all are!
I am glad to see that under my tutelage the atheist ignorami
in their alt.atheism sheltered workshop are now open
to the world of Spirit.. via the Zeitgeist! B^D
# Subject: Re: The USS America Is Sinking! - as Godless Atheism
# seeps in. China, with 300,000,000 new believers is prospering
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,soc.culture.jewish,
# alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.politics.republicans,
# alt.politics.democrats.,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics
# Message-ID: <jrPzm.46481$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:12:15 GMT
#
# vivapadre...@aol.com wrote:
># ... and Japan is getting off while it can!
>#
># http://www.thetrumpet.com
># Click on 'Japan abandons America.'
#
#
# It's due to the steady rise in Godlessness, the US
# is losing it's social cohesion and being poisoned from within
# by the corrosive ideology of Militant Atheism, (violence, hate,
# pagan worship of idols and dumb animals (Bast, Mao Lenin, Dawkins,
# Wall Street, Pat Condell))
#
# Militant Atheists mock the notion of Zeitgeist,
# the Spirit of the Age,
Not any more! B^D
Now Atheists embrace it.. next they will claim they invented it! B^D
The Atheist Reformation continues apace,
using reason and evidence to alleviate the ignorance of atheists
# but ALL of their nations have fallen
# into despair and destruction.
# Every family psychologist knows that it is the Invisible
# bonds of Love, Compassion, Kindness, Honesty,
# Courage, Justice.. which makes families, and communities,
# STRONG. And these are the Spiritual Gifts, the Virtues
# which are the Core Teachings of every great and enduring religion from
# God (the Merciful, The All-Seeing, the Unknowable, The Wise)
#
# History shows that every Atheist nation, has been a despicable,
# hate-filled, murderous TYRANNY, in the past century alone killing
# over 60,000,000 people.
#
# # Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# # -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# # fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
# #
# # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# # Newsgroups:
# # alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
# # alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# # Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.16...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# # Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
# #
# # American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
# #
# # "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
# #
# # 2001 2008
# #
# # Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
# #
# # Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
# #
# # Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
# #
# # Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
# #
# #
# #
# # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
# #
# #
# # 0.7% of Americans!! B^D 2.3% worldwide!!! B^D
# #
# # BTW: 'NON-RELIGIOUS' DOES NOT = ATHEIST, YOU DISHONEST CRETINS!
# #
# #
# # EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
#
#
# http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/aris030609.pdf
#
#
# China has done the opposite, crawled out of the Living Hell of Atheist
# tyranny, removed the Maoist prohibition on genuine Religion, seen an
# explosion of 300,000,000 free thinking religious and harvested the
# social harmony and human progress which it engenders;
#
#
# "With the gradual liberalisation that developed with
# Deng Xiaoping's open door reforms, religion was no
# longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was
# amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom
# of religion."
#
# http://cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
#
#
# "At the first world Buddhism forum in East China's Zhejiang
# Province last year, the Chinese government acknowledged
# the active role religion plays in building a harmonious society."
#
# "For example, religious beliefs have helped cut down crime
# to a large extent,"
#
# http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm
#
#
#
# "religion has been enjoying a resurgence in China over the
# past 20 years, as Communist Party disapproval has eased"
#
# http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm
#
#
# "Religious believers thrice the estimate
# By Wu Jiao (China Daily)
#
# "A survey has found that the number of religious believers
# is three times bigger than the official estimate.
#
# The poll of about 4,500 people, conducted by professors Tong
# Shijun and Liu Zhongyu of Shanghai-based East China Normal
# University from 2005 till recently, found that 31.4 percent
# of Chinese aged 16 and above or about 300 million are religious."
#
# http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm
#
# Incredible! in just a few short years the new converts from
# atheism In JUST ONE COUNTRY, far outnumber the slow increase
# in tiny atheist numbers in the rest of the WORLD! B^D
#
#
# The election of Obama represents the nation turning back to God,
# a fundamentally decent man and a rational believer,
# he is the successor to Martin Luther King's Dream,
# representing a rational faith that is based on Justice and is
# guided by the intelligence, goodness and decency which is inherent
# in the American people.
#
# They will triumph, but they will do so as Neighbours, not as Empire.
#
# Americans cannot forget that in the depths of the
# post-Bush Global Economic crisis, America besmirched by torture
# and injustice, rapacious corporate greed and crude materialism,
# America's market LOST ALL HOPE,
# and was in total collapse.
#
# That Hope and Faith has been restored, as it always is, renewed by the
# Spirit, and Americans know that if they lose that Faith and Hope, the
# abyss on which they stood lies before them.
#
# It's a natural law, turn away from the Light and life withers
# and dies.
#
#
# "but they who wait for YAHWEH shall renew their strength,
# they shall rise up on wings like eagles"
# - Isaiah 40:31
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Richo wrote:
>
> >
> > Religion is all about souls and immaterial spirits - havent you
> > noticed?
>
> Modern day atheism have copied that interest in 'Spirits'
The only 'spirits' that atheists care about are alcoholic ones, but in
considerable lesser quantity that Fasgnadh continually imbibes.
>
What a HYPOCRITE fasgnadh is
>
> I am glad to see
Fasgnadh, being mentally blind, and morally corrupt, sees noting worth
seeing.
>
> The Atheist Reformation continues apace,
> using reason and evidence to alleviate the ignorance of theists
Right, for once.
Alex W
Alex W
> Lazarus did, didn't you hear? Don't you remember what he said about
> it? ;)
"On the whole, it was better than Vancouver"?
>
>>
>>>
>>> You also forget to mention that curiously, near-death
>>> experiences tend very strongly to conform to the cultural
>>> myths of the patient. This strongly suggests that people
>>> see what they have been told they should see, not what -- if
>>> anything -- is really there.
>>
>>And if it was really there, they wouldn't be able to return from it to
>>tell us about it. So what the theist morons "know" about it is only what
>>they've concocted about it.
>>
>>>
>>> That said, Flatliners was a decent enough flick.
>>>
>>
>>Damn, dude, that's one of my faves. It seems, according to the movie,
>>one's afterlife is spent early on correcting one's wrongs against others.
>>Which would point to Judaism as the correct religion. Who'da thunk?
>
> Maybe it was telling us we should live a christian life so we wouldn't
> have to spend eternity correcting our wrongs against others and god?
>
> LOL! If only christianity was a life-style. That would be half their
> argument already won. :) Do as I say, not as I do. :)
Christianity IS a lifestyle for many, especially Catholics.
Fish on Fridays, mass at Christmas, church for weddings,
funerals and christenings, maybe a crucifix in the hall and
a madonna by the front door - but ask them, and they will
laugh at the suggestion that they believe.
Kadaitcha Man
thee, ye alleged:
<aside>
<indicates up>
Oh, look! Yet another atheist believing in his own imaginary creations.
--
Ubuntu 9.10 x64 running Windows Server 2008 in VirtualBox
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM, 10 * SATA2 3GB/s HDDs as dual 3TB RAID5
8-thread Intel Extreme i7-975 @ 3.80GHz, air-cooled Thermaltake
Intel BoneTrail Motherboard
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 1GB
Honda Sabre 1100cc V-Twin
I can wank better than you can.
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage.
Kadaitcha Man
black and midnight hag, ye sighed:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> BOfL, ye biting bug-riddled common recreation, curtailed of this fair
>> proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed,
>> unfinished, ye pronounced:
>>
>>> If you think Im religious, you are absolutely wrong. My point is to
>>> suggest the invalid association of religion and metaphysics.
>>
>> God = metaphysical X
>>
>> BWAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> And, according to you, 'reading is believing'.
Really, now? And where did I make such a claim?
> BWAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Kadaitcha Man
ye irrupted:
That's three posts you've made with the same unsupportable claim. Atheism
makes you fucking stupid.