Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

catallus

We can agree there's more to discover. Ok.

nozzferrahhtoo

That is one thing that is useful to agree with yes. I do not think anyone brought that into contention though. I think more important to realize is that the statement that we just explain or discuss gravity in terms of it's effects is simply wrong. We know a lot more than that.

catallus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

....We know a lot more than that.

Yes but a quantitative statement such as that is not useful.

Why all the confusion over dark-matter and the increasing rate of cosmic expansion etc. if the model isn't complete?

The answer ain't in the bible. Or is it!?

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

Yes but a quantitative statement such as that is not useful.

Except it is useful. Even in and of itself. But RELATIVE to the entirely false and entirely useless statement that we only discuss, measure or understand gravity by its effects alone.... it is even more useful again.

catallus wrote: »

Why all the confusion over dark-matter and the increasing rate of cosmic expansion etc. if the model isn't complete?

Did anyone at any point claim the model was complete? I have a distinct recollection of stating the exact opposite in the last couple of posts. The model is FAR from complete, and there is more to learn, and we have already agreed on this.

What is false however is your claim that we only explain gravity by its effects and nothing more. This is not so. We have more explanatory Theory on gravity than this, in that we know that it's existence is caused by the warping of space-time by objects with mass.

catallus wrote: »

The answer ain't in the bible. Or is it!?

Anyone who thinks it is is more than welcome to adumbrate their reasoning on this for me. All ears here.

catallus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did anyone at any point claim the model was complete? I have a distinct recollection of stating the exact opposite in the last couple of posts. The model is FAR from complete, and there is more to learn, and we have already agreed on this.

Sigh, And there was me thinking we agreed on something, Nozzy :rolleyes:

Does it really matter anyway?

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

Sigh, And there was me thinking we agreed on something, Nozzy :rolleyes:

Does it really matter anyway?

We did. We agreed that there is a lot more to learn. But that is alas the nature of discussion forums. Agreements do not make for ongoing conversation. They go nowhere. The nature of forums is discussion and debate.

But differences are easier to resolve WITH a point of agreement and we have that, so that is useful. And from that point of agreement we can deal with the fact that it is simply an error to claim that we know nothing of gravity other than measurements of its effect(s).

RikuoAmero

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No really, I have checked, they definitely exist.



Yes because you can extrapolate the behavior of an entire arbitrary grouping of people, by commenting on that of one single person cherry picked from that group...

Amen brother/sister! Preach the truth! :cool:

ABC101

Thanks for your reply Nozzferrahhtoo.. I got your P.M. so I would like to respond to some of your points as requested by you publically.

1) IF NDE is not suitable to this thread... then you need to take it up with the Mod who moved it here... Benny_cake. You mention several times this point... but for some reason mod Benny moved it here. I don't think it was a good idea... but however, it is where it is now.

2) I cannot agree with your comment about 'I choosing to be offended'. In any debate one should be careful not to be offensive to the other debater. Brian Shanahan did not do this, referring to believers as weak feeble, dishonest etc. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person, not a case of the other person choosing / not choosing to be hurt.

People have feelings..... it is not a choice one makes, it is something human beings have.

If I were to insult you..... it would only add insult to injury for me to tell you to switch off your feelings, or stop being so sensitive. Downright, dismissive and condescending in fact.

I agree that in the Blogosphere…it is helpful if one does not take things personally, however that is still not a license to offend or insult other debaters.

Brian is never going to win anybody over, even if he happens to be right, if he is going to use insulting hurtful words to the other person.


3) "And they are irrelevant to this discussion by definition. The "N" has a meaning you need to focus on. It stands for NEAR. That is to say: The patient did not die. And to my knowledge an experience before an event tells one nothing about events after that event."

Not necessarily true in all cases... if you read Colm Keanes book.... many people have seen themselves on the operating table, looking down...with the Doctors frantically working over them. Miraculously when they came back... the Doctor told them that they had died on the table. They were not near dead…their body was dead, in some cases they had even given up resuscitation.

Howard Storm's testimony mentions this as well, in fact he seems to have an out of body experience, whilst in his dying days, as distinct from actually dying, having the experience, and then coming back to life.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the following..

"And to my knowledge an experience before an event tells one nothing about events after that event"

Could I ask you to explain this with regard to NDE... perhaps using Howard Storm's testimonial as an example.... or any example you should choose. etc..


4) "But most, if not all, aspects of NDE can be reproduced in other contexts using drugs, meditation methods, and other medical interventions. Feeling you are outside your body, feeling at one with everything, feeling a love for everything or a relevance to everything, and much more are all attainable independently without having to risk death to get there. Perhaps you would enjoy and benefit from exploration of this therefore, rather than waiting to nearly die to get some of it. "

No… I cannot agree here... and the evidence in Colm Keanes book refutes this generalization. Many many witnesses have mentioned that they were not drunk, or on some psycho altering drugs / medication etc.. For example I remember reading about a 24 year old young man who was working on a roof of a building... unfortunately he went right through it, down 20 or 30 feet onto the floor, badly smashed up, he survived after a long treatment in hospital... and he had a NDE while lying unconscious on the floor. He was not on any medication or abusing psychoactive drugs. In fact of the several books Colm Keane has written about NDE, I do not recall anybody having been a drug user / drug abuser.

But with respect to your statement...

"But most, if not all, aspects of NDE can be reproduced in other contexts using drugs, meditation methods, and other medical interventions."

That is a very sweeping, broad statement....NDE experiences have been documented going back hundreds or even thousands of years (Ancient Greeks.... Hades etc), long before modern medicine produced psychoactive drugs.

Moving forward to the recent past... Howard Storm does not mention drug abuse... and even if he was on some medication, for example suspected heart attack etc... that does not mean in itself he was delusional. Not all medication makes one delusional.

And again.. not all psychoactive drugs put the person is a state where they are unable to discern real from unreal. Smoking cannabis for example, most of these drugs just relax the person, or raise their alertness level.

Many NDE's have occurred well before the person gets to a hospital, i.e. in the ambulance or in a car wreck awaiting for the ambulance to take them to hospital.

5) "Feeling you are outside your body, feeling at one with everything, feeling a love for everything or a relevance to everything, and much more are all attainable independently without having to risk death to get there"

I never took Acid... but I remember reading about Steve Jobs... and he took acid a few times... kind of describing the effects you have written above. But again the experience you describe are different to the experiences the people who have undergone NDE. Howard Storm does not describe laying back in a nice field feeling fuzzy and at one with nature. Howard mentions over 80 primary colours... seeing his entire life played out before him like on a video tape, getting close to Hell, being taken to the periphery of heaven...having conversations with spirits who know all about him, even what he was thinking etc etc.

I have not heard of any psychoactive drug user / drug abuser describing what is described by people who have experienced / under gone NDE.

6) Your point about risking death…. I think you are confusing things here. In the example of Howard Storm, and the numerous other examples in Colm Keanes books…. None of these people actually went out to deliberately have a NDE. NDE is not a choice… it’s not like the film “Flatliners” I think its called. If there was a place in Ireland or Europe offering a Flatliner service they would probably face prosecution etc.

Whilst certain activities carry a risk of personal injury even death (i.e. plane journey, crossing the road, driving a motorbike etc) Death is a certainty for all living beings.

With respect to myself…. I am not looking for a NDE experience…. But I would consider myself very fortunate if in the event of an accident which was unavoidable (such things do happen in life) I was to survive and in the process have a NDE. It would only strengthen my faith.

7) Your point…” Near death experience is simply not evidence for an after life, and is certainly not evidence for a god”
Again this is not the view of those people who have experienced NDE. I cannot understand your point here. Howard Storm was an atheist….he did not believe in an after life / Spirituality. He underwent a NDE…. And now not only does he believe in God, but he has changed his outlook, his career. The experience of what happened to Howard was evidence enough for him…. Compelling evidence which made him change his outlook. If there was no evidence of a God, or life after death, heaven or hell…. .then why do these people who experience NDE… in effect say the same thing. The reason being... is that if a person experiences (for whatever reason) a NDE.... the experience is real. It is very real. The person does not wake up thinking... maybe it was a dream... maybe it did not happen, maybe it was the coffee / medication I had this morning. They don't say / think these things. When a person returns to their body.... they know with absolute 100% certainty, 100% conviction that what happened to them really did happen.

With respect…. I find it ironic that you personally would rubbish NDE, would rubbish life after death yet you have never experienced NDE. It’s a bit like rubbishing life in Singapore… yet never having lived there. Conversely I have never experienced NDE… but yet I believe that does occur, and it does happen.

I could understand if you had experienced NDE… and came back and told me that you had been on the other side…. That all there was is a big cloud and a massive tea party. But no God, no heaven or hell, and no angels and they played the same music all the time, in fact it is boring. Now that would be different.

8) Your point “I would not view a total removal of a fear of death as a good thing though, and it seems from how you present it that you DO”
You have either taken up my point wrongly, or you are deliberately trying to twist the point I was making. I was not advocating a fear of death removal. I was merely stating that those who have undergone NDE, have no fear of death. This is because they really know that death is just a transition moment. Where they detach from their physical earthly body and float away to a much happier place. They now know, they have no doubt, they have experienced it for themselves.

You would think that the only people who would willingly throw themselves under a moving bus or train would be NDE survivors, so that they could get back to the place they experienced such peace. But no… that is not the case…. All NDE survivors return to life, sometimes change their perspective, and continue to grow in Love.

9) Your point … “Interestingly an NDE is not required for this either. The same change of perspective is described by many people who have simply had a shocking confrontation with their own mortality. Be it from sickness, a near accident, being a survivor in a gun shooting or much more.”

Not necessarily so with matters of spirituality. If a person who is unfit, or a cocaine user… has a heart attack, … then they would most probably change their lifestyle, i.e. start exercising, or giving up cocaine use.

The point I am making is that survivors of NDE can change their outlook with regards to love of God and love of God’s creation, not always… but mostly. They don’t start going to the gym, or driving their car slower ( they might do), but NDE is a spiritual experience, which relates to their knowledge of the spiritual dimension.

If I was to have a bad car crash in rainy conditions, I would most probably change the way I drive when it is rainy… not take up jogging or planting daffodils as a result of the car crash.

10) Your point “Of course, to make a more on topic reply here however, you are making essentially a utilitarian argument now. Discussing the benefits of thinking there is an after life is in NO WAY evidence there actually is one. It might remove peoples neurotic fear of death and so forth, which is in some ways good and some ways bad, but that says nothing about the truth value of the claim itself. At all. Even a little bit”

No…. I cannot agree. It is clear you have misunderstood my comment. I was not advocating either Utilitarian Action or Utilitarian argument with respect to NDE.

I simply was trying to make the point that based on the witness statements from H.Storm and in Colm Keanes books… that they are the ones who are saying they have no fear of dying, because of their experience.

marienbad

ABC101 - I am not getting involved in you NDE discussion , but one point I must take issue with you on and in the strongest possible terms is this notion you have that

''I cannot agree with your comment about 'I choosing to be offended'. In any debate one should be careful not to be offensive to the other debater''

This ,if I may say with all due respect, is utter rubbish , and has been used to stifle dissent for a 1000 years. To put this into context, setting aside that the internet wasn't invented, this discussion could not have taken place 25 years ago because Christians would have been offended at atheist openly and publicly expressing their views . Remember all it took was for one Catholic being offended to have a book banned to a whole nation.

Be careful what you wish for and toughen up .

ABC101

marienbad wrote: »

ABC101 - I am not getting involved in you NDE discussion , but one point I must take issue with you on and in the strongest possible terms is this notion you have that

''I cannot agree with your comment about 'I choosing to be offended'. In any debate one should be careful not to be offensive to the other debater''

This ,if I may say with all due respect, is utter rubbish , and has been used to stifle dissent for a 1000 years. To put this into context, setting aside that the internet wasn't invented, this discussion could not have taken place 25 years ago because Christians would have been offended at atheist openly and publicly expressing their views . Remember all it took was for one Catholic being offended to have a book banned to a whole nation.

Be careful what you wish for and toughen up .

@ Marienbad,

I am quiet shocked at your post.

My post above was addressed to Nozzferrahhtoo.... not you.

If you don't wish to spend time reading my post ... then don't.

If you go back a few pages... you will find my post (along with about 30 others) was moved by Benny_cake to this thread. That is not my fault.

Nozzferrahhtoo took the time to go through my post and debate with my points. I decided to do the same with his reply, considering Nozz seems more reasonable that other atheists.

I did reply to Nozz, but via P.M. because I thought if I was going to have a discussion with Nozz... it would be better off line, less chance of attracting comments like yours.

Nozz replied to my p.m. stating that he would only debate publicly.

So I replied here.

Now I am getting in effect, abuse from you. Who are you, do I know you, have we met before?

If I have done something to offend you... I apologise... however all I am doing here is debating. To be honest I see very little to apologise for in my post.

In addition if that is your level of tolerance to view points of another, then you are truly displaying your true colours now, and it is not pretty.

marienbad

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Marienbad,

I am quiet shocked at your post.

My post above was addressed to Nozzferrahhtoo.... not you.

If you don't wish to spend time reading my post ... then don't.

If you go back a few pages... you will find my post (along with about 30 others) was moved by Benny_cake to this thread. That is not my fault.

Nozzferrahhtoo took the time to go through my post and debate with my points. I decided to do the same with his reply, considering Nozzmore reason seems able that other atheists.

I did reply to Nozz, but via P.M. because I thought if I was going to have a discussion with Nozz... it would be better off line, less chance of attracting comments like yours.

Nozz replied to my p.m. stating that he would only debate publicly.

So I replied here.

Now I am getting in effect, abuse from you. Who are you, do I know you, have we met before?

If I have done something to offend you... I apologise... however all I am doing here is debating. To be honest I see very little to apologise for in my post.

In addition if that is your level of tolerance to view points of another, then you are truly displaying your true colours now, and it is not pretty.

Well ABC101 If you were shocked and consider what I said to you as constituting abuse then you need to grow up.

Further , you seem to think this is a private conversation between you and Nozz , then I have news for you , this is a public forum and any member can join in as they wish.

And I did read your post- all of it -as I read Nozz's replies . As I had nothing to offer (as yet) on the NDE I said that as a courtesy but I did take issue with your vague form of censorship and replied accordingly.

As for being moved to this thread , what relevance is that ?

As for not knowing me etc - irrelevancies - but this line in you post is indicative enough -'' seems more reasonable able that other atheists '' - talk about stertyping.

Now care to address the issues I raised with your definition of taking and giving offence ?

nozzferrahhtoo

Hi there. I am not aware of having sent you any PM, I do not use the PM system here except to communication with moderators.

I will try to respond to your post as best I can. Your inability to use the QUOTE function correctly makes it a bit difficult, so apologies if you feel I missed/skipped/dodged anything. I will endeavour to get to it all.

ABC101 wrote: »

IF NDE is not suitable to this thread... then you need to take it up with the Mod

I am not interested in moderating, back seat moderating, or discussing moderator decisions. What I mean by saying NDE is not relevant basically involves what I said already. My issue is TWO parts:

1) My first issue with NDE is that the N in it means NEAR. That is to say the patient did not die. So using it as evidence for an after life is simply a category error on your part. An experience in this life, especially anecdotal and unverifiable experience, is NOT evidence for anything related to the next life.

2) Even if you could prove an After Life however that does not necessitate a god. There could be a god and no after life. There could be an after life and no god. And last time I checked this thread is about debating the existence of god. So even if you had not failed utterly to evidence an after life: You still would have not offered evidence for a god, which is what the thread is about.

ABC101 wrote: »

I cannot agree with your comment about 'I choosing to be offended'.

You are not required to agree with it. But if you wish to attempt to rebut it then by all means make the attempt. The simply fact is those that I believe we should respect people, but NEVER respect ideas. We can attack ideas without attacking the people who hold them.

And if you decide to get offended on behalf of the ideas I attack, then this is your decision. I neither care, nor am I about to pander to this in any way. I can merely advise you not to do this, and perhaps grow a thicker skin, or re-evaluate your priorities.

In short: I attack ideas, not the holder of those ideas, and I do not care if that is offensive to anyone. That is their problem. Respect people, not ideas.

If you have an issue with Brian take it up with him or the report function.

ABC101 wrote: »

If I were to insult you.....

IF you were to insult me I would ignore it and move on, while possibly pointing out the fact that insults demean the insulter NEVER the intended target. Ever.

However you can not insult me, so worry not about it. This is not a comment about you, but about me. I know what the pre-requisites are for me to be insulted. They are simply not present in this discussion. So you simply will be unable to ever insult me, even if you did want to, which I doubt you do.

ABC101 wrote: »

Not necessarily true in all cases...

Yes. All cases. That is why they are called "NEAR death experience". Not "Death Experience". Bring me a "Death Experience" and you might have something worth discussing. But right now: You do not.

The problem with discussion on NDE is that most people who discuss it, possibly yourself included, show little or no knowledge of what "clinical death" and "coma" and "brain death" actually entail.

Which is nothing to be ashamed about. They, unlike me, are lay people to that area of medical knowledge. So I can merely be patient and try to explain their errors to them.

ABC101 wrote: »

many people have seen themselves on the operating table, looking down...

That is certainly what they report thinking they experiences for sure. And I wholly believe them.

The issue for you is that ANY attempt to verify that such people actually were in that location have failed. That is to say there has been ZERO results of any controlled attempt to verify these claims.

Dr. Sam Parnia is a good example of this. He is a researcher with strong PRO After Life views. So he is biased strongly to a positive result. And he has failed to get even one.

He setup a double blind controlled study too. A good methodology from what I have heard so far.

In it he basically placed objects in random operating theatres around some countries. It was double blind because he and the researchers were kept blind to where and when the objects were placed.

The objects were hidden in locations that could ONLY be seen were someone to actually be in the Up-looking-Down position reported in such OBE events. And they were objects chosen to be highly incongruous to their surroundings. Things you simply would not miss.

When someone reported an NDE then, he and his team would interview them and ask about EVERYTHING they saw. He compiled these notes.

He then compared later these notes with the times and locations of the objects that were hidden to see if even one patient reported seeing them.

Not. One. Positive. Results. Has. Come. From. This. Ever. A fact I fear is not going to slow you down one iota in your agenda and bias, but it is there all the same.

Had even _one_ person come back from OBE saying "Did you know there is a digital flashing red readout over there with the number 3454 on it?" or "Did you know there is a bonsai tree on top of that cupboard there made entirely out of pink pokka dot vibrators?"........ I would sit up and take notice.

But no. Not one. Zilch. Nadda. Squat. Nichts. Bugger all. Diddly. Nothing.

ABC101 wrote: »

Doctor told them that they had died on the table. They were not near dead…their body was dead, in some cases they had even given up resuscitation.

Again I do not think you understand what this means, as I said above. Clinical death is not death.

You are entirely right that patients on occasion, more often than you might think, attain revival at the point, or soon after the point, that we give up trying to revive them.

We have a lot of methods of revival but really how and why they work are still somewhat mysterious to us. We simply cascade impulses, chemically electrically and physically, through the patient in the hope they will align in just the right way to kick start the patients own natural processes. And when it happens, it is essentially sheer luck coupled with application of things we know worked in the past. But how and why and when it kicks in, if at all, we do not really know. We just do our best to make it happen.

ABC101 wrote: »

No… I cannot agree here...

Again that is the wonderful think about facts. They remain true regardless of what you have trouble agreeing with or understanding.

ABC101 wrote: »

Many many witnesses have mentioned that they were not drunk, or on some psycho altering drugs / medication etc..

I never claimed they were. All I said was that the experiences you would list and associate with NDE are all experiences that are ALSO attainable by other means. They are not unique to NDE or special for NDE or anything.

That is all I said. I did not say you had to be on drugs or meditation to have them. I just said you can ALSO have such experiences by those means. NDE is not the only method to do so.

And the fact those experiences are all attainable by other means suggests that any special pleading that those experiences are somehow more special in the context of NDE are simply meaningless.

ABC101 wrote: »

That is a very sweeping, broad statement....

Because it was a very broad subject. We are talking about the NDE experience as a whole and the MANY ways EACH of those experiences can be reproduced in other contexts. That is a lot of material and context there, so any statement about this as a whole will be, by definition, broad.

I can be HIGHLY specific if you like. Watch me:

I would ask you to look into what has been lovingly termed "The God Chair" which is a method we have developed that stimulate parts of the human brain to illicit the feelings I just mentioned. Specifically feelings like being one with everything, feeling the presence of a consciousness external to ones own, and so forth.

I would highly recommend also the book "The Tale Tale brain" as VS Ramachandran goes a lot into the underpinnings of the experience, how we produce it artificially, what areas of the brain are involved and much more.

He also discusses in the book and in this documentary here patients where this experience is produced semi naturally such as just after temporal lobe epileptic events. The experiences are so powerful that one patient is sure he is god when they happen. Absolutely convinced he is actually god incarnate.

There is a lot of material there, too much to go into in a post, but I would not want to leave myself open to the accusation of shouting "Go read this and that" and not answering the question so I will elaborate on ONE small aspect of NDE highly specifically so I can not again be falsely accused of being general.....

There is an area of the brain that is responsible for relevance to you. That is to say, when you look at something, say a rock, a car, or your mother, information on what you are looking at goes into this area of the brain. And that area returns a result as a measure of significance. And that result has many effects on you. Such as mediating release of hormones, or influencing your Galvanic Skin responses. And more.

The area is called the "amygdala". How we discovered it and its function is massively interesting. There are people who suffer from what we call Capgras Delusion or Capgrah Syndrome. Patients with this have the amazing delusion that people of note in their life, like their mother and their dog, have been replaced with near perfect replicas.

The underpinnings of the delusion were shown to be a disconnection between the amygdala and the inferotemporal cortex. So the neural affect of seeing your mother coming towards you now no longer sends a cascade of results through your hormonal and emotional systems. And the way the brain and the patient deals with this is to construct a delusion to make sense of the impact (or in this case lack of impact). And usually that delusion is to believe that it simply is not really your mother at all.

So where am I going with this? Well we can physically or chemically hyper-stimulate the amygdala. Taking MDMA has this effect too should you wish to ever experience it yourself (it is a normative experience I can tell you personally). Many stringent practitioners of Meditation can achieve it too without artificial means.

And when we do we get EXACTLY the kind of subjective experience you just discussed. That is to say the subject begins to experience a massive relevance and unity with everything in the universe. They get this feeling of being one with everything and everything being one. Everything seems to just drip with meaning and relevance and personal implication to them.

So I hope this helps you understand the basis of my pointing out that not only can we stimulate such experiences artificially but we have tied them to not just the physical, but a very specific physical location in our brain.

ABC101 wrote: »

But again the experience you describe are different to the experiences the people who have undergone NDE.

The context is different. And clearly how other people respond to those having the experience are different. But THAT the experience actually ARE different is something you have merely asserted, without substantiation of any kind.

ABC101 wrote: »

Howard mentions over 80 primary colours...

Also not unheard of in other contexts, and again something we can induce artificially. I would once again refer you to the works of VS Ramachandran in this regard and read about his work on Synesthesia.

People with Synesthesia are people who's mental experience of color is stimulated by things that should not be stimulating them. Most commonly this is numbers. Seeing a number written down, or thinking about a number, stimulates "seeing" colors. Only they do not really "see" the color. They just experience the same feelings they would had they been seeing that color.

And two things that come from the literature on this is that:

1) Some patients suggest that the colors they see in this fashion are more hyper real to them than the actual ones. The "red" they see in Synesthesia is even redder than any red they have seen in reality and

2) Some patients with Synesthesia report being stimulated to see "Martian Colors". That is: Colors they simply have never seen in the real world. Alien unknown colors.

So once again discussing seeing colors in relation to NDE is not actually as contextually interesting as you want it to be, and is certainly not what you are making it out to be: Evidence of an after life.

ABC101 wrote: »

having conversations with spirits who know all about him, even what he was thinking etc etc.

Given the experience was likely all in his head.... is it really that surprising or interesting that the characters therein therefore knew what he was thinking and feeling and so forth? Come off it.

ABC101 wrote: »

None of these people actually went out to deliberately have a NDE.

Did I once suggest they did? I fear you are now replying to things I never said, points I never made, and positions I never espoused. Don't do that. All I did say was that if you are keen to have these experiences.... it can be done without having to wait around to nearly die to do so. There are other means to explore them.

ABC101 wrote: »

Again this is not the view of those people who have experienced NDE.

I do not care what their view is, or who holds that view. I care if they, or you, can substantiate their view in any way they can communicate to me. That is to say: If you or they wish to assert that NDE is evidence for an after life, then I will happily consider the evidence for this claim.

If you merely want to assert it to be so, then run, I have no time to pander to this, and no interest in it whatsoever.

You trot out that Stern was an atheist and NDE turned him Theist. And you do so as if you think this makes some interesting or useful point that I should be impressed by or interested in. It is quite simply irrelevant however. That normative experiences change people's world views is something I already know. It happens ALL THE TIME. But this is not evidence that such world views are _true_.

ABC101 wrote: »

if a person experiences (for whatever reason) a NDE.... the experience is real. It is very real.

No one doubts this at all. I believe very strongly they did have the experiences they claim they had. I have never denied it or disagreed with it or dismissed it.

My issue is just that their INTERPRETATION of the experience is unsubstantiated nonsense that not only lacks evidence, but goes against the evidence.

That the experience itself is real however, is not in doubt.

ABC101 wrote: »

Conversely I have never experienced NDE… but yet I believe that does occur, and it does happen.

You are misrepresenting me as I just said. I have never rubbished NDE, and never suggest I do not believe they occur. Quite the opposite. I simply rubbish you interpretation of NDE and what you think it is evidence of. Massively different.

Please have the decorum to only attack points I have actually made, not ones you have invented on my behalf. Thanks.

ABC101 wrote: »

You have either taken up my point wrongly, or you are deliberately trying to twist the point I was making.

Given the above where you have insisted on attacking positions I never held or espoused, you are not the one in the position to accuse (falsely as it happens) others of twisting your words or positions.

ABC101 wrote: »

I was merely stating that those who have undergone NDE, have no fear of death.

And I was "merely stating" that this is NOT a good thing. I have seen what the removal of this respect for death can do. It was the Archbishop of Canterbury (Jeffery Fisher) who once suggested that the only real effect of nuclear war would be the wonderful result of speeding the people on their path to paradise.

ABC101 wrote: »

Not necessarily so with matters of spirituality.

I did not suggest it was "necessarily so". I informed you that in _many_ cases it simply IS so. The confrontation with mortality that people have when they nearly die is often powerful enough to change that persons entire perspective of life and death, and to re-evaluate their priorities in relation to both.

Even common bog standard Joe Soaps on the street with 9-5 office jobs can be moved by such experiences to re-evaluate their priorities, wonder what they are doing with their life, and start making drastic life changes like quitting work and taking up farming and spending more time with friends and family.

The point merely being, that the life changing effects you are associating with NDE are had just as much by people without NDE. The ND without the E is something more than enough.

ABC101 wrote: »

No…. I cannot agree. It is clear you have misunderstood my comment.

Your lack of understanding of my reply is not the same as me failing to understand your comment. And once again your wish not to agree does not influence the facts one iota.

My point, whether you wish to agree with it or not, is merely that discussing the effects of an idea on people is NOT evidence that the idea is real or true. If my life was emotionally improved tomorrow by believing Lisa Hannigan was in love with me.... that would be great for me.... but it would NOT be evidence that Lisa Hannigan is actually in love with me.

Do not mistake the effect of an idea or experience with being evidence FOR that idea or experience. Because it is not. At all.

ABC101 wrote: »

I simply was trying to make the point that based on the witness statements from H.Storm and in Colm Keanes books… that they are the ones who are saying they have no fear of dying, because of their experience.

And I am simply making the point that this fact, even if it is a fact, is not relevant to the claim you are making about NDE. Whatever it's effect on their fear of death may be..... that does not make it evidence for an after life. At all. Even a little bit. It simply just does not. Deal with it.

ABC101 wrote: »

Nozz replied to my p.m. stating that he would only debate publicly.

Did I? I did not notice it was you. I get about 20 PMs a week by people who have taken issue with my views. So I have one single copy-and-paste reply that I use to simply tell them that if they wish to discuss something with me, they should do it publicly.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Ok, your agenda established. Here the existence of God is a given. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Very difficult to prove a negative Festus. I think the onus should be on you to provide any scrap of proof that he does exist.

nozzferrahhtoo

Safehands wrote: »

Very difficult to prove a negative Festus. I think the onus should be on you to provide any scrap of proof that he does exist.

It is worse than asking you to prove a negative, which actually can be done.

It is asking you to prove an entirely unsubstantiated negative that is defined in such a way as to contrive to be unfalsifiable. And that is a whole deeper level of philosophical nonsense entirely.

Safehands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is worse than asking you to prove a negative, which actually can be done.

It is asking you to prove an entirely unsubstantiated negative that is defined in such a way as to contrive to be unfalsifiable. And that is a whole deeper level of philosophical nonsense entirely.

I often wonder would the world be a whole lot better if we all became humanists. Far less controversy. Less war, no long security checks at airports, far less guilt or hangups about "sinning" by Catholics using contraception or by poor Muslims eating pork.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

Very difficult to prove a negative Festus. I think the onus should be on you to provide any scrap of proof that he does exist.

Why? Why would I consciously and willingly seek to destroy my own faith?

nozzferrahhtoo

Festus wrote: »

Why? Why would I consciously and willingly seek to destroy my own faith?

Much like your choice to simply ignore my last post to you, I actually do not expect you to want to read anything on the subject at all. You are as invested in your faith as it gets. One wonders why you are even reading or posting on this particular thread at all.

But I can not speak for you I can only speak for me. And I simply want my world view to track the evidence and the reality. I would not want to find I believe something that is not just slightly but _entirely_ unsubstantiated.

That you are happy to subscribe to something entirely unsubstantiated is as baffling to me as it is actually irrelevant. The point of the thread is not what you want, or do not want, to believe. The point of the thread is to actually discuss the basis for thinking there is a god. And I do not know about you, but that is what I am here for. Your dodge of my last post suggests you are not.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Why? Why would I consciously and willingly seek to destroy my own faith?

I'm not asking you to do that at all. But if your inability to prove the existence of a supreme being could potentially damage your faith, then that speaks volumes, doesn't it.

I would advise you to keep your faith and don't do any searching. True faith can be a wonderful gift, I know. I just don't have it.

Festus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Much like your choice to simply ignore my last post to you, I actually do not expect you to want to read anything on the subject at all. You are as invested in your faith as it gets. One wonders why you are even reading or posting on this particular thread at all.

The comment from the other poster was put to a posting that originated on another thread that was moved here. I was being polite and I felt the question deserved an honest answer. If that offends you I will desist.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I can not speak for you I can only speak for me. And I simply want my world view to track the evidence and the reality. I would not want to find I believe something that is not just slightly but _entirely_ unsubstantiated.

me too

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That you are happy to subscribe to something entirely unsubstantiated is as baffling to me as it is actually irrelevant. The point of the thread is not what you want, or do not want, to believe. The point of the thread is to actually discuss the basis for thinking there is a god. And I do not know about you, but that is what I am here for. Your dodge of my last post suggests you are not.

you are right. My original post here is due to the mod moving the them here and while your response to that is comprehensive I'm not interested mainly because there are others here who are not interested in discussing the basis for thinking there is a god but are more interested in the opportunities for intellectual masturbation that frequently present themselves here.

Anyway, you too probably deserve an equally honest answer to your response to my earlier post and in the interests of adding to the discussion of the basis for thinking there is a god here is a link to a source for the argument for the non-existence of atheists

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

I'm not asking you to do that at all. But if your inability to prove the existence of a supreme being could potentially damage your faith, then that speaks volumes, doesn't it.

I would advise you to keep your faith and don't do any searching. True faith can be a wonderful gift, I know. I just don't have it.

What does your inability to prove the non existence of a supreme being do to you?

Given that St Thomas and the other the eye witnesses to Christs resurrection and assumption into heaven also had to have faith despite the fact that they also had the best possible proof the level of evidence required in this thread has to be measured.

If there was a scrap of evidence sufficient to prove to you, and others here, that God exists it would not only destroy my faith but the faith of anyone who agreed it was proof that God exists. Why would we need faith if we had proof?

If we had that proof then Heaven and Hell would also become proven realities and many sinners would quite simply go mad. Given the current world population that many mad people may not be a good thing.

Equally you probably have I suspect correctly ascertained that I believe that you cannot come up with proof beyond all reasonable doubt for the non existence of God. I'm not saying your arguments are bad or poor but as they equally cannot be substantiated they would only work on the gullible or the like minded IMO.

Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile.

So while my position may speak volumes I'm not sure they're the volumes you were thinking of.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

What does your inability to prove the non existence of a supreme being do to you?

Given that St Thomas and the other the eye witnesses to Christs resurrection and assumption into heaven also had to have faith despite the fact that they also had the best possible proof the level of evidence required in this thread has to be measured.

If there was a scrap of evidence sufficient to prove to you, and others here, that God exists it would not only destroy my faith but the faith of anyone who agreed it was proof that God exists. Why would we need faith if we had proof?

If we had that proof then Heaven and Hell would also become proven realities and many sinners would quite simply go mad. Given the current world population that many mad people may not be a good thing.

Equally you probably have I suspect correctly ascertained that I believe that you cannot come up with proof beyond all reasonable doubt for the non existence of God. I'm not saying your arguments are bad or poor but as they equally cannot be substantiated they would only work on the gullible or the like minded IMO.

Other apologists may give you a better run for your money but for me as the proof of the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible, and neither is the proof of the non existence of God, the exercise while interesting up to a point, is ultimately futile.

So while my position may speak volumes I'm not sure they're the volumes you were thinking of.

why one God over any other God then ? Or even your version of that one God ?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

why one God over any other God then ? Or even your version of that one God ?

My evidence, or rather the evidence I have, only covers God

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

My evidence, or rather the evidence I have, only covers God

Did you eliminate the others ? Or the variations within your own faith ?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Did you eliminate the others ? Or the variations within your own faith ?

I only know of God so your questions are unclear.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

I only know of God so your questions are unclear.

Are you of a particular faith ? If I may ask .

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Are you of a particular faith ? If I may ask .

Does it matter in the context of this thread and if so why?

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

Does it matter in the context of this thread and if so why?

In a thread mainly of atheists , it matters not a jot. Doesn't make it less interesting though. And you might even convince someone , unlikely though that is.

Hardly makes for a discussion though if your point is -I know God exists and I have proof - and you refuse to expand

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

In a thread mainly of atheists , it matters not a jot. Doesn't make it less interesting though. And you might even convince someone , unlikely though that is.

'f your minds are made up and your hearts are hard so unlikely it is

marienbad wrote: »

Hardly makes for a discussion though if your point is -I know God exists and I have proof - and you refuse to expand

I didn't say that. re read what I actually said and try again.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

'f your minds are made up and your hearts are hard so unlikely it is



I didn't say that. re read what I actually said and try again.

Life is too short , if you are not interested in engaging so be it . Surprising how defensive faith posters are when it comes down to it.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

My evidence, or rather the evidence I have, only covers God

Your "evidence" is purely based on a book or books written thousands of years ago, when science was largely unknown. If you ignore science and take the stories which are impossible within the laws of physics, as being literally true, then you absolutely need to close your mind and say "this actually happened, even though I know there is no way it can be explained".
For the sake of argument, if you had never ever heard about God or the Bible until you were a well educated 21 year old, and it was suddenly presented to you as the real way things happened, do you think you would be convinced? Do you think you could abandon everything you had studied about physics evolution and science and latch on to this new story you had just heard about?