Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Those experiences may occur while the brain is in a state of diminishing activity in conjunction with different ‘pleasure’ endorphins. Even if they did become clinically dead, you still have the that state of mind right before that happens and in that time frame the memories could be stored to be recalled after they are revived.

Quite frankly, it’s all speculation as to why these experiences happen. It’s not really scientific, but my problem with these types of claims is that these types of experiences can be duplicated by what have been coined ‘dissociative psychadelics,’ ketamine and dextromethorphan just to mention a couple.[/quote]

Dextromethorphan - that’s the stuff in cough syrup. I’m serving Robitussin at my next party!

But in all seriousness, you are correct. One would need to review all of the facts to make an informed judgment. I know there have been instances of people being immersed in cold water, they became clinically dead, but the cold water slowed their metabolisms to such an extent that they were later revived. Many of these stories involved little kids who are especially resilient. Unfortunately, they suffered permanent brain damage as a result, but they lived.

I have to be highly skeptical about the pastor who was embalmed. Embalming fluid is poison and designed to replace all of the blood in the body. No one can survive that - it’s impossible.[/quote]

…why do you bother using logic with the sky wizard folk?

Here is what the response will be:

“It doesn’t matter that its impossible! Sky wizard can do anything so he made it happen using sky magic!”[/quote]

Really big boy? I made an argument, prove me wrong…

222

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.[/quote]

You’re right, I can’t claim specific qualities. When I said that this Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans what I meant was that the cosmological argument does not support the idea of a Deity as envisioned by Christianity - a Deity that loves us and sent a son who was crucified in order to save us from sin. The cosmological argument supports the possibility that a deistic being may exist, but from that we cannot know anything more about this being. Again, is it possible for this Deity to love us and care for us? Sure, but given the suffering that goes on around the world, I find that highly unlikely. I understand that Christianity has an explanation for all of this with the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not convinced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Any being who would condemn billions of his “children” to death and suffering because of what two people did some 6,000 years ago is not a being filled with love and compassion.
[/quote]

I agree with your assessment of the cosmological argument. All it does it support the possibility. I have no problem with that. And while I certainly have a different opinion about the doctrine of Original Sin, I can understand your reservations.

As far as condemning billions of His children for two people’s actions is concerned, are you referring to suffering and death on earth, or are you referring to hell?

223
224

Its a pretty amazing account of how he died and his near death experience…you can watch the other videos on youtube if you’d like. Its a series of 10 I won’t post them all. But as you can see, theres Thousands maybe more of these type of experiences, some similar but many different. I wouldn’t chalk it up to chemicals in the brain either.

225
226

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.[/quote]

You’re right, I can’t claim specific qualities. When I said that this Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans what I meant was that the cosmological argument does not support the idea of a Deity as envisioned by Christianity - a Deity that loves us and sent a son who was crucified in order to save us from sin. The cosmological argument supports the possibility that a deistic being may exist, but from that we cannot know anything more about this being. Again, is it possible for this Deity to love us and care for us? Sure, but given the suffering that goes on around the world, I find that highly unlikely. I understand that Christianity has an explanation for all of this with the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not convinced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Any being who would condemn billions of his “children” to death and suffering because of what two people did some 6,000 years ago is not a being filled with love and compassion.
[/quote]

I agree with your assessment of the cosmological argument. All it does it support the possibility. I have no problem with that. And while I certainly have a different opinion about the doctrine of Original Sin, I can understand your reservations.

As far as condemning billions of His children for two people’s actions is concerned, are you referring to suffering and death on earth, or are you referring to hell?[/quote]

Well, if I may jump in…

To go from uncaused-cause to God of the Bible is quite few steps in to the journey. So if you accept uncaused-cause, at least for the sake of argument, you can draw some parallels. Once you have come to the conclusion of uncaused-cause, next you have to figure out what “it” is. There is only a couple of things we can ‘know’ about the uncaused-cause. First, it has to independent of realm, universe, whatever, or more simply, it has to sit outside the causal chain, be able to affect it and not be affected by it. To be a cause and not be caused, it must possess something, like a will otherwise, why would it create.
Looking at God as described in the bible (or any other religion where the object of worship is the creator) you can draw some similarities. Both create and are not created, both have a will, both necessarily exist outside of creation. Not a deduction, but a strong inference that God and uncaused-cause are one and the same. Actually there can’t be two creators of everything, so that alone is the strongest link…

Now fast forwarding massively ahead to original sin, it’s sorely misunderstood and I am not going to pretend to be a scholar, I’ll just give you my take on it from what I do know. Sin means to defy or go against God in someway. God gave this ability to choose to man. Man chose to separate himself from God through sin. Since we have the ability to choose, we have to either choose to draw back close to him through the situation we were given, or to continue to separate further. What you cannot do, is choose not to decide… ← Way different the the philosophical discussions of creation and existence.

227

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.[/quote]

You’re right, I can’t claim specific qualities. When I said that this Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans what I meant was that the cosmological argument does not support the idea of a Deity as envisioned by Christianity - a Deity that loves us and sent a son who was crucified in order to save us from sin. The cosmological argument supports the possibility that a deistic being may exist, but from that we cannot know anything more about this being. Again, is it possible for this Deity to love us and care for us? Sure, but given the suffering that goes on around the world, I find that highly unlikely. I understand that Christianity has an explanation for all of this with the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not convinced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Any being who would condemn billions of his “children” to death and suffering because of what two people did some 6,000 years ago is not a being filled with love and compassion.
[/quote]

I agree with your assessment of the cosmological argument. All it does it support the possibility. I have no problem with that. And while I certainly have a different opinion about the doctrine of Original Sin, I can understand your reservations.

As far as condemning billions of His children for two people’s actions is concerned, are you referring to suffering and death on earth, or are you referring to hell?[/quote]

Well, if I may jump in…

To go from uncaused-cause to God of the Bible is quite few steps in to the journey. So if you accept uncaused-cause, at least for the sake of argument, you can draw some parallels. Once you have come to the conclusion of uncaused-cause, next you have to figure out what “it” is. There is only a couple of things we can ‘know’ about the uncaused-cause. First, it has to independent of realm, universe, whatever, or more simply, it has to sit outside the causal chain, be able to affect it and not be affected by it. To be a cause and not be caused, it must possess something, like a will otherwise, why would it create.
Looking at God as described in the bible (or any other religion where the object of worship is the creator) you can draw some similarities. Both create and are not created, both have a will, both necessarily exist outside of creation. Not a deduction, but a strong inference that God and uncaused-cause are one and the same. Actually there can’t be two creators of everything, so that alone is the strongest link…

Now fast forwarding massively ahead to original sin, it’s sorely misunderstood and I am not going to pretend to be a scholar, I’ll just give you my take on it from what I do know. Sin means to defy or go against God in someway. God gave this ability to choose to man. Man chose to separate himself from God through sin. Since we have the ability to choose, we have to either choose to draw back close to him through the situation we were given, or to continue to separate further. What you cannot do, is choose not to decide… ← Way different the the philosophical discussions of creation and existence.[/quote]

I agree with this, Pat. And for me, I have zero problem drawing the conclusions you laid out. What it doesn’t do is explicitly prove my and your God in a way that satisfies Mike’s skepticism.

Unfortunately our earthly condition with pain, suffering, death of loved ones, and hard times seem to keep a lot of people from believing. When we say “God is good”, the conversation seems to devolve into-“well if He’s so good, why isn’t my life peaches and cream?” It seems that a “Heaven on Earth” is what is expected from a benevolent God. Which leads us back down the path of Original Sin where, before it, humans actually had something like that.

228

977×1210 318 KB

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

Its a pretty amazing account of how he died and his near death experience…you can watch the other videos on youtube if you’d like. Its a series of 10 I won’t post them all. But as you can see, theres Thousands maybe more of these type of experiences, some similar but many different. I wouldn’t chalk it up to chemicals in the brain either.[/quote]

I’ve always found NDEs fascinating.

They don’t seem to be a strictly Christian phenomena. Different cultures and beliefs have reported them long before Christ. I find it interesting that the Buddhist description of “true self” involves rejoining a luminescent blue-white light, which is powerful yet not blinding and instills you with an overwhelming sense of peace. Sounds familiar to many NDEs.

It seems as though young children can experience them, however their visions tend to be far less complex than adult ones. Stories have emerged about kids meeting grandparents and other deceased relatives they’ve never even seen photos of, which is pretty amazing.

The “brain-death/massive release of DMT” theory has a lot of holes in it IMO, namely how can people across different cultures and over thousands of years experience incredibly similar “hallucinations” given the exact same drug? Give a thousand people high dosages of LSD or ketamine and you’ll get a 1000 different recollections of the experience. There are of course common elements, such as seeing “tracers”, but the human brain is so complex that it conjures up different visions. Seeing a tunnel, an overwhelming sense of peace, speaking with dead relatives, in many cases floating over your body…these are VERY specific phenomena that I don’t feel the scientific explanation has fully covered.

I’m an atheist, but I’m open-minded about the possibility of a higher power, and these NDEs warrant further examination.

Check out this woodblock print of Gustave Dore, who illustrated much of Dante’s divine comedy. It shows the entrance to heaven

229

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.[/quote]

You’re right, I can’t claim specific qualities. When I said that this Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans what I meant was that the cosmological argument does not support the idea of a Deity as envisioned by Christianity - a Deity that loves us and sent a son who was crucified in order to save us from sin. The cosmological argument supports the possibility that a deistic being may exist, but from that we cannot know anything more about this being. Again, is it possible for this Deity to love us and care for us? Sure, but given the suffering that goes on around the world, I find that highly unlikely. I understand that Christianity has an explanation for all of this with the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not convinced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Any being who would condemn billions of his “children” to death and suffering because of what two people did some 6,000 years ago is not a being filled with love and compassion.
[/quote]

I agree with your assessment of the cosmological argument. All it does it support the possibility. I have no problem with that. And while I certainly have a different opinion about the doctrine of Original Sin, I can understand your reservations.

As far as condemning billions of His children for two people’s actions is concerned, are you referring to suffering and death on earth, or are you referring to hell?[/quote]

Well, if I may jump in…

To go from uncaused-cause to God of the Bible is quite few steps in to the journey. So if you accept uncaused-cause, at least for the sake of argument, you can draw some parallels. Once you have come to the conclusion of uncaused-cause, next you have to figure out what “it” is. There is only a couple of things we can ‘know’ about the uncaused-cause. First, it has to independent of realm, universe, whatever, or more simply, it has to sit outside the causal chain, be able to affect it and not be affected by it. To be a cause and not be caused, it must possess something, like a will otherwise, why would it create.
Looking at God as described in the bible (or any other religion where the object of worship is the creator) you can draw some similarities. Both create and are not created, both have a will, both necessarily exist outside of creation. Not a deduction, but a strong inference that God and uncaused-cause are one and the same. Actually there can’t be two creators of everything, so that alone is the strongest link…

Now fast forwarding massively ahead to original sin, it’s sorely misunderstood and I am not going to pretend to be a scholar, I’ll just give you my take on it from what I do know. Sin means to defy or go against God in someway. God gave this ability to choose to man. Man chose to separate himself from God through sin. Since we have the ability to choose, we have to either choose to draw back close to him through the situation we were given, or to continue to separate further. What you cannot do, is choose not to decide… ← Way different the the philosophical discussions of creation and existence.[/quote]

I agree with this, Pat. And for me, I have zero problem drawing the conclusions you laid out. What it doesn’t do is explicitly prove my and your God in a way that satisfies Mike’s skepticism.

Unfortunately our earthly condition with pain, suffering, death of loved ones, and hard times seem to keep a lot of people from believing. When we say “God is good”, the conversation seems to devolve into-“well if He’s so good, why isn’t my life peaches and cream?” It seems that a “Heaven on Earth” is what is expected from a benevolent God. Which leads us back down the path of Original Sin where, before it, humans actually had something like that.[/quote]

And they have a point, really. Technically, God could have made an existence with less suckyness to it.
The problem of evil, not a supposed lack of evidence, is the number one reason people don’t believe, don’t care or are flat angry. Everybody’s journey is there own.

230

Check this out. I might actually read this book to see how much he stirs the pot.

231

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

Its a pretty amazing account of how he died and his near death experience…you can watch the other videos on youtube if you’d like. Its a series of 10 I won’t post them all. But as you can see, theres Thousands maybe more of these type of experiences, some similar but many different. I wouldn’t chalk it up to chemicals in the brain either.[/quote]

I’ve always found NDEs fascinating.

They don’t seem to be a strictly Christian phenomena. Different cultures and beliefs have reported them long before Christ. I find it interesting that the Buddhist description of “true self” involves rejoining a luminescent blue-white light, which is powerful yet not blinding and instills you with an overwhelming sense of peace. Sounds familiar to many NDEs.

It seems as though young children can experience them, however their visions tend to be far less complex than adult ones. Stories have emerged about kids meeting grandparents and other deceased relatives they’ve never even seen photos of, which is pretty amazing.

The “brain-death/massive release of DMT” theory has a lot of holes in it IMO, namely how can people across different cultures and over thousands of years experience incredibly similar “hallucinations” given the exact same drug? Give a thousand people high dosages of LSD or ketamine and you’ll get a 1000 different recollections of the experience. There are of course common elements, such as seeing “tracers”, but the human brain is so complex that it conjures up different visions. Seeing a tunnel, an overwhelming sense of peace, speaking with dead relatives, in many cases floating over your body…these are VERY specific phenomena that I don’t feel the scientific explanation has fully covered.

I’m an atheist, but I’m open-minded about the possibility of a higher power, and these NDEs warrant further examination.

Check out this woodblock print of Gustave Dore, who illustrated much of Dante’s divine comedy. It shows the entrance to heaven[/quote]

Yeah to me science doesn’t make sense when describing a near death experience…especially if someone is pronounced clinically dead for minutes to hours of time. Without oxygen the brain can’t function.

232
233
234
235

THis puts us back on track for this thread

236
237

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

Check this out. I might actually read this book to see how much he stirs the pot.[/quote]

Are you fucking serious? Kirk Cameron? The asshole lost his “Atheism” at the age of 17. If you’ve actually watched debates with him, he’s a idiot who doesn’t understand anything.

238

FrozenNinja, I have to ask: How old are you?

239

24

240