Atheism

Originally posted by Digi
Yes and no. To me, all good is human good, and all evil is human evil. So I'm of the mind that if you removed religion, most of both would continue to exist. However, there are such things as catalysts for good/evil. Religion can undoubtedly be a catalyst either way, especially when it involves large groups of people. Few other institutions can mobilize such fervor.

The trick is in identifying which sects, or sometimes which specific beliefs, act as those negative catalysts. But it's irresponsible to pretend they don't exist.

Even if you don't have religon you will have beliefs and people will fight over that and yes you can have atheistic religons.

Originally posted by Digi

According to our best knowledge, we live in an entirely deterministic universe, from which we are not exempt. In most schools of philosophy, this makes religious concepts of free will incoherent, and also calls into question things like punishment, retribution, and moral responsibility.

Ok.

Originally posted by Digi

I appreciate the summary, but I've also researched NDEs extensively. They do no such thing as prove an afterlife, and most of the effects of NDEs have entirely scientifically sound explanations behind them. If you really think this unequivocally proves an afterlife, your research is incomplete.

*groan*
You've done some research but the problem is you can't make a logical argument with what you know. Now you've just resorted to running away from the argument because you know you'll lose.

Love to see how you can explain how a person whose been blind their whole life can see during an NDE. Yea I know, you're going to dodge the question and just claim theirs an explanation. Making statements is a great way to win a debate.

Originally posted by Digi

This was a defensible position as recently as probably 100 years ago. But our understanding of the universe has evolved. Several plausible theories exist that explain how the universe came to be without the need for such divine intervention. Some have empirical evidence to back them up, and/or mathematical models that suggest their validity. It would take too much of our time to go into each now, but they're easily found. Granted, it's not absolute proof, but it's enough to call BS on arguments like this for the existence of god.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a creator NEEDS to be present, it's a monumental logical leap to decide that it's a theistic god. Why not an extradimensional creative force? Or other unknown origin?

At the absolute worst, we could say we don't know for sure, at which point your god hypothesis lacks evidence and is no more likely to be the correct hypothesis than a scientific, mathematical, or other explanation (and, frankly, less likely than some with at least some evidence for them).

Think you've completely missed the point possibly (probably) deliberately as well. So here it is again. I'm not talking about a creator god I'm talking about bare minimum lesser gods. They don't have to be eternal or infinite they just need to be vastly more powerful than humans. Beings like that most likely exist.

Originally posted by Digi

Sure, but doing something thinking you won't be caught isn't an atheistic trait. It's a d*ck-ish trait, and has nothing to do with atheism, which is only - I repeat, only - a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Applying moral characteristics to atheism is flatly false, since at that point morals are determined individually.

But, back to your example, the consequence is that you introduce evil, negativity, suffering, sadness, etc. into the world. There doesn't need to be a divine judge for this to be readily apparent.

You are incorrect being a d*ck can 100% be an atheist trait I'm afraid but not neccesarily. The reason is that atheism can have other beliefs that stem from it and being a d*ck can be one of them.

Originally posted by Deadline
Even if you don't have religon you will have beliefs and people will fight over that and yes you can have atheistic religons.

Agreed, and I said as much in my post, but none of that actually responds to what I said about religion. Do you agree or disagree that there are religions and beliefs that act as negative catalysts to create evil where none would exist otherwise?

Originally posted by Deadline
*groan*
You've done some research but the problem is you can't make a logical argument with what you know. Now you've just resorted to running away from the argument because you know you'll lose.

Love to see how you can explain how a person whose been blind their whole life can see during an NDE. Yea I know, you're going to dodge the question and just claim theirs an explanation. Making statements is a great way to win a debate.

I like how you presume my response. I guess there's no reason for me to respond, because you've figured me out, eh? This is just a friendly reminder that I won't continue a discussion with you if you're going to act so petulantly. At the very least, I'm trying to engage you in a discussion, not put words in your mouth. If I don't receive the same courtesy, there's no point here.

Anyway. This gets burden of proof backward. It also accepts non-empirical, non-testable, entirely subjective (and, given the circumstances, highly suspect) testimony as fact. It also ignores possible scientific explanations for such phenomenon (which do exist in spades). It also makes a huge logical leap from - at best - "something we can't fully explain" all the way to "abject proof of an afterlife." This isn't dodging the question; it's presenting problems with your argument. If you can't see them as such, your understanding of these concepts (both logical and scientific) is severely lacking.

Originally posted by Deadline
Think you've completely missed the point possibly (probably) deliberately as well. So here it is again. I'm not talking about a creator god I'm talking about bare minimum lesser gods. They don't have to be eternal or infinite they just need to be vastly more powerful than humans. Beings like that most likely exist.

So, like, powerful aliens? Sure, I'd rate the possibility of their existence as significantly higher. But that seems beside the point to me. We pretty much know how we came to be, from the big bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, to the evolution of life on earth. Nothing resembling a God or gods - infinite OR lesser - needs to be around for any of that to have happened. At that point, the concept of god is relegated to hyperintelligent aliens (which I wouldn't call gods in the way we're using the term in this discussion) or a "first cause" creator that is entirely unknowable and no more likely than the competing scientific theories I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by Deadline
You are incorrect being a d*ck can 100% be an atheist trait I'm afraid but not neccesarily. The reason is that atheism can have other beliefs that stem from it and being a d*ck can be one of them.

Ok, lol. Yes, it can be a trait that an atheist has. It also can be a trait that a Christian has. Or a Muslim. Or...anything. You get the idea. It's not an atheist trait, however, because phrasing it like that would be saying the position of atheism itself is d*ckish. And it's not. Again - for comical redundancy - atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything beyond that is particular to the individual, not inherent to the belief itself.

Originally posted by Digi
Again - for comical redundancy - atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything beyond that is particular to the individual, not inherent to the belief itself.

You're forgetting that atheists have no morals because they don't believe in god. 💃

how is...

how does being an atheist mean you dont have morals

morals are a social construct on a institutional and cultural level such as education, religious or community or cultural areas and regions

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed, and I said as much in my post, but none of that actually responds to what I said about religion. Do you agree or disagree that there are religions and beliefs that act as negative catalysts to create evil where none would exist otherwise?

It's not really mean't to respond to anything. I'm just telling you what I think. Yea obvously....and you can have atheistic beliefs and relgions.

Originally posted by Digi

I like how you presume my response. I guess there's no reason for me to respond, because you've figured me out, eh? This is just a friendly reminder that I won't continue a discussion with you if you're going to act so petulantly. At the very least, I'm trying to engage you in a discussion, not put words in your mouth. If I don't receive the same courtesy, there's no point here.

You mean telling you what you're going to do before you do it? Ok fair enough, can't guarantee I will stop any sarcasm though.

Originally posted by Digi

Anyway. This gets burden of proof backward. It also accepts non-empirical, non-testable, entirely subjective (and, given the circumstances, highly suspect) testimony as fact.

Please specify what aspects of NDEs you consider to be non-empirical, non-testable, entirely subjective and why the testimony is highly suspect. Yes I can guess what aspects you are refering to but NDEs involve different things. Specify so I don't misunderstand.

By the way what do you think of trial by jury if you were the President would you keep this?

Originally posted by Digi

It also ignores possible scientific explanations for such phenomenon (which do exist in spades). It also makes a huge logical leap from - at best - "something we can't fully explain" all the way to "abject proof of an afterlife." This isn't dodging the question; it's presenting problems with your argument. If you can't see them as such, your understanding of these concepts (both logical and scientific) is severely lacking.

You are 100% dodging the question because you have not explained why you think this is the case you have stated it is. Making a statement about something and then being condescending to somebody with a difference of opinion does not prove your case.

You may think the Romans were more civilised than the Greeks regardless of what your opinion is or what the truth is you need to explain your point of view in a debate.

Originally posted by Digi

So, like, powerful aliens? Sure, I'd rate the possibility of their existence as significantly higher. But that seems beside the point to me. We pretty much know how we came to be, from the big bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, to the evolution of life on earth. Nothing resembling a God or gods - infinite OR lesser - needs to be around for any of that to have happened. At that point, the concept of god is relegated to hyperintelligent aliens (which I wouldn't call gods in the way we're using the term in this discussion) or a "first cause" creator that is entirely unknowable and no more likely than the competing scientific theories I mentioned earlier.

Digi you are obsessed with Christianity and when dealing with religion and the concepts of gods you focus on it. Just because my definition of a god isn't the same as the christian god doesn't mean it isn't a god. 😐

Just because YOU don't want to talk about anything but the Christian god in this discussion doesn't mean that a powerful alien doesn't fit the definition of a god. It's like trying to argue that Karate isn't a martial art because you hate Kung Fu and want to focus on it.

The fact of the matter of matter is a powerful alien fits the definition of a god.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Example sentences

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

Originally posted by Digi

Ok, lol. Yes, it can be a trait that an atheist has. It also can be a trait that a Christian has. Or a Muslim. Or...anything. You get the idea. It's not an atheist trait, however, because phrasing it like that would be saying the position of atheism itself is d*ckish.

🤨 Wow!

Originally posted by Digi

And it's not. Again - for comical redundancy - atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything beyond that is particular to the individual, not inherent to the belief itself.

Ok this is were I think I'm going to give up. Please stop stating that something isn't true without backing it up with an explanation. I can't have a debate with somebody who keeps dodging the points and keeps repeating his point of view without a logical explanation.

We both know that atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods the point is this - you can have a belief that stems from not believing in God or gods and that belief would therefore be an atheistic belief or trait, that's the point. The individual personality can affect this but still doesn't change the fact it can stem from atheism. You keep stating that this isn't the case without an explanation. Let me give you an example:

Digi and Deadline go on Safari

Me: I'm going to bring a rifle because there maybe some lions.
Digi: I'm not going to bother because I don't think there are going to be any lions there.
Me: So the reason why you're not bringing a rifle is connected to you're belief that lions won't be there?
Digi:No it's got nothing to do with it.
Me: That makes sense how? We both know what a lion is they're dangerous. I think they're going to be there so I'm bringing a rilfe. You don't think there are going to be any there so you're not bringing one, so in other words you think it's safe not to do so. You not bringing a rifle is connected to the fact you don't think theres going to be a lion there..
Digi: It's still got nothing to do with it.
Me: Huh?
Digi: If you can't understand that then you're understanding of logic is severely lacking.
Me: 🤨

Yes a god or God is different from a lion but the fact of the matter is a god or a god is still something. So if you know what something is and you believe that thing is absent its going to affect what you do or think. Obvously though this will depend on the situation and person.

I'm relegated to my phone until I can fix my computer, so my response will have to be put on hold. Posting from my phone is a legit pain, and these religion discussions tend to go on and on. I'll respond when I'm able, though.

Originally posted by Digi
and these religion discussions tend to go on and on.

Tell me about it.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
how does being an atheist mean you dont have morals

We wouldn't have morals without religion, obviously. 🤣

please elaborate

He's being sarcastic.

hoow do you manage such perfect sarcasm on a internet forum?!

Originally posted by Deadline
You mean telling you what you're going to do before you do it? Ok fair enough, can't guarantee I will stop any sarcasm though.

Hardly reassuring, but ok.

Originally posted by Deadline
specify what aspects of NDEs you consider to be non-empirical, non-testable, entirely subjective and why the testimony is highly suspect. Yes I can guess what aspects you are refering to but NDEs involve different things. Specify so I don't misunderstand.

By the way what do you think of trial by jury if you were the President would you keep this?

The testimony is highly suspect because it is coming from the unreliable subjective experiences of someone who is near death. That's all I'm saying. Our memories are much more fallible than we often realize, and that's when we're entirely coherent. When under such stress and trauma, there's almost no way to reliably relate our experiences while knowing the causes that created them.

NDEs themselves are usually quite testable, and in instances where we've been able to monitor brain activity closely in similar situations, we see results that explain much of what people tend to experience, such as out of body experiences, heightened sensory input, and lights at ends of tunnels.

Earlier you mentioned a specific example. And it's a bit unfair to do. I'm here in my apartment, with no information whatsoever on the case you referred to. Not even a link in a newspaper, much less empirical studies related to the phenomenon. So I can't give you an explanation for it, and if I did, you could be sure that I was either a liar or a god myself. But at every point where we've been able to research NDEs in controlled settings, we've discovered the underlying causes of numerous phenomena. The only unexplained cases remain those where such controls weren't present and are based solely on personal testimony. So not being able to write a research paper explaining your demand earlier means nothing for your cause, except that you're not applying any skepticism to the situation and that you're asking the wrong people.

And so, among reported cases of NDEs, many are explainable. I'm also sure there are a few that aren't immediately explainable. Our knowledge isn't perfect. But you seem to be taking the stance that "no immediately explanation = proof of afterlife." Whereas my stance is more along the lines of "no immediate explanation = something we can't explain yet." Feel free to clarify your position if this isn't what you're doing.

Also, I abhor our current jury system. I can only speak to the US, where we have one of the highest peer-jury conviction rates in the world, and where we tend to value personal testimony - which has been proven to be far less reliable than we assume (google stuff on the unreliability of memory for more) - over things like DNA evidence that have orders of magnitude less likelihood of being false.

Originally posted by Deadline
are 100% dodging the question because you have not explained why you think this is the case you have stated it is. Making a statement about something and then being condescending to somebody with a difference of opinion does not prove your case.

I think you're seeing condescension where none exists. Outside of you putting words in my mouth, which I explicitly called out, I haven't tried to do anything but discuss this. As you know, it's hard not to match antagonism with more of the same, but I'm trying. We're precariously close to that point where we stop talking about the topic and lose any point to this. Try to keep it together, and I'll do the same.

Originally posted by Deadline
you are obsessed with Christianity and when dealing with religion and the concepts of gods you focus on it. Just because my definition of a god isn't the same as the christian god doesn't mean it isn't a god. 😐

Just because YOU don't want to talk about anything but the Christian god in this discussion doesn't mean that a powerful alien doesn't fit the definition of a god. It's like trying to argue that Karate isn't a martial art because you hate Kung Fu and want to focus on it.

More assumptions. I asked you specifically if you were talking about powerful aliens. I had no reason to believe that was part of our discussion until your earlier comments. I wasn't purposely trying to steer it toward a particular definition of God; I just thought that's what we were talking about. Your clarification could have come without the attack.

Anyway, I have no problem with the possibility of super-intelligent aliens existing, and if they do, I have no problem applying a more broad definition of "god" to them. It's not the term I'd use, but I wouldn't argue the point. That said, there still exists no evidence for such alien intervention in human creation or affairs. So I hold it as possible only, not plausible at this point.

Originally posted by Deadline
this is were I think I'm going to give up. Please stop stating that something isn't true without backing it up with an explanation. I can't have a debate with somebody who keeps dodging the points and keeps repeating his point of view without a logical explanation.

We both know that atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods the point is this - you can have a belief that stems from not believing in God or gods and that belief would therefore be an atheistic belief or trait, that's the point. The individual personality can affect this but still doesn't change the fact it can stem from atheism. You keep stating that this isn't the case without an explanation.

You can, yes. Point is, it doesn't happen too often, because the whole idea behind atheism is that there isn't a central doctrine beyond the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nearly any organized religion has some sort of doctrine or creed, so that you can point to individual beliefs and say "that's a Buddhist belief" or "that's a Pastafarian belief" or whatever. But I struggle to do that with atheism, because what other universals does it have?

So I don't know what to say to this, because I can't name any beliefs outside of that that I consider explicitly atheist. I literally can't. Every atheist I know or have studied is a free thinker; i.e. forms their own beliefs beyond the central idea of no god/gods. There's no coherence beyond that. Hell, I know atheists that still pray, because they enjoy the feeling of gratitude it inspires in them. I don't know if they believe the prayer is affecting anything outside themselves (I doubt it, but I've never asked...maybe they believe in some metaphysical law of attraction), but it's just one example among many.

So you're going to have to be the one that makes this case. You seem to be demanding that I acknowledge something as atheistic when I see no reason to do so.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
hoow do you manage such perfect sarcasm on a internet forum?!

With practice. Also smilies. The rolling head smilie was a dead giveaway.

😉

cheers

Sorry about the delay...

Originally posted by Digi
Hardly reassuring, but ok.

The testimony is highly suspect because it is coming from the unreliable subjective experiences of someone who is near death. That's all I'm saying. Our memories are much more fallible than we often realize, and that's when we're entirely coherent. When under such stress and trauma, there's almost no way to reliably relate our experiences while knowing the causes that created them.

Don't know about that. I remember having a debate about this with somebody and apparently our memories are more accurate in traumatic circumstances. Also in some cases other people are interviewied in order to verify the accuracy of events so it's not subjective.

Originally posted by Digi

NDEs themselves are usually quite testable, and in instances where we've been able to monitor brain activity closely in similar situations, we see results that explain much of what people tend to experience, such as out of body experiences, heightened sensory input, and lights at ends of tunnels.

Ok Digi with all due respect this point seems to be going completely over your head. Those circumstances you're refering to do not explain what people are seeing in NDEs. In an NDE a person is having a cardiac arrest, the brain shuts down in seconds. In those circumstances (and maybe you need to tell me what those are) I suspect you are dealing with people whose brain is fully functional.

They're similar in that they are both horizontal but the important difference is the state of the brain and in NDEs and the example you're refering to the state of the brain is the most important factor.

Originally posted by Digi

Earlier you mentioned a specific example. And it's a bit unfair to do. I'm here in my apartment, with no information whatsoever on the case you referred to. Not even a link in a newspaper, much less empirical studies related to the phenomenon. So I can't give you an explanation for it, and if I did, you could be sure that I was either a liar or a god myself. But at every point where we've been able to research NDEs in controlled settings, we've discovered the underlying causes of numerous phenomena. The only unexplained cases remain those where such controls weren't present and are based solely on personal testimony. So not being able to write a research paper explaining your demand earlier means nothing for your cause, except that you're not applying any skepticism to the situation and that you're asking the wrong people.

This argument about controlled setting is really irrelevant. Its is already a scientific fact that when somebody has a cardiac arrest that the persons brain is shutting down, so they don't need to monitor for something that is already a fact.

Originally posted by Digi

And so, among reported cases of NDEs, many are explainable. I'm also sure there are a few that aren't immediately explainable. Our knowledge isn't perfect. But you seem to be taking the stance that "no immediately explanation = proof of afterlife." Whereas my stance is more along the lines of "no immediate explanation = something we can't explain yet." Feel free to clarify your position if this isn't what you're doing.

Again you've haven't provided anything that explains it because you keep giving examples which are the complete opposite. This is my stance - the question is how do we prove that there is life after death? First of all we need science to tell us wether a person is dead or not. Current science tells us that in order for somebody to be alive we need the heart and brain to work, therefore if they shut down the person is dead. Furthermore if the tech that we have indicates that the heart and brain isn't working then it's not working. So my opinion that they're dead is based on what know about current science and tech.

Your stance is you don't want to believe they're dead because you don't want to. Which is why you keep giving examples which are the complete opposite and can't provide any proof that they're still alive.

Also I'm not stupid you know I do realise you could be right. I'm trying to help you keep an open mind.

Anyway what helps NDEs more are veridical ones. A good one is Pam Reynolds also The Mindsight study conducted by Kenneth Ring and another psychologist. I'll admit I need to looks at that in more detail but as far as I'm aware other scientists have refered to it and it was refered to in a medical journal, that however was behind a pay wall and I'm not willing to go into further research with it just yet. You can buy the book if you want.

Originally posted by Digi

Also, I abhor our current jury system. I can only speak to the US, where we have one of the highest peer-jury conviction rates in the world, and where we tend to value personal testimony - which has been proven to be far less reliable than we assume (google stuff on the unreliability of memory for more) - over things like DNA evidence that have orders of magnitude less likelihood of being false.

Digi you accept anecdotal evidence all the time. Anecdotal evidence is acceptable as evidence it depends who said it, how many people, state of mind etc. Yes I've googled it and one thing that was stated people who remember traumatic events remember them more clearly.

Originally posted by Digi

I think you're seeing condescension where none exists. Outside of you putting words in my mouth, which I explicitly called out, I haven't tried to do anything but discuss this. As you know, it's hard not to match antagonism with more of the same, but I'm trying. We're precariously close to that point where we stop talking about the topic and lose any point to this. Try to keep it together, and I'll do the same.

No you're condescending. Not going to have a debate with you about it lets move on.

Originally posted by Digi

More assumptions. I asked you specifically if you were talking about powerful aliens. I had no reason to believe that was part of our discussion until your earlier comments. I wasn't purposely trying to steer it toward a particular definition of God; I just thought that's what we were talking about. Your clarification could have come without the attack.

Anyway, I have no problem with the possibility of super-intelligent aliens existing, and if they do, I have no problem applying a more broad definition of "god" to them. It's not the term I'd use, but I wouldn't argue the point. That said, there still exists no evidence for such alien intervention in human creation or affairs. So I hold it as possible only, not plausible at this point.

Well we already had this discussion before about powerful aliens were you wanted to exclude them from the definition because they were not supernatural ie they didn't perform magic. What do you call that? That is restricting the definition to an absurd level.

Why would you think I'm just talking about only the christian god when the last time we debated we talked about powerful aliens and you know I'm not a Christian?

I don't think I'm broadening the definition. Lets exclude intervention for now do you think just there existance is possible not plausible, if so why?

Originally posted by Digi

You can, yes. Point is, it doesn't happen too often, because the whole idea behind atheism is that there isn't a central doctrine beyond the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nearly any organized religion has some sort of doctrine or creed, so that you can point to individual beliefs and say "that's a Buddhist belief" or "that's a Pastafarian belief" or whatever. But I struggle to do that with atheism, because what other universals does it have?

So I don't know what to say to this, because I can't name any beliefs outside of that that I consider explicitly atheist. I literally can't. Every atheist I know or have studied is a free thinker; i.e. forms their own beliefs beyond the central idea of no god/gods. There's no coherence beyond that. Hell, I know atheists that still pray, because they enjoy the feeling of gratitude it inspires in them. I don't know if they believe the prayer is affecting anything outside themselves (I doubt it, but I've never asked...maybe they believe in some metaphysical law of attraction), but it's just one example among many.

So you're going to have to be the one that makes this case. You seem to be demanding that I acknowledge something as atheistic when I see no reason to do so.

That's because you haven't thought it through, you're also using faulty logic. There's no formalized doctrine that rappers have to smoke weed but that is a trait that rappers have, to some its part of the culture.

The problem that you have is you have already admiitted that doing something bad because you believe there is no God watching you can be an atheist trait, which means by default obvously that it has happened a lot because there are obvously going to be a lot of atheists who are nasty people and some that are nice. I got a feeling Marquis De Sade might fall into that category (nasty). Also I'm pretty sure at least at one point in your life you've used that excuse, not saying that makes you nasty just not perfect.

Also why are you trying to argue that there are no atheists doctrines when you know what Communism is?

Originally posted by Deadline
Don't know about that. I remember having a debate about this with somebody and apparently our memories are more accurate in traumatic circumstances. Also in some cases other people are interviewied in order to verify the accuracy of events so it's not subjective.

There's a catch-22 here that I don't think you're seeing. Either they're in a traumatic circumstance but NOT entirely brain-dead, in which case it in no way supports anything metaphysical. Or they're entirely brain dead and unable to process traditional sensory input, in which case the "more accurate in traumatic circumstances" can't apply, because there's nothing functioning to be more accurate with. Your claim about traumatic accuracy can only apply to people who don't meet your earlier criteria of brain death for the NDE to count as evidence according to your earlier posts.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok Digi with all due respect this point seems to be going completely over your head. Those circumstances you're refering to do not explain what people are seeing in NDEs. In an NDE a person is having a cardiac arrest, the brain shuts down in seconds. In those circumstances (and maybe you need to tell me what those are) I suspect you are dealing with people whose brain is fully functional.

And you know with any shred of certainty that what they are seeing is the spirit world, or some aspect of the afterlife? And they're able to relate this experience using their traditional human senses? And that what is considered clinical brain death is absolute inactivity? And that what they later relate about their NDE isn't a smattering of synapse firings and sensory input amalgamated together once they have the benefit of full consciousness? And have you exhausted more plausible scientific explanations before resorting to "proof of an afterlife" as your explanation?

I'm sorry; you simply aren't understanding burden of proof here. I've explained various phenomenon that we have explained, admitted that there are some we likely don't have concrete explanations for, but the largest point is that I don't actually need to explain every single NDE. The onus of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also I'm not stupid you know I do realise you could be right. I'm trying to help you keep an open mind.

Open mind is often misused. I got to where I am in my beliefs because I have an open mind. It's basically a 180 from where I was a decade ago.

Open mind means considering all possibilities. And I can tell you, unequivocally, that you're wrong if you don't think I'm considering your explanation. I just don't see it as a compelling argument, and don't think it holds up to rational inquiry and basic logical principles. I think the evidence you claim is nowhere near the threshold needed to consider it plausible. But you're right that it's worth further reading and investigation. It's why I've done a lot of it independently, searching out arguments from both sides. I greatly respect your similar search for information, though I do think you're more versed on reasons for the belief than you are on possible scientific explanations.

Originally posted by Deadline
Digi you accept anecdotal evidence all the time. Anecdotal evidence is acceptable as evidence it depends who said it, how many people, state of mind etc. Yes I've googled it and one thing that was stated people who remember traumatic events remember them more clearly.

Yes, it's acceptable as evidence at times. Everything is contextual. I never said it was worthless. It's just much, much more fallible than we often realize. Would it surprise you to know that most of your childhood memories are significantly different than you remember them? And that even, as adults, the fidelity of our memories is quite sketchy concerning any kind of detail. If we are motivated to remember details at the point of memory creation, this can be combated. But for everyday life, we're rarely that motivated. It's why you can't remember what you ate for dinner 34 days ago, or what color shirt your gf was wearing two dates ago, or {insert detail from a crime scene that is later recalled in court}.

Also, yes, you and I accept anecdotal evidence all the time in our lives. But it's out of convenience. We can't afford to rigorously test every aspect of our lives, every offhand remark we hear from a stranger, or we'd never get anything done. But when it comes to matters where we do have scientific input, and where it concerns our worldview, it can and should be held to higher standards.

Originally posted by Deadline
No you're condescending. Not going to have a debate with you about it lets move on.

That weird moment where someone on the internet tells you what you're thinking, and insists he's right, even though you know it's wrong. Dude, relax. We disagree, but I'm not here to flame you. I don't pull punches when I think someone's wrong, but this is an intellectual debate, not a personal scrap.

Originally posted by Deadline
Well we already had this discussion before about powerful aliens were you wanted to exclude them from the definition because they were not supernatural ie they didn't perform magic. What do you call that? That is restricting the definition to an absurd level.

Why would you think I'm just talking about only the christian god when the last time we debated we talked about powerful aliens and you know I'm not a Christian?

I don't think I'm broadening the definition. Lets exclude intervention for now do you think just there existance is possible not plausible, if so why?

Needlessly combative. For I think the 3rd time, I would consider superintelligent aliens eminently possible. Plausible, even, if we're talking about the entire universe. The only point I remain skeptical on is alien intervention in human affairs, simply because the evidence for it doesn't exist.

I'm sorry I didn't immediately include this in the definition of God/gods. It's been a while since our last chat. It's an understandable error, given the usual chatter in this forum, and that we've been discussing such supernatural ideas as proof of an afterlife.

Originally posted by Deadline
That's because you haven't thought it through, you're also using faulty logic. There's no formalized doctrine that rappers have to smoke weed but that is a trait that rappers have, to some its part of the culture.

The problem that you have is you have already admiitted that doing something bad because you believe there is no God watching you can be an atheist trait, which means by default obvously that it has happened a lot because there are obvously going to be a lot of atheists who are nasty people and some that are nice. I got a feeling Marquis De Sade might fall into that category (nasty). Also I'm pretty sure at least at one point in your life you've used that excuse, not saying that makes you nasty just not perfect.

Also why are you trying to argue that there are no atheists doctrines when you know what Communism is?

So, by this logic, would a Christian who does something bad, knowing that God forgives, would that be a Christian trait? Insert whatever religion you want for other examples. My point is that there's nothing about atheism that's inherently good or evil. It's morally neutral. Atheists can do good or bad things, and some may even use the reasoning you proposed as their reason for doing so. But there's nothing that states - or implies - that it's ok to do bad things bc God isn't watching.

Incidentally, dozens of studies conducted over decades actually show that atheists tend to be more moral than their theistic counterparts. It's not proof that atheism is more moral, but it's abject proof that atheists can be and are as moral as any other religious demographic, and more so than most. In my personal experience, I think I've become more moral as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. That's just my personal experience, so it's not admissible as data, but I could go into great detail about how and why my moral horizons have expanded due to the shift in my thinking.

I do have to disagree stridently about Communism, though. Or rather, if you want to claim Communism as atheist, I get to claim the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For clarity, I don't, but it's an equivalent claim. This is only a step removed from invoking Hitler to damn atheism, and just as faulty.

srug

Sorry about the delay again I really thought I was going to have more time. This might be my last post I’m even struggling to keep up with some comic debates.

Originally posted by Digi
There's a catch-22 here that I don't think you're seeing. Either they're in a traumatic circumstance but NOT entirely brain-dead, in which case it in no way supports anything metaphysical. Or they're entirely brain dead and unable to process traditional sensory input, in which case the "more accurate in traumatic circumstances" can't apply, because there's nothing functioning to be more accurate with. Your claim about traumatic accuracy can only apply to people who don't meet your earlier criteria of brain death for the NDE to count as evidence according to your earlier posts.

That's not really what I was thinking of. I was thinking of people who didn't have an NDE but were around during the NDE who were interviewed to confirm veridical events.

Originally posted by Digi

And you know with any shred of certainty that what they are seeing is the spirit world, or some aspect of the afterlife? And they're able to relate this experience using their traditional human senses? And that what is considered clinical brain death is absolute inactivity? And that what they later relate about their NDE isn't a smattering of synapse firings and sensory input amalgamated together once they have the benefit of full consciousness? And have you exhausted more plausible scientific explanations before resorting to "proof of an afterlife" as your explanation?

Can't be 100% certain of everything but you can make reasonable conclusions. Not sure what your point is but their senses tend to be enhanced during ndes like blind people being able to see. Not sure what your point is again but just because something is reversible doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Of course a smattering of synapses doesn't explain it. You do understand that the concept of the afterlife isn't in itself illogical? So do you understand that it can't explain for every NDE that has been had since the beginning of time you have NDEs going back to ancient greece, that is impossible. Especially when you know that synapses firing may have different effects and not neccesarily an nde. Also you have to explain how in some NDEs there is a recorded timeline and you can verify that the person had the NDE during the operation, accident etc. Well theres a difference between finding other explanations and finding excuses not to believe in things. Yes actually I have found other explanations.

Originally posted by Digi

I'm sorry; you simply aren't understanding burden of proof here. I've explained various phenomenon that we have explained, admitted that there are some we likely don't have concrete explanations for, but the largest point is that I don't actually need to explain every single NDE. The onus of proof is on you.

No I get it. Here's the point you're not getting. One of the most important aspects of proving life after death is having to prove that the person dead. If the instruments tell us their dead why can't you accept that? If we took a trip 1000 years into the future and had more accurate equipment would you accept them as being dead? No, the reason being is because you think the idea of an afterlife is inherently irrational, so therefore you will always have an excuse not to believe in it.

Lets make this clear you have admitted that you don't have answers to somethings but you've explained nothing. Doing tests on people who are in states which are the complete opposite to a cardiac arrest doesn't explain anything.

Originally posted by Digi

Open mind is often misused. I got to where I am in my beliefs because I have an open mind. It's basically a 180 from where I was a decade ago.

Open mind means considering all possibilities. And I can tell you, unequivocally, that you're wrong if you don't think I'm considering your explanation. I just don't see it as a compelling argument, and don't think it holds up to rational inquiry and basic logical principles. I think the evidence you claim is nowhere near the threshold needed to consider it plausible. But you're right that it's worth further reading and investigation. It's why I've done a lot of it independently, searching out arguments from both sides. I greatly respect your similar search for information, though I do think you're more versed on reasons for the belief than you are on possible scientific explanations.

You know I really doubt that you've done more research than I have and I could actually make a better argument against this than you could I'm jut not telling what those arguments are.

Originally posted by Digi

Yes, it's acceptable as evidence at times. Everything is contextual. I never said it was worthless. It's just much, much more fallible than we often realize. Would it surprise you to know that most of your childhood memories are significantly different than you remember them? And that even, as adults, the fidelity of our memories is quite sketchy concerning any kind of detail. If we are motivated to remember details at the point of memory creation, this can be combated. But for everyday life, we're rarely that motivated. It's why you can't remember what you ate for dinner 34 days ago, or what color shirt your gf was wearing two dates ago, or {insert detail from a crime scene that is later recalled in court}.

Yes I know.

Originally posted by Digi

Also, yes, you and I accept anecdotal evidence all the time in our lives. But it's out of convenience. We can't afford to rigorously test every aspect of our lives, every offhand remark we hear from a stranger, or we'd never get anything done. But when it comes to matters where we do have scientific input, and where it concerns our worldview, it can and should be held to higher standards.

Well I'm sure you've been to the supermarket and asked for directions from a shop attendent, did you assume that the person knew what they were talking about and did you ask for data to verify he knew what he was talking about?

This is the point I'm making in some circumstances anecdotal evidence is acceptable in NDEs as well. First of all we have the instruments indicating that the person is dead or it's impossible for them to know whats going on. Then we have psychologists conducting interviews, as you know psychologists can notice things other people can't (lying etc). Blind people being able to describe events impossible for them to see. Different people interviewed seperately describing the same thing. In the case of Pam Reynolds she had all the blood drained from her head and there were no life signs but despite this she was able tell what one of them said during the operation, also she had something stuck in her ears making a noise, so even if she was conscious she would'nt have been able to hear it. We also know that the nurse said what she said because it was written in records. Pam Reynold also described the bone saw.

Point is this you could find reasons not to believe the shop attendent but its acceptable to believe that his information accurate. In some NDEs we could come to the same conclusion

Originally posted by Digi

That weird moment where someone on the internet tells you what you're thinking, and insists he's right, even though you know it's wrong. Dude, relax. We disagree, but I'm not here to flame you. I don't pull punches when I think someone's wrong, but this is an intellectual debate, not a personal scrap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhmKxa_FMkU

Originally posted by Digi

Needlessly combative. For I think the 3rd time, I would consider superintelligent aliens eminently possible. Plausible, even, if we're talking about the entire universe. The only point I remain skeptical on is alien intervention in human affairs, simply because the evidence for it doesn't exist.

As you know possible isn't the same as plausible. The reason why you're having to repeat yourself is because I'm trying to get confirmation. Now if you think it's plausible that gods exist are you even an atheist? Also I would argue that atheism is irrational because its unlikely that beings like that don't exist somewhere in the universe, that would also include other dimensions which makes it more likely.

Originally posted by Digi

I'm sorry I didn't immediately include this in the definition of God/gods. It's been a while since our last chat. It's an understandable error, given the usual chatter in this forum, and that we've been discussing such supernatural ideas as proof of an afterlife.

Doesn't change the fact that you did what you did which we could then assume you will do it again. Also you're getting into a debate with somebody you already know isn't a Christian so you can assume other definitions of god will be included in the debate. So yea you were narrowing it down. You're making excuses that's why I get in your face.

Originally posted by Digi

So, by this logic, would a Christian who does something bad, knowing that God forgives, would that be a Christian trait?

Well what is a Christian trait? Something that comes from Christanity, so you know the answer.

Originally posted by Digi

Insert whatever religion you want for other examples. My point is that there's nothing about atheism that's inherently good or evil. It's morally neutral.

No it's not morally neutral please explain how under duress an athiest who doesn't believe in God is going to have more chance of doing the right thing opposed to somebody who believes in God? Even if you could make that argument it's irrelevant, doesn't change the fact you can have beliefs steming from atheism. Yea the same thing happening to good and bad people when they die is morally neutral, please (I mean you're reality is pretty bleak).

Originally posted by Digi

Atheists can do good or bad things, and some may even use the reasoning you proposed as their reason for doing so.

You're wrong all atheists will use my reasoning at some point. You even indirectly admitted it yourself.

Originally posted by Digi

But there's nothing that states

and there's nothing that states that rappers have to smoke weed. So we have already established that it doesn't have to be stated for something to be true. So you can stop using that argument.

Originally posted by Digi

- or implies - that it's ok to do bad things bc God isn't watching.

Incredible. You're in complete denial. Did you no state that atheists could justify doing bad things because God isn't watching? Yes or no? So does this not mean that atheists who choose to do that for them it implies that god isn't watching = its ok to do bad things? Yes or no? You're basically denying something you admitted to.

Also that's your opinion lots of atheists would disagree with you. I have even listened to rock music tunes were they justify atheism for self destructive behaviour. Serioulsy you're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by Digi

Incidentally, dozens of studies conducted over decades actually show that atheists tend to be more moral than their theistic counterparts. It's not proof that atheism is more moral, but it's abject proof that atheists can be and are as moral as any other religious demographic, and more so than most. In my personal experience, I think I've become more moral as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. That's just my personal experience, so it's not admissible as data, but I could go into great detail about how and why my moral horizons have expanded due to the shift in my thinking.

I'd like a look at these studies. It could be argued that atheism is preferable to beliefs where they think you're going to hell forever for not believing in their god. Wouldn't believe you anyway

Originally posted by Digi

I do have to disagree stridently about Communism, though. Or rather, if you want to claim Communism as atheist, I get to claim the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For clarity, I don't, but it's an equivalent claim. This is only a step removed from invoking Hitler to damn atheism, and just as faulty.

srug

Of course you would. I'm not an expert on communism so maybe you're right, I thought Communism wasn't just about economics but it had a certain view of reality. By the time you're finished trying to explain it we will probably establish that some atheists do have a doctrine.

Oh yea Satanism, the list keeps getting bigger.

Originally posted by Deadline
Well I'm sure you've been to the supermarket and asked for directions from a shop attendent, did you assume that the person knew what they were talking about and did you ask for data to verify he knew what he was talking about?

Again, this is because we can't empirically investigate every claim or we wouldn't be able to live our lives. When we can step back and proceed with evidence, however, that is the preferable approach.

There's the old skeptical line: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Or something along those lines. I'm happy to admit there are things we don't understand. But what I can't accept is substituting magic when we can't explain something. And that's what you're doing. You're taking a case where we either don't have enough evidence to know what happened, or where scientists are stumped, and claiming it as proof. I said this earlier, my stance is "stuff we can't explain = something we don't fully understand." Yours seems to be "stuff we can't explain = proof of an afterlife." I can't abide that.

Originally posted by Deadline
As you know possible isn't the same as plausible. The reason why you're having to repeat yourself is because I'm trying to get confirmation. Now if you think it's plausible that gods exist are you even an atheist? Also I would argue that atheism is irrational because its unlikely that beings like that don't exist somewhere in the universe, that would also include other dimensions which makes it more likely.

If we include aliens in our definition of god, yes, I'm agnostic.

Here's my issue with that, and it's the same reason I wouldn't use the term "god" to describe these hypothetical beings: the issues is that if these beings do exist, they came about due to entirely causal, empirically-knowable forces within our universe (or another universe, etc.). And since we were neither created by nor influenced by these beings (as far as we know) in what meaningful sense are they gods? Such beings fit nicely into a scientific explanation of the universe. We don't need to use religious terminology to describe them.

Originally posted by Deadline
Doesn't change the fact that you did what you did which we could then assume you will do it again. Also you're getting into a debate with somebody you already know isn't a Christian so you can assume other definitions of god will be included in the debate. So yea you were narrowing it down. You're making excuses that's why I get in your face.

Actually, not so much. I literally just forgot about our past discussions regarding aliens until you jogged my memory. You know I've been debating on this forum for about a decade, right? It's hard to keep everything straight. With luck, I won't make the same mistake again.

So please, for like the 5th time, just take me at my word that I wasn't trying to railroad you into a particular definition. You're remarkably antagonistic about this stuff.

Originally posted by Deadline
No it's not morally neutral please explain how under duress an athiest who doesn't believe in God is going to have more chance of doing the right thing opposed to somebody who believes in God? Even if you could make that argument it's irrelevant, doesn't change the fact you can have beliefs steming from atheism. Yea the same thing happening to good and bad people when they die is morally neutral, please (I mean you're reality is pretty bleak).

I'm not sure what else I can say here. So, like, me personally, my atheism isn't really even a part of my morality. It doesn't enter into the equation. I recognize good and bad in a situation, and make a decision. The presence, or lack thereof, of a supreme deity isn't part of that thought process. I'm just trying to do good.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're wrong all atheists will use my reasoning at some point. You even indirectly admitted it yourself.

Saying they CAN use it is very different from saying they WILL use it. You're using a possibility to jump to the illogical conclusion that all atheists must and will act immorally at some point. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by Deadline
Incredible. You're in complete denial. Did you no state that atheists could justify doing bad things because God isn't watching? Yes or no? So does this not mean that atheists who choose to do that for them it implies that god isn't watching = its ok to do bad things? Yes or no? You're basically denying something you admitted to.

Again, a person could do this. It doesn't mean that they will, or that they should.

I think part of the problem here is that you're debating with someone who categorically doesn't believe that the lack of a god justifies doing evil. I can't say it's an atheist trait, because there are so many atheists - myself included - who find that very notion repugnant.

To rephrase, atheism is an epistemological stance. You're trying to make it a moral one. What a person does with it is their own business, but I can't admit that it has any moral qualities, because it is epistemological at its root, and for me and many others never takes on other qualities.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also that's your opinion lots of atheists would disagree with you. I have even listened to rock music tunes were they justify atheism for self destructive behaviour. Serioulsy you're just making stuff up.

I'd contend with your use of "lots" in this line. But again, this is something someone could do...a justification they could use. I disagree with it, as do most atheists.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'd like a look at these studies.

Gladly. I summarized them here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017

Originally posted by Deadline
Of course you would. I'm not an expert on communism so maybe you're right, I thought Communism wasn't just about economics but it had a certain view of reality. By the time you're finished trying to explain it we will probably establish that some atheists do have a doctrine.

Oh yea Satanism, the list keeps getting bigger.

You know atheists don't believe in Satan either, right? Satanism is entirely unrelated to atheism.

There may have been particular communists who were atheists. But there are also capitalists who are atheists. And socialists. And...whatever else. A couple of my favorite atheist thinkers are extreme free market advocates. But to answer this fully, we need to jump into history for a moment.

A lot of this association is based in historical and political motivations. Communism was the great bogeyman during the Cold War, and so they would just fling insults at it until something stuck. "Atheist" was a safe word to use as an insult, and it managed to stick. So it wasn't uncommon to hear the phrase "Godless Communists," ignoring the fact that the majority of the citizens of both countries were religious in some form.

There are other links, just as tenuous. Marxist Communism is the form of the theory that is most traditionally recognized. And it's also sometimes called "Scientific Socialism" because it's supposedly based on the scientific method. It came to be popular around the same time that Darwinism was making the rounds in intellectual circles, and we all know how Darwin is sometimes a figurehead for atheism (unfairly so, imo, but moving on...). The two got conflated together, because intellectuals and historians like to try to tie things together in neat thematic packages, regardless of whether or not they actually fit together. Marx admired Darwin's work, and saw some parallels in methodologies, but the similarities end there. So, despite not really having much influence on one another, they came to be associated with each other, and the atheist label clung to both of them.

So while there are social and societal elements to communism, the core philosophies are, as far as I know, devoid of religious implications.

Even most of those who are satanists do not actually believe Satan is real. He's the ultimate symbol of rebellion..that is all.

Originally posted by Surtur
Even most of those who are satanists do not actually believe Satan is real. He's the ultimate symbol of rebellion..that is all.

Right. But it's very bizarre to equate Satanism with atheism. Unfortunately, it's not the first time I've encountered it. I think, more than anything, it speaks to a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

I suppose in a technical sense an atheist could be a Satanist. At least in the way you describe, where Satan is just a symbol. It would be entirely incongruent to believe in Satan's existence and be an atheist. Those two really would be 100% incompatible.

But if we extend that argument, it's also possible for a Buddhist to be an atheist. Or several other religions where they aren't inherently theistic, or where the divine properties of the religion are metaphoric instead of literal. For example, though I don't consider myself a Taoist in any formal sense, I did for a very brief period, and I still appreciate and agree with many of the teachings in the Taoist tradition.