How can one be an atheist?

[Thunder]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

[IMST]

Atheism suggests there is no evidence for such a force. Do you see any evidence for one?

[Thunder]

Atheism suggests there is no evidence for such a force. Do you see any evidence for one?

well, you might not believe this, but i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

=)

i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.

=)

[madurobob]

That kinda cuts both ways, doesn't it? I mean, its problematic to state with certainty that there is no deity in the universe given our limited experience. Its also problematic to state with certainty that there is a deity given the complete lack of evidence.

The surest thing to say is there is no evidence for any deity... yet. So, we're all agnostics?

[gentlehorse]

well, you might not believe this, but i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

=)

i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.

=)

What, specifically, do you know about the designer in whom you believe?

[TinfoilCat]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

First of all, God never actually walked in the Garden of Eden. :)

Second, why won't the "force" aka God, not speak Hebrew? If God/Force is able to produce a magnificent creation such as the world itself, why not learn one of the the language of the creatures it inhabits?

Third, I doubt atheists believe Gods are humans. Well, to a certain extent, Mormons believe that. That they are able to become deities/gods of Earth, but last time I checked, Mormons are not atheists. :D

[Seismosaurus]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

Um, for most atheists, their atheism doesn't really suggest anything, and it certainly doesn't regard god as "impossible". It just listens to you talk this force that created the universe and says "but you can't prove it can you?" And then when you say "um... no," it says "then I don't believe you."

[CaptainManacles]

well, you might not believe this, but i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

=)

i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.

=)

given your opinions on many things, I don't find this surprising at all.

Super-natural things by definition don't exist. So it's not hard to discount a super-natural god. The "you can't see every corner of the universe" is a silly argument. We assume many things about the universe based on what we know from our limited blue planet. Lucky for us, reason works. And nothing is 100% certain, this doesn't stop us from making claims that we do or do not believe in something without a bunch of qualifiers every time we speak. "I am at home" "I am watching a movie" not "I might be at home but who knows maybe this is all just an illusion created by robotic overlords" similarly we say "there is no god" not "there is no god but maybe he's hiding behind alpha centauri."

[Tricky]

Um, for most atheists, their atheism doesn't really suggest anything, and it certainly doesn't regard god as "impossible".
Mostly true. Certain descriptions of God are impossible because they violate their own definitions. For example, an omniscient God who lets humans have free will is a logical contradiction. If a human cannot choose to "surprise God", then he doesn't have free will. (Apologies if this is another free-will derail.)

Other definitions of God are possible, but meaningless. For example, for a pantheist, God is nature. He behaves exactly as nature does. Well, that's certainly not impossible, but it also us useless. All you are doing is substituting a different word for "nature". Such a God can, by definition, never have any evidence that is not also evidence for natural processes that require no God.

If you conceive of God as caring... about anything... then you should be able to describe a way that this caring can be recognized. Otherwise, you have no evidence.

And that's where most atheists sit. There is no definition of God that they have ever seen that has both meaning and evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe the claims that gods exists, therefore I am atheist. Everything else mentioned in the OP has nothing to do with atheism.

[rocketdodger]

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

I don't think such a thing is impossible. I just think

#1) Such a thing isn't going to help me get a raise at work.

#2) Such a thing isn't going to help me get my girlfriends panties off.

#3) Such a thing isn't going to help me get over the flu any faster.

#4) Such a thing isn't going to protect me from people who want to hurt me.

#5) Such a thing isn't going to help me beat my nemesis in Soul Calibur or Rocket Arena 3.

#6) Such a thing isn't going to stop hackers from stealing my personal information.
.
.
.

#82765 ) Such a thing isn't going to help my species survive in the universe it may have created.

.
.
.

#9887181385776 ) Such a thing, in general, doesn't make a bit of difference in my life, so until it does, it is a waste of my time to even ponder it.

[Undesired Walrus]

i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.


The same Universe that will eventually expand into nothing but black holes for 1040 years?

i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

You can't. If you accept evolution, then a designer God is superfluous.

[Bob Klase]

i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

You can't. If you accept evolution, then a designer God is superfluous.

Why can't god be superfluous? Maybe he's lazy.

Actually, the fact that god might be superfluous doesn't mean he can't believe in god if he wants to. Didn't the last pope admit that evolution was okay with him (and thereby make it officially okay with the Catholic church)? Are you saying that the pope lied or that the pope can't believe in god?

[paximperium]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.
Actually no. Atheism is merely a reaction to theism. Atheism just means that a person has no belief in a god/s.

Your statement that complexity and cosmos being an accident? Don't know. It may have been and there may be something under all of it BUT I don't tack on any garbage made up belief that I cannot prove. If we don't have evidence for it, it is irrelevant.


i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.
Why? How is your belief in some supernatural force with intelligence different from theirs? I consider your belief as "silly" as theirs. It is just cloaked in more modern terms and some scientific jargon.


but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.
Then you don't understand atheism. Are you being short sighted for not believing in unicorns, Zeus, YHWH or Zoobob of the Celestial Troll?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. You don't need to be sure about this. You just have to lack of belief. People who don't know, are atheists as are most Agnostics, Buddhists etc.
Agnosticism just means you don't have the knowledge.

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, not because I KNOW there is no god.


i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.
Actually that is even more arrogant. Atheist in general to do assume that some supernatural power exist. We do not assume that this power cares about us tiny mortals. We do not assume we are special.

We assume that we are a cosmic accident and that there is nothing unique about us. We assume that if we die, we are dirt. We assume that all life is descended and interrelated. We assume we don't know everything and therefore continue to look for answers. If you want to call that arrogance, go ahead.

[learner]

well, you might not believe this, but i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

=)

i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.

=)
Could you please give an example of an intricate detail or pattern and explain it as evidence of the existence of a god. just one will do. Also, What is accidental design? sounds like an outcome other than that which you intended to begin with,, oops i didn't mean to design a car, it was supposed to be a hairdryer. Damn!

[plumjam]

#2) Such a thing isn't going to help me get my girlfriends panties off.



Then dump her for a Catholic schoolgirl.

[paximperium]

well, you might not believe this, but i believe in intelligent design AND evolution.
Clarify this statement. What do you believe in ID and Evolution?
ID is an unscientific and contradictory pseudo-science so how does it jive with evolution?


i believe that all living things and non-living systems may indeed have been designed by a grand architect. my evidence is the intricate details and paterns of the living and non-living systems of the universe. where one may see accidental design..i see intentional design.
I see design in evolution. I see design from natural selection. No scientists believe that living systems are due to random chance. It is well explained in the theory and no where in it is there a need for some "designer".

Could provide some evidence of this design that you see?

[Pardalis]

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited.

I believe in the dictionary.

[Hokulele]

"How can one be an atheist?"


With cheerful abandon and infinite curiosity.

[paximperium]

"How can one be an atheist?"


With cheerful abandon and infinite curiosity.

Easy...$5 registration fee and a yearly membership fee of $25. You get a nice bumper sticker and don't have to wake up early in Sundays.

[Hokulele]

Sounds like a deal, but I will probably still wake up early on Sundays in order to catch the good surf, then the early football games.

[the PC apeman]

How can one be an atheist?

T'weren't nothin' really. I was born that way.

[paximperium]

I believe in the dictionary.

I don't. Dictionaries are a figment of mass hysteria. Words mean whatever I want them to mean. I am an Adictionary-ist.

I believe in the thesaurus which has obvious design...look at those pages, the numbers go up and those words are alphabetical...until you look at the Thesaurus Code which tells the future!!!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How can one be an atheist?

T'weren't nothin' really. I was born that way.

As were we all, dear friend. As were we all. ;)

[Ron_Tomkins]

How can one be an atheist?

How can one not? :)

[Robin]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.
There is clearly something out there that is much greater than ourselves and what we can imagine - but just not, so far as we know, a purposeful intelligence - an intelligence that intended for the Universe to contain us.

Atheism is just descriptive of the position of not believing such a purposeful intelligence to exist, not necessary confidence that it does not.

[Ron_Tomkins]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Am4r52czVZc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Am4r52czVZc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Ron_Tomkins]

After watching a couple more of Dawkins videos, I have noticed what the main issue seems to be. Morals.

Here are some youtube comments:

friar888 (1 week ago) 0 Reply | Spam
My ultimate question for the system of atheism/naturalism: Is there really such things as "Evil" & "Good"? Or are these based SOLELY on personal preference & what society deems right at the time? If that's the case then there really is no such thing as 'evil' & we have no right to call any society living at any time as being truly wrong. The only thing we can say is that we don't like it. How can we say we're 'morally' superior to any generation? morality is just based on society anyway, right?

Zeuts85 (1 week ago) 0
Absolutely correct. I don't think we can claim moral superiority in an objective sense. But then, I would pose several questions:

Is a contextual morality less valuable than a universal one? Do we require a universal basis for morality to explain the morality that we see exhibited in the world around us? Can we not collectively decide what should be considered moral without invoking authority from supernatural forces?

This isn't an easy issue, but science has a fair understanding of morality.


And finally

andid (2 weeks ago) +2 Reply | Spam
Maybe that is the difference between us. Perhaps theists are so immoral they can't imagine following their own laws without an imaginary moral friend in their heads telling them not to rape and kill everyone. Hmm




The main question that needs to be asked (repeatedly and profoundly) and which some if not most theists seem to want to avoid is:

Have you considered building a moral without the existence of a benevolent God?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently you have no trouble dismissing Zeus, Pele, Osiris and Coyote that stole fire from heaven. The Biblical myths can be traced to earlier oral mythology. Statutes in India do not drink milk and odd shadows in a tree are not images of the face of Jesus.

At what point are you going to give up on this nonsense? It is magical thinking. It is irrational. We now can see through careful observation and the scientific process that magical thinking is not consistent with what we observe the nature of the Universe to be. Adding a god layer to our view of the Universe does nothing but pretend we have some answer that we don't really have about the origin of the Universe. Where did this god come from? If the Universe's origin is so fantastic one needs a god to explain it, then wouldn't that god be even more inexplicable?

Yes!

Get over it. God beliefs are completely irrational.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for morals, non-human primates exhibit moral behavior. It goes with the gregarious species territory and is better explained by evolution and cultural integration into the group after birth than god beliefs explain it. People are not moral because they fear hell or seek the approval of the gods. They have a certain level of innate morality which is modifiable to some degree.

My dogs figured out all the dogs they met in their first year of life are friends and all the dogs they met after that time are non-group members to be barked and snarled at regardless of the time in between encounters. I have now trained them to sit when they see said non-group members and they get a treat, bark and snarl and they don't. They know the difference between other dogs, (non-group members), people (almost all judged as friends except maybe in the woods after the light is dimming), and prey (no question this is to be chased and killed if caught). No one taught them this 'morality', they came upon it inherently.

They prefer to eat when company is in the kitchen with them. No one taught them this or rewarded them for this behavior.

And did I mention they have unconditional love for me?

[Undesired Walrus]

Why can't god be superfluous? Maybe he's lazy.

Actually, the fact that god might be superfluous doesn't mean he can't believe in god if he wants to. Didn't the last pope admit that evolution was okay with him (and thereby make it officially okay with the Catholic church)? Are you saying that the pope lied or that the pope can't believe in god?

No. I said that you cannot believe in Intelligent design for living objects (As Parky mentioned) while believing in evolution, as your designer God is now superfluous. I didn't say anything about evolution and God being utterly incompatible.

[KingMerv00]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

Your title question does not apply to agnostic atheists. I happen to be one so I won't try to answer it.

About "guided evolution"...

If God can be omnipotent, he could create laws of nature that give rise to life without divine intervention. In such a case the universe looks the same whether or not God exists. Of the two scenarios, you chose the one which falls victim to Occam's Razor. Why?

[Bob Klase]

No. I said that you cannot believe in Intelligent design for living objects (As Parky mentioned) while believing in evolution, as your designer God is now superfluous.

True- you said he "can't". But he says he does (and many other people do), so "can't" is the wrong word since he can.

[Brian-M]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.


Who believes the complexity of the universe is just an accident? Atheist's don't. We give full credit to the natural, unintelligent and inviolable laws of physics.


... and Coyote that stole fire from heaven.

Yes, that's completely ridiculous.
Everyone knows it was Prometheus. :D

[Hokulele]

Yes, that's completely ridiculous.
Everyone knows it was Prometheus. :D


Pff, Maui choked the secret out of a mudhen.

[MattC]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

Atheism freely admits, or should freely admit, the point you make in your last statement here - that their conclusions of today may be disproved by the science of tomorrow. If this occurs, they will be more than happy to adapt their conclusions in light of the new evidence that has been brought to light and examined. In fact, many atheists will want to examine the evidence for themselves, throwing their intellectual offerings into the midst of their fellows on forums just like this one.

Atheists generally believe that, by adhering rigorously to a set of principles that govern the proper handling of experiments and results, we together can advance society and the human condition through critical thinking and careful, systematic analysis. Anyone also willing to adhere to these principles can, if they possess the relevant materials, easily replicate the experiment and verify the results for themselves.

To paraphrase a quote from the Devil's Dictionary (a book I quite highly recommend, by the way), "Theists are enamored of existing evils, as opposed to an Atheist, who wants to replace them with new ones."

~ MattC

[Wolfman]

How can one be an atheist?

or

How one became an atheist

There was a time, not that long ago, when pretty much all the numbers were theists. Oh, 69 tended to ignore religious proscriptions, and pi was caught up in existential angst as to the concept of infinity, but for the most part, they were all theists.

'One' was a particularly fundamentalist theist. "There is only one way!" "There can only be one god!" He rejected dualism to the point where, for many years, he argued against the philosophical possibility of the existence of 'two'; being plainly shown two's existence right in front of him had little impact on his arguments...he was, after all, rather understandably one-track minded. And he considered the concept of 'three' downright immoral ("If God had intended there to be a 'three', he would have made another gender").

But then one day, when he was at a bar, he met the sexiest number he'd ever experienced in his entire life; his serifs sprang up almost as soon as he saw her.

"Well hey there sexy...do you believe in love at first sight? Because if you don't, I can walk past you again!"

Amazingly, she did not reject him (as had the previous thousands of female numbers upon whom he'd used that line in the past). She smiled, and invited him to join her. They talked, laughed, and generally had a great time. And, as such things tend to do, they ended up going home together, and engaging in hot digital love (fortunately, they didn't multiply).

In the morning, 'one' realized to his chagrin that he had never even learned her name...so he asked her. She looked a little embarrassed, and said, "I'm the square root of negative one". Well, 'one' was flabbergasted!

"That's impossible! There's no such thing! That's just an imaginary number!!!"

To which she replied, "Then I guess that means you had imaginary sex with an imaginary number, then."

This revelation shook the fundamentals of one's world view...if an imaginary number like the square root of negative one was possible (and on top of that, very sexy, and incredibly great in the sack), what else might be possible?

And that, my friends, is how one became an atheist.

[H'ethetheth]

Thus.

[Vic Vega]

There is clearly something out there that is much greater than ourselves

That isn't at all clear to me.

[Beerina]

I would submit most athiests do, indeed, wonder if there isn't something powerful "out there", though more likely than not they'd be super-advanced aliens ala Contact. That's not some kind of religion-style godlike being, though they may be capable of everything the god of the Bible is.

Most also entertain the thought we're some kind of simulation or fish tank universe, even if just a little humorously. But that's also not suggestive of some kind of godlike being.


So one could, indeed, be an athiest yet think the universe might be some kind of created experiment or fish tank, or that there might be super-intelligent, godlike beings out there.

It's the silliness of the spiritual god-ness concept that's at the heart of the matter. A traditional "god" would just be a super-intelligent being in a universe with a (presumably) different physics. Nothing more. It is not some basis for moralilty. If it's doing "what's best for us", which would be odd, the criteria it uses for "best" is highly suspect.

[Ron_Tomkins]

How can one be an atheist?

Well you just have to sign a small application form, pay a fee and mail it to the "Atheist Research Center" and you will soon be notified of an audition date, as well as all the materials you will need to cover.

Don't mention it. Anytime.

[arthwollipot]

"How can one be an atheist?"


With cheerful abandon and infinite curiosity.Sing it sister! Woo-hoo!

erm... I mean...

I agree.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pff, Maui choked the secret out of a mudhen.Hmmm, this calls for a web search to get the facts.....

Grandmother spider gave it to the Mississippi Choctaw indians (http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co11032001/CO_11032001_Grandmother_Spider.htm)

The brave and resourceful Junuunay stole fire from the cave of the creator god Maleiwa for the Wayuu in Venezuela (http://venezuelanindian.blogspot.com/2008/01/wayuu-myth-4-origin-of-fire.html)

The Fox stole it from the fire flies for the Apaches (http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore77.html)

And it looks like a Water Spider spun her thread into a small bowl on her back, then crossed to the island and its burning tree. She collected a little coal of fire in her basket and then crossed back to the other animals. The Middle World has had fire ever since, according to the Cherokee (http://arkarcheology.uark.edu/indiansofarkansas/index.html?pageName=Origin%20of%20Fire%20(Cherokee ))


Theft and trickery seems to be a repeating theme. Seems many of the first fire owners were not the most generous.

[RandFan]

For me it began with a commitment to the truth and to accept reality no matter what that reality was. I went from a Christian to a Deist then an agnostic. In the end I couldn't find a reason not to be an atheist. It wasn't for lack of trying or wanting there to be a god. It was a very emotional thing for me and there was much to lose and nothing to gain outside of a different perspective.

Having been raised in a very religious household and having graduated seminary and served a mission I can honestly say that there is nothing that I've studied more or thought about more. Nothing that I have been more sincere or earnest about.

I'm willing to believe today if there were reason to.

[New Ager]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

A very enlightened post. And, you are right about everything.

Keep looking and the truth will find you.

Trust me. I know.

[Patsy]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

Atheism does not suggest this. The utter lack of evidence, despite thorough searching for such evidence, suggests it.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

Excellent, now apply all that same skepticism to your own cherished bits of wishful thinking.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

Argument from incredulity? I can't be sure nothing is out there, but again, the evidence just isn't there. Can you be SURE there isn't a teapot orbiting Pluto?

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

A great chance? Based upon what evidence? You know what arrogance is? Assuming that reality shapes itself according to what makes us comfortable, rather being what the evidence suggests it is.

[schlitt]

A very enlightened post. And, you are right about everything.

Keep looking and the truth will find you.

Trust me. I know.

Care to elaborate why the OP is enlightened?


You know the answer to life, the universe and everything. Do share.

[paximperium]

Care to elaborate why the OP is enlightened?


You know the answer to life, the universe and everything. Do share.

I can't tell if Poe's Law applies here at all...False crazy and crazy are indistinguishable.

[Brian-M]

You know the answer to life, the universe and everything. Do share.


42

[schlitt]

42


I was wondering how long that would take. ;)

[Robin]

That isn't at all clear to me.
Consider the Earth's biosphere, taken as a whole, for example.

[Autolite]

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited.

I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Do you believe leprechauns, fairies or flying pink invisible unicorns exist? If not, then you are just as short sighted as I...

[Foster Zygote]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.
No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, period.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.
Atheism does not state that nothing is out there. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine.
Yes, it's called "the universe". It's beautiful and terrifying, and it calls to us. We can never understand more than a fraction of it, but the things we have learned are both humbling and exhilarating. But, so far, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything greater than the universe that has designed it with any intent. There is still a great deal to be learned about the nature of the universe and its origin, assuming the term even applies. But we have learned that complexity arises from simpler structures through natural forces. There may be, and in my opinion there probably are, entities far greater than us in this universe, but it seems likely that they will have evolved from this universe just as we did. If they exist, they are probably a product of the universe, not its "creators".

to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.
Once more: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism does not involve claims that there is nothing greater than humanity in the universe. Many atheists, however, make note that natural forces can account for the accumulation of complexity from the simplest beginnings and that there is no evidence of any deliberate design or active manipulation of the universe or any of its contents. Then there's the "turtles all the way down" problem.

[Kuko 4000]

How can one be an atheist?


Well, first you have to:

1) not believe in any gods.

2) and...that's it really.

Isn't it nice to learn something new every day :)

[Pardalis]

Keep looking and the truth will find you.

If I keep still, truth has better chances of finding me, me thinks.

[Vic Vega]

There is clearly something out there that is much greater than ourselves and what we can imagine - but just not, so far as we know, a purposeful intelligence - an intelligence that intended for the Universe to contain us.

Consider the Earth's biosphere, taken as a whole, for example.

I've considered it. It still isn't clear to me. Sorry.

[Molinaro]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.

i think the bible, the torah, the koran, etc etc..are all sillyness. there is no way that the force that created the universe speaks hebrew and walks in the garden of eden.

but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? we are tiny little beings..and the universe is huge.

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.

There can easily be things out there that are much greater than ourselves without them being supernatural.

Why can't there be superior beings without them having to be magical/supernatural/law of physics defying?

[Brian-M]

I was wondering how long that would take. ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

[Almo]

We may not know everything. We may never know everything. But I have confidence that everything is in fact governed by physics, and with sufficient knowledge, would be understandable.

God is inherently not understandable since he is outside of the physical realm.

[New Ager]

I don't think such a thing is impossible. I just think

#1) Such a thing isn't going to help me get a raise at work.


#3) Such a thing isn't going to help me get over the flu any faster.

#4) Such a thing isn't going to protect me from people who want to hurt me.

#82765 ) Such a thing isn't going to help my species survive in the universe it may have created.



God can help all of these.



#9887181385776 ) Such a thing, in general, doesn't make a bit of difference in my life, so until it does, it is a waste of my time to even ponder it.

Without God, you couldn't even lift your little finger, so yes, it does matter, more than you know.

[KingMerv00]

Without God, you couldn't even lift your little finger, so yes, it does matter, more than you know.

I disagree.

[Foster Zygote]

I disagree.

Can I poop without God?

[New Ager]

Atheism is just descriptive of the position of not believing such a purposeful intelligence to exist, not necessary confidence that it does not.



That's certainly not the attitude of most of the atheists here who seem to have a lot of confidence that there is no greater intelligence.

[Malerin]

Atheism does not suggest this. The utter lack of evidence, despite thorough searching for such evidence, suggests it.


There are all kinds of evidence. If a good friend phones you that your house is on fire, you'd probbaly rush home. If that same friend tells you he feels a spiritual connection to God, he's what? Deluded? Lying? Wishful thinking? Confused? Now multiply that by a billion. But why do claims about spiritual experiences not count as evidence, but claims about things like burning houses do count?

Or take an atheist who's had a classic NDE (an intensely spiritual event) and become a theist. It was powerful evidence for THAT person. Do you automatically discount it as evidence because it deals with something that can't be found in a test tube? How do you know that these experiences don't correspond to an actual spiritual event? Because you already assume such events don't happen?

Excellent, now apply all that same skepticism to your own cherished bits of wishful thinking.

Ah, you really want to go skeptical? Prove your computer is a physical object. Prove you're not in an incredibly complex computer simulation. Prove you exist. It's ironic that the only thing I CAN know about the world, without fear of contradiction, is that I exist, and this knowledge comes from subjective experience



Argument from incredulity? I can't be sure nothing is out there, but again, the evidence just isn't there. Can you be SURE there isn't a teapot orbiting Pluto?

Go far enough, and you won't be able to prove anything. Where do you draw the line on far your skepticism goes?



A great chance? Based upon what evidence? You know what arrogance is? Assuming that reality shapes itself according to what makes us comfortable, rather being what the evidence suggests it is.

Arrogance is assuming YOUR worldview is the correct one, and then evaluating all evidence based on that assumption.

[Wolfman]

Can I poop without God?
Technically, since god is omnipresent (therefore, present in everything), not only can you not poop without god, but when you poop, you are actually pooping god!

[New Ager]

Adding a god layer to our view of the Universe does nothing but pretend we have some answer that we don't really have about the origin of the Universe.



I guess the God believers found an answer and the atheists haven't.



Where did this god come from?



Earthbound thinking.

God has always been and is everywhere.



If the Universe's origin is so fantastic one needs a god to explain it, then wouldn't that god be even more inexplicable?



Explainable, but conceiving of the immensity of God is not possible in a human body.



Yes!
Get over it. God beliefs are completely irrational.



Not at all, but claiming there is no God is.

[Foster Zygote]

Technically, since god is omnipresent (therefore, present in everything), not only can you not poop without god, but when you poop, you are actually pooping god!

That explains my last 35 minute dump.

[Foster Zygote]

Where did this god come from?

Earthbound thinking.

That pretty much sums it up.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by the PC apeman

How can one be an atheist?

T'weren't nothin' really. I was born that way.



As were we all, dear friend. As were we all.



Not so. It's a learned behavior.

[Patsy]

There are all kinds of evidence. If a good friend phones you that your house is on fire, you'd probbaly rush home. If that same friend tells you he feels a spiritual connection to God, he's what? Deluded? Lying? Wishful thinking? Confused? Now multiply that by a billion. But why do claims about spiritual experiences not count as evidence, but claims about things like burning houses do count?

Or take an atheist who's had a classic NDE (an intensely spiritual event) and become a theist. It was powerful evidence for THAT person. Do you automatically discount it as evidence because it deals with something that can't be found in a test tube? How do you know that these experiences don't correspond to an actual spiritual event? Because you already assume such events don't happen?

You appear to be confusing anectode with evidence. Yes, I discount evidence that can't be tested, reproduced, stand up to rigorous scrutiny.


Ah, you really want to go skeptical? Prove your computer is a physical object. Prove you're not in an incredibly complex computer simulation. Prove you exist. It's ironic that the only thing I CAN know about the world, without fear of contradiction, is that I exist, and this knowledge comes from subjective experience


Excellent. If I toss my computer and it strikes your head, I shall claim it does not exist when you complain. I would accept the same level of proof for you woo, easily.



Go far enough, and you won't be able to prove anything. Where do you draw the line on far your skepticism goes?


Where my skepticsm meets solid evidence, of course.


Arrogance is assuming YOUR worldview is the correct one, and then evaluating all evidence based on that assumption.

My worldview is evidence based. When yours is the same, you may speak of arrogance.

Seriously, do you not get the irony?

[New Ager]

As for morals, non-human primates exhibit moral behavior.



Animals are instinctive and learn behavior. But, animals cannot exhibit morals because they have no idea what they are.



It goes with the gregarious species territory and is better explained by evolution and cultural integration into the group after birth than god beliefs explain it. People are not moral because they fear hell or seek the approval of the gods. They have a certain level of innate morality which is modifiable to some degree.



Morality descends from God and we innately know it.



My dogs figured out all the dogs they met in their first year of life are friends and all the dogs they met after that time are non-group members to be barked and snarled at regardless of the time in between encounters. I have now trained them to sit when they see said non-group members and they get a treat, bark and snarl and they don't. They know the difference between other dogs, (non-group members), people (almost all judged as friends except maybe in the woods after the light is dimming), and prey (no question this is to be chased and killed if caught). No one taught them this 'morality', they came upon it inherently.



That's a learned behavior, not morality.



And did I mention they have unconditional love for me?

Even atheists need a little of God's love. :)

[Cavemonster]

There are all kinds of evidence. If a good friend phones you that your house is on fire, you'd probbaly rush home. If that same friend tells you he feels a spiritual connection to God, he's what? Deluded? Lying? Wishful thinking? Confused? Now multiply that by a billion. But why do claims about spiritual experiences not count as evidence, but claims about things like burning houses do count?

In that case, I would find out pretty quickly whether or not my house was actually on fire. If it wasn't, my theory that listening to my friend results in the truth has been dealt a great blow and I have learned something.

If he tells me that God exists, when can know for sure whether he is right? When I die?

Billions of people believe in mutually exclusive gods. How can I tell which beliefs to count as "evidence"?

[Malerin]

You appear to be confusing anectode with evidence. Yes, I discount evidence that can't be tested, reproduced, stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

What is your reasoning for discouting it?

Excellent. If I toss my computer and it strikes your head, I shall claim it does not exist when you complain. I would accept the same level of proof for you woo, easily.

What would that prove? Have you never stubbed your toe in a dream? Your experience of typing on the computer (sense-data) cannot get you anywhere close to the actual reality of the object. There are an infinite number of non-materilistic theories of reality where getting hit by immaterial objects would result in painful sensations.




Where my skepticsm meets solid evidence, of course.

What is "solid evidence"?


My worldview is evidence based. When yours is the same, you may speak of arrogance.

My worldview is skeptically based, where I don't assume reality is a certain way with absolutely no proof. But go on, keep kicking rocks and convcining yourself they're real. No one's ever tried THAT before ;)

[Cavemonster]

The difference here is utility.
Yes, I may be in a dream, it isn't impossible.
However, the best a person can do is operate by the best model available that explains observed phenomenon and makes accurate predictions.

In order for me to take in "evidence" of a God, the new model it implied would need to describe the world I can observe and make accurate predictions BETTER than the one I currently go by.

[Malerin]

In that case, I would find out pretty quickly whether or not my house was actually on fire. If it wasn't, my theory that listening to my friend results in the truth has been dealt a great blow and I have learned something.

If he tells me that God exists, when can know for sure whether he is right? When I die?

Or you yourself have a life-changing spiritual experience. Plenty of atheists have turned theist after having an NDE. If that were to happen to you, you might find your friend's story of a spiritual experience just as valid as anything else he tells you.

Billions of people believe in mutually exclusive gods. How can I tell which beliefs to count as "evidence"?

Concerning the particulars of their spiritual experiences? You can't. But if you yourself have had spiritual experiences, the fact that most other people do also will probably count as evidence, even though the particulars of their experience (Jehovah, Allah, etc.) may not match your own. Or maybe you would chalk up your own spiritual experience as wishful thinking or a hallucination, but you would have no evidence for doing so.

The point is, people believe in a type of reality so strongly, they categorize the evidence to fit what they believe. If you're atheist, spiritual experiences don't count. If you're a theist, they do. If you're agnostic, they might.

I've argued on quite a few Christian MB's and they're just as fanatical about the existence of Hell as the "skeptics" here are about the existence of matter. There's no proof for either one, but it doesn't stop people from getting pretty nasty when you challenge them on it.

[Foster Zygote]

Animals are instinctive and learn behavior.
Yes, many animals have instinctive and learned behaviors.

But, animals cannot exhibit morals because they have no idea what they are.
Yet chimpanzees and other primates display a sense of right and wrong behaviors within their societies. It is not unknown for animals to come to the aid of others.

Morality descends from God and we innately know it.
No, morality descends from those who raise us. If those who raise us teach that life is precious then we will learn compassion for others. If those who raise us teach that others are enemies that are to be destroyed then we will take machetes and hack apart the Tutsi "cockroaches", or slaughter the infidels who worship the wrong god.

That's a learned behavior, not morality.
My 3.5 year old son likes to share certain things with others. We had to teach this behavior and give positive reenforcement so that he could learn to do that.

A 14 year old Crip from South Central who opens fire on a group of other children because they are wearing red is also exhibiting a learned behavior.

Morality is a learned behavior.

Even atheists need a little of God's love. :)
What about leprechauns? Do we need leprechaun love?

[Malerin]

The difference here is utility.
Yes, I may be in a dream, it isn't impossible.
However, the best a person can do is operate by the best model available that explains observed phenomenon and makes accurate predictions.

Pragmatism, right, and there's no problem with that. Just so long as you acknowledge the phenomenon itself might not be real. An explanation regarding the speed of light or why things fall when you drop them isn't going to be very accurate if light or the Earth aren't real.


In order for me to take in "evidence" of a God, the new model it implied would need to describe the world I can observe and make accurate predictions BETTER than the one I currently go by.

But you have to know the model you're going with actually conforms with reality. To know that, you have to know the negation of countless theories of reality (the world is not five seconds old and we've all been given false memories, you're not dreaming all this, everything's not a projection of God's mind, you're not in a computer program, etc.). You can't prove that any of these are false. If it turns out we're actually in a computer program, the law of gravity is just a bit of software code that can be changed at any time. It's had predictive value so far, but a year from now, who knows what the programmers may decide to do?

[schlitt]

Animals are instinctive and learn behavior. But, animals cannot exhibit morals because they have no idea what they are.



Not so.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn13860

[Brian-M]

Animals are instinctive and learn behavior. But, animals cannot exhibit morals because they have no idea what they are.

So animals cannot exhibit altruism, for example, because they don't know what it is? Does moral behavior not count as moral behavior if the behavior is based on instinct rather than religious convictions?

Morality descends from God and we innately know it.

Morality derives from evolution, and we instinctively know it. :)

[KeyserSoze]

Atheism suggests that there is no super-natural force out there..period. the entire universe and all its complexity is one gigantic accident.
I think your premise is wrong, since you have broadened the definition of atheist to not believing anything that is supernatural. I can't speak for all atheists, but for me, my atheism only suggests that I don't have a belief in a God. The term supernatural could mean a lot of things that wouldn't necessarily be considered as God by most people.

To me, it makes perfect sense that there is something beyond our universe that is not confined to the laws of nature as we know them, and if that is so, then who are we to understand it? Who are we to give it a name such as "God", or an "accident".


but i also believe atheism is also as short sited. how can anyone be sure that there is nothing out there? ...

i think there is a great chance there is something out there much greater then ourselves and what we can imagine. to be confident that such a thing is impossible, is just as arrogant as thinking God is a human being.
I haven't read through all of the replies in this thread, but I hope that somebody has already pointed out that you don't understand what atheism is.

[Foster Zygote]

Or you yourself have a life-changing spiritual experience. Plenty of atheists have turned theist after having an NDE. If that were to happen to you, you might find your friend's story of a spiritual experience just as valid as anything else he tells you.
Whom are these atheists?

You do realize that many an Air Force pilot has experienced the same phenomenae while training in centrifuges, yes? "Near death experiences" are a result of a brief lack of oxygen in the brain.

Concerning the particulars of their spiritual experiences? You can't. But if you yourself have had spiritual experiences, the fact that most other people do also will probably count as evidence, even though the particulars of their experience (Jehovah, Allah, etc.) may not match your own. Or maybe you would chalk up your own spiritual experience as wishful thinking or a hallucination, but you would have no evidence for doing so.
On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence that "spiritual experiences" are an artifact of our physical brains. Such experiences can even be stimulated through chemical or electrical means.

The point is, people believe in a type of reality so strongly, they categorize the evidence to fit what they believe.
Exactly. They reject evidence that contradicts what they have chosen to believe. Many people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and they refuse to acknowledge evidence to the contrary.

If you're atheist, spiritual experiences don't count. If you're a theist, they do. If you're agnostic, they might.
The only thing that counts is repeatable evidence. I do not categorize evidence based on what I want to believe. I have no desire to lack belief in gods. My atheism is a result of the total lack of evidence for gods.

Your theistic position results from you having a desired conclusion and forcing the "evidence" to fit. My atheistic position results from my having examined the evidence and followed it where it lead.

I've argued on quite a few Christian MB's and they're just as fanatical about the existence of Hell as the "skeptics" here are about the existence of matter. There's no proof for either one, but it doesn't stop people from getting pretty nasty when you challenge them on it.
Your right. In fact, I can't even prove that you exist. Can you prove to me that you exist, or should I follow your reasoning into solipsism?

[Miss_Kitt]

Why can't god be superfluous? Maybe he's lazy.

Actually, the fact that god might be superfluous doesn't mean he can't believe in god if he wants to. Didn't the last pope admit that evolution was okay with him (and thereby make it officially okay with the Catholic church)? Are you saying that the pope lied or that the pope can't believe in god?


Actually, what the Pope has said is that Man's body may be the result of evolution, but his soul is the province of God. (This is the kind of fine technical hairsplitting that made Catholicism so appealing when I was younger.) What the Pope couldn't agree with is that conciousness is just an emergent property of the brain and nervous system; as a believer in souls, the Pope must be a dualist. The God of the Gaps is now the God of the Ghosts (in the machines). God the Creator may even have set the process of evolution into motion, just as He set up the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Can't believe that? Sorry, you just flunked your Theology class, at least if your instructor is a Jesuit.

Regards, MK

[Polaris]

I wake up in the morning knowing it's evolution and random chance (my parents meeting and my mother dismissing all the crap about my father not being rich/Polish enough). I happily dismiss the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent bully in the sky who's watching every time I beat the bejesus out of the clown. I'm happy to know when I die, that nothing will happen. I'll nourish some flowers, grass, and earthworms. That's all. That's eternity. Eventually Earth will be swallowed by the sun going into nova and supernova. I'm ok with that. Period. I'll enjoy my life one day at a time, making other people happy whenever possible, and making myself happy if it doesn't mean hurting other people I love and care about. Period, again. My morality is sound, and I can sleep at night not worrying about whether it adheres to an outdated system that claims it's good to stone someone to death for doing chores on Sunday (or is it Saturday? as if it matters worth a rodent's rectum).

My atheism is a conscious choice based on logic and evidence. If there is a God/Allah/Supreme Consciousness/Yahweh/Whatever TF...I'm sure it'll understand that drinking a glass of whisky, smoking a cigar, and having sex with a dusky maiden beats sitting in a pew, stifling a fart, and listening to a self-righteous thieving piece of maggot offal blather on about a book written by political hustlers when the funnel was a fantastic new invention.

I live in (metropolitan) Texas, so this is a challenge sometimes to adhere to. But I can sleep in peace, even without liquid encouragement.

Does that answer your question? Please ask now. I'm drunk, but in that special little window that allows me to catch grammatical and spelling errors and still be ok with what I've written in the morning, when I look this all over at work when I pretend to be busy.

Can you pass the pretzels? Thanks.

[pitbone]

What is your reasoning for discouting it?

I discount evidence that can't be tested, reproduced, stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Where is your confusion here? The reason is that the evidence can't be tested, reproduced and/or stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

What would that prove? Have you never stubbed your toe in a dream?

Have you ever flown or had other super-natural powers in a dream? Do those abilities have anything to do with what happens when you wake up?

Your experience of typing on the computer (sense-data) cannot get you anywhere close to the actual reality of the object.

You seem to be moving the goal post. Are you arguing that the computer doesn't exist, or that's it's a non-physical representation of something that exists that physically exists, but we don't have access to?

There are an infinite number of non-materilistic theories of reality where getting hit by immaterial objects would result in painful sensations.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about atheism? Atheism is not a non-materialistic theory. (Or a materialistic theory for that matter.) It's a rejection of theism based on lack of evidence. (Or evidence disproving theism, although I haven't actually met any atheists who make any such claim.)


What is "solid evidence"?

It's evidence which can be reproduced, retested and verified to demonstrate that results are consistent over time.


My worldview is skeptically based, where I don't assume reality is a certain way with absolutely no proof. But go on, keep kicking rocks and convcining yourself they're real. No one's ever tried THAT before ;)

True skepticism requires extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. If you choose to assert that rocks aren't real and we're all living in a dream world, you must also provide evidence to support your claim. Otherwise the claim has no relevance to our existance.

[Malerin]

Whom are these atheists?

All patients, including those who did not have NDE, had gone through a positive change and were more self-assured, socially aware, and religious than before.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

http://www.near-death.com/atheists.html (skews a bit Christian)


You do realize that many an Air Force pilot has experienced the same phenomenae while training in centrifuges, yes? "Near death experiences" are a result of a brief lack of oxygen in the brain.

"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.

...

"And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences."

"How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation."

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

You've heard of the Lancet, yes?

[plumjam]

I wake up in the morning knowing it's evolution and random chance (my parents meeting and my mother dismissing all the crap about my father not being rich/Polish enough). I happily dismiss the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent bully in the sky who's watching every time I beat the bejesus out of the clown. I'm happy to know when I die, that nothing will happen. I'll nourish some flowers, grass, and earthworms. That's all. That's eternity. Eventually Earth will be swallowed by the sun going into nova and supernova. I'm ok with that. Period. I'll enjoy my life one day at a time, making other people happy whenever possible, and making myself happy if it doesn't mean hurting other people I love and care about. Period, again. My morality is sound, and I can sleep at night not worrying about whether it adheres to an outdated system that claims it's good to stone someone to death for doing chores on Sunday (or is it Saturday? as if it matters worth a rodent's rectum).

My atheism is a conscious choice based on logic and evidence. If there is a God/Allah/Supreme Consciousness/Yahweh/Whatever TF...I'm sure it'll understand that drinking a glass of whisky, smoking a cigar, and having sex with a dusky maiden beats sitting in a pew, stifling a fart, and listening to a self-righteous thieving piece of maggot offal blather on about a book written by political hustlers when the funnel was a fantastic new invention.

I live in (metropolitan) Texas, so this is a challenge sometimes to adhere to. But I can sleep in peace, even without liquid encouragement.

Does that answer your question? Please ask now. I'm drunk, but in that special little window that allows me to catch grammatical and spelling errors and still be ok with what I've written in the morning, when I look this all over at work when I pretend to be busy.

Can you pass the pretzels? Thanks.

A bit long for your epitaph.

[autumn1971]

Malerin,
So you admit that a phenomenon exists which can be studied further, that the phenomenon can be partially explained by very well-known physical mechanisms, and you have shown nothing that suggests that the presently unknown aspects of a phenomenon are anything other than a biological process.
Yup, I'm on the verge of conversion, keep convincing me.

[arthwollipot]

That's certainly not the attitude of most of the atheists here who seem to have a lot of confidence that there is no greater intelligence.New Ager,

Please refer to this thread and poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496) which shows that most respondents who care enough to respond (47.64% at this moment) do not adopt the attitude that you describe here. The 34.03% of responders may have "a lot of confidence that there is no greater intelligence" as you describe, but that's hardly "most".

I suggest you read that thread, because it explains very well the differences between people who describe themselves as "atheist". You may find the discussion enlightening, since you have demonstrated that you really do not understand what atheism is all about.

[Miss_Kitt]

Sigh. Okay, let's start with a few statements about what atheism is and isn't.

Atheism is NOT thinking that there is only random chance and chaos; atheists generally accept the Laws of Thermodynamics, gravitational attraction, probability, evolutionary development, etc. Atheism doesn't say that humanity is the biggest thing in the Universe, or the most advanced form of life, or that we know it all already. It doesn't say that spiritual experiences don't occur, or aren't meaningful, or are the result of madness or gullibility or are invented as deliberate lies.

Atheism per se is mute on the issue of morality. It does not prescribe any code of ethics; it does not proscribe any code of ethics--even the standard Judeo/Christian values--it just disagrees with why those values are correct.

To draw a parallel, some Native Americans put fish in the ground with their seeds, to propritiate the gods/spirits and assure a good harvest; this demonstrably worked better than not putting fish in the planting hill. We can now demonstrate that it is the presence of certain chemicals in the fish carcass that acted as fertilizer, so the action was correct, but the reason ascribed to it was wrong.

Similarly, one may have a life-changing NDE, a vision of the Virgin, a sensation of burning in the breast when praying, etc. and it can still not be the product of Divine Intervention. The reality of one's friend's experience (or one's own experience) is not in doubt, just the explanation given for it.

I have personally been in a theater with hundreds of people experiencing impossible things, courtesy of Penn and Teller. Do I think they actually shoot at each other, and catch the bullets in their teeth? No. Do I have more than the faintest damned idea how they do it? No. That doesn't change my conviction that, however they do it, it doesn't violate the laws of physics, and doesn't involve bullets (or the magicians, for that matter) temporarily leaving normal Space/Time and being returned in a different place. I can draw parallels from this kind of experience to moments that for Believers are proof of their god(s). I'm comfortable with saying, I don't know what that was--within a certain large framework of what is possible--and I'm okay with not knowing the answer yet, perhaps ever.


What atheism says is, I don't believe in gods. Any god at all. That's all. It doesn't even say, And I will never change my mind.


Atheism doesn't say you support a materialist worldview, or don't believe in Bigfoot, or are a capitalist or a socialist, or use or decry homeopathy. It doesn't say whether you think schools should be public or private; churches should be tax-exempt or not; if you approve of pre-marital sex; or whether it's the Cubbies' year, finally!! It just says you reject belief in god(s).

I would love sometime to have a separate thread to deal with the issue of morality, but that's a gigantic sidebar. Suffice it to say, "It's good because God declared it good" leaves open the uncomfortable question of, "So if God said eating other people's babies was good, it would be?" The normal theist answer is, "God wouldn't ever say that." Which doesn't really answer the question. Either there is an objective standard of good and evil--in which case, you don't need a god for ethics to work; or, only god's say-so decides good and evil, in which case you are one misleading Messiah away from eating babies. (Sidebar on the sidebar: How does god deciding right and wrong differ from the toughest hoodlum setting the Law in the neighborhood? Discuss.) Atheism doesn't speak to one's moral beliefs, only what one doesn't believe is the root source of morality.

So, how can one be an atheist? By not believing in a god or gods. Why is one an atheist? Because one has not found evidence sufficient to support such a belief.

[Prometheus]

<snip>

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

http://www.near-death.com/atheists.html (skews a bit Christian)

<snip>



The Lancet article you link does not mention the words atheist, theist or God at all. Nor does it make any mention of what any of the subjects' beliefs (or lack thereof) were before they experienced clinical death and subsequently reported memories which the researchers categorized as 'near death experiences' (NDE's). They interviewed patients between 1 and 70 days afterward, then again 2 years and 8 years later. It reports that, on average, patients who reported remembering an NDE experienced an increase in strength of religious attitudes in the second and third interviews. It makes no mention at all of whether any of the individuals went from 0 belief to having some belief. It also misses several important considerations in its discussion section. For example, it makes no mention of the possibility of selection bias effects due to the fact that only about half of the patients initially interviewed agreed to be interviewed the second time. Also, while it notes that memory problems may be an important factor, it does not discuss the possibility of implanted or false memory.

The second link is to a bunch of unsubstantiated anecdotes presented in a highly biased and unscientific manner.

[leonAzul]

I don't think such a thing is impossible. I just think

#1) Such a thing isn't going to help me get a raise at work.

#2) Such a thing isn't going to help me get my girlfriends panties off.

#3) Such a thing isn't going to help me get over the flu any faster.

#4) Such a thing isn't going to protect me from people who want to hurt me.

#5) Such a thing isn't going to help me beat my nemesis in Soul Calibur or Rocket Arena 3.

#6) Such a thing isn't going to stop hackers from stealing my personal information.
.
.
.

#82765 ) Such a thing isn't going to help my species survive in the universe it may have created.

.
.
.

#9887181385776 ) Such a thing, in general, doesn't make a bit of difference in my life, so until it does, it is a waste of my time to even ponder it.

In short, pragmatism. And there is nothing wrong about that, in context.

Yet there is a strong pragmatic argument for at least tolerating monotheism. Iff there is only One God, then we are all worshiping the same God, just using different language. This is a powerful argument among the believers (aka "superstitious") to achieve some sort of practical consensus.

[Malerin]

The Lancet article you link does not mention the words atheist, theist or God at all. Nor does it make any mention of what any of the subjects' beliefs (or lack thereof) were before they experienced clinical death and subsequently reported memories which the researchers categorized as 'near death experiences' (NDE's). They interviewed patients between 1 and 70 days afterward, then again 2 years and 8 years later. It reports that, on average, patients who reported remembering an NDE experienced an increase in strength of religious attitudes in the second and third interviews. It makes no mention at all of whether any of the individuals went from 0 belief to having some belief. It also misses several important considerations in its discussion section. For example, it makes no mention of the possibility of selection bias effects due to the fact that only about half of the patients initially interviewed agreed to be interviewed the second time. Also, while it notes that memory problems may be an important factor, it does not discuss the possibility of implanted or false memory.

The second link is to a bunch of unsubstantiated anecdotes presented in a highly biased and unscientific manner.

Uh huh. So out of the 50 or so NDE's in the Lancet study, not one of them happened to an atheist. What are you guys running now? Less than 1% of the population?

I present evidence that all people who have NDE's become more religious and spiritual and give a link to about a dozen personal stories from atheists who've turned theists, and they're all liars. No atheist has ever changed their mind after having an NDE :rolleyes:

[Foster Zygote]

The Lancet article you link does not mention the words atheist, theist or God at all. Nor does it make any mention of what any of the subjects' beliefs (or lack thereof) were before they experienced clinical death and subsequently reported memories which the researchers categorized as 'near death experiences' (NDE's). They interviewed patients between 1 and 70 days afterward, then again 2 years and 8 years later. It reports that, on average, patients who reported remembering an NDE experienced an increase in strength of religious attitudes in the second and third interviews. It makes no mention at all of whether any of the individuals went from 0 belief to having some belief. It also misses several important considerations in its discussion section. For example, it makes no mention of the possibility of selection bias effects due to the fact that only about half of the patients initially interviewed agreed to be interviewed the second time. Also, while it notes that memory problems may be an important factor, it does not discuss the possibility of implanted or false memory.

I'm glad I saw your post before repeating much of the same in a reply of my own. One problem I have with the conclusion of the study is this statement:
Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.
The problem is that we don't know enough about what is going on physically to draw this conclusion. Anoxia is apparently not the sole cause, but until we know more about the cause of the experience we can't say what other physical factors are involved. It may be entirely physical, but caused by an unknown combination of factors.

Something interesting that Malerin seems to have missed:
The subjective nature and absence of a frame of reference for this experience lead to individual, cultural, and religious factors determining the vocabulary used to describe and interpret the experience.


The second link is to a bunch of unsubstantiated anecdotes presented in a highly biased and unscientific manner.
I recognized the name "Dannion Brinkley". He's a fraud who claims to have been dead for half an hour after being struck by lightning. He then woke up in the morgue. Of course, no one working at the hospital has ever substantiated this truly remarkable tale. You'd think someone would remember something like that. Then there are his "predictions". The site linked does not mention that these predictions were made a posteriori. Brinkley claims to have revealed his prophecies only to a friend, Raymond Moody if I remember correctly, because they just seemed too implausible. But then, after the events occurred, the mounting evidence convinced him to come forward. Predictably, he has not made a single successful specific a prioriprediction.

And I love the bit with the rationalization of failed prophecies:
NDErs have received prophecies of the future, both personal and apocalyptic. Some were told the future is not predetermined because humans have the power to change it by enlightening the awareness of enough people to change current trends. In this respect, an apocalyptic prophecy that doesn't occur is a prophecy that was successful. An apocalyptic prophecy that occurs is a failure. The reason that God does not intervene to prevent them from happening, is because to do so, would interfere directly with human spiritual and physical development. An example of this principle can be found when environmentalists refuse to interfere with nature so that evolution can continue unabated.

An example of the future being changed can be found in the NDE account of Karen Schaeffer. During her NDE, she was shown the future of her children, as it would happen, if she decided to remain in heaven. She was told that if she returned to life, the future she saw would not happen. Her decision was to return and, therefore, the future she saw did not happen.


I guess there's nothing left but for Malerin to prove to me that he exists.

[Polaris]

A bit long for your epitaph.

Because it's not. I'm stealing mine from Peter O'Toole:

"It distresses us to return work which is not perfect."

[Patsy]

Where is your confusion here? The reason is that the evidence can't be tested, reproduced and/or stand up to rigorous scrutiny.



Have you ever flown or had other super-natural powers in a dream? Do those abilities have anything to do with what happens when you wake up?



You seem to be moving the goal post. Are you arguing that the computer doesn't exist, or that's it's a non-physical representation of something that exists that physically exists, but we don't have access to?



Aren't we supposed to be talking about atheism? Atheism is not a non-materialistic theory. (Or a materialistic theory for that matter.) It's a rejection of theism based on lack of evidence. (Or evidence disproving theism, although I haven't actually met any atheists who make any such claim.)




It's evidence which can be reproduced, retested and verified to demonstrate that results are consistent over time.




True skepticism requires extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. If you choose to assert that rocks aren't real and we're all living in a dream world, you must also provide evidence to support your claim. Otherwise the claim has no relevance to our existance.

Heh, I get up in the morning, and someone has already answered for me, must be a supernatural experience, woo! :D

[alfaniner]

I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Do you believe leprechauns, fairies or flying pink invisible unicorns exist? If not, then you are just as short sighted as I...

Silly!!! Unicorns can't fly!!!

[Prometheus]

Uh huh. So out of the 50 or so NDE's in the Lancet study, not one of them happened to an atheist. What are you guys running now? Less than 1% of the population?

62 out of 344 patients in the Lancet study reported NDE's, and only 37 of them agreed to be interviewed the second time. Since this study is based on personal recollections and numerous studies have pointed to connections between personal beliefs and false/implanted memory, this raises the question of whether or not atheists are more or less likely to remember--and subsequently report--having an NDE in the first place. Unfortunately, this study leaves that question unasked and unanswered.



I present evidence that all people who have NDE's become more religious and spiritual and give a link to about a dozen personal stories from atheists who've turned theists, and they're all liars. No atheist has ever changed their mind after having an NDE :rolleyes:

You did nothing of the kind, as the statement I hilighted is your own misinterpretation and is not included in the authors' discussion of their results. Since only 37 patients who reported NDE's were interviewed the second time, we have no way to determine whether the other 25 became more religious and spiritual. It seems perfectly reasonable that people who had an opposite experience might be unwilling to continue participation in the study. This makes it impossible to draw such a conclusion, which may explain why the authors of the study do not do so.

ETA: The personal stories you linked to are unsubstantiated anecdotes presented on a biased web site with no citations. As such, they may or may not be actual stories told by the people in question. I'm not accusing these people of lying. I'm not even accusing the author of the web site of lying. I'm simply pointing out that what you have presented here is lacking in credibility because I have no way to authenticate it.

I also do not claim that no atheist has ever changed their mind after experiencing an NDE, merely that you have failed to provide hard evidence that any have done so.

[CurtC]

God is inherently not understandable since he is outside of the physical realm.Can you explain the difference between "he is outside of the physical realm" and "he does not exist"? Those two seem practically indistinguishable.


Without God, you couldn't even lift your little finger, so yes, it does matter, more than you know.
Oh, so God does operate within the physical realm. I wish you theists would get together and agree what the hell you believe before you try to sell it to the rest of us.

[Malerin]

62 out of 344 patients in the Lancet study reported NDE's, and only 37 of them agreed to be interviewed the second time. Since this study is based on personal recollections and numerous studies have pointed to connections between personal beliefs and false/implanted memory, this raises the question of whether or not atheists are more or less likely to remember--and subsequently report--having an NDE in the first place. Unfortunately, this study leaves that question unasked and unanswered.

Atheists have had NDE's. Some became spiritual (Howard Storm), some didn't (Daniel Dennet).



You did nothing of the kind, as the statement I hilighted is your own misinterpretation and is not included in the authors' discussion of their results. Since only 37 patients who reported NDE's were interviewed the second time, we have no way to determine whether the other 25 became more religious and spiritual. It seems perfectly reasonable that people who had an opposite experience might be unwilling to continue participation in the study. This makes it impossible to draw such a conclusion, which may explain why the authors of the study do not do so.

How is this not a conclusion? "All patients, including those who did not have NDE, had gone through a positive change and were more self-assured, socially aware, and religious than before." ALL the patients they were able to interview at the 8 yr mark had become more religious. That is a conclusion based on their interviews.

Edit: I see your point though, and I'll amend my claim: Of all the people who agreed to be interviewed, ALL had become more religious. As you say, this does not mean that ALL NDE experiencers become more spiritual.

ETA: the personal stories you linked to are unsubstantiated anecdotes presented on a biased web site with no citations. As such, they may or may not be actual stories told by the people in question. I'm not accusing these people of lying. I'm not even accusing the author of the web site of lying. I'm simply pointing out that what you have presented here is lacking in credibility because I have no way to authenticate it.

That's OK, and I think we're getting side-tracked. My claim is simply that some atheists have become theists due to their NDE experience. My referencing the Lancet study was primarily to offer evidence that NDE's are not casued by oxygen deprivation in the brain. The authors of the study certainly didn't think so. Here's a well-researched article that makes the same claim about atheists that I did:

"Many people who experience an NDE tend to see it as a verification of the existence of an afterlife . Core NDE experiencers, in particular, tend to be convinced of the reality of the experience as an intimation of the afterlife. This includes those with agnostic/atheist inclinations before the experience. Many former atheists, such as the Reverand Howard Storm have adopted a more spiritual view of life after their NDEs. Howard Storm's NDE might also be characterized as a distressing near-death experience. The distressing aspects of some NDE's are discussed more closely by Greyson & Bush"

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Near-death_experience *


I also do not claim that no atheist has ever changed their mind after experiencing an NDE, merely that you have failed to provide hard evidence that any have done so. [/quote]

From the study: "Of the 74 patients whom we interviewed at 2-year follow-up, 42 (57%) had previously heard of NDE, 53 (72%) were religious, 25 (34%) had left education aged 12 years, and 49 (66%) had been educated until aged at least 16 years."

If 72% were religious, 28% were not. Now, non-religious may not exactly mean atheist, but it's significant if all (or some) of the non-religious patients became MORE religious afterwards. The study concludes:

"8-year follow-up included 23 patients with an NDE that had been affirmed at 2-year follow-up. 11 patients had died and one could not be interviewed. Patients could still recall their NDE almost exactly. Of the patients without an NDE at 2-year follow-up, 20 had died and four patients could not be interviewed (for reasons such as dementia and long stay in hospital), which left 15 patients without an NDE to take part in the third interview.

All patients, including those who did not have NDE, had gone through a positive change and were more self-assured, socially aware, and religious than before."

Your assumption, without any proof, is that ALL the 28% of the patients who were non-religious did not participate in the 8 year follow-up. That would be very anamolous and the authors make no mention of it. Pure supposition, on your part, that every non-religious person either died in the intervening years or declined to be interviewed. Reasonable conclusion: Of the non-religious people who were interviewed at the 8 yr mark, all were more religious 8 years after their NDE.

*References
American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association .
Blackmore, Susan Near-Death Experiences: In or out of the body? Skeptical Inquirer, 16, pp. 34-45
Blackmore, Susan Dying to live: Science and Near-Death Experiences. London: Harper Collins.
Blanke, Olaf; Ortigue, Stéphanie; Landis, Theodor; Seeck, Margitta Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. The part of the brain that can induce out-of-body experiences has been located. Nature, Vol. 419, 19 September, 2002
Britton WB & Bootzin RR. Near-death experiences and the temporal lobe. Psychol Sci. Apr;15:254-8. PubMed PubMed

Greyson, B. The Near-Death Experience Scale: Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 369-375.
Greyson B. The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. May;185:327-34. Greyson, B. Some neuropsychological correlates of the physio-kundalini syndrome. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 32, 123-134.
Greyson, Bruce Near-Death Experiences in a Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic Population. Psychiatric Services, December, Vol. 54 No. 12. The American Psychiatric Association
Greyson, Bruce & Bush, Nancy E. Distressing near-death experiences. Psychiatry, Feb;55:95-110.
Jansen, Karl L. R. Using ketamine to induce the near-death experience: mechanism of action and therapeutic potential. Yearbook for Ethnomedicine and the Study of Consciousness Issue 4 pp55-81.
Jansen, Karl L. R. The Ketamine Model of the Near Death Experience: A central role for the NMDA Receptor. Journal of Near-Death Studies Vol. 16, No.1
Kelly EW. Near-death experiences with reports of meeting deceased people. Death Stud. Apr-May;25:229-49
Lange R, Greyson B, Houran J. A Rasch scaling validation of a 'core' near-death experience. British Journal of Psychology, Volume: 95 Part: 2 Page: 161-177
Lukoff, David, Lu, Francis G. & Turner, Robert P. From Spiritual Emergency to Spiritual Problem - The Transpersonal Roots of the New DSM-IV Category. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38, 21-50
Martens PR. Near-death-experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors. Meaningful phenomena or just fantasy of death? Resuscitation. Mar;27:171-5. Mauro, James Bright lights, big mystery. Psychology Today, July 1992
Morse M., Conner D. and Tyler D. Near-Death Experiences in a pediatric population. A preliminary report, American Journal of Disease of Children, n. 139 PubMed PubMed


abstract PMID 4003364
Morse, Melvin Closer to the Light: Learning From the Near-Death Experiences of Children. New York: Villard books
Morse, Melvin & Perry, Paul Transformed by the Light. New York: Villard books
Moody, R. Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon - Survival of Bodily Death. New York: Bantam
Moody, R. Reflections on Life After Life: More Important Discoveries In The Ongoing Investigation Of Survival Of Life After Bodily Death. New York: Bantam
Moody, R. The Last Laugh: A New Philosophy of Near-Death Experiences, Apparitions, and the Paranormal. Hampton Roads Publishing Company
Mullens, K. Returned From The Other Side. Publ. Kenneth G. Mullens
Mullens, K. Visions From The Other Side. Publ. Kenneth G. Mullens
Orne RM. The meaning of survival: the early aftermath of a near-death experience. Research in Nursing & Health. 1995 Jun;18:239-47. PubMed Parnia S, Waller DG, Yeates R, Fenwick P A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors. Resuscitation. Feb;48:149-56. PubMed PubMed

abstract PMID 11426476
Peake, Anthony "Is There Life After Death?"
Pinchbeck, Daniel Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. Broadway Books, trade paperback, 322 pages
Pravda Reanimators try to grasp the afterlife mystery. Pravda article 21.12.2004.
Pritchard, Mark H. Near Death Experiences, Absolute Publishing Group
Raaby et al. Beyond the Deathbed.
Ring K. Life at death. A scientific investigation of the near- death experience. New York: Coward McCann and Geoghenan
Rivas T. . The Survivalist Interpretation of Recent Studies into the Near-Death Experience. Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 26, 1, 27-31.
Rodrigues, Linda Andrade Ex-atheist describes near-death experience. Standard Times, Page C4, January 31, 2004
Shermer, Michael Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company
Sabom, Michael Light & Death: One Doctor's Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House
Simpson SM. Near death experience: a concept analysis as applied to nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Nov;36:520-6. PubMed PubMed



abstract PMID 11703546
Rick Strassman, DMT: The Spirit Molecule Molecule

In chemistry, a molecule is an aggregate of two or more atom [i]s in a definite arrangement held togethe ...

: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death Near-death experience

A near-death experience is the perception reported by a person who nearly died or who was clinically dead [i] ...

and Mystical Mysticism

Mysticism from the Greek [i] ?st???? "an initiate" is the pursuit of achieving communi ...

Experiences, 320 pages, Park Street Press, 2001, ISBN 0-89281-927-8
Thomas, Shawn Agmatine and Near-Death Experiences. Article published at www.neurotransmitter.net
van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I. Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A prospective Study in the Netherlands. Lancet, Dec 15;358:2039-45.

[Malerin]

I'm glad I saw your post before repeating much of the same in a reply of my own. One problem I have with the conclusion of the study is this statement:

The problem is that we don't know enough about what is going on physically to draw this conclusion. Anoxia is apparently not the sole cause, but until we know more about the cause of the experience we can't say what other physical factors are involved. It may be entirely physical, but caused by an unknown combination of factors.

You seemed pretty sure it was caused by oxygen deprivation, until I showed you the Lancet study. Are you just as sure it's casued by purely physical factors?

Something interesting that Malerin seems to have missed:




I recognized the name "Dannion Brinkley". He's a fraud who claims to have been dead for half an hour after being struck by lightning. He then woke up in the morgue. Of course, no one working at the hospital has ever substantiated this truly remarkable tale. You'd think someone would remember something like that. Then there are his "predictions". The site linked does not mention that these predictions were made a posteriori. Brinkley claims to have revealed his prophecies only to a friend, Raymond Moody if I remember correctly, because they just seemed too implausible. But then, after the events occurred, the mounting evidence convinced him to come forward. Predictably, he has not made a single successful specific a prioriprediction.

And I love the bit with the rationalization of failed prophecies:




I admit I didn't research that site as well as I should have. I've found a more well-researched site that makes the same generic claim regarding atheists and NDE's, (see above post).

I guess there's nothing left but for Malerin to prove to me that he exists.

That's just what I would expect a hallucination to say.

[Prometheus]

Atheists have had NDE's. Some became spiritual (Howard Storm), some didn't (Daniel Dennet).

If you were already aware that some people who've experienced NDE's did not become more spiritual, then why
did you previously claim that the Lancet article was proving otherwise?


How is this not a conclusion? "All patients, including those who did not have NDE, had gone through a positive change and were more self-assured, socially aware, and religious than before." ALL the patients they were able to interview at the 8 yr mark had become more religious. That is a conclusion based on their interviews.

Edit: I see your point though, and I'll amend my claim: Of all the people who agreed to be interviewed, ALL had become more religious. As you say, this does not mean that ALL NDE experiencers become more spiritual.


That statement appears in discussion of just 23 patients who were interviewed at the 8 yr. mark. Also, please note that it says even those who had not had an NDE had become more religious. Obviously, then NDE's cannot be said to be decisive in patients who become more religious 8 years after having experienced clinical death.


That's OK, and I think we're getting side-tracked. My claim is simply that some atheists have become theists due to their NDE experience. My referencing the Lancet study was primarily to offer evidence that NDE's are not casued by oxygen deprivation in the brain. The authors of the study certainly didn't think so.


Thank you, BTW, for actually attempting to provide evidence for your claim. Many people do not bother to take that necessary step, so you certainly deserve credit. One nitpick, however: Even if you can provide substantiated cases of atheists converting to theism after experiencing an NDE, it is still improper to use the term "due to". This is an example of the post hoc logical fallacy. In order support such a statement of causality, you would need to show that the percentage of athiests who experience NDE and then convert is significantly greater than the percentage that would be expected to do so by pure chance, and you would have to control for all other factors that could possibly result in such a conversion.

As to the authors' claims about oxygen deprivation, I believe Foster Zygote had some concerns that should be addressed.


Here's a well-researched article that makes the same claim about atheists that I did:

Thanks. I'll take a look at that later.


From the study: "Of the 74 patients whom we interviewed at 2-year follow-up, 42 (57%) had previously heard of NDE, 53 (72%) were religious, 25 (34%) had left education aged 12 years, and 49 (66%) had been educated until aged at least 16 years."

If 72% were religious, 28% were not. Now, non-religious may not exactly mean atheist, but it's significant if all (or some) of the non-religious patients became MORE religious afterwards. The study concludes:

At first, I thought you might be correct here, but then I re-read the study and noticed that the "74 patients interviewed at the 2-year follow-up" included 35 who'd had NDE's and 39 controls who had not had NDE's. However, in reporting the demographics for these, they do not state how many, if any, of the 21 non-religious patients had had NDE's. This leaves open the possibility that all (Or even just enough to render the remainder statistically insignificant) the non-religious patients had not had an NDE and their subsequent increase in spirituality was a result of some other factor.


Your assumption, without any proof, is that ALL the 28% of the patients who were non-religious did not participate in the 8 year follow-up.

I make no such assumption. It's a possibility which the authors do not specifically exclude.


That would be very anamolous and the authors make no mention of it. Pure supposition, on your part, that every non-religious person either died in the intervening years or declined to be interviewed.

For such a small sample size, especially from a population that the authors admit may not be particularly representative of the general population, the possibility I'm concerned about would, in fact, not be anomolous at all.


Reasonable conclusion: Of the non-religious people who were interviewed at the 8 yr mark, all were more religious 8 years after their NDE.


This is not only reasonable, but it's exactly what the data shows: All of the people interviewed at the 8 year mark were more religious than they had been at the beginning. It just doesn't say whether or not any of them were atheists beforehand.

Thank you for all the references. I'll have to find time to look them up. :)

[Malerin]

Thank you for all the references. I'll have to find time to look them up. :)

Don't kill yourself researching all the references! BTW, I appreciate the civil tone you've displayed. Personally, I find NDE's to be fascinating. There's a new study beginning (largest of it's kind) that will, in part, attempt to prove veridical out of body experiences (by putting signs in places only a person "floating" above their body could read).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910090829.htm

"During the AWARE study, doctors will use sophisticated technology to study the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest. At the same time, they will test the validity of out of body experiences and claims of being able to 'see' and 'hear' during cardiac arrest."

[Horatius]

(Sidebar on the sidebar: How does god deciding right and wrong differ from the toughest hoodlum setting the Law in the neighborhood? Discuss.)



The toughest hoodlum in the neighborhood can only torture me for the rest of my life.

God can torture me for the rest of eternity.

[Silentknight]

There's something interesting about one of the parts Malerin quoted:

"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.

A lack of an NDE in most of the patients seems to indicate that most of them didn't see or experience anything worth remembering. Here's how the logic of the study could work both ways. If metaphysical or supernatural factors could account for NDEs, and those factors are presumably a part of objective reality as it applies to everyone, then shouldn't all or most of the patients have had NDEs? The fact that they didn't could be seen as an indication that it is only people who already believe, or are predisposed to believe, will see visions of the afterlife.

It turns out that this is exactly the case. Christians will see the Christian heaven, Muslims will see the Muslim heaven, nonbelievers who were formerly theists may see leftovers from their subconscious past, and agnostics and atheists see nothing. An agnostic Buddhist whom I used to speak to said this happened to him and he saw nothing. If the Vikings had colonized North America and the Norse religion were still prevalent, then soldiers who suffer near fatal wounds in battle would say they see Valhalla. One could at this point make the argument that what you believe is true for you, but that's a different topic altogether.

[Foster Zygote]

That's just what I would expect a hallucination to say.

An hallucination. Are you saying that you are a solipsist? But that can't be because cogito ergo sum, so only I can be a solipsist.

[Brian-M]

"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.



That doesn't make sense. Most of the rapidly accelerated fighter pilots didn't have NDE either. You'd only expect a small percentage of NDE in near-death cases.



"How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?


How do you know when the NDE occured? It could have happened before the EEG went flat, or as brain-function resumed. EEGs aren't very sensitive either, weak brain activity might not be detected.

[CurtC]

An hallucination.

I think "a hallucination" would be preferred by most speakers of US English. Some people don't pronounce initial "H" sounds on words, so they'd properly use "an," and some people prefer to use "an" with an unaccented first syllable that begins with the "H" sound, but most Americans prefer "a" even if the first syllable is unaccented.

[RandFan]

God can help all of these."Can?" four leaf clovers can also help all of those.

God can only help with things that can be helped without god. There is no evidence god helps anyone who asks or believes more than those who don't.

So I can tell god to bugger off and he is just as likely to help as if I didn't.

So what's the point?