Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how is it that the non believers fight so hard to prove that what they do not believe in exists doesn't exist? Isn't their non believer horse dead already? Why do they keep beating it?
Why do you classify simple discussion as "fighting so hard"? No one is stressing over these forum conversations they simply do it because they find it an interesting topic.
So how is it that the non believers fight so hard to prove that what they do not believe in exists doesn't exist? Isn't their non believer horse dead already? Why do they keep beating it?
Nice well -poisoning job. Forcing on me a claim to be an expert in NDE's when you be pretty sure I'm not. Well, the answer is that they could be real visions of an afterlife, they could be personally coloured interpretation of a glimpse of an afterlife or they could be one of the delusions that humans sometimes get. As yet 'We don't know' is my position on that.
And now let me ask you, what is your very well researched and unbiased opinion of NDE's?
Interesting that you based your conversion on a reaction against a poisonously bad worldview, and one that is quite false, is not by any stretch the view of atheists in general and is of course giving yourself away - as I recall (I'll check)you said it was research that led to your conversion, but now you say it was a reaction against a depressive view which is in any case not common to atheists.
Yep you post 16
"I went through 4 years of massive unbelief but my searching through reason logic and science brought me back to God and brought me back to my senses ."
That looks like strike 1 to me.
First if you had read my post carefully the conversion I was talking about was another persons not mine , and it's something I've seen a lot of in my conversion with atheists as most seem to be angry which entails emotion which is not a sound way to base your worldview on.
Second no I didn't know if you had researched Ndes well or not .
If you haven't then you should back off on your atheism until you have better researched them don't you think . Your atheism shouldn't be based on what you don't know but on what you do know ?
My unbelief and then return to belief is based on what I do know and also what I understand about a world with God in it .
And my well researched opinion on Ndes is about the same as the consensus opinion of the majority of nde researchers which is nde though not absolutely conclusive is highly suggestive of Consciousness or the soul surviving physical death .
People highly regarded des in this field like Greyson ,Sabom , sartori , long abd even the long time nde sceptic abd agnostic dr Sam parnia (head of the largest peer reviewed nde study ever conducted ) has started to lean slightly to my side .
Now your opinion of we don't know is curious as it is your safety net and based not on knowledge of Ndes but your ignorance of nde research .
Your next move is to either study it or do what 98% of atheists who are cornered on this do and that is call it pseudo science.
My question is why in holy heck did you not research Ndes all this time unless your a happy where you are ?
Why do you classify simple discussion as "fighting so hard"? No one is stressing over these forum conversations they simply do it because they find it an interesting topic.
If they find it interesting shouldn't they approach it from a totally unbias and open point of view ?
First if you had read my post carefully the conversion I was talking about was another persons not mine , and it's something I've seen a lot of in my conversion with atheists as most seem to be angry which entails emotion which is not a sound way to base your worldview on.
Second no I didn't know if you had researched Ndes well or not .
If you haven't then you should back off on your atheism until you have better researched them don't you think . Your atheism shouldn't be based on what you don't know but on what you do know ?
My unbelief and then return to belief is based on what I do know and also what I understand about a world with God in it .
And my well researched opinion on Ndes is about the same as the consensus opinion of the majority of nde researchers which is nde though not absolutely conclusive is highly suggestive of Consciousness or the soul surviving physical death .
People highly regarded des in this field like Greyson ,Sabom , sartori , long abd even the long time nde sceptic abd agnostic dr Sam parnia (head of the largest peer reviewed nde study ever conducted ) has started to lean slightly to my side .
Now your opinion of we don't know is curious as it is your safety net and based not on knowledge of Ndes but your ignorance of nde research .
Your next move is to either study it or do what 98% of atheists who are cornered on this do and that is call it pseudo science.
My question is why in holy heck did you not research Ndes all this time unless your a happy where you are ?
You said you had scientific reasons for believing in whatever you define as god. If you have scientific reasons you will be able to answer the three questions I asked earlier. So far you have only answered question #2 which is not sufficient for a scientific position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
If they find it interesting shouldn't they approach it from a totally unbias and open point of view ?
Sure, which is why I am giving you the opportunity to present your ideas in a scientifically valid format. So far, you have not.
1) What is your definition of god: Jesus? Pantheist? Answer this first because it is important, you cant offer evidence for something you refuse to define.
2) Do you believe that NDEs are objective evidence of your definition of god provided to answer question #1?
3) If you do believe that NDEs are objective evidence of your definition of god, can you explain specifically how they fill that role and why they are evidence of your version of god instead of say, Odin or Ra?
I already have my popcorn ready, don't worry.
Thus far, I'd say -don't buy a big one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'm Pantheist.
But anybody can be into with whatever suits them AFAIC. I'm cool with all of it.
After I'm done with him you two can have a nice cosy head -butting session about your various views on what God is.
The "NDEs as scientific evidence for god" claim is useless if he can't answer those 3 questions. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis until that point.
1) What is your definition of god: Jesus? Pantheist? Answer this first because it is important, you cant offer evidence for something you refuse to define.
2) Do you believe that NDEs are objective evidence of your definition of god provided to answer question #1?
3) If you do believe that NDEs are objective evidence of your definition of god, can you explain specifically how they fill that role and why they are evidence of your version of god instead of say, Odin or Ra?
I already have my popcorn ready, don't worry.
Well we can eliminate any question as to which God because I would never say that Ndes prove one specific c God right over another abd I really don't need to snore because they don't go that far but to give evidence e against atheism all I need is some evidence of a general type of God not tied to any one specific religion which Ndes are starting to do, especially from dr longs global commonality study as he has the largest nde database ever assembled by any researcher and looks for common core beliefs that are there regardless of worldview or cultural upbringing . The powerful part of longs research is that it ties in powerfully to the research of others like dr morse whose nde research of kids as young as 3 years old show a convergence on these commonalities .
Remember that kids that young are too young to have been indoctrinated in any worldview yet .
Side note it's too bad dr morse became so obsessive on becoming the nde King that he threw away his moral compass and was convicted of water boarding his own step daughter in order to induce an nde in her .
Looks like he did anakin skywalker .
I believe I have dealt with all 3 of your assertions sorry if I didn't even see your post .
I got another 10 atheists on my jock strap on Twitter (pun intended
I believe I have dealt with all 3 of your assertions sorry if I didn't even see your post .
I got another 10 atheists on my jock strap on Twitter (pun intended
In science you seek evidence for well defined assertions. The sorta god assertion you provided is not sufficient. So no, you have thus far only answered question #2, that you think NDEs are evidence of god. You have neither defined the attributes of the god they are supposed to be evidence for (q1) nor provided the logical explanations of why you think NDE evidence supports this version of god (q3). Both of those questions are required for a scientific position.
What are the attributes of this god that you think NDEs support?
Why are NDEs evidence for these attributes and not the attributes that other people say god has or no god at all?
First if you had read my post carefully the conversion I was talking about was another persons not mine , and it's something I've seen a lot of in my conversion with atheists as most seem to be angry which entails emotion which is not a sound way to base your worldview on.
Let me post your entire post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippy123
Transponder what a load of crap . I went through 4 years of massive unbelief but my searching through reason logic and science brought me back to God and brought me back to my senses .
Maybe you'd like to try to take me back there . Most likely it will be you that converts
Is that yourself you are are talking about or not?
Quote:
Second no I didn't know if you had researched Ndes well or not .
If you haven't then you should back off on your atheism until you have better researched them don't you think . Your atheism shouldn't be based on what you don't know but on what you do know ?
My unbelief and then return to belief is based on what I do know and also what I understand about a world with God in it .
And my well researched opinion on Ndes is about the same as the consensus opinion of the majority of nde researchers which is nde though not absolutely conclusive is highly suggestive of Consciousness or the soul surviving physical death .
People highly regarded des in this field like Greyson ,Sabom , sartori , long abd even the long time nde sceptic abd agnostic dr Sam parnia (head of the largest peer reviewed nde study ever conducted ) has started to lean slightly to my side .
Now your opinion of we don't know is curious as it is your safety net and based not on knowledge of Ndes but your ignorance of nde research .
Your next move is to either study it or do what 98% of atheists who are cornered on this do and that is call it pseudo science.
My question is why in holy heck did you not research Ndes all this time unless your a happy where you are ?
The arguments are still ongoing on both sides. I'm not going to draw any conclusions on it as numbers of researchers don't guarantee correctness, and you can guess with researchers are going to be most interested in this. And instead of answering my question, you ask another one.
Well, I'll answer. reservation of belief until verified results are in is not only a safety net but logically and scientifically correct.
Now you didn't give an real answer, but it's pretty clear that you have a 'Side" to you view and can at best toss in some names, without saying what they conclude and why, and cite only one peer reviewed "skeptic and agnostic" whom you say is "has started to lean slightly to my side."
Well, I'd say you are anticipating the results before they are in and "Don't know" is still the right position, - so of course it hasn't made any difference to my atheism. If I were to give it up every time some claims for theist proof was trumpeted about and then had to deconvert every time it was debunked, I'd never have time to sacrifice the daily black cat.
I won't call that strike 2 - I'll keep that for a proper refutation, not just pointing up premature conclusions based on unproven claims.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-25-2017 at 03:02 PM..
Reason: Fixed quote tag
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- I'll keep that for a proper refutation, not just pointing up premature conclusions based on unproven claims.
