Challenge to atheists....

[VitalOne]

Atheists constantly b*tch (I'm starting to censor all my language because mods don't tolerate it now), wine, and moan all over this forum about how there's no evidence of God/soul/afterlife etc...and how people who believe in such things are trapped in delusion...living in a fantasy world, everyone's delusional except for them.....

Ok atheists, help me design an experiment following the scientific method that would determine if a God/soul/afterlife was true or false.....if you say you can't then you admit that you're basing all your beliefs purely on "blind faith", and also why do you constantly ask theists for evidence if you admit at the sametime that no evidence can currently be gathered, instead you are left with "blind faith", faith that in the future empirical evidence won't be gathered that would clearly show one being true.....in other words you move where ever the evidence goes.....and the empirical evidence is ever-changing, meaning you base your beliefs on something fickle, unsteady, etc...

Now I know a lot of you atheists will be saying bullsh*t like "the burden of proof is on the theist" but this isn't about any of that sh*t, this about the truth, the ACTUAL TRUTH, you know the way that reality really is, and how in something known as *reality* new empirical evidence will be gained an in 1,000 years biology, chemistry, physics, etc...will probably be completely different....

You'd have to be a real fool to insist that science has all the empirical evidence there is and knows all that there is, and you'd also have to be a real fool to say that science won't GREATLY change in the future since there are many theories (many-worlds, theory of relativity, copenhagen, just to name a few) that currently there is no experimental evidence verifying which is actually true....do you know what this means? Get this through your thick atheistic head for a second, it means that REALITY, the way things REALLY are is very different from what modern science has concluded...you can hate or love it...but you can't say its not true...

 

[Jeff 152]

you are correct that noboby can definitively prove it either way that god exists or not. I dont think any atheist would say he knows for a fact that god doesnt exist becasue it is impossible to know. however, i do strongly BELIEVE that there is no god. yes, it is a belief, but it is based on evidence.

I cant speak for other atheists, but for me, its not the lack of evidence so much as just the sheer ridiculousness of many aspects of god.

For example, see the thread on god's omniscience being incompatible with human free will. There are many other such examples where the idea of a god or at least the christain god is just logically impossible and is silly.

Also, the many conflicting religious beliefs make each one seem so silly. To see a christian so nonchalantly say that islam is a false religion and their god is fake and all of the miracles that mohammad did were just tricks and all the testimonials of muslims are false and deluded and the revelations and visions that muslims see are made up is ridiculous. I do not understand how the christains do not understand that the muslims look at them the same way. (This is just a generic example by the way, not targeting muslims or christians in particular). My response to why i dont believe in god when a christain asks me is often "when you can explain to me why you dont believe in allah and mohammad, you will know why i dont believe in jesus"

Finally, it is impossible not to look at the past and see the progression. Since teh beginnig of time people have attributed things they dont undertsand to gods. the sun rising, the seasons, natural disasters, etc, all had their own myth or god responsible. as science has progressed, it has steadily disproven these gods. Nobody belives in Thor and Zeus anymore, and if someone did you would call them silly for thinking that the sun is actually a flaming chariot driven across the sky. So how can you not see that the progression will continue as god runs out of places to hide. The only thing keeping the belief alive is science's CURRENT inablity to definitively answer questions about creation, afterlife, consciousness, etc. But how can you not see that in the future when people know exactly how we were created and what happens when we die and what consciousness is, wont they think it silly that people belived a sky being just poofed us into existence as you belive the flaming chariot is silly?

So there is my evidence, i know its not empirical, but it is very convincing circumstantial eveidence for me. Your evidence consists of some stories written thousands of years ago.

I dont know if this is whta you were expecting, but these are some of my personal problems with god and why i would feel like an absolute loon to live my life for a sky fairy.

 

[spidergoat]

Which concept should we test?

God
Soul
Afterlife
Prayer
Miracles

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Atheists constantly b*tch (I'm starting to censor all my language because mods don't tolerate it now), wine, and moan all over this forum about how there's no evidence of God/soul/afterlife etc...and how people who believe in such things are trapped in delusion...living in a fantasy world, everyone's delusional except for them.....

*************
M*W: Atheists don't bitch and moan all over this forum, but there is no evidence to test! I'm sure if there were, one of you theists would have already presented it by scientific method. We're all still waiting for a theist to do just that, then we'll read the facts and see if the hypothesis comes to a logical and valid conclusion.

Ok atheists, help me design an experiment following the scientific method that would determine if a God/soul/afterlife was true or false... if you say you can't then you admit that you're basing all your beliefs purely on "blind faith",

*************
M*W: I'll answer this in part. First, let's be clear about what the scientific method entails.

Wikipedia states:

"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning."[

Wikipedia continues:

"Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding."

*************
M*W: The questions here are 1) what is it that you want to test; 2) where/what kind of evidence do you already have to test; 3) what evidence are you looking for to include; 4) do you have anything that can be measured; 5) can you repeat your experiment with the same results.

Wikipedia continues:

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.

...and also why do you constantly ask theists for evidence if you admit at the sametime that no evidence can currently be gathered, instead you are left with "blind faith", faith that in the future empirical evidence won't be gathered that would clearly show one being true... in other words you move where ever the evidence goes... and the empirical evidence is ever-changing, meaning you base your beliefs on something fickle, unsteady, etc...

*************
M*W: You simply do not understand. The data to be studied must be objective. Christians view the study of their religion subjectively. The interpretation of the results must not be biased. Right there, with that statement, christians are in no position to study their own faith scientifically (even if there was plenty of evidence to study). Documentation of data and methodology MUST be scrutinized by other biblical scholars, scientists or archeological researchers. So, even if you were to set-up your experiment, even if you had some evidence, it would still need to be tested and verified by other researchers. So now, we're back to square one!

Now I know a lot of you atheists will be saying bullsh*t like "the burden of proof on the theist" but this isn't about any of that sh*t, this about the truth, the ACTUAL TRUTH,

*************
M*W: Sorry, that cannot be changed. The "burden of proof" is always going to be on the one who believes they can prove their belief... not on the ones who don't believe it!

you know the way that reality really is, and how in something known as *reality* new empirical evidence will be gained an in 1,000 years biology, chemistry, physics, etc... will probably be completely different...

*************
M*W: And that is perfectly okay if reality provides us different or more widely accepted science in a thousand years. Look what we've discovered in the past thousand years. The evidence will need to be there to be tested, and maybe in a thousand years we'll have more empirical data to study.

You'd have to be a real fool to insist that science has all the empirical evidence there is and knows all that there is, and you'd also have to be a real fool to say that science won't GREATLY change in the future since there are many theories (many-worlds, theory of relativity, copenhagen, just to name a few) that currently there is no experimental evidence verifying which is actually true....do you know what this means? Get this through your thick atheistic head for a second, it means that REALITY, the way things REALLY are is very different from what modern science has concluded... you can hate or love it... but you can't say its not true...

*************
M*W: I just said that things could change in a thousand years, that maybe your religious beliefs could be scientifically tested. You can surely test them now if you like, but like all studies, they are peer reviewed. We will be obliging to take your results, to study them and retest them, perhaps with more data than you already have. If there is a god, it will probably be an atheist
who identifies some kind of creative life form in the universe, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The burden of proof is on you to test your god and show us the results. But then again, your god is a jealous god, and he won't look kindly on you testing him. I wish you luck, though!

 

[EndLightEnd]

Yes VitalOne how do you solve the God omniscience/human freewill problem?
And you cant ignore what Jeff said about countless gods which no longer exist because of advancing knowledge.
And of all the religions in the world, past and present, how do YOU KNOW you have picked the right one? They are all equally valid.

 

[Bells]

You'd have to be a real fool to insist that science has all the empirical evidence there is and knows all that there is, and you'd also have to be a real fool to say that science won't GREATLY change in the future since there are many theories (many-worlds, theory of relativity, copenhagen, just to name a few) that currently there is no experimental evidence verifying which is actually true....do you know what this means? Get this through your thick atheistic head for a second, it means that REALITY, the way things REALLY are is very different from what modern science has concluded...you can hate or love it...but you can't say its not true...

On the contrary. Everyone who believes in science knows, accepts and expects science to change as new discoveries are made. That is how science has progressed through the ages. Debate and challenges are expected and welcomed in science..

But you'd have to be a bigger fool to believe in something that refuses to question itself or allow debate about its existence. Religion has not changed and the beliefs and 'theories' that existed in religion 3000 years ago, continue to exist today and is accepted as fact all because a book says so.

 

[Jeff 152]

Get this through your thick atheistic head for a second, it means that REALITY, the way things REALLY are is very different from what modern science has concluded...you can hate or love it...but you can't say its not true...

While our perception of reality has changed and new theories have been created and destroyed, scientists have never given up. Religion is the result of science giving up. It is the ultimate cop-out and submission to ignorance. "Well I dont know why this happens, so I am going to say it is the mysterious workings of a sky being. not only that, I am not even going to question this being or try and learn about him for he is mysterious and we are not allowed to test him or wonder or doubt him lest we uncover all of his logical impossibilities."

I mean come on! when a major cornerstone of your belief is that you cant even question it or test it or doubt it, how do you just lie down and accept that. You must have been one of the poor indoctrinated ones...

 

[Godless]

Ok atheists, help me design an experiment following the scientific method that would determine if a God/soul/afterlife was true or false.....if you say you can't then you admit that you're basing all your beliefs purely on "blind faith"

M*W has clearly shown you that you truly don't understand the "scientific method"

It begins with I don't know, it then proceeds to test out some hypothesis, the hypothesis evolves into a testable theory, the theory is scrutinized by scientific review of piers, then it finally becomes fact.

Religion on the other hand makes a claim, the claim is not allowed to be questioned, the claim must be believed by faith, hence cause there's no freaking evidence of the claim.

What your F*cking beef is, that we keep asking you for the goddamn evidence of your claims, and you don't know or don't have any.

Our beliefs are based mostly on the lack of evidence, our beliefs are based on objective reality rather then subjective reality. Hence because we are doubting Toms' does not mean we base our beliefs on blind faith, there's no freaking "faith" in atheism, there is only search for truth, and truth is not in subjective good feelings of an ancient manuscript written by schizophrenic dogmatic desert dwellers.

If you have a SCIENTIFIC argument present it, if you don't which obviously shown by the many theist who come here talking shit, then what are we to expect? Another delusional retard who thinks we don't know shit, or an arrogant jackass such as yourself who thinks you can prove god, soul, or life after *ucking death!!

Provide the evidence or STFU! That's all we saying!

 

[draqon]

b*tch (I'm starting to censor all my language because mods don't tolerate it now),

and you call that censorship? :bugeye:

 

[Raithere]

Ok atheists, help me design an experiment following the scientific method that would determine if a God/soul/afterlife was true or false.

Certainly. Let’s start with God. What aspects of God or effects caused by God are measurable? Then we can construct an experiment to test if these exist.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Certainly. Let’s start with God. What aspects of God or effects caused by God are measurable? Then we can construct an experiment to test if these exist.

~Raithere

given the idea that god is omnipresent, how would it be possible to observe anything that is not connected to god (directly or indirectly)?

Perhaps you can give an example of something that is knowable that is separate from god (that is it is something we know for 100%, evidenced by its ability to be repeated with 100% accuracy in 100% of circumstances)

 

[Sarkus]

LG - the person ASSERTING the existence has the onus of proof! You should know that by now.
One can't merely say "Well EVERYTHING IS GOD - so prove it isn't!". Furthermore , unless there is some observable thing that is UNIQUE to God and not inseparable from "everything", then this claim is made redundant by Occam's Razor.

 

[VitalOne]

*************
M*W: Atheists don't bitch and moan all over this forum, but there is no evidence to test! I'm sure if there were, one of you theists would have already presented it by scientific method. We're all still waiting for a theist to do just that, then we'll read the facts and see if the hypothesis comes to a logical and valid conclusion.

You can say that about any theory in science which no one has currently designed an experiment that verifies if its true or not......I'm still trying to think of an experiment deisgn that follows the scientific method that would verify if a God/soul/afterlife is true or false...but I really can't not because there's no evidence but for the same reasons that no one has for the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation...right now we're simply incapable...or no one is brilliant enough to really come up with an experiment design.....

*************
M*W: I'll answer this in part. First, let's be clear about what the scientific method entails.

Wikipedia states:

"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning."[

Wikipedia continues:

"Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding."

*************

M*W: The questions here are 1) what is it that you want to test; 2) where/what kind of evidence do you already have to test; 3) what evidence are you looking for to include; 4) do you have anything that can be measured; 5) can you repeat your experiment with the same results.

Wikipedia continues:

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.

I already know what the scientific method is which is why I chose it...the scientific method is objective as opposed to subjective (personal experiences)...therefore making it naturally unbiased, neither favoring atheism nor theism (nor agnosticism), only favoring the actual truth, if in truth there is a soul/God/afterlife or in truth there isn't it would clearly be shown...it would be undeniable...and it would be unbiased...

I'm trying to discover the actual truth, the truth is great, time and time again the actual truth is proven to be stranger than what most would think...

The truth is stranger than fiction....

M*W: You simply do not understand. The data to be studied must be objective. Christians view the study of their religion subjectively. The interpretation of the results must not be biased. Right there, with that statement, christians are in no position to study their own faith scientifically (even if there was plenty of evidence to study). Documentation of data and methodology MUST be scrutinized by other biblical scholars, scientists or archeological researchers. So, even if you were to set-up your experiment, even if you had some evidence, it would still need to be tested and verified by other researchers. So now, we're back to square one!

I agree it should be objective, which is why I propose that we come up with some type of objective means of discovering what is true (which is why the scientific method is perfect)...instead of perpetually coming up with useless arguments on either side that have no real objective basis in reality....you seem to disagree almost as if deep down you do not want to really know what is actually true......

*************
M*W: Sorry, that cannot be changed. The "burden of proof" is always going to be on the one who believes they can prove their belief... not on the ones who don't believe it!

*************

Ok, but whats also true is that the truth is true regardless of any current proof, right now there is really nothing for nor against the claims....

*************
M*W: I just said that things could change in a thousand years, that maybe your religious beliefs could be scientifically tested. You can surely test them now if you like, but like all studies, they are peer reviewed. We will be obliging to take your results, to study them and retest them, perhaps with more data than you already have. If there is a god, it will probably be an atheist
who identifies some kind of creative life form in the universe, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The burden of proof is on you to test your god and show us the results. But then again, your god is a jealous god, and he won't look kindly on you testing him. I wish you luck, though!

The burden of proof is upon ANYONE who actually wants to know the truth, you seem to not care, so thats fine, if you do not want to know the actual truth, the actual reality of things, thats perfectly ok.....but for the rest of us who really want to know the actual nature of reality its not simply enough to say "oh I say so"...

 

[VitalOne]

M*W has clearly shown you that you truly don't understand the "scientific method"

It begins with I don't know, it then proceeds to test out some hypothesis, the hypothesis evolves into a testable theory, the theory is scrutinized by scientific review of piers, then it finally becomes fact.

Religion on the other hand makes a claim, the claim is not allowed to be questioned, the claim must be believed by faith, hence cause there's no freaking evidence of the claim.

What your F*cking beef is, that we keep asking you for the goddamn evidence of your claims, and you don't know or don't have any.

Our beliefs are based mostly on the lack of evidence, our beliefs are based on objective reality rather then subjective reality. Hence because we are doubting Toms' does not mean we base our beliefs on blind faith, there's no freaking "faith" in atheism, there is only search for truth, and truth is not in subjective good feelings of an ancient manuscript written by schizophrenic dogmatic desert dwellers.

If you have a SCIENTIFIC argument present it, if you don't which obviously shown by the many theist who come here talking shit, then what are we to expect? Another delusional retard who thinks we don't know shit, or an arrogant jackass such as yourself who thinks you can prove god, soul, or life after *ucking death!!

Provide the evidence or STFU! That's all we saying!

No she hasn't, she hasn't at all, claims in religion have been questioned all the time, for instance by evolution, geology, etc....I'm just trying to discover the actual truth, the actual reality of things, this can be done if we some how design an experiment that would clearly show if a God/soul/afterlife, etc...was actually true OR false...you on the other hand just go on about your own personal opinions which have no basis in reality...almost as if you do not want to know the truth

 

[VitalOne]

Yes VitalOne how do you solve the God omniscience/human freewill problem?
And you cant ignore what Jeff said about countless gods which no longer exist because of advancing knowledge.
And of all the religions in the world, past and present, how do YOU KNOW you have picked the right one? They are all equally valid.

I don't really think logic and all that useless stuff constitutes as real evidence..anyone can come with logical arguments for or against the existence of a God/soul/afterlife, or anything, I'm talking about real objective evidence....

For instance I'm sure logically one wouldn't think that an electron can exist in more than one place (or possibly infinite places) at once...but the objective experimental evidence seems to show the opposite.......if I told you that millions of years ago gigantic monster-like creatures roamed the Earth before the discovery of dinosaur fossils you would laugh at me....but the objective evidence shows the opposite....time and time again reality or the actual truth, the way things actually are, is very different from what people would think it to be....

This just goes to show you how logical arguments are really useless when there's no objective evidence around the argument.....so unnaturally useless...

While our perception of reality has changed and new theories have been created and destroyed, scientists have never given up. Religion is the result of science giving up. It is the ultimate cop-out and submission to ignorance. "Well I dont know why this happens, so I am going to say it is the mysterious workings of a sky being. not only that, I am not even going to question this being or try and learn about him for he is mysterious and we are not allowed to test him or wonder or doubt him lest we uncover all of his logical impossibilities."

I mean come on! when a major cornerstone of your belief is that you cant even question it or test it or doubt it, how do you just lie down and accept that. You must have been one of the poor indoctrinated ones...

Religion is just based upon "sacred" scripture people have preserved, a lot of religious people no longer believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and easily accept many scientific discoveries as the truth...stop dodging out of the search for the actual truth

On the contrary. Everyone who believes in science knows, accepts and expects science to change as new discoveries are made. That is how science has progressed through the ages. Debate and challenges are expected and welcomed in science..

But you'd have to be a bigger fool to believe in something that refuses to question itself or allow debate about its existence. Religion has not changed and the beliefs and 'theories' that existed in religion 3000 years ago, continue to exist today and is accepted as fact all because a book says so.

Really if thats true why don't atheists accept the fact that neurologists, in reality don't know what awareness or consciousess really is yet, which is why there is a great debate about whether or not robots will really have consciousness and in reality they really don't know what happens after death, there is no empirical evidence determining what happens, instead atheists perpetuate lies and say that after death there's nothing, thats it, and anyone else who believes or even considers anything else is just another delusional fool living in fantasy...go look into consciousness yourself you'll find that what I'm saying is very true....

 

[VitalOne]

Which concept should we test?

God
Soul
Afterlife
Prayer
Miracles

Well prayer could be one, but we'd have to be able to test how much faith or doubt one has within them (consciously and unconsciously), maybe it can be done monitoring brain waves? How do we do that? Its already proven that the placebo-effect, which is based purely upon faith is real, and exist, but thats about it....thank God the placebo-effect was proven true or else atheists would be mumbling about how anyone who has faith in something is just a delusional fool...

As for God, I'm not sure how we can objectively measure if God exists or not....the soul on other hand we could perhaps measure but how can we really measure that it existence ends or does not end after death? How do we show that you can or cannot continuing observing after death?

 

[Edgy]

What your F*cking beef is, that we keep asking you for the goddamn evidence of your claims, and you don't know or don't have any.



I dont think an atheist should say "god damned''.


ok. some religions do everything possible to show the importance of LIFE. We try to save the unborn with passionate cries "save a life" .... If life is so precious to one religion, how can it be so meaningless to another. ??

Why don't Islams believe in abortion if they think life is so unimportant that they can just kill themselves whenever the mood strikes them? They can strap a bomb on their child to kill others .... Yet they say abortion is EVIL? I know I am being elementary here. but it does seem to be a hypocrisy.

 

[EndLightEnd]

You never answered my last question...
Of all the religions, past and present, how do YOU KNOW you have chosen the right one escaping eternal torment? (Assuming all are equally valid.)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You can say that about any theory in science which no one has currently designed an experiment that verifies if its true or not... I'm still trying to think of an experiment deisgn that follows the scientific method that would verify if a God/soul/afterlife is true or false... but I really can't not because there's no evidence but for the same reasons that no one has for the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation... right now we're simply incapable... or no one is brilliant enough to really come up with an experiment design...

*************
M*W: I don't think it's an accurate statement to say "no one is brilliant enough to come up with an experiment design...". There are plenty of brilliant people around, some of them on sciforums, but there's no evidence to test. All you have is an ancient book of poetry, metaphor and astrology about yet another dying demigod savior. The world has known some 25 saviors who came along according to myth. There is no evidence for the other 24 either. Let me qualify that by saying in Rome, for example, there are statues to Mithras and other gods, but that isn't evidence. There are umpteen gazillion statues, paintings, relics and even human remains in shrines all over the world that proclaim Jesus and his followers existed, but all this is not evidence. All this proves is that the human followers of religion and their gods, prophets, martyrs and saints, are based on human spiritual hopes, desires and emotional needs. Again, there is no evidence to be found here. I just don't see how the manifestations of one's mind (or the mass psyche of 2.1 billion people, as it were) could be justified as evidence. Sure, there is plenty of evidence that masses of people who believe in what they believe consider it to be true, but that does not mean it is credible evidence. All it is is evidence of mass delusion.

Take pre-war Germany for instance. Her people were so desperate for peace and prosperity that they believed the promises of the charismatic Adolf Hitler. He didn't take over the leadership and control of Germany, he was voted into office by the multitudes of Germans who had been deluded. He also duped the world for a time. Then the truth finally came out. To this day, there are still those people out there who refuse to believe the atrocities of Adolf Hitler. That is partly because of what the German people have taught their kinder auf hochschule. I lived there in the 70s and early 80s. It was common knowledge that their school children have not been taught about Hitler nor the Holocaust. They have become just as deluded as their grandparents and great grandparents. What they are being taught is that the Holocaust is an American lie.

That's beside the point of this thread, but I wanted to compare evidence with belief by mind control.

I already know what the scientific method is which is why I chose it... the scientific method is objective as opposed to subjective (personal experiences)... therefore making it naturally unbiased, neither favoring atheism nor theism (nor agnosticism), only favoring the actual truth, if in truth there is a soul/God/afterlife or in truth there isn't it would clearly be shown... it would be undeniable... and it would be unbiased...

*************
M*W: I totally agree with you about this. It is the truth that (hopefully) all seek. I just don't think people have a conscious desire to be deluded. Yes, denial comes in a close third, but nobody chooses delusion.

I think it would be impossible to come up with an experimental design to test god, the soul, or the afterlife. But to make it simpler, I believe what we call the 'soul' is bioelectrical energy. I believe this could and probably has been tested. Maybe the experiments on bioelectric energy would fall under psychoneuroimmunology. As for god or the afterlife, I don't know how they could be measured, because I believe they don't exist.

One thing I want to mention is that studies have been done in medical and nursing schools to determine if prayer plays a role in patient recovery from disease. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but the researchers concluded that some type of prayer/meditation/positive affirmations did, in fact, reduce healing time, cancer patients had higher incidences of remission, and so on. I cannot recall who did the studies, but I was on faculty at a medical school at that time. One of the courses we added to the medical school curriculum involved healing through prayer/meditation/positive affirmations, etc., depending on the patient's faith or culture. I'm not denying that the power of positive thinking is not worthwhile or advantageous to better medical outcomes. What I am saying is the power of suggestion, mind over matter, and self-hypnosis, if you will, do play a positive role in the patient's healing.

I'm trying to discover the actual truth, the truth is great, time and time again the actual truth is proven to be stranger than what most would think...

*************
M*W: I believe the truth will eventually be known. Let's look at the facts as we know them to determine how god could be tested. I think we need to start there. If there's no god in the end, then there is no afterlife, if you see my point. How would one go about testing one's god? Let's take what evidence we have right now... prayer, meditation, and positive affirmations in statistically significant outcomes of dis-ease.

Who are the subjects praying to? Does the focus of their prayers add to or take away from the the outcomes. For example, I would limit my study to christians only. They're probably easier to find, and you probably know more about christianity than you do, say, about Islam or Judaism. Regardless, I think the study at first must be limited to one religion/god only. Following the conclusion to that study, then another study could be done to cover more than one religion. For now, keep it simple. Then again, it may not be possible to determine if there is a god based on one religion only. In that case, the experimenter would need to cover all the religious bases, and I don't see how that could be possible. The result may be that god/gods cannot be tested, and again, you're back to square one.

In order to get your experiment started, you might want to gather data for your study. Perhaps, take a survey of the christians on sciforums. Take the same survey of christians you know personally. I would canvass priests, pastors, and others in church leadership. I would be totally honest making sure the results have not become skewed.

Then compare those surveys. That would be the start of your experiment.

I agree it should be objective, which is why I propose that we come up with some type of objective means of discovering what is true (which is why the scientific method is perfect)... instead of perpetually coming up with useless arguments on either side that have no real objective basis in reality.... you seem to disagree almost as if deep down you do not want to really know what is actually true....

*************
M*W: No. I disagree because I know what is true in my mind. Remember, I spent years as a devout christian, so I came to atheism with a thorough background in christianity (Protestantism and Roman Catholicism). My point is, what the truth was to me then is vastly different from what it is now. I did not go into atheism because I did not know anything about christianity. I embraced the atheist philosophy, because I made a conscious effort to learn everything I could about christianity, and I was sincere in my search.

Ok, but whats also true is that the truth is true regardless of any current proof, right now there is really nothing for nor against the claims....

*************
M*W: The truth is determined by the evidence. Science does not teach us what IS. Science can only conclude what ISN'T. That is the process of elimination to rule out the negatives. It does not actually tell us what the positives are right away. That is something that may require further studies to rule out more negatives. So, no matter which way you cut it, the burden of proof is on the believer. Atheists don't have the burden of proof for god. We have never been able to acquire any real evidence for the existence of a god.

The burden of proof is upon ANYONE who actually wants to know the truth, you seem to not care, so thats fine, if you do not want to know the actual truth, the actual reality of things, thats perfectly ok... but for the rest of us who really want to know the actual nature of reality its not simply enough to say "oh I say so."

*************
M*W: Maybe you're using "burden of proof" out of context in this case. As I said earlier, most people want to know what the truth is, but not everyone is in the position to prove something under a microscope nor would everyone have the desire to prove something... especially those who have no hard evidence to prove a positive. Sometimes you may find that a negative could also be a positive. A negative could also be true.

I really do care. Being an atheist doesn't take away the fact that I care! I care enough to want to learn more about christianity and other religions. That doesn't mean I have some kind of subconscious desire to ever become religious again. That'll never happen! What I do care about is what goes on in the minds of people, how their psyche works, what motivates them to action, etc. I also care, because I want to learn more about human compulsion and doubt. The study of religion offers insight to that.

We are all recipients or victims of our genetic memory. However, genetic memory does not necessarily mean something is undeniably true. I doubt that would hold up in a test tube either. Our greatest need is to survive. Everything else we do, and everything we have done from the beginning of our existence, is to supply ourselves with the tools of survival. Somewhere in the ancient past, religion became a survival tool for mankind. We used ancient mythology to create belief systems (and we believed in them). But today, who needs a horse and buggy when we have the space shuttle? Who needs to risk their lives going out on a kill to provide food for one's family when we have a local convenience store? Who needs drum and smoke signals when we have computers in every room and cell phones? All those negatives have been ruled out and have brought us to where we are today, technologically. Technology has become a modern tool for our human survival, so we no longer need sticks and stones for tools. There will come a point, and I believe sooner than later, that medical science has and will continue to play a major role in longevity, so we'll no longer need religion with its belief in an afterlife.

 

[nova900]

Atheists constantly b*tch (I'm starting to censor all my language because mods don't tolerate it now), wine, and moan all over this forum about how there's no evidence of God/soul/afterlife etc...and how people who believe in such things are trapped in delusion...living in a fantasy world, everyone's delusional except for them.....

Ok atheists, help me design an experiment following the scientific method that would determine if a God/soul/afterlife was true or false.....if you say you can't then you admit that you're basing all your beliefs purely on "blind faith", and also why do you constantly ask theists for evidence if you admit at the sametime that no evidence can currently be gathered, instead you are left with "blind faith", faith that in the future empirical evidence won't be gathered that would clearly show one being true.....in other words you move where ever the evidence goes.....and the empirical evidence is ever-changing, meaning you base your beliefs on something fickle, unsteady, etc...

Now I know a lot of you atheists will be saying bullsh*t like "the burden of proof is on the theist" but this isn't about any of that sh*t, this about the truth, the ACTUAL TRUTH, you know the way that reality really is, and how in something known as *reality* new empirical evidence will be gained an in 1,000 years biology, chemistry, physics, etc...will probably be completely different....

You'd have to be a real fool to insist that science has all the empirical evidence there is and knows all that there is, and you'd also have to be a real fool to say that science won't GREATLY change in the future since there are many theories (many-worlds, theory of relativity, copenhagen, just to name a few) that currently there is no experimental evidence verifying which is actually true....do you know what this means? Get this through your thick atheistic head for a second, it means that REALITY, the way things REALLY are is very different from what modern science has concluded...you can hate or love it...but you can't say its not true...

I suppose the only real way to provide empirical evidence is to somehow communicate with people who have died and crossed over to the afterlife, and then verify that these experiments are real and not frauds or hoaxes.

In any case from what Ive researched on people who work with mediums or pychics or people who claim they have communicated with their departed loved ones is that there is 1) No eternal hell, but rather limited periods of time being in "spheres" that attracts people with low spiritual vibrations.
But its not eternal and all will eventually progress to the higher levels.
2) Being a beliver or an athiest makes no difference..it's what you did in life and your motivation for doing it. Your good ,selfless acts vs your bad acts.
3) There are various "spheres" in the afterlife ranging from the darkest to the highest levels( closest to God I suppose). Most average decent people will end up in the third sphere or sometimes termed summerland. A very pleasant enviroment but not the highest level.

I guess it's up to us to determine if there is at least some suggestive evidence to back this

Otherwise, I don't see any other way to provide empirical evidence as the rest is all based on faith ,and beliefs in certains religions based on primitive people and their perceptions of God.