For the atheists

[Ophiolite]

Thanks again for re-confirming the typical atheistic tactic "I can't confront something, so why not dodge out and avoid the question, then make it seem like I'm right some how, even though I'm not"

You are completely misinterpreting the intention here. the object of the question is to try to mak you approach the issue of the existence of God in a logical manner. wysionynw is trying to help you out of your muddled thinking, not trying to trip you up.

If I did believe that FSM didn't exist, it would be entirely faith-based....unless I had evidence of absence, which we all do, then it isn't faith-based..."

We have no particular evidence that the FSM exists. We have no particular evidence that God exists. The proposition that either exists - and such evidence as there is for either - is entirely man made. Therefore belief in either is entirely a matter of faith.

 

[lightgigantic]

how stupid.
is their anybody other than you, that can change your mind regarding your faith, your beliefs?

birds of a feather ...

 

[Beans]

Sorry for this MSG just look one down, quoted the wrong person.

DELETE ME

 

[Beans]

The same atheists who say this are the same ones that say "the reason Stalin did these horrible things wasn't because he was an atheist" ROFL...it only applies to religion and anything that favors atheism but not anything else ahahahaha

These atheistic tactics are hilarious

Alright, if you had a complete thought you would have come to a conclusion.
Countless times have people went to war in the name of a god for whatever the reason.

Name ONE time anyone has went to war in the name of atheism. Religious people are simply more apt to attack others for non-believing.

Look up "Brother Micah" on youtube, that guy is a winner. :bugeye:

 

[Jan Ardena]

grover,

The problem as I see it is any ideology that allows people to turn off the questioning, critical, rational approach to reality. And religous dogmatism is ideal for creating this.

Religious dogma may be ideal for creating this, but it does not mean religion is the cause. Harris implies the opposite, by not examining what religion actually is.

This is the exact thing: you are willing to accept the 72 virgin hypothesis simply because it falls under the umbrella of religion.

What I accept is that people are free to believe what they want.
I accept that people believe we evolved from monkeys.

You seem to be making an exception for this preposterous idea simply because it is religous.
Why?

Read above.

If I told you that I literally thought that real live suprheroes were amongst us and marvel comics is their history would you adopt the "don't know for sure attitude" or would you say that anyone that believes it is deluded?

Well the truth of the matter would be "i don't know for sure", but it doesn't mean I would believe you. I would need to know more. The idea of having 72 virgins in heaven as a reward for matyrdom is not actually far fetched.
The idea of killing innocents to gain the reward, is akin to stealing exam results before the exam thinking that you will be the same as someone who worked hard to pass the exam. The reality is that the person who genuinly passes has the correct qualification, and the rougue will always be a rougue until he understand the true nature of things. And the person who commits murder to fast track his way to heaven is a murderer, not a matyr. To get rid of religion as a way to stop these acts, will not work, because the rougue will find another reason satisfy his lust.

If you believe that if you die a martyr you will get 72 virgins in paradise the only logical course of action is to become a martyr(murderer) as soon as posssible.

This is what is in your mind, and what you MIGHT probably do, or how you see it. And maybe there are millions who see it like that.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that is a universal idea. I myself, my family, my friends, do not see martydom like that, and it wouldn't surprise me if millions of others thought along those lines.
If people choose to interpret religion in the way you say, does it mean that religion is the cause of their actions? If that is the case then you must credit all the good deeds caused by religious people with religion.

So the fact that you haven't gone out and martyred yourself suggests that you find their claim as unbelievable as I do. But, for some reason you think there is somehting wrong with calling a spade a spade. Why?

Again it depends on your own understanding.

Seems to me there is a taboo against questioning peoples "faith."

Why would you want to question someones faith?
Why would you want to question anything that is personal to another individual?

Faith is a completely destructive force. I see no evidence that people of faith behave better than other people, and tons of evidence that it leads to justification for all kinds of immoral beahvior.

In the west there is a passion to categorise everything. For example music is music (different combination of rythm and melody), yet we have so many different (so called) genres. These genres create divisions in society, but the fact, and truth of the matter is there are no different genres other than what we create for ourselves.
Everybody has faith, this is undeniable. The only people who don't have faith are people who know everything i.e. how the world came to be, what happens at death, etc...
What is a completely destructive force, is greed, lust, envy, and so on. The idea of divide and rule/conquer is fueled by such vices. The idea of categorisation, and genres can be a destructive force as it ultimately pits one against the other, a river in which justifation for all kinds of immoral behaviour flows easily.

Faith is the opposite of actual spiritual insight. Faith is actually claiming that you already know the truth and therefore do not have to work to know it.

No. Claiming to know the truth is "actually claiming that you already know the truth".

Except for the fact that they think killing innocent civilians is the best thing a person can do?

Do you honestly think this?

The world is a dangerous place, and becoming more so, and religion is not the cause.

There is a holy war going on.

But that is NOT the cause of the real day to day problems.
On my street people don't care about religion, they have no fear of it, but they fear the social climate, namely the youth culture which is spiraling out of control.

And faith-based religion can address this issue how?

That wasn't my point.
My point was that we have real problems in societies all over the world, which truly affect our lives on every level, every day, for rest of our lives, and the lives of our off-spring, which has nothing to do with religion. Yet people spend their time on trying to get rid of religon. Why don't they put that energy into real problems?

Of course I agree with you, but the underlying meaning of these atheist evengelicals is to do away with religion altogether. Think just for a moment what that entails.

Not true. Did you watch the video? Did you notice at the end when Harris talks about "spiritual experience"?

Yes. But what does he mean by "spritual experience"?
What else could he be refering to if not the end of scriptoral religion?
Why did he refer to God as "she" in his opening statements, yet the subject of his speech were religious fundamentalists who accept that God is describe as "he"?

Harris' views on actual religion:

http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/interview_with_sam_harris_part_1.php

I think this quote from that conversation sums up his views.
"The first step in tackling the God-problem is arriving at a definition of the deity that is to be proven or debunked."

Take note of the fact that Harris is capable of rationally defending his spiritual beliefs whereas a person that is basing their beliefs on faith cannot.

To whom is defending your beliefs important?
I throw pot of green paint over my white living-room walls, because I believe it will add excitement to the room. Do I really have to defend that.
If I come and do it in your house, then the answer may be different , so in the end it comes down to ACTION, not belief.
What is frightening about people like Harris or Dawkins, is that they want to stop the process of belief regardless of action, and their is a plethora of scientific technology, both available, and not yet available, waiting in the wings to advance this cause.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

See above where you stated that direct experience isn't useless. If one had direct experience of any of these three things that means it isn't useless then, right?

Experience isn't completely useless, however, you're trying to lead me down a road I can see for miles. Merely because someone says they've experienced a situation does not lend credibility to any conclusion that person has arrived at. The experience might be a 1 in a billion shot. It might have been a hallucination.

The problem here is that theists are willing to believe and preach any deluded crap once it's preceded by "i felt the light" or "deity X spoke to me".

Unless you can repeat the circumstances that led to the experience, and consistently for more than the original person, the individual theist is merely relaying nothing more than an interesting story.

But you are ultimately basing this on your own experince not anything scientifically demonstrable.

Consciousness is self-evident to everyone. Therefore consciousness exists. Cogito ergo sum.

Secondly, many animals communicate including insects like lightning bugs and ants - do they have consciousness?

Yes, they do. Consciousness does not necessarily mean intelligence.

 

[grover]

Experience isn't completely useless, however, you're trying to lead me down a road I can see for miles. Merely because someone says they've experienced a situation does not lend credibility to any conclusion that person has arrived at. The experience might be a 1 in a billion shot. It might have been a hallucination.

The problem here is that theists are willing to believe and preach any deluded crap once it's preceded by "i felt the light" or "deity X spoke to me".

Unless you can repeat the circumstances that led to the experience, and consistently for more than the original person, the individual theist is merely relaying nothing more than an interesting story.

The whole point is the same things arguments that one can make about soul one can make about conscciousness - i.e., it can't be seen or measured.

Consciousness is self-evident to everyone. Therefore consciousness exists. Cogito ergo sum.

THe point is that it is not scientifically demonstrable. My exact point is that we only know about htrough evidence.

Yes, they do. Consciousness does not necessarily mean intelligence.

How do you know thye have conscious experience. What's funny is that everyone has a different answer to this question. There is no scientific way of determiing it, people can only guess as to whether or not they have conscious experience.

 

[Enterprise-D]

The whole point is the same things arguments that one can make about soul one can make about conscciousness - i.e., it can't be seen or measured.

This is very true.

THe point is that it is not scientifically demonstrable. My exact point is that we only know about htrough evidence.

This is also very true about consciousness - we all know we are conscious because it is self evident. It is not true however about the soul. Therefore, likening one to the other is somewhat inaccurate.

How do you know thye have conscious experience. What's funny is that everyone has a different answer to this question. There is no scientific way of determiing it, people can only guess as to whether or not they have conscious experience.

I grant this as well to a point. However as a dog owner myself, I think the ability to learn or repeat a pattern is a decent indicator of conscious experience, and both my dogs are very capable of both.

And once more, none of this even lends itself to the possibility of the existence of a soul.

 

[grover]

Religious dogma may be ideal for creating this, but it does not mean religion is the cause. Harris implies the opposite, by not examining what religion actually is.

Of course religion is the cause, they explicitly state it. The wsant the infidels out of the holy land, they think killing innocent lives is justifiable because of Jihad. Of course religion is the cause, it underpins the whole thing.

What I accept is that people are free to believe what they want.
I accept that people believe we evolved from monkeys.

Well, I hope no one ver moves in next door to you that thinks killing you or your children is acceptable based on some religous principle that has no evidence whatsoever. There is tons of evidence for evolution and no one has ever killed in its name. What's the difference here? Its a question of rational beahvior against irrational behavior.

Read above.

Read above

Well the truth of the matter would be "i don't know for sure", but it doesn't mean I would believe you.

Exactly. Think about this. You don't know for sure yet you don't believe me.

I would need to know more. The idea of having 72 virgins in heaven as a reward for matyrdom is not actually far fetched.

Based on what?

The idea of killing innocents to gain the reward, is akin to stealing exam results before the exam thinking that you will be the same as someone who worked hard to pass the exam. The reality is that the person who genuinly passes has the correct qualification, and the rougue will always be a rougue until he understand the true nature of things. And the person who commits murder to fast track his way to heaven is a murderer, not a matyr. To get rid of religion as a way to stop these acts, will not work, because the rougue will find another reason satisfy his lust.

Imagine no religion - it's easy if you try.
Think about it. Religion does nothing but divdide.

This is what is in your mind, and what you MIGHT probably do, or how you see it. And maybe there are millions who see it like that.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that is a universal idea. I myself, my family, my friends, do not see martydom like that, and it wouldn't surprise me if millions of others thought along those lines.

No, the point is that if one hold this belief there is only one logical outcome: kill for God, get virgins. That's why this belief should be questioned. Thats why all irrational beliefs should be questioned. If you can't give rational reasons for why you believe something, then you believe that thing for irrational reasons - and irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions. How many people have to die for you to get this?

If people choose to interpret religion in the way you say, does it mean that religion is the cause of their actions?

YES! Of course it does! If someone tells you "I'm going to kill because it is God's will and then I will be rewarded in heaven" they have just told you their reasons for killing.

Why would you want to question someones faith?

Because irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions. That simple.

Why would you want to question anything that is personal to another individual?

I'd say it stops being personal when thye start flying planes into buildings or blowing up people on the way to work or stopping science or teaching creationism in schools.

In the west there is a passion to categorise everything. For example music is music (different combination of rythm and melody), yet we have so many different (so called) genres. These genres create divisions in society, but the fact, and truth of the matter is there are no different genres other than what we create for ourselves.

I agree. Sounds to me like you are defending the divisons though.

Everybody has faith, this is undeniable. The only people who don't have faith are people who know everything i.e. how the world came to be, what happens at death, etc...

What is faith? Faith is claiming to be certain of what one isn't certain of. By your definition the people that "know" the world was created in six days, or "know" they'll get 72 virgins for killing are without faith. You are using the term the opposite of what it means, don't do that. Faith means to be certain of what one can't be certain of.

What is a completely destructive force, is greed, lust, envy, and so on.

Don't forget ignorance.

Do you honestly think this?

No, they think it, and your defending them.

Yes. But what does he mean by "spritual experience"?
What else could he be refering to if not the end of scriptoral religion?

Scriptoral religion should end. It's divisive.

To whom is defending your beliefs important?
I throw pot of green paint over my white living-room walls, because I believe it will add excitement to the room. Do I really have to defend that.
If I come and do it in your house, then the answer may be different , so in the end it comes down to ACTION, not belief.

Yes, but the point is that people are holding beliefs that are leading to actions that do affect others. It isn't just a personal issue.

What is frightening about people like Harris or Dawkins, is that they want to stop the process of belief regardless of action,

No, Harris just thinks it should be acceptable to question peoples beliefs. What is wrong with having beliefs that can be defended?

and their is a plethora of scientific technology, both available, and not yet available, waiting in the wings to advance this cause.

Name one.

 

[grover]

This is very true.





This is also very true about consciousness - we all know we are conscious because it is self evident. It is not true however about the soul. Therefore, likening one to the other is somewhat inaccurate.

Stop and thinka about it for a minute. A soul is immaterial consciousness separate from the body. If consciousness is just material why can't it be proven to exist by physical means? In other words, at this point in time, one can't simply claim that consciousness is material based on physical evidence -because its impoosible to show. This indicates that there might be something about consciousness that means it isn't just simply material in nature. And if it sin't simply material in nature that means that when the material body cease functioning it doesn't necessarily mean that consciousness ends too. And if you yourself are having conscious experience when your body is dead that is self-evidence of soul (immaterial consciousness that does not end with death). The only reason soul is not self-evident to you and I but consciousness is is because we are both alive. For soul to be self-evident one must be dead and having conscious experience. So, yes likening one to the other is completely accurate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

grover,

Of course religion is the cause, they explicitly state it. The wsant the infidels out of the holy land, they think killing innocent lives is justifiable because of Jihad. Of course religion is the cause, it underpins the whole thing.

So the only people who take innocent lives are people who have faith in God, all other taking of lives are justified providing God does not enter into their minds?

Well, I hope no one ver moves in next door to you that thinks killing you or your children is acceptable based on some religous principle that has no evidence whatsoever.

Ditto.
Would you accept someone without any religious principle, to kill you or your children?

There is tons of evidence for evolution and no one has ever killed in its name. What's the difference here? Its a question of rational beahvior against irrational behavior.

Yes there is tons of evidence for evolution, but there is no evidence that we evolved from monkeys other than what amounts to educated guesses.
Who has killed in the name of religion for that purpose only, and for no other reason?

Exactly. Think about this. You don't know for sure yet you don't believe me.

I don't believe you based on what I know, think, and percieve, but I will at least hear your take on it to see where you are coming from, because i freely admit I don't know everything.

Based on what?

Based on scripture.

Imagine no religion - it's easy if you try.
Think about it. Religion does nothing but divdide.

I agree, religious institutions can be as guilty as any other divisive organisation, but I do not regard those religious institutes as "religion", partly because of this. What I regard as religion are the universal scriptoral injuctions that apply to human beings. This is what is not being addressed by these evangelical atheists.
If someone murders because they believe in their country, is the country to blame, and are other patriots to put in the same category?

No, the point is that if one hold this belief there is only one logical outcome: kill for God, get virgins

Then why doesn't every devout muslim take advantage of this oppotunity?

That's why this belief should be questioned.
Thats why all irrational beliefs should be questioned.

Then your beliefs should be questioned

If you can't give rational reasons for why you believe something, then you believe that thing for irrational reasons - and irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.

And what is wrong with an irrational action?
The question only applies if you don't equate irrational action with murder of innocents. If you do, please explain why?

YES! Of course it does! If someone tells you "I'm going to kill because it is God's will and then I will be rewarded in heaven" they have just told you their reasons for killing.

But there is usually more to it than that, don't you agree?
Do you find muslims who have a nice income, who are not being slaughtered, tortured, mamed, or displaced, going out and murdering innocents for the purpose of 72 virgins?
The kind of people who kill purely for pleasure are what we term as psycopaths. Do you think that all people who have faith in God, or are irrational, fit that description?
Also, please give your description of a "rational" murderer, and how they are any different to the irrational murderer?

I'd say it stops being personal when thye start flying planes into buildings

Where is the evidence that religion is the REASON for those planes flying into buildings? If you cannot provide any (as I suspect) then explain how it is rational to believe such a reason without any evidence?

What is faith? Faith is claiming to be certain of what one isn't certain of.

Faith has nothing to do with claims. One doesn't need faith to make a claim.
To have faith in God means to act accordingly, in order to obtain the understanding of what is beyond the scope of our mundane mind.

By your definition the people that "know" the world was created in six days, or "know" they'll get 72 virgins for killing are without faith.

Yes.

You are using the term the opposite of what it means, don't do that. Faith means to be certain of what one can't be certain of.

That is absurd, and contradictory.
One may be certain of God, but it doesn't mean one has faith in God. If I have faith that I am able to pass an exam, that faith is based on what I am certain of, not that I am certain that I will pass the exam.

No, they think it, and your defending them.

Then I guess what I say has no relevance, as you have your preset ideas.
That sounds very dogmatic to me.

Scriptoral religion should end. It's divisive.

You're entitled to your oppinion, however limited it might be.

Yes, but the point is that people are holding beliefs that are leading to actions that do affect others. It isn't just a personal issue.

That goes right across the board, again the problem is people not what they profess to believe in.

Name one.

Television.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Stop and thinka about it for a minute. A soul is immaterial consciousness separate from the body. If consciousness is just material why can't it be proven to exist by physical means? In other words, at this point in time, one can't simply claim that consciousness is material based on physical evidence -because its impoosible to show. This indicates that there might be something about consciousness that means it isn't just simply material in nature. And if it sin't simply material in nature that means that when the material body cease functioning it doesn't necessarily mean that consciousness ends too. And if you yourself are having conscious experience when your body is dead that is self-evidence of soul (immaterial consciousness that does not end with death). The only reason soul is not self-evident to you and I but consciousness is is because we are both alive. For soul to be self-evident one must be dead and having conscious experience. So, yes likening one to the other is completely accurate.

This is because consciousness is an axiom. It is a given simply because we are both alive.

The soul however is not an axiom because it is described in popular theism as an amorphous entity that can separate from the physical body and possibly retain all memories of the brain. This is not self-evident; and 'the soul' has no other type of physical evidence or repeatable form of observation.

Therefore the parallel you are drawing is illogical.

 

[grover]

So the only people who take innocent lives are people who have faith in God, all other taking of lives are justified providing God does not enter into their minds?

Yes, the only people I know of who kill innocent people are religous zealots. Most of the rest of the time when an innocent person is killed is done by a clinically insane person. The difference is negligible.

Ditto.
Would you accept someone without any religious principle, to kill you or your children?

Of course not but if someone moves in next door to me claims that an invisible man in the sky wants them to kill and then they are going to be rewarded with 72 virgins you better believe some red flags are going off in my brain in regards to this persons sanity.

Yes there is tons of evidence for evolution, but there is no evidence that we evolved from monkeys other than what amounts to educated guesses.

Not true. There is genetic evidence if I'm not mistaken.

Who has killed in the name of religion for that purpose only, and for no other reason?

Ever hear of the inquisition? Ever listen to what terrorists say - they claim they are explicitly killing for the glory of God.

Based on scripture.

So anyone can just claim any book as a reason to do something? Can I declare Hitler a prophet of God and declare Mein Kampf scripture?

I agree, religious institutions can be as guilty as any other divisive organisation, but I do not regard those religious institutes as "religion", partly because of this. What I regard as religion are the universal scriptoral injuctions that apply to human beings. This is what is not being addressed by these evangelical atheists.

Yes, it is. Scripture is not a good reason. These various holy books make incompatible claims so they all can't be the inerrant word of God. If they all they are is collections of parables that contain "truths" they can't be what they claim to be - the "inerrant word of god." Sorry, but if you are going to by into the word of God hypothesis you have to pick one as correct and the others as lies because they can't all be right.

If someone murders because they believe in their country, is the country to blame, and are other patriots to put in the same category?

Yes, absolutely.

Then why doesn't every devout muslim take advantage of this oppotunity?

They do. If you don't take advantae of this you actually don't believe it, which means you are not devout.

Then your beliefs should be questioned

All beliiefs should be questioned. But, I am providing rational answers instead of saying "I know what I am saying is true because it says so in a book."

And what is wrong with an irrational action?
The question only applies if you don't equate irrational action with murder of innocents. If you do, please explain why?

Would you rather be stuck on an elevator with a rational person or an irrational person?

But there is usually more to it than that, don't you agree?
Do you find muslims who have a nice income, who are not being slaughtered, tortured, mamed, or displaced, going out and murdering innocents for the purpose of 72 virgins?

Yes, as a matter of fact. How many terrorsists are engineers or doctors?

The kind of people who kill purely for pleasure are what we term as psycopaths. Do you think that all people who have faith in God, or are irrational, fit that description?

So your defense of religious zealots is its okay because psychopaths do it too?

Where is the evidence that religion is the REASON for those planes flying into buildings?

The people who did it explicitly said so.

Faith has nothing to do with claims. One doesn't need faith to make a claim.
To have faith in God means to act accordingly, in order to obtain the understanding of what is beyond the scope of our mundane mind.

That's one use of the word faith. Its not really the meaning we're discussing though.

Then I guess what I say has no relevance, as you have your preset ideas.
That sounds very dogmatic to me.

Sure what you say has relevance. But I'm going to call a spade a spade and say what I see you doing is defending murder in the name of God.

That goes right across the board, again the problem is people not what they profess to believe in.

That is precisley the problem. Think about it this way - beliefs have consequences, if I think it is okay to kill people, I am much more likely to kill people. You are defending people who think it is not only okay, but one of the best things a person can do. They think that God loves them killing so much that he is going to reward them with 72 virgins. How on earth can you defend this belief system?

Television.

Mine came with an off switch.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Jan...

You believe television was invented to destroy religion? Are you from 1576? You really think the Sony Corporation sells armies of televisions to combat the Vatican? You think John Baird had the idea that the television was the ultimate weapon in wiping out Islam? Or perhaps Philo Farnsworth secretly wished to destroy his Mormon religion...

I completely agree with Grover...organized religion needs to be brought to a close for us to advance as a species. We must realise that ethics are borne of ourselves; there is no need to promise fire and brimstone in order to command decency.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Jan...with regards to this 72 virgins rubbish. Ignore the fact that these people earnestly believe that their heavenly reward includes these 72 virgins. Let's even ignore the fact that I cannot find more than three virgins at any one time

Do you see any "superior" being commanding lackies to murder, and promising sexual gratification as a reward...as one whose morals are exemplar?

 

[grover]

This is because consciousness is an axiom. It is a given simply because we are both alive.

RIght, which is the same thing as saying it is self-evident. We also both agree that the only way to know about it is throught direct observation, which is to say that there is no physical test we can perform which will show its presence. Which is to say that citing the abscence of evidence is not appropriate, correct?

The soul however is not an axiom because it is described in popular theism as an amorphous entity that can separate from the physical body and possibly retain all memories of the brain. This is not self-evident;

But, it would be if you ever experienced it right? Just like consciousness.

and 'the soul' has no other type of physical evidence or repeatable form of observation.

Just like consciousness.

Therefore the parallel you are drawing is illogical.

The parallel I'm drawing is completely logical.

Read this when you get the chance:
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/interview_with_sam_harris_part_1.php

 

[Enterprise-D]

But, it would be if you ever experienced it right? Just like consciousness.

No, it would be if everyone experienced it consistently. If it were only me, experiencing the existence of a soul once...I might be a crackpot.

 

[grover]

Well, lets look at the facts.
1) The only reason we know about consciousness is through self-evidence. Which is to say that there are no physical tests which can show its existence. Which at least leaves the door open that it is an immaterial phenomenon.
2) People do report being conscious after death.
3) You and I aren't dead, so are not in a position to comment on whether or not there are any self-evidential experiences after death.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Well, lets look at the facts.
2) People do report being conscious after death.

I really don't know if i'd want to be the recipient of such a report


Seriously though...if you mean those that have survived clinical death, this proves nothing about the soul, it proves that consciousness is a function of the brain...the brain is still "on". Matter of fact, the brain will survive for a few mins after clinical death. I know of no case of resurrection (outside the popular story), so I can't speak for that.

 

[grover]

I really don't know if i'd want to be the recipient of such a report


Seriously though...if you mean those that have survived clinical death, this proves nothing about the soul, it proves that consciousness is a function of the brain...the brain is still "on".

I disagree that it proves that. The simple fact is is that there is no way to prove it one way or the other because there is no scientific test that can be performed to show its presence or abscence. It can only be known throught direct experience.

Matter of fact, the brain will survive for a few mins after clinical death. I know of no case of resurrection (outside the popular story), so I can't speak for that.

What if there were no blood in the brain. Would one expect conscious experience then?