Many theists use technology as a scapegoat for the waning beliefs in theisms. Indeed, I personally refused outright to continue attending church when the priest stood at his pulpit and proclaimed computers to be the antichrist, and all the sheeple in the congregation, many of whom probably owned computers just sat and nodded.
For the atheists
- Thread starter grover
- Start date
Many theists use technology as a scapegoat for the waning beliefs in theisms. Indeed, I personally refused outright to continue attending church when the priest stood at his pulpit and proclaimed computers to be the antichrist, and all the sheeple in the congregation, many of whom probably owned computers just sat and nodded.
Enterprise-D,
No. They wish to put an end to belief in God.
Quite right. We have no religious programmes on British TV, yet here we have a man who believes religion should end, and he’s allowed to impose his beliefs over the TV, unchallenged.
I regard that as sanctimonious and frankly rude.
Prove that all 84% have been indoctrinated, and not decided for themselves,.
You don’t have to reach the whole world to indoctrinate lots of people, you just need to reach the right people.
No it is not, on both counts.
It’s not my opinion, it is a fact, and it is relevant to this thread in the sense that negative youth culture is ACTUALLY dangerous, and the governments way of dealing with it is ACTUALLY preposterous.
Why don’t these fanatical atheists put their energy into something that is actually preposterous and dangerous?
Jan.
No. They wish to put an end to belief in God.
Quite right. We have no religious programmes on British TV, yet here we have a man who believes religion should end, and he’s allowed to impose his beliefs over the TV, unchallenged.
I regard that as sanctimonious and frankly rude.
Prove that all 84% have been indoctrinated, and not decided for themselves,.
You don’t have to reach the whole world to indoctrinate lots of people, you just need to reach the right people.
No it is not, on both counts.
It’s not my opinion, it is a fact, and it is relevant to this thread in the sense that negative youth culture is ACTUALLY dangerous, and the governments way of dealing with it is ACTUALLY preposterous.
Why don’t these fanatical atheists put their energy into something that is actually preposterous and dangerous?
Jan.
grover,
Okay. Please explain what you mean by “peoples religous beliefs should be allowed to be questioned”? And how would you go about questioning them?
Also why is someone who believes Jesus will appear in 10 years, dangerous, and be required to defend their belief to people whose belief is that their belief is utter crap. That’s like sending a black person to a KKK court in order to get a free trial.
Why do you think you are rational?
What do you mean by “incompatible claim”?
You took it upon yourself to repeatedly accuse me of defending murderers, despite the fact that I don’t, and you cannot show me where I made any such claim.
I have decided to jump on your logical bandwagon in the hope that you can see how dangerous and preposterous your belief-based accusations are.
Why is it insane?
I am not familiar with this belief.
Jan.
Okay. Please explain what you mean by “peoples religous beliefs should be allowed to be questioned”? And how would you go about questioning them?
Also why is someone who believes Jesus will appear in 10 years, dangerous, and be required to defend their belief to people whose belief is that their belief is utter crap. That’s like sending a black person to a KKK court in order to get a free trial.
Why do you think you are rational?
What do you mean by “incompatible claim”?
You took it upon yourself to repeatedly accuse me of defending murderers, despite the fact that I don’t, and you cannot show me where I made any such claim.
I have decided to jump on your logical bandwagon in the hope that you can see how dangerous and preposterous your belief-based accusations are.
Why is it insane?
I am not familiar with this belief.
Jan.
Incorrect. They wish to remove the power that this movement has. It is undeserved and frankly potentially dangerous. I remember a Dawkins line that went something like 'people are free to believe what they wish, but it should be challengeable in public. It should be almost embarassing to admit to believing in a sky fairy'.
In other words, why do you and others, Jan, find ways of justifying inhumane or otherwise ridiculous activity under the guise of religion?
That's great! Kudos to your country. BBC is Government owned (correct?) they are quite right to show no affiliation to any religion.
Slightly different. Dawkins has become newsworthy because he is challenging a behemoth and latently violent status quo. This is why he is being interviewed. However, you won't see him on TV every day...matter of fact, compare the number of times he's appeared on a non-rerun show as opposed to the number of times someone like Benny Hinn or Joyce Meyer (just so you know...Joyce Meyer has her own daily cable show).
As proven successfully by Christianity et al. All 84% did not need to be indoctrinated directly, the Vatican, Islamic leaders etc did not need to reach the whole world, they just needed to reach the right people...and sit back and watch the conquest unfold.
It is your opinion. You cannot prove that a culture is dangerous. It is exactly the same situation that you are arguing with Dawkins/Harris v religion. They are suggesting that religion is dangerous and you are of the opposite opinion. By the same token, I challenge your opinion that youth culture is dangerous.
Further, I challenge your opinion that youth culture can be lumped into one single collective!
They are! Organized religion is as dangerous as they come.
I couldn't resist jumping at Grover's line of discussion Jan...
It is very simple. You are using the world "belief" very incorrectly, merely to strengthen your case. Christians believe their saviour is being reborn in the near future. The rest of us, inclusive of theists of non-christian denominations do not "believe" that this is utter crap. We do not have the interest, background or indoctrination to have a "belief" either way.
Thusly, as in scientific practice...or even logical practice, the individual or group making the initial claim must be able to defend their hypothesis if questioned preferably by providing satisfactory evidence (which the bible is not, anyone can write anything at anytime). If not, it remains simply a sentence with no weight, no credibility and no incentive for the non-christian to even consider the truth possibility of the claim.
Okay. Well, let's say you you are undergoing an operation where you are clinically dead and all the blood is drained from your brain and you hear the nurses say certain phrases and use a certain instrument and after the operation this is confirmed. You would find this pretty convincing right? Thats all I'm saying.
One of the things that I find so interesting about NDEs is that no one has had one and said that they thought it was all just a hallucination. This includes sceptics that have had them. I've read numerous case by hardened cynical sceptics that find the experience convincing, and no such cases where afterward they said "it's all bullshit." In other words, if you as a sceptic had one you would find it convincing as well.
I understand that. But just because some idea gets misused by idiots does not mean it should never be mentioned. Thats like saying we shouldnt talk about darwinism because some people think its a good reason to kill old and retarded people.
All I'm saying is that if you are dead and are still conscious that would make soul an axiom for you as well.
And this is one of the reasons why you shouldnt compare a light bulb to consciousness. Bulbs have physical traits we can point to. Why does consciousness have no physical traits we can point to? At the bare minimum it leaves open the possiblility that it can't be detected by physical means because it is not a physical phenomenon.
Consciousness means subjective experience. And just because something is acting like it has subjective expereince does not mean it does. They can already make computer programs that answer human questions convinvingly enough that they can fool people into think they are communicating with a human (look up Turing Test). What this means is that behavior is not a reliable means of stating something has subjective experience. Bottom line: direct self-evident experience is the only way to know about consciousness.
The exact same way we know about consciousness. Direct self-evident experience. If you die and and are still having subjective experience there is your proof. Think about it as a scientific experiment only you can perform and only you can know the results of (just like consciousness).
That's the entire point though: consciousness has no physical properties (this at the bare minimum means its possible that its a non-physical phenomenon). The only way consciousness is known about is through direct epxerience (i.e., you can't see it or use some device to measure its presence). And this is exactly why the abscence of evidence of a soul proves absoultely nothing, because the same arguments one can use against soul are the same arguments one can use against consciousness, but we of course all know consciousness is a real phenomenon despite the fact that no evidence can be provided for it.
I mean that if people are going to make insane claims like "man was made from dust and woman was made from mans rib" I'm gonna say what the fuck are you talking about? Thats fucking stupid and anyone with an eight grade education and an ounce of common sense knows its absolute bullshit. You want to do an interesting experiment give a 7 year old child that has never been indoctrinated by a religion a book describing the myths of the bible. Then ask them if they think they are true? he child will say no. Because even children know that people cant live in whales stomachs, Noah couldnt gather up two of every animal, and even if he could animals dont breed in captivity so it would be pointless, a snake didnt talk to a woman in a garden, etc. etc. etc. You know what the child will say? No, these stories aren't true.
Because they think the Apocalypse is a necessary prerequisite for Christ's return. That means these people think that World War III is a good thing. You think these people want to stop the big one?
No, its more like a psychological evaluation. If you can logically defend your highly questionable beliefs in superheroes and good wars fair enough. But if all you can do is say "I know its ture because I have a mgaic book that says its true" then you be given the label you deserve: delusional danger to society.
Because I can provide rationally structured defenses of my beliefs. I never have to say "I am absolutely certain because I have a magic book that has all truth in it."
The Bible claims that you must believe that Jesus is the son of God to get inot heaven. The Koran claims that Jesus was just a prophet. That means all Christians that have a literal interpretation of the Bible think that all Muslims are going to Hell. Clear?
Just calling a spade a spade. I've repeatedly heard you say that you think the follwong belief is acceptable: belief that if someone kills themself and innocent people they will go to paradise with 72 virgins.
You want post numbers?
I think your using this phrase wrong because you are most certainly not on my logical bandwagon.
They are not belief-based. Have I once said what you think is wrong because "I have magic book that contains all truth and what you say goes against that book"?
You've never heard of the belief that the supreme celestial ruler of the universe impregnated a woman and then killed child in order to save mankind? Really? You've never heard of Christianity then.
OUT-OF-BODY Experiences recreated in Lab
Quote
Scientists recreate out-of-body experiences (no drugs)
For centuries, people have claimed to have had out-of-body experiences but now scientists have recreated the sensation without using drugs in the first experiments of their kind, a study said Thursday.
As many as one in 10 people say they have experienced the sensation of being awake and seeing their own body from another location, according to the study published in the journal Science.
"Out-of-body experiences have fascinated mankind for millennia. Their existence has raised fundamental questions about the relationship between human consciousness and the body," said Henrik Ehrsson, a neuroscientist formerly of University College London, and now at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
Now neuroscientists have manipulated a group of perfectly healthy volunteers into thinking they had moved outside their bodies by distorting their perception of reality.
Using virtual reality goggles to mix up the sensory signals reaching the brain, they induced the volunteers into projecting their awareness into a virtual body. Participants confirmed they had experienced sitting behind their physical body and looking at it.
The illusion was so strong that the volunteers reacted with a palpable sense of fear when their virtual selves were threatened with physical force.
The findings suggest there may be a scientific explanation for these types of out-of-body experiences, which are often thought of as delusional or paranormal, and the scientists believe their research could have important applications.
"The invention of this illusion is important because it reveals the basic mechanism that produces the feeling of being inside the physical body," said Ehrsson.
"This represents a significant advance because the experience of one's own body as the center of awareness is a fundamental aspect of self-consciousness."
And inducing people to have out-of-body experiences could have wide-ranging uses, he believes.
"This is essentially a means of projecting yourself, a form of teleportation. If we can project people into a virtual character, so they feel and respond as if they were really in a virtual version of themselves, just imagine the implications.
"The experience of video games could reach a whole new level, but it could go much beyond that. For example, a surgeon could perform remote surgery, by controlling their virtual self from a different location."
But scientists still don't know exactly what causes such experiences which have often been associated with traumatic experiences such as car accidents and linked to compromised brain function in epileptics, drug addicts and stroke victims.
"Brain dysfunctions that interfere with interpreting sensory signals may be responsible for clinical cases of out-of-body experiences," said Ehrsson.
"Though, whether all out-of-body experiences arise from the same causes is still an open question."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070823/ts_alt_afp/usscienceparanormal
NDE/OBE are utter rubbish. I'm fully familiar with the NDE phenomenon, the tunnels and the white light, etc., but none of these people were dead - all that happened is that their hearts had stopped. A heart is just a muscle, and it can be kickstarted back into action before the brain is starved of oxygen and dies. If a brain is dead, it is DEAD. Something that is dead cannot be brought back to life - unless you're into Voodoo and need a servant to do the house-cleaning.
dead is dead, it's that simply.
just because a lot of people have had them, means nothing it's just an appeal to popularity, a fallacy. a lot of people are adrenaline junkies, doesn't mean it's a good thing.
heck a lot of people believe in god/gods, doesn't mean it's true, just shows how gullible people can be.
Triggers of NDEs:
Main page, Death?, Surgery, Dreams, Hallucinogens, Stress, Gravity, Electrodes, Meditation,(LOL) Deathbed, Seizures, Relaxation,(LOL) Coma, Psychic, After-death, Out-of-body, Eye movement, Mirror gazing, Alien abduction, Falling, Orgasm,[LOL LOL) Mental illness
notice the main one, of the triggers above, Death, dead is dead. it's that simply. it's not possible to dream once your dead and come back and talk about it.
the rest above, just say it all dont you think.
all taken from here http://www.near-death.com/
Quote
Scientists recreate out-of-body experiences (no drugs)
For centuries, people have claimed to have had out-of-body experiences but now scientists have recreated the sensation without using drugs in the first experiments of their kind, a study said Thursday.
As many as one in 10 people say they have experienced the sensation of being awake and seeing their own body from another location, according to the study published in the journal Science.
"Out-of-body experiences have fascinated mankind for millennia. Their existence has raised fundamental questions about the relationship between human consciousness and the body," said Henrik Ehrsson, a neuroscientist formerly of University College London, and now at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
Now neuroscientists have manipulated a group of perfectly healthy volunteers into thinking they had moved outside their bodies by distorting their perception of reality.
Using virtual reality goggles to mix up the sensory signals reaching the brain, they induced the volunteers into projecting their awareness into a virtual body. Participants confirmed they had experienced sitting behind their physical body and looking at it.
The illusion was so strong that the volunteers reacted with a palpable sense of fear when their virtual selves were threatened with physical force.
The findings suggest there may be a scientific explanation for these types of out-of-body experiences, which are often thought of as delusional or paranormal, and the scientists believe their research could have important applications.
"The invention of this illusion is important because it reveals the basic mechanism that produces the feeling of being inside the physical body," said Ehrsson.
"This represents a significant advance because the experience of one's own body as the center of awareness is a fundamental aspect of self-consciousness."
And inducing people to have out-of-body experiences could have wide-ranging uses, he believes.
"This is essentially a means of projecting yourself, a form of teleportation. If we can project people into a virtual character, so they feel and respond as if they were really in a virtual version of themselves, just imagine the implications.
"The experience of video games could reach a whole new level, but it could go much beyond that. For example, a surgeon could perform remote surgery, by controlling their virtual self from a different location."
But scientists still don't know exactly what causes such experiences which have often been associated with traumatic experiences such as car accidents and linked to compromised brain function in epileptics, drug addicts and stroke victims.
"Brain dysfunctions that interfere with interpreting sensory signals may be responsible for clinical cases of out-of-body experiences," said Ehrsson.
"Though, whether all out-of-body experiences arise from the same causes is still an open question."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070823/ts_alt_afp/usscienceparanormal
NDE/OBE are utter rubbish. I'm fully familiar with the NDE phenomenon, the tunnels and the white light, etc., but none of these people were dead - all that happened is that their hearts had stopped. A heart is just a muscle, and it can be kickstarted back into action before the brain is starved of oxygen and dies. If a brain is dead, it is DEAD. Something that is dead cannot be brought back to life - unless you're into Voodoo and need a servant to do the house-cleaning.
dead is dead, it's that simply.
just because a lot of people have had them, means nothing it's just an appeal to popularity, a fallacy. a lot of people are adrenaline junkies, doesn't mean it's a good thing.
heck a lot of people believe in god/gods, doesn't mean it's true, just shows how gullible people can be.
Triggers of NDEs:
Main page, Death?, Surgery, Dreams, Hallucinogens, Stress, Gravity, Electrodes, Meditation,(LOL) Deathbed, Seizures, Relaxation,(LOL) Coma, Psychic, After-death, Out-of-body, Eye movement, Mirror gazing, Alien abduction, Falling, Orgasm,[LOL LOL) Mental illness
notice the main one, of the triggers above, Death, dead is dead. it's that simply. it's not possible to dream once your dead and come back and talk about it.
the rest above, just say it all dont you think.
all taken from here http://www.near-death.com/
I listed what conclusions I'd reach...the experience would convince me of my own conclusions.
Those other skeptics aren't me. You shouldn't ascribe their reactions to me.
Well I should say it was the major problem I had with it. IMO there is a fine but distinct difference between consciousness and "the soul".
Hm. I probably wouldn't be quick to call it a "soul"...but this still points out a difference. A soul would still exist as the carrier of consciousness.
LOL I'll grant that, I did realise it was a very very simplistic comparison, but I was trying to get a point across. Consciousness is a state, the soul is purported to be a physical albeit invisible entity.
Well, that's one reason why AI is such an intriguing field. If we can manufacture a machine that is self aware, all current theisms get thrown straight out the window.
Once more, I get your point, but there is still a very distinct difference between the two; inclusive of consciousness being self evident right now for every living person...and the (physical) soul being completely unfounded and unproven. You may be able to apply similar arguments to both, but this does not mean they are equivalent.
Enterprise-D,
What power?
What movement?
Would you say this statement from wikipedia is correct?
"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator most likely does not exist and that belief in a God and religion, qualifies as a delusion,"
It appears that Dawkins is not speaking of any movement or power in particular, and is basing his entire premise on that fact that he personally cannot see God, therefore he must be the product of pure imagination (as there can be no other premise).
This is nothing more than a belief that God does not exist, which is beamed on primetime TV, completely unchallenged.
Your thinking is dangerous, you are saying people who believe in God do not deserve this human ability, because such a belief is dangerous.
Are you so blinded by your atheism that you cannot see the problem here.
Why did he use the term "sky fairy"?
And why should my beliefs be challenged?
Why do you accept that such acts can be justified under any guise but religion?
He has become newsworthy because of his book "the god delusion", which speaks for itself. He believes God does not exist, and he wants the world to believe it also. That is what he is about. He has a poor fund of knowledge regarding the actual subject of his distate, so he jumps on the bandwagon of science, and rationalism to support his beliefs.
He doesn't need to appear on TV everyday, there are other wheels in motion that lend support to his beliefs, such as the idea of 911 being a religious crime, when there is no evidence to support this.
Proof is not necessary when dodging bullets.
Nonesense. These people believe God does not exist and they want to convert everybody to their belief. They use religious institutes who misuse religion to further their cause. If we look over this last year, how many people have been murdered purely because of religion, and how many people have been murdered by unreligious motives.
I said "negative" side of youth culture, the side where they have no respect for themselves or anyone.
Its not. There is no sense of potential danger either. But that, as I said is not their concern. Their belief is that God does not exist, and their aim is to spread this belief.
People don't have fear of religion, they fear being harrased by drunken youths whose activities goes unchecked until something serious occurs, but by then its too late. That is what people fear.
Curb that and you get next no fear.
Jan.
What power?
What movement?
Would you say this statement from wikipedia is correct?
"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator most likely does not exist and that belief in a God and religion, qualifies as a delusion,"
It appears that Dawkins is not speaking of any movement or power in particular, and is basing his entire premise on that fact that he personally cannot see God, therefore he must be the product of pure imagination (as there can be no other premise).
This is nothing more than a belief that God does not exist, which is beamed on primetime TV, completely unchallenged.
Your thinking is dangerous, you are saying people who believe in God do not deserve this human ability, because such a belief is dangerous.
Are you so blinded by your atheism that you cannot see the problem here.
Why did he use the term "sky fairy"?
And why should my beliefs be challenged?
Why do you accept that such acts can be justified under any guise but religion?
He has become newsworthy because of his book "the god delusion", which speaks for itself. He believes God does not exist, and he wants the world to believe it also. That is what he is about. He has a poor fund of knowledge regarding the actual subject of his distate, so he jumps on the bandwagon of science, and rationalism to support his beliefs.
He doesn't need to appear on TV everyday, there are other wheels in motion that lend support to his beliefs, such as the idea of 911 being a religious crime, when there is no evidence to support this.
Proof is not necessary when dodging bullets.
Nonesense. These people believe God does not exist and they want to convert everybody to their belief. They use religious institutes who misuse religion to further their cause. If we look over this last year, how many people have been murdered purely because of religion, and how many people have been murdered by unreligious motives.
I said "negative" side of youth culture, the side where they have no respect for themselves or anyone.
Its not. There is no sense of potential danger either. But that, as I said is not their concern. Their belief is that God does not exist, and their aim is to spread this belief.
People don't have fear of religion, they fear being harrased by drunken youths whose activities goes unchecked until something serious occurs, but by then its too late. That is what people fear.
Curb that and you get next no fear.
Jan.
Okay. I'm just pointing out that many sceptics have had an NDE and I haven't read of a single account where they remained scpetical afterwards. That says something in my opinion.
grover,
But you wouldn't really be interested to find out would you?
The other part to that is God breathed life into the man's nostril, and God took the rib out of Adam.
Why would he say no?
What experience does he have to draw upon to come to such a definate conclusion, unless he is acting the same way as a 7 year old who says yes?
That would be an interesting experiment. Who would ask the questions?
The question is, can we stop the big one?
The fact that you believe you read peoples minds, and decide what they think, I find dangerous.
Look throughout the forum now if you like, and tell me how many (if any) theists use this as a reason?
To whom is this claim made, and what is the context?
Maybe your judgement has been clouded by your irrational belief that you are rational and therefore everything you say and think is along the correct lines, due to your belief.
I suggest you actually use scripture to support your bias in future, to avoid forced over-rationalisation.
Yes please.
It's not hard to step down to it though.
Based on your logic you are not only accusing me of siding with the people commited 911, but you are accusing of being a murderer.
Oh! You mean Jesus?
Why didn't you just say that?
Jan.
But you wouldn't really be interested to find out would you?
The other part to that is God breathed life into the man's nostril, and God took the rib out of Adam.
Why would he say no?
What experience does he have to draw upon to come to such a definate conclusion, unless he is acting the same way as a 7 year old who says yes?
That would be an interesting experiment. Who would ask the questions?
The question is, can we stop the big one?
The fact that you believe you read peoples minds, and decide what they think, I find dangerous.
Look throughout the forum now if you like, and tell me how many (if any) theists use this as a reason?
To whom is this claim made, and what is the context?
Maybe your judgement has been clouded by your irrational belief that you are rational and therefore everything you say and think is along the correct lines, due to your belief.
I suggest you actually use scripture to support your bias in future, to avoid forced over-rationalisation.
Yes please.
It's not hard to step down to it though.
Based on your logic you are not only accusing me of siding with the people commited 911, but you are accusing of being a murderer.
Oh! You mean Jesus?
Why didn't you just say that?
Jan.
Thanks for stating your opinion.
So, you've had one?
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
Care to revise your statement?
Last edited:
It is correct. However, I actually read the book. Did you take note of what I said? The Wik quote is a little out of context.
Nope, he's basing the premise that not only can he not perceive any god (personally), no one else can...and no claimants, not ONE, can provide any evidence or any method of repeating the sighting.
Therefore it is LIKELY, Dawkins says, that god is a product of imagination.
Dawkins also readily admits that a god like being is a possibility...but until such time as an answer either way is achieved, the logical position is one of neutrality.
That is your opinion. The interviews always have the newscaster/interviewer challenging Dawkins with the favourite theist tactics and questions. I call that a challenge. And Dawkins readily bats 1000, or rather hits sixes (cricket
) on all the questions.Not at all Jan. All human abilities are the right of every human. My PROBLEM Jan is allowing religion to have the power and awe that it currently contains. The Pope's power for example is all Christianity. The Vatican would simply be an Italian city were it not for Christianity.
Because you air them in public. And you're insulted and confused when other people don't immediately laud you and join you in your beliefs.
I do not. Religion is just the most insufficient.
He believes that God is unproven, and he also believes that worshipping an unproven and likely non-existent entity...is ridiculous.
Since when is science a bandwagon? Science Jan has put your PC where it is. Your house and belongings. Get off our bandwagon or stop complaining.
But those terrorists are driven by religion. They may have perceived wrongdoings about territory and what not...but their religion spur them to cast out the "infidels" and strike at the unbelievers.
Political and diplomatic solutions exist to resolve issues.
- Jan I suggest you simply move to a new neighbourhood. The kids in your neighbourhood sound very unsociable.
- Usually, when I read about a crime, it is adults that wield deadly weapons. I have only read 2 local reports where youth were handling weapons. I can't speak for England
Nonsense, they simply do not want religion to have the crushing hold that it currently enjoys. Believe in any delusion you wish...believe that there's a Hogwarts School for Witches and Wizards...believe in the Toothy Fairy or Santa Claus...believe that the Lord God Jesus Christ will reappear in 2019...just don't expect other people to automatically join you, and don't expect to be unchallenged and proclaim that you're protected under the law from peer review!
Speaking of spreading beliefs...let's let go for a moment that atheism is technically an absence of belief. If Sam and Richard wish to spread their beliefs, who are YOU Jan, to try to stop them? Maybe we should try to stop YOU from spreading yours?
Oh I beg to differ Jan. I for one am very fearful of religion. I fear that Islam might actually win the war and spread further than Christianity is able to contain it. I fear that my country's current leadership is completely mired in its own deep rooted evangelism - leading to banning of gambling because it is against god...and application of a "sin tax" on alcohol...yes people that actually occured...(perhaps Jan, you might want to trade places with me?). I fear that the poison of organized religion has a long ways to go before humanity collectively applies the anti-toxin.
Sure I would. I would like to see what evidence people have for these beliefs besides saying "I know its true because my magic book says its true."
And you know this happened because you have a magic book that says its true. And all I have to do is read this magic book and believe it and then I will know the truth too?
No the point is that even little children can recognize these stories for what they are: fantastical stories that could never literally happen. Jan, I'm sorry to break it to to you but people can't live in whale stomachs.
You would.
20% of Americans including the president don't think the big one should be stopped. They think it is anecessary prerequsite for the second coming when Jesus will fly down from the sky and save the day. You people are dangerous.
What are you talking about? I'm just repeating what people openly say they think.
Then that's not what I'm talking about is it. I am talking about people that think that scripture is the literal word of God. Stay on subject.
You must believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and the only way to get into Heave. Ask any Christian. If you are a good person and don't believe this - sorry, you burn for all Eternity.
You are kinda dense. I'm saying I can provide rational arguments for what I believe, my line of thinking is subject to criticism precisley because it is not an appeal to faith(i.e., maing the claim "What I say is true because I have a magic book wih all truth.") The differnece is how one comes to their conclusions.
"Forced over-rationalisation." Oh, is that the phrase they use in your cult instead of just calling it "thought."
No, I'm just saying you are defending the "thought" process that allowed them to commit it
I did.
Yes, that, along with hearing it preached...
If people were good, Christ would not have had to perfectly live out God's Law (and then die for all of humanity's infractions of it) in the first place.
The fact is, no one is "good" as God's standard/requirement is perfection not a relative aproximation of what you think passes for "good"..again, Christ is the only One who has satisfied all God's demands perfectly. Having done this, God now offers humanity a pardon and way of escaping an otherwise unavoidable condemnation. He certainly did not have to do anything as he could have left us with no escape, but, because of His love for us He did what He did.
Why is that so hard to accept? Simply be honest with yourself, that's what it boils down to...then, as a result of your honesty with God, the way is opened for you to receive salvation.
Of course, denial is humanity's stock in trade.
yes I've had a dream. Like everybody else, I just don’t give it any superstitious mumbo jumbo.
so she say’s she had one and the actual proof and verification for this women’s aledged NDE is where!
no. most definitely not.
I believe NDEs' are the strongest evidence for an afterlife. There are just too many commanalities after studying hundreds of cases of them.
In some cases people have been dead longer than the 2-4 critical minutes where the brain has sufered a depletion of oxygen and these people recovered with no discernable brain damage.
In any case it is a phenomana that deserves attention.
NDEs aren't just dreams. If they were people that had them would say "I just had a dream." Thats's not what people report including sceptics that have them.
The actual proof and verification is from the nurses who confirmed that she correctly reported commetns they made evn though she had earplugs in her ears and no blood in her brain! And the doctor that said she correctly identified the tool even though she had tape over her eyes and no blood in her brain!
Then I can only conclude that you're pretty dense.
Last edited: