Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

[Carcano]

are there more reliable ways of finding out for sure?

Yes, but it involves some risk...are you up for it?

You will have to experience death for yourself...no pulse or brain wave activity, and then be brought back to life. This happens rather often nowadays thanks to medical technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsV2oWL0bK0

You could set up a special clinic with your life savings. The doctors will administer general anesthetic, you will become unconscious and then your breathing will be stopped.

Care will be taken to monitor brain activity, and when it is certain you are flatlining, artificial respiration will be started immediately.

You will return to consciousness with a first hand knowledge of the afterlife....or, you wont return at all.

I told you about the risk part didnt I...

 

[maxg]

I was briefly involved with a 12-step program, but gave it up because it was too much like literally banging my head up against a wall.
Everytime I prayed to that "Higher Power" I couldn't shake the feeling that it's all just my imagination, or talking to a deaf wall.

I don't understand how anyone can recover while relying on a "Higher Power". For me, it only made things worse.

It certainly doesn't work for everyone but it does work for a lot of people (about as well as formal treatment). I do tend to think that social connection is a much more important facet of it, however, than the "higher power."

Most drug addicts/alchoholics are incredibly selfish people and also feel pretty hopeless so they need something that can serve to combat that selfishness and give them a sense of hope--for many that's a connection to other people but for others it is a connection to a belief system that puts their individual ego in a greater context.

Also, people who are addicts tend to come up with beliefs like drugs make their lives better--perhaps it's not true that a belief in a higher power makes their life better but it's certainly a less destructive belief.

 

[maxg]

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.

That's my feeling exactly. And I think that if God really wants me to believe he would give me evidence to change my view (a personal revelation). So if he/she/it can't be bothered then why should I?

 

[SkinWalker]

You will return to consciousness with a first hand knowledge of the afterlife....or, you wont return at all.

The fallacy you present is one of false dichotomy. Another possibility is that the patient who was "temporarily dead" returns to consciousness with first hand knowledge of how the brain deals with failed consciousness. Neuroscientists have reproduced each of the effects that are reported by those that have near-death experiences: perceptions of being "out-of-body;" tunnels & white lights; and even spiritual "feelings." -all without actually inducing death.

Therefore, it is obviously possible that near-death experiencers that have anecdotes of an "afterlife" are deluded by physiological/neurological processes in the brain and body. They merely apply cultural expectations to a new and unknown experience. And, since no evidence is present to support the superstitious claims of "afterlife," the delusion hypothesis is therefore probable.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I don't agree.
I agree with the Agnostic element - to a degree - but an agnostic can merely be one who personally doesn't have the evidence on which to make a judgement.

And a weak atheist is merely one who neither believes in the existence of god, nor disbelieves in it either.

I, like many others here, am generally an agnostic atheist (weak).
I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, precisely because I do not think anyone can ever know what is beyond the realms of evidence / our universe - and I personally do not have evidence to the contrary.

I am not sure what the disagreement part is about . Maybe I missed a subtlety?

 

[VitalOne]

Sure. The current definition of an Agnostic is a "person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". In other words, the agnostic position goes beyond "I don't know" and positively claims "Nobody can ever know". Agnostics also tend to value other people's feelings to the point that they will not scrutinize their beliefs and will go out of their way to appease such people.

A weak Atheist on the other hand holds no such "unknowable", "anti-scrutiny", and "appeasing" positions. Normally the weak Atheist is all about evidence.

No, there's no such thing, anyone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God is best described as an agnostic, not as a weak atheist or weak theist, though someone wanting to claim atheism or theism can use those

Your definition of agnosticism is strong agnosticism, those who make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God are agnostic, an agnostic does not necessarily claim to not be able to EVER know, just that they do not know. Its like someone saying all atheists are strong atheists (100% certain God does not exist), regular agnostics make no claims regarding the existence of God, and do not necessarily believe it is absolutely unknowable

 

[Carcano]

Another possibility is that the patient who was "temporarily dead" returns to consciousness with first hand knowledge of how the brain deals with failed consciousness.

Well there is no 'knowledge' attained through unconsciousness, which is very common. People black out and return with nothing to report, not even a dream.

According to the strictly materialistic view a total cessation of all brain activity would be equally empty of any and all reportage.

Neuroscientists have reproduced each of the effects that are reported by those that have near-death experiences: perceptions of being "out-of-body;" tunnels & white lights; and even spiritual "feelings."...all without actually inducing death.

Not with the same lucid definition and detail. Additionally, people who have actually died can often comment on what was happening in the waking world while they were dead.

 

[Enmos]

So Red, have you decided yet ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No, there's no such thing, anyone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God is best described as an agnostic, not as a weak atheist or weak theist, though someone wanting to claim atheism or theism can use those

Your definition of agnosticism is strong agnosticism, those who make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God are agnostic, an agnostic does not necessarily claim to not be able to EVER know, just that they do not know. Its like someone saying all atheists are strong atheists (100% certain God does not exist), regular agnostics make no claims regarding the existence of God, and do not necessarily believe it is absolutely unknowable

From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same. From ongoing debates and wiki's, it looks like that the delineation between the two becomes a matter of probability in the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[37] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[38] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[39] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[41]"

 

[nova900]

Not with the same lucid definition and detail. Additionally, people who have actually died can often comment on what was happening in the waking world while they were dead.

In addition; there are just too many commanalities in peoples' experiences despite their accounts being somewhat different in detail.
Some of those common points being told or shown in their experiences the following that I've gathered from a few sources:


*We are all smaller bits of the greater whole (God).

*Only in the physical world can evil and good mingle. In the afterlife they gravitate to various levels or 'spheres" that accomodate their spiritual vibration (Hi or low).

*The are various levels in the afterlife ranging from the earthly plane to the highest level. (10)

*In the physical world we lose our "identity" of being part of God and the challenge is to realize it.

*God created the universe to explore itself thru the immense mutiplicity of creation.

Those were just a few that people from a variety of backrounds and cultures,non-religous believers and believers alike have claimed in their accounts.

 

[geeser]

wow aren't people dreamers.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?

 

[VitalOne]

From your description, strong agnosticism and weak atheism appear to be one in the same. From ongoing debates and wiki's, it looks like that the delineation between the two becomes a matter of probability in the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[37] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[38] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[39] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[41]"

Right, so it supports my stance, weak atheists are just agnostics who want to claim atheism, where as those who claim agnosticism do not want to claim either atheism nor theism

Also, not strong agnosticism, just regular agnosticism

 

[redarmy11]

Wow. I'd need to respond to this thread 24 hours a day in order to keep up with the fascinating points you all raise. I can't possibly respond to them all so forgive me for that. Since this one was addressed to me directly:

excuse me if this has already been asked. But being that you think there's no compelling reasons at all for adopting either stance, it seem you think it is unreasonable to believe in a god without evidence.

Correct. Every bit as unreasonable as believing in one. Amusing to see the lofty rejections of theism issued from this house built on sand.

agreed, however considering there is no hard evidence, and you think it's unreasonable, why are you agnostic, I know you say, there’s no compelling evidence either way, but what evidence would you need, to convince you of nonexistence.

I'm agnostic because I have to be something if I'm to address the issue at all. I've no idea what evidence would convince me of nonexistence. I can't even imagine what form that evidence would take. I'd be really interested to hear from anyone who's had that kind of epiphany.

yes the same doubt that elves can exist, or the same doubt that the lesser spotted Nupin bird from the planet Zogalog can exist.

Fascinating. You reject the possibility of life on other planets? I don't. It occupies a much higher position in my belief hierarchy than the possibility of Gods - and yet I can't see any rational reason why one should seem so much more possible (more plausible) than the other. As VO rightly points out lack of plausibility isn't sufficient reason in itself for rejecting an idea. I want someone to help me here and give me some tools that I can use to validate things that are beyond the limits of my knowledge and experience.

no, faith and personal belief, fit that gap perfectly. But not intuition, as that doesn't indicate nonexistent supernatural elements, intuition is not fantasizing, intuition is using wisdom learnt, to help come to a logical conclusion.

Intuition is just a best guess based on gut instinct, probably derived from experience. Intuition can be right or wrong. There may be nothing magical about it but there's nothing scientific about it either. The science begins when you take that intuition and use it to formulate a testable hypothesis about what you believe. As that's all it is when you strip away the bells and whistles: a belief that requires further investigation.

no, unless of course you wish to leave the door open for anything that can possibly be imagined. All have the same potential as Gods, Elves, or Nupin birds.

Correct. What tools can we use to assign levels of plausibility to each of these?

 

[redarmy11]

Why would you need other people to tell you what to believe?

Are you asking me?

I should say again that the question is entirely rhetorical. I want to deconstruct what people believe or don't believe to see if there's anything but air inside.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Right, so it supports my stance, weak atheists are just agnostics who want to claim atheism, where as those who claim agnosticism do not want to claim either atheism nor theism

Also, not strong agnosticism, just regular agnosticism

I disagree. I see near-identity between what you described as strong agnosticism and existing definitions of weak atheism; however, the wiki article I posted shows the distinction being a position on probability.

Regular agnosticism includes the positive claim that in addition to not knowing, the answer can never be known.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you asking me?

I should say again that the question is entirely rhetorical. I want to deconstruct what people believe or don't believe to see if there's anything but air inside.

Who else?

I think belief (in anything) is a very personal matter; I've believed in friends no one else would give the time of day to; I've believed in myself and in people I love. Its all air if you don't believe. There are a lot of beliefs out in the open (like love, hope, anarchy, self-control, entitlement, racism) and no matter what the evidence for or against, some people will/will not believe. Asking someone about your beliefs is asking them if you like a particular color. There are as many opinions as there are people.

 

[Donnal]

well can i have a say
i believe the number 11 is a sign to only two dark angels by the muslims and they call them through destruction and when u read the bible is kinda true they will not attack again on the 11th cause they sent their sign and the dark angels bring very bad death and destruction egytians said the same thing on tuts tomb death comes swiftly on wings
ahmm well i think secrets were kept in the churches they rewrote everything so no one will know what the muslims can do with these angels and the bible says only two dark angesl exist hope u's havent hurt their dark angels givng them an excuse to destroy just hope and egytians say love is the strongest they loved the dark angels and the secret was buried with tut but statues were stolen from their and hidden in homes cause they feared this angel that takes them to the other place and they have found the statues in homes of rich people and they say it dont have any significance yet the gold was more important than these clay angel replicas tuts wall says b carefull death comes swiftly one wings ........but not my beleif .....all this is in abc dvd's the story of tuts tomb all that .....is kinda interesting

 

[Michael]

Hi,

I'm redarmy11 and I'm a cowardly, fence-sitting agnostic. I is feeling left out.

Theists: show me the Light and the Way.
Atheists: convert me to the Dark Side.

Go.

P. S. You are all mad.

redarmy11, first off, being agnostic doesn't mean that you are not atheist or theist. I'm agnostic atheist. Secondly, I think it makes more sense to say I'm agnostic atheist OR I'm agnostic theist but not I'm an agnostic atheist OR I'm an agnostic theist. Lastly, even theists are atheist for many many many many Gods and Goddesses and Buddhas.

 

[Michael]

I hadn't seen this post was so long. I'm using the word agnostic as the meaning can not logically prove gods and goddesses and buddhas do not exist and atheism as lacking a beleif in those ideas and theism a haveing a beleif one or more of those ideas.