I saw the realms of God a personal experience of life beyond life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, and I say no on two counts:

It's crumbling under pressure from theists and agnostics who refuse to accept the reality of what "atheist" actually means.

It's inventing a word unnecessarily. Refer to the George Orwell forum for clarification.

:)

---

I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments and reasoning against theism from your viewpoint at some time, if you have the patience to give them - after all, its personal to you and also what is personal to you is not my business - I just mean for the purpose of education, if you have ideas you wouldn't mind sharing for other atheists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't agree that we have to know what god/s are before saying we don't believe in them. Let's say we meet up with an alien race who are also theists. Before I've even heard of their god/s, I have a default position of not believing in them as to believe in them I would have to see evidence that they exist, so "I don't know" just doesn't do it.

---

Sure, one can dismiss a deity simply when someone begins to converse about one, or if you read the first sentence on a history of ancient Egyptian mythology and think 'naah'. Many atheists seem to say 'lets move away from talking about religion, lets see what we can reason about without a god', but those other atheists who try to tackle religious arguments from the inside out are probably the ones I'm referring to for they must grasp the claims and concepts, as well as the intricacies/contradictions/paradoxes/axioms, before refusing them - and i think this is the atheist many theists think they see, because the theist must contemplate God to say he exists, so the theist would claim the same for how an atheist shows disbelief - like Anselm and his noting of the 'fool' in the psalm. I dislike the ontological argument. ;)

What you suggest here is that man has a default position of disbelief, unlike that of the agnostic who says 'I don't know', okay. So without knowledge of their concepts, man professes a default position of thought that denies their concepts? This is a little confusing, like looking at a wall where there is a random holy book on the other side, and saying, without knowledge of the random holy book on the other side, that all within that holy book is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't think atheists think about god at all. That's kind of the whole point. We tend to think about claims made on some god's behalf, but no more.

---

This is true, perhaps the ideas of Hume apply only to theism. I understand that to say 'i dont believe' doesn't require an age of thought dissecting concepts of God, and it shouldn't have to, but I feel what I personally need to do is go and study the topic clearly. I don't believe and so I call myself an atheist, but there is a lot of reason involved which I haven't yet grasped. Reasoning that appears when 'i dont believe' becomes 'there is no God', much like 'i do believe' becomes 'there is a God'....:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If we all sit back and smugly parrot "We don't know", it's as good as giving a free pass to the deluded scum who promulgate this kind of lunacy.

---

Indeed, for evil to triumph, good must remain silent. I don't think all Christians would think these ideas however - its all down to the fundamentalists, or just theists who seek change in the world, and to influence others with what they believe. Its one thing to have faith, this is a mechanism in our brains, but its another to assert ones faith as fact upon others. Would it be morally okay for an atheist to deny these people their belief that prayer can help? Perhaps yes when it concerns their children and their elderly, and perhaps no when it concerns their own bodies.
peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments and reasoning against theism from your viewpoint at some time, if you have the patience to give them - after all, its personal to you and also what is personal to you is not my business - I just mean for the purpose of education, if you have ideas you wouldn't mind sharing for other atheists.

---

I think you'll get most of them on the way through...

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

Sure, one can dismiss a deity simply when someone begins to converse about one, or if you read the first sentence on a history of ancient Egyptian mythology and think 'naah'. Many atheists seem to say 'lets move away from talking about religion, lets see what we can reason about without a god', but those other atheists who try to tackle religious arguments from the inside out are probably the ones I'm referring to for they must grasp the claims and concepts, as well as the intricacies/contradictions/paradoxes/axioms, before refusing them - and i think this is the atheist many theists think they see, because the theist must contemplate God to say he exists, so the theist would claim the same for how an atheist shows disbelief - like Anselm and his noting of the 'fool' in the psalm. I dislike the ontological argument. ;)

---

I think you're still getting bogged down in what you call "positive atheism" and what is referred to elsewhere as "strong atheism"; those who need a doctrine to deny. There aren't actually that many of that variety around. Even Dawkins - who seems to be the poster-child for strong atheism - only rates himself as a 6.9 atheist on a scale of 1 (god exists) to 7 (god/s do not exist). He doesn't deny god/s' existence, he just says it's very, very, very unlikely that any exist.

In my case - and most of the people I talk to - it's the same. Every god so far posited has been shown to be a human construct, therefore until evidence is presented to show that a god exists, I don't believe any exist. To take that position, I don't need to know which ones I don't believe in.

It works like this: Theists have no agreement whatsoever on god/s. Christians, islam, Judaism, Hinduism, all religions have wide differences, but even within one religion - christianity - the number of points they agree with are incredibly small.

I ran a survey which showed that, in christianity, the only unanimous agreement was that a god exists and that Jesus is important.

That's it! Not one more thing could christians agree on. They cannot agree on whether Jesus was a man or a god, whether he was ressurrected bodily or spiritually, or even whether that was true! My good pal, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has publicly stated that one need not have any beliefs beyond "I want to love god" to join his church. To me, arguing the toss about what someone needs to know about a religion before saying "Nah, sorry, I don't believe in it" is beyond naive. You cannot argue logically against a single religion, because as soon as you do, there's another with slightly different theology behind it pops up, and you can't argue against all of them at once because they're so different.

To me, 10,000 years down the track since man first dreamt up the idea that a sky-daddy is behind it all, there hasn't been one single shred of evidence which makes me think any of it might be true. To then suggest I must investigate and learn about any gods I haven't heard of is patently absurd. It's a typical refuge of the "god of the gaps" crowd.

I factor into that the blatant fraud perpetrated in the name of churches even in 2009 - Holy Fire, healing as my link above, and even that idiotic church where some godly force makes the wafer-tray rise a couple of centimetres, among many others. If the religionistas are so damned sure, why do they perpetrate such blatant cheats on unsuspecting n00bs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

What you suggest here is that man has a default position of disbelief, unlike that of the agnostic who says 'I don't know', okay. So without knowledge of their concepts, man professes a default position of thought that denies their concepts? This is a little confusing, like looking at a wall where there is a random holy book on the other side, and saying, without knowledge of the random holy book on the other side, that all within that holy book is false.

---

Yes, it does look a little confusing, but think about the example of aliens with gods. Also, as to the agnostic position, note that no attempt to answer which of the list of gods I provided we should be agonstic about has been made.

Given that we will never know anything outside of our own experience, we would never make any progress if agnostics ruled the roost. Funnily enough, most of the actual agnostics I know are actually theists, and several Anglican bishops profess agnosticism.

Also, don't confuse gods with holy books. Quite a few holy books do contain some clever stuff. It's only when people use those holy books to try to prove their god's existence, or that it's divinely right, that the dirt hits the fan.

There are more than a few inconsistencies in the bible, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

This is true, perhaps the ideas of Hume apply only to theism. I understand that to say 'i dont believe' doesn't require an age of thought dissecting concepts of God, and it shouldn't have to, but I feel what I personally need to do is go and study the topic clearly. I don't believe and so I call myself an atheist, but there is a lot of reason involved which I haven't yet grasped. Reasoning that appears when 'i dont believe' becomes 'there is no God', much like 'i do believe' becomes 'there is a God'....:crash:

---

You need to check out Pascal's Wager. It's probably the prime example of why logic fails in the debate - because we can never know, it's safer to believe. Personally, I think it just explains why Pascal wasn't a bookie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

Indeed, for evil to triumph, good must remain silent. I don't think all Christians would think these ideas however - its all down to the fundamentalists, or just theists who seek change in the world, and to influence others with what they believe. Its one thing to have faith, this is a mechanism in our brains, but its another to assert ones faith as fact upon others. Would it be morally okay for an atheist to deny these people their belief that prayer can help? Perhaps yes when it concerns their children and their elderly, and perhaps no when it concerns their own bodies.
peace

---

Several points here:

First off, those fundamental christians stand on the shoulders of theists and agnostics who don't chastise them.

The "It's only fundies" defence only works if fundies are a small number of insignificant christians. Alas, they are not, and evangelical Protestantism is the fastest-growing religion in many countries. In UK, NZ and Australia, I'm pretty sure those pentecostals are the only growth group in religion.

As to the argument of "it's their own bodies", I agree, but the world doesn't generally, since we have laws to protect the individual from himself already.

Also, it isn't just that person's own risk to be counted. Note in the article that the faith healers recommend still going the doctor. You can bet your last dollar that many people who are cured by medicine will insist it's the prayer which worked, and will say so. Going from experience, they're likely to say so often and loudly.

This is why I laugh at agnostics trying to paint atheists as crusaders. Agnosticism is a beautifully correct high-school debating position, but it doesn't live in the real world. In that real world, churches lie, cheat, risk people's lives and try to enforce teaching of their doctrines to kids.

When all that stops, I will unquestionably withdraw from the discussion. You could check out every piece of writing I've ever produced and not find one place where I denigrate liberal christians (e.g. Anglicanism) or Buddhism. That might give you an idea as to why the idea crusading atheists is just plain silly.

You've taken the time to answer my questions, and I thank you for that - I particularly enjoyed your last comment on agnosticism - all of this helped me well :D

peace :thumbs_up

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me. If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering. Or if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression.
Also, I don't think the belief in God can be compared to old mythology, but maybe you just think wrongfully that God is a myth.
I can't say I agree with you, but it is your own will to decide what to accept, and what not to.
For my part, I accept God with all my heart, and I wish others could see his greatness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three Sparrows

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me.

---

Alas, it makes so much sense and has so much scientific fact behind it that even most of the world's major religions embrace it. You're free to believe or disbelieve, but the same science which created the electricity and computer you used to type your message says that it's verifiably real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three Sparrows

If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering.

---

I can understand you thinking that way, but as millions of atheists, humanists and other non-religious people can attest to, having no gods doesn't increase either pain or suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three Sparrows

if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression.

---

An innate human longing in a person for a deity does not suggest evidence for it's existence, it just suggests that one has a longing. It seems you see evolution as a threat to your deity, and for many reasoning and doubt are the key factors that break a person's faith. Personally, when I lost my faith I felt crestfallen, and a tad empty - but this was all addiction, it was like going cold turkey from nicotine. Now, I see how pointless a life can be if you do no living now and adhere to that which is subjective and not universal to your understanding, while you have the chance to really live, instead of waiting for the afterlife where 'the party is at'.
Its the question of what does one do when one loses their invisible friend, in the end its just about what gets us all from A to B quicker. If people want to spend their time genuflecting and blessing themselves or asking an invisible force for forgiveness for the way they were actually created (animalistic) then this is fine, if it makes one happier - just don't come knocking on my door asking me to do the same. In the same way, if one wants to live how one wants without fearing repercussions and living by what one knows physically, then so be it - the only real reasons non-believers are challenging the religious system is because of 'creationism as fact' and the ignorance this may cause, and when people sacrifice reason for madness seen in Atheist's links he has posted, and also since 9/11 there has been a resurgence in atheistic thought.
Personally I have more respect for someone who goes to a lesser economically developed country to help install a water-well in a village just because one can - and DOES NOT proceed to say, 'God did this for you, tomorrow we shall build a church here, stop worshipping your tribal gods, and leave this culture behind you, we're right and you're wrong'. Its disgusting how as faith leaves the secularising countries, it makes its presence felt in those who need reassurance to live their lives - and this is a form of psychological globalisation and it doesn't get things solved..

:crash:

We have heard or read so many tales like this and one cannot beleive them so easily.

In articles and stories, such as the first post in this thread, there is always the word 'vibration'.

It does'nt mean anything!

I've read many, many NDE's and a lot have common characteristics with underlying motives towards the promotion of a religion.
Indeed, many of these stories are used as a prostletizing tool by evangelicals.


Another thing; There is nearly always something left out, so that the reader, once he/she is interested and wanting more information, or answers as to what happened next, are left either with silence, or are encouraged to buy something.

Finally, if there is an afterlife, then great!
If there is'nt, then great! Because I will be the last person to find out i'm dead. And I'm not going to worry about what comes hereafter when i'm living now.

Someone once said that a person who lives his/her life, looking forward to the next one, isnt living at all, but is worshipping death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neilius

In articles and stories, such as the first post in this thread, there is always the word 'vibration'.

It does'nt mean anything!

I've read many, many NDE's and a lot have common characteristics with underlying motives towards the promotion of a religion.
Indeed, many of these stories are used as a prostletizing tool by evangelicals.


Another thing; There is nearly always something left out, so that the reader, once he/she is interested and wanting more information, or answers as to what happened next, are left either with silence, or are encouraged to buy something.

Finally, if there is an afterlife, then great!
If there is'nt, then great! Because I will be the last person to find out i'm dead. And I'm not going to worry about what comes hereafter when i'm living now.

Someone once said that a person who lives his/her life, looking forward to the next one, isnt living at all, but is worshipping death.

---

Well said

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Three Sparrows

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me. If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering. Or if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression

---

I believe the difficulty humans have is that since we exist in a time frame; we believe everything, except the Christian god, also exists in time. Therefore we believe that everything had to have had a beginning and end. Even so, Christians believe that God is everlasting to everlasting.
If one throws the time concept out the window; then things simply exist, and don't necessarily have an ending. A persons cellular sturcture breaks down; but perhaps there is more to a person than organs and flesh.
If one does believe in God and believes that his/her current life is meaningless and pointless; they are spitting in his face! Life is a gift, health is a gift, if we have no preordained purpose; then the least we can do is make our life a blessing to our fellow man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozzy

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

---

Rozzy, your ideas are rosy, beautiful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozzy

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

---

Ah, Pascal!

Pascal's Wager is often given as a reason to believe in god/s. Pascal mused that if the rewards of heaven are infinite, then given our incredibly short lives, if the odds of there being a god are > 0, then you win by worshipping him.

I always say that it shows why Pascal wasn't a bookie.

There are several parts to the answer, and I'll give you the short version.

1 let's say the odds of a god existing is 0.001. (I'm being very generous here!)
2 Therefore the odds of there not being one are 99.999%
3 Whatever the payoff, I am taking a 99.999% chance of wasting a lifetime and whole lot of cash on a premise as silly as the Loch Ness Monster.

And many people do waste a lifetime worshipping idols. I shudder to think what might have been achieved by mankind if we hadn't collectively spent so much time thinking about, praying to, talking about and worshipping some god or other.

Pascal's odds are getting pretty damned thin, let me tell you.

There's another side to it as well.

If a god existed and was so vain and filled with self-doubt that he/she/it would exclude a person from anything solely because he didn't worship it, then I really wouldn't want to go there anyway.

People, fellow humans, God is the same God whatever it may be for all of us...if it be an infinite source of energy that is beyond our brain functioning to fathom, let it be! Stop arguing about what YOU believe, since it is clear that none of us an KNOW for sure, no matter how high you've been; to the mountain top, to the light itself, or as the listener of a voice you need and may find helpful. Nothing on earth thus far has shown me a "God" worthy of the praise man gives it. We are exposed to a man made God. If one finds difficulty with this concept, this is, again, no reason to argue or defend something none of us are capable of fully knowing.

Accept your limitations within your brain capacity. Its called humility. Lets just believe in possible mystery, and if an athiest so chooses not to believe just like you, trust that such a conclusion comes from an examined and not so ignorant place as you might assume. It matters little what we believe, our actions are what matter most, believer, non believer, in betweener. Get your egos out of the way and start paying attention to what matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendingy

Get your egos out of the way and start paying attention to what matters.

---

Except that only works if we apply someone's set of values to figure out what matters.