If her brain was dead, she would have stayed dead and reported nothing. That’s why NDE’s are called Near Death Experiences. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; that article isn’t nearly enough to prove anything as implausable as an afterlife or soul.
And you’re wrong, “such sold evidence” is met with enthusiasm, despite the fact that it isn’t evidence at all. Besides, even is if there is an afterlife, how do you know it’s any good ? I’ve read enough of the Bible that I’ve become convinced that if God exists, he’s evil. If the Christians are right, I expect God sends us all to Hell just for the fun of it. I’d rather just die; if proof of the soul was discovered, I’d want to get rid of it.
What about faith? Don’t we all act every day on some things without knowledge of the outcome. Without knowledge of the outcome we choose on what we believe will be the best course of action. I don’t think it’s nessecarily irrational for a person to go forward based on a belief without proof. Without that kind of courage how would we ever have any proof of anything?
Personaly I think looking past preconceptions is an important part of the spiritual journey. Sadly many don’t look beyond their own religious family. Peer review to me would be comparing notes with other seekers and other religions. Too little of that goes on as well.
God isn’t in the Bible or even accurately portrayed in the Bible. The Christians are still learning the same as anybody else. {At least those willing to learn are}
Well, you have said it all. Why do you post in the debates? Because you are interested still, no matter what you say. Hey, God isn’t going to hurt anyone. You more than anyone needs to read a lot of near death experiences. It will help you understand there is nothing to fear. Not from God or anything else.
There are other sources for information about God besides Christianity or Judaism. I learned a lot from a Hindu. Buddhism doesn’t teach of *a * God in the same way but still a good source.
I value the Bible, but not as a literal representation of man’s relationship with God. It provides food for thought and meditation about God.
If you choose not to believe then fine, I respect your choice. The statement you made above has so much wrong with it there’s not much to say.
“Irritated” and “afraid” would be a better word than “interested”. Reading about near death experiences won’t do anything but bore me, because I don’t consider them anything but hallucinations. Finally, I’m not afraid of God, because I don’t believe in him; I am afraid of his followers.
Then why did you say :
That isn’t a logical statement. If there is so much wrong with it, there should be plenty of things to say.
This is a terrible case of putting Descartes before de horse. If anything, God validates the Bible, not the other way around. If there is no God, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of legendary, historical, and polemic writings largely by people with a shared superstition. On the other hand, if there is a God who is substantially like the one whom the Bible describes, then it becomes an invaluable source of information on Him, because in some way its writers were equipped with knowledge of Him.
The latter view, however, does not suggest that every bit of the book collection under one cover is of equal value in knowing about Him or in more secular information about the Israelites and their environs. I can form a clear belief in God based on the teachings of Jesus along with the letters of His followers and the messages of the prophets who came before Him. It does not mean that I need to believe the strange ethnology of Genesis or the taboo system of Leviticus is something that the Lord God Almighty dictated, much less that some arcane system devised by ICR to correspond with particular passages in Genesis is what must be believed rather than the findings of geology, paleontology, cosmology, etc.
What I meant was, besides the Bible and other “holy” books, there is no reason to believe in God, gods or spirits of any kind. “God is an unnecessary hypothesis” .
Besides, how can you pick one set of teachings from the thousands of mutually exclusive belief systems that exist ? “I like this one better” isn’t really a good reason, since reality is not required to be likeable. Science at least relies on the study of the physical world; there are actual facts that scientists can test and argue over.
I didn’t say God isn’t written about in the Bible. Note the " accurately portrayed" portion of that sentence. I meant that God literally is not contained within the Bible. It’s far to limiting to think that one book is an accurate representation of God and God’s relationship of man. Even if you choose not to believe you should be aware that other religions have plenty to say about God.
But what would be the point? If you really believe something that is wrong by any reasonable thinking standard why would I waste words trying to refute it?
You started out with reasonable, rational arguements. What happened?
Your privilege to make that finding, and I don’t mean this as any sort of putdown of it. But for me and a large number of Christians, a conversion (“born again”) experience involving a direct experience of God provides a quite excellent reason. (I’ve posted about this here at length over the last six years, and would prefer not to hijack the thread to discuss it. But it’s important to note that such experiences do occur, and not merely among the Great Unwashed who could not tell a hallucination from a hatrack.)
It is, I think, important to note, as was pointed out in one of those threads, that to the actual experience (whether valid or not), the experiencer adds his own understanding of what it was that happened and what its implications are. As a liberal Anglican Christian, my understanding of Him as I experienced Him was mediated through traditional theology. Freyr’s experiences (search for them) furnish a fascinating counterpoint to mine and to the classic evangelical born-again experience.
That makes more sense as a valid arguement.
Where did these “Holy” books come from? There have been lots of writings by authors trying to express their experience with God and share it with others. The books that are revered as “holy” are a very small part of the written material about God. Personally, I had a spiritual experience that caused me to believe and begin reading the Bible, not the other way around.
You pick what works for you for a multitude of different reasons.
That is your perogative. Religion can be very different from spirituality. Many people have beliefs but belong to no organization.
How about, in order to prove you aren’t just blowing hot air. I haven’t just said “Religion is nonsense !”; I’ve explained why I believe this. You keep refusing to explain why you disagree with what I said. Disbelief in God is hardly “wrong by any reasonable thinking standard”. I said :
That seems to me to be a reasonable position. If the book that claims God exists is discounted, there is nothing but the word of lots of people who contradict one another to prove God exists.
Frankly, it’s theism that is “wrong by any reasonable thinking standard”; that’s precisely why it’s called a “faith”. I personally disapprove of the whole concept of religious faith (not to mention worship ); a follower of God shouldn’t have that problem.
That’s another information-free answer. What reasons ? Like this :
See ? That’s a reason. I may disagree with it, but at least it’s there.
You are correct in saying I was not near death(as I learned later) yet I experienced the same things as others claimed to have when near death, I was livining a good life at the time and there was no need to alter it. Since in my beliefs we are all a part of a greater whole,my experiances would be different(or seen as different) than one who believes in Jesus, Mohammed, or other beliefs. Just as Catholics see Mary, and I have never heard of a Non Catholic see her (or I should say claim to see her). What is already in our minds help us to see what we want. Some of the experiences of the brain are now being tested and touching certain parts of the brain can stimulate,music, etc. My brother had a brain tumor removed and he was conscious during the surgery and had experiences some could call religious or spiritual. a religious person would call it spiritual, a non religious would not. Like a mental ink blot we see what we want. I see no harm it that if it brings out good in people.
.
Never said it was. Don’t think it is. In fact I think the rejection of certain popular concepts of God is completely logical and have done that myself. But they are not every concept, nor my concept of God. What I’ve tried to explain is that there are certain things that are beyond our ability to prove or disprove at this time. The existence of God is one of those things. The spiritual experience, psychic abilities, are a couple of more. Each of us is free to choose if we believe or not for our own reasons. I don’t think my belief is more or less logical than your disbelief. They are both valid. You’ve suggested that I’m obligated to prove something unprovable. My response is that I’m not obligated and it would be a waste of time. I can’t prove it, you can’t disprove. Let’s leave it at that.
The reason I find this statement “wrong by any reasonble thinking standard” is the obvious fact that the Bible is not the only book about God .I’d add that there are different ways to view and find value in the Bible, so there’s no clear meaning to what you mean by “buy” Do I see it as the literal word of God as many fundamentalists do? Certainly not. I see it more as allegory.
You are free to hold that opinion. That’s all it is, without any more worth than anyone elses. I’m not sure what you mean by the section I bolded.
previous posts by me
Personally, I had a spiritual experience that caused me to believe and begin reading the Bible, not the other way around.
What about faith? Don’t we all act every day on some things without knowledge of the outcome. Without knowledge of the outcome we choose on what we believe will be the best course of action. I don’t think it’s nessecarily irrational for a person to go forward based on a belief without proof. Without that kind of courage how would we ever have any proof of anything?
Many people like myself who have spritual beliefs are open to scientific evidence as part of the whole picture. I don’t claim to know the truth. I know lots of folks with various spiritual beliefs and none of them do either. I believe there is a path to the truth and that path does not exclude science and other new information, it includes them.
I think I’ve given you some reasonable responses. If you want something else then ask specific questions.
Let me elaborate on one.
It’s hard to be brief in answering this. A lot of religion is tradition and culture. I don’t find that to be a great reason to believe in God but I understand it. I’ve known more than a few people who attended church because their family did, but somewhere in their lives they had an experience or two that made their relationship with God real and personal.
The spirutual journey is unique for each person. It’s a mix of our experiences, our preconceptions, our upbringing, our culture. Hopefully we evolve and mature as we continue our journey. Based on several experiences I was a member of a certain denomination. Now based on other experiences and my own studies I belong to no organization. I don’t believe any religion has a corner on “the truth” Each is just a reflection and expression of people trying to have a realtionship with God. It isn’t perfect. I find even people within a certain denomination don’t all believe exactly the same thing. Thats okay. You simply choose, and if the time comes to move on, you move on. It’s not something that can be proven or demonstrated to others. It’s something each person chooses for themselves.
There’s a lot in organized religion that ranges from unattractive to downright contemptable. That’s not a reflection about God. It’s humanity.
My objection to attitudes like the one you’ve expressed here is that you seem to think that your belief, which you cannot prove in any way, is somehow more valid and logical than someone else’s because they can’t prove their belief. I’m trying to get you to recognize and possibly admit that it isn’t. You’re just the pot calling the kettle black.
Contrived. Sophomoric. Obvious. Wish I’d got there first. :smack:
I view the “Epiphany Hat” as neutral at worst, btw. If an electric current applied to my tongue causes me to experience a sense of saltiness, does it therefore follow that the salty taste associates with no other experience than applying an electric current to my tongue? :dubious:
Not the same thing at all. Salt is a verifiably real substance. If you claim to taste salt and I claim salt doesn’t exist, you can throw some in my face and snarl “Shut up, idiot !”. Since salt actually exists, you can do the same if an electric current produces the same taste.
If you claim to experience God, you can produce no objective evidence. You can’t provide any evidence that the experience produced by the helmet has any less validity than the one without.
Hundreds of near death experiencers who say they had an encounter with God changed dramatically. That is objective evidence.
Some NDE experiencers go back to school to become teachers or counselors. Some lecture, write books. Others do volunteer work at Hospices, Nursing Homes and Hospitals. Some open “Centers of Learning” or start classes/support groups. Even those who don’t “go public” with their experience are “changed” into kinder and more loving individuals. The impact of the experience is “to change the experiencer” and the “change” lasts a lifetime.
Don’t say there is no objective evidence.
That is just a small part of it, you have to read them to learn about them.
Personality changes are not proof of God, unless you want to claim it is utterly impossible for people to change without direct divine intervention. NDE’s aren’t very convincing proof of anything; they look like hallucinations and occur under the kind of physical stress that can easiliy cause hallucinations.
Since salt actually exists, you can do the same if an electric current produces the same taste.