No, not a chance. Like every other claim of the supernatural throughout human history, your beliefs are wrong.
Like Harold Camping did, when he predicted the end of the world in March of 2012, because “The Bible Guarantees It.”
He didn’t even have to wait until he was dead to learn that his religion was wrong.
I’m not religious at all.
Theres a HUGE difference between astral projection and religion. In fact, most religious people I’ve encountered thinks its the occult and are against it
Just because something is beyond current scientific understanding, or your understanding for that matter, doesn’t mean it’s wrong or not true. Just so you know, that’s part of what supernatural means.
I’m speaking generally of course, that just because something isn’t mainstream science and been verified into acceptance among the scientific community, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It simply means there will be more skepticism and pressure to prove such a thing for it to be taken seriously by the majority.
In practice, it means “wrong”. Which is why you are playing games with the definitions of words rather than simply proving me wrong by listing all the (nonexistent) times it turned out that religious/supernatural claims were true after all.
Supernatural = wrong, always. It’s not something “outside of mainstream science”; it’s something that’s pure nonsense. As demonstrated by history; miracles & magic are always either faked, or misunderstood perfectly natural phenomena.
Well, you’re espousing a “supernatural” position, and that, in the eyes of many people, is inextricably linked to “religious” beliefs. In talking about out-of-body experiences and the survival of the self after death, you’re allying yourself with those who argue for an external soul, or meta-self. This view overlaps with the vast majority of religious thought in the world today.
If you’re suggesting an entirely natural view of the situation – the “self” can leave the body in some physical, material, natural, concrete, testable fashion – then you would have left religion behind. But you would, at that point, be flying against all known scientific evidence, and so you’re really no better off.
The chemical energy of a living entity does not survive after the entity’s death. The cells die, the proteins break down, the chemicals denature, and entropy is the only winner.
No one has ever succeeded in demonstrating remote viewing or clairvoyance, which is one of the claims made for out-of-body soul-travel. The test would be very simple to pass. We’d put a book, face up, on the top of a high bookshelf in a particular public library, and the claimant would try to read what’s visible there.
This has been tried in the past, and it has never succeeded.
If your views are faith-based, then, by all means, feel free to believe in them. That’s religion. If your views are evidence-based…present the evidence.
The human mind can do strange things. It is sort of like the alcoholic who sees rats etc. The D Ts. It is all in their minds.
There is lots of evidence OBE’s and NDE’s are real. There are thousands of eye-witness accounts, I can post them if you’d like.
Also, when you dream at night you temporarily leave your body and enter the first astral plane.
So there’s nothing religious about it, and a perfectly natural thing to do
cool, the other night my dog who died 30 years ago was visiting me on the 1st astral plane.
I assume you’re probably joking, but that is actually quite possible. Whenever you dream and you enter astral world, thats exactly where your deceased friends, family members and, yes, even pets are located
.
Did SO!
hey, that’s more fun that I thought it would be.
Taking it out of context means to use a phrase to change the meaning. That’s exactly what you did. Claerly the thrust of that first sentence is “i’m an agnostic” rather than a theist or atheist. For you to repeatedly pull phrases from seperate posts and insist I’m an atheist is taking it out of context.
Also, there’s the contextr of the sentence, the entire post, and the sum of my posts. You pulled things out of conversations I was having with others , pasted them with other phrases and formed your own incorrect conclusions. There was never any changing of definitions. I do think I understand where the wires were crossed.
As I explained early on, I don’t see the point in sub catagories of agnostic atheist etc. I understand them, but I don’t use them. For me the term agnostic is a postion on where I stand on belief that is "undecided, or, uncommitted to either the theist or atheist view. That happens to be a pretty widely accpeted definition. That being the case you taking things out of context to insist I was an atheist was annoying.
Grannted I described agnostic as someone who answers “I don’t know” but that doesn’t mean it’s ONLY about knowledge. That simply means that an undecided person would be far more likley to answer that way. Perhaps answering “undecided” would be more appropriate.
as I explained up thread.
A theist, agnostic or atheist might all acknowledge “I don’t know, and can’t really know” A theist and atheist have declared themselves either believers or non believers while for the agnostic , like myself , the question remains open enough that no committment is made to either belief, or, non belief.
If you want to get hung up on agnostic being about knowing and theist and atheist being about belief there’s this.
When it comes to knowing, all three can be agnostic. When it comes to belief, each makes a personal declaration chosen by the individual. I believe, I don’t believe, or , I’m unwilling to declare either way.
So, all three terms have an aspect concerning belief and an aspect concerning knowledge. I think the problem has been treating these aspects as either or, rather than both exist at the same time. Then you pull a statement about the belief aspect and incorrectly relateing it to the knowledge aspect. Again , out of context . The example, you pulled my little makeshift chart out of my conversation with Voyager and tried to claim I was changing my definition.
The conversation and the chart was about belief, and the point at which someone decides they are agnostic , theist or atheist. It did not address the knowledge aspect at all , which is what I was talking about when I said the three terms are not mutually exclusive.
You do realize this is another example of you taking things out of context don’t you.
So that’s it. If at this point you still can’t bring yourself to see your error, it doesn’t matter. No more semantic qubbling for me.
Read what I was replying to again and the person’s response to my “Hmm.” He seems to have understood what I was getting at. My guess is that you’ve misinterpreted me somehow.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it is.
Not sure why that was so much fun for you. Usually when someone posts “did so” it’s done sarcastically because the person he responded to just wrote something like “did.” But I didn’t do that. I thoroughly explained how I didn’t take anything out of context.
I told you how it wasn’t out of context. Now you are saying that you said you are an agnostic rather than a theist or atheist. There are several problems with this:
*Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments. *
- The very first thing I said about the above sentence is that I don’t know what definition of agnosticism you’re using that is mutually exclusive from atheism. That’s because that’s what “not a theist” means, even according to the definition of atheist you first supplied, and it seems like you’re using the terms as if they’re mutually exclusive. You continually denied that you used the terms in a way that they’re mutually exclusive.
Now you are claiming ‘Claerly the thrust of that first sentence is “i’m an agnostic” rather than a theist or atheist.’
The above exactly means you’re using the term agnostic mutually exclusive from “theist” and “atheist.”
- You’re claiming you’re not an atheist. Yet you also claimed you are not a theist and not a believer and you defined an atheist as one that does not believe in God or gods. You’re objection to that is that you’re an agnostic instead. Again, this means you’re using the term mutually exclusive to atheism. Okay, does it work according to your definition of agnosticism? No, it doesn’t. Your first statement regarding agnosticism:
“I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.”
Your second:
*I go by old school simple definitions
When someone answers “Do you believe in God?” with “yes I Do” they are a theist.
if they answer with “I’m undecided. God may or may not exist” then they are agnostic
If they answer with “No I don’t believe in God or gods” they are atheist.
I’m aware those are simplified definitions and there are lots of nuances and variations among real people. An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will. I don’t see any need for more labels and subcatagories.*
Both of the above definitions are regarding knowledge and not belief, and as you have claimed, is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism. Since your definition of agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to your claim “I’m not a theist” and “I’m not a believer”, we can look at those statements in isolation to anything further in your sentence about you being an agnostic. Your position on knowledge of any god’s existence is irrelevant to you belief or lack of it.
You’re consistency on whether or not your definition of agnosticism is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism is lacking.
-
Then why do you keep insisting that you’re not using the word in a way that’s mutually exclusive to theism and atheism?
-
Your first two definitions of agnosticism were in regards to knowledge and not belief.
-
No one that’s considered the subject as much as you is “undecided” on whether or not they have belief.
-
You already stated that you have no belief.
-
Commitment is not necessary to be an atheist. If one is without belief in the existence of any gods, he’s an atheist. You’ve said the same thing in this thread.
-
Again, despite your multiple claims that you’re not using agnosticism in a way that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism, that’s exactly what you just did.
-
Theists and atheists need not make any declarations to fit the labels.
-
Not having a belief is not a commitment of any kind. You have stated on this board that you’re not a believer. That wasn’t a commitment.
I’m not hung up on the word having one definition. I’m using definitions that you have provided.
Yet you’ve claimed that your use of the word wasn’t mutually exclusive to theism and atheism.
Undecided whether or not one believes? A declaration? No. I’m not buying that, but even if I were, you have stated you are without belief.
You absolutely did change you definitions. This is what you said in that chart regarding an agnostic as compared to a theist:
“The agnostic next to him has many similarities, the difference being he cannot in good conscience identify as a believer.”
If he can’t identify as a believer “in good conscience”, it’s because he’s not a believer. That would be because he has no belief.
You follow the above sentence with the following:
He has one too many doubts to say “I believe” but finds enough unanswered questions to not choose" I don’t believe"
No choice is necessary and him having unanswered questions is irrelevant. If he’s not a believer then he doesn’t believe.
How convenient. After declaring over and over that you haven’t used the term in a way that was mutually exclusive to theism or atheism and I show how you were, you go ahead and claim that sometimes you use the word with one definition and sometimes with another. Bravo!
But that doesn’t get you off the hook. As I brought up earlier in this post you said the following:
“*Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments. *”
I claimed you were using agnostic in a way that is mutually exclusive from atheism. You denied this several times. The first two denials specifically in regards to my claim that you using agnostic in a way that is mutually exclusive from atheism:
“I did not say or imply that agnostiocism was mutually exclusive of atheism.”
“*Seriously? My head is spinning. I can’t understand how I implied agnostic excluded atheism when I said nothing about atheism at all. I think you read something into it that isn’t there. *”
And just now regarding that sentence you say this:
“Claerly the thrust of that first sentence is “i’m an agnostic” rather than a theist or atheist.”
It’s not clear to you that the first two italicized quotes above contradict the third?
Absolutely not. Everything in your chart made it clear that you were using agnostic mutually exclusively from atheism and theism, starting with your first sentence:
“On one end the most ardent believer, on the other , the most ardent nonbeliever. Somewhere in the middle , a group who are agniostic.”
You keep inferring that you’re done but keep coming back. I guess we’ll see.
Sarcasm received loud and clear 
Then try this one on for size-The plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”. When you are asked to back up an incredible and(to date) unverified statement, making even more incredible and(to date) unverified statements doesn’t answer the first statement-it merely adds another question to the ever growing pile.
Okay fine, I’ll bite.
Lets say there was a murder being committed on a busy street with hundreds of eyewitnesses. Every eye-witness saw the killer clear as day, and all the eye-witnesses picked that same killer out of a police lineup.
Would you, based on that evidence, then convict that killer in a court of law??
And please dont ask me what I’m getting at, just answer the question
No, in practice it means unknown, but it can also be associated with “wrong” to an extent.
I’m not playing games with anything, look up the definition and you will see exactly what I said as a major part of it.
I didn’t realize I needed to “simply prove you wrong” when all I was really doing was telling you that people who believe differently than you aren’t automatically wrong.
You apparently don’t understand the fact that if supernatural claims are real, they are incidentally not supernatural anymore because we understand them or can explain them in some way.
Here’s a list of animals that were previously thought to be mythical. Many of these are commonly found in zoos nowadays. Things you apparently didn’t think of.
I agree that supernatural claims all have the potential to be explained by science. Which in and of itself makes them not supernatural anymore.
What are you getting at?
Lmao 
You tend to do that instead of responding to questions. Very tiresome. Please tell us what your murder scenario has to do with what was being talked about before.
edited to add: And why haven’t you started that NDE/OBE thread yet?