To be a little less snarky than Lobohan, you are either mistaken about what faith is, or using a different definition of “faith” than most. Most of us do not think it takes faith to believe in the existence of the chair we are sitting in - the evidence is so clear that no faith is required. Put another way, faith is belief beyond that merited by a stark assessment of the evidence.
So, it takes no faith to disbelieve in four-sided triangles, or seven-legged hippopotamuses. In the former case, because we know, with a 100% certaintly that is fully supported by the defintions of the terms, and in the latter case because there is no evidence whatsoever that there are any hippopotami with seven legs.
A person might argue, of course, that there might be a seven-legged hippopotamus somewhere I haven’t looked - a mutation or something. Fair enough. But I still don’t believe in such a thing. Is that an act of faith on my part? No, it isn’t. Why not? Becuase the evidence that is actually available still gives no reason whatsoever to believe that there are seven-legged hippopotamuses. And because my belief is in line with, and completely based on, the evidence, no faith is required to be a heptapotamus athieist.
The same thing goes with persons who are atheistic about Thor, Vishnu, the Christian God, or that mindless ball of congealed love you call “god” for some reason - it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of the evidience being insufficient to inspire any belief. Simple as that.
This post was almost certainly a waste of time, becuase this has been surely explained to you repeatedly and you have not listened, or simply refuse to admit we are not relying on the flimsy crutch of faith the way others do. But I post it nonetheless…fighting ignorance.
Actually, if we redefine “dying” to mean “showing no signs of consciousness,” then I’ve died and come back to life, too! I did it just last night. And every other night.
Or we can define “dying” to mean “cessation of all life functions (brain, heart…) for longer than a few days,” in which case nobody has died and come back to life.
Or we can do what you’ve done: pick a definition that allows you to make claims about being personally resurrected from the dead.
And, as for that 10% number you use, I’d sure like to see a reputable citation for that one.
I think that’s derived from the notion that 90% of the world (approximately) is a member of an organized religion. One presumes that spiritual agnostics and everyone else who does not claim a religion -including himself- would likely be counted among that number.
His assumption that disbelief in the afterlife implies that life has no meaning or purpose is, of course, based on the mistaken assumption that his way of thinking is the only way of thinking, and that therefore it’s impossible to be satisfied with life if you do not believe it is completely trumped and rendered meaningless by being followed by some kind of much-longer-and-more-important afterlife.
Paul Tillich wrote about the profound differences between the two fundamental levels of religious symbols: the transcendent (the level which goes beyond the empirical reality we encounter) and the immanent (the level which we find within the encounter with reality.) To mix up the two “if taken literally, is absurd. If taken symbolically, it is a profound expression… of the relationship between God and man in the Christian experience… if we are not able to make understandable to our comtemporaries that we speak symbolically we use such language, they will rightly turn away from us, as from people who still live in absurdities and superstitions.”
In that vein, one thing I really don’t like about all of this is in some ways the opposite of what seems to be bothering others (although perhaps not really so much): it screws up not just science, but spirituality. Genuine spirituality is not about trying to “prove” the dimensions of spirit by dragging in bad science, because once and for all, the two do not mix! Trying to “prove” that there’s life after death by hauling up Pam Reynolds is like trying to prove that God exists because the earth is 6,000 years old (and if it isn’t, then God can’t exist— so we’d better prove it!!) There’s such a weird terror and desperation behind all the actions of creationists and young-earthists and intelligent-designists and fundamentalists, such a horrible fear that if they can’t prove they’re right, if they can’t convince everyone they’re right, then they’re going to be wrong. And is this really any different? There is no room for real spirituality to breathe in this atmosphere, IMHO. The only way it can is for me to acknowledge your right to believe something completely different from what I believe, and to not be threatened by this difference in belief. Whatever the truth is, it is, no matter who believes what, and basic reality isn’t going to change because of what anybody posted on a discussion board.
I don’t think your comparison of Pam’s surgery with some Bible passages just don’t make sense. The surgeon that performed the surgery had no idea that Pam would be able to watch the surgery while she was clinically dead. Yes, dead, the definition of dead from the AMA definitions. He was shaken by what happen, and had the courage to say he couldn’t account physical for what happened. He went on to say he would keep an open mind because he couldn’t account for it physically.
Now you are free to believe as you wish. I am not threatened by people that don’t agress with me.
I experienced being out of my body and know it does happen. What I post here I have experienced first-hand. The other posters do not provide anything but their opinion which they are entitled too.
I have had surgeons contact me to talk about this kind of experience when it happens in their surgery. I read about surgeons in the news that marvel at the same experiences.
Now what you said about basic reality is true, it will not be changed by what is posted here. Some scientists have taken notice and are doing research. More and more research will be done, and I welcome it.
Good idea to look up the word faith in the dictionary. It is similar to the word belief. Actually there are many definitions of faith. But I didn’t find a one that matches your definition. Not to mention that most people can find God even if you can’t.
But then if you mean there is no scientific evidence of God. It is only because science no longer recognizes Him. In the future most people will not recognize science either. Just a prediction.
It is a matter of logic. If we were created by an accident then it is logical there is no meaning to what was a random event. Just use logic my friend.
If they don’t agree that the definition of dead is a condition you cannot come back from, they don’t know either. If you come back, you weren’t dead; it is just proof that doctors are sometimes mistaken.
Most people find a different god from you. And lots of people find aliens, too.
Congratulations - you’ve discovered that lots of people belive crazy shit. (This isn’t news to the rest of us.)
Science only recognizes things that are real. That’s its problem, see. Science is - literally - the study of that which is real. That which isn’t real, it doesn’t study.
And with due respect, we’d have to bomb ourself back into the literal stone age before we stopped doing science. And actually given that noticing that things fall when you drop them is science too - we’d have to bomb ourselves to extinction.
As was noted, logically, if you do believe life is completely trumped and rendered meaningless by being followed by some kind of much-longer-and-more-important afterlife, then life must be meaningless.
Whereas whether something is created or not has nothing at all to do whether it is “meaningful”, for the usual definitions of “meaningful”. When you take a dump, it was created. Is that more meaningful than a sunset?
Why is this thread still going? Do we really need to see lekatt dodge a question, cite a weblog as science, tells us he has no use for science or that science is wrong while trying to use it support his latest crap, claim he knows more than doctors/scientists/average grade schoolers, spew meaningless bullshit, or tell us all that we’ll know in a few years one more time? It’s dead, no one’s gaining anything by this. Everyone knows that lekatt is a few fries short of a combo meal by now. Anyone who can read his posts and nod thoughtfully is way beyond help. Lekatt has once again successfully derailed a thread with nothing more than insane ranting. Just let it go.
I’m not going to try to watch a video on this connection, but I looked at the “about” page on the blog, and here’s what I see:
You’re using some anonymous dude’s blog about NDEs (where most of the recent comments come from you) as a citation about an NDE? The blog owner lists no credentials–not even a name–and I’m supposed to believe the video?
As I’ve said in the past, lekatt, you’ll just believe anything thrown your way, won’t you?
Thanks, Fear. That explains why he uses it as a cite for everything he says.
I had another of those near-death experiences last night. Man, I was out for almost eight hours. You wouldn’t believe some of the stuff I saw. Woke up refreshed, though.
You’re lucky. I was chased by a velociraptor that could transform into a car (driven by the spitting image of Professor Trelwany, from the Potter Movie-verse) to pursue me all the better. Fun, it wasn’t.
I’m glad I don’t believe that what I see during NDEs is what’s waiting for me after I die. Not being able to wake up from that would be seriously distressing.