Ok so since you can't access this link (http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm) unless you have password, I guess you will have to take it all here
...... it may seem a bit long, but it is nothing compared to the number of posts that get regurgitated on the same points this post summarizes.

[Read More Here] (http://groups.google.nu/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/cc5af7993ad98cda?)

I think Religion’s single most important flaw – if one discounts reason and argument and evidence – is that it has minds like lightgigantic and IceAgeCivilizatinos, to name but two of its representatives, as its followers.

One has to only read a few paragraphs of their thoughts – if you can call them that – to see what kinds of minds are attracted to these myths.

Those are really interesting ... as hardly any apply to me, personally. It's interesting to see atheism from points of view outside of atheism ... particularly assorted "evangelicals" from time to time.

That 'essay' is a load of crock. It paints atheism with a very broad brush. If I were a professor in Sociology, I'd give that little write-up a fail.

Light, Atheism is a result of Theisms biggest flaw... The assertion that 'magic' exists.

I try to avoid these religion threads but these arguments really are insultingly weak.

Atheists say that human testimony can't be trusted because human senses can't be trusted.
Do they!??

Literally millions of people believe in God, pray to Him, worship Him, and
claim that He has cured their illnesses and changed their lives. This can't
be said of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so theists don't believe in it.
Appeal to popularity: an elementary logical fallacy.

Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute
"good" or "bad" behavior.
I think most atheists would agree that it's "bad" to run round stabbing random strangers. More usefully, one might classify such a person as clinically insane, and deal appropriately, rather than promising him an eternity burning in Hellfire.

Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals to fit whatever lifestyle they desire.
Yes, it's tough being a grown-up. Choosing your own moral path in life isn't the free-for-all in the candy shop that the above statement implies - it's often hard, thankless, can be absolutely heart-breaking. But, yes, the knowledge that you've 'done the right thing', not because someone's told you to, but because you've considered and debated all the relevant issues and arrived at a decision that you can live with does bring it's own rewards - vanishingly small though they might be sometimes.

Poor, LG; very poor. You really have to try harder than this.

Both sides of this argument are biased. Why? Because both sides are trying to vanquish the other, it's a power grab. No one can win, guys, I hate to break it to you, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU. You can have fun trying, though, which I think is the only reason why any sane person would still be here.

Do they!??
quite commonly, yes


Appeal to popularity: an elementary logical fallacy.
the issu eis more about how there is not a clear connection between the pink unicorn/celestial teapot/etc and god since the former is clearly fabricated and does not draw any serious advocates


I think most atheists would agree that it's "bad" to run round stabbing random strangers. More usefully, one might classify such a person as clinically insane, and deal appropriately, rather than promising him an eternity burning in Hellfire.
notice how this response contradicts the one you give below


Yes, it's tough being a grown-up. Choosing your own moral path in life isn't the free-for-all in the candy shop that the above statement implies - it's often hard, thankless, can be absolutely heart-breaking. But, yes, the knowledge that you've 'done the right thing', not because someone's told you to, but because you've considered and debated all the relevant issues and arrived at a decision that you can live with does bring it's own rewards - vanishingly small though they might be sometimes.


Poor, LG; very poor. You really have to try harder than this.

then I guess you, and the others who posted before you, will have to do better than merely saying "this is really bad" (after all, its a bit unreasonable to accept the words of atheist on faith don't you think?)

seeker


Both sides of this argument are biased. Why? Because both sides are trying to vanquish the other, it's a power grab. No one can win, guys, I hate to break it to you, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU.
how do you know that god is completely unknowable?

1. "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief."
Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the
belief that there isn't.
Ah - yes - the cherry-picking of atheism.
This is "strong" atheism that this person is talking about.
It does not cover the majority of atheists that, I think, are of the "weak" variety.
This flaw is thus invalid for the majority of atheists.


2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy."

This is not true. Atheists believe that there is no God.This is covered above by the obvious cherry-picking the definition.


Therefore, they believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the government should be made without regard to religious dogma.This, and the rest of this supposed "flaw" is nothing but a strawman - unless this person has actually found out what it is that all these atheists actually "believe".
Atheism is merely a stance on the existence or not of god - nothing else.


3. "Atheism is supported by science."I've never heard this said before - ever!
Most will say that theism is NOT supported by science - but never that atheism IS.
Drivel.
Nothing but drivel.
This person is good at setting up strawman fallacies and blowing them over.


4. "Atheism is supported by logic."
Not only is this wrong, just the opposite is true. In logic, it's impossible to prove a negative, that is, prove that a God Who Can Do Anything doesn't exist.Other than continuing along his own narrow definition of atheism, this is blatantly wrong.
It is irrational / illogical to "believe" in anything that is not proven.
Thus logic DOES support the majority of atheists - the "weak" variety.
It also supports those atheists who see the probability of a god as not non-existent but so small as to be negligible (i.e. a "stronger" variety of atheism).


When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in effect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic.LOL!
In this one argument this person has shown that they truly do not understand the words they are using. One canbe both agnostic and atheist - or agnostic and theist - or non-agnostic and (a)theist.

5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm.[/quote]LOL! ROFLMFAO!
How many logical fallacies in this!!
This person has little comprehension of rationality or logic.
Burden of proof is on the claimant of existence.
Otherwise things are true because the majority say it is? LOL!!


6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."
Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has
touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives.God of the Gaps.
And like others have said - this means that alien abduction is truth, that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, that the Sun rotates around the Earth etc.


7. "Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn."
This is in reference to something called the Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument, an amusing little ditty that atheists enjoy bringing up from time to time. The argument says that, since theists have no evidence that God exists, then they can't discount the existence of other "fictitious" Gods, such as-you guessed it-the Invisible Pink Unicorn. On closer examination,
this argument actually goes against atheists. As I mentioned above, theists accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God. Literally millions of people believe in God, pray to Him, worship Him, and claim that He has cured their illnesses and changed their lives. This can't be said of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so theists don't believe in it. On the other hand, since atheists reject testimonial evidence, it is they-and not theists-who can't distinguish between the Unicorn and God.This is partly true - in that atheists can't distinguish between the two - just as they can't distinguish between any two things for which there is no evidence.
The theists' flaw is in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy and probably many others.

I can't be bothered with the rest as they continue along the same lines of misinformed and badly argued drivel.

All this person has done is reinforce some of the logical fallacies that theists hold for their "belief" - the Appeals to Authority and Consensus.

I'm also wondering if the essay was in fact tongue-in-cheek to show just how poor the arguments from theists actually are.

but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU

Why not? Can you please provide some proof for this lofty claim of yours?

quite commonly, yes
No they don't - so there! :rolleyes:

No, really - they don't. If I saw God just once I'd be an instant convert, believe me. I mean, he'd have to be doing something really impressive at the time, like making fire come out of his ears or something, but yes, I'd be willing to trust my senses on something like that. I trust my senses the vast majority of the time. They help me to tie my shoelaces, and cross roads, and correct spelling errors, and distingush shit from sugar. They're really rather invaluable to me, I don't know what I'd do without them, and I think most people - athiests or not - would say the same. So don't be so bloody ridiculous.

the issu eis more about how there is not a clear connection between the pink unicorn/celestial teapot/etc and god since the former is clearly fabricated and does not draw any serious advocates
Whereas the latter has had several millennia in which to establish itself and garner the financial backing and support of the world's most powerful institutions. Which god are we talking about by the way - or are they all to be given equal validity. Perhaps they're all one and the same?

notice how this response contradicts the one you give below
I've read both several times and still see no contradiction. Enlighten me.

then I guess you, and the others who posted before you, will have to do better than merely saying "this is really bad" (after all, its a bit unreasonable to accept the words of atheist on faith don't you think?)
I'm trying to help you, LG. I'm not disdainful of the religiously-inclined but the opening post here is laughable, and grossly misrepresents and oversimplifies the views of non-believers.

Both sides of this argument are biased. Why? Because both sides are trying to vanquish the other, it's a power grab. No one can win, guys, I hate to break it to you, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU. You can have fun trying, though, which I think is the only reason why any sane person would still be here.

But you can show that absense of a God is more likely than his existence.

No they don't - so there! :rolleyes:

No, really - they don't. If I saw God just once I'd be an instant convert, believe me. I mean, he'd have to be doing something really impressive at the time, like making fire come out of his ears or something, but yes, I'd be willing to trust my senses on something like that. I trust my senses the vast majority of the time. They help me to tie my shoelaces, and cross roads, and correct spelling errors, and distingush shit from sugar. They're really rather invaluable to me, I don't know what I'd do without them, and I think most people - athiests or not - would say the same. So don't be so bloody ridiculous.

I think he's confusing the idea for something else. When someone says I just experienced the 'holy ghost' or something equally as nebulous, what an Atheist might not trust is:

* That person's intent.
* That person's honesty.
* That person's ability to distinguish internally vs. externally generated experience.
* That person's interpretation.

Personal anecdotal reports are not evidence, as the senses can be decieved.

there is not a clear connection between the pink unicorn/celestial teapot/etc and god since the former is clearly fabricated and does not draw any serious advocates

What a load of old gibberish.

A) Numbers do not equal truth.

B) It is not clear on what "proof" you make the statement that the pink unicorn is clearly fabricated. Have you searched the entire universe etc etc, are you omniscient?

C) A being of such indescribable power would not need "serious advocates". It would most likely be far beyond human comprehension. Why trust something advocated by any old idiot?

.. I hate to break it to you, but you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, EITHER OF YOU.
god has been disproved long time ago,and many times over its just that the brainwashed masses of religious simpletons dont want to admit they lost the argument so they continously rewrite their flawed arguments in some faint hope it will somehow stop atheists using reason/logic and everyone will accept their skyman.
wont happen
there cant be loving god in a world full of natural disasters and evil.for one
xian god is also defined as being everywhere at the same time ,so if he aint right here right now he dont exist.
case closed
maybe god should already show her face and put all atheists in their place!!
waiting waiting stil waiting hmmm
didnt think so

Ok so since you can't access this link (http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm) unless you have password, I guess you will have to take it all here
...... it may seem a bit long, but it is nothing compared to the number of posts that get regurgitated on the same points this post summarizes.

[Read More Here] (http://groups.google.nu/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/cc5af7993ad98cda?)
cool ...now looky here and count how many fallacies you have commited in your write up
www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

I believe the quality of those arguments speak for themselves.

Who’s attracted to religion?
The weak, the dying and the stupid.

i am extremely religious....

in fact i am a zelot.

yet... my faith is based on science.


all of you... who hate religion... you do so, due to your ignorance.


so sad.

-MT

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal? :)

Here is another flaw in Atheism - it seems that they love to talk about religion. I am Christian and have never "looked" for a discussion with an atheist. But it seems that atheists like to talk about religion (of course, to bash it). Maybe my understanding of the belief system is off - but it seems to me that if a person were indeed an atheist, he/she would be indifferent when it comes to talking about such things.

Here is another flaw in Atheism - it seems that they love to talk about religion. I am Christian and have never "looked" for a discussion with an atheist. But it seems that atheists like to talk about religion (of course, to bash it). Maybe my understanding of the belief system is off - but it seems to me that if a person were indeed an atheist, he/she would be indifferent when it comes to talking about such things.Atheists love to mock religious fanatics.
It’s like stealing land from savages using bright shiny objects.

It’s not difficult and it doesn’t offer the sense of accomplishment but its so fuckin’ easy that nobody can resist.

ATHEIST.... fear a god.

ATHEIST.... fear a god.Man always fears the absent.

FEAR.... is natural... Athesist fear even the possibility of a god.

Atheists.. usually get real mad when you say that.

they dont want to admit it.... even to themselves.

-MT

FEAR.... is natural... Athesist fear even the possibility of a god.

Atheists.. usually get real mad when you say that.

they dont want to admit it.... even to themselves.

-MTI admit it.
I fear imbeciles.

I wonder what Christians fear.

I hope there’s a God in the same way I hope I will win the lottery.

Here is another flaw in Atheism - it seems that they love to talk about religion. I am Christian and have never "looked" for a discussion with an atheist. But it seems that atheists like to talk about religion (of course, to bash it). Maybe my understanding of the belief system is off - but it seems to me that if a person were indeed an atheist, he/she would be indifferent when it comes to talking about such things.
You are definitely mistaken. You can't draw conclusions like that from here.

This is where us normally shy and respectful atheists come to blow off steam. We really don't give a flying blue fuck what anyone thinks about god(s) etc. It's what they do about god(s) etc that pisses us off.

Without a shred of compelling evidence that a god exists, and that the book(s) and rules you follow are anything other than ancient ramblings, you theists would presume to have answers for the way we all should live. The arrogant gall of it is sickening. You will interpret your book(s) in a thousand different ways and expect anyone with a shred of intelligence or integrity to take you seriously.

It's obvious that theists are following an ancient and instinctive directive to follow the herd, that some of us have managed to break free of. It must be embarrassing and insulting to be told you are a wildebeast. But that's what you are.

Step back and look at what you do.

Masses of you, hanging your heads and on your knees before a shaman, chanting ancient spells to ward off demons and gain favor with the great spirit. It's demeaning and disgusting behavior for a supposedly dignified human being. Have some fucking respect for yourselves.

Faith is stupid. Stop being stupid. If you find that offensive, defend yourself with some arguments that aren't stupid. You won't find any theist here who can do that. I'd love to see a nice, simple statement as to why faith (the willing dismissal of any requirement for compelling proof or evidence) is not totally fucking stupid.

Websters:
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH

Faith, anyone?

Athesist fear even the possibility of a god.

they dont want to admit it.... even to themselves.

-MT
He he he he! :D

If we did that we probably wouldn't say things like "O god, mighty creator of the UNIVERSE! Please come down and butt fuck me into oblivion with thy mighty phallus of destruction, thus preventing me from saying things like fuck god and such anymore! A-fucking-men."

Here is another flaw in Atheism - it seems that they love to talk about religion. [...] But it seems that atheists like to talk about religion...

Its a hard topic to avoid. Its like talking about the weather on a day where it snows all day. The amount of religious propaganda and nonsense that finds its way into every serious discussion, casual conversation, news story on radio and tv, or the amount of people that attribute various religious reasons for their various successes and failures is staggering. And that doesn't even include the constant encounters with religious nutters in stores, street corners, etc. who expect that just because they mention their god and how their cause is their god's work, you'll be willing to give money to them.

When this is brought into perspective, it is surprising that atheists aren't more vocal in public, choosing instead to voice their opinions and discontent in anonymous venues like internet forums and blogs. This is slowly beginning to change, however, and more and more atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are choosing to question and criticize publicly.


Maybe my understanding of the belief system is off - but it seems to me that if a person were indeed an atheist, he/she would be indifferent when it comes to talking about such things.

Atheists should, as I indicated above, be more willing to question and criticize in public. No longer should religious nutters have an unqualified pass on their public displays of piety without criticism and even ridicule. It should be just as embarrassing to have a bible on your desk in the workplace as a UFO book or a book about Bigfoot. But it isn't, so it's hard to be indifferent about religious nutters that seek to codify their religious cult beliefs into laws and influence politicians who invade other nations, denounce condom use in the face of epidemics of AIDS, ban stem cell research, etc. -All because of the religious mythology written by Bronze and Iron Age agriculturalists and pastoralists.

SEE..... they will never admit it.

and christians... also fear god... but for different reasons.

Atheist... dont even like the idea....
if they became.. believers.. they would have to change behavior and stuff.

its much easier to enjoy sin... if there is no god to worry about.

-MT

For a theist, you seem to know an awful lot about what it's like to be atheist Mosheh, with the exception of course that atheists at least nominally try to be logical, wheras you seem to be quite adept at mind reading. Well, it's at least comforting to know you won't be using your powers for evil, lest the wrath of the lord strike you down.

SEE..... they will never admit it.

and christians... also fear god... but for different reasons.

Atheist... dont even like the idea.... Actually many atheists, myself included, really like the idea of a God, especially an afterlife where we get to meet everyone again.
But merely liking an idea is highly irrational grounds for "belief".


... if they became.. believers.. they would have to change behavior and stuff.Please tell me how my behaviour would change? Other than a few minor things like maybe going to church each Sunday (depending on which elements of "belief" I picked up) I am fairly sure my life would not be significantly different.
But please feel free to tell me how it must be obvious I am an atheist through my actions, and how they clearly differentiate me from someone with "belief"?


its much easier to enjoy sin... if there is no god to worry about.If there is no god to worry about then there is no sin - there is merely conscience.
But again - please tell me which "sins" I clearly enjoy because I'm an atheist.
Please tell me how "belief" in a god would change my behaviour etc.

:rolleyes:

red army

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
quite commonly, yes
”
No they don't - so there!

No, really - they don't. If I saw God just once I'd be an instant convert, believe me. I mean, he'd have to be doing something really impressive at the time, like making fire come out of his ears or something, but yes, I'd be willing to trust my senses on something like that. I trust my senses the vast majority of the time. They help me to tie my shoelaces, and cross roads, and correct spelling errors, and distingush shit from sugar. They're really rather invaluable to me, I don't know what I'd do without them, and I think most people - athiests or not - would say the same. So don't be so bloody ridiculous.
then why is the common atheistic response to a person who has witnessed god's nature (BTW the fire coming out of his ears is optional) something like "Oh it must have been his imagination", even if such a (saintly) person advocates not merely just a claim but also a claim of a process that enables verification?

“
the issu eis more about how there is not a clear connection between the pink unicorn/celestial teapot/etc and god since the former is clearly fabricated and does not draw any serious advocates
”
Whereas the latter has had several millennia in which to establish itself and garner the financial backing and support of the world's most powerful institutions.
still, there is no clear connection between the two - its not sufficient to say "in this instance (the pink uincorn) they are getting it wrong so in all instances (all theistic claims) they are all getting it wrong" (particularly since the pink unicorn/celestial teapot doesn't even rate a single sincere practitioner)


Which god are we talking about by the way - or are they all to be given equal validity. Perhaps they're all one and the same?
perhaps there are more similarities then you imagine, after all, if you ask anyone where the sun is during midday they will say "directly above my head" (all 2 billion people)
“

notice how this response contradicts the one you give below
”
I've read both several times and still see no contradiction. Enlighten me.


“
I think most atheists would agree that it's "bad" to run round stabbing random strangers. More usefully, one might classify such a person as clinically insane, and deal appropriately, rather than promising him an eternity burning in Hellfire.
”
"morality is essentially the same for everyone"

“
Yes, it's tough being a grown-up. Choosing your own moral path in life isn't the free-for-all in the candy shop that the above statement implies - it's often hard, thankless, can be absolutely heart-breaking. But, yes, the knowledge that you've 'done the right thing', not because someone's told you to, but because you've considered and debated all the relevant issues and arrived at a decision that you can live with does bring it's own rewards - vanishingly small though they might be sometimes.
"morality is essentially different for everyone"

then why is the common atheistic response to a person who has witnessed god's nature (BTW the fire coming out of his ears is optional) something like "Oh it must have been his imagination", even if such a (saintly) person advocates not merely just a claim but also a claim of a process that enables verification?The common atheistic response is merely NOT to jump to the conclusion that it is something that defies the current understanding of the laws of the Universe - but to try and understand all other possible explanations beforehand. Only when one has eliminated the possible is one left with the impossible.
To jump to the conclusion / belief of the impossible without first going through the process of elimination is irrational.

The process of enabling verification is also subject to the same scrutiny.
For example, if I claim to have witnessed god, and give my "process for verification" as taking a certain hallucigent - and someone takes the hallucigent and "witnesses god" (as I had claimed they would) - does this mean that we are really witnessing god?
Afterall, I claim it - I provide a process - and others "witness" it through following the process.

All you are doing in this scenario is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe (albeit in this case the interaction of chemicals that induce hallucinations) and calling it God.

All you are doing with any other process that claims to "witness god" is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe and calling it God - which adds nothing to the understanding of that phenomena.

Well, its seems to me that forums are where atheists gather to have their...religious services. But instead of worshipping God, they worship themselves.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p136/g-owen/eye-color.jpg

Well, its seems to me that forums are where atheists gather to have their...religious services. But instead of worshipping God, they worship themselves.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p136/g-owen/eye-color.jpg

Lets be fair and say some atheists.:p

I'll say some atheists, if atheists say some Christians when they say what they say...;)

Atheist... dont even like the idea....
if they became.. believers.. they would have to change behavior and stuff.

its much easier to enjoy sin... if there is no god to worry about.

-MT

Actually some of the most spiritual acts I've seen have been done by athiests.
Such as an act of selfless service or aiding someone in dire need and not expecting or wanting a reward. Perhaps even more impressive in this case is since they don't do it for an "eternal reward" . Just my opinion of course but I think this would be a more impressive act to what I believe God to be.
Depends on what an individual believes god to be..a god that represents unconditional love and selfless service or an ill tempered male god,petty, and afflicted with severe emotional problems.

Here is another flaw in Atheism - it seems that they love to talk about religion. I am Christian and have never "looked" for a discussion with an atheist. But it seems that atheists like to talk about religion (of course, to bash it). Maybe my understanding of the belief system is off - but it seems to me that if a person were indeed an atheist, he/she would be indifferent when it comes to talking about such things.

Even if that were true it is not a flaw. Atheists are drawn in to religious debate because sadly religion plays a large part in public policy.

Well, its seems to me that forums are where atheists gather to have their...religious services. But instead of worshipping God, they worship themselves.

*************
M*W: You are sadly mistaken about atheists. We really don't worship anything, except maybe, our families and dear ones. And knowledge.

*************
M*W: You are sadly mistaken about atheists. We really don't worship anything, except maybe, our families and dear ones. And knowledge.

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)
So the minority of the world being atheist and thus selfish is to blame for the starvation of millions?
Materialism has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Although perhaps selfless acts do, after all, religious people mostly only do these things for their 'eternal reward' or because they're told to. What reason do atheists have apart from it being the best thing to do for the world?

For a theist, you seem to know an awful lot about what it's like to be atheist Mosheh, with the exception of course that atheists at least nominally try to be logical, wheras you seem to be quite adept at mind reading. Well, it's at least comforting to know you won't be using your powers for evil, lest the wrath of the lord strike you down.

my father was a devout atheist..... and explained why... all the same reasons all the atheist here.... its all the same.

ive heard it all before.

and its based on a lack of reflection on all the real evidense.

-MT

So the minority of the world being atheist and thus selfish is to blame for the starvation of millions?
Materialism has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Although perhaps selfless acts do, after all, religious people mostly only do these things for their 'eternal reward' or because they're told to. What reason do atheists have apart from it being the best thing to do for the world?

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

[QUOTE]
The process of enabling verification is also subject to the same scrutiny.
For example, if I claim to have witnessed god, and give my "process for verification" as taking a certain hallucigent - and someone takes the hallucigent and "witnesses god" (as I had claimed they would) - does this mean that we are really witnessing god?
probably not, since god can be qualified by certain characteristics (like for instance its not uncommon for people of psychotropics to claim that they are god, which raises the question how is it that god runs the risk of drowning in his own vomit?)



Afterall, I claim it - I provide a process - and others "witness" it through following the process.
If a group of people take hallucinogenics and say that a glass of sand can quench your thirst, it can be rejected because sand and water do not share the same qualities


All you are doing in this scenario is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe (albeit in this case the interaction of chemicals that induce hallucinations) and calling it God.
if seeing god is all about taking drugs, why are there many religions that don't advocate taking forms of intoxication?


All you are doing with any other process that claims to "witness god" is taking a phenomena that is obeying the laws of the Universe and calling it God - which adds nothing to the understanding of that phenomena.
You are assuming that all saintly persons are on drugs
You are also assuming that the phenomena of consciousness can be defined by molecular reductionist paradigms
There is no scientific evidence for either of these claims (ie there is no person making claims of directly perceiving these things as true, nor is there any process advocated that would enable one to perceive them as true)

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheismPlease define these religious principles - or at least explain what you mean by the phrase.

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.

I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

probably not, since god can be qualified by certain characteristicsAnd yet in your thread that tried to do that you fell short of actually being able to.
Define god - then we can start.


If a group of people take hallucinogenics and say that a glass of sand can quench your thirst, it can be rejected because sand and water do not share the same qualitiesSee the first response with regard to the characteristics of God.
Additionally - I never said that they are claiming a glass of sand can quench thirst - that is nothing but a strawman logical fallacy set up by you!


if seeing god is all about taking drugs, why are there many religions that don't advocate taking forms of intoxication?
...
You are assuming that all saintly persons are on drugsStop getting hung up on the detail of the analogy and just respond to the underlying issues.:rolleyes:


You yet again squirm your way through actually answering anything but your own strawmen.
:rolleyes:

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.Define "non-materialistic" - or at least quantify it.
Define "non-selfish" - or at least quantify it.

Define "non-materialistic" - or at least quantify it.
Define "non-selfish" - or at least quantify it.

Might want to ask Anti-flag

I think Religion’s single most important flaw – if one discounts reason and argument and evidence – is that it has minds like lightgigantic and IceAgeCivilizatinos, to name but two of its representatives, as its followers.

One has to only read a few paragraphs of their thoughts – if you can call them that – to see what kinds of minds are attracted to these myths.


I think atheisms biggest flaw, if one discounts logic, it that is has minds like Medicinewoman and Zenbabelfish, to name but two of its followers.

One only has to read a few paragraphs of their thoughts, counterpoints, and rebuttals to see what kinds of minds are attracted to this idiocy.

I think atheisms biggest flaw, if one discounts logic, it that is has minds like Medicinewoman and Zenbabelfish, to name but two of its followers.

One only has to read a few paragraphs of their thoughts, counterpoints, and rebuttals to see what kinds of minds are attracted to this idiocy.

Likewise.

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

Yes, me. ;)

I, for one, think that there's a lot to be said in Christianity's favour. But putting up lists of straw men just for the pleasure of making poor arguments to try to knock them down, isn't one of them. For example:
11. "Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists."


Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical
Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite.


Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute
"good" or "bad" behavior. Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals
to fit whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband
finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding
that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an "open
marriage," in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs. With
a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists
have fewer reasons to seek a divorce.


Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the
Bible. Those morals can't be augmented to suit the whims of the moment.
Infidelity and other such offenses are taken very seriously. After doing
what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to
choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue
an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer.


So, it is because of high Christian values-and not hypocrisy-that the
divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces
because of their changeable standards of morality. First of all, I never heard any atheist making an argument like that. Secondly, if I were he I would have questioned the statistic, or certainly looked outside the United States. And thirdly, the argument that Christians (in following God's law) have "higher moral standards" and consequently are forced to, well, disobey a key teaching of Jesus himself, is rather more an argument that would attract people to the atheist non-hypocritical morality, isn't it?

I love the way he believes that "burden of proof" apparently has to do with how many people have the belief one way or another, ie the people who have the "burden of proof" are the minority who have to convince the majority. This is actually not even true in a court of law, where most jurors would pretty much assume, sight unseen, that someone who is standing before them is probably guilty. And he uses the same argument to knock down the "Invisible pink unicorn" (apparently never having heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) because, apparently, he does not understand the point the atheist is making, which is "You believe in the conventional image of God because you are surrounded by people who believe in that God and not the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

there is a lot of similarity between the unsatisfactory performance of religious principles and atheism

I don't think you are making a good case for religion. If the principles don't perform, what do you expect but that people move on to something else?

Yes, me. ;)

Hmm you're promoting yourself. Decidedly unselfish.;)

Sarkus,


Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the
belief that there isn't.

Ah - yes - the cherry-picking of atheism.
This is "strong" atheism that this person is talking about.
It does not cover the majority of atheists that, I think, are of the "weak" variety.
This flaw is thus invalid for the majority of atheists.

They claim "weak atheism" but their actions cry "strong atheism".



Atheists believe that there is no God.


This is covered above by the obvious cherry-picking the definition.

If you don't BELEIVE that there is no God, then what are you defending?
Why does it come across as though you BELIEVE there is no God?



Therefore, they believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the government should be made without regard to religious dogma.



This, and the rest of this supposed "flaw" is nothing but a strawman - unless this person has actually found out what it is that all these atheists actually "believe".
Atheism is merely a stance on the existence or not of god - nothing else.

Then why is there so much effort to remove "in God we trust" from the dollar bill, for example?



3. "Atheism is supported by science."


Most will say that theism is NOT supported by science - but never that atheism IS.

So what is their atheism based on?



[QUOTE]When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in effect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic.


Other than continuing along his own narrow definition of atheism, this is blatantly wrong.
It is irrational / illogical to "believe" in anything that is not proven.

This depends on what you regard, and would accept as proof.



6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."

Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has
touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives.


God of the Gaps.
And like others have said - this means that alien abduction is truth, that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, that the Sun rotates around the Earth etc.

It is evidence, all the other stuff you wrote is unecessary, either you accept it as evidence or not.


This is partly true - in that atheists can't distinguish between the two - just as they can't distinguish between any two things for which there is no evidence.

Your straight-forward, (seemingly) unreasonable refusal of the evidence, gives reason to believe that your position is one of a strong-atheist.
Two questions; why don't you believe in God? What could/would cause you to believe in God?


The theists' flaw is in the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy and probably many others.

So a theist should ignore such overwhelming testimony, and pretend he/she is the only theist in the world?


I'm also wondering if the essay was in fact tongue-in-cheek to show just how poor the arguments from theists actually are.

You assuming it is a "poor essay" does not make it so.
You have a perception of "atheism", which by all accounts seem perfect, but the reality is that none of you actually live up to that perception. I think this chap is describing what you do actually live up to.

Jan.

Personal testimony is not sufficient as proof. There is as much testimony about ghosts, UFO's, and faith healing in other religions like Voodoo.

then its all about themselves - after all its MY family, MY dear ones and MY knowledge (which commonly gives rise to the popular materialistic notion, it is okay for the families of others - that are not in MY country - to starve, but my family must be well fed)

*************
M*W: DO NOT put words in my mouth! If I had meant that I worshipped MY FAMILY ONLY, I would have said that. If I meant that I worshipped only MY DEAR ONES ONLY, I would have said that. If I meant that I worshipped MY KNOWLEDGE ONLY, then I would have said that! Obviously, to be an atheist, I had to learn the TRUTH somewhere, since I was a formerly deluded christian. Materialism is for selfish people, of which I am not one.

Materialism is for selfish people, of which I am not one.

I see a lot of selfish attitudes every sunday..on sunday religous TV programs.
Rather than giving sermons on aiding people in need,making the world a better place( in truth..I see a small portion of this ,in all due fairness to some christians)
I usually see some clown quoting scripture and hellfire and send the bucks in for your "miracle faith kit" and people in the crowd nodding in agreement in an attempt to reassure themselves that they are hearing the truth. It leaves you with the feeling that for many christians it's all about dis- regarding the problems common sense tells you lie with the bible(other than the outright lack of evidence that supports it)and it's depiction of god and saving your own butt to avoid the pitts of hell. Talk about selfish..sheesh!:(

I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

I don't ;)

Personal testimony is not sufficient as proof. There is as much testimony about ghosts, UFO's, and faith healing in other religions like Voodoo.

I did not say it was proof.
What would you regard as sufficient evidence to warrant a BELIEF in God?

Jan.

For prayer to work a higher percentage of the time than can be accounted for by randomness.

For one biological structure of irreducible complexity to exist.

For the light from stars greater than 5,000 or 10,000 light years away to be invisible, having as yet insufficient time to reach us.

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.

Buddha.

Buddha.

He dumped his wife and kid, so doesn't count.

Dumped them... in a palace. It was probably an arranged marriage anyway.

Dumped them... in a palace. It was probably an arranged marriage anyway.

Which makes no difference to the fact that he abandoned them. Hardly unselfish.

He was both non-materialistic and selfish. He may have been both at one time, but he embodied both of these qualities at the same time while being an atheist. Play semantics and be argumentative for the sake of inflating your spammed up post-count all you want, but the facts are facts.

He was both non-materialistic and selfish. He may have been both at one time, but he embodied both of these qualities at the same time while being an atheist. Play semantics and be argumentative for the sake of inflating your spammed up post-count all you want, but the facts are facts.

Its not semantics. He abandoned his responsibilities as a prince, his parents and his family because he feared sickness, old age and suffering. His doctrine preaches abandonment of desire and his altruism neglects the role of social responsibility to hermitage and isolation. Can't get any more selfish than that.

I see a lot of selfish attitudes every sunday..on sunday religous TV programs. Rather than giving sermons on aiding people in need,making the world a better place( in truth..I see a small portion of this ,in all due fairness to some christians)
I usually see some clown quoting scripture and hellfire and send the bucks in for your "miracle faith kit" and people in the crowd nodding in agreement in an attempt to reassure themselves that they are hearing the truth. It leaves you with the feeling that for many christians it's all about dis- regarding the problems common sense tells you lie with the bible(other than the outright lack of evidence that supports it)and it's depiction of god and saving your own butt to avoid the pitts of hell. Talk about selfish..sheesh!:(

*************
M*W: Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I used to watch Jimmy Swaggart just to see him cry!

spidergoat,


For prayer to work a higher percentage of the time than can be accounted for by randomness.

How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?
What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?



For one biological structure of irreducible complexity to exist.


light from stars greater than 5,000 or 10,000 light years away to be invisible, having as yet insufficient time to reach us.

Why would this mean that God exists necessarily?

Jan.

How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?
I think it's common knowledge. This fact is usually explained away as "God has mysterious ways". It's seems like a kind of selective attention. In support of prayer, we are given examples where people prayed and it worked. But those same people fail to acknowledge all the times it doesn't (even when the pray-er is sincere).


What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?
When the outcome that is prayed for occurs? The one scientific test I'm aware of used churchgoers to pray for someone recovering from surgery to get well. The outcome was compared to a control group.


Why would this mean that God exists necessarily?
In the biological case, it would mean it didn't evolve from simpler, useful structures.

In the case of stars, it would mean that they were placed there according to the timeline commonly associated with the biblical account.

In either case, it wouldn't be proof, but it would count as evidence in favor of theists.

my father was a devout atheist..... and explained why... all the same reasons all the atheist here.... its all the same.

ive heard it all before.

and its based on a lack of reflection on all the real evidense.

-MT

You aren't exactly making a compelling case for youself here. You seem to believe this about atheists because you want to, not because there is any good reason too. On what basis do you presume to tell me what I do and don't believe, and judge my moral character negatively in lieu of nothing more than a generalization?

spidergoat,



How do you know it doesn't already work 100% of the time?


I think it's common knowledge.


prayer
- address to God: a spoken or unspoken address to God, a deity, or a saint.
- addressing of God: the act or practice of making spoken or unspoken addresses to God, a deity, or a saint
- something wished for: something that is wanted or hoped for very much
- religious service: a religious service at which...

The question is; do people who see God as an order-supplier, demanding this and that, for the purpose of satisfying their whims, actually pray?
If you study scriptures you will note that people who actually pray, address God, are authorised.


This fact is usually explained away as "God has mysterious ways".

You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.



What would you regard as a 'prayer that works', what is the conclusion based on?


When the outcome that is prayed for occurs?

But it has occured, people have testified to that, despite the assumption that some of the prayers didn't. Why don't you regard that as evidence?


In the biological case, it would mean it didn't evolve from simpler, useful structures.

In the case of stars, it would mean that they were placed there according to the timeline commonly associated with the biblical account.

In either case, it wouldn't be proof, but it would count as evidence in favor of theists.

Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?

Jan.

The question is; do people who see God as an order-supplier, demanding this and that, for the purpose of satisfying their whims, actually pray?
Let us concentrate on those pray-ers that are sincere and undemanding. What is the percentage of those prayers that are answered?

Suppose the person who studies the answer isn't the person who prays?


If you study scriptures you will note that people who actually pray, address God, are authorised.
Fine, let's only observe those people. I'm willing to set up the experiment that way.


You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.
Then you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say God obviously exists, but can offer no testable hypothesis to prove or disprove. That's like if I had an imaginary friend who I only see when I'm alone. Could I really expect anyone else to believe it?


But it has occured, people have testified to that, despite the assumption that some of the prayers didn't. Why don't you regard that as evidence?
Here's an example. Let's say I hypothesize that wearing my socks inside out makes me lucky. Suppose I happen to be wearing my socks inside out and I do win the lottery. Is that evidence that wearing my socks inside out caused me to win the lottery? ...Or was it just a coincidence?

There are already established ways to distinguish real effects from coincidence. So far, the effects of prayer are indistinguishable from mere random chance.


Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?
Because people can be tricked. They see what they want to see. They see magic tricks and believe them. They believe in good luck charms. We fall for optical illusions, we hear voices, we have hallucinations. Basically, people are irrational, and my intent is to separate the rational from the irrational.

Testimony is enough to start the investigation, but it can't end there.

Which makes no difference to the fact that he abandoned them. Hardly unselfish.

Sorry Sam but I find it somewhat amusing that one who follows the religion laid down by Muhammed is accusing anyone of being selfish.

Taking a wife is selfish. Basically, it's like saying we aren't good enough as individuals, I have to assume an artificial connection to another person. To commit to one individual is to exclude every other person on the planet. True love doesn't pick favorites.

Sorry Sam but I find it somewhat amusing that one who follows the religion laid down by Muhammed is accusing anyone of being selfish.

I'm not. I just asked Anti-flag to give me an example of an unselfish nonmaterialistic atheist, in response to his posting. I think everyone is selfish.

Taking a wife is selfish. Basically, it's like saying we aren't good enough as individuals, I have to assume an artificial connection to another person. To commit to one individual is to exclude every other person on the planet. True love doesn't pick favorites.

Taking a wife may or may not be selfish, but abandoning one to "find oneself" for fear of death or disease IMO is definitely selfish.

I'm not. I just asked Anti-flag to give me an example of an unselfish nonmaterialistic atheist, in response to his posting. I think everyone is selfish.

OK fair enough but everything we do as humans has an element of selfishness to it. Even helping people and expecting nothing in return gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling that is pleasurable (suprise, suprise, even for an atheist).

Edit: Ok I read through the thread and see where that came from.

OK fair enough but everything we do as humans has an element of selfishness to it. Even helping people and expecting nothing in return gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling that is pleasurable.

I agree.

Taking a wife may or may not be selfish, but abandoning one to "find oneself" for fear of death or disease IMO is definitely selfish.

Not really, it assumes helplessness in the female.

Not really, it assumes helplessness in the female.

So I could abdicate all my responsibilities with the knowledge that this assumes empowerment.

Sure.

Sure.

Good, I like justifications for my selfishness.:)

Of course, I better think up a way to avoid the consequences first.

Analysis of consequences is selfish.

Analysis of consequences is selfish.

Nah that's just good preparation.:p

Can you give an example of a non-materialistic non-selfish atheist? Just for kicks.
You might like to read the post again, I'll even quote the important bit for you, read it carefully;


Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.

I clearly have no need to give you an example of what you asked. Regardless, there was the inclusion of the words "people I've met and known".;)

You might like to read the post again, I'll even quote the important bit for you, read it carefully;



I clearly have no need to give you an example of what you asked. Regardless, there was the inclusion of the words "people I've met and known".;)

So one example should not be too difficult.;)

So one example should not be too difficult.;)

Would there be a point in dropping names you don't recognise? Somewhat futile don't you think? Especially as stage two will involve you accusing me of making it up.
However, again you missed the point, I wonder if you did re-read. I said less selfish and materialistic, not non-materialistic or non-selfish. You're dealing with absolutes in an attempt to bait me into a corner. Nice try. ;)

You aren't exactly making a compelling case for youself here. You seem to believe this about atheists because you want to, not because there is any good reason too. On what basis do you presume to tell me what I do and don't believe, and judge my moral character negatively in lieu of nothing more than a generalization?



ah no... i could go over the science.... but no one ever wants to do that.... it would be a long discussion.

atheists.... are all wanna be scientists.... that is the basis of their view.

but... they dont seem to realise that.... most scientists... are secular atheists..... and push their biased views and theories...

views... which extend beyond science... to reach beyond our space and time... and say without a doubt... there is no god.

EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE DOES NOT REACH OR SEE THAT FAR.

we... as humans... are ignorant of more.. than we know.

if you are reasonable... you will agree to that statement.

and if so... you must also admit... we cant be sure either way.

most atheists... are sure.... why??? because of ignorance.

ignorance... of just how ignorant they and we all are.

-MT

It's hard ... to bother reading ... such tripe ... when it's constantly ...interrupted by ... poor punctuation.

ah no... i could go over the science.... but no one ever wants to do that.... it would be a long discussion.

atheists.... are all wanna be scientists.... that is the basis of their view.

but... they dont seem to realise that.... most scientists... are secular atheists..... and push their biased views and theories...

views... which extend beyond science... to reach beyond our space and time... and say without a doubt... there is no god.

EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE DOES NOT REACH OR SEE THAT FAR.

we... as humans... are ignorant of more.. than we know.

if you are reasonable... you will agree to that statement.

and if so... you must also admit... we cant be sure either way.

most atheists... are sure.... why??? because of ignorance.

ignorance... of just how ignorant they and we all are.

-MT

If you were reasonable you'd be presenting arguments, instead of merely pontificating. It seems to me you're having some silly fantasy about atheists and science, by merely presenting unqualified assertions. A rather ironic bent considering this obsession with other people's ignorance. You are still reading minds.

to argue further... would be to introduce alot of my theorys...

because they are based on the abundant evidense.

the evidense... in it self... suggests... a natural progressive pattern.

more over... when you look into the sky... the atheists say its all random and chaos...

which is strange... since in fact... any moron can see the super clusters... and galaxies.... and solar systems... are all very symetrical.

symetry..... if i spelled it right.... is everywhere...

not chaos... and not random formations.

as far back as our best telescopes can see...

its not random... its not messy... in fact... in the past... its more organized.

but apon seeing this... they just say... that we can only see the universe, after its messy stage.

HA

-MT

Please define these religious principles - or at least explain what you mean by the phrase.
religious principles means to serve god in all circumstances

BG 14.26: One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

alloyed religious principles are those where the focus of one's service attitude shifts from god to oneself

BG 17.5-6: Those who undergo severe austerities and penances not recommended in the scriptures, performing them out of pride and egoism, who are impelled by lust and attachment, who are foolish and who torture the material elements of the body as well as the Supersoul dwelling within, are to be known as demons.

BG 16.13-15: The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance.

BG 16.16: Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell.



I'd suggest you get to know some atheists and their intentions, as opposed to presuming anyone who doesn't comply perfectly with your ideals is atheist.
the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's



As for the religious; (unsatisfactory performance in who's eyes by the way?)
unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)



They still identify themselves as theists, and I'd suggest that since they are in the majority they are far more likely to be to blame for materialism and selfishness than a few atheists.
regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person



Out of the majority of people I've met and known the best behaved and most selfless identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, the more materialistic were theists.
then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists


Your credibility and intelligence are on thin ice with such baseless statements.
there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)

Sarkus


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
probably not, since god can be qualified by certain characteristics
”
And yet in your thread that tried to do that you fell short of actually being able to.
Define god - then we can start.
actually there were a few definitions in that thread that were satisfactory, but admittedly they were few and far between since it was mostly atheists who thickened the postings with responses that were of topic.
But just to jog your memory, omniscient, omnipotent etc etc


“
Originally Posted by LG
If a group of people take hallucinogenics and say that a glass of sand can quench your thirst, it can be rejected because sand and water do not share the same qualities
”
See the first response with regard to the characteristics of God.
Additionally - I never said that they are claiming a glass of sand can quench thirst - that is nothing but a strawman logical fallacy set up by you!
it illustrates how a person on drugs can claim anything, not merely just seeing/being god.
It also illustrates how their claims can be rejected

i

it illustrates how a person on drugs can claim anything, not merely just seeing/being god.
It also illustrates how their claims can be rejectedAnd who are you, or I, or anyone else to differentiate the valid claims from the invalid? True, there are many claims that can easily be rejected. But some claims are not rejectable - as they can not be verified OR falsified.

And the same can be said of the theists - who DO claim a multitude of things - which give rise to the many differing flavours of theism. How is one to distil the valid from the invalid when there can be no tests done on the claims to show which is correct or not?

Oh yes - for you it would be to listen to a person who has gone before, follow their process and experience for yourself. Happy drug-taking, then (to follow the analogy).

the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's
So it's just gods ideals? And we find these in scripture? So even cruelty is acceptable as gods ideals if the scripture says so? I'll leave the quoting to the better versed around here but it shouldn't take long to find something.



unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)
Nobody is perfect, even a saint, therefore is everyone not unsatisfactory?


regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person
So if scripture states all you need is a belief in god and repentance for sins, and the scripture is from god, then that is how he identifies a person as a theist is it not?
Also is a belief in god relevant whether or not scripture is perfectly followed?



then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists
A little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'. The majority of people I meet(being in christian countries most of the time) will be theists, the majority of people I meet I'm less than impressed with, I admit there is crossover here but I find religion or lack of does little to influence anything.


there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)

So transcendence is the only way to solve the problems of life? What makes you so sure they're all to be solved? We're born so we must decay and die, the bit in the middle is life, and our morality determines just how helpful we are at improving it's quality for us and those around us.
I'd say that's possibly the most important thing for us as a species to do right now. Or are you saying we should be heading towards transcendence and ignoring our ability to help things right now?

there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)"Problems of life".

Who are you to say (a) that life has "problems", and (b) what those problems are?!
Egotistical to the extreme!

Life has no "problems" - life just is!
The only "problems", if there are any, are those our mind produces for ourselves due to our inability to cope with the impacts.

To you, and presumably to your religion, death is seen as a "problem" that must be overcome.
To others death is an inevitability. Nothing to be feared and certainly not a problem.
Death and disease are only a seen as a "problem" due to our (selfish?) desire to keep on living, which is fuelled by our instinctive nature for survival.


Remove fear of death from the equation and religion suddenly loses most of its appeal.

Been away for a bit...so I'm late :o


i am extremely religious....
in fact i am a zelot.
yet... my faith is based on science.
all of you... who hate religion... you do so, due to your ignorance.
so sad.
-MT

Just in case no one asked...(i didn't notice anyone ask). What science do you base your faith on????





I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

I DO judge the entire religion however, because it is the moderates that allow for brainless quacks like Pat to even make a living.

spidergoat,


Let us concentrate on those pray-ers that are sincere and undemanding. What is the percentage of those prayers that are answered?

Ask the people who pray, not me.


Suppose the person who studies the answer isn't the person who prays?

It begs the question; how does the person know whether or not a prayer has been answered.



You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.


Then you want to have your cake and eat it too.

No, that is the atheist position.
God does not exist.
God is a murderer.


You want to say God obviously exists,

"Obviously" is a word I have not chosen.


but can offer no testable hypothesis to prove or disprove.

The original (scriptoral) personality and character of God, is not a hypothesis as that would suggest it is an idea. As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.
You must prove that He was made up.


That's like if I had an imaginary friend who I only see when I'm alone. Could I really expect anyone else to believe it?

That is a terrible analogy.
If you have an "imaginary friend" then I totally believe you have an "imaginary friend". Why should I believe any different?


Here's an example. Let's say I hypothesize that wearing my socks inside out makes me lucky. Suppose I happen to be wearing my socks inside out and I do win the lottery. Is that evidence that wearing my socks inside out caused me to win the lottery? ...Or was it just a coincidence?

At that stage it would be hard to say, although it would be reasonable to assume that it was a coincidence. But why would wearing socks inside out be the cause of winning the lottery?


There are already established ways to distinguish real effects from coincidence. So far, the effects of prayer are indistinguishable from mere random chance.

Not to the people for whom prayer has helped.
It boils down to BELIEF, either you believe or not.
The atheist position has to be one of belief.



Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?


Because people can be tricked. They see what they want to see. They see magic tricks and believe them. They believe in good luck charms.
We fall for optical illusions, we hear voices, we have hallucinations. Basically, people are irrational, and my intent is to separate the rational from the irrational.

Still no reason to doubt, right across the board.
I doubt lots of people who say they have certain experiences, but why would I need to doubt the nature of the experience itself?


Testimony is enough to start the investigation, but it can't end there.

Then what do you suggest?

Jan.

It begs the question; how does the person know whether or not a prayer has been answered.
If the "answer" is indistinguishable then that begs the question, how does anyone know prayer works at all?

"Mysterious ways" is a cop-out, a way to stay evasive while still maintaining His existence. This is one of Christianity's central mind viruses, a particular arrangement of ideas that seems like a justification but really means nothing.


As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.
You could not be more wrong. I could list a dozen cultures with no God concept, most pre-dating monotheism, which began with Zoroastrianism.


You must prove that He was made up.

No it don't, only that the concept is about as likely as any other fairy tale.


If you have an "imaginary friend" then I totally believe you have an "imaginary friend". Why should I believe any different?
That would be irrational? How could you be do gullible? Religion is just like that. What if I asked you for money to get my invisible friend an operation, without which she would die? Would you give it to me?


At that stage it would be hard to say, although it would be reasonable to assume that it was a coincidence. But why would wearing socks inside out be the cause of winning the lottery?
Exactly. It is reasonable to conclude that the occaisional times prayer works, or a "miracle" occurs, it is just coincidence.

Why would the universe be ruled and created by a being that happened to have many of the same characteristics of a certain species of great ape we call human that only happened to evolve after 4 billion years of other life forms?

Isn't it more likely that humans invented a story to make themselves feel protected and central to the story of existence?


Not to the people for whom prayer has helped.
It boils down to BELIEF, either you believe or not.
The atheist position has to be one of belief.
That can be explained by selective attention. They believe because of the one time prayer worked, but they ignore all the times it didn't.

This is exactly the same psychology as a baseball player with their superstitious charms and rituals.


Still no reason to doubt, right across the board.
I doubt lots of people who say they have certain experiences, but why would I need to doubt the nature of the experience itself?

I think doubt is a reasonable position, but I'm willing to consider anything new. If you doubt people have certain experiences, then isn't the nature of the experience irrelevant? Perhaps not though, since the experiences seem specially crafted to meet a psychological need.


Then what do you suggest?
Craft a hypothesis about God that can be tested. Without this, it's just a strange and unlikely theory, like the Flat Earth.

And who are you, or I, or anyone else to differentiate the valid claims from the invalid?

unless we have some qualification in the field, probably none


True, there are many claims that can easily be rejected. But some claims are not rejectable - as they can not be verified OR falsified.
of course for someone who rejects the processes by which something is verified it will appear unverifiable


And the same can be said of the theists - who DO claim a multitude of things - which give rise to the many differing flavours of theism.
so some things claimed by theists are false and some things claimed by theists are actually different characteristics of the same object (ie god) - an atheist, by dint of their lack of qualification in the field, cannot distinguish between the two and tend to write the whole lot off as unverifiable.


How is one to distil the valid from the invalid when there can be no tests done on the claims to show which is correct or not?
the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claim


Oh yes - for you it would be to listen to a person who has gone before, follow their process and experience for yourself. Happy drug-taking, then (to follow the analogy).
the high school drop out applies the same general principle to remain ignorant of physics


"Problems of life".

Who are you to say (a) that life has "problems", and (b) what those problems are?!
Egotistical to the extreme!
strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm


Life has no "problems" - life just is!
in other words you have no solution to these problems


The only "problems", if there are any, are those our mind produces for ourselves due to our inability to cope with the impacts.
therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problems

BG 6.5: One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.

BG 6.6: For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy.

BG 6.7: For one who has conquered the mind, the Supersoul is already reached, for he has attained tranquillity. To such a man happiness and distress, heat and cold, honor and dishonor are all the same.


To you, and presumably to your religion, death is seen as a "problem" that must be overcome.
in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?


To others death is an inevitability. Nothing to be feared and certainly not a problem.
I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dying


Death and disease are only a seen as a "problem" due to our (selfish?) desire to keep on living, which is fuelled by our instinctive nature for survival.
Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?



Remove fear of death from the equation and religion suddenly loses most of its appeal.
And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popular

Anti flag


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's
”
So it's just gods ideals? And we find these in scripture? So even cruelty is acceptable as gods ideals if the scripture says so? I'll leave the quoting to the better versed around here but it shouldn't take long to find something.
I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture



“
unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)
”
Nobody is perfect, even a saint, therefore is everyone not unsatisfactory?
I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail


“
regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person
”
So if scripture states all you need is a belief in god and repentance for sins, and the scripture is from god, then that is how he identifies a person as a theist is it not?
if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them


Also is a belief in god relevant whether or not scripture is perfectly followed?
since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.



“
then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists
”
A little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'. The majority of people I meet(being in christian countries most of the time) will be theists, the majority of people I meet I'm less than impressed with, I admit there is crossover here but I find religion or lack of does little to influence anything.
probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)


“
there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)
”
So transcendence is the only way to solve the problems of life? What makes you so sure they're all to be solved?
since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else


We're born so we must decay and die, the bit in the middle is life, and our morality determines just how helpful we are at improving it's quality for us and those around us.
the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease



I'd say that's possibly the most important thing for us as a species to do right now. Or are you saying we should be heading towards transcendence and ignoring our ability to help things right now?
the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization

the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claimThe position is that there are no RATIONAL or LOGICAL PROOFS of God's existence.
Any claim of proof is riddled with logical flaws - and the process you put forward in a thread was riddled with Appeals to Authority.

If you want to include Irrational arguments or Illogical ones then feel free - there are plenty of those flying around - and many more can be made up for anything else.


strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm An argument from Fear, LG.
This does not make those things a "problem" - just an inevitability that is not looked forward to.


in other words you have no solution to these problems:rolleyes: Begging the question, LG!
Start with the premise that there is NO PROBLEM.
Then provide proof that there IS a problem - and the proof has to be more than just an Appeal to Consensus or an Appeal to Authority.


therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problemsAnd you need religion for this???? LOL!
It just takes rational thought.
Not irrational promises of life-everlasting etc.


in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?Oh, it does. It does everywhere - but that is not evidence that it is a problem - just a part of life that we must all come across , so to speak.


I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dyingFirstly, what, to you, is "much experience"?
Is it watching one's mother die in pain from leukemia - or one's grand-parents suffer through dementia and old age before passing?
Is it being part of a community service that visits old-people's homes, providing them with company, and each time you turn up someone would no longer be there, someone with who you had been conversing and joking only the week before?

Please do explain what you mean by "much experience".
I am certain others have more.

Secondly, WTF does it have to do with the argument.
This is just another logical fallacy from you, LG - Appeal to Emotion.
LEARN TO AVOID THEM!!!
You might actually then appreciate things more.



Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?Of course not. At that stage I would forgo most rational and logical thought processes until I recover my wits, and probably act irrationally and illogically for a while before the instinct for survival kicks in.

Poor example from you, LG.


And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popularSuccess or otherwise is irrelevant - Red Herring logical fallacy. Strawman, I think.

Also - religion is based on appeals to emotion, appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, arguments from fear etc.
THAT is why it is so popular - because most people - like you - can not identify that this is what they are - and even when they do realise they have become too comfortable in their religion, or are unable to think rationally and logically about their religion.

Sarkus


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claim
”
The position is that there are no RATIONAL or LOGICAL PROOFS of God's existence.
Any claim of proof is riddled with logical flaws - and the process you put forward in a thread was riddled with Appeals to Authority.
electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out either


If you want to include Irrational arguments or Illogical ones then feel free - there are plenty of those flying around - and many more can be made up for anything else.
On the contrary I don't recommend that you rely on your rationality and logic in departments where what is required is a more generous fund of foundational knowledge


“
Originally Posted by LG
strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm
”
An argument from Fear, LG.
This does not make those things a "problem" - just an inevitability that is not looked forward to.
hence a problem



“
Originally Posted by LG
in other words you have no solution to these problems
”
Begging the question, LG!
Start with the premise that there is NO PROBLEM.
Then provide proof that there IS a problem - and the proof has to be more than just an Appeal to Consensus or an Appeal to Authority.
Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)


“
Originally Posted by LG
therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problems
”
And you need religion for this???? LOL!
It just takes rational thought.
Not irrational promises of life-everlasting etc.
you can rationalize all you want till the cows come home, but it won't help diminish the attachment one inevitably cultivates towards one's body and things related to it


“
Originally Posted by LG
in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?
”
Oh, it does. It does everywhere - but that is not evidence that it is a problem - just a part of life that we must all come across , so to speak.
so if over 99.999999% of the population view death as a problem, you don't feel you should explain a bit why you think it isn't (apart from the fact that you are currently alive, since inevitable time will deal with that in the near or distant future)


“
Originally Posted by LG
I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dying
”
Firstly, what, to you, is "much experience"?




Is it watching one's mother die in pain from leukemia - or one's grand-parents suffer through dementia and old age before passing?
Is it being part of a community service that visits old-people's homes, providing them with company, and each time you turn up someone would no longer be there, someone with who you had been conversing and joking only the week before?

Please do explain what you mean by "much experience".
I am certain others have more.
seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle it


Secondly, WTF does it have to do with the argument.
This is just another logical fallacy from you, LG - Appeal to Emotion.
LEARN TO AVOID THEM!!!
You might actually then appreciate things more.
its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience



“
Originally Posted by LG
Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?
”
Of course not. At that stage I would forgo most rational and logical thought processes until I recover my wits, and probably act irrationally and illogically for a while before the instinct for survival kicks in.

Poor example from you, LG.
if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?


“
Originally Posted by LG
And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popular
”
Success or otherwise is irrelevant - Red Herring logical fallacy. Strawman, I think.
you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity



Also - religion is based on appeals to emotion, appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, arguments from fear etc.
religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstance


THAT is why it is so popular - because most people - like you - can not identify that this is what they are -
I think JamesR did a survey in one of the threads which revealed that it was the atheists and not the theists who were more likely to base their standpoint on emotions rather than rational thinking



and even when they do realise they have become too comfortable in their religion, or are unable to think rationally and logically about their religion.
okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?


First, I think it is interesting that most theists give rational reasons for their belief in God. Their beliefs, on the whole, are based in personal experience of their God, or in logical inference from the perceived order of the universe and/or life. The most common response to the poll (by a small margin) was that theists believe because of the apparent design of the universe. They look out at the beauty of the world and conclude that a God must be responsible. The second most common response is that they feel the direct influence of God in their lives.

In is interesting to contrast these responses with the common portrayal of theists by non-believers. Very often, atheists (in particular) label theists as weak-willed people who believe in fairy tales for purely emotional reasons. Alternatively, theists are often labelled as blind followers of authority, who never ask their own questions about the meaning of life.

I think the results show that this is not true. In general, theists <b>do</b> think about the big questions and come to logical conclusions based on their own thinking, rather than on authority handed down to them. I would encourage atheists on this forum to take note.

Turning to the atheists themselves, we find another somewhat surprising result - that atheists are perhaps not as supremely rational as they would have us believe. It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. There may be many reasons for this. People can react against a religious upbringing, or point to the perceived ills that religion causes in the world.

More worrying from the atheists is the number of people who dismiss the possibility of God on emotional grounds, without really considering why they are doing so. They label the religious as less intelligent, or authority driven, or simply mad, with no good justification. This seems to be largely a knee-jerk response against people who take an opposing view. Perhaps these people should consider the real reasons why they so despise the religious.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8
;)

electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out eitherThis example of yours has been countered to death on a number of threads. I'm not going to go through it again.


Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)Okay - step back a moment and define "problem".
And then define on what scale you are talking about - a personal level - or as a species - or something else? We may well be talking on different levels.



seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle itThen yes - I have plenty of "experience" of death, thanks. Your point is... ?


its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience Riiight - because it counters your own notions you disparage. Good stuff.
As stated - plenty of experience, thanks.
Your point is... ?

Argue against the POINTS, LG - NOT THE PERSON!!!


if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?There are many reasons why it would be a problem. I want to carry on living - and it is the lack of life, rather than death, that is the problem. Death itself is not a problem - after all I won't be here to see it.


you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity Appeal to Emotion. 'Nuff said.


religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstanceYes - religion is based on God - as it is supposedly this God that offers everything the person seems to be looking for.
If God was KNOWN to be just some bloke who created the Universe and left it on its own to do as it wanted and could not, and had not, interracted - including after a person's death - then religion would probably not exist. But it is because religion helps people ease those fears that it is "successful". It is an appeal to emotion.
If this works for people - great - who am I to stand in the way of their easement of fears.
But it doesn't make the tennets of the religion correct - just because the majority follow it.
To think otherwise is an argument from consensus.


okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?Rationally? You mean with evidence? Sure - my brother - he knows that belief is irrational - yet he believes. He knows he can't support anything about it - that it is mere faith. Yet he is so entrenched in what it offers him emotionally that he can't climb out of it. He knows that. He accepts it.


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8
;)Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.
The main point is that he takes the response at face value - and does not assess the underlying cause.

For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.
Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.

Likewise the atheist supposedly "emotional" responses of "it is absurd to believe in god" or "there is no reason to believe in god" hides the likely rationale for coming to those conclusions.

Unless James R looked at the reasons one gave their face-value statements then the analysis is flawed - heavily flawed.

Please use something more to support your case.

For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.
Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.


In support of this Sarkus, I think someone posted the milk jug answering prayers before...it bears repeating: the milk jug heard me! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI)

The original (scriptoral) personality and character of God, is not a hypothesis as that would suggest it is an idea. As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.
You must prove that He was made up.
.
The personality of god in the old and new testament is simply a reflection of the people who yes,did invent him. No different than all the other gods and goddesses who were created by various races and groups of people to reflect what they believed god or the divine to be. In Yahwehs' case he obviously reflects a lot of the ultra patriarchial,xenophobic qualities of the bronze age hebrews.

It is becoming clear to me why LG is so religious. Now I understand why he was so insistent that atheists must need poetry to deal with death.

Anti flag

I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture
Interesting, if we don't practice something we can't analyse or have any knowledge of it, what if we 'practice' the opposite?


I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail
Seems to me there would be very few if any people in heaven. Does this contradict with the forgiveness most scripture writes about?

if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them
Quite probably, or they have interpreted the same scriptures entirely differently. Who's to say which is right?

since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then
So it doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' someone is, or even if by some fluke they behave almost identically to scripture, at the least better than anybody else who has attempted such and faltered, if they don't believe in god they are out? Even if they did a better job of adhering to the rest of scripture? Sounds rather harsh to me.

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
All varieties? Except this one obviously. But then, they all say that don't they? The next question is why does this one hold more sway?


probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)
Irreligious? I think you define this differently to most, you seem to be suggesting if they arn't a perfect model for following scripture they are irreligious, I'm not sure this applies, they merely interpret it differently to you. This leads me to moral questions, your views on gays etc? And why we should accept them.

since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else
Could you give me a few examples of these transcending people? Do they all come from scripture?

the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease
There's little evidence that quality of any kind continues after death, so why pin my hopes on it? Or anyone elses for that matter.


the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization

Quite possibly it is self defeating, so why not stop it here and now? Or do you see the only solution to this as transcendence? Into where? and what? might I add.

Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.

I'm not sure I'd analyse the data in exactly the same way if I was doing it now.

Certainly, I agree that my analysis in that thread is highly debateable.

Antiflag

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Anti flag

I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture
”
Interesting, if we don't practice something we can't analyse or have any knowledge of it,
yes, that's generally why we buy fruits from a fruit vendor and medicine from a pharmacist (and not vice versa)


what if we 'practice' the opposite?
you mean what if atheism made a positive claim?


“
I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail
”
Seems to me there would be very few if any people in heaven.
a person who has been in jail so long that they have lost the memory of the outside world would probably think that there are very few people outside jail (since his experience would be made up of persons who are criminally inclined)


Does this contradict with the forgiveness most scripture writes about?
no
forgiveness is the ability to put aside one's shady past. Attaining the eternal abode requires being fixed in spiritual values, which is something else

BG 6.15: Thus practicing constant control of the body, mind and activities, the mystic transcendentalist, his mind regulated, attains to the kingdom of God [or the abode of Kṛṣṇa] by cessation of material existence.

BG 15.5: Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom.

etc etc

“
if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them
”
Quite probably, or they have interpreted the same scriptures entirely differently. Who's to say which is right?
sin is qualified by lust, envy, greed etc - the definitions of these states can be analyzed through scripture (ie what constitutes greed, what constitutes envy etc) and, much like a disease can be diagnosed and treated by the expert physician, the saintly person can treat such afflicted persons
“

since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then
”
So it doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' someone is, or even if by some fluke they behave almost identically to scripture, at the least better than anybody else who has attempted such and faltered, if they don't believe in god they are out? Even if they did a better job of adhering to the rest of scripture? Sounds rather harsh to me.
such a person would get the results of mundane piety, which may include a higher grade of material existence (wealth, fame, knowledge etc) but because they are in ignorance of god they are not in the constitutional position to enter in to the kingdom of god

BG 4.9: One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.
“

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
”
All varieties? Except this one obviously. But then, they all say that don't they? The next question is why does this one hold more sway?
because it involves surrender to god (which BTW is a common theme that can be located in many scriptures and not just the Bhagavad-gita)

The issue is whether a person, even a person who claims to be following the BG (or any scripture) is actually surrendering to god or being religious to get a few material benefits on the side (which would rate as "other dharmas")


“
probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)
”
Irreligious? I think you define this differently to most, you seem to be suggesting if they arn't a perfect model for following scripture they are irreligious, I'm not sure this applies, they merely interpret it differently to you. This leads me to moral questions, your views on gays etc? And why we should accept them.
it is very difficult to approach god with sincerity if one feels materially satisfied

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.
“

since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else
”
Could you give me a few examples of these transcending people? Do they all come from scripture?
by historic I mean referred to in scripture - by current I mean practitioners that one can make acquaintance with



“
the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease
”
There's little evidence that quality of any kind continues after death, so why pin my hopes on it? Or anyone elses for that matter.
that is only according to your (and others like you) scope of knowledge - basically this issue boils down to whether all things can be expected to be verified empirically to everyone equally, to which the answer is "no" (since specialists in knowledge have a knack for working with information to yield results beyond the scope of the uneducated)

“

the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization
”
Quite possibly it is self defeating, so why not stop it here and now?
I don't understand?
Stop what?
If you mean stop materialistic society, that would require everyone to be not so materialistic, which would require positive spiritual life (rather than negative material contrabands such "okay we are not allowed to use oil anymoe)


Or do you see the only solution to this as transcendence? Into where? and what? might I add.
well there is the transcendental abode, namely the direct abode of god (the material one being the indirect one)
But since attaining this requires the cessation of one's corporeal existence, I wasn't really suggesting this however.
I was suggesting the transcendence of the bodily concept of life by placing god in the centre of one's activities rather than oneself.

Sarkus


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out either
”
This example of yours has been countered to death on a number of threads. I'm not going to go through it again.
should I accept your rebuking on faith or should I ask you for links where it has been successfully countered or a summary of such links?

“

Originally Posted by LG
Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)
”
Okay - step back a moment and define "problem".

And then define on what scale you are talking about - a personal level - or as a species - or something else? We may well be talking on different levels.

which of these things would you call a problem?

a) eating cake
b) a person allergic to sugar eating a cake
c) a group of people eating cake
d) a group of people allergic to sugar eating cake

(PS - the cake contains heaps of sugar and all the parties involved are eating huge mammoth slices of it)



“
Originally Posted by LG
seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle it
”
Then yes - I have plenty of "experience" of death, thanks. Your point is... ?
your experiences are strange or your recollection of them is faulty if you don't recognize that death curtails virtually all of our desires in this world and is hence a problem


“
Originally Posted by LG
its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience
”
Riiight - because it counters your own notions you disparage. Good stuff.
As stated - plenty of experience, thanks.
Your point is... ?
can you name a culture or society that accepted a particular philosophical view that was oblivious to the problem of death (the only one that I can think of is perhaps a group of heroin addicts)


Argue against the POINTS, LG - NOT THE PERSON!!!
the point is that your personal view of death not being a problem is not shared by anyone in the world except the mad


“
Originally Posted by LG
if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?
”
There are many reasons why it would be a problem. I want to carry on living - and it is the lack of life, rather than death, that is the problem. Death itself is not a problem - after all I won't be here to see it.
so since death challenges your life it is a problem - when faced with the choice to die or live, a person in normal circumstances chooses to live, just like a person who is allergic to sugar would not under normal circumsatnces eat a mammoth piece of cake


“
Originally Posted by LG
you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity
”
Appeal to Emotion. 'Nuff said.
its not clear how claims for a solution to a problem are purely emotional
Like for instance a person may be happy to have their children immunized from polio, but obviously there are a few more issues than the persons happiness

“

Originally Posted by LG
religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstance
”
Yes - religion is based on God - as it is supposedly this God that offers everything the person seems to be looking for.
If God was KNOWN to be just some bloke who created the Universe and left it on its own to do as it wanted and could not, and had not, interracted - including after a person's death - then religion would probably not exist. But it is because religion helps people ease those fears that it is "successful". It is an appeal to emotion.
If this works for people - great - who am I to stand in the way of their easement of fears.
But it doesn't make the tennets of the religion correct - just because the majority follow it.
To think otherwise is an argument from consensus.
Its still not clear how you would get from the observation that a person gets relief from material suffering to the notion that god doesn't exist, since you would expect an existing god to be fully capable of that


“
Originally Posted by LG
okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?
”
Rationally? You mean with evidence? Sure - my brother - he knows that belief is irrational - yet he believes. He knows he can't support anything about it - that it is mere faith. Yet he is so entrenched in what it offers him emotionally that he can't climb out of it. He knows that. He accepts it.
then you have just provided evidence (ore rather you have given witness to) that your brother is closer to a sentimental religious practitioner than a religious practitioner on an acceptable level of performance

Actually I was asking for the rational basis for determining that all religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism - Would you reject a cure for aids if the person claiming it was happy?

Originally Posted by LG
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8

”
Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.
The main point is that he takes the response at face value - and does not assess the underlying cause.
the underlying cause being?
I hardly think you are in a position to correctly determine what the hosts of saintly persons across boundaries of language, culture, geography and time are "really" seeing when they lay claim to god or transcendence


For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.
its not clear why a person who claimed that god answered their prayer is being irrational, unless of course you assume that god doesn't exist, which is itself an irrational crux, since it relies on an absolute negative to be true
(that said one who is familiar with the existence of god can distinguish why, when and how god answers prayers)



Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.
again its not clear how your statement is rational
at the very least the world seems to be well ordered (and if you want to clamor that the world is run by random interactive forces, it becomes a claim of faith since the empirical knowledge such a claims rests on is greatly insubstantial, or perhaps from the view of certain researchers, 'under-funded')


Likewise the atheist supposedly "emotional" responses of "it is absurd to believe in god" or "there is no reason to believe in god" hides the likely rationale for coming to those conclusions.
as evidenced by sites like these, a lot of atheists really hate the notion of god

ITS FUNNY.....

to watch atheists try so hard... so hard to justify their belief in NOTHING.

they have no belief... their belief... is a belief in a non-creation.

they want to believe there was no beginning.. and there is no end...
and that after we die... nothing happens.


atheists are comfortable with nothing.

and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.

makes me laugh.

-MT

ITS FUNNY.....

to watch atheists try so hard... so hard to justify their belief in NOTHING.

There is no belief, atheists never get together and declare "I believe in nothing" because it is a non issue.


they have no belief... their belief... is a belief in a non-creation.
The belief is in a creation (if you insist on using the term) by other means


that after we die... nothing happens.

Obviously the scariest idea there is for a theist



atheists are comfortable with nothing.

Yeah


and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.

There is no purgatory, non-issue, as for nothingness no problem


makes me laugh.

Nervously, judging from your posts.

which of these things would you call a problem?Then we have been talking on differing scales.
Personal "problems", such as you are referring to, are purely subjective and thus irrelevant to the larger picture.


your experiences are strange or your recollection of them is faultyAnd f**k you too to disparage my "experiences" in this regard! :mad: Thoughtless and insulting of you.

I merely choose not to let emotion rule over reason in my arguments. I try not to argue from fear (or emotion in general), from incredulity, from consensus. If only others would do the same.


can you name a culture or society that accepted a particular philosophical view that was oblivious to the problem of deathDeath is not a problem - lack of life might be - but to the person who has died that suddenly becomes irrelevant.
And "dying" might be a problem - but that is distinct from "death".
The emotions of other people with regard to that death are also not "problems" to be overcome but merely something that has to be dealt with.


the point is that your personal view of death not being a problem is not shared by anyone in the world except the madIt is because I separate "death" from the things associated with it - "loss", "dying" etc.


so since death challenges your life it is a problem - when faced with the choice to die or live, a person in normal circumstances chooses to live, just like a person who is allergic to sugar would not under normal circumsatnces eat a mammoth piece of cakeI also don't think we have the same understanding of "problem".

Why does "death" need a solution?
Please answer me that.


its not clear how claims for a solution to a problem are purely emotionalIt is when one attributes "problem", as you seem to, to a fear. Death is to be feared - so religion comes along and says you shouldn't fear it - and comes up with any number of reasons not to (Heaven, reincarnation etc).


Its still not clear how you would get from the observation that a person gets relief from material suffering to the notion that god doesn't exist, since you would expect an existing god to be fully capable of thatI don't get to the notion that "god doesn't exist" - I just don't get to the notion that he does.
Stop trying to assign "I believe God doesn't exist" to me.


then you have just provided evidence (ore rather you have given witness to) that your brother is closer to a sentimental religious practitioner than a religious practitioner on an acceptable level of performanceNo - he truly "believes". He just accepts the weakness of his rational position. He is not doing it for the emotional stability - he is doing it because he "believes". But he is intelligent enough to know the inherent irrationality of his beliefs.


Actually I was asking for the rational basis for determining that all religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism - Would you reject a cure for aids if the person claiming it was happy?What??? What does this question have to do with anything?:confused:

As for rational basis that "ALL religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism" - I never said they were. Emotions - sure. But not ALL claims. Some claims are emotionally neutral - but the key ones of a number of religions are vested in swathes of appeals to emotion - mainly Fear (one must live in FEAR OF GOD etc. and religion offering a solution for those with a fear of death etc). These are rational and logical bases.


the underlying cause being?I don't know - I didn't make all the responses - I would have to ask each and every person who voted in the poll. :rolleyes:


I hardly think you are in a position to correctly determine what the hosts of saintly persons across boundaries of language, culture, geography and time are "really" seeing when they lay claim to god or transcendenceOnce again you are putting words in my mouth that clearly I didn't say.
You have obviously misinterpreted my statement regarding the "underlying cause" (of the person's vote in the poll).
I suggest you revisit it.


its not clear why a person who claimed that god answered their prayer is being irrational...Then I suggest you try and understand what being rational is - and understand Occam's Razor.
When you do that you might realise why a person claiming that god answered their prayers is irrational...

1. Is it more likely that the person just got lucky - and the world merely obeyed the laws of probability; or
2. Is it more likely that some being, for which there is currently no verifiable evidence of existence, decided to answer this person's prayer and go against the laws of probability?

Occam's Razor dictates the first.
To choose otherwise IS irrational.


again its not clear how your statement is rational
at the very least the world seems to be well orderedNo evidence for god in that. You (the voter) assert the existence of God and "God's plan is visible in the world" - prove it. If you can't prove it then the claim is irrational. If you come up with evidence but that evidence can be more easily explained WITHOUT the need for god then it is irrational to use it as evidence of God.
Again - you need to understand the process of rationality and irrationality.


(and if you want to clamor that the world is run by random interactive forces, it becomes a claim of faith since the empirical knowledge such a claims rests on is greatly insubstantial, or perhaps from the view of certain researchers, 'under-funded')Lovel strawman logical fallacy, LG. Yet again putting words in my mouth.
I claim nothing but theories in such things. No "belief". No "faith".

and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.Please tell me of your personal experiences several years before you were born? What were you thinking or doing?

Do you think being dead will be any different?

Are you frightened of that possibility?(not of the process of dying, but of being dead?)

Why?

spidergoat,


If the "answer" is indistinguishable then that begs the question, how does anyone know prayer works at all?

The people for whom the experience has been positive, they know whether or not it works. We can only speculate as to whether or not their experiences are true or not.


"Mysterious ways" is a cop-out, a way to stay evasive while still maintaining His existence.

Maybe, maybe not.


This is one of Christianity's central mind viruses, a particular arrangement of ideas that seems like a justification but really means nothing.

Christianity isn't religion.


You could not be more wrong. I could list a dozen cultures with no God concept,...

Then you should have.


No it don't, only that the concept is about as likely as any other fairy tale.

Then for you GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and there is no point in continuing this discussion.


That would be irrational? How could you be do gullible?

What is irrational about me believing
that you have an imaginary freind, based on your testament? As for being "gullible", it doesn't matter to me whether you are telling the truth or not, because either way it does not affect me.


Religion is just like that.

In western society, everything is like that.


What if I asked you for money to get my invisible friend an operation, without which she would die? Would you give it to me?

If you have an "imaginary friend" and you know it, then I would ask you to imagine the money for the operation, or imagine your friend getting better.


Exactly. It is reasonable to conclude that the occaisional times prayer works, or a "miracle" occurs, it is just coincidence.

I agree, but is it
reasonable to conclude that God does not exist, thus no prayer can ever be answered. If yes please state why it is so.


Why would the universe be ruled and created by a being that happened to have many of the same characteristics of a certain species of great ape we call human that only happened to evolve after 4 billion years of other life forms?

???


Isn't it more likely that humans invented a story to make themselves feel protected and central to the story of existence?

Then when did this story begin?


That can be explained by selective attention. They believe because of the one time prayer worked, but they ignore all the times it didn't.

The same can be said of you, you ignore the times it works, and pay attention only to the times they don't.


This is exactly the same psychology as a baseball player with their superstitious charms and rituals.

Here is a good example of not understanding 'religion'.


I think doubt is a reasonable position, but I'm willing to consider anything new.

Doubt has it benefits, but falls short when it stops you from opening your mind. There is nothing new about religion, prayer, or atheism, read the scriptures, try and understand them, then you will see that they depict what has always happened, which is,
what is happening now, and what is going to happen.
You must work out the "is".


If you doubt people have certain experiences, then isn't the nature of the experience irrelevant?

No, because they are two different things.


Perhaps not though, since the experiences seem specially crafted to meet a psychological need.

That is your opinion.


Craft an
hypothesis about God that can be tested. Without this, it's just a strange and unlikely theory, like the Flat Earth.

Why would I want to attempt such a feat? I have read scriptures, and I believe in the existence of God. If you wish to conduct meaningless experiments, then be my guest.
The difference between us is that you cannot tolerate my "belief", and seek to destroy it.
I can accept your belief that God does not exist, maybe you should try a learn something from that. :)

Jan.

Please tell me of your personal experiences several years before you were born? What were you thinking or doing?

Do you think being dead will be any different?

Are you frightened of that possibility?(not of the process of dying, but of being dead?)

Why?

actually... i do remember being someplace better before birth... but it was probubly the womb....

and.. i have also died once... while giving blood.

i asked the black homeless man across from me how long it takes?
he said..... well.. it will go faster if you pump your hand.

so... like an idiot... i pumped my hand real fast...... .. . . . . ..

and bamm... i was going to die... due to rapid blood pressure dropping.
the body assumes im cut wide open.. and is shutting down.

in fact.. that is why the nurses are there... because if they dont wake you up with smelling salts... your dead in about 30 seconds.


anyway... bamm... i was out.. and i did find myself in a tunnel... and i flew through it like a rocket.. and out into some kind of glowing liquid air stuff.

i was floating, and i had arms and legs, but i could really see them...

i looked around, and thought , gee.. this is strange, because i know i was just sitting in a chair..??? odd.
so.. looking around myself.. and seeing nothing but yellowish fog... i tried to turn around a see the tunnel i just came out of... and i have the vaguest memory of seeing a little dot... and them bamm again...

and i was slammed awake.. with smelling salts.. and the nurse was aking my my name... over and over.. until i told her.. and she walked away.
and the bastard across from me, who told me to pump my hand, ask me what happened... it was only later that i realised.. he had done that to me on purpose.

anyway... i was out..... it was all shutting down... but i was very much awake.... where i was?? is still unknown. but it seemed very nice.

-MT

Your brain had lost blood, the brain feeds on the oxygen that the blood provides, once this was inefficient your brain went into a trip, do to lack of oxygen you started to hallucinate. I know this, cause it's happen to me several times! And it was explained to me, why I had hallucinated, and literally passed out. I also experienced a near death, and the same thing happened. If you would have died, this trip will continue for what seems several minutes, then it's just plain dark, your consciousness seizes to exist, when you are in the complete darkness, you will no longer be able to "think" or experience the hallucinations. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEB your dead!