I'm interested in finding out why people who were once believers in a God (any main religion really) choose to forsake that belief. Why did you choose not to believe anymore? How have things changed in your life? Do you find yourself happier now?

Does Santa Claus count?

ah yes, very much like santa claus. you get older and the idea of god just melts away while you're off having a real life. it's so silly if you stop to think about it that you'd feel like an idiot if you still believed. i used to believe in the tooth fairy and easter bunny too.

edit to add: religious people are so dramatic. "forsake". puleeeeeease!

Well it is like this, I ceased to have any desire to go to church after I was about 12 years old. No real reason, just didn't like having to get up early on a Sunday. Sleep was more important to me, I felt like I had already learned everything they had to teach me there so it was just a waste of my time that could be used for sleep. As I grew older I had one female friend who thought I should attend church with her on sunday mornings, and like any 16 year old guy, I did what the 18 year old girl wanted me to do. It was while watching a baptism, and listening to the sermon being delivered at the same time, while reading the exact opposite in my bible in front of me, that I officially deemed Christianity pointless. It simply contradicted itself too many times for me to be able to maintain any belief in it. A year or so later, I stumbled upon a religious text originating with my Indian Tribe. (It is basically a rehashing of Christianity with a little more strict moral code and greater respect for nature for anyone interested here is a link) http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/cohl.htm For a while I thought they had hit the concept way better. Then I encountered a passage in it that made me think otherwise. It contained an account of this Indian prophet meeting Jesus. This led me to believe he had merely interpreted Christianity to apply to his people. Then I began to talk with a friend who is a devout atheist. He basically "deconverted" me and I have remained that way ever since. To me it is simply illogical that a being with supreme power and knowledge would allow any of their creations to fall into such a state of shit, and if there is a being that has done so, they damn sure aren't getting any worship and ass-kissing from me because frankly, I don't feel that they deserve to be lifted onto a pedastal for this crap-tacular existance.

what about people who came to christ later in life then backed out again later.........is there anyone like that?

i started going to church when i was about 8 or 9, by choice. my parents didn't go, they didn't inforce any religion, and still dont (although my mother has a fear of saying "oh my god".. dont know why.. )

anyhow, i think a i continued going to church for a few years, never finished catichism or anything.. i moved away from the church i was going to, and i went to one my friend went to of the same religion every few weeks or so..

then one day in my bio class we had a write a report on wether we beleived the creation theory or the evolution theory and support it (to be read by no one but the teacher). he did however tell us the total percent of each side when the assignment was over. i was one of a VERY small handfull of people who felt that we were all overgrown amoeba, and the rest of the class were christians who really beleived that god pointed at the grown and trees popped up.

it blew my mind. it was like a group of adults who felt without a doubt that the easter bunny existed, and delivered easter baskets every year to their children.

until that day i had never realized how much i had seperated things in my mind. reality from religion. i knew the bible stories, and i understood what they meant. but i never realized that people deep down beleived them as if it were somehing that they had seen on the news that morning, live, while it was happening. Like it is something unquestionable and unaltered as if it happened yesterday. not something that happend so long ago that could be changed and confused.

and that was the day that i decided christians really were delusional idiots and i wanted nothing to do with it. :)

I occasionally attended Sunday school as a child, and I think believed all the stories about Jesus, Noah etc..

But then, as a young child, you believe most things an adult will tell you...


However, and I can't remember when it happened, at some point something clicked and the entire idea of religion, God, creationism etc. seemed frankly ridiculous to me.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I find it incredible that so many people believe in it. In fact, I think a lot of people believe it all, simply because of their parents forcing it on them.

Originally posted by Jeremy
Does Santa Claus count?

No, I believe he uses a calculator....

:D :D :D

No, I believe he uses a calculator....

Nice one. LOL

I was devoutly religious until I was about 24. Then I finally stepped back and looked at the arguments on both sides of the issue without prejudging the correct answer. Once I did that, it was clear that there just wasn't any rational basis for belief.

Am I happier? I don't know. I'm definitley more content and satisfied with my life than I was then. I think it was one of the best decisions I've made, very liberating and fulfilling. But there's a certain happiness that goes with being certain that you know just how the universe works and that there's an omnipotent parent figure who's watching out for you and that everything is for the best. I don't have that anymore.

In the end who is happier, Candide or Pangloss? I don't know, but I'd sure rather be Candide.

i was born into a buddhist family, both of my parents have very strong beliefs, but at the same time are very open-minded. in elementary school i heard a lot of talk about "why do you believe in God?" and of course i wasn't very religious and let it slide. eventually i got curious about christianity and started attending church with a friend of mine. i started to believe, but not because of the bible or the teachings, but because of the people. the friendships and the thought process of "all of these people can't possibly be wrong, i mean look how serious they are!"

then around 16 i sat back for a moment and really thought about it. it was easy to say "i am right and i believe and i want to go to heaven! heck yeah i love god because he created heaven and i want heaven, gimme gimme gimme!" it was so selfish. i thought about my father, who worked 14 - 15 hours a day to support our family (my mother is disabled) and i thought about all the times i had cursed him for not making life better for myself and my brother. i was angry at him because other kids at school had all the newest toys and cars.. then i realized something.

my father was doing everything in his power to make life better for us. working til his bones hurt and tears came to his eyes. watching over us and teaching us. reading books to us, and sweating til his body would practically fall to the floor. he was a good leader, a good role model. then i thought about god.

god was more powerful than my father.. or at least that was what i was led to believe. but god didn't seem to do anything to ease our suffering. with the flick on a finger he could cause the heavens to exist, the earth to be made, or all life on the planet to be destroyed (ex: noah) and i wondered why he didn't do anything for all of the people i saw suffering. no flick of a finger here to help my dad's breaking back..

when i finally looked at it all, i realized that i couldn't believe in a leader who
1. doesn't let you believe what you want or learn about other teachings, but just to read his book and follow him
2. wants worshipping (my dad never asked me for anything)
3. punishes you for other beliefs like by say... eternal hell (my dad never punished me for believing other than he did)
4. created and world and then left it full of suffering (this only bothered me because in all his power god should have done a little something instead of accepting worship all the time)

so i guess it was my dad that opened my eyes.. sorry for the long post i had to vent

There was no memorable revelation for me. No moving epiphany or mental maturation. Nothing passionate.
Though I guess it did happen in stages.

Firstly, I felt that God couldn't exist because I could discern no evidence of said existence.

Secondly, I felt outrage and embitterment at the very notion of an omnipotent being demanding the worship and dedication of his suffering creations. He seemed to be very cruel and lazy to me.

Thirdly, and finally, I thought: How dare He ask me to prostrate myself before Him whilst mankind, His children, writhe in contrition and squalor? How dare He do this to me?

In the end, I figured that if God were more than a simple, misleading fiction, but actually a genuine macrocosmic judge, I'd rather fight Him than acquiesce to His brutish whims. I'd rather join Satan.

Wait . . . is that passionate?

Originally posted by croper
In fact, I think a lot of people believe it all, simply because of their parents forcing it on them.

After enough "forcing," these persons come to think that they chose it all by themselves (without parental guidance) and it stands as an axiomatic and fundamental truth that may not be contradicted.

This adherence hilarious, especially in the elderly, since it's actually all predicated on their pathetic fear of death and an imaginary "hell."

It's funny that they consider all the other religions specious and misguided.

Watch us all wind up in some alien Hell together. I'm gonna laugh my head off at them when we're all burning in the Pit of some other religion.

I mean, what if the one true path to paradise disappeared some 8,000 years ago? Truthfully, that's every whit as realistic as the Christian God.

Originally posted by NightFall

until that day i had never realized how much i had seperated things in my mind. reality from religion.

i also seperated it. at one point i tried to convince myself that the bible was history but i didn't believe myself.

there was really no set point. i didn't think about it much at all and realized that for years i hadn't actually believed in god even if i thought i did by default because i'm catholic. i'm still in the transition cause i've never actually said i'm an atheist. i believe in possibilty, no definite answer one way or the other.

the one thing i do know for certain is that no religion on earth has gotten it right yet.

No 'religion' or 'system' will ever get it right. We will always be human. There will always be 'spiritual' people who say you should embrace humanity, and 'spiritual' people who say you should escape it. In the end we're all just trying to stay alive as comfortably as we can.

Therefore there won't be a "hell of some other religion". There will only be different descriptions of what people imagine "hell" to be. Isn't it strange that in the whole of human history, at least two major religions came up with the same "pool of fire", when theoretically - if it were just a figment of someone's imagination - it could have been anything? And why didn't large numbers of people start believing in spotted purple flying squids, along with God or "gods"?

People only start believing if something has caused them to believe. Unlike popular opinion, not all religious people are one screw short of a twincam engine. It seems the earlier we go back in history, the more "convinced" or "serious" people were about religion. It is easy to explain them today as "superstitious Neanderthals", but the fact is that we can't explain them away. We can't explain away any past mystery - not the pyramids or the Inca civilization and astronomy... or even something as recent as classical music, except that these people weren't gullible, stupid and simple-minded. To think this about our ancestors - on whom our modern lives were built - is to comfort ourselves that we know better. But a 'comforting' though is not always 'truth', is it?

There is a God who we can't see. One who had to create a plan that would present all of mankind - from the earliest man to the last person on earth - with the same hope: of being with their Creator for all eternity. Without taking them out of creation, or removing their freedom, their individuality, or their experience of their world. We have our lives. Suffering is a natural occurrence - it is natural that we expect someone with the power to end suffering to exercise that power. But we aren't honest with ourselves - complete my sentence: "God, we want you to remove suffering, once and for all, not just for myself, but for all mankind..."

"...no. matter. what."
And people stop believing in God because He does not exercise this power. Do you know why Jesus died on the cross? Because He did not exercise the power to save himself from the suffering. He was innocent. If he wasn't discriminated against for being too Jewish by the Romans, or for being too gentile by the Jews, he might have lived. If he didn't agree with his accusers that he claimed to be the "Son of God", he would have been set free, maybe still have been murdered, but at least with less prolonged torture and humiliation.

Jesus conquered suffering and submitted to death, no matter what, just as we asked - and just like we have to endure ourselves. He healed the sick and gave hope to people who were rejected by religions and heathens alike. If he saved himself, we would have had no hope, and God would indeed have been accused of distancing himself from our pain.

And guess what? You don't believe in Jesus. No sir: He did not accomplish anything - people are still suffering and dying. Ghandi did more for people. Mother Theresa did more for people. I did more for people than Jesus ever did. As a man, he just suffered like many other innocent people. As a God, He didn't accomplish what we asked God to accomplish. Or did He, just not "no matter what", at least not yet.

See where I'm heading? Do we still have our lives, our precious freedom, and our futures - or did God take all of it away so that we don't have to suffer anymore, as we asked? We expect God to do things we wouldn't dream of doing ourselves. And whose lives, whose freedom, whose futures are we really concerned about? Our own? In essence, that is rejecting God for not being selfish, autocratic, demanding or "God" enough. Instead we play god ourselves, create our own happiness, do unto others as they do unto us, or try to escape suffering. No wonder Jesus called us hypocrites. Shouldn't we be glad we are able to love without needing God as an excuse to? Nothing is stopping us from loving and making the world a better place...

So, either believe that Jesus was resurrected, that God showed us suffering was temporary and that the greatest threat has been removed through Him - or don't believe any of it, and blame your non-existant fantasy for preparing a pool of fire for those who cause suffering and death through their selfishness and ignorance, because somehow you know that's not where you want to end up.

Just realize you don't end up in hell for not believing, but for playing a part in defeating the ends of God's plan for salvation for those who would otherwise have no hope, experience no love, and have no freedom - for those to whom life has become unbearable in spite of the faiths, holiness, priviledges and righteousness of others. The only "no matter what" for all of humanity is death. It's that serious.

Stop expecting God to be a murderer, and thank Him for allowing you to live just the way you want. Just like sage's dad.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Therefore there won't be a "hell of some other religion". There will only be different descriptions of what people imagine "hell" to be. Isn't it strange that in the whole of human history, at least two major religions came up with the same "pool of fire", when theoretically - if it were just a figment of someone's imagination - it could have been anything? And why didn't large numbers of people start believing in spotted purple flying squids, along with God or "gods"?


Well I don't know about sptted purple flying squids.... What about leprechauns, Unicorns, sphinxes, chimera, sea monsters, griffons, pegasi, etc.? In fact people even believe some of these kinds of things are god. Take a look at hindu mythology for starters. Monotheistic religions are not the norm. People believe in all sorts of weird things.

People only start believing if something has caused them to believe.

Sure, but it would be sheer lunacy to suppose that the cause was always the thing believed in.


Unlike popular opinion, not all religious people are one screw short of a twincam engine. It seems the earlier we go back in history, the more "convinced" or "serious" people were about religion. It is easy to explain them today as "superstitious Neanderthals", but the fact is that we can't explain them away. We can't explain away any past mystery - not the pyramids or the Inca civilization and astronomy... or even something as recent as classical music, except that these people weren't gullible, stupid and simple-minded. To think this about our ancestors - on whom our modern lives were built - is to comfort ourselves that we know better. But a 'comforting' though is not always 'truth', is it?


There are lots of things we can't explain. And you're perfectly correct that we shouldn't accept a solution merely because it's comforting. When we lack any clear positive evidence for something, we shouldn't believe in it, even if it's comforting. But of course the mere fact that we lack expanations is not itself any evidence for God. In fact it can't be, as God would then be an explanation, thus undermining the supposed evidence.

So although many of your points are correct, nothing relevant to this thread seems to follow from them.

Jenyar,

No 'religion' or 'system' will ever get it right. Why not? And, get what right?

We will always be human. Why? And I sincerely hope not. To be trapped in these fragile and short-lived bodies is a nightmare. If we consider ourselves as intelligent life then we can see that we have been evolving into this current state for millions of years, why would we suddenly stop and remain at this limited state?

Isn't it strange that in the whole of human history, at least two major religions came up with the same "pool of fire", when theoretically - if it were just a figment of someone's imagination - it could have been anything? Unless of course some concepts are universal, i.e. a fear of being burnt alive, in which case it is not unusual for unconnected groups to evolve the same ideas.

And why didn't large numbers of people start believing in spotted purple flying squids, along with God or "gods"?Perhaps because those things are obviously silly and fictional. And I think you missed the point concerning these fantasies. Without evidence both carry equal weight in terms of their fantasy value.

But not so long ago everyone on the planet believed the world was flat, now isn’t that a silly idea? The fact that large numbers of people believe something doesn’t make it true. I.e. truth is not determined by a democratic vote.

People only start believing if something has caused them to believe. Yes I agree, and that can include cultural traditions, religious propaganda, and other forms of repeated indoctrination. None of which rely on objective critical thought, reason, or logic. The only way to believe a religious concept is true is to abandon reason.

Unlike popular opinion, not all religious people are one screw short of a twincam engine.I agree but they are irrational.

It seems the earlier we go back in history, the more "convinced" or "serious" people were about religion.I agree. This is because they lacked the knowledge that we posses today. Neither had they developed processes and thought systems that we use today, e.g. the scientific method.

It is easy to explain them today as "superstitious Neanderthals", but the fact is that we can't explain them away.Yes we can, I have just done so.

We can't explain away any past mystery - not the pyramids or the Inca civilization and astronomy... or even something as recent as classical music, We can provide rational speculations for all of these things.

except that these people weren't gullible, stupid and simple-minded. I agree, they were primarily unaware of the objective techniques we use today.

To think this about our ancestors - on whom our modern lives were built - is to comfort ourselves that we know better. But we do know better. We have a larger knowledge base than they had. It is not that they were stupid but just ignorant.

But a 'comforting' though is not always 'truth', is it? But as we learn more about the universe then the more we realize how much more we need to discover. We now know that gods are not directly responsible for the winds and the weather and the planets.

But isn’t it religious beliefs that do result in a significant comfort factor? Doesn’t Christianity say that if you believe and accept Jesus then you will achieve eternal life in heaven? Isn’t that the biggest comfort factor imaginable?

But all evidence indicates that when we die we cease to exist. And it is that very powerful evidence that makes people very UNCOMFORTABLE and makes them very much want to COMFORT themselves in the quagmire of religious fantasy promises of immortality.

There is a God who we can't see. Fortunately there is no longer any excuse for any intelligent person to make such a baseless assertion when they are capable of using such techniques as the scientific method, logic, reason, critical thinking, and the vast knowledge store that humanity has accumulated.

One who had to create a plan that would present all of mankind - from the earliest man to the last person on earth - with the same hope: of being with their Creator for all eternity.That is just preaching a fantasy myth.

We have our lives. Suffering is a natural occurrence – Yes, life can be very harsh. Death especially so. This is reality.

it is natural that we expect someone with the power to end suffering to exercise that power. Only if you have been conditioned to believe such things. When the world is examined objectively there is every reason to believe that we are alone and that we have no reason to expect any help.

But we aren't honest with ourselves - complete my sentence: "God, we want you to remove suffering, once and for all, not just for myself, but for all mankind..." The dream of men throughout the ages. Reality shows that such dreaming results in death. If you really want to solve the problems of the world then it will take a lot of hard work. Science has shown that many diseases can be prevented and cured; extending life into the 80’s and beyond is now a common outlook for modern people when only a century ago they would have expected to die before 50. The deadly disease of smallpox (the pox) that continuously devastated the world and was feared universally for thousands of years has now been effectively wiped out – due to science and the efforts of mankind.

All of modern progress has been the result of hard work of people and not prayer. Be honest with yourself and face reality.

And people stop believing in God because He does not exercise this power. Or because they can see that if we do nothing and just pray then nothing happens. But when we make an effort we make things better. Hmm, sounds like clear causality to me.

~~~~~~
But all evidence indicates that when we die we cease to exist. And it is that very powerful evidence that makes people very UNCOMFORTABLE and makes them very much want to COMFORT themselves in the quagmire of religious fantasy promises of immortality.
~~~~~~

There is no scientific evidence (of which you are so fond) of what exactly happens after death.........we have no evidence saying that we cease to exist because its impossible to measure or see that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Cris
But as we learn more about the universe then the more we realize how much more we need to discover. We now know that gods are not directly responsible for the winds and the weather and the planets.

Come on Cris.....You are a proud man, and I don't picture you as a person who shoot himself in the foot. So now we know about the weather and the wind....How come we can't stop or manipulate weather or even forcast deadly tornadoes until they kick us in the butt and we issue our highly advanced 10 minute warning that took billion of dollars and research to develop. Come on now, there is not one equation that science have developed today to describe accurately how a piece of sediment will behave in a moving stream, and you claim that science have discovered the winds and weather....Wow.

Originally posted by Cris
The dream of men throughout the ages. Reality shows that such dreaming results in death. If you really want to solve the problems of the world then it will take a lot of hard work. Science has shown that many diseases can be prevented and cured; extending life into the 80’s and beyond is now a common outlook for modern people when only a century ago they would have expected to die before 50. The deadly disease of smallpox (the pox) that continuously devastated the world and was feared universally for thousands of years has now been effectively
wiped out – due to science and the efforts of mankind.

Yeah, but how about the hundreds of new diseaces that have evolved, AIDS, Parkinsons, Cancers, SARS, West nile virus ect...., and that one earth quake that kills thousands or that one sonamy that kills millions, how does science handle those...I don't think it's a matter of science working hard, I think science is the bandage that you place on an oozing bleeding wound that you have no clue why is it bleeding like that.

Originally posted by Cris
All of modern progress has been the result of hard work of people and not prayer. Be honest with yourself and face reality.


MODERN PROGRESS??? That's your tunnel vision view, I think man was much better off in the past living a simple life, conserving it's resources, without a hole in the ozone and green house effects....SARS, AIDS, EXTINCT WILDLIFE, POLLUTED WATER SOURCES AND AIR....Great progress, keep going.

New Life,

There is no scientific evidence (of which you are so fond) of what exactly happens after death.........we have no evidence saying that we cease to exist because its impossible to measure or see that kind of thing.You are joking right?

When you die your body decays irretrievably. There is massive scientific evidence explaining these processes. There is no known record or evidence of any decayed body reconstituting itself and coming back to life.

Flores,

How come we can't stop or manipulate weather or even forcast deadly tornadoes until they kick us in the butt…..You’ve missed the point. We no longer tremble in fear and call it the act of an angry god. Progress is the movement away from ignorant superstition.

Yeah, but how about the hundreds of new diseaces that have evolved, AIDS, Parkinsons, Cancers, SARS, West nile virus ect...., But these have always occurred throughout the history of life. The difference now is that science helps us deal with them, whereas in the past people could only pray, hope and then die.

I don't think it's a matter of science working hard, I think science is the bandage that you place on an oozing bleeding wound that you have no clue why is it bleeding like that.Then you don’t understand science, since science is primarily about discovering how things work.

MODERN PROGRESS??? That's your tunnel vision view, I think man was much better off in the past living a simple life, conserving it's resources, without a hole in the ozone and green house effects....** And you would have been unlikely to have lived beyond the age of 20,
** would have died at the first bacterial infection,
** been poisoned by a decaying tooth because you had no dental care,
** died from a simple appendicitis,
** unlikely to have survived birth since there would have been inadequate natal care,
** died from a whole host of diseases because there were no vaccinations,
** suffered constantly from stomach pain because you would not understand simple hygiene,
** died in the first earthquake because you didn’t know you were living on the edge of a tectonic plate and had inadequate housing,
** etc., etc., etc.

So you would really want to live without the benefits of modern science then, right? You would have to be insane, are you?

Originally posted by Cris
New Life,

You are joking right?

When you die your body decays irretrievably. There is massive scientific evidence explaining these processes. There is no known record or evidence of any decayed body reconstituting itself and coming back to life.

I agree that hte body decays and such........what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die. There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way

New Life,

I agree that the body decays and such........what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die. There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way. The soul is a fantasy concept that has countless imaginative variations and none have any basis in reality.

Any debate about souls is no more than an exchange of personal fantasies. Death is real, human flesh is real, people die and never return; this is fact. There is no evidence to indicate that people are anything more.

Originally posted by New Life
I agree that hte body decays and such........what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die. There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way

Uh, that would be because there's no evidence that shows there is a soul.

It surprises me to such an extent, the overwhelming number of people that believe in christianity or any other religion.

How can one have such a distorted view of reality. Is the reason why religious thought has stuck around so long because of human weakness, and how that weakness makes many hold on to wishful thinking at the expense of rationality, or is the reason a lack of intelligence. There are smart religious people that contribute to society and I just cant understand how they can hold a view that is so utterly intellectually disabled. So does the weakness explanation win out?

I think religious thought is so prevalent because it fits natural human intuition, but once these natural intuitions are analyzed, they lose all credibilty. But once again, religious people do question their beliefs, at least some of them do. Maybe they are already set on the answer and the search is just a way to convince themselves they did the searching, when in reality, the search was just a ploy to satisfy human curiosity without destroying the comfort that religion brings.

So how, in our society, can so many miss the point so badly? How did this meme last so long........

New life-

what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die.

Why does there need to be some kind of continuation of personal human experience. The brain dies......the "soul" dies. As cris pointed out, the soul is just a fictional concept. It is a primitive explanation for brain processes. Learn to discard such flawed ideas.

There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way

Right, there is no evidence to suggest a continuation, or a soul for that matter. The evidence we currently have, obviously points in the direction of a lack of consciousness.

What about astral projects and near death expierences? Science has completely ruled out the presence of the soul.
http://www.crystalinks.com/astral.html
http://www.lordsday.org/death.htm

I believe that we decide what we believe we we first become fully concious (at or around puberty or adolecence). We then spend the rest of our lives trying to justify that decision. We toy with the other side of issues, we try on other hats, but they never seem to fit. Of course there are exceptions, but I believe that we believe what we believed when we first thought about it deeply (in EARLY adulthood). I have believed this since I was a teenager.

Okinrus,

What about astral projects and near death expierences?NDEs only occur when the brain is suffering from trauma so any claimed remembered experiences under such conditions are consequently of no relevant value. The typical NDE it seems can also be easily drug induced.

Claims of astral projections appear to only have been reported as personal experiences which have no scientific value. I couldn’t find any references to any respectable scientific study of Out-of-body experiences. However, I did find many web sites that offered help with astral projections, for a small fee of course.

It does appear that there is a massive industry being generated that appears very able to milk the gullible of their money. Sounds like a very old story.

Claims of astral projections appear to only have been reported as personal experiences which have no scientific value. I couldn’t find any references to any respectable scientific study of Out-of-body experiences

check it out (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_469102.html)

This is a news story from 2001. And you lived all those months unaware that you had a soul ;)

I thought my dad should live,god thought otherwise,no amount of praying fixes a body that has damned itself by booze and smoking and bad food habits and is now riddled full of cancer.

I see it everywhere,the whole universe is in one direction:decay

I decided after watching my dad's coffin aproach the furnace that that is all its all leading to,the universe is a damned place,maybe not from our perspective but in time as a whole its only in that direction,the universe was like my father,born into the world healthy but is on a trip into cancer,rotting decay not far off maggots winding there way through a piece of once healthy meat.

Why would such a god create a damned place,so perfect from birth but in the order of rotting,any life in the universe has to witness this disorder as they watch family,friends get old and die and them too shall wither.

Oh yes its convenient to say when things die they go to a better place,but thats all it is,if such a perfect place should exist there would be no need to make life here,why not create life in that perfect place so i dont have to face this shit.

We are just creatures like animals but evolved into more advanced but more deadly species,maybe a specie will evolve and be more deadly than us,the human race is the proof that everything is in the disordered state,things were fine before the human race then we come along and the more we evolve the closer the decay,the closer the destruction and chaos that will take away everything.

Or maybe another meteorite will be thrown at us,oh but hang on the last one was at the dinosaurs,oh i get it now the dinosaurs couldnt really fuck the planet up so god lobbed a huge lump of rock at the earth killed them off and kick started a race that will probably make earth impossible for even bacteria to live.

Circe,

So only 12%, I wonder if that means the other 88% didn’t have souls?

But the problem remains of how much one can trust the statements of someone whose brain (including memory) had been traumatized and starved of oxygen. We know that tremendous hallucinations can be created by mind altering drugs, so why would we be surprised at even more hallucinations when the entire brain suffers such a severe shock as is the case at near death.

Doom,

You sound very depressed with that post.

Of course there are many of us trying to makes things much less chaotic. http://www.transhumanism.org/

Originally posted by Cris
Doom,

You sound very depressed with that post.

Of course there are many of us trying to makes things much less chaotic. http://www.transhumanism.org/

Oh yeah when i concentrate on the negative,i keep myself amused long enough to thwart off the idea of activly seeking out the most powerfull shotgun and removing my cerebrum from its cerebelum,if i think about that i wonder what its like,
would you feel the explosion and force of the pellets destroy the roof of your mouth,would you feel the burn and collapse of your skull,would you be conscious enough to feel hot blood and brain tissue fill up your throat mixed with the taste of spent gunpowder and feel the emptyiness of your skull as its removed of its contents in a cataclysmic onslaught of exlosive gunpowder twixed heavy ball bearings making mince meat of once a fine and central component?

But there i go all depressed thought's.

As i say all i need to do is not think about stuff,get on amusing myself and others,keeping myself busy,watching films etc,but i feel its an act we all play the rest is just nature.

DoomAndGloom,

Uh huh! It certainly helps to have a purpose in life. Sounds like you haven't found one yet.

Originally posted by Cris
DoomAndGloom,

Uh huh! It certainly helps to have a purpose in life. Sounds like you haven't found one yet.

Well no,although i was thinking of making my own horror film,ive already wrote a couple of scripts,but visual impact is something that in my head i can do better than to explain it or have in words.

I see it everywhere,the whole universe is in one direction:decay
Matthew 16
He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.


Why would such a god create a damned place,so perfect from birth but in the order of rotting,any life in the universe has to witness this disorder as they watch family,friends get old and die and them too shall wither.
God did not create sin and decay, that was the natural result of rebellion against God, who is the creator and sustainer of life. What you see is the result of our separation from God.

You think God does nothing to rectify the situation, and in the same breath you discount Jesus as the means for that salvation. Why do you think 'life' features so prominently in His teachings? When you accept Him, you take part in His suffering and His death. In stead of just hoping for death, you'll have hope for life. Transhumanism? When death and decay is our reality, do you think we can overcome it by ourselves? That is called escape from reality. God does not propose or enforce this - there is a difference between hoping and escaping

Originally posted by Jenyar
load of bullshit waffle

Didnt you people learn about the second law of thermodynamics and proton decay,instead of providing me with rubbish how about look up some facts.

Well I don't know about sptted purple flying squids.... What about leprechauns, Unicorns, sphinxes, chimera, sea monsters, griffons, pegasi, etc.? In fact people even believe some of these kinds of things are god. Take a look at hindu mythology for starters. Monotheistic religions are not the norm. People believe in all sorts of weird things.

Aliens, Giants, Loch ness monster, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, mothmen, crop circles, beast of bodmin, saying "good morning" to magpies, crossing fingers for luck, throwing horseshoes and salt over our shoulders, goblins- such as Hob, (the original protector of fireplaces which is why, in england, a cooker is called a 'hob'), zombies, witches- i wonder how many of them were drowned in the past, voodoo, bigfoot, fairies, poltergeist, telekinesis, ouija boards, star signs, tarot cards, *yawn* the list is endless :D

Originally posted by doom
Didnt you people learn about the second law of thermodynamics and proton decay,instead of providing me with rubbish how about look up some facts.

You mean entropy? How does this explain why life has continued to flourish (and even "evolved") to its present state at all? If all things tend towards destruction and chaos, then it must either have originated out of some kind of order, or the universe is still young enough that we have not yet entered into a state of entropy and what you have witnessed was a fluke of nature.

Originally posted by Jenyar
You mean entropy? How does this explain why life has continued to flourish (and even "evolved") to its present state at all? If all things tend towards destruction and chaos, then it must either have originated out of some kind of order, or the universe is still young enough that we have not yet entered into a state of entropy and what you have witnessed was a fluke of nature.

Cos we are alright at the moment its later on,you dont have to worry too much about that as the sun will engulf the earth in little under 5 billion years,unless we manage to find a better place in the universe come 5 billion years we are all fucked,but the universe itself will eventially die to the point no life can even exist even after the human race.

5 billion years is a long time though,its not much concern to us,the universe is 15 billion years old and the human race in its current form is only 30,000 years old i dont think we will last,and we'll probably fuck everything up so that any new evolution will have to sift through the decay.

I might add the first of the current human race was black,we are white cos we come from the people who moved into europe areas,while hot areas were all black,white man came after black man.The japanese come from red indians,and red indians come from icelandic areas.

I guess that means your god is black hahaha
not that it makes any difference.

Listen its easier to destroy than to create,yes the universe was highly ordered,now its the direction of disorder.

If we reversed it im sorry to say that time will be running backwards and broken glasses will reassemble themselves,the world trade center would un-blow up and the planes would un-blow up and reassemble themselves,thats the direction of disorder turning into order,but thats too hard for physics,the easy route is disorder,to which we travel in.Sure going backwards you dont die,instead you end up going back inside your mum and get younger and younger till your a backwards ejaculation of sperm.

Disorder is the order of the day im afraid,your god sucks at this physics thing,such an almighty god could have created physics different,but nah,too much of an arsehole,he invented the second law of themodynamics to say hahahaha find your way out of this one.

But god dont exist,id rather believe god dont exist than believe an arsehole runs the show.

Degeneration begs regeneration. We can't get out of it ourselves, because we are subject to the laws of physics.
Degeneration = us
Regeneration = God
God gives life,
We take life (or lives)
We die by the "will" of the universe,
We will be raised (recreated) and have life by the will of God.

Just because you think the end of life under physics is the end of all forms of life, it doesn't invalidate God by default.

your god sucks at this physics thing,such an almighty god could have created physics different
Under different physics, life would not have been possible on earth, and you know it.

THOU

SHALT

NOT

COMMITETH

THREAD NECROMANCY!

Thus sayeth the PRINCE!

-Read the dates-!

I'm interested in finding out why people who were once believers in a God (any main religion really) choose to forsake that belief. Why did you choose not to believe anymore? How have things changed in your life? Do you find yourself happier now?

When I was a little kid, the way family members talked about God assumed his existence. I inferred God's existence from this and took it for granted, in the same way that any little kid could infer Canada's existence. I wasn't exposed as a little kid to the idea that there was no supernatural being, and since I took God's existence for granted, I never thought of the possibility.

When I grew older and wiser, however, things became clearer to me. I slowly realized that there was no empirical evidence, and with that came the natural conclusion that to have faith in a supernatural entity with no evidence is foolish. Since it came slowly as I grew older and wiser, there was no epiphany.

I wasn't religious as a kid when I thought God existed, because I took it for granted in the same way I took the existence of Canada for granted: It's there, big woop. This fact, along with the lack of epiphany, meant that losing belief didn't create any kind of drastic change in my life. Losing belief didn't make me "happier" or "sadder" in the end; I've had happy times and sad times, as a kid and as an adult, which were totally unrelated to my thoughts about God.

Why did you choose not to believe anymore?

Because accepting assertions as truth based on how they make me feel has little or nothing to do with truth.


How have things changed in your life?


I have much greater cognitive adaptability.


Do you find yourself happier now?


Happier than when I was a 'believer'? Absolutely.

I agree that hte body decays and such........what I'm talking about is what happens to the 'soul' of a person after they die. There's no evidence to show us whether the soul ceases to exist or if it continues in some other way

There's no evidence that a 'soul' exists; hence, the query is kind of silly.

There's no evidence that a 'soul' exists; hence, the query is kind of silly.

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

Obviously there is no mind.

Obviously there is no mind.
lol - then what are you doing on a debate forum?

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

It means I'm not a dualist.

It means I'm not a dualist.
Are you saying that you are a pluralist? (its not clear how reductionism works out of a monistic paradigm)

Are you saying that you are a pluralist? (its not clear how reductionism works out of a monistic paradigm)

Materialist.

Materialist.

obviously - but do you say that the basis for matter is pluralistic (indicated by the numerous axioms present under current reductionist definitions) or monistic (there is some ground for einsteins unified field theory or some other similar thing)

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?

I don't know what you consider to be 'mind'. If you're referring to thought, perception, memory, feeling, etc, clearly reality contradicts this.

lg,

there is also no evidence (of the empirical reductionist type that you hold as aboslute) that your mind exists. What do you think of that?That you are probably using the wrong tool for the problem. The theory of emergence is probably more appropriate for this issue than the theory of reductionism. Although it is not clear what type of reductionism you are referencing.

Lg,

but do you say that the basis for matter is pluralisticI think the intention was to contrast materialism from supernaturalism and nothing more.

(indicated by the numerous axioms present under current reductionist definitions) Reductionism isn’t relevant here since we can adequately view the mind as an emergent property of brain function.

or monistic (there is some ground for einsteins unified field theory or some other similar thing)Why is this relevant to the distinction of materialism versus dualism?

lol - then what are you doing on a debate forum?
I don't exist.

I don't exist.

I knew it! :m:

I used to believe in God once, and I mean God; not Christianity, Islam or Hinduism (I AM officialy a Hindu, but I always believed that the Hindu mythology was a bunch of children's tales). I believed in an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being.

But then (when I was about 6), I started noticing things. I noticed the absolute lack of any kind of proof. I noticed that Gpd never did anything... and slowly...I classified God like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny; a myth.

I don't know what you consider to be 'mind'. If you're referring to thought, perception, memory, feeling, etc, clearly reality contradicts this.
I was referring to the process that actually enables you to perceive, memorize, feel etc ("I think therefore I am").

If you think that reductionist models define this, then that is a contradiction

lg,

That you are probably using the wrong tool for the problem. The theory of emergence is probably more appropriate for this issue than the theory of reductionism. Although it is not clear what type of reductionism you are referencing.
If you cannot draw a picture of the article that has "emerged" (in other words it disappears off your screen of perception) your theory has severe problems

cris

“
but do you say that the basis for matter is pluralistic
”
I think the intention was to contrast materialism from supernaturalism and nothing more.
the question is whether matter is composed of several (or more correctly probably about 2 dozen according to reductionist paradigms) axioms that interchange (ie pluralism) or monism (there is an absolute cause or axiom upon which all other axioms hinge)

“
(indicated by the numerous axioms present under current reductionist definitions)
”
Reductionism isn’t relevant here since we can adequately view the mind as an emergent property of brain function.
adequately view?
I doubt it.
How do you propose to see what you are seeing with?

“
or monistic (there is some ground for einsteins unified field theory or some other similar thing)
”
Why is this relevant to the distinction of materialism versus dualism?

mosism, pluralism and dualism exist independant of materialism and metaphysical paradigms.

That is you can have the view points of monistic materialism, dualistic materialism, pluralistic materialism as well as monistic transcendence etc etc

I don't exist.
Whats the difference between you and a spambot then?
:p

I was referring to the process that actually enables you to perceive, memorize, feel etc ("I think therefore I am").

Good. In that case there is evidence that 'mind' exists. Neurons, dendrites, electrical stimulus, chemical reaction, drug inducment, EEG, brain damage, death are but a few supporting factors.


If you think that reductionist models define this, then that is a contradiction

I don't think I ever made any assertion about some reductionist model. If you want, I'll be magnanimous again and support it anyway.

Crunchy cat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I was referring to the process that actually enables you to perceive, memorize, feel etc ("I think therefore I am").
”
Good. In that case there is evidence that 'mind' exists. Neurons, dendrites, electrical stimulus, chemical reaction, drug inducment, EEG, brain damage, death are but a few supporting factors.
Like most atheists that I bring this topic up with, you are confusing terms - all that you mention refer to the conceptualized self as opposed to the self as context - selfhood is not just "My name is jack smith" it is the very platform that enables an entity to develop a sense of I.

In other words even a brain damaged person feels confusion, happiness, terror etc - all of which are symptoms of selfhood.

lg,

In other words even a brain damaged person feels confusion, happiness, terror etc - all of which are symptoms of selfhood.But not if the areas damaged are those that are responsible for the emotions of happiness, terror, or confusion.

Selfhood cannot be seperated from the brain. It is the brain that maintains the state of selfhood. They are one and the same thing.

Like most atheists that I bring this topic up with, you are confusing terms - all that you mention refer to the conceptualized self as opposed to the self as context - selfhood is not just "My name is jack smith" it is the very platform that enables an entity to develop a sense of I.

In other words even a brain damaged person feels confusion, happiness, terror etc - all of which are symptoms of selfhood.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih4/self/guide/info-brain.htm

This information is a bit dated and I know there is better info out there. Brain trauma can affect and in some cases virtually eliminate a person's sense of self. I've seen TMS experiments where reduction of blood flow to a specific part of the brain reduces / eliminates a persons sense of self.

All existing supportive evidence shows that the sense of self is a result of the brain and not some nebulous 'soul'.

I was 12, sitting on a pew in an old arbor late at night. It was the arbor that sits in the middle of Pleasant Grove Campground, the site of a yearly revival that I have been going to since birth (I'm 31 now). My faith had been slacking steadily for many years leading up to this, but I was still praying at night out of habit, and pretending to REALLY believe out of fear. But this one night, I decided to test god by cussing at him loudly from the pew. I remember thinking that I was doing something really brave, as if I could have been killed by my loving god at any minute if I was wrong.

Looking back, it wasn't that this experience made me an atheist, I was already an atheist for a few years before this. What this experience did was sever the cord that had been brainwashed into my head. The cord of fear and social transgression. It got me over the hump of doubt and into the flat plains of full skepticism where I was able to roam with pride and confidence.

Since then, I have been quick to defend myself and my lack of superstition. Instead of allowing society to marginalize me, I prefer to point out to the superstitious just how bonkers they truly are.

Most of them wilt under the pressure. :)

I'm interested in finding out why people who were once believers in a God (any main religion really) choose to forsake that belief.
I have always been boggled by how some people (mainly Christians) talk about "choosing" what to believe. Unless you are an irrational idiot, you can't "choose" your beliefs. Your beliefs are forced upon you by reason and evidence.

Suppose I offered walked up to you with a coin, a bag of money, and a gun. I toss the coin away as hard as I can, so that it lands far away where you can't see it. I then say "I will give you this bag of money if you believe that the coin landed with the heads-side up. If you don't believe that it landed heads-up, I will shoot you." Clearly in this case it is in your best interests to believe that the coin landed heads. But since you can't see the coin, there is no way of knowing and thus no way for you to believe that the coin landed heads-up. At best, you could lie and say that you believe that the coin landed heads - but in your mind you would still know that you really had no idea how it landed. Do you see my point? You can't choose to believe something despite the evidence, even if you wanted to believe it. If Christians really do simply "choose" to believe things, it implies that there is something deeply wrong with their fundamental thought processes.

Do you find yourself happier now?
Again, the implication appears to be that whether or not something makes you happy has some bearing on how true it is. It would make me happy to believe that tomorrow I will be given a million dollars, but that doesn't mean that I believe it. It would make me very unhappy if a doctor told me that I had cancer, but I couldn't simply dismiss it just because I didn't like the idea.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih4/self/guide/info-brain.htm

This information is a bit dated and I know there is better info out there. Brain trauma can affect and in some cases virtually eliminate a person's sense of self. I've seen TMS experiments where reduction of blood flow to a specific part of the brain reduces / eliminates a persons sense of self.

All existing supportive evidence shows that the sense of self is a result of the brain and not some nebulous 'soul'.

As long as there is a sense of self there is life - when the sense of self is not there a person is dead

I have lost my sense of self before.

I have lost my sense of self before.

Yes, what is it with this totally baseless assumption that everything alive is self-aware, and vice-versa?

lg,

But not if the areas damaged are those that are responsible for the emotions of happiness, terror, or confusion.

Selfhood cannot be seperated from the brain. It is the brain that maintains the state of selfhood. They are one and the same thing.

"Brain research has shown that systems occupying the posterior convexity of the cerebral hemisphere are innvolved in organizing Brentano's duality (http://grimpeur.tamu.edu/%7ecolin/Phil251/lect2-brentano.html). When the parietal lobe systems are injured, the patient may no longer feel the arm on th e side opposite the brain injury to be his own. One of my students who sufferred such an injury dubbed her arm "Alice" and stated "Alice doesn't live here any more". Despite the loss of belongingness, the arm routinely performs many tasks , such as bringing a cup of coffee to the person's mouth, much to the surprise of the person when she realizes what has happened. Damage further back in the convexity produces "blind sight". Here again the person can perform many rountine tasks that demand an optical input from the blind side, but the patient is unaware of, is blind to, the input. With an intact brain , we are aware of ourselves as "seers" and of what is being seen.

In these and similar instances, awareness of one's bodily self and the environment is impaired. "Alice" isn't any longer part of me; this blind-sighted optically guided behavious isn't "mine". From such observations one can infer that ordinarily these brain systems operate to allow awareness of a corporeal "me" to occur. When impairment takes place, the distinction in awareness between perceiver and perceived no longer exists - much as a colourblind person cannot differentiate between red and green. In the absence of difference between perceiver and perceived (hand and cup; eye and colour) neither of them exists.

My main idea is to show where the different viewpoints come from, and then to have not only just an ontological monism, but also an epistemological pluralism. And the ontological monism comes essentially from one's experience"

-Karl H Pribram



Pribram's holonomic model, developed in collaboration with quantum physicist David Bohm, theorizes that memory/information is stored not in cells, but rather in wave interference patterns. Pribram was drawn to this conclusion by two facts:

1. There are visual cortex response functions that correspond to Gabor functions, which in turn are related to hologram image functions.
2. Drastic lesions can be made in animal brains which reduce, but do not extinguish memories (training), as demonstrated by Karl Lashley in the 1920s.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram

I have lost my sense of self before.
that was just your conceptualized self - if you lost your sense of thinking, feeling and willing you would be dead (and if you had a NDE it indcates that the self is not bound by current materialistic defintions, since your "self" would have completely disappeared off the screen only to reappear again (for something to reappear after disappearing it stands to logic that it must access a superior/unseen state of existence while in limbo)

I did lose my sense of thinking, feeling, and willing, and I wasn't dead or sleeping.


I must object to this:
for something to reappear after disappearing it stands to logic that it must access a superior/unseen state of existence while in limbo
Not if it was a verb rather than a noun. Living is like a car running. When it is off, there is no limbo state of running, it simply has the potential to run under certain circumstances.

As long as there is a sense of self there is life - when the sense of self is not there a person is dead

When you're in dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. Reality it seems contradicts your assertion.

When you're in dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. Reality it seems contradicts your assertion.
deep dreamless sleep is then similar to a NDE, which I have already given mention to


”
that was just your conceptualized self - if you lost your sense of thinking, feeling and willing you would be dead (and if you had a NDE it indcates that the self is not bound by current materialistic defintions, since your "self" would have completely disappeared off the screen only to reappear again (for something to reappear after disappearing it stands to logic that it must access a superior/unseen state of existence while in limbo)

No it's not. You're conscious during a NDE.

No it's not. You're conscious during a NDE.
Not always - its common for people to jump back to life after a few moments of being clinically dead with no recollection

Not always - its common for people to jump back to life after a few moments of being clinically dead with no recollection

I wouldn't call that a "near death experience," since there's no "experience" involved.

I wouldn't call that a "near death experience," since there's no "experience" involved.
So can you understand what I mean or are you trying to initiate another 10 page argument about semantics?
;)

So can you understand what I mean or are you trying to initiate another 10 page argument about semantics?
;)

Now I understand. The word choice is just a picked knit; what's most important is that we're on the same page. But, now I'm not so sure that these episodes of "temporary death" indicate the persistence of a sense of self. Certainly the persistence of just the self is suggested by such a phenomenon, but since one does find himself alive and conscious afterward, it is easy to infer that he must have existed at the time without being aware of it. I don't see how this translates into an indication of an independent metaphysical existence, though; his body is still there, his brain retains the same structure, and so when he returns to life, he will have the same memories and personality. Of course, he will also be the same person. While this last point may merit a metaphysical explanation, at least everything else can be adequately explained with a purely physical persistence of the self.