Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Norsefire, Aug 20, 2008.
If there is I'm gonna blame him for not making it obvious....
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's actually, well, I'm not gonna say a "real possibility", but I mean I've thought about that before...
...what if "God" specifically wants us to be materialistic, and so our "rationality" traps us, and he specifically wants religion to be ridiculous, to test our faith?
Therefore the safe option is to believe in God (evidence or no); since you then have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, logically at least.
If there is a god then presumably he gave us our reason and equally presumably he'd be (at least) as aware of the arguments against his existence as we are...
What are we gonna do?
But who knows.......for all we know, it's going to be something that both atheists and theists never expected
Then we either speculate endlessly and pointlessly or just get on with things.
Speculation isn't pointless. It gives you an idea of how something might've been, like when we speculate about the past or when police speculate
If you don't know until you're dead (or whatever) then speculation is pointless since you can't act "correctly" to conform to the reality.
I'm not saying don't wonder but how many hypotheses could you come up with?
And having come up with them which one do you use to base your life on?
You mean God has a police force - the churches, and various homophilies (butt let's not go there).
Now we're getting into something else entirely; there are all sorts of "afterlife" variants proposed by religion, but it again, is one basic concept: life after death.
Do you believe in an afterlife? It doesn't have to be heaven and hell, but any sort of life after death.
There has been research done on the afterlife hypothesis
Here is a good read that supports the notion that there IS an afterlife
I have no evidence there's anything that can live after death.
Read the article, it explains everything.
No it counter-debunks what is apparently a badly-written debunking of NDE (in fact I'm surprised Blackmore was so sloppy - I expected better from her).
But it assumes there's a spirit.
Oh, have you actually read the book? Cool
It assumes there is a spirit, but it gives reasons; how do you explain all the NDE's? Sure, maybe some of them are imagined or hallucinated, but there are also others that can even explain what otherwise the subject shouldn't know.
Another good point is "I"; without a spirit, we wouldn't be conscious or self aware.
Unfortunately not, but I have read other stuff of hers and she's on TV fairly often over here.
Unless there's some other mechanism we don't know about yet. And the brain is still fairly new territory...
The NDE's are fairly compelling; now, true, testimony isn't evidence, but it's so widespread, and again, some people who experience NDE's can even explain what was happening around them.
Do you believe that there is a "soul"?
Do you want there to be a soul?
No I haven't seen any evidence for one.
Want there to be one?
Nice thought maybe.
My thoughts on NDEs?
The brain is still fairly new territory...
I don't think we know enough about it, or about thought processes, to say what's happening.
Oh, c'mon. The mere fact that some people who experience NDE's are able to view their bodies and RECOUNT what is happening, when they are supposed to be unconscious (such as in surgery), their spirit can still get a top down view and recount what is happening.
That's proof enough.
Not to mention the 21 grams experiment.
Separate names with a comma.