Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?
Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.
The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.
Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.
Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.
Way to underscore PP’s point
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.
Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?
PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.
Athiests are
not people who are
certain that there is no God. They are people who
do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.
Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.
What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?
Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.
The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.
How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.
DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.
Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.
I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".
Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.
Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
-
near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)
- past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.
I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.
Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.
This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.
LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.
I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.
Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.
My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.
You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.
I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"
If souls are real, there are two outcomes:
1) - souls exist
beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.
2) - souls
are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.
Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}