Some aspects of the near death experience have been explained by science. It's also not an experience unique to the clinically dead.
Anonymous wrote:OP here...thank you for your thoughtful responses...please keep them coming...I just wanted to clarify something important:
I did not mean that atheism=unhappy lives. Rather, I meant that many weighty topics are hashed out here on a daily basis, but almost wholly lacking from these discussions is faith. People seem to face the hardest issues of human life on their own, without any sense of a Truth larger than themselves. So I wondered why. Was that a deliberate, thoughtful decision? Or something that just never seemed important? And if it was a conscious decision, what motivated that choice?
I hope this makes sense. And I will gladly answer the opposite question, just not this moment. I really just want to hear from y'all for now.
Anonymous wrote:
Aah, but you are mixing religion and politics here. It is one thing to believe in a God, and quite another thing to use God to justify conquests. You can believe in God without believing that God told us to invade Iraq. It is quite possible there is just one God, but people are both using him as an excuse for fighting over Israel. God probably has nothing to do with it.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?
No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.
Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.
Ok, got it this time. Thanks.
Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.
No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.
I like you, PP!
How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?
To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.
]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?
No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.
Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.
Ok, got it this time. Thanks.
Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.
No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.
Anonymous wrote:Some of us are okay with not knowing how the universe began. There's no way to prove it at this point, why fret over it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?
No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.
Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.
Ok, got it this time. Thanks.
Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
No, my friend. Reread my post.
Someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Nothing started everything from nothing (atheists)
God is reasonable (theists)
God is impossible (atheists)
Atheists have more faith than theists.
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?
No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.
Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.
Anonymous wrote:Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
Anonymous wrote:Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)
Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).
Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:
The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."
Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.
I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?