I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
Which is why I'm asking why you accept the claim that there is no afterlife, because there is no verifiable evidence either way.
I'm not accepting the claim there is one. What evidence we do have as is all the attributes attributed to a soul we have either found physical causes for it in the brain or have observed that physical damage to the brain can alter them. This indicates that all there is are just physical manifestations, something we know doesn't last forever in the state that it's in. Once that state ends the electrochemical interactions that make up our consciousness cease and we begin to break down into our base components. Based on this we can regard the claim there is no afterlife as more likely until further evidence is presented indicating otherwise.
You also seem to be under the impression that all beliefs are equal. This is not the case. We can regard something as true and justified if it's made exceedingly unlikely to be false by evidence. This is like what's used in science we have theories that are potentially falsifiable but the theory has withstood many attempts at doing so.
We might hold a belief that is true but unjustified. For example someone with cancer might believe they will make a full recovery. This maybe true, but we have examples of many who don't so the belief is unjustified.
We might hold a belief that is false but justified. Someone saying all sheep are white because that's the only color they have ever seen a sheep would be a false but justified belief.
There are beliefs that are neither true nor justified. This is where the belief is false and they have no reason to believe it, even to the point of denying evidence to the contrary. For example the young Earth creationist claim. We have no evidence for the existence of God and we have overwhelming evidence the Earth is much older. A claim can also fall under this category if it's absurd or the truth of it is completely unobtainable. Like claiming there are magic pixies and the reason we haven't seen any is because they use their magic to hide themselves.
Now let's compare the two claims of there being an after to there not being one. There is an afterlife, we have no evidence of there being one so the truth of this claim is unobtainable. The evidence we do have indicates no such thing as a soul existing. This claim also heavily relies on wishful thinking. There is no afterlife, we have evidence indicating that no such thing as a soul exists, so true or false we have justification for believing this.
Saying both are equally valid is a fallacy of equivocation.
Well that would be quite silly wouldn't it? Even if there is no god in the equation, the very thought of an afterlife after death is supernatural, especially if you are throwing a soul in the whole shibang. If you are an Atheist, and you know there is no god, and you know your body decomposes after death, and you know that there is no such thing as a soul, then why should there be any mention of an afterlife when an afterlife is supernatural too?
Compartmentalized thinking. It's the same way someone can accept one scientific claim while rejecting another in favor of a religious belief, or merge the two together.
So in short we can summon God by killing something for him? Though that doesn't answer the question as to how that makes things better.
So, by blood sacrifice you meant something like a sacrificial lamb with blood and stuff, aka holocaust (direct meaning)? I don't know, it was a given. God said you should sacrifice something that's valuable to learn to make sacrifices at all. I was speaking about self-sacrifice, that normally is done in secret, but could be that you choose to not sin in the face of death, and die.
If God has manifested and is still here we should be able to perceive him with our senses.
Who told you that?
Everything that makes up you existed in another state. I was just a state that didn't constitute consciousness.
Do you mean quarks were existing, or photons, or probably neutrons and all that stuff? They constantly change within me, while I don't change due to these. So, they don't make me what I am. This means there should be more than just atoms that make a human.
I'm just asking you if you can prove the belief that there are no magic pixies (because that is what you believe, right?)
Now MGW, you claim this, so I can now ask you with your words. Prove your belief that there is no God. If you can't, then revoke your claim and listen.
Which we thoroughly disproved a few pages back.
I don't know if it's wrong or plain trolling.
If you are an Atheist, and you know there is no god
You KNOW there is no God? Really? How? (This requires a proof, as knowledge is something that ccan be proven)
What evidence we do have as is all the attributes attributed to a soul we have either found physical causes for it in the brain or have observed that physical damage to the brain can alter them.
Ah, so that's what you call an evidence of no soul. There's an analogy what is a soul in relation to body and mind. Say you have an RF-controlled car with a required device to run it, but the car is somehow broken within the RF receiver, so it does not accept part of its commandset. So even if you're sane, and your remote controller is working, the car doesn't act according to your desires because of its malfunction. This is what happens to the human if his brain is damaged while the soul is intact.
Based on this we can regard the claim there is no afterlife as more likely until further evidence is presented indicating otherwise.
You have been presented a claim but you dismissed it with a bull.
There are beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
Logical paradox detected. This phrase, if iterated as a belief (as it can't be proven), fits here.
So, by blood sacrifice you meant something like a sacrificial lamb with blood and stuff, aka holocaust (direct meaning)? I don't know, it was a given. God said you should sacrifice something that's valuable to learn to make sacrifices at all. I was speaking about self-sacrifice, that normally is done in secret, but could be that you choose to not sin in the face of death, and die.
Yeah talking about like Jesus being nailed to a cross.
Who told you that?
The definition of manifest.
Do you mean quarks were existing, or photons, or probably neutrons and all that stuff? They constantly change within me, while I don't change due to these. So, they don't make me what I am. This means there should be more than just atoms that make a human.
Overall I'm talking about everything, atoms molecules the electrical impulses in your brain you name it. Over time you have changed. What makes you, you get's replaced by new stuff doing the same or similar job. Because of this you wouldn't notice a change any more than a car would notice it had new break pads (if cars could notice things like that). Overall what we think of as creation is just the rearrangement of matter energy into new forms. Like how a potter would take a lump of clay and turn it into a pot. He just took matter in one state and turned it into matter in another.
Now MGW, you claim this, so I can now ask you with your words. Prove your belief that there is no God. If you can't, then revoke your claim and listen.
Define God. If you mean an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient all loving God who created the universe, these states are in contradiction already to what we see in reality. Also I have been listening, most of what's being said doesn't make any flipping sense or is just bunk.
Ah, so that's what you call an evidence of no soul. There's an analogy what is a soul in relation to body and mind. Say you have an RF-controlled car with a required device to run it, but the car is somehow broken within the RF receiver, so it does not accept part of its commandset. So even if you're sane, and your remote controller is working, the car doesn't act according to your desires because of its malfunction. This is what happens to the human if his brain is damaged while the soul is intact.
We would first have to have evidence that this "remote" exists, the lack of a definitive definition only hurts it's status as real.
You have been presented a claim but you dismissed it with a bull.
No I didn't dismiss it with bull, I dismissed it with observation and critical thinking.
Logical paradox detected. This phrase, if iterated as a belief (as it can't be proven), fits here.
The phrase itself isn't being iterated as a belief but a category of belief. Also you should be the last person to talk about logical paradoxes.
Not to spam, but vesperbot just put ya'll in checkkkkkk
Yeah talking about like Jesus being nailed to a cross.
You should be more strict in explanation next time. Any martyr essentially does the same what Jesus did, suffered for God Father, and indeed manifests God right here right now. Jesus, while being God, knew what Father wanted him to do, and did it to its utmost, having a human body with all our instincts and temptations to overcome, along with whatever fight between Jesus and the devil might be. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn 15:13. Having God as a friend is even better than having all the humanity as friends. Here is the manifest I speak of. You want to perceive Him directly? Okay, stare at the sun, and search for an image of a face there. You will most likely find none, but your eyes will ache from the intense sunlight. I tell you, and many people did tell the same, like Moses or Isaiah, and some saints, even modern, that God's vision is a lot more intense so no flesh can perceive Him and retain its state, aka survive. (I understand that you will treat it as a lousy excuse, and you don't want to read the part of Bible describing how Moses asked to see God, or at least won't take it as true. In this case do search for the face on the sun, maybe using a telescope. Hum.)
Overall I'm talking about everything, atoms molecules the electrical impulses in your brain you name it. Over time you have changed. What makes you, you get's replaced by new stuff doing the same or similar job. Because of this you wouldn't notice a change any more than a car would notice it had new break pads (if cars could notice things like that).
This means I am still right, these things run in my body and change it intrinsically at the molecular level, but they don't make me what I am. Taking what you spoke about the "remote" existing, NDE studies helpsomewhat, some other relative info is too available. There's more.
No I didn't dismiss it with bull, I dismissed it with observation and critical thinking.
You dismissed it with "no personal evidence is accepted", this is as good as "tl;dr but it's worthless". However, there are some more NDEs out there that provide info which turned out to be true. If there is no soul, explain how a person could acquire such an info?
The phrase itself isn't being iterated as a belief but a category of belief.
There is no direct proof in support of that statement, so I can treat is as an expressed belief.
Also you should be the last person to talk about logical paradoxes.
Also you should be the last person about talking what should others be like. And do read our discussions with Einfach on pages 20-40, to receive evidence that I am perfectly capable of logical debates, if I'm responded with correctness.
Not to spam, but vesperbot just put ya'll in checkkkkkk
If making us facepalm 20 times in one post is putting someone in check, then indeed, we are in trouble.
Jesus, while being God, knew what Father wanted him to do, and did it to its utmost,
Then why did Jesus doubt God before he died? I don't remember the verse, and don't really want to look it up, but it was something like, "Oh Father, why have you abandoned me!"
(I understand that you will treat it as a lousy excuse, and you don't want to read the part of Bible describing how Moses asked to see God, or at least won't take it as true. In this case do search for the face on the sun, maybe using a telescope. Hum.)
@vesperbot, I just read the second link, about the soul.. First off, "scientists say souls exist" is a plain lie; at least concerning most scientists. Some think they have evidence, but the only thing they have are personal reports from their patients, who had, in similar situations, similar hallucinations. Well, I can't proove that those really were hallucinations, but you can't proove those were real ghosts either. I find the neurological phenomenon more plausible. The thing with the weighting of the soul, I think, has already been talked over at least once here on AG. We have no proof that the lost of weight can be attributed to a soul; in fact thsoe are most probably just gases escaping from the corpse.
All in all, despite being intriguing, the link just puts words in scientists mouth, and lists phenomenons that can't exclusively be explained by the presence of souls, even though it might come to mind first.
This means I am still right, these things run in my body and change it intrinsically at the molecular level, but they don't make me what I am.
What you are, is on one part, your looks/body, on the other part, your consciousness. What is your consciousness? Your nervous system, your brain mainly. There is no need to explain personality with souls since we can do without, if you believe in those, go ahead, but don't try to "scientifically" proove their existence; like anything in religion, it's all and only about belief.
You should be more strict in explanation next time. Any martyr essentially does the same what Jesus did, suffered for God Father, and indeed manifests God right here right now. Jesus, while being God, knew what Father wanted him to do, and did it to its utmost, having a human body with all our instincts and temptations to overcome, along with whatever fight between Jesus and the devil might be. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn 15:13. Having God as a friend is even better than having all the humanity as friends. Here is the manifest I speak of. You want to perceive Him directly? Okay, stare at the sun, and search for an image of a face there. You will most likely find none, but your eyes will ache from the intense sunlight.
Manifest means he would register on at least one of our five senses, it would be obvious to everyone. Since this is not the case he is either not around any more or never manifested as you say.
that God's vision is a lot more intense so no flesh can perceive Him and retain its state, aka survive. (I understand that you will treat it as a lousy excuse,
If you want to take the Bible as true plenty of people back than saw God. If God is omnipotent he should be capable of toning it down a bit so we can perceive him, so yeah, lousy excuse.
and you don't want to read the part of Bible describing how Moses asked to see God, or at least won't take it as true.
Sure I would read and have read it. No I don't consider it true. Since I'm arguing ideas here, that doesn't matter.
In this case do search for the face on the sun, maybe using a telescope. Hum.
So God is up in the sun now?
This means I am still right, these things run in my body and change it intrinsically at the molecular level,
Our bodies grow new cells, it's not some supernatural event. Old cells die, new cells take there place. Our bodies will replace pretty much ever cell in our bodies in this fashion (I think it was about every 7 years, not sure)
However, there are some more NDEs out there that provide info which turned out to be true. If there is no soul, explain how a person could acquire such an info?
NDE is just brain activity. any new information likely works in a similar manner to dreams where it was something already in the subconscious but not in the conscious. Over all this is a really ridiculous argument. You were almost better off trying to argue with miracles, though they were ridiculous as well.
There is no direct proof in support of that statement, so I can treat is as an expressed belief.
Okay so your just going to play twist my words around? This is the Sort of thing that leave this thread feeling like stepping in dog crap.
hasn't that been done like 500 times the last month alone?
No. Using MGW's example:
Despite never have seen a sheep in our lives, we have told you that all sheep are white. You disagree, and, although you have never seen a sheep in your life either, you resort to the opposite extreme and claim all sheep are black.
So now I ask you to prove your claim that all sheep are black, versus, say, purple.
That's your job, not his/ours. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one refusing to accept the claim.
But when a counter-claim is made, the proof can't be the refutation of the original claim.
Despite never have seen a sheep in our lives, we have told you that all sheep are white. You disagree, and, although you have never seen a sheep in your life either, you resort to the opposite extreme and claim all sheep are black.
So now I ask you to prove your claim that all sheep are black, versus, say, purple.
WTF xD your realy good in twisting words around. hahaha
