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
@hojoko The ground state is atheism/no belief. So when someone with a belief comes, the atheist has the right to ask evidence for the claims. As soon as the atheist says the believer is wrong because of this and that, he has to back up 'this and that'. If 'this and that' are scientifical theories, the atheist only has to explain those theories or present evidence/literature on the matter; then the burden falls on the believer again.
But when a counter-claim is made, the proof can't be the refutation of the original claim.
god and afterlife are both claims from religions. - period god and afterlife have never been proven by any religion = period
why should we, that do not believe in those claims of religions need to proof to you that the claims from a religion or not true. there is no reason to believe those claims because there is no proof. 1st come up whit your own proof if you make a claim.
it's like i claim that Care Bears or real. now you have to proof to me that Care Bears are not real. and i wont be giving any proof just like religions don't give any.
I just have one thing to say to this whole ridiculous thread, religion has caused more pain, suffering and death than anything else in the history of Earth. Religion is the root cause of 95% of wars fought and people are killed, tortured, ***** and beaten in the name of religion every single day.
How anyone can actually support any religion is completely beyond me. Morality is instrinsic to Humans, we don't need religion to tell us how to behave, we know instinctively what is right and what is wrong and quoting religion as a guide to life is nothing more than a childish excuse.
The only religion worth a **** that exists today is Buddhism, but that's because it's actually the least religious of them all and much more a way of life. Even so, it's completely unecessary, simply live your life the way you choose to while refraining from doing terrible things. If you honestly feel as though without religion we'd all be running around being evil then you should check into a hospital for evaluation.
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.
you have told me, but you have never backed up your claim whit real proof. so i don't need to believe that story
why should we, that do not believe in those claims of religions need to proof to you that the claims from a religion or not true. there is no reason to believe those claims because there is no proof. 1st come up whit your own proof if you make a claim.
You're missing the point. If you want to you can reject God and any notion of an afterlife, and that's great. But when you then choose to make the claim that there is nothing beyond death, you are not merely rejecting the idea of an afterlife, but making a claim of what you believe to take place after death, so I'm asking you why you believe that.
it's like i claim that Care Bears or real. now you have to proof to me that Care Bears are not real. and i wont be giving any proof just like religions don't give any.
That's not how it is. It's like me saying care bears aren't real, but magic pixies are. I could claim care bears aren't real because there is no evidence of there existence, and that is understandable. But now I should be proving why I believe magic pixies exist.
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.
Using your analogy we are taking the opposition that there are no sheep since neither of us have ever seen one. Since neither of us has seen one we doubt your claim of the color and consider it something you made up since you have no frame of reference to work from to make such a determination. We however do have a frame of reference I our claim that they don't exist since non have been seen.
Now I have to go scrape more dog crap off my shoe...
you have told me, but you have never backed up your claim whit real proof. so i don't need to believe that story
If that was an attempt to poke at my religious beliefs, don't bother. I'm agnostic.
Using your analogy we are taking the opposition that there are no sheep since neither of us have ever seen one. Since neither of us has seen one we doubt your claim of the color and consider it something you made up since you have no frame of reference to work from to make such a determination. We however do have a frame of reference I our claim that they don't exist since non have been seen.
Again, you're missing the point.
I understand that you reject the possibility of an afterlife.
However, I'm not asking you to prove that there is none.
I'm asking you to prove that when we die there is a complete loss of consciousness, and the only remnant of ourselves is a rotting body in the ground
I'm asking you to prove that when we die there is a complete loss of consciousness, and the only remnant of ourselves is a rotting body in the ground
I'll ask you to prove that we are capable of retaining a form of consciousness, and that there is a remnant of ourselves besides a rotting body in the ground.
Thus far all evidence points towards the brain housing our consciousness, when that dies, unless you can use something as awesome as the tech used in Mass Effect 2, the consciousness is gone. I do not state that as fact, but I state that as a logical theory.
It's like me saying care bears aren't real, but magic pixies are.
i never said something like: there is no afterlife, but .... is real. (i don't even know what possible els wold be real.. ow wait i guess. nothing =o ) i'm not making claims i just think logic.
Now I have to go scrape more dog crap off my shoe...
I'm asking you to prove that when we die there is a complete loss of consciousness, and the only remnant of ourselves is a rotting body in the ground
Easy pie. First define what is consciousness, how it works. It's basically your brain receiving, processing and sending information. Evidence that there isn't much more to it, is shown in cases of neurological pathologies/malfunctions of certain areas, who influence people's consciousness to a certain degree. Conclusion: when the whole brain shuts down, you shut down. End.
Now proove me that despite and against all evidence, there actully is an immaterial consciousness independent of the physical body.
You're missing the point. If you want to you can reject God and any notion of an afterlife, and that's great. But when you then choose to make the claim that there is nothing beyond death, you are not merely rejecting the idea of an afterlife, but making a claim of what you believe to take place after death, so I'm asking you why you believe that.
Speaking for myself, I can easily say that you're forgetting the possibility that people can say "I don't know, I don't believe in this, but I'll just wait to ****ing find out."
That's my standpoint on the issue, there isn't a logical explanation for an afterlife being there, and thus, I'll just wait and find out.
Maybe the big bang didn't happen, quite frankly it's the thing I think did happen but wouldn't be locked in denial if I died, went to Hell and saw Satan screaming at me telling me I was wrong.
Because my goal is progression, being wrong in Science is no worse than being right - because in either case, you're advancing forward.
i never said something like: there is no afterlife, but .... is real. (i don't even know what possible els wold be real.. ow wait i guess. nothing =o ) i'm not making claims i just think logic.
As a matter of fact you did. You said that when we die, our body is put into the ground, and that's it. So now I'm asking you to prove it.
hahahaha youve been asking just that. xD
Again, not right. I have been asking you to prove the aforesaid claim of yours that when we die, that's it. I'm asking for this proof as something independent, regardless of claims of an afterlife.
he's indeed 1 wierd spoilet/twisted mofo.
I would recommend learning the spelling and grammar, and in fact the meaning of many words in the English Language before you begin insulting anyone.
I'll ask you to prove that we are capable of retaining a form of consciousness, and that there is a remnant of ourselves besides a rotting body in the ground.
But I'm not claiming that as the truth,and thus the question of proof for that doesn't fall to me.
Thus far all evidence points towards the brain housing our consciousness, when that dies, unless you can use something as awesome as the tech used in Mass Effect 2, the consciousness is gone. I do not state that as fact, but I state that as a logical theory.
And that is the answer to my question, which is why you believe what you do
I was pointing out the flaws in your analogy. We are ascribing qualities to a "sheep" We are asking you to show that your claim is true by presenting a "white sheep". Until then we have no reason to believe one exists.
However, I'm not asking you to prove that there is none.
I'm asking you to prove that when we die there is a complete loss of consciousness, and the only remnant of ourselves is a rotting body in the ground
I would recommend learning the spelling and grammar, and in fact the meaning of many words in the English Language before you begin insulting anyone.
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it on a serious level.
Because if he did, he would be an idiot. :P
But I'm not claiming that as the truth,and thus the question of proof for that doesn't fall to me.
Where does the requirement to disprove it come from then? Thus far there has been nothing going for the "afterlife" theory on any logical scale and as such I have no need trying to disprove it.
And that is the answer to my question, which is why you believe what you do
So... what? :P I just answered your question then, right?
