Nothing happens when you die except you go into a dream state that eases the physical shock of death and eases subconscious mind, which knows it is shutting down for likely ever. Most people who survive death describe a group setting where there other people and they simply choose between one way or another, it could be as simple as people having a party and are divided by nationality, and the person dying decides they want unity and leave the party. I know someone who died and came back, and that is how they describe it. Also talked to someone else once who described something similar, so it is along the line of dreaming at the end. In fact, all near death experiences show the same thing, this. Whether it is something nuts like dreaming of going to hell or simply passing on probably has a ton to do with conscience and psychology upon death.
Your contributions to the debate were remarkable, that last post about the influence vs non-influence of the possibility of god on science was spectacular, thank you very much .
Aww shucks, you'll make me blush I'm basically laying out the reasoning behind my position. I've probably gotten some names wrong here and there - in my own biography I think I'd be the 'unreliable narrator' character. As to the question of what it's like after you die? I think the best answer to that is another question: What was it like before you were born?
That certainly rationalizes the atheistic position, one I've always tried to lean towards, but I'm unconvinced that widespread scientific acceptance is the sole determinant that proves or disproves something as real or unreal. If somebody feels as though they've been presented enough evidence to prove the existence of a higher power, who are any of us to question that belief? I'm not sure I agree that everything real has to be or is even able to be quantifiable. Unfortunately I can't prove that except through my own personal experience. Maybe you answered my question and I'm too thick to understand, but if I can't actually prove it and you can't actually disprove it... is there really a debate to have? That's what gets me on the God subject.
As for beliefs, I think every belief can be questioned if it has the possibility to hurt others. If someone believes that killing other people will bring them to heaven because they "felt" god commanded them to do it, would it not be productive to question their belief and try to convince them otherwise? Religion is comparable to that example, because the belief in god has led to many fights over which religion is correct, and in turn, led to millions of deaths. It has also led to people being exploited by the church for money while being convinced that they would burn in hell if they did not collaborate. Also, the power that church has over the world due to the mass amount of christians and catholics is tremendous, and it leads to religious entities having certain power over legislation that usually aren't good for the community, but rather are based on ancient scriptures that can not adapt to how the world works (e.g. marriage for people of the same sex and abortion being banned). Of course, one shouldn't generalize, and I personally know a lot of religious folks who happen to be kind and loving people, I have no problem with people individually having spiritual beliefs, what doesn't suit me is the organized religions that have caused so much suffering. I know that the debate may be pointless and I might not convince anyone, but all I can do is try, I think that I could contribute to making the world a better place if I can show people who are not convinced by either side that religion was just a mechanism for controlling the masses and contributing to the power of the church is hurting us and also creating more discrimination (besides gender and race discrimination which are horrible, why must we also have discrimination based on religion? Don't forget that discrimination against the LGBT community is also very related to what people think "god intended" for families).
I don't think it's at all pointless and this has been, with one exception, one of the better and more intelligent discussions of the type that I've seen. But I personally wonder if it's just a natural variation in us. The reasons for faith have been researched quite a bit but are suspected to have started as a survival tool. Like most traits it's simply stronger in some of us than in others. For those who are raised in a religious household like I was but who aren't naturally inclined toward faith these debates might change minds, for those who are inclined though no, it probably won't matter as far as faith goes. It might help build understanding though as long as it's mostly civil so that's worthwhile too.
You're right Toasty, science never 100% proves anything, but it can eliminate false hypothesis. It's up to us to look at the evidence , assess the ratio for and against something, and come to a rational conclusion. Scienctific discovery works best by starting from the null hypothesis - the assumption that there's nothing there - and comparing that to observations. If there's nothing observed that wouldn't fit within the null hypothesis, then there's no reason to look further. Ever noticed that all the claims of miraculous healings all fall within the null hypothesis? No one is ever miraculously cured of anything that doctors don't cure every day anyway, or could have been a misdiagnosis in the first place as happens every day anyway, or something that people are known to recover from all the time anyway. God never miraculously grows someone's arm back does he? Or even a finger? Hmm... Doctors can't do that either, and they don't just grow back sometimes either. So if god is real and provides miraculous cures sometimes, why has he never healed an amputee? Why does god hate amputees? Lol
On those grounds, I think the discussion is far from pointless. I understand where you're coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly on the subject of religion, but "God" and "religion" are not one in the same. I was under the impression that you gents were debating the existence of a higher power, not the merits or lack thereof of organized religion. If that's what we're talking, I've nothing more to add to the eloquence you fine folks are dropping. Can you give me a further example of this sentence I've bolded, or put it in more layman's terms? This blue collar grunt is having trouble getting his head around what exactly a lack of observation in a null hypothesis means. Also, God very clearly hates amputees because they've gone and meddled in His perfect design. And such heathens simply won't be tolerated in the holy kingdom.
Neurologists and psychologists have made a lot of advances in these areas. The human brain is essentially an incredibly complex and powerful pattern-recognition machine linked to a special reality-checking circuit. Inputs from the senses and other brain regions are feed into the pattern recognising system which tried to for them together into an existing pattern which is then checked by the reality testing circuit. This ability to string things together into patterns that resemble reality have us the massive evolutionary advantage of being able to predict outcomes. This truly enormous, game-changing ability is chemically reinforced in the brain - the same reward/pleasure chemicals released when we smoke are released when or brain connects a pattern and it passes our internal reality check. We literally get high on finding patterns and we can get addicted to it, hence conspiracy theorists. We've all felt that feeling when something 'clicks' into place in or understanding. It feels good. It's why we love murder mystery stories etc. The bigger and more complex the pattern is, the bigger the hit you get so when someone feeds you a religion pattern that claims to link everything in the universe into one big motherfucker of a pattern, it's literally the best drug hit you've ever felt! It's no wonder the religious feel so butt-hurt when you shoot holes in their pattern. You're harshing their high man. The reasons why some are more susceptible than others are the same as with addiction. People's brain structure vary somewhat, some people's pattern engine shouts louder than others, some people's reality circuits are stronger, some people show a stronger or weaker response to the chemicals involved. You can change the balance within someone's brain using chemicals too, just as we're doing when we smoke. If you give someone an injection of a substance called L-DOPA, essentially a shot of pure dopamine, they will instantly become more suggestible and easier to hypnotise - basically more gullible. They will also start to see patterns and links between things that aren't related to each other, and they start showing a marked preference for fantastical explanations for things over boring, natural explanations - this is the reality circuit being overridden. After about six to eight hours the body processes the L-DOPA out and they return to normal. The super religious and spiritual people are basically people with overactive or oversensitive dopamine systems. Is an experiment we can all play along with at home too. Don't we all know someone who goes all mystical when they get high and starts thinking they've almost 'figured it all out'? Have you noticed yourself that when you get really fucked up you feel more connected with people and the world around you? If not, try it this weekend. Tell the missus it's OK, you're doing an important science experiment Neurologists can even watch it happening in the brain using fMRI so the next time a religious person tries the line on you about scientists not being able to explain where spiritual/mystical feelings come from tell them that's bullshit. Not only can they explain it, they can scan your head, draw a 3d map, and point straight to the parts responsible! OK, that's the last essay. I promise.
Well, religions are based on god, so if we can disprove god, we can put an end to organized religions, of course we can't 100% disprove it, but at least we can try to show people that if someone created the universe, it was not the same individual who wrote the bible.
Heh heh thanks, most of it's useless crap but I have my moments I guess. You'll probably see me post more under the name TeeCeeGee. I don't know why Tapatalk changed it but I just left it rather than get confused
Not really related to the subject of your post, but don't I remember you saying that you're an ordained minister at a "church" that does not believe in God? If this is in fact true, would you care to elucidate about that situation a bit more? And on the subject of your post, have you ever read DMT: The Spirit Molecule, by Dr. Rick Strassman? There is clinical evidence that supports the idea that the human mind can connect to "something/somewhere else" beyond our normal understanding/perception of "reality". Could this not be mankind's original interpretation of what is now commonly referred to as "God", before it was adulterated by religion? I do like what you have had to say, by the way...
Sure bud, yep I'm an ordained minister of a church that doesn't believe in god, as strange as that sounds. The church is an officially registered and recognised church in America, but it's a secular church. There are quite a few around now. Being an ordained minister in a legally recognised church, that allows me to legally perform marriage ceremonies in states where only ordained ministers are permitted to perform ceremonies. Without churches like ours atheists who have the misfortune to be stuck in one of these states can't have a secular ceremony. Their only choices are a courthouse register, or have some pastor piss all over their wedding with his religion. And that's if you can find a pastor willing to do the ceremony if you're not a church goer - my cousin couldn't. I don't live in America, but I do get a chuckle whenever some religious figure I'm talking to insists on being addressed by their title and I answer "Sure thing pal, and you will address me from now on as The Holy Reverend Dr. Leigh Sharp". The look on their faces is priceless I deliberately requested such a fancy sounding title when I was ordained just so I could poke a bit of fun at over-pompous religious ministers who try to use their title to impress people. That book sounds interesting. It sounds like another initial take on some of the effects I mentioned. I'll have to check it out. A lot of what I described is fairly new stuff as in less than ten years old, and fMRI technology like diffusion tensor imaging is really only getting started. I'm sure there's lots more to come and our understanding will advance out of sight compared to what I've sketched out as an interested amateur.
Lol! Basically it means if there's no difference between the null hypothesis - in this case that would be 'There's no such thing as god, shit just happens by random chance and natural laws' and the proposed hypothesis, which could be said to be 'There is a god and sometimes he does stuff like miracles, but so far there's no documented case of him ever doing something that couldn't have happened naturally or couldn't just be a case of bad reporting'. Then there's really no reason to put god in there at all, and no point in looking any further. If at a later time some evidence appears that suggests that there's more going on than the null hypothesis can explain, then it's worth investigating. But even then you can't say 'God did it!' until the hypothesis had been tested and other explanations have been eliminated. The null hypothesis is important for investigating quack medicine claims where the quacks often fail to show that there's any effect there to study in the first place - like homeopathy.
Sorry man, that first explanation was kinda half-assed and windy! What the null-hypothesis rule basically means is that before you go whipping up hypothesis to explain an effect, you better look first to see if there's an effect that needs explaining. I would suggest that religions have never amassed enough evidence to reach even that first step, let alone get to the point where you get to start naming the cause of that effect and claiming to know it's nature.
I can dig the goal, but with the majority of the global population subscribing to a belief in some sort of God-like authority, it seems a futile one. Something has to replace that belief, and "science and reason" isn't exactly in mainstream abundance out there, yeah? But I see where you're coming from, and I appreciate it. I also appreciate how gosh darn wordy and intelligent you blokes are. Cheers. Thanks for dumbing it down for this numpty. I see what you're saying and of course it makes absolute sense. I'm still of the belief that not everything can be explained away, still uncertain of my own beliefs but still confident in a belief of something, but I absolutely appreciate the rational thought. Curious: does the church you're ordained through only serve to perform marriages and other such ceremonies? Is there a service aspect to it at all? Can a secular organization even give a service or sermon? I'm intrigued.
I'm very logical so I understand and respect you beliefs but I've seen and heard of to many miracles in my life to not believe in a higher being. (God) it might just be me, being raised in the Bible Belt, but I don't believe after your life comes to an end there is nothing, I know in my heart there is a God and I have a relationship with him. not like a real dating relationship obviously but when I'm super stressed and upset, right after I pray to God I feel this wave of calmness over me, like he's telling me everything is going to be all right and I go back to not being stressed. Oh and I'm not like one of those annoying christian people though who try to shove Jesus down your throat, even though there are a bunch of them down there. I'm not even Christian enough for some, and when I was in elementary I remember this little girl repeatedly told me I was going to hell for being a different type of Christian. lol sorry if this really bored anyone
Our church's service is listening to Penn Gillette's podcast "Penn's Sunday School". The guy who started the United Church of Bacon (praise the Lard), our 'prophet' John Whiteside, is a friend of Penn's. Penn is a member of the church too and has performed a few atheist weddings. There are a few atheist churches, one of the most popular was started by an ex-evangelical preacher who gives one hell of a service. His services are secular-humanist in nature. All the 'love thy neighbour' and 'do unto others' stuff without the fear of God bits or the 'kill the infidels' and 'we are the chosen ones, the rest can go to hell' stuff. If you check out presentations by people like A. C. Grayling on YouTube you'll get the idea. His keynote speech 'The Roots and Fruits of Humanism' is a good one.