I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LearningToFly

  "NO one can say for sure whether god does or does not exist, we all agree to that at the moment - it's just that the TOTAL LACK of evidence makes it reasonable to assume there is no god. At some point a god may decide to reveal itsself. Until then it's a moot point."

  This is the most logical and realistic way to look at the issue - no one really knows.

  I'de like to add as well to another point made on the mind: Each individual from childbirth on is presented with a belief system due to their environment and the individuals raising them. These belief systems are set until the child or grown child has a chance to investigate the world on their own and establish their own belief system. (sadly some never investigate)

  This can be proven in the simplest things: A child will believe what a parent tells them (my daughter believed until she was about 10 that I truly had eyes in the back of my head - because I told her I did (lol). Although that is a very basic example of what the mind is fed, it shows that what we perceive as real is based on what we are led to believe.

  On a larger scale, humans have been fed many beliefs, the most common the belief that there is a god, there is a hell.. ect.. ect.. depending on who raised you and what part of the world you grew up in. Individuals tend to carry the belief system of their environment through life unless they are inspired personally to investigate all the options available.

  From my investigation, many theories are possible, but not absolute, because they have not been proven. Because nothing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I cannot personally choose to believe in any one thing. I do though respect the right of each individual to chose a belief system and very much enjoy a good debate on the many theories and options that are plausible out there, but until I can see absolute proof of a theory being absolutely correct with no doubts then I chose to live with an open mind until the time comes that something can be proven.

  For me at this time, the only way to prove anything will come through scientific evaluation. It likely won't happen in my lifetime, but the answers are out there somewhere. Until then, I am quite comfortable accepting there is no absolute proof and will continue to live a life as good as I can, continuing with investigation openly until the answers are clear before me.
• 

  Abaddon

  Warlock

  How can my own death NOT be proof, TO ME, whether God exists or not?

  Forget it Warlock, it obviously escapes you. At least you're smart enough to avoid embarrassing yourself anymore by actually responding properly. You rather obviously like dishing it out, but don't like getting it back. Poor diddums.

  ninja

  Well, you know what they say about bullies...

  dobbie

  If anyone actually reads what I say across various threads, it's fairly clear I don't mind people disagreeing with me. It is their right, just as it is my right to disagree with them.

  Thus is after all a discussion board, not an agreement board; there's plenty of places people can go to have their personal belief system unquestioningly validated. I just wonder why some people want to make this forum a place where their personal belief system can be unquestioningly validated.

  I am quite happy for people to believe in what I consider to be nonsense. I won't lie to them or pander to them and make out otherwise. I do not think someone's (to me) silly beliefs should be treated any differently just because they claim they are a 'religious' belief.

  What is very obvious is a certain mindset of poster that expects beliefs to be pandered to even in the absence of hard evidence. They expect, despite a total inability to provide differentiation, to have beliefs about god treated differently from beliefs about fairies. And they deeply resent anyone questioning their illogicity.

  Even when someone tries to point out that it is the religious nut-jobs with their literalistic, elitist drivel who really attract the harsh criticism of 'atheists', not the modern religious believer, they still try and make out they are being oppressed. It's like a Monty Python sketch;

  Believer; "I believe you oppress my beliefs"
  Nonbeliever; "No I don't"
  Believer; Oh! Come and see the oppression inherent in secularism! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

  And to my vast and continuing amusement these are the very same people who fling accusations about religious mentalities.
• 

  Mary

  ... and obviously it goes without saying that most atheists are raised theists, and say 'oh god!' when annoyed or shocked.

  I don't think that's a very viable argument as to why atheists have NDE's that change their lives. Even if they were raised theists, at some point their beliefs changed completely and they had absolutely no belief in God, religion, or the afterlife. Therefore, your statement that "a Practchettian god....allows each to have the after-life they believed in..." is invalid because atheists have no belief in an afterlife.

  "....it would appear the most safe conclusion is that NDE's prove nothing other than the continued and millenia-long failure of theists to prove a damn thing...."

  Sorry, but that's a pretty general statement to make about NDEs. There are plenty of experiences of where the person can describe things that are happening in the room (or even in other rooms) that they should have no knowledge of. I read what the skeptics said about Pam Reynolds NDE and to me, it appears that skeptics will go to any lengths to try and disprove evidence of an afterlife, even to the point of calling the person who had the experience a liar when they have no rational explanation for what happened.
• 

  sass_my_frass

  Yeah I don't get that either. I think that people should be left alone to believe whatever makes them happiest (as long as it does actually make them happy).
• 

  Warlock

  Forget it Warlock, it obviously escapes you. At least you're smart enough to avoid embarrassing yourself anymore by actually responding properly. You rather obviously like dishing it out, but don't like getting it back. Poor diddums.

  There you go again. Trying to deflect to me, what you yourself do.

  Warlock
• 

  Balsam

  I think believers of God crave the kind of experience that turned Apostle Paul had. But we can't make Paul's experience ours it still belongs to him and he shared it with everyone by writing it down. Still I've heard many religious people who have said they have had such a religious experience and that is what changed their lives. Even as some of you mentioned Atheist have profound experiences or NDE occasionally. It is theirs and theirs alone, till each of us have it we question. Those who have it firmly believe and who can blame them? I don't doubt their experience in fact I'm envious I want one of my own. An experience of the Divine in what ever way it comes. Atheism feels too desolate to me to be appealing and even if it is true, I still believe there is more.

  Balsam
• 

  funkyderek

  Mary:

  to me, it appears that skeptics will go to any lengths to try and disprove evidence of an afterlife, even to the point of calling the person who had the experience a liar when they have no rational explanation for what happened.

  That is a rational explanation. People lie all the time. Further, people are mistaken a lot, especially when semi-conscious and deprived of oxygen. It seems to me that believers will go to any lengths to accept any story, no matter how bizarre and without any evidence even to the point of rejecting the possibility that someone they've never met was lying or mistaken.
• 

  Mary

  Funkyderek said: That is a rational explanation. People lie all the time.

  Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that Pam Reynolds lied about her experience. This is a last-ditch effort by skeptics who asserted that lying was a very real possibility. For skeptics to claim that they want 'absolute proof' of these things, should we not also expect that we need 'absolute proof' that the person in question was lying about it?

  Further, people are mistaken a lot, especially when semi-conscious and deprived of oxygen.

  Semi-conscious? This woman was clinically dead with all the blood drained from her head, her eyes were glued shut and nothing registered on the EKG!

  It seems to me that believers will go to any lengths to accept any story, no matter how bizarre and without any evidence even to the point of rejecting the possibility that someone they've never met was lying or mistaken.

  So how do you explain that when these people have NDE's, and describe accurately the events unfolding in the room or even recount conversations going on in another room? Hallucinations do not invoke accurate visions like NDE's do. Hell, there's even been kids that are 5 years old that have had NDE's and described their experiences accurately.

  Back to my original point though: How can you explain atheists who have NDE's that change their life? And what would you consider "absolute proof"?
• 

  funkyderek

  Mary:

  Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that Pam Reynolds lied about her experience. This is a last-ditch effort by skeptics who asserted that lying was a very real possibility.

  It is a very real possibility. People lie all the time.

  For skeptics to claim that they want 'absolute proof' of these things, should we not also expect that we need 'absolute proof' that the person in question was lying about it?

  Of course not. People lie all the time.What's so hard to understand about that? If I told the police that I had seen you murder someone, and there was no evidence, no body, no missing person, no blood would you expect to be required to give "absolute proof" that I was lying?

  Semi-conscious? This woman was clinically dead with all the blood drained from her head, her eyes were glued shut and nothing registered on the EKG!

  Even less likely then that her memory of those events corresponds with reality.

  So how do you explain that when these people have NDE's, and describe accurately the events unfolding in the room or even recount conversations going on in another room? Hallucinations do not invoke accurate visions like NDE's do. Hell, there's even been kids that are 5 years old that have had NDE's and described their experiences accurately.

  I've never seen convincing evidence that someone can accurately recount events that took place in another room while unconscious or clinically dead. So I have nothing to explain.

  Back to my original point though: How can you explain atheists who have NDE's that change their life?

  People commonly have imaginary experiences that change their life. Look at the number of born-again Christians. These people imagine that they have been contacted by the creator of the universe and often radically change their lives as a result. People who don't understand the physiological mechanisms that produce NDEs (which, let's face it, is most people) could easily be convinced that what they experienced was genuinely supernatural in nature.

  And what would you consider "absolute proof"?

  That's a tough one. Unfortunately, it's very difficult - both logistically and ethically - to set up a suitable experiment, but that doesn't mean we can give more weight to anecdotal evidence than we normally would. The claim that when a human body is almost dead, then a non-physical component identical to the person's consciousness can float off on its own is quite extraordinary, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. The fact that such experiences can be induced by stimulating the right parts of the brain strongly suggests that they are merely an illusion.
• 

  Mary

  Ah well, we obviously view NDE's differently......when we get to the afterlife Funkyderek, I'm gonna suggest to the Big Guy that for your lack of faith, you get to spend some quality time with Freddie Franz. That'd be worse than Hell.