Typical ex-Mormon atheist arguments:

*God is supposed to be about love and kindness.
*Yet, Jehovah is very cruel
*Therefore, God cannot exist
*Because Jehovah is cruel, and such a cruel god cannot exist.

*Jehovah allows little innocent to die of cancer.
*Therefore, no loving God would allow innocent children
to die or be hurt.
*Therefore, Jehovah cannot exist.

*Genesis says the universe was created in six days.
*We know it took billions of years.
*Therefore, Genesis is wrong scientifically.
*Therefore, there can be no god or gods since the Book of
Genesis is wrong.

*Jesus did not exist.
*Because no contemporary Roman historian mentions His name or existence.
*Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian, mentions Jesus as the Messiah, but he wrote after the time of Jesus, and all scholars know this was an interpolation (scribe wrote it in many year later...not part of the original by Josephus), and we know that is true, because, scholars said it was true (although we don't have the original manuscripts of Josephus--trust them, they know what they're talking about)
*So, therefore, Jesus could not exist, because no Greek or Roman historian mentioned Him.

*Science says that mankind evolved from lower forms of life via random mutation and natural selection.
*Species are not guided by any intelligence, but just random forces.
*Science has proven that if you throw a much of amino acids and proteins into a soup, and """ZAP""" the soup with electricity, the amino acids and proteins will form into DNA.

Why the "logic" of ex-Mormon atheists does not "work" as logic:

1. It presupposes that if the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God (Jehovah/Allah) does not exist, then no other god or gods can possibly exist, based upon "just because" or the "just cuz" principle.

2. It presupposes that Jehovah must be like the Mormon "Heavenly Father" God, a caring/loving God, in order to exist, and if HE is not the "Heavenly Father/caring/loving" God, then He cannot exist.

3. It presupposes that contemporary Roman Historians would have recorded the story of Jesus, even though Romans at that time had no interest in Jewish Messiahs or really anything Jewish except when it dealt with major rebellions against Rome such as the Jewish/Roman Wars in 70 A.D. and 135 A.D.

4. It presupposes that if the Book of Genesis, with the ELOHIYM creating the earth and heavens in "six days" is not accurate scientifically, then that means there is no god or gods, because believe in a God or gods is dependent upon the Book of Genesis being accurate scientifically, when in fact many religions do not "have" any Book of Genesis (Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.) so this argument has no foundation for those religions, which do in fact accept the existence of "God" or "gods".

5. It presupposes that the "Hymn of Creation" we now have in the Book of Genesis was written under inspiration, when in fact it was a 4th century B.C. "addition" to an older manuscript (the "Hymn of Creation" is written in a different age of Hebrew than much of the rest of the manuscript). The "Hymn of Creation" (heavens and earth made in six days, plants and whales created before Sun, Moon, and Stars) does not exist in the Samaritan Torah, which the Samaritans claim is the "original".

6. Your high school or even college biology professor may have "told you" that DNA or one-celled creatures have been replicated in the laboratory, or that scientists have discovered the "chemistry" of creating DNA, but SCIENCE HAS NOT! Many "soups" have been "ZAPPED" and one-celled creatures have not flared into existence in any of these soups. There is no "formula" that produces DNA from amino acids+proteins+heat and/or electricity. Such a formula does not exist. Non-life cannot "evolve" into life, because non-life cannot reproduce itself, and that which cannot reproduce cannot "evolve". Virus'
can reproduce but a virus needs a living cell in order to reproduce. Thus, non-life cannot "evolve" because it cannot reproduce.

If you wish to see some "evidence" for God and the Afterlife, then I suggest the following:

*Watch the following YouTube videos:

"Celebrity Ghost Stories"
"Paranormal Witness"
"Paranormal Survivor"
"My Ghost Story"
"Frostmare"
"Dark 5"

Atheist will say: "Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, because people can lie, or have hallucinations"

My reply: Anecdotal evidence has been accepted in courts of law for centuries: he raped me, that guy robbed me, he beat me up, etc. Such testimony was given long before video tape. Just because O.J. Simpson was not videotaped killing two people, does not mean he didn't do it.

Atheist will say: "There is no religion which teaches that the Earth is billions of years old, that there were dinosaurs before man, and man evolved from fish, and therefore God would have told man these things if He existed, and since He never told man, that means He cannot exist."

My reply: "There is a book called the PARANAS (no reference to the fish) which teaches that the universe is billions of years old, and that mankind once lived in the seas, and in the trees, and that the universe will exist for 322 trillion years, and this book was written by Hindu Seers at least 4,000 years ago, when they sang it in hymns, and sang about the River Suwarti (which dried up about 4,000 years ago). Also, the Radhasoami Faith teaches that there are 11 planes/dimensions, and that our dimension if ruled by KAL (the devil), who is also known as Allah or Jehovah. That may explain why Jehovah seems "cruel".
Science has now confirmed that the human brain functions in 11 dimensions. String Theory says that the universe is in 10, 11, or 26 dimensions: the 11 dimension theory being the most popular among scientists."

There are hundreds of YouTube videos that purport to show real ghosts. Are they ALL (100%) "fake"? I think the YouTube site FROSTMARE probably has a collection of the most authentic YouTube ghost videos. I am NOT claiming ALL their videos are authentic, but that the operator of FROSTMARE tries the best he can to weed-out the unauthentic videos.

Personal Witness: I have had "paranormal" experiences. Seen ghosts, shadow beings, and I have been visited by full-body apparitions, such as my grandmother who appeared to me at barn dance in Utah, and spoke to me like one person speaks to another, in full light. Not a dream. Could that be a hallucination? Sure! I don't drink nor take drugs. I was on no medications. No head injuries. Could it still be a "hallucination"? Anything is possible, but it seemed to be as REAL as anything else I've done or seen that was REAL.

In conclusion, the arguments of the ex-Mormon atheists, that I have seen thus far, simply are NOT based upon "logic". Their logic fails. The Agnostic argument does have "logic" to it, but the Atheistic "logic" fails in every point. I believe the TRUE origin of Atheism is a psychological "reaction" to being "hurt" by religion; blaming God for the sins of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I think the blame is being placed on the wrong shoulders.

You those of you who are interested (notice I am NOT "forcing" you to do this), I would suggest you watch the following videos:

"Celebrity Ghost Stories"

"Paranormal Witness"

"Paranormal Survivor"

"My Ghost Story"

"Frostmare"

"Intelligent Design"

Again, I am not "forcing your hand" here. I'm suggesting if you are "curious" to watch those videos. This will take you longer than a few minutes, or one night. If you are NOT interested, not curious, then don't watch them. If you are "comfortable" in your atheism, then be "comfortable" but "I" must have the Truth, wherever that leads.

Please don't call Atheism "the Truth" because: you CANNOT "KNOW" if there is a God or god, until you've visited all solar systems, all galaxies, all stars, and all 11 dimensions! You cannot possibly "KNOW" that no God exists. I do not KNOW if a God or god exists, but I KNOW that ghosts exists, and that the dead can visit the living sometimes. I also KNOW that "Elementals" exist, because people have sent them to me, and I have send them to others. If you say to me "Elementals do not exist" then you might as well tell me "Cars do not exist". But, I KNOW they do. I've driven them, and rode in them. I KNOW Elementals exist too. I've called them up, and had a few on my chest before staring down at me.

So, if you are curious, then please check out those YouTube videos. If not, then don't. Don't "attack" me personally because my argument is stronger than yours. Don't attack the messenger because you don't like the message. Thank you.

Great discussion! It's so easy for some that don't read/study a broad range of subjects, to 'write off/discount' so many amazing experiences people report as something other than what they appear to be, by some that have had the ability and desire to 'report' them.

It is nice to have a 'talented' psychic on the board.

I have had 'after death communications'(ADCs) on at least 3 occasions. I have never seen a 'ghost or apparition', however, I do believe in them.

I get most of my stuff now through 'meditation and dreams' and frequent 'promptings'.

Based on my 'experiences', I believe in a God (definitely not the biblical one), a between life/after life, and that we can and are helped (decisions, protection, etc.) even when we may not recognize or be aware of that help.

Good luck on your postings and journey!

Oh, and who brought you back to life?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 07:12AM by steve benson.

Oh, and who brought you back to life?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks, for your posts! The value of knowledge and study is amplified by many of your posts.

Many of you have 'no idea' what is being discussed by 'some' of us ----- for a very good reason!

Thanks again! I needed that 'pick me up' this morning!

this might be the dumbest op I've seen on this forum. In eight years- quite possibly the dumbest thing I have seen.

Same old strawmen. Give your bullshit a rest.

I wanted to ask why only exmo atheists? Why are everyday atheists left out?

I do have to confess that I dozed off partway thru it.

That's because spiritual fluid from Christ explains everything.

Whether there is a god or not and whatever you think of the op,some of the arguments he parodies have been seen here and they are ridiculous. There can be a god without the Bible and that god could logically be mean. These ARE logical fallacies and do not prove that there is no.god.

No, but the existence of those fallacies doesn't prove the existence of even a mean god either.

That isnt the point. The point is that those particular arguments are logical fallacies.

Fine...the big problem here is that none of us are going to know until it's too late.

I prefer my unbeliever status.

I am not trying to convince you that God exists. I am saying that such arguments as the ones stated here are not logical and those who use them are not critical thinkers. I have seen such arguments here and they prove nothing except that the person positing them is being illogical. I agree that we dont know if there is a higher power and it cannot be proved or disproved but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether 'the the Bible is contradicted by science and therefore there is no God' is a logical argument. It is not. I also dont care if people believe or not,but there is a certain irony in an atheist who uses arguments like these criticizing theists for their critical thinking skills.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not trying to convince you that God exists. I
> am saying that such arguments as the ones stated
> here are not logical and those who use them are
> not critical thinkers. I have seen such arguments
> here...

Then provide links to them.
Want to bet right now that you actually *haven't*, and that you are completely misrepresenting what's actually been said here?

No- its dumb. What a dumb post.

- Ghost stories are so much more believable when they come from celebrities. Why else would OP have recommended it *twice* in the same post?

- I have also seen ghosts on TV. They were featured in a documentary called "Ghostbusters" with a guy named Dan something. Scary stuff. Brrrr.

- When I was in college, I once called up an Elemental. It did 3D12+6 damage to my 12th-level Paladin. But fortunately I killed it with my special +3 Sword of Virtue.

- Utah barn dances have the best jello salads.

Short answer: No one has to answer to *you* for what they do or do not believe. Stop preaching!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 06:35AM by Soft Machine.

Here's the reason many RfMers are atheists: they have encountered no evidence of the existence of any sort of God. I know, you can keep changing the definition of "God" to any form you wish, but eventually you run out of explanations and you have to admit that the probability is very small indeed.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they have encountered no evidence of the existence of
> any sort of God.

Yeah, that's pretty much me and it's not for a lack of trying to find that elusive god guy. I finally gave up seeking him/her/it.

Since you're a self-professed "psychic," consult your Ouija board for an answer.

When that fails, play your Tarot cards.

When that fails, quote your newspaper horoscope.

When that fails, bear your testimony on exactly how God made his/her/its existence known to you through these and other woo-woo means.

When that fails, quit going to your palm reader and, instead, enroll in an entry-level science class at your local community college. To help prepare yourself for that journey into The Land Your Fortune Teller Forgot, buy yourself a dictionary and look up the definition of "empirical." While you're at it, look up the definition of "dictionary."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 07:20AM by steve benson.

So many words, and yet no substantive support for the stated position. It kind of reminds me of the BoM.

Thank you for your post, psychic.

You gave me a different perspective, and for that, I'm grateful. Unlike some of the other posters here, I feel that my shrunken, brainwashed mind needs to be expanded, in all directions. I enjoy, very much, enlightenment of any kind.

My initial reaction to finding out that the religion that hogged a huge portion of my being, at the very center of my being was nothing but a hoax invented by a con-man, to get money and sex, was widespread anger. After that, it was, "I have to get rid of this poison." The best way--that worked for me--was to flush out all the memorized lies, the Primary chants, the knee-jerk couplets, the prejudice, the hatred, the abuse, the suffering, the guilt, the regret. Immediately, I started filling my mind with fresh information: the newest scientific discoveries, astronomy, natural sciences, classes in philosophy, art (different visual perspectives), poetry, the classics I hadn't already read, history, biographies of interesting people. beautiful music, new music I had never heard before. I learned to play it on the piano. I memorized poems. It worked!

For me, there was no need to replace the old organized religion with another organized religion; in fact, religions repulsed me. They triggered my PTSD. Any social needs are met by my family, work and colleagues there, our community, volunteer work, sports, hobbies, classes, etc.

As for "God", I'm happier with ambiguity than I was with lies. Mankind has survived very well, without any existential certainties. We, as individuals and collectively, help each other! That's what people do, regardless of what "God" does.

It's interesting how and why religions have come and gone. As a child, I loved to read about Greek mythology. Aesop's fables taught me more about ethics than the Bible stories did. As an adult, I appreciate different points of view, and the idea that there are still new answers to be found. There's always the possibility for further human growth and understanding. Look how far we have come! Anything is possible! Keep an open mind!

This thread is why we can't have nice things.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is why we can't have nice things.


No kidding.... !!!!!!

Here's a hint:

Making up "arguments" and putting them in the mouths of others isn't just dishonest, it's ridiculous.

See, neither I nor any of the other atheists I know on this board have ever used a single one of your contrived "arguments." Making your little rant one big gigantic straw-man.

Tell you what:

Provide some evidence for your claimed god-thing that isn't dishonest, fallacious, or "feelings." And I'll examine it to see if it's valid. Not that any of that nonsense above fits the criteria...

Oh, and by the way: no, you do not know that ghosts exist. Just like mormons do not know that the church is true. Your statement is a reflection of your personal ignorance and incredulity, and irrationality. Nothing more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 09:24AM by ificouldhietokolob.

What do you want, psychic?
Why did you post this here? Surely you don't think you're the first person to try and educate us convinced nonbelievers?
Do you want all of us atheists/agnostics/fence sitters to say, awe gee shucks, all those years we spent figuring out what we dont believe was wasted time cuz this one fantastic post by psychic showed us how flawed our logic was? Shucks golly darn, we're wrong. Geez sorry, we're just dumb. We'll just admit we are all losers in the face of psychics mighty enlightened wisdom. Wow, do I feel sheepish now that this one lightning bolt post opened my eyes.

There. Did you get what you want? Do you feel better? Because you're being really rude so I at least hope it made you feel awesome to come to a place where people who have been hurt by a cult and tell them they're "flawed" because they have concluded all religion is not for them.

So okay, if it makes you feel good, let's just roll with you. let's turn this RECOVERY FROM ABUSIVE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES discussion board into a theistic love fest. Lets just let tbe orgy of woo completely take over as we all scramble to get ourselves right with the now absolutely obvious existence of the Divine. And hey, if Jehovah Elohim exists than so does pretty much any other God, right?

Then I'm picking mine because Jehovah sucks. Asking Abraham to kill Isaac and then....psych! Didn't mean it Abe old buddy. Here's an unsuspecting sheep? That was mean. I want a superbeing that'll pay me some real divine dividends. I want to be rich, thin and eternally young...since my atheistic logic was so flawed as to think I had to make this stuff happen for myself, why now I think I'll have a God do it for me. But I want a really plush God. I want as Tyrion says on Game of Thrones, the God of T*ts and Wine.

All hail Dionysius, now and forever. Thanks psychic I feel amazingly better knowing invisible super-powered reality altering beings exist and are interested in what I think and do. Geez what a relief. I thought I was alone in my thoughts and uninteresting to the universe for a second there, and only vulnerable to lighting on a statistical basis.

Honestly you sound just as patronizing as the Mormons were to me. If you want to engage and debate atheists go to a board designed for that purpose and very prepared to have everything you say parsed into tiny little pieces of BS. Doing that here is proselytizing and violating boundaries of some people who aren't going to stand for it.

Thank you for an extremely enjoyable thread. I wanted to +1 to almost every response.

Like Hie, my first thought was not one atheist I have ever known has used your flawed logic samples to become an atheist. It just happens. There is no goal to work toward. One day it just dawns on you that there is no evidence, no good reason, to accept that a God is running this planet or even exists.

ptbarnum--bless you for that response. Too clever and too right on.

no name---yup!

Steve Benson--Empirical!



For me, well . . .

Attempting to obscure the line between fact and fiction is flawed logic.

Absence of evidence is just that. The absence of evidence paves the way for a plethora of beliefs as humans have various needs for certain wishes to come true. Coincidentally these just happen to be the wishes that benefit them, soothe them, and promise them a reward. Confusing these with evidence is tempting for those who just really really really want it to be true because their belief is they are their God's chosen. So their beliefs being true would just be the bee's knees.

Perhaps conquering the fear of not having beliefs in a God is the greatest test of the human spirit? It means we have finally empowered ourselves and can say, "I am enough."


And though some argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I would say that like "innocent before being proven guilty", waiting for evidence before taking your position just makes sense. Like Steve says, a little "empirical" can go a long way.

I like 'Mother Who Knows' comments:non abrasive, inviting and insightful. Well stated!

That’s a lot of assumptions for someone talking about logical fallacies. Why do you suppose that Atheists presuppose? I thought the basis of Atheism was the lack of presupposition. Admitting you don’t know what you don’t know. How do you know Atheists aren’t God’s favorite people?

I won’t dispute your experiences. Your beliefs are a contract you have with reality. That doesn’t mean there’s one explanation. They don’t prove “God”. They just happen to be beyond the reach of established science. Science has to stay within boxes to keep people from going on wild goose chases. Bean counters hate that.

You really shouldn’t care about belief or lack thereof, as long as the beliefs aren’t harmful. If it’s okay to believe in Mormonism, it’s more than okay to be Atheist.

Just an observation, but you seem very desperate to make your point.

Hey psychic, you are being incredibly deceptive and frankly disingenuous, because you are not letting people know the full story here - Which is that you believe in some weirdo named Doctor (a self-given title, no doubt) Dahesh. You believe he is a Lebanese prophet. You believe incredibly weird and bizarre stuff.

Of course, so did all of us at one point, that's not really the issue. The issue at hand is that youre proselytizing for a religion, maybe not so much or so directly in this post but in others, and if I recall correctly, you have history on this board of spamming over and over about this weirdo and his prophet and your experiences and living in New York etc etc.

What I seem to recall is that you started out as a regular poster last time, ended up getting banned because you did not desist posting about your cult, and ended up just spamming the same thread over and over again. It sounds like you are revving up to do the exact same thing again. How about instead of that you just go away and never post here again before you get banned.

You are a shill for a cult and you need to go away. You are also a spammer and a kook.

give this poster another couple of days and his proselytizing for dah*shism will be back.

psychic:

As a logical argument, your post here leaves a lot to be desired, as pointed out in several responses. Rather than participate in the lambasting free-for-all, let me point out a certain validity to what I take to be the main point of your post; i.e. a frustration that atheists in general fail to appreciate the value and legitimacy of paranormal evidence in formulating a worldview. Atheists typically reject the paranormal as evidence for anything. I agree with you that this is a mistake. It is not just unwise, it is a logical mistake based upon established scientific principles. Here's why:

First, the issue at hand is essentially about the relationship between the mind and the body. (Not the existence of God!) The question is whether (1) the mind is solely a property of the brain and when the brain dies so does the mind; or (2) the mind represents an independent “spirit” entity separate from the brain such as to allow at least the possibility of survival of death. Atheists tend toward the former view, theists toward the latter. Let’s call these views theories (1) and (2).

Couched in these terms, we can consider each theory independently by applying the basic scientific principle of falsification in the context of psychology and cognitive neuroscience, the main scientific disciplines that are applicable. The idea that a theory must be falsifiable suggests that a scientific theory must lend itself to evidence that if discovered would render the theory false. Moreover, if any such evidence were to be found, the theory as stated would indeed be false. That is basic science, and is uncontroversial.

Now, if (1) above is indeed falsifiable, what evidence would make it false? Obviously, any evidence that would suggest that some mind or individual consciousness survived death. If found, ANY “evidence” of survival of death would render (1) false. The question then is to consider what should count as “evidence” for such falsification. Specifically, should the hundreds (or thousands) of paranormal reports, in all their variety, count as evidence, either singularly or collectively?

If one looks to physics, or the hard sciences, anecdotal evidence is not allowed, except in the context of a replicable experiment. However, in virtually all other sciences, particularly psychology and cognitive science, human reports are not only allowed, they are in some sense essential. In short, in these sciences what people report about their subjective experiences is an essential part of the methodology. Consider cognitive neuroscience; i.e. the operation of the brain in the context of a functional living organism. Here, human reports of their subjective experiences are essential to connect the brain to various aspects of human experience; for example pain, or emotions. When *credible* humans make reports of their subjective experiences in these contexts, it is assumed that they are reporting their experiences truthfully. Moreover, as more people make similar reports, the mind-brain correlations are “objectified” into scientific conclusions about the mind-brain relationship.

Without rehearsing the details, there have been hundreds of not thousands of documented reports of paranormal phenomenon in a wide variety of contexts, which point to survival of death. That is not disputed, or disputable. The question is are they “credible?” Credibility can be defined by whether there is any evidence to suggest that the person making such report is mentally incompetent such as to render the content of their report questionable; and/or whether such a person is trustworthy to give a truthful account of their experience given the context of the report. There is no question that hundreds of paranormal reports are credible by this standard. Note further that credibility cannot be determined by the nature or content of the report. In other words, by applicable scientific standards, you cannot dismiss a report as evidence simply because it does not fit into your preferred scientific paradigm or worldview. Moreover, you cannot insist upon a higher standard of evidence, for example the standard of physics, just because you do not like the nature of the evidence that is presented, and you want to dismiss it out of hand.

Note that under scientific principles, if there is a single, credible, paranormal report suggesting survival of death, theory (1) is to that extent undermined. At some point, after hundreds of such reports, there is arguably a probability that it is false. Does that mean (2) is established? No! All it means is that theory (1) as a universally stated assumption is not the whole story of the mind-brain relationship. Moreover, it strongly affirms that paranormal reports must be taken into consideration as evidence when considering whether theory (1) is correct.

What about the falsification of theory (2)? That would require evidence that as a matter of scientific fact no one could survive death. Perhaps unfortunately, there is such evidence, in the form of both the neuroscience of consciousness, and the nature of death as an ordinary physical phenomenon. So, what we have are two theories both of which are subject to falsifying evidence. That means that, as simply stated above, both are somehow incomplete. Theory (1) has to explain how credible paranormal reports are possible, and theory (2) has to explain why the necessary connection between the brain and consciousness appears so compelling. I do not think that currently either side of this debate has succeeded. However, the scientific edge, in my opinion, goes to theory (1).

You seem to have missed the point entirely, Henry...and engaged in some of the same fallacies as the OP, namely constructing straw-men.

There's no evidence for your (1) that shows 'mind' survives brain death. That's why claims that it does are rejected. And, no, unsubstantiated, unrepeatable, unexplained 'experiences' are not evidence for the contrary.

There's also no evidence for your (2). Nor any evidence that any mechanism by which such a thing could occur exists.

We atheists (and lots of others) would be happy to rationally consider either of those hypotheses (not theories, of course). When and if there's evidence for them.
So far, there is none.

:)

"You seem to have missed the point entirely, Henry...and engaged in some of the same fallacies as the OP, namely constructing straw-men."

COMMENT: Perhaps I changed the point, but I laid it out quite clearly. And as I have noted repeatedly, your definition of "evidence" is fundamentally flawed, and scientifically just incorrect.
_______________________________________

"There's no evidence for your (1) that shows 'mind' survives brain death. That's why claims that it does are rejected. And, no, unsubstantiated, unrepeatable, unexplained 'experiences' are not evidence for the contrary."

COMMENT: Credible paranormal reports are evidence of survival because such experiences by their nature and content suggest that a specific person(s) has survived death, whether they actually have or not. Most importantly, they make the likelihood of survival more probable than survival would be absent such experiences. That is all that is required for something to count as evidence. You repeatedly deny such evidence, not because it is demonstrably unreliable, but because you do not like the implication for your preferred worldview. That is NOT science.
________________________________________

"There's also no evidence for your (2). Nor any evidence that any mechanism by which such a thing could occur exists."

COMMENT: I am confused about this point, but virtually every study in neuroscience has established a link between brain function and consciousness, or subjective experience, such that consciousness ceases with physical death. If that is not "evidence" for non-survival, I do not know what is.
_________________________________________

We atheists (and lots of others) would be happy to rationally consider either of those hypotheses (not theories, of course). When and if there's evidence for them.

COMMENT: You say this, repeatedly, but based upon your comments, I seriously doubt it. I honestly believe you would dismiss any "evidence" that undermines your preferred worldview. Currently, you do this by selectively limiting what you are willing to count as evidence. Your insistence that human reports of subjective experience requires objective "verification" or "replication" is just ludicrous in this context, and undermines much of cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Subjective human experiences are just not replicable; we cannot go inside the head and check either their content or veracity. We have to reply upon what people say they experienced. And that has both scientific and practical value---as evidence in support of, or to falsify, theories or worldviews related to the brain and human mind.

Why is this so difficult? :)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Perhaps I changed the point, but I laid
> it out quite clearly. And as I have noted
> repeatedly, your definition of "evidence" is
> fundamentally flawed, and scientifically just
> incorrect.

We'll have to disagree on that.
Note: "scientifically" is on my side, not yours.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/10/5-reasons-why-anecdotes-are-totally-worthless/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040832/

> COMMENT: Credible paranormal reports are evidence...

No, they're anecdotes. Unverifiable and unrepeatable.
Anecdotes are stories, not evidence.

> COMMENT: I am confused about this point, but
> virtually every study in neuroscience has
> established a link between brain function and
> consciousness, or subjective experience, such that
> consciousness ceases with physical death. If that
> is not "evidence" for non-survival, I do not know
> what is.

You stated your #2 as:
"the mind represents an independent “spirit” entity separate from the brain such as to allow at least the possibility of survival of death."

Which is contrary to what you wrote above.


> COMMENT: You say this, repeatedly, but based upon
> your comments, I seriously doubt it.

Doubt your doubts.

> I honestly
> believe you would dismiss any "evidence" that
> undermines your preferred worldview.

It's a good thing that beliefs, honest or not, don't represent reality -- just what a person believes.
Because I don't have any "preferred worldview." Unless you count viewing the world as it can be demonstrated to be such a thing (I don't).

The problem is nobody presents any evidence. They put forth supposition, assumption, fallacy, and anecdotes, and call them "evidence." They're not.

> Currently,
> you do this by selectively limiting what you are
> willing to count as evidence.

False.
Evidence is verifiable.
None of the above are.

Your insistence that
> human reports of subjective experience requires
> objective "verification" or "replication" is just
> ludicrous in this context

That's your opinion. I consider your opinion "ludicrous."

> Subjective human experiences are just not
> replicable; we cannot go inside the head and check
> either their content or veracity.

Oh, well -- then you'll have to live with them being subjective, and unverifiable, and "mysterious" -- rather than claiming them as evidence. Calling them evidence when they're not, just *because* they're unverifiable, is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

> We have to reply
> upon what people say they experienced.

What people say they "experienced" is evidence they (probably) "experienced" something. It's not evidence for the source of the "experience," that the "experience" was real (and not hallucination, imagination, misperception, etc.), or that there was anything "supernatural" or "after-death" or any other such thing about the "experience."

THAT is what you and the OP and 'spiritist' and many other people do -- claim they're evidence of things they're NOT evidence of.

If you'd limit yourself to the factual claim that they're evidence of people having "experiences," you'd be fine.
That's not what you do.
So you're not fine.

> Why is this so difficult? :)

Because you so desperately want there to be evidence for your beliefs that you claim it when it isn't there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 04:38PM by ificouldhietokolob.

You're hopeless. :)

Read a book on cognitive neuroscience, and you will see why human reports of subjective experiences are essential as evidence in the context of mind-body issues in science. Anecdotal reports of subjective experiences, for example in the context of brain injury, are of paramount importance in understanding these issues; Read neuroscience books by Oliver Sack's, or Ramachandran, or Damasio; Read a book on Bayesian probability theory in modern science and its relation to subjective evidence. (A superficial Google search of "anecdotal evidence" in order to find some level of support your position, entirely out of context, is hardly impressive.)

If you really want to understand this issue, I will happily provide you, or anyone else, with a few book suggestions that would educate you on this issue. I suggest you start with Peter Godfrey-Smith's book, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, and particularly chapter 14, entitled "Bayesianism and Modern Theories of Evidence."

But I know in your heart of hearts you are really not interested; which really was the bottom-line point of the OP.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're hopeless. :)

No, hopeful. That perhaps one day there will be conclusive evidence to settle such questions factually, and we can dispense with unwarranted assumptions and fallacious arguments!
:)

> Read a book on cognitive neuroscience, and you
> will see why human reports of subjective
> experiences are essential as evidence...

Like 'spiritist' does, it's a mistake to assume someone who disagrees with you hasn't read such things.
And, in fact, I have -- it's a subject of great interest to me. The trouble is, cognitive neuroscience treats reports of subjective human experiences as anecdotes, and not evidence. I've never said anecdotes have no value -- they do. They can lead to questions that we *can* go in search of evidence for. NDE's and such (the ones that aren't outright fraudulent) can serve such a purpose: what's the cause of these things? Let's go find evidence of a cause!

So far, conclusive evidence of the cause is somewhat elusive. Which, of course, doesn't mean 'they're after-death experiences.' It doesn't mean they're "suggestive" of after-death experiences, or of survival of consciousness after brain death. It means we don't have conclusive evidence of the cause yet.

> (A superficial
> Google search of "anecdotal evidence" in order to
> find some level of support your position, entirely
> out of context, is hardly impressive.)

They were quick (but entirely valid) links. 'Impressive' or not.

Once again, it's rather silly of you to assume I haven't read those authors. I have. Their works do not support your position on anecdotes. I can only wonder if you misinterpreted them, or...?

> If you really want to understand this issue, I
> will happily provide you, or anyone else, with a
> few book suggestions that would educate you on
> this issue.

For the umpteenth time, people who disagree with aren't under-educated on a subject, don't need "education," and already understand.

That "you just don't understand" or "you haven't read the right books" nonsense is an ad-homimem that's often used by folks who don't actually have any evidence. You're better than that.
I've read all you have. Possibly more. I don't see the sources as agreeing with your assumptions and conclusions in any way. I'm not under-educated on the subject, nor do I lack understanding of it. I think you're flat-out wrong.

> But I know in your heart of hearts you are really
> not interested; which really was the bottom-line
> point of the OP.

See above -- you don't know that, you've assumed it, and you're wrong. See why assumptions are worthless? :)

“Note: "scientifically" is on my side, not yours.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/”

Scientific American also reported the Wright Brothers historic flight as a hoax. Okay, cheap shot.

“Evidence is verifiable”

What if it’s not? If our world is governed by strict laws of what may and what may not impact free will, all bets are off. If experimenter intent determines the outcome of the experiment, for example in Bem’s precognition experiments, disregarding that variable means all bets are off. The high priests of science are stuck in a loop. Those kinds of experiments can’t be conducted because they’re unscientific, but correcting the thinking that makes them unscientific is itself unscientific.

Paranormal experiments are notoriously hive-minded. In other words, everyone involved is in agreement. Materialistic science doesn’t have this “problem” so adversarial methods work well there. Adversarial methods don’t work at all with parapsychology. If you want a negative outcome, you’ll get it.

"Evidence is verifiable."

"What if it's not?"

Then it's not evidence.
Hence my entire point.

"Let's call my anecdotes evidence, even though they're not verifiable, because there isn't any verfiable evidence and they're all I've got..."

Surely you see the problem with that, don't you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 07:21PM by ificouldhietokolob.

1. God is supposed to be kind and yet unkind things happen all the time. Therefore there can be no god.

Nate's answer: Those that claim that god is kind need to present evidence that god is in fact kind.

2. God's book is inaccurate and thus god cannot be.

Nate's answer: Those that claim that god's book is accurate need to present evidence that god's book is accurate.

3. The evidence that Jesus existed is circumstantial. The lack of direct evidence is proof of Jesus non existence.

Nate's answer: The lack of direct evidence is proof that there is a lack of direct evidence.

4. Creation doctrine and scientific evidence do not agree with each other. So the creation doctrine must be wrong and proves that god cannot be.

Nate's answer: The disagreement is proof of disagreement.

5. Anecdotal evidence is accepted in courts why not in the god argument?

Nate's answer: Anecdotal evidence goes both ways. For every he said, there is a she said.

6. There are very old sacred texts that bear a resemblance to what science now knows.

Nate's answer: The Book of Mormon bears a resemblance to stuff as well.

7. How can you dismiss all of the stories that show something supernatural?

Nate's answer: I don't dismiss them all because I haven't the time or inclination to study up on each one. I dismiss the premise.

8. My own personal witness is valid.

Nate's answer: I once believed Joseph Smith to be a prophet.

9. Atheism is illogical.

Nate's answer: The motives and beliefs that you have hoisted on atheists might be illogical.

10. Atheists are bitter.

Nate's answer: Could be sometimes, but then can you blame those that are bitter?

11. Please see the proofs of my belief.

Nate's answer: Thank you, I'll pass.

12. Atheism isn't true because god is impossible to disprove.

Nate's answer: I'm not sure I've ever asked for god to be disproved.

Henry wrote ----"Without rehearsing the details, there have been hundreds of not thousands of documented reports of paranormal phenomenon in a wide variety of contexts, which point to survival of death."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Henry made some excellent points. However, actually, there have been '13 Million' in the US according to a Gallop poll in the 1990's or about 5% of the population have experienced near death experiences (NDE). There are many other 'paranormal' areas that also support survival of death. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/number_nde_usa.htm

Most people talk like it is a 'small number' but 13 million is not small at all and this is NDEs in the US only!

Maybe that is why most 'people' believe in 'life after death' ----- because they or a relative/friend had an 'experience' suggesting such!

The way 'atheists' to me, seem to see the world is we will 'wait for science' to tell us what to believe. It is the easiest way to live by far let 'someone else do the work' --- no self study, no worry, just let someone else prove things 'that I don't want to believe and there is no scientific evidence for'!

Where would the world be if everyone had that attitude ----- let 'someone else' prove everything to me????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 04:22PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Henry made some excellent points. However,
> actually, there have been '13 Million' in the US
> according to a Gallop poll in the 1990's or about
> 5% of the population have experienced near death
> experiences (NDE).

As I've pointed out to you many times, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

> The way 'atheists' to me, seem to see the world is
> we will 'wait for science' to tell us what to
> believe.

Since facts discovered through the scientific method don't rely on 'belief,' your premise is fundamentally flawed.


> It is the easiest way to live by far let
> 'someone else do the work' --- no self study, no
> worry, just let someone else prove things 'that I
> don't want to believe and there is no scientific
> evidence for'!

I've also pointed out to you dozens of times that claiming people who don't agree with you haven't "studied" or examined the outrageous claims you believe is both insulting and another flawed assumption.

Yes, but other than the points you made about spiritist, he's a huge fan, Henry, and appreciates you helping out here.

How many 'eye witnesses' does it take for a jury to convict someone of murder? Is 'science' required to convict a 'criminal' when creditable 'eyewitnesses' are available?

Yet there are people in this world that can dismiss 'millions of eyewitnesses' of the supernatural and give some lame excuse ---- well 'science' can't prove it.

This is ok with me but it is somewhat amazing to me what some can 'totally dismiss'.

“The way 'atheists' to me, seem to see the world is we will 'wait for science' to tell us what to believe.”

You’re not over Mormonism, are you? You still want to be right. But maybe we’re all in the same boat. People aren’t really lazy. They have deep seated needs that drive them, needs that spring from long-repressed experiences. So you can’t really blame people for what they do or don’t believe. You sure as f—-k can’t consign them to hell for not believing. The notion of dusting feet is typical of Mormon hubris.

Why did you make that comment about Mormonism?

I am not asking anyone to 'believe' anything but question they can 'easily dismiss' millions of 'eyewitnesses' as if it is total foolishness.

Last I knew 'Mormonism' has 'few' eyewitnesses to the 'truthfulness of Mormonism'!

That's why I'm pretty much Agnostic. No one can definitely prove there is a God and cannot prove there is not. For me, it's just better and more honest for me to say, "I don't know."

I'm an atheist, despite that fact that ghawd and the nephew he was babysitting appeared to me in a sacred, fleshy groove. There was no message; he was just showing off.

Ex-Mormon Atheists are not obligated to prove a god doesn’t exist. Ex-Mormon psychics are obligated to prove a god does exist. Cuz that’s the rule.

Oh holy Jebus… (head shaking.)

And that would be infinitely easier to produce than proof for the existence of God.

I can prove that ghawd exists, but you have to take it on faith...

ETA: Damn! I forgot the most important part! You have to either give me money or act very, very impressed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 06:29PM by elderolddog.

Actually nobody has to prove a damned thing about the existence or non existence of God.

Uhm, but...

Them that smelt it dealt it.

Or in other words, if you start it you might as well own it.

The OP was mainly posting about some of the logical fallacies he has heard here from a few atheists. I have heard the same flawed arguments, and, no, I am not going to go through years of posts to find them as another poster demanded. However, I have seen such posts. He apparently believes in God and some things I dont believe in, but he wasnt posting primarily about that.

Actually he did more than that. He also made his undeniable sales pitch for spiritualism complete with a bunch of links to convince us of his argument.

And he is the one obligated to prove his god (or whatever) as he has made the claim for the existence of god.

The atheists are just saying "nope, not good enough." It is not the atheist's obligation to prove there isn't a god.

You know that!

Don't apologize for him. It was a stupid post--as the others have said.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard the same flawed arguments,
> and, no, I am not going to go through years of
> posts to find them as another poster demanded.

Then your claim has zero worth.

"I'm too lazy to provide evidence, so just believe me" isn't evidence, either.

Good bye

He gets to believe in spiritualism even if I do not. I stand by what I said. The main part of the post was about logical fallacies and he was right on about that. Spiritualism is another matter. If you want to argue about that, you might make your argument more specific and not about God in general.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2017 07:34PM by bona dea.

You get to do and believe anything you want but that doesn't mean your apologizing for him is accurate or his claims are logical.

I'm not arguing anything. That's my point. It's not my obligation to prove there isn't a god.

He purposefully misrepresents what atheist arguments.

The atheists I know are logical, rational, smart people. And very rarely do they have an axe to grind. This guy does, though.
And his "atheist" arguments were utterly irrational.

This is a stupid thread and argument. You can have the last word if you like.

Great discussion.

It is interesting to see 'who' really brought up any facts and who just 'poo pooed' the thread without presenting anything.