Do you believe in God?

[TJC_69]

In a logical train of thought , why would you have to believe in God anyway if an afterlife existed ? Wouldn't you just be transported there anyway when you died ?

Man made hocus pocus if you ask me ....

 

[Quackjack]

You shouldn't. The afterlife has objective, scientific evidence. God does not.

 

[niky]

How do you disprove something for which there is no proof, in the first place?

 

[Quackjack]

Disprove this is no cheese on the moon, then.

 

[TJC_69]

Disprove this is no cheese on the moon, then.

This is a joke right ?

 

[Exorcet]

Alright boys, who wants 1,000,000$?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
Disproove the afterlife to this man. (NOT GOD I DOUBT HE EXISTS)

The rules are a bit exclusive

25. Because the afterlife evidence is highly technical, first, the applicant must demonstrate understanding of Scientific Method; and thirdly, the applicant must have been identified in recognized public news-media as a genuine investigator of the afterlife.

Also, he just wants to sell his book

Disprove this is no cheese on the moon, then.

That was niky's point. Well sort of, we've mapped the moon and there is no cheese.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If believing in god is like insurance, doesn't that imply God existing is akin to some kind of disaster?

No, it's a comparison in Scaff's standard of acceptable evidence.

For example, let's say I am worried that I might be punished when I die. Which god should I believe in? If I believe in the Christian God, don't I risk being sent to hell for not being Muslim, if that ends up being the correct religion? Doesn't the same apply to any religion which punishes people for not following them, including religions that died out many years ago, or even theoretical religions that no one has concieved of of believed in? They all could possibly be true, so how do I pick? Or should I just believe in all of them?

Research it for yourself.
As far as I know only one offers a full pardon as well as a full explanation of our exsistence, that fits precisely.

You're also assuming anyone can choose to believe in God if they have a reason to. Let me ask you, how often do you "choose" what to believe? If the bible said you couldn't go to heaven unless you believed 2 + 2 = 5, could you force yourself to think that? To ignore all of known mathematics because it would benefit you?

I don't see why not.
For me its not a question of what to believe anymore.
I'm saved and have the Holy Spirit.
God is as real as rain, and 2 + 2 (still) = 4.
The Bible is the foundation and guide for truth.

Well I'm telling you, I cannot believe something because it is convenient to believe it, even if I'm required to believe it. Believing is not a choice, it is an assessment of all your prior knowledge, and unless you are intentionally dishonest with yourself, you cannot change it.

No its still a choice.
Dig into it and satisfy yourself.
Then the choice can be made.

Considering all the talk you've made about believing "just in case" because it might be worth it, you might want to ask yourself if God would think that was honest faith. Even if you think you honestly believe, even without the benefits, you should at least realize that no atheist would ever get away with lying to himself about the existence of a God in order to get into heaven. As such, there is simply no reason for us to waste our time trying.

Well if your fixed on being an Atheist, thats what you will be, barring intervention of some kind.
Disconnect from your belief and become a "Undecided".
Then dig into it and weigh both sides.

ALSO, I know you've said you don't have time to respond to every post, but way to completely ignore your entire argument for people seeing the afterlife being utterly destroyed by Famine. Come on. At the very least you completely failed to understand what clinical death is, despite it being the basis of your evidence. If you had really cared to understand what the evidence was, you would have looked up clinical death to find out what it means, rather than assuming it supported your beliefs and then claiming it supported your beliefs when it didn't.

No one can destroy truth and reality.
Famine and I have had many rounds previously in these threads.
Thats no excuse to not reply to him, but I haven't been able to get to him yet.

He failed to mention the testimonies I spoke of vary in length from several minutes to several hours.

Clnically dead is technically the same as graveyard dead.
Resuscitation efforts may continue briefly, then you go to the morgue.
Some people were already in the morgue.

World English Dictionary

clinically dead

having no respiration, no heartbeat, and with no contraction of the pupils when exposed to a strong light.

ALSO, That is embarrassing. You need to seriously consider your objectivity after making a mistake like that, and at least admit to us that you've made a mistake at all, instead of just moving on as if it never happened. That's really poor form. I think most of us can agree we'd rather you take a long time to answer all of our points than quickly answer the ones convenient to you.

What specifically are you referring too.

What female attributes does he have ? In an emotional sense maybe ?

All natural attributes that women have, less corrupt intent of course, he has.
Including emotional tendencies, Yes.

Not exactly great news for us fellows, I'm afraid.

 

[niky]

No, it's a comparison in Scaff's standard of acceptable evidence.

We have statistical evidence of people surviving accidents, thus insurance premiums.

I suppose you have statistical evidence of people surviving into the afterlife, so we can generate salvation premium rates?

And not the "oh, I was briefly 'dead', but am now alive" variety, but the "oh, I died, my corporeal form became worm food, and I am speaking to you from beyond the grave. And the combination to the vault containing my will is 3-21-31-7-15. Heaven is great, partying with Jesus" variety.

He failed to mention the testimonies I spoke of vary in length from several minutes to several hours.

We have testimonies of alien abduction, too.

Clnically dead is technically the same as graveyard dead.

Clinically dead is not completely dead. Brain function continues long after the heart stops. And sometimes doctors can't even tell when that happens, if the heartbeat is too faint.

All natural attributes that women have, less corrupt intent of course, he has.
Including emotional tendencies, Yes.

Pardon my mirth at this, but are you suggesting a hallmark of femme-dom is corrupt intent? I pity your woman, if you have one.

 

[Exorcet]

Research it for yourself.

That's pretty much atheism.

Disconnect from your belief and become a "Undecided".
Then dig into it and weigh both sides.

That's how I became atheist, and aparently the same goes for most atheists here.

All natural attributes that women have, less corrupt intent of course, he has.
Including emotional tendencies, Yes.

Not exactly great news for us fellows, I'm afraid.

Religion is a terrible thing.

 

[TJC_69]

All natural attributes that women have, less corrupt intent of course, he has.
Including emotional tendencies, Yes.

Not exactly great news for us fellows, I'm afraid.

Erm ..... Corrupt intent ? What , like hookers or something ? All women cannot be tarred with the same brush at all . I have an amazing girlfriend who is not of ' Corrupt Intent ' , and is not corrupt in any shape or form .

Not to be ultra personal or anything ... but you do have experience with women don't you ?

 

[dylansan]

SCJ: Well it looks like I was wrong. You still don't know what clinically dead means.

"having no respiration, no heartbeat, and with no contraction of the pupils when exposed to a strong light."

What part of that definition says that the brain and senses no longer function?

The fact that people experience things even while being clinically dead can be entirely explained by the fact that sensory organs continue to function even when blood is no longer flowing. Only after a long enough period without oxygen will the brain and other organs begin to deteriorate and stop functioning. Thus, if you can restart the oxygen flow, people can survive and remember the experiences they had while they were clinically dead.

And there is a large difference between clinically dead and graveyard dead, which hopefully you understand by now.

A big point I'd like to make here is that evidence is only evidence for a specific theory or idea if no other idea can explain the evidence. These experiences could only be considered evidence of an afterlife if they had no other explanation, but they do.

This follows if you consider that evidence can really only disprove an explanation, never prove it. This is the basis of science. If you have a theory, and some evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is wrong and must be changed. If some evidence is consistent with the theory, it does not prove the theory, but it can make it more plausible if other theories are proven false by the same evidence.

This is the same reason why the beauty and complexity of the universe is not proof of creation, and neither is the complexity of life. They have alternative explanations that are just as plausible. If there were no other explanations for the creation of the universe besides an omnipotent God creating it, I promise you I would believe in that God. However, there are so many alternative explanations, many that are also not disproven by any evidence, so to pick one would be an assertion I couldn't back up.

You must realize that I acknowledge the possibility that God exists. This really should be enough. There is nothing in the world that could make me believe anything was 100% true with no chance of being wrong, as there is always another possible explanation for any occurrence, even if no one has thought of it yet. This is the definition of an open mind: acknowledging the possibility but not being completely sure.

For God to expect me to believe something without any doubt is asking me to go against the core of who I am, to ignore the basis on which I make every thought, to open my mind just for a second so it can be stuffed and sealed shut. I simply cannot do that, and if God does exist and has a problem with that, so be it.

Though, because I have an open mind, I also acknowledge the possibility that there is a God out there who rewards open-mindedness rather than blind faith, and I find that this has the same or greater probability than the Christian God, as it would seem most plausible that an omnipotent creator would at least be reasonable. Then again, I could also perhaps be convinced that the Christian God does exist, if some evidence made it seem more likely than any other explanation. However, so far, neither you nor anyone else has presented anything of that sort, and believe me, I have been listening.

EDIT: I'm actually going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "corrupt intent", you just meant that you don't want to be so vulgar as to suggest God has man-parts and lady-parts.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Erm ..... Corrupt intent ? What , like hookers or something ? All women cannot be tarred with the same brush at all . I have an amazing girlfriend who is not of ' Corrupt Intent ' , and is not corrupt in any shape or form .

Perhaps I should answer this now.

What I am saying is if there is any(corrupt intent), they did not get that from him.

Not to be ultra personal or anything ... but you do have experience with women don't you ?

Yes, quite.
One inparticular.

As a matter of fact, she provided the impetus for me to search out the very things I am speaking of in this thread.

 

[TJC_69]

SuperCobraJet
All natural attributes that women have, less corrupt intent of course, he has.
Including emotional tendencies, Yes.

Not exactly great news for us fellows, I'm afraid.

Perhaps I should answer this now.

What I am saying is if there is any(corrupt intent), they did not get that from him.



Yes, quite.
One inparticular.

As a matter of fact, she provided the impetus for me to search out the very things I am speaking of in this thread.

So if i've picked this up correctly ..

What you are saying is ; God is prone to mood swings , women can be corrupt , but they weren't given that attribute by God himself , they taught themselves how to be , ( If indeed they actually are ) ?

Congrats on your special lady also

 

[niky]

Perhaps I should answer this now.

What I am saying is if there is any(corrupt intent), they did not get that from him.

Then where's the need to specify? Why not just say "God has some aspects of womanhood" and leave it at that?

That's like saying "God is like a (racial minority), minus the (unflattering stereotypical behaviour)."

It's incredibly, deeply mysoginistic.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then where's the need to specify? Why not just say "God has some aspects of womanhood" and leave it at that?

That's like saying "God is like a (racial minority), minus the (unflattering stereotypical behaviour)."

It's incredibly, deeply mysoginistic.

Because we are all corrupt in some capacity.

So there must be a distinction drawn, on that which is from God and is incorrupt, and that which is corrupt, which is by another source.

In that context he has all pure aspects of woman.

 

[Famine]

Because we are all corrupt in some capacity.

I'm just wondering what sins my daughter's committed in her ignoble, 9 month life.

Though she's ten months old now. So corrupt.

 

[Scaff]

No, it's a comparison in Scaff's standard of acceptable evidence.

For the third time, its not my standard of evidence, but the standard accepted by science.

You are the one that moves the goalposts with regard to what does and does not constitute evidence, not me. In the exact same way that you attempt to redefine anything that you feel doesn't support your view.

I also find it rather interesting that while you are quite happy to accuse me of something I have not done (set my own personal standard of evidence) you don't reply to the valid points I have raised.

In a nutshell you have still failed to provide a single piece of evidence (that meets a scientific standard) for the existence of either God or an afterlife.

So how about you leave the straw-man arguments and invalid comparisons with X, Y and Z (insurance is not the topic of this discussion) and actually provide evidence that meets this standard.

Because we are all corrupt in some capacity.

So there must be a distinction drawn, on that which is from God and is incorrupt, and that which is corrupt, which is by another source.

In that context he has all pure aspects of woman.

What other source and why would a perfect God allow this to happen?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Do we really have to go over this again, evidence to a scientific standard, which word of mouth testimony doesn't reach.

Neither is evidence confined to a scientific standard.
That appears to be the big difference here.
Science is not infallable, yet like many Agnostics, you apparently by faith believe that it is.
It offers explanations from a limited observable and knowledgable viewpoint.
Their explanations may vary anywhere from partially wrong or right, to
completely wrong or right.
Or woefully incomplete as well.
When it comes to the spiritual, they are completely inept, since it is not recognizable by their methods.
Your insistence on evidence by scientific standard is akin to looking for the living among the dead.
You won't find it there.

Mass murders get in if they repent but Ghandi's not getting in because he wasn't a Christian.

Since you don't really know his heart and true beliefs, I don't know that you can claim that unequivically.
Many testimonies by the Clinically dead, claim they were decending into a horrible place and called out to Jesus to help them and he did.
Oh sorry, I forgot thats just a bunch hallucinogenic phooey.

So no I'm not wrong and as you say nothing proves a spirit and that burden would be on those making the claim for one.

No you are not wrong in that energy is involved, however that does not assume there is not more to it.

Now are you in all seriousness claiming that the energy stored within a body doesn't not all eventually return to the universe at large? If you are please explain exactly how you car works.

Well since you do not believe in God, thats as good an explanation as any.
While they may share some similarities, people are not cars.

And as has been said these are all explainable scientifically, you are simply choosing to ignore that reality.

No I realize that.
The difference is you believe it is the only explanation, and it is complete.
I believe it is incomplete and inadequate.

You said it not God, so explain to me how you can be so sure of this, or do you claim to speak on behalf of God?.

No, I am quoting him.
That's why he authored a book.

Isaiah 64:6
Amplified Bible (AMP)

6 For we have all become like one who is unclean [ceremonially, like a leper], and all our righteousness (our best deeds of rightness and justice) is like filthy rags or a polluted garment; we all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away [far from God’s favor, hurrying us toward destruction].

Ephesians 2:5

Amplified Bible (AMP)


5 Even when we were dead (slain) by [our own] shortcomings and trespasses, He made us alive together in fellowship and in union with Christ; [He gave us the very life of Christ Himself, the same new life with which He quickened Him, for] it is by grace (His favor and mercy which you did not deserve) that you are saved ([a]delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation).

I didn't say I held my moral compass at any level, I questioned how you could be so sure that you would reach the required standard and I would not.

See above

Don't try and turn this around, I made no claim of moral superiority, that was all your doing..

However you did challenge mine as compared to yours.
You could not have done that without some predetermined moral compass level.
I made the comparison based on God's determination, not mine.

No we didn't so please answer the question..

Your relationship to God can be reinststated and all the benefits that go with it.

So no evidence exists at all for the main events people insure against?.

Sure evidence exsists, for people at large.
However, none exsists for you personally, individually.
On that level it is only a possibility.

I've already covered this in detail and you have simply ignored it. Insureable events occur and can be widely proven (unless you don't believe car accidents happen), that's a substantial larger body of evidence than exists for God (of which none exists).

Again, there is plenty of evidence for insurable events,
But using your standard of evidence there is no evidence whatsoever that it will happen to you.
It's only a possibility.

Not by my standard but that of scientific evidence, something you are well aware (as it has been mentioned numerous times before) of but seem to want to ignore. The standards I am using are not subject to change based upon my own desires, yours most certainly seem to be.

No, mine are just more open and objective.

So show me the evidence by scientific standard, that the insurable event will happen to you.
You can't, because for you personally, there isn't any.
You are insuring yourself strictly on a possibility, and without scientific evidence for your action.

Utter nonsense and a total strawman argument still and once more a major distraction to the point at hand, that you can't provide any evidence (to a scientific standard) for God.

Already replied above on that one.

Keep the insults up and you will be taking a holiday from GTP

Again, I was just quoting the author.
Seemed applicable...................at the time.

(but nice to see those Christian values again)

You know, I think this maybe the first thing you've said thus far, that I might could agree with.

 

[Famine]

Neither is evidence confined to a scientific standard.

Yes it is.

Science is not infallable

"Science" is just "knowledge". If you're claiming that not all knowledge is knowledge, you're going to have a problem.

If you're referring to the scientific method, then yes it is infallible - it's the only tool able to describe the entirety of reality and is tested time and time again.

It offers explanations from a limited observable and knowledgable viewpoint.

All things that can be observed (meaning "detected") and all knowledge gained to date.

When it comes to the spiritual, they are completely inept, since it is not recognizable by their methods.
Your insistence on evidence by scientific standard is akin to looking for the living among the dead.
You won't find it there.

There are many things the scientific method cannot describe. They are things that cannot ever be known, things that cannot be falsified and things that do not exist.

There is the same weight of evidence for your particular branch of "spirituality" as there is every other branch, for your religion as there is for all others. None. Do you believe in Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Set too? There's no evidence of unicorns, Thetans, fairies and Spiderman either - do you believe in all of these things too?

If not, why not?

No, I am quoting him.
That's why he authored a book.

Taking that to be reality for a second (which, let's face it, it isn't - but let's go with it)...

The book you're quoting was written by a guy - you know, a fallible, corrupted, sinful guy. How faithful was his transcription of the Holy dictation to him?

For that matter, the individual book was only included in the overall book at the decision of a completely different guy a few hundred years later - - you know, a fallible, corrupted, sinful guy. How faithful was his anthology of the books to how God wanted it?

Then of course, some guys changed the language it was written in - you know, some fallible, corrupted, sinful guys. How faithful was their translation? Some other people disagree with their translation and made their own. Which is right?


If you're quoting God, you should probably make sure you're doing so, rather than quoting some guy who quoted some guy who quoted some guy who said he was quoting God in a different language.


Incidentally, using evidence there's around a 2% annual chance of a car accident happening to me - and a 0% chance of God existing. Probabilities are also evidence.

 

[Racingworld68]

There is no God, and if there was it would be Kimi.

 

[BobK]

Ephesians 2:9
...

Psalm 14:1
...

Proverbs 1:7
...

Isaiah 64:6
...

Ephesians 2:5
...

Oh, we're playing Bible quotes again?

Can I play too?

Psalm 137
New International Version (NIV)
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Get 10 random Christians in a Room (or any other people of the same faith) and get them talking about the Guy quoting some guy who quoted some guy who quoted some guy who said he was quoting God in a different language. I bet you they will all argue and disagree and will all interpret the above differently

Jeez, Its just so daft IMO. I can understand having some faith of some higher power, as after all we do not really know but over history we could probably count a few 1000 Gods from all of the different cultures past and present with each believing that their God is the only true God! Which one of the 1000s is the God we should be worshiping and believing in, which are BS?

To me the logic is plain and simple, God and the belief in god was a prologue for science before science ever took root. The belief in God gave people answers to questions and some kind of purpose in life and hope in death that made them content and happy to follow the "words" of God, and gave people in charge (church and state) a way to control and easily influence people. It still happens today in many countries but science has started to erode the grasp of the Church especially in most Western Europe though the States still has a huge following. Becuase the west has tuned it's back on religion, many Religious institutions are upping their presence in poor 3rd world countries to increase recruits to their religions who have little else in life to look up to or for.

Science is rapidly replacing Religion for many people, but Science (on the whole) has no agenda like all Religions have, and while many people are no longer hooked on the punish/reward belief systems that most religions sell to believers, our Media/Big business is now replacing Religion as the indoctrinators of people, telling us how to live, what to buy and what to eat while science just strives understand the workings of everything and sets out to prove itself wrong.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

God just appeared to me, I'm serious.

But I can't worship him, I don't agree with his views on women,slaves,gays, the idea that sacrificing human life is what I needed or that i should love him and be his servant.

 

[dylansan]

If you're referring to the scientific method, then yes it is infallible - it's the only tool able to describe the entirety of reality and is tested time and time again.



All things that can be observed (meaning "detected") and all knowledge gained to date.



There are many things the scientific method cannot describe. They are things that cannot ever be known, things that cannot be falsified and things that do not exist.

To add to this, the scientific method is the only logically consistent way to determine truth. It is the only method by which one can decide what is truth without simultaneously allowing everything to be truth.

If I should accept Christianity as true without evidence, or even with testimonial and anecdotal evidence, or even personal experience that looks and feels like communication with God, then in order to be consistent I would have to apply that logic to any other belief that has those properties. I would be required to believe anything that both has testimony supporting it and I have experienced in some way.

If someone told me unicorns existed, and I had a dream or hallucination with unicorns in it, I would be forced to believe that unicorns exist. The only way I wouldn't is if my standard for determining truth did not apply, and if it didn't, I couldn't believe in Christianity either based on that standard. And then what happens if two incompatible beliefs fit my standards of truth? In that case, my standard of truth cannot be valid.

The scientific method is the only method that explicitly prevents two incompatible beliefs from being true. It prevents us from believing anything for which there is an alternative explanation that may also be true. If there are two possible theories explaining some occurance, the scientific method prevents us from believing a particular one until one of the two is shown to be inconsistent with reality (hence the point of testable evidence). Then, if another explanation is created that is not inconsistent with reality, I must immediately stop believing the first theory and accept that either might be true, until again, one of them is shown to be impossible.

This is why I will never be a Christian until every other possible explanation is proven false. I will always be open to the possibility that Christianity may be true, but I cannot believe it is true, I cannot be sure of it until every single alternative has been shown false, with evidence. And again, for the method to be consistent, the definition of evidence must be something that cannot prove every explanation wrong even if the explanation is true. For example, testimonial evidence cannot be included in this definition of evidence because if someone claimed that a certain explanation was false and they were lying, it would prove something wrong that isn't actually wrong. Thus, evidence must be defined as testable observations, as those cannot lie. Our understanding of them may be wrong, but we can fix that as we gain understanding and thus prevent plausible theories from being incorrectly deemed impossible, or at least revert them from that description as new understanding is created, something that can't be achieved if testimony is evidence.

And there you have a very long explanation of why the scientific method is the only consistent method to determine truth. So please stop accusing Scaff of having a "personal" definition of evidence, as he is simply using the only definition that makes sense.

 

[TheCracker]

But I can't worship him, I don't agree with his views on women,slaves,gays, the idea that sacrificing human life is what I needed or that i should love him and be his servant.

You'd be no good in the fetish community i'd imagine.

 

[Denur]

As a matter of fact, she provided the impetus for me to search out the very things I am speaking of in this thread.

Could you please explain a bit more on how she provided that impetus? Was there any doubt involved regarding the bible and if so, yours or hers? I mean no offense, I'm just trying to learn more about what makes us humans tick.

 

[Scaff]

Neither is evidence confined to a scientific standard.
That appears to be the big difference here.
Science is not infallable, yet like many Agnostics, you apparently by faith believe that it is.
It offers explanations from a limited observable and knowledgable viewpoint.
Their explanations may vary anywhere from partially wrong or right, to
completely wrong or right.
Or woefully incomplete as well.
When it comes to the spiritual, they are completely inept, since it is not recognizable by their methods.
Your insistence on evidence by scientific standard is akin to looking for the living among the dead.
You won't find it there.

Famine and others have already clearly pointed out exactly what the issues with your stand on evidence are and why you are wrong. I however doubt that will stop you moving the goalposts to suit your own ends.

Oh and I'm not agnostic so please do not address me as such.

Nor am I of the opinion that scientific if infallible, quite the opposite the cornerstone of scientific theory and evidence is to test it to destruction, to try and prove it wrong (Falsifiability), something that all your, constantly changing, standards of evidence lack.

Well since you do not believe in God, thats as good an explanation as any.
While they may share some similarities, people are not cars.

I didn't say that people were cars, I was pointing out that bodies (I didn't say human) once alive and now long dead have returned a large amount of energy back to the universe to fuel your car.

No, I am quoting him.
That's why he authored a book.

No he didn't, a range of human's who claim God told them a bunch of stuff wrote it down and its then been bastardised to suit the needs and whims of those in control of Christianity for the last 2,000 odd years.

If you wish to claim otherwise would you explain why God suddenly decided that the book of Barnabus needed to go? Oh and who did he tell to remove it and why? If its his perfect word then why has it been edited?

However you did challenge mine as compared to yours.
You could not have done that without some predetermined moral compass level.
I made the comparison based on God's determination, not mine.

No I did not, I said

"I will take my own morality and the need to be accountable for my own actions right here and now over those imposed by an unproved being and a desire to live in the clouds with him/her. No comfort blanket exists if I have to be accountable for all my actions, a bloody big one exists if I can rationalise it into 'going to' heaven if I make God happy.". That's the full quote not the paraphrased one you keep using because the point about being responsible to myself rather than a supernatural being is key to it - which I suspect is why you didn't bother with it.

To which you replied:

"Certainly a noble stance.
Eternally speaking however you will fall far short of the mark."

So at no point did I compare my morals to yours, however I do see you doing just that, and I still would like an answer to the question I posed on this.

Now you claim that this is God's determination of me, but how do you know this is God's determination on me? The only way would be if God is communicating this directly to you and he was able to judge me directly and communicate that to you. That would be a little tricky however given that God doesn't exist.

Either its your judgement on my morals (in which case its rather presumptuous and something you are certainly in no position to pass judgement on) or God is talking to you about me. Which would it be?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

You'd be no good in the fetish community i'd imagine.

I'll try anything once.

 

[Atomics]

There is zero evidence for the afterlife.

This is very an interesting statement. After thinking about it a bit about the only thing I can think of as evidence for an afterlife is near death experiences.

After weeding through explainable cases,there are a few well documented cases of near death experience reports. In these cases people had impossible things to report, like event that occured outside the building or in another room. Some of these cases are documented by medical professionals where the patient had an immediate report describing events they could not possibly know about. This suggests that people may have a spirit. Like many supernatural phenomenon, it is impossible to design an experiment to study near death experiences because of their rarity. It could also be argued that even if these experiences were proven to be real that it still wouldn't prove the existence of an afterlife.

What makes your statement very interesting is the problem of obtaining evidence. What would credible evidence for or against the existence of an afterlife look like?

The fact that people experience things even while being clinically dead can be entirely explained by the fact that sensory organs continue to function even when blood is no longer flowing.

The most convincing cases of near death experiences are the ones where the person reports things they could not have observed even if awake. These cases can't be called proof, but they are very interesting.

 

[Scaff]

In these cases people had impossible things to report, like event that occured outside the building or in another room.

Do you have a source for this, as almost every documented Near Death Experience case I've come across fails in this area (as Famine mentioned earlier in the thread, they fail the top of the cupboard test).

After all out of body experiences can and have been replicated on a repeatable basis...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=real-outof-body-experiences

....and 'awareness' of events outside a room someone is in (assuming that some of the senses are still functioning - which is common is near-death cases) could well come from hearing people discussing them.

I don't need to see its raining outside if someone mentions it when I am in the room with them.