Why I'm an atheist

[Moloch]

What evidence shows that the brain is generating false memories?

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

You can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room...  That shit did not happen!  You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it!

The fact that he claims/feels/believes it to be a real/legitimate memory means absolutely jack shit

If you read my quote on Confabulation, you would realize that is a characteristic of a false memory

This is not some "imagined event", like pretending you went on a trip to Paris... this is a false memory... completely different

[organofcorti]

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

I'm not going to waste all day debunking this nonsense for you... use google... search for "(my claim) debunked", and read what the opposition has to say about it... it's that simple

PS. You did not provide a link, and when I google "Thonnard paper", I see nothing relevant

You might try searching the quote from the paper...

Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories, we here compared phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events. Results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

PLOS is where you go to self publish a paper.

Has the paper been published by a science journal after a peer review process? If so can you please link to *that* version?

[qwik2learn]

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

Got a source for all of that?

[Moloch]

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

Got a source for all of that?

I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted...  do you read my whole post or just the first sentence?

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Michael Shermer travels to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, to strap on the "God Helmet" in neuroscientist Michael Persinger's lab that duplicates out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, alien abductions, and other paranormal phenomena.

[Gohs]

Being an atheist and presenting points is soothing while still alive and healthy, but when on the sick bed or at the point of death there is a longing for a stronger being to come in and assist. So what can be done then?

[Moloch]

Being an atheist and presenting points is soothing while still alive and healthy, but when on the sick bed or at the point of death there is a longing for a stronger being to come in and assist. So what can be done then?

Here are a couple 60 second clips of atheists explaining it to you (you could have just googled the answer like I did... how hard is it really?)

Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher Show - No death bed conversion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ7VkDGuPc

Christopher Hitchens - On deathbed conversion [2010]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E1Im3Tu1Us



I suppose I should add a clip from Madalyn ... she's my hero!
Madalyn Murray O'Hair's GOING TO HELL. - Antitheist atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGOZ9RjRP8

I don't want to be saved - I'm not interested in your ideas...

The idea which you invented has caused more misery to every human being in all ages of history than any other single idea... even war has not caused as much misery as God

[Trading]

Also: Absurdities and contradictions can be deadly if you ignore them. Your claim that awareness came from eternal nothing appears to me to be pure imagination in motion; I eagerly wait for your empirical and philosophical defense of this claim, but please do not tell me that you have defended Krauss' idea when the truth is that it is logically absurd and not backed by any evidence whatsoever.

You are confusing "nothing", as lack of awareness (being dead), with nothing as a physical vacuum with no particles (and I can accept also: with no quantum fields, even if Krauss doesn't accept this).

I use the term "nothing" and "nothingness" like many others (Kierkegaard, Unamuno, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, etc.). In my OP on this thread, I talk about death, about being a corps, without conscience. Not about our bodies' particles disappearing into nothing. I don't know if that is going to happen. Two sentences below I write "a lucky but tiny oasis of awareness that exists between two infinite deserts of nothingness".

But I already changed the text to leave that clear. I was trying to avoid being too crude.

I don't care much about what will happen to the atoms of my body. Actually, they are renovated completely every 5/7 years, so they aren't really mine.
(In due time, I'm going to write a post about the "philosophical" implication of this on my thread on meaning).

Since the main religions don't believe in resurrection of the soul on another body (and I agree with them on this point) you probably agree that before we were conceived we were nothing (we weren't a being with awareness, even if our initial atoms already existed before that).

On the survival of the conscience after death, the burden of evidence is on you. When I see a corps I can confirm he isn't aware of anything. You, or any other theist, clearly didn't fulfill it.

Your statement that "The brain cannot function (i.e. have perceptions, form memories, etc.) until blood flow is restored" is a factual assertion. I saw no testable evidence for that. As long as the neurons are alive, they can have some activity, even with no blood flow. The same happens with other cells. Actually, some still develop even after we are really dead (nails, hair).

But on my OP (it isn't accentuated, so people don't read it, point 5) I wrote: "The same hallucinations can be felt using chemicals like ketamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_use_of_ketamine#Non-lethal_manifestations), Phencyclidine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine) or Dextromethorphan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan)".

So, we have evidence that those hallucinations can be reproduced by chemicals, including the "out of the body sensation".

Just ask some junkies: they will tell you that they can fly to the other extreme of the Milky Way in a second. If sensations like these could be accepted as evidence, we would have evidence that transportation problems could be easily overcame.

But I think this issue has been discussed abundantly. I don't want to go back to it.

Krauss's theory, even if he couldn't answer everything, is a major blow against religion. He explained the origin of particles. It's no small thing.

But as you confessed, theists also can't explain everything, mainly the origin of their god. So, explanation power isn't on your side either.

[qwik2learn]

You are confusing "nothing", as lack of awareness (being dead), with nothing as a physical vacuum with no particles (and I can accept also: with no quantum fields, even if Krauss doesn't accept this).

There is no evidence that our awareness can arise from nothingness. All the evidence points to awareness being cyclical and continuous.

Since the main religions don't believe in resurrection of the soul on another body (and I agree with them on this point) you probably agree that before we were conceived we were nothing (we weren't a being with awareness, even if our initial atoms already existed before that).

No, I don't agree with that and I have made posts explaining why. Awareness is continuous and cyclical, it does not "go somewhere" upon death or upon falling asleep.

On the survival of the conscience after death, the burden of evidence is on you. When I see a corps I can confirm he isn't aware of anything. You, or any other theist, clearly didn't fulfill it.

So what about the Eisenbeiss case? What about Pam Reynolds who had an NDE during brain death and with no blood flow? What about Thonnard's study which confirmed that NDE memories are at least as real as valid memories? Each of these cases document anomalies in medical understanding which would be more simply explained by way of the survival hypothesis.

Your statement that "The brain cannot function (i.e. have perceptions, form memories, etc.) until blood flow is restored" is a factual assertion. I saw no testable evidence for that.

Comprehensive reviews on brain injury and cardiac arrest are available. They support my assertions about brain function. Statements made by skeptic Chris French and van Lommel in New Scientist magazine also support these assertions.

As long as the neurons are alive, they can have some activity, even with no blood flow. The same happens with other cells. Actually, some still develop even after we are really dead (nails, hair).

The neural activity relevant for consciousness is observed by the EEG, so with no blood flow and no EEG there cannot be consciousness as experienced by the patients. Awareness requires higher mental functioning which will always show up on the EEG (according to the physicalist model of neuroscience). Therefore, it does not matter if the neurons are alive because the EEG will in fact tell us if the brain is non-functional, and this non-functioning is the key piece of information.

But on my OP (it isn't accentuated, so people don't read it, point 5) I wrote: "The same hallucinations can be felt using chemicals like ketamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_use_of_ketamine#Non-lethal_manifestations), Phencyclidine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine) or Dextromethorphan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan)".

The primary objection to your claim is that a drug capable producing such a wide variety of "side-effects" is probably not the primary cause of such effects but is more likely an ingredient in opening up a huge area of experience which is difficult to classify.
Because NDEs contain so many elements, a number of different complementary explanations are needed to account for this complexity. But in most cases, each explanation focuses on only one element of the NDE and ignores the others.
See more:
http://www.spiritualtravel.org/OBE/nde_arguments.html

So, we have evidence that those hallucinations can be reproduced by chemicals, including the "out of the body sensation".

Actually, the evidence shows that these memories are at least as valid as real memories. As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.

Krauss's theory, even if he couldn't answer everything, is a major blow against religion. He explained the origin of particles. It's no small thing.

Actually, he was not able to explain how something (awareness) can come from nothing, which is what he set out to do. Actually this new "universe from nothing" is little different from the one offered by Isaac Asimov, so THIS POSTURING IS NOTHING NEW.

But as you confessed, theists also can't explain everything, mainly the origin of their god. So, explanation power isn't on your side either.

I confess that I cannot explain everything. You confess that all NDEs are hallucinations. If that were so, then how can you explain Thonnard's results? And do you believe that Eisenbeiss was part of a conspiracy like Moloch does?

[qwik2learn]

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

Got a source for all of that?

I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted...  do you read my whole post or just the first sentence?

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Michael Shermer travels to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, to strap on the "God Helmet" in neuroscientist Michael Persinger's lab that duplicates out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, alien abductions, and other paranormal phenomena.

Actually, the evidence shows that the memories from NDE are at least as valid as real memories. If you have a problem with the evidence, then you can critique the methods employed by the authors. Thonnard's study indicates that the memories are being generated in a valid way from valid perceptions; in fact, they must be generated in this way because the lack of EEG definitively indicates the absence of consciousness and the only thing that we know of which can generate memories that are at least as real as valid memories is consciousness. There is no scientific evidence linking NDE with hallucinations; for example, the patient from the AWARE study results had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG, so his experience cannot be dismissed as hallucinations. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the memories are being generated after the fact? Thonnard's results evidence the validity of NDE memories, whereas the God Helmet does nothing but entertain skeptics.

As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.
Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?

[Moloch]

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

Got a source for all of that?

I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted...  do you read my whole post or just the first sentence?

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Michael Shermer travels to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, to strap on the "God Helmet" in neuroscientist Michael Persinger's lab that duplicates out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, alien abductions, and other paranormal phenomena.

Actually, the evidence shows that the memories from NDE are at least as valid as real memories. If you have a problem with the evidence, then you can critique the methods employed by the authors. Thonnard's study indicates that the memories are being generated in a valid way from valid perceptions; in fact, they must be generated in this way because the lack of EEG definitively indicates the absence of consciousness and the only thing that we know of which can generate memories that are at least as real as valid memories is consciousness. There is no scientific evidence linking NDE with hallucinations; for example, the patient from the AWARE study results had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG, so his experience cannot be dismissed as hallucinations. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the memories are being generated after the fact? Thonnard's results evidence the validity of NDE memories, whereas the God Helmet does nothing but entertain skeptics.

As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.
Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?

You are wrong

I have already debunked your evidence...

I have shown why the false memories more closely resemble actual memories than an imagined event

You misunderstand the article you are citing... All evidence shows that it is a false memory (exactly like a dream)... it is not real!... it is not an "imagined event", which is NOT A MEMORY... this does not imply anything like what you are claiming... The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever

This does not give it credibility in any way... It's equivalent to a christian saying, "I know for certain that God exists"... NO! YOU DONT! THATS BULLSHIT! YOU ARE A GULLIBLE FOOL OR LIAR!

You have no clue how unreliable your memories actually are... If you think your memory is flawless you are just plain stupid... how well do you remember events from 40 years ago?  The answer is obvious to anyone 40+ years old... your memory is shit... there have been plenty of scientific studies on this

Quit pretending you know everything... you dont

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory



I previously cited SEVERAL sources debunking your claim... if you refuse to look at the sources I hand you... fuck off

You can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room...  That shit did not happen!  You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it!


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Scientific_explanation

P Z Myers similarly suggested that false memories may be generated as the brain tries to make sense of a time when consciousness did not exist.  Further wishful thinking may generate experiences confirming what a subject wants to believe and brain damage may prevent a subject recognizing that the experience was a dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

In psychiatry, Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence

Edit:

Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?

Yes you stupid mother fucker!  Did you not watch the video I linked for you twice now?!?!?

Are you such an asshole that you ask for evidence... and when I provide it multiple times, you don't even look at it?!?!?

Here you lazy asshole... I'll link it for you a fifth time (you and I both quoted the link at least twice now)... watch the fucking 6-minute video then shut the fuck up about your ignorant claims!

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

[BADecker]

The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

Got a source for all of that?

I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted...  do you read my whole post or just the first sentence?

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Michael Shermer travels to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, to strap on the "God Helmet" in neuroscientist Michael Persinger's lab that duplicates out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, alien abductions, and other paranormal phenomena.

Actually, the evidence shows that the memories from NDE are at least as valid as real memories. If you have a problem with the evidence, then you can critique the methods employed by the authors. Thonnard's study indicates that the memories are being generated in a valid way from valid perceptions; in fact, they must be generated in this way because the lack of EEG definitively indicates the absence of consciousness and the only thing that we know of which can generate memories that are at least as real as valid memories is consciousness. There is no scientific evidence linking NDE with hallucinations; for example, the patient from the AWARE study results had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG, so his experience cannot be dismissed as hallucinations. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the memories are being generated after the fact? Thonnard's results evidence the validity of NDE memories, whereas the God Helmet does nothing but entertain skeptics.

As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations.
Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?

You are wrong

I have already debunked your evidence...

I have shown why the false memories more closely resemble actual memories than an imagined event

You misunderstand the article you are citing... All evidence shows that it is a false memory... not real... it is not an "imagined event", which is NOT A MEMORY... this does not imply anything like what you are claiming... The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever

This does not give it credibility in any way... It's equivalent to a christian saying, "I know for certain that God exists"... NO! YOU DONT! THATS BULLSHIT! YOU ARE A GULLIBLE FOOL OR LIAR!

You have no clue how unreliable your memories actually are... If you think your memory is flawless you are just plain stupid... how well do you remember events from 40 years ago?  The answer is obvious to anyone 40+ years old... your memory is shit... there have been plenty of scientific studies on this

Quit pretending you know everything... you dont

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory

You can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room...  That shit did not happen!  You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it!


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Scientific_explanation

P Z Myers similarly suggested that false memories may be generated as the brain tries to make sense of a time when consciousness did not exist.  Further wishful thinking may generate experiences confirming what a subject wants to believe and brain damage may prevent a subject recognizing that the experience was a dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

In psychiatry, Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence

Now, Moloch. I don't remember most of that which I was going to post here. Just like you don't remember what the meanings of most of the words you post are. Fake memories. Imaginings. Every one of them. I wonder where the semblance of order comes from?

[magnific61]

How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?

[Losvienleg]

Gays aren't normal. Being normal mean that are like the majority. You're doing the confusion between being unormal and being discrimated. That's not because I said that they were not normal that they should be discriminated. That's another story, not the point of this subject. Seen by the way that they're not how the human was intented, they're not normal. Also, we're not animals, so comparing ourselves with them is not the best thing to do. Finally, these same animals reproduct themselves, even if gays, they just don't say in couple with their faggot boyfriend !

Are you retarded?

Anything that isn't in the majority is not normal and should be discriminated against?  What the fuck?  Where do you idiots find this bullshit?

So... if you are left-handed... fuck you... if you have freckles or red hair, fuck you... if you are black or Jewish, fuck you... if you are gay, fuck off... if you wear glasses, you deserve to die

You really need to re-think your game-plan... you just made an enemy of basically everyone... Are you in the KKK?


If you think homosexuality isn't natural... here is a link to a documentary that you won't watch, which explains everything you don't understand
Animal Homosexuality Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8

God created the man to go with the woman. Two men fucking together is disgusting. Can I even call them man ? They lost everything that made them men : honour, manliness, procreation, family. Gays derivate from the standard. Does left-handed : are against the Nation, against the perpetuation of the Race and against God's law ? No, so no hate toward them.

Yeah, BADecker, that's funny !

About the KKK, I won't reply to this ...

[Moloch]

Gays aren't normal. Being normal mean that are like the majority. You're doing the confusion between being unormal and being discrimated. That's not because I said that they were not normal that they should be discriminated. That's another story, not the point of this subject. Seen by the way that they're not how the human was intented, they're not normal. Also, we're not animals, so comparing ourselves with them is not the best thing to do. Finally, these same animals reproduct themselves, even if gays, they just don't say in couple with their faggot boyfriend !

Are you retarded?

Anything that isn't in the majority is not normal and should be discriminated against?  What the fuck?  Where do you idiots find this bullshit?

So... if you are left-handed... fuck you... if you have freckles or red hair, fuck you... if you are black or Jewish, fuck you... if you are gay, fuck off... if you wear glasses, you deserve to die

You really need to re-think your game-plan... you just made an enemy of basically everyone... Are you in the KKK?


If you think homosexuality isn't natural... here is a link to a documentary that you won't watch, which explains everything you don't understand
Animal Homosexuality Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8

God created the man to go with the woman. Two men fucking together is disgusting. Can I even call them man ? They lost everything that made them men : honour, manliness, procreation, family. Gays derivate from the standard. Does left-handed : are against the Nation, against the perpetuation of the Race and against God's law ? No, so no hate toward them.

Yeah, BADecker, that's funny !

About the KKK, I won't reply to this ...

I'll take that as a yes to questions #1 & #5

[Moloch]

How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?

You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason)

You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion... because what if it was another religion that was correct?

If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism?  Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet?  Because, "what if you're wrong?"



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.

You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.

Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

[magnific61]

How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?

You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason)

You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion... because what if it was another religion that was correct?

If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism?  Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet?  Because, "what if you're wrong?"



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.

You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.

Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

If i am wrong i just waste world life time but if you're wrong you exchange infinity for temporary

[qwik2learn]

The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever

Hey, I don't think you comprehend the Thonnard paper at all! You should quote the text that backs up your point, even if it is not this particular paper. I am mostly interested in discussing with OP his claim that our awareness came from nothing and will return to nothing.

Another interest of mine is:
Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?
Could you tell me where the God Helmet experience fits on the Greyson scale? I am talking about NDE, but I can tell that Shermer is talking about OBE, so I am not interested in the video unless I know that the experience scores high on the Greyson scale.

As far as the evidence goes, you should read it all and only then can you make valid conclusions based on knowledge; you won't get this knowledge by having faith in Randi's claim that all mediums are frauds and using the existence of his Prize as the evidence.

The OP made this claim:
"Your awareness comes from nothing and returns to nothing."
And also this one:
"We simpl[y] emerged on a random universe with laws that allowed for this to happen".

But these claims can be refuted with empirical methods.

Actually, simple mechanism can’t yield the brain, and there is plenty of evidence that proves this. I quoted four points by Stuart Hammerroff.

If atheists like the OP are so certain that awareness comes from nothing, why don't they have any idea about how awareness actually got here?

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

[Moloch]

The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever

You should quote the text that backs up your point, even if it is not this particular paper

I have already posted the video for you 5 times... I refuse to do so again...

I also linked you at least 5 sources from 5 different websites...

If you cannot be bothered read any of my supporting evidence, you are not worth debating

Feel free to do some research about the subject... I am not going to entertain your ignorance any longer... I'm done with this topic

If you have a question about what non-religious people believe about reality and why, refer yourself to google... google will (hopefully) fix your ignorance

[Moloch]

How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?

You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason)

You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion...
because what if it was another religion that was correct?

If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism?  Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet?  Because, "what if you're wrong?"



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.

You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.

Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

If i am wrong i just waste world life time but if you're wrong you exchange infinity for temporary

You completely missed the point of my post, which you quoted, try reading it again

[BADecker]

How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?

You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason)

You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion...
because what if it was another religion that was correct?

If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism?  Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet?  Because, "what if you're wrong?"



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.

You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.

Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.

There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

If i am wrong i just waste world life time but if you're wrong you exchange infinity for temporary

You completely missed the point of my post, which you quoted, try reading it again

Actually, the history of the coming into existence of the Bible, along with the sense that the Bible conveys, along with the truths that it tells which science and archaeology are just finding out, along with the example of the nation of Israel, proves the Bible to be a miracle of existence that couldn't have come about if God was not guiding it. Not so with the other religions. Parts of them perhaps, in some minor ways. But not nearly as completely as the Bible.