Scientific proof that God exists?

[(oYo)]

[1714323098]

1714323098

[1714323098]

1714323098

[1714323098]

1714323098

[1714323098]

1714323098

[1714323098]

1714323098

[BADecker]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

[Buffer Overflow]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

Because they might be different to those. Plus if you write them down now you cannot change them at a later date to win a losing argument.

Very disappointed.

[BADecker]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

Because they might be different to those. Plus if you write them down now you cannot change them at a later date to win a losing argument.

Very disappointed.

That's the point. You want me to post every definition in the world just so that I can use it later when needed. Just take it as it stands. The definitions that are out there are the definitions that I use. I use them as I find them or need them. Certainly I don't know all the definitions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo

[the joint]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

Because there are generally multiple meanings for a given word in the dictionary, and in previous posts you have utilized multiple definitions for the same word without letting anyone else know that you're changing between them.  I can't look in the dictionary and just assume my selection is the one you selected.  The whole point of setting a definition is so that your argument stays consistent.  What doesn't change (and never has, nor ever will) are the rules of logic, and these rules state that consistency is of primary importance to a logical argument.  Inconsistency --> invalidity --> unsound.

[BADecker]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

Because there are generally multiple meanings for a given word in the dictionary, and in previous posts you have utilized multiple definitions for the same word without letting anyone else know that you're changing between them.  I can't look in the dictionary and just assume my selection is the one you selected.  The whole point of setting a definition is so that your argument stays consistent.  What doesn't change (and never has, nor ever will) are the rules of logic, and these rules state that consistency is of primary importance to a logical argument.  Inconsistency --> invalidity --> unsound.

I have posted dictionary definitions that have more than one definition included within the definition.

Nobody knows entirely the rules of logic. Nor does anyone know for a fact that they don't change.

My posting isn't with the idea of writing a book. If someone doesn't get the gist of what I am saying from what I say, that's okay with me. Most of the time it is because they don't want to.

Don't worry about it too much. You'll survive.

[the joint]

You think this way because you don't know what scientific evidence and proof really are.

Here we go again, changing offical word definitions around to hammer your square peg proof into the official round hole.

There you go again, ignoring the evidence that is all around you.

Of course. Who of sound mind wouldn't ignore fallacious evidence?

All right. I was too hard on the atheists. They are not really idiots. They are simply not sound of mind.

To set the context, I don't mind if you define evidence, science, scientific method, and proof in your own way, so long as I know what you think they are.

Can you define each in your own way so that I can refer to the post in the future?

That's easy. All language except legal language (in the U.S.) is subject to change based on common usage. Since this is so, simply use the dictionary definition that you want, or the common usage definition that has not made it to the dictionary yet.

Why not just use your own words as you was asked?

I thought about that. But why waste the time posting a bunch of dictionary and encyclopedia and Youtube and Internet definitions when anybody who is forum savvy can look these things up themselves?

Because there are generally multiple meanings for a given word in the dictionary, and in previous posts you have utilized multiple definitions for the same word without letting anyone else know that you're changing between them.  I can't look in the dictionary and just assume my selection is the one you selected.  The whole point of setting a definition is so that your argument stays consistent.  What doesn't change (and never has, nor ever will) are the rules of logic, and these rules state that consistency is of primary importance to a logical argument.  Inconsistency --> invalidity --> unsound.

I have posted dictionary definitions that have more than one definition included within the definition.

Nobody knows entirely the rules of logic. Nor does anyone know for a fact that they don't change.

My posting isn't with the idea of writing a book. If someone doesn't get the gist of what I am saying from what I say, that's okay with me. Most of the time it is because they don't want to.

Don't worry about it too much. You'll survive.

1)  You have not posted a consistent definition for "science" (evident by the fact you interchangeably refer to it as both a method and a data set without knowing when you switch between the two), and the ones you have posted for "proof" do not match the evidence you describe as such.  Additionally the scientific method is precise and unchanging (i.e. it is absolutely certain to know when you have violated it).  In other words, the definition for the scientific method is also unchanging.

2)  Yes, some of us do absolutely know the rules of logic, and one of those rules is that it is concrete and unchanging -- if it weren't, then you could never be certain about anything, ever (i.e. if that were the case, you might as well just never think or speak).  If you don't know the rules -- and this much is absurdly clear --  then that's your own lack of understanding.  You would be wise to acknowledge that people know more about it than you do.  Sorry, but the truth doesn't care how right you think you are.  Think about the fact you don't even know what an inductive fallacy is, and that you thought it meant something about poor electrical superconductors.  You need to assume less and learn more.

3)  No.  It's more like you don't care about the truth, but only care that everything reinforces what you already believe is true.  Even the Christians and church-goers in this thread think you're totally off your rocker.  That in itself doesn't totally mean you are, but you'd have to be a fool to ignore the "evidence."  Nobody gets what you're saying because it doesn't make logical sense, and so what we do know is that whatever you are trying to say is wrong.  That which is logically inconsistent is irrelevant to reality.  This is another logical rule.

4)   Um, okay.

[BADecker]

4)   Um, okay.

Glad you're okay.

[1aguar]

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.
The evidence cannot be refuted because the skeptical arguments are flawed to the point that the burden of proof now rests upon skeptics; for example, since there is no reason to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction, skeptics are left without a mechanism to explain the objective phenomena of NDE. From this state of affairs comes the conclusion that there are no better hypotheses than Survival.

Scientific method:- Observe a phenomenon. Ask questions about it. Create an hypothesis. Conduct experiments on the hypothesis. Draw conclusion from results.
Proof:- Evidence(s) that cannot be refuted.

The Survival hypothesis has been proven by way of a refutation of the "brain dysfunction" hypothesis. To believe in this latter hypothesis is to be mistaken and ignorant of the evidence. Rarely, a skeptic will admit that s/he is prejudiced against the evidence presented, but this is really a form of ignorance held up by a desire to cling to one's existing Belief-System (B.S.)

As scientists, we should evaluate the best available hypothesis, and Survival stands up to all scrutiny while skeptical (humanist) arguments do not. Therefore, I have posted the scientific proof that discredits humanism (atheism) and develops an afterlife-concept with the Survival hypothesis as a starting point. Another good starting point for understanding rebirth is the "Pleiades Connection" series of Phoenix Journals.

"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?" --Atheism and Secularity, Page 10 (2009)

Therefore, atheism can presumably be refuted by refuting humanism; indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence supporting survival of the personality:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Why would one live "as if" there is no afterlife when the evidence against humanism is so plentiful? Just check it out for yourself!

[Buffer Overflow]

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

I was of the understanding that the only rule of being Atheist was their lack of belief in God. It doesn't say any rules about believing in the afterlife or not.

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.

Scientfic proof of what?

[1aguar]

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

I was of the understanding that the only rule of being Atheist was their lack of belief in God. It doesn't say any rules about believing in the afterlife or not.

Consider this:
"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?" --Atheism and Secularity, Page 10 (2009)
Humanists do not have an afterlife-concept, they only recognize human life "here and now".
Even so-called "Buddhist atheists" lack an afterlife-concept, this is contrary to what Buddha taught.
I have never found an atheist with an afterlife-concept, and presumably this is impossible because then the atheist in question would not be a humanist, so therefore not an atheist.

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.

Scientfic proof of what?

Survival hypothesis.

[popcorn1]

YER RIGHT WHAT EVER

[Buffer Overflow]

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

I was of the understanding that the only rule of being Atheist was their lack of belief in God. It doesn't say any rules about believing in the afterlife or not.

Consider this:
"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?" --Atheism and Secularity, Page 10 (2009)
Humanists do not have an afterlife-concept, they only recognize human life "here and now".
Even so-called "Buddhist atheists" lack an afterlife-concept, this is contrary to what Buddha taught.
I have never found an atheist with an afterlife-concept, and presumably this is impossible because then the atheist in question would not be a humanist, so therefore not an atheist.

I guess that makes sense. The only issue I have is how have you linked the afterlife is connected with God?
If an Athiest can believe our life now happens without God, and afterlife is just simply a change of state, presumably an athiest can just as easily believe our next state can exist without God as well.
How can you proof God has anything to do with an afterlife?

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.

Scientfic proof of what?

Survival hypothesis.

Does the survival hypothesis proof God exists?

[celestio]

An atheist can believe in an afterlife but not gods(s). An atheist can believe in ghosts but not gods(s). Those things do not have to be linked with any sort of deity.

The definition of Atheism is a lack of belief, or disbelief in God(s). Nothing else, so spirits, an afterlife, etc, are all applicable to an atheist.

[1aguar]

An atheist can believe in an afterlife but not gods(s). An atheist can believe in ghosts but not gods(s). Those things do not have to be linked with any sort of deity.

False. All atheists are humanists (since what else could they be??), and all humanists lack an afterlife-concept. Therefore, all atheists lack an afterlife-concept. Anyway, the point is that the afterlife has been proven by scientific methods, so this subject should be addressed as it is important for human life and our understanding of the higher realms.

I guess that makes sense. The only issue I have is how have you linked the afterlife is connected with God?

Maybe I have answered this question below; if not, we can discuss, but ultimately it is up to you to find out for yourself how this all plays out; I have provided some resources which I feel are valid.

If an Athiest can believe our life now happens without God, and afterlife is just simply a change of state, presumably an athiest can just as easily believe our next state can exist without God as well.

No, this presumption is invalidated because it pre-supposes a type of life-force or personality that persists (survives) and therefore is more fundamental than matter, which then immediately poses the question of what caused the rebirth to begin with. Since it is the life-force (soul) which is more fundamental than the body (matter), the atheist would invariably conclude (per Herbert Spencer's "First Principles") that his rebirth is self-caused, and this conclusion immediately elevates the atheist to the position of god, just as is explained in "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are".

How can you proof God has anything to do with an afterlife?

I have proven that all atheists are mistaken in that they lack an afterlife-concept even when that concept has been proven scientifically. Since there are only two possible answers to the God-question, I have just cast serious doubt upon one possible answer by showing that all people in the non-God camp are mistaken in some way. An atheist could only assert a mistaken position without some way to address the evidence, but as I have mentioned the evidence cannot really be refuted.

Does the survival hypothesis proof God exists?

No, you would need to take the hypothesis further and evaluate your own afterlife-concept in order to reach a God-concept. I suggest the book "SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD" (PDF is linked in the image below) along with the other volumes in this series:

Germain details more Cosmic information about the nature and structure of God and the Universe.
Topics include:

* Reincarnation cycling and immortality
* Inter-workings between the Divided and the Undivided Universe
* The illusion of disappearance and repetition
* God created ONE basic form
* The Light Wave Principle
* Desire based upon knowledge
* Why action/reaction are equal, opposite and simultaneous
* What is motion?
* What is time?
* The principles of manifestation
* How to control matter
* The Voidance Principle
* Senses vs. knowing
* Thought transference
* Compression and expansion
* Giving and receiving principles
* Soul-will vs. ego-will
* Radiation and generation
* More on cause and effect
* Perfection of God's Law
* Purpose of Creation
* The Power and meaning of decree vs. prayer

[celestio]

I guess that makes sense. The only issue I have is how have you linked the afterlife is connected with God?

Maybe I have answered this question below; if not, we can discuss, but ultimately it is up to you to find out for yourself how this all plays out; I have provided some resources which I feel are valid.

If an Athiest can believe our life now happens without God, and afterlife is just simply a change of state, presumably an athiest can just as easily believe our next state can exist without God as well.

No, this presumption is invalidated because it pre-supposes a type of life-force or personality that persists (survives) and therefore is more fundamental than matter, which then immediately poses the question of what caused the rebirth to begin with. Since it is the life-force (soul) which is more fundamental than the body (matter), the atheist would invariably conclude (per Herbert Spencer's "First Principles") that his rebirth is self-caused, and this conclusion immediately elevates the atheist to the position of god, just as is explained in "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are".

How can you proof God has anything to do with an afterlife?

I have proven that all atheists are mistaken in that they lack an afterlife-concept even when that concept has been proven scientifically. Since there are only two possible answers to the God-question, I have just cast serious doubt upon one possible answer by showing that all people in the non-God camp are mistaken in some way. An atheist could only assert a mistaken position without some way to address the evidence, but as I have mentioned the evidence cannot really be refuted.

Does the survival hypothesis proof God exists?

No, you would need to take the hypothesis further and evaluate your own afterlife-concept in order to reach a God-concept. I suggest the book "SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD" (PDF is linked in the image below) along with the other volumes in this series:

Germain details more Cosmic information about the nature and structure of God and the Universe.
Topics include:

* Reincarnation cycling and immortality
* Inter-workings between the Divided and the Undivided Universe
* The illusion of disappearance and repetition
* God created ONE basic form
* The Light Wave Principle
* Desire based upon knowledge
* Why action/reaction are equal, opposite and simultaneous
* What is motion?
* What is time?
* The principles of manifestation
* How to control matter
* The Voidance Principle
* Senses vs. knowing
* Thought transference
* Compression and expansion
* Giving and receiving principles
* Soul-will vs. ego-will
* Radiation and generation
* More on cause and effect
* Perfection of God's Law
* Purpose of Creation
* The Power and meaning of decree vs. prayer

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Except that there are other things than matter that occupy the universe. Light for example is a form of energy, and not matter. An atheist can believe the human soul to be a type of energy as well and the same goes for an afterlife, etc.

I'm sorry but your points aren't valid.

[Buffer Overflow]

I have proven that all atheists are mistaken in that they lack an afterlife-concept even when that concept has been proven scientifically.

If you've just proven the atheists wrong, then you've just proven God exists. But proof of God is impossible. I'm not sure what, but there's something not quite right here.

[1aguar]

Hi Buffer Overflow,
Do you have the patience to evaluate the evidence? If so, then you will surely conclude that humanism is false. Now, if you are an atheist and have just seen that humanism is false, you will probably ask "What are the alternatives to humanism?" and "Will these alternatives satisfy a patient and thinking man?" To answer this, it is helpful to look back at the history of humanist and atheist thought...

An atheist can believe the human soul to be a type of energy as well.

I have edited my post above; please take a look before reading further.

Your claim is false because all atheists are humanists who lack an afterlife-concept, so no atheist can believe in a soul. An atheist who is not a humanist has rejected man as guarantor of knowledge, so this atheist has no knowledge, but since one cannot deny the experiences of others, it is still helpful to explore the objective phenomena of NDE, which often involves an experience of God.

Faithfulness must be directed to Man or God for it is Man that has usurped the place of God in the history of philosophy and humanism; Man has done so by declaring himself capable of answering the god-question as well as scientific questions, so Man took the place of God due to the acceptance of rationalism.

Atheism cannot be re-defined as "a way out of any and all ideological systems" because it is actually an answer to the god-question and it is defined in the context of rationalism; to re-define atheism in this way is to declare not only the death of God but also the death of Man. The change of definitions is very relevant when considering NDE, a uniquely personal experience which provides hard evidence for the afterlife; it is a fruitful field of study for those seeking to understand Man and God, as well as man's anxieties, sufferings, and revolts--none of which can be distanced from the reality-context in which he finds himself. Man must take responsibility for world events, but Man will not succeed in doing this by merely crucifying the ego. In making this post, I have read part of the Introduction to "An Atheism that Is Not Humanist Emerges in French Thought", and have concluded that the only way back to a rational philosophy is to resurrect God and responsibly acknowledge the evidence before us; since these non-humanist atheists do agree that man exists in a reality far greater and more complicated than he could understand, one can begin comprehending the higher realms by reading the evidence at near-death.com and Phoenix Journals, but only if one has faith in Man as guarantor of knowledge.

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

[celestio]

Hi Buffer Overflow,
Do you have the patience to evaluate the evidence? If so, then you will surely conclude that humanism is false. Now, if you are an atheist and have just seen that humanism is false, you will probably ask "What are the alternatives to humanism?" and "Will these alternatives satisfy a patient and thinking man?" To answer this, it is helpful to look back at the history of humanist and atheist thought...

An atheist can believe the human soul to be a type of energy as well.

I have edited my post above; please take a look before reading further.

Your claim is false because all atheists are humanists who lack an afterlife-concept, so no atheist can believe in a soul. An atheist who is not a humanist has rejected man as guarantor of knowledge, so this atheist has no knowledge, but since one cannot deny the experiences of others, it is still helpful to explore the objective phenomena of NDE, which often involves an experience of God.

Faithfulness must be directed to Man or God for it is Man that has usurped the place of God in the history of philosophy and humanism; Man has done so by declaring himself capable of answering the god-question as well as scientific questions, so Man took the place of God due to the acceptance of rationalism.

Atheism cannot be re-defined as "a way out of any and all ideological systems" because it is actually an answer to the god-question and it is defined in the context of rationalism; to re-define atheism in this way is to declare not only the death of God but also the death of Man. The change of definitions is very relevant when considering NDE, a uniquely personal experience which provides hard evidence for the afterlife; it is a fruitful field of study for those seeking to understand Man and God, as well as man's anxieties, sufferings, and revolts--none of which can be distanced from the reality-context in which he finds himself. Man must take responsibility for world events, but Man will not succeed in doing this by merely crucifying the ego. In making this post, I have read part of the Introduction to "An Atheism that Is Not Humanist Emerges in French Thought", and have concluded that the only way back to a rational philosophy is to resurrect God and responsibly acknowledge the evidence before us; since these non-humanist atheists do agree that man exists in a reality far greater and more complicated than he could understand, one can begin comprehending the higher realms by reading the evidence at near-death.com and Phoenix Journals, but only if one has faith in Man as guarantor of knowledge.

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You've stated that Atheist's can't believe in souls or an afterlife as those things aren't based in matter. I responded by saying the Universe is not only composed of matter, hence it's possible for Atheists to believe in a soul or afterlife that is composed of energy(Just like light or heat). You have not refuted that(Since you can't).

I've looked at the site you posted, near-death.com, and if that's your "proof", then goodbye. I'm not gonna bother responding anymore. Yes, people who claimed to have had NDE's usually had higher than average oxygen levels, a feeling of the loss of the fear of death afterwords, and the majority have had some religious/spiritual belief. See anything interesting there? You and others making the claim that NDE's are some sort of proof for an afterlife is rather silly. I can easily make a counterclaim that NDE's are the body's reaction of having experienced or simulated to experience "death", and the NDE itself is just a false, hyper-realistic memory. Some drugs even produce similar effects that people claimed to experience in NDE(Which means it may have a empirical foundation, and not be related to anything "spiritual" or any afterlife at all).

You're making drastic conclusions with minuscule data, your entire "theory" is false or at least cannot be proven at all at this point.

[1aguar]

Hi celestio,
I hope you will stay and chat until our main disagreements are resolved...

You've stated that Atheist's can't believe in souls or an afterlife as those things aren't based in matter. I responded by saying the Universe is not only composed of matter, hence it's possible for Atheists to believe in a soul or afterlife that is composed of energy(Just like light or heat). You have not refuted that(Since you can't).

I have stated that atheists cannot believe in souls because humanists lack a concept of the afterlife, not because souls are not material.
For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent.

The energy you refer to is properly called "spirit", defined as a creative force which enables the birth of entities into the "material plane". If the existence of this spirit is a belief and not (yet) knowledge, then it is (so far) either unjustified or untrue or both. This leaves the atheist "still mistaken" until s/he acquires the justification for this belief; in other words, the concept is still inert (and the belief is unjustified) until it is recognized for what it is.

I propose that a rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about nature spirits, ancestor spirits, and the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.

I've looked at the site you posted, near-death.com, and if that's your "proof", then goodbye. I'm not gonna bother responding anymore.

You are in a rush to exit this discussion? It's too bad because apparently you did not review all 52 points:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Yes, people who claimed to have had NDE's usually had higher than average oxygen levels, a feeling of the loss of the fear of death afterwords, and the majority have had some religious/spiritual belief. See anything interesting there?

I see many interesting things in the other points that you did not mention...

You and others making the claim that NDE's are some sort of proof for an afterlife is rather silly. I can easily make a counterclaim that NDE's are the body's reaction of having experienced or simulated to experience "death", and the NDE itself is just a false, hyper-realistic memory.

Your counterclaim lacks merit since it is without evidence to support it, as there is no reason (evidence) to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction; this tactic is typical of pseudo-skeptics. What is asserted without evidence may (easily) be dismissed without evidence.

Some drugs even produce similar effects that people claimed to experience in NDE(Which means it may have a empirical foundation, and not be related to anything "spiritual" or any afterlife at all).

OK, let's hypothesize as you are saying, that there is some kind of brain dysfunction that is causing NDE. What are we to make of these facts:
1) There is no reason (evidence) to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction.
2) NDEs are different from hallucinations.
3) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.
4) NDEs change people unlike hallucinations and dreams.
5) NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

These points are from the near-death page and they discredit your faulty hypothesis; I want you to consider this point in particular:

Sociologist Dr. Allan Kellehear states that some scientific theories are often presented as the most logical, factual, objective, credible, and progressive possibilities, as opposed to the allegedly subjective, superstitious, abnormal, or dysfunctional views of mystics. The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented as if they were scientific (Kellehear, 1996, 120). Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.

You're making drastic conclusions with minuscule data, your entire "theory" is false or at least cannot be proven at all at this point.

Actually, with 52 points supporting the theory, it certainly does have merit and has advanced the fields of medical science, psychology, and philosophy; People having NDEs have even brought back scientific discoveries (!); what cannot be proven is your counterclaim about some alternative mechanism that does not involve survival, as the skeptical hypotheses are either not valid or have been refuted with these 52 points; you can read more about the changing tides in mind-science in the book "Irreducible Mind", which supports the holonomic theory of mind also mentioned on the near-death page.

Once, atheism meant the opposition to, the resistance against god(s). Now, it only means freedom, to establish new norms and new institutions, and to tear them down and establish new ones again. I think the pseudo-skeptics are doing a disservice to atheists. Atheists should read more before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence.