Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

midlandsmissus

smcgiff wrote: »

Midlandmissus,

Would you not look down on someone that believed women should not be allowed to drive, or if raped that it was their own fault if they had not travelled with a male relative?

Of course I don't agree with any of that, just as much as I dont agree with the severe abuses that went on within the Catholic Church.

I more mean, I would talk to anyone from any faith, and not look down on them for being any religion, we're all human beings.

woodoo

Gauss wrote: »

For me it didn't really change as I was 9 or 10 when I first found out but as the years went by I think it became more apparent that at some stage my family would be gone forever, kind of made me appreciate the present moment more, that happiness is now, not some abstract time in the future.

No because i don't know if there is no God.

Niles

Dunno, I just log into my hotmail account on the browser, don't use Outlook anymore...

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

Ya I talk to everyone like that. Humor don't you know. Not arrogance cheers.
You've shown me that you can google pseudo which is great but still doesn't help me understand this "Calling me a pseudo - believer is somewhat ironic give all the athiest venting about religion on here.". I'm a bit fan of irony so maybe I'm missing my morning coffee.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by individual thinking. Logical thinking would make sense. Individual thinking doesn't mean anything necessarily.
Studying spirituality sounds pretty vague. Studying what exactly? How did logic bring you to this conclusion, and do you have a link to those scientific studies?

By very definition, calling me a pseudo-believer is the most illogical thing an atheist could say. Do you not see that?

Do you ever think that confined religion and atheism might be the two extremes of a whole spectrum of beliefs, and there is a lot in the middle?

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

To be honest I think people think it should have been phrased: 'For anyone on here who has come to the belief there is no God, how has your outlook on life changed'.

Not ' Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God' on a public forum with a variety of beliefs.

Unfortunate phrasing does not mean smugness.

gbee

Rasheed wrote: »

I can understand people not wanting their children to be taught about religion but to compare Santa to God is laughable.

It's comparing a lie to a lie.

It teaches children that it's OK to lie and encourages dishonesty to achieve rewards.

Santa and God are not being compared as such, though the boundary lines with the magic associated with Santa certainly has comparisons, all the more reason to exercise caution with children.

midlandsmissus

gbee wrote: »

It's comparing a lie to a lie.

It teaches children that it's OK to lie and encourages dishonesty to achieve rewards.

Santa and God are not being compared as such, though the boundary lines with the magic associated with Santa certainly has comparisons, all the more reason to exercise caution with children.

Just wondering if you think theres any comparison between religious forcing religion on their children and you influencing yours with your belefs?

St.Spodo

I made quite a quick transition from believer to smug atheist to apathetic non-believer, in which time my outlook on life has changed very little. My sense of moral judgement was never predicated upon my tenuous links to Catholicism, nor is it derived from my lack of belief.

gbee

Feathers wrote: »

Are you waiting for a "Such as?" response, or you'd prefer not to talk about it

IMO, there is no point, it's like the car that drives up or down the same same street, some people will think it's just the reverse of going the same way, or getting the same mileage on the same stretch of road.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right so far I have said:
I'm not part of any religion, never have been.
I believe in god and spirituality (there's a whole HUGE spirituality movement OUTSIDE of religion, look it up)
I would never look down on anyone else no matter what they believe in.

Where exactly do you have the problem with?

Calling me a pseudo - believer is somewhat ironic give all the athiest venting about religion on here.

Are you saying if you dare to think for yourself outside of set religions you're a 'pseudo - believer'? :rolleyes:There is an extreme irony there because you as an atheist are in fact saying those in religions are 'real believers', which is a weird point to argue coming from an atheist.

Science is now starting to have alot of different studies on the afterlife by the way.

I didn't mention religion in my post, I talked about belief, which I think encompasses spirituality...

My problem is your expectation that people show your belief the same respect as they show relativity, evolution or the big bang theory despite the fact that those have been debated and scrutinised and backed up with evidence and yours is just bits and pieces you've borrowed/cobbled together and chosen to believe yourself.

I used pseudo because of the vague airy belief you describe as spiritualism rather than the clear doctrine that established religions have.

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

By very definition, calling me a pseudo-believer is the most illogical thing an atheist could say. Do you not see that?

Do you ever think that confined religion and atheism might be the two extremes of a whole spectrum of beliefs, and there is a lot in the middle?

(I was looking for the irony, I'm still not seeing it, or links to studies proving there is an afterlife. Would still like to see those.)

I went over what I think of pseudo-belief in something in a previous post. You yourself are now making assumptions for what an atheists views on different religions are. Do you see any hypocrisy in that given your own argument?

Atheism isn't a belief. It isn't part of any spectrum.

The biggest fallacy in your defense of belief is that there is a spectrum, which is something someone with real belief in something would disagree with. Religious belief is right or wrong by definition. To say there is a defensible spectrum of belief is to say that your own belief is and has to be wrong or that all belief is correct, which again goes completely against the idea of any kind of coherent belief. It's just wishy washy cack.

gbee

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just wondering if you think theres any comparison between religious forcing religion on their children and you influencing yours with your belefs?

Well, I believe it's child abuse to bring any child up in any religion.

I believe it should be a fundamental human right and written into the child protection act.

My children were told the truth, simple as. As I've previously posted, some are religious today, but that's their choice and it should be an adult decision to join and or follow any religion.

Rasheed

gbee wrote: »

It's comparing a lie to a lie.

It teaches children that it's OK to lie and encourages dishonesty to achieve rewards.

Santa and God are not being compared as such, though the boundary lines with the magic associated with Santa certainly has comparisons, all the more reason to exercise caution with children.

I get what your saying but I completely disagree.

What did you tell your children if at a young age, they asked where they came from? Did you proceed to tell them the ins and outs of reproduction?

I got told many a White lie when I was a child, mostly to protect my innocence yet I was still brought up to know that dishonesty was wrong.

I never held any of those white lies against my parents.

midlandsmissus

gbee wrote: »

Well, I believe it's child abuse to bring any child up in any religion.

I believe it should be a fundamental human right and written into the child protection act.

My children were told the truth, simple as. As I've previously posted, some are religious today, but that's their choice and it should be an adult decision to join and or follow any religion.

It's just interesting to me, because I was brought up by parents with the same non- beliefs as yourself, and I also turned to being a believer as an adult.

Every parent influences their child to some extent, but ultimately that person makes their own decision.

bbam

gbee wrote: »

It teaches children that it's OK to lie and encourages dishonesty to achieve rewards.

So, your saying that having children believe in Santa is encouraging dishonesty? And you really think that? I find that an incredibly sad post, almost troubling.

Parents introduce their children to the notion of Santa to add some extra special magic to their lives, to see them filled with a sense of awe and joy.

You intimate that it becomes something bad and negative, how sad that is your view of a truly wonderful and beautiful time in a child's life.

I do agree that excessive commercialisation can be allowed to take the shine of Santa, but some people insist in doing everything to excess.

gbee

gbee wrote: »

It teaches children that it's OK to lie and encourages dishonesty to achieve rewards.

It teaches children to question things they're given without proof, and that adults sometimes make up things

anncoates

These conversations almost make you break out in phantom acne and develop a reedy, student whine just from reading them.

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

(I was looking for the irony, I'm still not seeing it, or links to studies proving there is an afterlife. Would still like to see those.)

I went over what I think of pseudo-belief in something in a previous post. You yourself are now making assumptions for what an atheists views on different religions are. Do you see any hypocrisy in that given your own argument?

Atheism isn't a belief. It isn't part of any spectrum.

The biggest fallacy in your defense of belief is that there is a spectrum, which is something someone with real belief in something would disagree with. Religious belief is right or wrong by definition. To say there is a defensible spectrum of belief is to say that your own belief is and has to be wrong or that all belief is correct, which again goes completely against the idea of any kind of coherent belief. It's just wishy washy cack.

To turn it on you: how can there be atheism without the idea of God? There can't be, therefore they are inter-related and there is a spectrum. Belief -> non belief.

Seeing as you can't quite seem to grasp this point, allow me to spell it out for you:

An atheist calling me a pseudo- believer, i.e. 'a false believer' is saying that there are real believers. Therefore the atheist is saying that there are real believers in a God he doesn't believe in.

Re. the studies, I do believe I said there are alot of scientific studies being undertaken now on the afterlife, to show that science is indeed taking the subject seriously. Do look them up yourself. I never said there are ' studies proving there is an afterlife', as if I would be so arrogant!

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just wondering if you think theres any comparison between religious forcing religion on their children and you influencing yours with your belefs?

Well. Forcing and influencing are totally different to start with.

midlandsmissus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well. Forcing and influencing are totally different to start with.

Is there much of a much? I was brought up by atheists who definitely had me convinced that other children were stupid.

I respect that they let me pick my own religion when I was grown up, but I definitely wasnt free to think as we were told how ridiculous it was to believe in God and to do so was stupid.

There should be a child best practice in these things.

Probably the best thing to say to a child is what some peoples idea of God is, what different people believe in, and that it is totally up to you to decide what you want to believe or not believe in.nd let everybody do what they bloody well want.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

An atheist calling me a pseudo- believer, i.e. 'a false believer' is saying that there are real believers. Therefore the atheist is saying that there are real believers in a God he doesn't believe in.

There are people that have a clear understanding of what they believe in and those that don't. There are also many people who would say they follow a particular belief but not follow most of the doctrine.

A real believer is not necessarily a person who believes in something real.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Re. the studies, I do believe I said there are alot of scientific studies being undertaken now on the afterlife, to show that science is indeed taking the subject seriously. Do look them up yourself. I never said there are ' studies proving there is an afterlife', as if I would be so arrogant!

You mentioned these studies, you should provide references to them. Also, these studies may simply be attempting to definitively refute the possibility or they may be completely lacking scientific merit.

midlandsmissus

anncoates wrote: »

These conversations almost make you break out in phantom acne and develop a reedy, student whine just from reading them.

I, myself have a headache.

These arguments never work because logic and emotion/spirituality have not any single area of common ground. It is very hard to bridge the gap between them.

I'll just say that science says energy never dies, it can only be transformed from one form to another...

IvySlayer

Regarding the Bible, you don't take it seriously as a moral guide, it's just the good bits you picked out. You just ignore the barbarism and edit it to suit yourself. And the Bible doesn't allow you to do that.

I bet Philogos eats lobster and pork even though the Bible says you can't. The bible isn't your moral guide, you have enough sense yourself to distinguish between good and bad.

I have never believed in a God, nor will I ever. I have my own mind.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'll just say that science says energy never dies, it can only be transformed from one form to another...

I'll just say that you understand very very little science.

Grayson

Shryke wrote: »

I'd like to see these scientific studies please. (Ghost Busters wasn't a scientific study)

There were three scientists in Ghostbusters.

philologos wrote: »

Secondly, concerning Jesus and the Gospel - we have eyewitness testimony of these events. This eyewitness testimony mentions specific, places, events and people, and this could have been examined by anyone in the first century, and if it didn't hold up, it could have been widely refuted in the first century also. Yet we see no such accounts of this.

Thirdly, the New Testament text is the most authentic in the ancient world, it has more manuscript evidence to show that it wasn't significantly altered. If I can't trust the New Testament then it's likely that I can't trust any other text in ancient history either. If you look at my "Why trust the Bible?" link in my signature you'll see exactly why I can trust the Bible as a reliable source?

Fourthly, the Biblical narrative concerning creation, sin / wrongdoing and the ultimate restoration of Creation makes much better sense than any secular explanation of morality that I've seen which takes the relativist / postmodern approach of saying "what's right for you is right for you, and what's wrong for you is wrong for you" rather than saying that things are objectively right and wrong. The whole atheistic relativist morality falls apart at the first hurdle. What about fieldshooting people in a city centre for a Sunday lunchtime activity? Who are you to say that this is wrong, after what's right for you is only right for you, this could be right for me? Unless of course there is an objective law giver and an objective judge.

Fifthly, I've seen the impact that Jesus has on both me and others.

For points 2,and 3 replace bible with koran and you're right. there's feck all evidence for what Jesus actually did. The only contemporary source to write about jesus was Josephus.
The Koran was written and codified shortly after mohammad died. they even went looking for hadith, stories about him and spent ages trying to verify them. If your looking for hostorical accuracy, you're in the wrong religion.

For point 4, you're quoting one moral theory. There are loads more out there. ever hear of utilitarianism or virtue ethics? But I guess that's what happens when you get all your information about ethics, morals and athiests from a man in dress with a big hat.

Point 5, anyone wh's a confirmed athiest, agnostic, muslim, christian or scientologist can claim the same.

Madam_X

Title should be "Has your outlook changed since you stopped believing in god?" but I guess that's not provocative enough. And of course a person's outlook is gonna change - attention-seeking thread title is attention-seeking.
I dislike some of the atheism backlash ("Militant atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists" - eh, no they're not) but the above kinda stuff I fully understand the ire for. Also, raising a child with religion is abuse?! No it isn't. Gbee, that comment undermines actual abused people's experiences. Raising a child to believe in god/Jesus/being a decent person (doing so gently and allowing for flexibility obviously) is infinitely preferable to me than telling them there's no such thing as Santa.

If a person truly believes in a higher being, tries to abide by their religion's code (in the good sense obviously) and minds their own business about it, let them be. I don't believe, but I did once and don't have mental deficiencies. So many people were raised with religion and it's how they make sense of the world - not everyone can just switch this off. There are many too who embrace the spiritual - again, whatever floats your boat once you don't impose it on others.
Philologos and others though, I think it is also a bit arrogant to state definitively there is a god and you know it etc - you *believe* in god, that's all.

midlandsmissus

humbert wrote: »

I'll just say that you understand very very little science.

I feel like the cat that got the cream. I have a degree in Science. Do you?

thebman

No but I'm still using Outlook 2003 and never upgraded since realising there was no god.

Didn't think the new features would help.

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

To turn it on you: how can there be atheism without the idea of God? There can't be, therefore they are inter-related and there is a spectrum. Belief -> non belief.

Seeing as you can't quite seem to grasp this point, allow me to spell it out for you:

An atheist calling me a pseudo- believer, i.e. 'a false believer' is saying that there are real believers. Therefore the atheist is saying that there are real believers in a God he doesn't believe in.

Re. the studies, I do believe I said there are alot of scientific studies being undertaken now on the afterlife, to show that science is indeed taking the subject seriously. Do look them up yourself. I never said there are ' studies proving there is an afterlife', as if I would be so arrogant!

Theists like to tie atheists into their game. If we talk about football fans and the clubs they support and I don't follow football then do I exist on a spectrum of football fans? No. I'm not a part of this survey.
An atheist referring to someone as a pseudo believer doesn't mean that they believe in God. That's some leap. I can be an atheist and have more or less respect or tolerance for different faiths or beliefs. That doesn't mean that I believe in any of them. Belief doesn't need to be present for me to be able to hold an opinion on something. I can judge a religion by its morals and ethics, it's tenets, its practices, its influence and effect on the world. I don't need to believe in God to do this.
I can hold the opinion that Islam is rotten while Buddhism is just down right lovely, it doesn't mean I believe in either. And I can hold the opinion that spiritualism is a cop out as far as belief goes. It doesn't mean I give more credence to an actual religion with a proper belief system, but I would give more credence to someone who actually believed in something that wasn't a load of cobbled together tosh (no offense).

Science studies everything. It doesn't give any juice to the idea of the afterlife so that's a no go.

If you're trying to hint that peoples souls don't die because they are energy or some nonsense then you don't have a background in science or much working knowledge of science.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I feel like the cat that got the cream. I have a degree in Science. Do you?

Yes.

bbam

Shryke wrote: »

Science studies everything. It doesn't give any juice to the idea of the afterlife so that's a no go.

If you're trying to hint that peoples souls don't die because they are energy or some nonsense then you don't have a background in science or much working knowledge of science.

BUT:
Didn't our science once believe that the world was flat and boats would fall off the edge if they sailed too far.. Or that the earth was the centre of the universe..
Science changes its understanding of things all the time... I'm not saying that science will some day prove that the soul exists, I'm just saying that taking what science can prove "right now" to be the end of all understanding is a limited position to take..

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

Theists like to tie atheists into their game. If we talk about football fans and the clubs they support and I don't follow football then do I exist on a spectrum of football fans? No. I'm not a part of this survey.
An atheist referring to someone as a pseudo believer doesn't mean that they believe in God. That's some leap. I can be an atheist and have more or less respect or tolerance for different faiths or beliefs. That doesn't mean that I believe in any of them. Belief doesn't need to be present for me to be able to hold an opinion on something. I can judge a religion by its morals and ethics, it's tenets, its practices, its influence and effect on the world. I don't need to believe in God to do this.
I can hold the opinion that Islam is rotten while Buddhism is just down right lovely, it doesn't mean I believe in either. And I can hold the opinion that spiritualism is a cop out as far as belief goes. It doesn't mean I give more credence to an actual religion with a proper belief system, but I would give more credence to someone who actually believed in something that wasn't a load of cobbled together tosh (no offense).

Science studies everything. It doesn't give any juice to the idea of the afterlife so that's a no go.



If you're trying to hint that peoples souls don't die because they are energy or some nonsense then you don't have a background in science or much working knowledge of science.

Re. your first point, do you go around constantly saying 'I don't follow Man united? Do you define yourself by not supporting Man United? Do you give yourself an actual term that states you don't follow Man Utd?

Why do it with God? It is obviously more important to you.

Next, I would just like you to explain to me, and maybe to yourself, why you think the main religions deserve more credence, then some-one deciding on their own beliefs.

What are religions except a group of people following one persons beliefs?

Would each person coming up with and deciding what they believe in not make more sense?

You seem to be placing importance on religion which I don't understand.

Re. your last point, see my above post, I do in fact have a degree in science.

girl2

Hi. What about angels? For there's an awful awful lot of people who believe in them.

midlandsmissus

humbert wrote: »

Yes.

I have to say it was extremely lovely to be able to respond to 'You have very very little knowledge of science', with 'I have a degree in Science.' And a 1.1. at that.

Maybe don't be so presumptuous in future.

So we are on equal footing with our knowledge of science, we have established that.

IvySlayer

Science can get some things wrong, yes, but science always seeks to find the truth. Believing the earth was flat is a myth.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have to say it was extremely lovely to be able to respond to 'You have very very little knowledge of science', with 'I have a degree in Science.' And a 1.1. at that.

Maybe don't be so presumptuous in future.

So we are on equal footing with our knowledge of science, we have established that.

I'm sorry but I stand by that and I don't care what degree you have. Energy can appear in a vacuum and disappear back into it.

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Re. your first point, do you go around constantly saying 'I don't follow Man united? Do you define yourself by not supporting Man United? Do you give yourself an actual term that states you don't follow Man Utd?

Why do it with God? It is obviously more important to you.

Next, I would just like you to explain to me, and maybe to yourself, why you think the main religions deserve more credence, then some-one deciding on their own beliefs.

What are religions except a group of people following one persons beliefs?

Would each person coming up with and deciding what they believe in not make more sense?

You seem to be placing importance on religion which I don't understand.

Re. your last point, see my above post, I do in fact have a degree in science.

I didn't invent the term atheist and I don't go around pronouncing that I'm an atheist. This is a discussion on religion. Do you have any idea what you're trying to say here?
If someone can randomly decide what they want to believe then you have no problem with someone worshiping Batman, you have no respect for faith at all is what you're saying. I can respect a persons belief in religion if that's their choice. I have less respect for someone who makes up nonsense. But then again you're pretty much on the verge of calling it all nonsense yourself looking at this last post of yours.

You can have as many degrees as you like. What you should do is clarify your statement, "I'll just say that science says energy never dies, it can only be transformed from one form to another... "
Use that science degree of yours to make some sense of the quasi-mystical overtones you're using here.

Jimoslimos

gaziah wrote: »

There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet

I don't get it

Could you explain this statement through imagery please?

dirtyden

humbert wrote: »

I'm sorry but I stand by that and I don't care what degree you have. Energy can appear in a vacuum and disappear back into it.

You are going to have to reference this nugget of information.

Scanlas The 2nd

When it's said that people live on forever after death what that really meant IMO and the mighty Eckharte Tolle's opinion is that the empty space of awareness lives on in other people as it is identical in everyone so in essence you live forever.

Not sure people will take much solace in that though.

9959

Shryke wrote: »

Theists like to tie atheists into their game. If we talk about football fans and the clubs they support and I don't follow football then do I exist on a spectrum of football fans? No. I'm not a part of this survey.
An atheist referring to someone as a pseudo believer doesn't mean that they believe in God. That's some leap. I can be an atheist and have more or less respect or tolerance for different faiths or beliefs. That doesn't mean that I believe in any of them. Belief doesn't need to be present for me to be able to hold an opinion on something. I can judge a religion by its morals and ethics, it's tenets, its practices, its influence and effect on the world. I don't need to believe in God to do this.
I can hold the opinion that Islam is rotten while Buddhism is just down right lovely, it doesn't mean I believe in either. And I can hold the opinion that spiritualism is a cop out as far as belief goes. It doesn't mean I give more credence to an actual religion with a proper belief system, but I would give more credence to someone who actually believed in something that wasn't a load of cobbled together tosh (no offense).

Science studies everything. It doesn't give any juice to the idea of the afterlife so that's a no go.

If you're trying to hint that peoples souls don't die because they are energy or some nonsense then you don't have a background in science or much working knowledge of science.

What he said.
Same for me thanks.

5uspect

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Science is now starting to have alot of different studies on the afterlife by the way.

Some researcher might be claiming to do so, I doubt there is any Science involved until I see citations and evidence.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'll just say that science says energy never dies, it can only be transformed from one form to another...

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have to say it was extremely lovely to be able to respond to 'You have very very little knowledge of science', with 'I have a degree in Science.' And a 1.1. at that.

Maybe don't be so presumptuous in future.

So we are on equal footing with our knowledge of science, we have established that.

Congratulations, you have an undergraduate degree, you've merely taken a baby step into Science.

You seem to be conflating the First Law of Thermodynamics with some wishy washy ideas about loosely defined terms like spirituality and energy. This is the realm of pseudo-science.

professore

midlandsmissus wrote: »

keithg89 wrote: »

Because that belief is lunacy. It's so far beyond logic it's not even remotely believable. In my opinion of course.

But imagine their are some who think your opinion is wrong. But they don't look down on you or call you foolish.

Maybe think that everybody is on their own path of discovery.

I'm an atheist and agree with everything you've said so far.

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

I didn't invent the term atheist and I don't go around pronouncing that I'm an atheist. This is a discussion on religion. Do you have any idea what you're trying to say here?
If someone can randomly decide what they want to believe then you have no problem with someone worshiping Batman, you have no respect for faith at all is what you're saying. I can respect a persons belief in religion if that's their choice. I have less respect for someone who makes up nonsense. But then again you're pretty much on the verge of calling it all nonsense yourself looking at this last post of yours.

You can have as many degrees as you like. What you should do is clarify your statement, "I'll just say that science says energy never dies, it can only be transformed from one form to another... "
Use that science degree of yours to make some sense of the quasi-mystical overtones you're using here.

It's like trying to argue with a brick wall. The above makes no sense. If you think religion isn't true, and by definition as an atheist you don't, you can't say that one is better than the other.

'That group of people believe in God', 'That one person believes in God', they both believe in something I don't believe in but the religion is better because it is longer established' ??

It's hypocritical and makes no sense whatsoever,

And please, Batman? We're talking about people who have studied the religions of the world, studied spirituality, realised what they don't agree with and come to their own set of beliefs. What if some-one looks at catholiscism and sees that: the original message was good, there are alot of historical evidence showing that this was tampered with and has been replaced with patriarchal powerful structures that is the Cathoic church today. What if that person says I don't agree with the Catholic Church as it stands today, I like what Jesus said about helping others and I think there is a God, I'm going to go about my own life with my own beliefs and not join a religion (which is really some-one elses' interpretation of an idea).

Why just dismiss somebody that has put that much thought into it, and say religion is 'better', a religion you don't agree with anyway?

uck51js9zml2yt

midlandsmissus wrote: »

humbert wrote: »

I'll just say that you understand very very little science.

I feel like the cat that got the cream. I have a degree in Science. Do you?

Ouch :-)

professore

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

(I was looking for the irony, I'm still not seeing it, or links to studies proving there is an afterlife. Would still like to see those.)

I went over what I think of pseudo-belief in something in a previous post. You yourself are now making assumptions for what an atheists views on different religions are. Do you see any hypocrisy in that given your own argument?

Atheism isn't a belief. It isn't part of any spectrum.

The biggest fallacy in your defense of belief is that there is a spectrum, which is something someone with real belief in something would disagree with. Religious belief is right or wrong by definition. To say there is a defensible spectrum of belief is to say that your own belief is and has to be wrong or that all belief is correct, which again goes completely against the idea of any kind of coherent belief. It's just wishy washy cack.

To turn it on you: how can there be atheism without the idea of God? There can't be, therefore they are inter-related and there is a spectrum. Belief -> non belief.

Seeing as you can't quite seem to grasp this point, allow me to spell it out for you:

An atheist calling me a pseudo- believer, i.e. 'a false believer' is saying that there are real believers. Therefore the atheist is saying that there are real believers in a God he doesn't believe in.

Re. the studies, I do believe I said there are alot of scientific studies being undertaken now on the afterlife, to show that science is indeed taking the subject seriously. Do look them up yourself. I never said there are ' studies proving there is an afterlife', as if I would be so arrogant!

Now you've lost me. And I have a physics degree since we're all comparing the lengths of our educational manhoods.

There might be a spectrum of belief, but there are many at the very end of they spectrum, i.e. nonbelievers.

By definition you can't study the afterlife scientifically as there is no way to devise an experiment to prove it one way our the other.

humbert

dirtyden wrote: »

You are going to have to reference this nugget of information.

It's not much of an explanation but should satisfy you that I'm not making stuff up.
Google Book

midlandsmissus

5uspect wrote: »

Some researcher might be claiming to do so, I doubt there is any Science involved until I see citations and evidence.





Congratulations, you have an undergraduate degree, you've merely taken a baby step into Science.

You seem to be conflating the First Law of Thermodynamics with some wishy washy ideas about loosely defined terms like spirituality and energy. This is the realm of pseudo-science.

Either you think Science and Spirituality can be inter-linked or you don't. If you don't I'm sure it will seem wishy washy to you.

However, there are and have been a great many spiritual scientists.

midlandsmissus

professore wrote: »

I'm an atheist and agree with everything you've said so far.

Thank you!

keelanj69

I dont have a degree. Guess I shouldnt comment :-(