edieraye wrote: 
Thank you for your feedback.  I will consider it.

 edieraye wrote: 
From an atheist's point of view, it is difficult to give credence to beliefs that are based on fairy tales without a lick of proof.

What do you think about people who believe in this?:

In the primordial past, thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure.^<89> The universe has no independent reality, but derives its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists.^<90> Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity.^<89> Eventually they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.^<90><92>

Thetans are reborn time and time again in new bodies through a process called "assumption" which is analogous to reincarnation.^<89>

This is Scientology. Most people think this is crazy talk, but it's no different than any other belief. It's all just made up story. There are people who worship all kinds of things, and everyone is entitled to believe what they want, but there is no basis in reality.

And the name of god has been used to kill more people in history than anything else.

 brandonjosborn wrote: 

I find this incredibly offensive.  You paint with a huge brush.  Just looking over this thread I think you'll find plenty of evidence to the contrary.  (Which, you know, is kind of funny after going on and on about salesmen and evidence.)

I think the key to having what Alain de Botton calls "harmonious disagreement" is a mutual respect.  But you seem to have no respect for those who believe differently than you do.  That pretty much cuts the discussion off at the knees.

 edieraye wrote:  Very interesting. Thank you!

 buzz wrote: 
Wrong about what?

Keep in mind what atheism means: absence of belief in god(s). Not certainty that there are none, just an absence of belief. Certainty in the unprovable would be faith—don't have that.

So if you ask if there's a god I'll say "I don't know." That makes me an agnostic. Ask me if I believe in a god and I'm sure about that: no. That makes me an atheist. But that doesn't mean I know. It just means I doubt it.

 kurtster wrote: 
Thanky!  Headed for the haya heya heya

 Manbird wrote: 
heh...yeah, i like the movies too

 brandonjosborn wrote: 

Thanks, I'll give it a listen.

Good to see you back around here, BTW.

 buzz wrote: 
Some of it was response to your question - yes, I leave open lots of possibilities.  I'm tired - sleep now.

 buzz wrote: 
I don't think the science behind the creation of the universe is a 'right' or 'wrong' type of question. Could the universe we occupy have been created by a living organism? Was there ever a beginning of time? These are the slivers of chances I leave open, the questions that interest me. As far as the preposterous religious version of God that's evolved in the infinitesimally small period time man has existed - that's a calculated no. It's an interesting myth, a bizarre cultural manifestation which makes for some great creepy movies. Another fascinating facet of the human species.

 brandonjosborn wrote: 
I think you read way too much into my fairly simple question.

 kurtster wrote: 
Indeed.  I agree - I have to accept that, as long as people are decent, we are thinking and making the best decisions we can; even though opinions differ.  There's a discussion between Dr. Steven Novella (neuro, Yale) and Alex Tsakaris, host of the Skeptico podcast concerning this -  very interesting.  I listen to the Skeptic's Guide podcast, of which Steve is the co-founder, and I catch Alex's podcast once in awhile.  Both are articulate, though I lean toward Dr. Novella's point of view.

the piece is about 80 minutes long.

NDE Debate: Alex Tsakiris vs. Steven Novella

I followed this, and some of the fallout afterward, when it came out -  according to some discussion I've heard, there are fMRI study data coming.

 winter wrote: 
I could ask the theists, but I'm trying real hard to stay on topic.
 
Seems open-minded enough. 

 buzz wrote: 
If I find any evidence for a deity, I'm honest enough to admit it.  This idea that atheists are too stupid to believe, or really do believe but are pretending not to is programmed into children (it was programmed into my family), and is not true; and is designed to alienate those who do not believe in a deity.  Someone, in this threat, told someone else earlier that she "really believed in god  but just hated him" - that's an awful thing to presume to say to another human being, and is part of the real problem with believers; they believe so strongly that they feel justified in telling other people not only what to believe but what they really do believe, and aren't good enough to know it.

 brandonjosborn wrote: 

Kevin Nelson, the author cited in this piece was on Coast to Coast last Thursday night and I had the opportunity to hear him speak for three hours on this very subject.

The author of your article mostly got it right about the REM stages, but Nelson was very adamant that REM can happen during fully conscious states as well as in between and asleep.  He did not discount that there is the possibilty that NDE's can be real, but did provide highly thoughtful and plausable explanations.  He did go into length about the temporal spot where we can literally turn on and off the feeling of astral projection or out of body experience.

I'm not sure that my circumstances fall into his parameters although I just asked my wife if my blood pressure was high or low during these experiences and she did say it was low during these times and that is one of his parameters, but I learned a lot listening and while I cannot conclude one way or the other that my NDE was real, it did indeed happen and in more than several instances.

Since there is no proof one way or the other, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain if I really did have contact.  I did not see any bright lights or tunnels like most others though, it was very different from all the usual references.  The forms were not sharply defined, but there was definitely some discussions going on between me and them.

 buzz wrote: 
No.

 buzz wrote: 



One could ask the theists the same question. ;)

For myself: if I saw some kind of evidence, I'd reconsider. But I have a hard time imagining what would convince me.

 brandonjosborn wrote: 



I'm not suggesting you're some kind of emotionless robot, or (worse yet) a Vulcan. I'm suggesting you'd rather reason your way to a decision than rely on feelings or intuition. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a choice.

A question for the Atheists.
 
Do you ever leave open the possibility...the sliver of a chance...that maybe...just maybe...you could be wrong?

 winter wrote: 
I'm not saying that feelings are not a valid part of the human experience, I am saying - hang on - how about this - I really like this article:  I think Dr. Elder's discussion of the proper value and place of emotions and feelings concerning the critical thinking / decision making processes are well articulated and appropriate to this discussion.

Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence