Challenging the Atheist belief

[Vadakin]

I'm saying unexplainable events like the ones mentioned related to NDE's (our best understanding of the existence of life beyond this life), mixed with the existence of the unknown to the senses point to the existence of a possibility that maybe there's more to life than we can perceive, yet atheists choose to ignore this logic. That's what confuses me.

And some of these responses confuse me more. How can one acknowledge your view when your response is: rejection or insults backed with nothing more than that?

NDE's aren't unexplained. They've actually been recreated by scientists. So have Out Of Body experiences.

And that illustrates the problem with your line of thinking. Just because something hasn't been explained, doesn't mean it can't be. Back when a virus was called a curse, people didn't know about micro-organisms. They couldn't explain why people got sick so the only obvious solution to them was a supernatural cause as to their knowledge, there wasn't a natural one. Well, we know better.

Do we know what existed before the universe? No. Will we ever know? Probably not (chances are, we'd have to be outside the universe to fully answer the question). Does that mean there is no natural, scientific answer? No.

But since you issued a challenge, let me return the favour and issue one of my own. It's often said that you can't prove that God doesn't exist. But I think what you can prove is that he isn't necessary.

So here's my challenge. Let's suppose that the human race continues to advance and our knowledge continues to grow. Let's suppose that within the next decade, a scientist somewhere is able to combine the right amino acids in the right way to successfully recreate life and prove once and for all that life's origins are natural.

Now, let's expand beyond life, to the universe as a whole. Let's suppose we keep making discovery after discover after discovery and many many years from now we can accurately explain the origins and nature of the universe, of life and everything in between and with each discovery, that's one more thing that had no requirement for God.

Now jump forward a million years and let's suppose that in a million years, human being discover almost everything there is to know about the universe, from how it was formed to was there before, what will be there after, the origins of life, of consciousness, everything we could possibly want to know, all without ever encountering any evidence of God.

Now let's pull back. Let's say that we don't know absolutely everything about existence. We know 99.9999% of everything, none of which involves God. Which is more likely? That the remaining .0001% is where God resides or that like everything else, it's part of the natural order, that we simply haven't discovered yet? Which is the more logical conclusion to make?

[freedomfromforum]

How can "all chemical" explain the examples I gave?

I see the chemicals have taken full affect. You see, once initiated, the cascade of peptide sequences are often indistinguishable from reality.

I'm just saying ignoring all I've said because you have 20 years believing one thing is choosing to look at life in a real bleak way...

Yes, years of believing in fairy tales has a foreseeable negative affect, as I, and decades of proven neuroscience suggest.

[max-greece]

Nobody thinks we have it figured out Nate. You are very confused as to what you think an Atheist is. Not all are entirely science based. Those that are welcome changes as new things are discovered.

In brief:

The thing is, though, that to date the explanations that science has come up with have never ended up with "and so it must have been a deliberate action of an intelligent being, other than man."

You see intelligence everywhere and assume that: 1. there must be a reason for it, and 2. that reason is a God.

Neither of these statements hold any water. It appears unlikely that NDE's are any more proof of an afterlife than dreams are. Who knows what kind of panic dump the brain is doing as you near death - we may figure it out in time, but, if we do, will you abandon your belief?

Whilst seeing intelligence everywhere is great and all you might also want to consider the dumb stuff too. Look how badly we are designed physically. Look how problematic our sexual urges can be when, as they often are, they are misdirected. Ask yourself why 90% of our DNA appears to be vestigal clutter, or why there are Amoeba out there with DNA 100 times larger than ours (was God learning on the job?)

Something to think about perhaps....

[Minimalist]

there is so much intelligence within life

I think you need to pay a little more attention to what's going on.

[Cyberman]

Let me ask you this. We perceive the world through our 5 senses, yet we understand that things exist outside the perception of our senses, dog whistles for example. No person has heard a dog whistle because we cannot hear on that frequency level, and so the understanding that this frequency exists is based on a belief since we've never heard it.

Actually, I can hear dog whistles. I'm not unique, either. I just have a range of hearing a little broader than the average, that's all. My eyes are pretty much useless, but my ears make up for that. But even if your blanket assertion were true, we can still measure the frequencies we might not be able to hear directly. Belief is not required.

Incidentally, I have considerably more than five senses, and so do you.

Same is true for light. And so isn't it possible that there exists something beyond the limitation of our human perception? Well, the answer is of course, yes. The example about sound describes it.

And as I described, we have means of detecting and measuring such frequencies. When you can demonstrate the frequency range of a god, or similar entity, publish it and get yourself a Nobel prize.

[The Valkyrie]

How can "all chemical" explain the examples I gave?

That is coming from a scientist, who 50 years ago would have thought an atom was the smallest existence of life. Science changes. To think we finally have it figured out is really narrow minded.

And I don't have a God I'm trying to sell you on, I'm just saying ignoring all I've said because you have 20 years believing one thing is choosing to look at life in a real bleak way, especially since there is another way to look at it that's equally as logical. Kinda shows the inner state of the atheist, and the posts demonstrate it...

Yes, it's pretty much all chemical.

Apart from the excellent citation provided, have you noticed that all reported NDEs, at least ones I've heard about, appear to be cultural? If a person is brought up in a predominantly Christian nation, whether they're Christian or not, they will "experience" the Christian "afterlife" whether heaven or hell. The same is true for someone from a predominantly Muslim or Hindu nation.

I have yet to hear of Christian who reports seeing the afterlife of another religion, or the other way around.

And, fyi, my heart stopped for two minutes after a motorcycle accident. I saw nothing

[Lemonvariable72]

What I want to know is how do you get "therefore god" instead of simply "I do not know"
And welcome aboard.

[rexbeccarox]

Science changes. To think we finally have it figured out is really narrow minded.

You don't see the contradiction in this? Who in this scenario "finally" thinks they have it figured out? Hint: it's not me, an atheist.

[Whateverist]

How can "all chemical" explain the examples I gave?

What do you know about about chemicals that allows you to so glibly limit their explanatory power?

Science changes. To think we finally have it figured out is really narrow minded.

But doesn't that cut both ways? Aren't you also arguing for a summary evaluation of the limits of science? Science isn't the best tool for every question but it has been the gold standard for determining questions of empirical fact. What exactly are you proposing in its stead?

And I don't have a God I'm trying to sell you on, I'm just saying ignoring all I've said because you have 20 years believing one thing is choosing to look at life in a real bleak way, especially since there is another way to look at it that's equally as logical. Kinda shows the inner state of the atheist, and the posts demonstrate it...

Seems to me agnosticism is called for on both sides. Whatever it is you may believe and whatever it is you base that on instead of science, if you believe something that science can't support, all you really have is hand waving and empathy. It may take a while to earn the empathy for your non-science supported beliefs. I'm not sure anyone is entitled to a sympathetic hearing, only a fair one.

Personally I'm unimpressed with NDE's. What, if anything, they mean is subject to speculation. I've never been persuaded that they are evidence for anything which can't be cross checked in other ways. Of course NDE's can ground speculation, but speculation is generally only good for supporting one's own bias. Isn't that what's going on on both sides?

[Kayenneh]