Challenging the Atheist belief

[pineapplebunnybounce]

There are things outside of our perception yes, I'm not sure how you got from there to there is a god outside of our perception. That is quite the leap. Especially since you have no way of knowing that as by your own admission, you can't perceive it.

[Natedeezy]

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?

[Jackalope]

You might try searching old threads. This is nothing new, we've been over it time and time again.

And honestly, if you haven't heard atheist perspectives on these topics, you haven't looked very fucking hard.

[Bipolar Bob]

Atheism is not a belief, it is a conclusion that some have come to. You want to challenge beliefs? How about you answer this question first: How could or does a God exist?

[freedomfromforum]

I'm saying unexplainable events like the ones mentioned related to NDE's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_glan...philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_glan...production

Dr. Rick Strassman, who conducted research on the psychedelic dimethyltryptamine (DMT) in the 1990s at the University of New Mexico, has speculated that the pineal gland plays a role in the production of DMT in the human brain. Strassman has also advanced the controversial hypothesis that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death, or near death, can result in a near-death experience (NDE).

It's all chemicals.

[Cinjin]

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?

Nate, there's no proof of God/higher power. Sex, intelligence, NDE's, water, Autumn, etc. - they've all been used as "evidence" of God, and I'm sorry man, but it's just bull shit. If you want to believe in god that's great, but trying to sell it to a bunch of highly educated atheists is a misstep.

You didn't really expect an atheist of 20+ years to say, "hey, I think this guys onto something. I think I'm going to believe in this guy's god."????
Come on man. You really left them with no other response.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What you're doing seems to be argument from ignorance + shifting the burden of proof. You refuse to acknowledge how your own beliefs are real but somehow think that if you can come up with something people do not understand than you must be right.

As it so happens, NDEs are rather weak as evidence goes. If you bother to be a little more detailed I'm willing to break it down for you and show you why I think it's weak. This isn't an insult, but I'm not going to do your work for you. Make your argument if you have one.

[Natedeezy]

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...

[Cinjin]

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...

It's equally as logical to you, but it is NOT equally as logical ... nor is it fair to expect other people to validate your beliefs.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Are you serious?

You are on an atheist forum asking random internet people to break down neurochemistry for you? You just said yourself that science doesn't have all the answers it's a little hasty to say oh, those answers must be imperceptible! Therefore God! Come on! Are you saying you are a scientist? Then may I appeal to the scientist in you and ask you if it's fair to pose such a hypothesis. What do you learn by chucking it up to something you cannot perceive if you haven't even exhausted your resources, do you think that is an honest way to obtain knowledge?

Science changes yes, but ask yourself if science has changed from assuming god to having answers or from not having answers to finding god? Or has any scientists recently even resorted to posing the god hypothesis?

An atom isn't a lifeform. It is not the smallest existence of life, that is chemistry.

The way I look at life is not bleak. Please don't presume too much about people you know nothing about.


ETA: oh I just realized I misunderstood you, you're dismissing science, not saying you're a scientist. Well ... that explains much more. But whatever I said still stands.