Jeffrey Formosa

Look at the words you are saying there as close minded as what Christians say, Atheism is and all ways will be a belief, nothing more and nothing less, how about NDEs, proof that NDEs are wrong.

Hugo Holbling

There are several problems with this statement, Jeffrey. Firstly, if skeptical arguments are correct and we can never know anything with certainty, then your conception defines all knowledge to be faith. That may be so, but it does not give us anything to go on - a way to develop this insight or to say anything useful about knowledge.

Secondly, it is an uncharitable interpretation of what many atheists claim and perhaps it would be wise to find a more meaningful understanding of what position you might think they hold? We could begin by making a distinction between a lack of belief in God and a belief in the lack of God - a subtle but important distinction. You seem to be concerned with the latter, but we can also find a better way to look at it: suppose that a person does say "there is no God"; they may be claiming to know this with absolute certainty, but they may also be employing a different method to you when deciding such things. For example, it could be that rather than dividing claims into true or false, we instead use "likely" or "unlikely", based on some measure or guess as to how probable we think they are. Alternatively, we could judge claims based on how well they accord with what we already think we know; an atheist may find that the existence of God is incompatible with other things they believe and hence conclude that they prefer to reject one claim than a whole host of others that may be more useful (or seem more certain or likely).

There are many such positions and it is a shame to confuse or discount them all when looking at someone else's ideas. I'm sure you can do this for yourself, but at the very least you could try to develop those claims that appear to not make sense in order that they become interesting, if nothing else.

I hope this helps.

variant 13

I for one am willing to accept any new evidence but there is none.

AS for the NDE's:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=71815

DBT

closed mind?should I start believing in fairies? crystal healing?
Zeus,odin?,will that open my "closed"mind?
There is enough evidence to show that NDE.s are real,but they don't yet prove an afterlife.

Jeffrey Formosa

That link is proof that nothing after death is true but it doesn't proof other afterlife are not real, proof NDE based on Heaven wrong.

variant 13

A quote from me from the thread (slight edit):

NDE are not evidence of anything after death, because:

1. the person didn't die.

2. cannot be independently verified.

Katarzyna

But that's because many here, if not most, have been indoctrinated, from a very early age, to believe in a god. Overcoming that indoctrination to come to the no-evidence conclusion was a very difficult journey for some of us, but that doesn't change the no-evidence conclusion.

When some atheists hear theists spewing the same doctrine the atheist managed to escape, it can sound arrogant, because it ignores the difficult journey made by the atheist. And I had another point, but for the life of me can't think of it right now... perhaps after breakfast.

Kat

Hugo Holbling

I think you missed my point, Kat, but i presume that is because i was not clear enough. I was noting that the remark made by crazyfingers is descriptive of his opinion but in a simplified form - i do not doubt he actually holds a more sophisticated version. However, perhaps by only offering the simplified understanding it so happens that certain theists interpret it as it stands - in a manner that has failed and for that reason had to be clarified - rather than as we might wish? In that event, it may be a good idea to offer more than a one-line refrain, especially if it is meant for people who may not appreciate the merits or otherwise of empiricism.

nessa20x

Ok just to clarify...there IS a difference between having some evidence and having no evidence. Science has some evidence, in many cases all that it needs to support many of its theories. Religion has no evidence...a supernatural being, such as god, is by definition untestable, unconceiveable, unscientific. I don't concern myself with such things. I don't worry about unicorns, humans coming from space aliens, life from an asteroid, gods and mythology, etcetc because for the most part that stuff is entirely unproveable and not disprovable. So it is outside my realm of meaningful occurrences.

If there is NO evidence, why would you consider it to be a plausible explanation? Especially when it is partially contradicted by an explanation that is backed with scientifically validated data. If any evidence is found for the existence of a soul/god/ghosts/fairies/whatever, I will seriously take a look at it. But revelation, miracles by proxy, books, personal epiphanies, logic arguements, are not proof, evidence, or anything other than claims. Anyone can make any claim they want...people love to believe claims...such as conspiracy theories, food scares, rumors, etcetc. This does not make them validated.

Katarzyna

Ah, you're right--I missed your point, but it was my own shortcomings--you were clear enough.

Kat