Originally posted by Starrman Originally posted by dj2becker [b]You don't seem to understand that NDE's ARE the evidence of supernatural experiences.
That's like saying a supernatural experience is evidence of itself.
Well the only reason you don't accept NDE's as evidence for the supernatural is because you don't believe the supernatural exists, and thus y ...[text shortened]... henomena, but offer no reasons for doing so, nor ever having seen any natural evidence for them.
Isn't your argument that you only believe in the natural and will only take a natural explanation for the supernatural a little circular as well?
Originally posted by Halitose Isn't your argument that you only believe in the natural and will only take a natural explanation for the supernatural a little circular as well?
Not at all, since the natural is the normal state. Our senses can only perceive the natural. To use supernaturality as it's own evidence is meaningless.
Originally posted by Starrman Not at all, since the natural is the normal state. Our senses can only perceive the natural. To use supernaturality as it's own evidence is meaningless.
To use supernaturality as it's own evidence is meaningless.
You mean it is meaningless to suggest something is of the supernatural if it cannot be explained by the natural?
Originally posted by dj2becker So maybe you would like to explain to me why sooooooo many people that were "brain dead" had such similar exeriences?
You always come up with the absurd argument that 'brain dead' people can halucinate without brainwaves.
What rubbish, I have said absolutely nothing about people who are brain dead doing anything! Brain death is irreversible, you don't experience anything after it. What are you talking about?
Originally posted by dj2becker Your argument is totally flawed, beacause by using the same logic you are saying that naturality as it's own evidence is meaningless.
What are you talking about? Are you saying I have to prove to you that the natural world exists before you will accept that it does? My arguement is not flawed at all. Unlike the natural world, the supernatural cannot be comprehended by natural means. Since, as a natural being, you do not have any supernatural senses, you cannot measure the supernatural on any comprehendable level. Therefore, as a natural being, you cannot use something uncomprehendable as evidence for its comprehension. However, with the natural, you have senses to comprehend it.
Originally posted by Starrman What rubbish, I have said absolutely nothing about people who are brain dead doing anything! Brain death is irreversible, you don't experience anything after it. What are you talking about?
What evidence do you have that 'brain death' or even 'death' is irreversable?
Originally posted by dj2becker Since I do not believe in the supernatural I cannot allow for the fact that something is possible in the brain if the brain is dead.
So are you saying that thousands of doctors are lying when they sign death certificates and diagnose a person to be 'brain dead'?
What? How are these two statements even slightly related? I honestly do not see what you even intended to mean, I mean it really does not make any sense at all.
Originally posted by Halitose If there is no God and no ultimate authority, then whatever feels good that we should do. If it is drug or alcohol abuse, then so be it. But then why are drug addicts some of the unhappiest people in society? You can't really explain that from the athiest perspective.
Like putting wood on a fire; trying to just do what feels better, you are stoking an u ...[text shortened]... reasonable answers for in the athiestic worldview, that is why I take the position that it do.
If there is no God and no ultimate authority, then whatever feels good that we should do. If it is drug or alcohol abuse, then so be it. But then why are drug addicts some of the unhappiest people in society? You can't really explain that from the athiest perspective.
Oh, but you can, if you really try.
The effects of drug and alcohol abuse are well-known. The misery lasts alot longer than the pleasure. Anyone seeking overall greater happiness would certainly avoid this path.
Like putting wood on a fire; trying to just do what feels better, you are stoking an unquenshible fire. Never will this fire stop needing wood, because you'll always be looking for the next thrill and ride; the next fix, the next being layed, the next smile out of your child; the next family reunion; the next practical joke on the inlaws; The list can go on. Some of the criteria can be more noble, but ultimately its a viscious circle that leaves one panting for the next kick.
Christians also seek happiness in these things. It is human to seek pleasure and happiness in the here and now. I have no idea why you'd call this a 'vicious circle'.
I still find it hard that man, as an evolved animal would need happyness. From the athiestic perspective, what are these emotional persuits? What are they for? Why do you need happyness, if all we are geared towards is survival and passing on our genes?
Happiness is a great motivator for us to do the things needed to further the advancement of the species.
The Atheist and Agnostic
25 Jul '05 13:45
Back to Top