Responding to my friend

[humble_catholic]

Over the past few weeks an Atheist friend I live with has enjoyed throwing a lot of questions at me, I’ve got another response from him and I have a LOT I can say in reply but I was curious to hear other people’s take on what he has to say so I could show him what other Catholic’s make of these ideas:

“Yes, science assumes that universe follows a set of laws. These assumptions have allowed us to create models which have enabled us to accurately predict events in the universe. I see no problem with that assumption since we have never observed anything supernatural. The problem with an un-falsifiable claim is that it is worthless, it cannot be used to make any meaningful and testable predictions about the world we live in. I can claim that the universe was created (in its current state ) by the flying spaghetti monster (which is outside nature etc) 3 days ago. The Burden of proof would be on me, I would have to provide evidence for my claim.
Making the claim that a supernatural being exists is un-falsifiable , but claiming that this being interacts with nature is not. We can use science to examine these claims and none of them turn out to be supernatural (the claim is made that the wafer turns into jesus’s flesh, we can easily test this) .Why do miracles described in the bible ( like the earth stopping to rotate in Joshua ) no longer occur today where we have video cameras and satellites to observe and verify it ?”

He has also stated in a previous message that because there is no scientific evidence for God that there is no basis for belief in him.

Edit: I’ve just realised there is a ban on atheist posts, I’m not sure if this counts or not? I can’t tell if it’s posts about atheists or atheism or what… Sorry if this violates the ban!

This is an extremely easy one to answer . I would flat out say first of all that atheists don’t really love science , that they only cherry pick it to try to validate their atheist/materialist assumptions . Your friend would the. Ask for a perfect example of this and I would then show him the skeptiko interview with professor patricia churchland . Professor churchland defines the typical expert of neuroscience that is in academia these days .

I would show your friend how a supposed expert in the philosophy of neuroscience e who teaches at The prestigious UCSD got demolished on the evidences from near death experience by a layman interviewer to the point that she got so flustered aboit being caught in a lie that she had to hang up the phone on him not once but 3 times .

youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE

Academia is still in the stent ages when it comes to allowing the real research evidence for Nde’s to be talked about at the university level , and that is because many neuroscime e professors at the college level are atheists or materialists.

I old show him how almost every nde researcher who has done actual nde peer reviewed studies does t believe that the brain is the mind, and that the evidence for the soul and survival after death is getting stronger each year.

Then I would remind him what religion has been saying for thousands of years , namely that there is a soul and an afterlife , while atheism on the most part has be saying ether is no soul and no afterlife . This is indirect evidence for God and confirmation for what the bible has been saying for a long time .

 

[humble_catholic]

Atheism is frequently held as a paragon of the triumph of reason over belief, as if the two are incompatible. The believer himself is frequently disparaged simply because he claims to believe and talks about those beliefs, as if atheism is not a belief in itself. Which is nonsense. Atheists believe like everyone else. Hence the idea that religious believers are attempting to throw a blanket of illegitimate belief over the rest of us is nonsense.

Atheists are also trying to construct a society around their beliefs and have them codified into law. Even if you would like a society devoid of religious beliefs, you are still trying to forge your own theocracy, there is simply a difference in who your god is compared to “religious” gods. An “atheistic theocracy” if you will. The idea that atheism is somehow different than religion because it is not religious is nonsensical. Everyone believes something.
I recognize your right to talk about your beliefs and to attempt a society constructed around them. You should stand for what you believe. I do not discredit your beliefs simply because you have them and talk about them. I disagree with you on the substance of your beliefs, not because I fear you are attempting to construct a “theocracy”.

And this is the problem I have with atheism generally. It is used to shut people up, and that is how it has played out in other societies, with tragic consequences. It can become the most radical of unreasonable faiths.
(not saying you personally subscribe to this, just observing what has happened. And we also have to admit that religious people have done the same thing. Fair is fair.)

Again I stress to watch this interview I posted the link in my last post if you want to see how an oxford trained ucsd orofessor who is supposed to be an expert in the field of neuroscience lied in her book about what one if the top nde researchers believed about Nde’s then in a childish fit hanged up the phone when she was caught in her lie and then pretended not to hear the interview afterwords.

youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE

This is the true definition of blind faith .

The interviewer is alex tsakiris who I classify as a general universalist but also an anti Christian

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And this is the problem I have with atheism generally. It is used to shut people up, and that is how it has played out in other societies, with tragic consequences. It can become the most radical of unreasonable faiths.

You are right about that.

Atheism is certainly a faith, because there is no proof whatever that there is no God.

It is therefore more radical a faith than the theist faith, since there are abundant arguments to believe in God. Peter Kreeft gives at least 20 of them.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[clem456]

You are right about that.

Atheism is certainly a faith, because there is no proof whatever that there is no God.

It is therefore more radical a faith than the theist faith, since there are abundant arguments to believe in God. Peter Kreeft gives at least 20 of them.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

The specific reason I talked about atheism being a faith is not because there is no negative proof concerning God’s existence, but simply because atheism is a belief which would like to be heard, which proposes what it believes for the good of society and others. I say go for it. Let’s talk about and admit that it’s good to believe in something.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I say go for it. Let’s talk about and admit that it’s good to believe in something.

Atheism is not anything good to believe in, and I’m really surprised that as a Catholic you would say it’s good to believe in it.

Atheism is a mortal sin.

 

[clem456]

Atheism is not anything good to believe in, and I’m really surprised that as a Catholic you would say it’s good to believe in it.

Atheism is a mortal sin.

Not that it’s good to believe in it, per se, but that it’s good to follow one’s conscience and believe.

It is in the nature of a human being to believe. I think we would agree that this desire or “instinct” is itself a gift of God. Not everyone has come to truth as we know it.
If a person believes something, they should embrace it and express it. If we disagree we should express it. I think it’s telling that God chose Paul, who was anything but lukewarm in his persecution of Christianity, to be his chief evangelist.

Some of the saints and the gospel itself speaks against lukewarmness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

but simply because atheism is a belief which would like to be heard, which proposes what it believes for the good of society and others. I say go for it. Let’s talk about and admit that it’s good to believe in something.

Hmmmm…I’ve gotten the impression that there are few to no people that “believe in” nothing (in the sense of having something in which one places confidence or trust). When someone response with “nothing” to the question of “What do you believe in?” I think the question is interpreted as “with which organized religion do you have membership” and the answer indicates “none.” This is something that may be discovered with a rewording of the question presented to the person.

Also many people that self label as “atheist” don’t hold the belief that “there are no gods.” Rather in modern parlance the word is also used to express the disposition of not yet being convinced of any god-concepts. It matches more closely with how you might use the word “agnostic” ( ‘agnostic atheist’ is a common self label).

 

[Bradski]

Atheists are also trying to construct a society around their beliefs and have them codified into law. Even if you would like a society devoid of religious beliefs, you are still trying to forge your own theocracy, there is simply a difference in who your god is compared to “religious” gods.

I guess if you say it enough, then you will believe that it’s true.

Most people posting here are from the US, so I’ll use that as an example. There is almost no-one in government who isn’t religious. It would be literally impossible to elect a president who was an atheist. Atheists are a small minority of the population, so it is a given that the vast majority of women who have abortions are Christians (the largest percentage is Catholics). The vast majority of people who support gay marriage are Christians (and again, without checking, I believe it’s a majority of Catholics).

Local government, state government and the federal government are all run by people who are Christians. Laws are passed, upheld and punishment meted out by Christians.

A majority of Americans believe in a literal Adam and Eve. A substantial percentage believe that the world is 6,000 years old. There are millions upon millions of Americans who are waiting for the Rapture.

And you say that ‘atheists’ are at the vanguard of movements to form a secular state devoid of religious beliefs.

You posted the above on April Fools Day. Maybe you were just having a laugh. Heaven knows you can’t be serious.

 

[clem456]

I guess if you say it enough, then you will believe that it’s true.

Wow. I’m trying to find something in your post that is truthful.

Most people posting here are from the US, so I’ll use that as an example. There is almost no-one in government who isn’t religious. It would be literally impossible to elect a president who was an atheist. Atheists are a small minority of the population, so it is a given that the vast majority of women who have abortions are Christians (the largest percentage is Catholics). The vast majority of people who support gay marriage are Christians (and again, without checking, I believe it’s a majority of Catholics).

Many people pander to religion. Your implication that our government is friendly to religious principles is just a non-starter. Some Christians support gay marriage. Doesn’t seem to be stopping our government from passing favorable laws. Our government has been thoroughly secularized for quite some time.

Local government, state government and the federal government are all run by people who are Christians. Laws are passed, upheld and punishment meted out by Christians.

Than you need to elect people who share your ideas. That can be difficult.
2nd option would be to kill the believers as they did in that atheist utopia USSR. Millions and millions of people killed. 10’s of millions killed, all because they dared have beliefs that contradicted the state’s supposed lack of belief. I’ll take the Christian theocracy rather than the atheist theocracy any day. I somehow don’t trust you to be god.

A majority of Americans believe in a literal Adam and Eve. A substantial percentage believe that the world is 6,000 years old. There are millions upon millions of Americans who are waiting for the Rapture.

You simply don’t know what you are talking about. Give us the statistics that show “majority”. Show us the statistics please. Good luck. These are a tiny minority of people. Fabrication on your part. Shame.

And you say that ‘atheists’ are at the vanguard of movements to form a secular state devoid of religious beliefs.

No I didn’t really say that. Repeat it often enough maybe it will be true.

You posted the above on April Fools Day. Maybe you were just having a laugh. Heaven knows you can’t be serious.

I think words and ideas should stand on their own merits.

 

[humble_catholic]

I guess if you say it enough, then you will believe that it’s true.

Most people posting here are from the US, so I’ll use that as an example. There is almost no-one in government who isn’t religious. It would be literally impossible to elect a president who was an atheist. Atheists are a small minority of the population, so it is a given that the vast majority of women who have abortions are Christians (the largest percentage is Catholics). The vast majority of people who support gay marriage are Christians (and again, without checking, I believe it’s a majority of Catholics).

Local government, state government and the federal government are all run by people who are Christians. Laws are passed, upheld and punishment meted out by Christians.

A majority of Americans believe in a literal Adam and Eve. A substantial percentage believe that the world is 6,000 years old. There are millions upon millions of Americans who are waiting for the Rapture.

And you say that ‘atheists’ are at the vanguard of movements to form a secular state devoid of religious beliefs.

You posted the above on April Fools Day. Maybe you were just having a laugh. Heaven knows you can’t be serious.

The people that believe that the earth is 6000 years a old are ones that I don’t agree with as almost all catholics are not young earth creationists bradski, but one thing I agree with them on is They Got the Creation Part right , but. Feel that they got the time wrong.

Now lets see how consistent and logical you are bradski with your own worldview .
What’s ur educated take on Nde’s ?

Does the evidence suggest that they are caused by the brain or not are they not caused by the brain.
Lets see if your response is an educated one or an emotional one ?

Do they give compelling evidence for the soul and after
It’s or are they hallucinations caused by the dying brain ?

Lets see if your worldview is neutral and unbiased or is it littered with emotional and biased baggage from your worldview

 

[Bradski]

Now lets see how consistent and logical you are bradski with your own worldview .
What’s ur educated take on Nde’s ?

Does the evidence suggest that they are caused by the brain or not are they not caused by the brain.
Lets see if your response is an educated one or an emotional one ?

Do they give compelling evidence for the soul and after
It’s or are they hallucinations caused by the dying brain ?

Lets see if your worldview is neutral and unbiased or is it littered with emotional and biased baggage from your worldview

Flat out at work at the moment so no time to dig out the data I need for Clem (but I will link to enough info for his perusal).

But this is a quick one…NDEs? Just physiological changes to the body prompting what you might describe as ‘out-of-the-body experiences’. No more, no less. No souls, no blinding white lights leading to Heaven or quick chats with your dear old granddad.

But maybe you’ve got some zinger of an example that would prove me wrong. Let me know. They’re nothing if not interesting.

 

[humble_catholic]

Flat out at work at the moment so no time to dig out the data I need for Clem (but I will link to enough info for his perusal).

But this is a quick one…NDEs? Just physiological changes to the body prompting what you might describe as ‘out-of-the-body experiences’. No more, no less. No souls, no blinding white lights leading to Heaven or quick chats with your dear old granddad.

But maybe you’ve got some zinger of an example that would prove me wrong. Let me know. They’re nothing if not interesting.

Bradski , this is the typical atheistic response to the evidence that has been gotten by nde researchers . With neuroscience professors at the university level you would be hard pressed to find any if them that believe in anything else but that the brain equals the mind , but at the research level u would be hard pressed to find anyone that believes that the mind equals the brain .

Now your explanation of veridical Nde’s as happening because of physiological changes in the brain fly in the face if nde research .

In the most recent peer reviewed aware study (the largest nde study ever conducted to date )conducted by doctor sam parnia a patient was recorded as having a veridical nde where he described his resuscitation completely accurate and it was also timed at happening during the time where he had a non functioning brain . He saw and heard a device that bleeped every 3 minutes after he went into cardiac arrest.

telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

Dr David Wilde, a research psychologist and Nottingham Trent University, is currently compiling data on out-of-body experiences in an attempt to discover a pattern which links each episode.
He hopes the latest research will encourage new studies into the controversial topic.
“Most studies look retrospectively, 10 or 20 years ago, but the researchers went out looking for examples and used a really large sample size, so this gives the work a lot of validity.
“There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people have medically died.

And if you look at the other significant nde studies carried out by expert researchers you will see that most were atheist/ materialists before they started researching it.

Doctor Pim van Lommel was an atheist/materialist before the study and now is a spiritualist
Doctor Jeffrey long who is considered one of the top experts was also a materialost before and is now a oneness monist
Doctor sam parnia is an agnostic, so you can’t use the "well they were Christian or religious "argument to say that they already firmed their opinion when in fact most were atheists .
Doctor raymond moody who is considered on of the fathers of nde research is an agnostic

Veridical Nde’s have been known for quite some time by the experts so these events aren’t considered zingers , they happened so many times that they don’t amaze the experts anymore . Now you may call them zingers , but that’s either because you have chosen not to study them or you simply are ignorant of the many cases .

Compare and contrast this to the top expert neuroscience professors who. Ost if them didn’t do any research into Nde’s who won’t allow this data to be seen in their classes in front if their students .

Professor patricia churchland oxford trained philosopher of neuroscience who was interviewed recently by alex tsakiris of skeptiko . Professor churchland teaches at ucsd one of the top medical schools in the country. She believes that Nde’s are hallucinations caused by a dying brain and even cited doctor Pim van Lommel in her own book as backing her up her conclusion from his peer reviewed nde study .

When alex caught her in her lie ,cited her own book and was about to quote doctor lommels true conclusion she inexplicably hangs up the phone on him not once but 3 times !!! Then pretends there is an audio problem when u can clearly hear her coffee mug in the background . When alex emails her for the last time she doesn’t respond to him again.

This shows us that we have nothing but mostly ideologues in our educational institutions that are not concerned with the facts in this area of science and just want to spread their atheistic/materialistic emotional agenda to their students by suppressing scientific knowledge . In other words they believe in science and will only use science when it is in favor of their atheistic faith bases beliefs .

Here is the interview , and I predict (just as I predicted you would explain veridical Nde’s the way you just did) that you will claim that alex was being too rude to her .you can’t claim ignorance for her as this is supposed to be her field of expertise .

youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE

 

[humble_catholic]

This is just one of many examples of veridical Nde’s . Eben Alexander’s nde was a rare type of veridical nde in which he brought back information if being guided through heaven by a very beautiful woman who was his spirit guide . He was an adopted child . When he recovered he went and found his adopted parents and they showed him some old pictures they had. It turned out that after they out him up for adoption that they had a daughter who he didn’t know about that died . When he saw her picture he instantly recognized her as his spirit guide that he saw in heaven .

Now bradski when you do come back from work I know your going to immediately respond to this by finding the esquire article . I really hope you do

As you can see I have done my homework and have examined both sides of these experiences .hopefully you will do the same , but unfortunately we both know ur already made up ur mind a long time ago so you can’t be bothered by trivial thing such as the evidences.

 

[clem456]

The argument to evidence is not a convincing one, especially for someone who wants scientific or empirical “proof”.
I believe there is evidence for God, and there are sound logical proofs, but things like NDE’s are not going to be convincing for someone who is not a believer. The evidence is easily discredited by a doubting mind.

I personally am not a Christian because it can be proved empirically.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some of the saints and the gospel itself speaks against lukewarmness.

None of the saints or gospels speak warmly of atheism.

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[humble_catholic]

The argument to evidence is not a convincing one, especially for someone who wants scientific or empirical “proof”.
I believe there is evidence for God, and there are sound logical proofs, but things like NDE’s are not going to be convincing for someone who is not a believer. The evidence is easily discredited by a doubting mind.

I personally am not a Christian because it can be proved empirically.

Clem I wasn’t trying to prove God directly through Nde’s . I was simply showing what the evidences are for the soul and the afterlife , and it’s a lot better then most people know. As far as they being disproved by a Doubting mind Clem, a doubting mind can doubt anything they want to doubt , but Nde’s have brought many an honest atheist towards spirituality , but since I believe that most atheists have an emotional bias towards anything spiritual or religious , nothing will ever convince them.

Matt dillahunty of the atheist experience show said that even if God himself showed himself to him that he still would t believe him.

My post wasn’t really directed at bradski because I believe that he made up his one long before he saw the evidence . My post is directed mostly to people that haven’t made up their mind yet. A mind that is more open to the immaterial and spiritual is then more open reasonable to the next step which is God .

 

[humble_catholic]

None of the saints or gospels speak warmly of atheism.

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Nde’s have brought many an honest atheist towards spirituality , but since I believe that most atheists have an emotional bias towards anything spiritual or religious , nothing will ever convince them.

While personal experience may be convincing they tend to be…well…personal. The experiences are limited to the person of people that find themselves in the situation. No one else has access to those experiences.

after having an experience there will also be differences in variations of those experiences. First thing that comes to mind are groups that have used mind altering substances to come closer to the numinous and spiritual. If I took one of those substances I might have a similar experience. It might even convince me for as long as that substance is in my body. After it’s out though the conviction might or might not stay. NDE scenarios may be viewed as mind altering too. So from the outside looking in, or even from the inside certainty that the experience wasn’t a consequence of lower oxygen levels or from other substances may be difficult to achieve.

That may be the issue Matt has with a personal experience.

I had a personal experience at the dentist office while breathing in gas for a procedure. In it I had the revelation that my dentist were not human. They were actually aliens. Perhaps you can understand and respect why I didn’t stay with that revelation. Would you also be able to respect why I might not stay with other revelations experienced under such conditions?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a Mobile device

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While personal experience may be convincing they tend to be…well…personal. The experiences are limited to the person of people that find themselves in the situation. No one else has access to those experiences.

You might (or might not) be surprised to learn that I agree with this.

Personal experiences are not scientific proof, but they are personal proof, and personal proof is not *ipso-facto *to be discredited.

This is why it would be useless for an atheist to demand a miracle for proof of divinity at work. He is not open to the experience of the miraculous. If a miracle happened to him, he would find another natural explanation, or say another natural explanation will someday be found, or he might deny his senses and even his sanity … but he will not under any circumstance acknowledge a miracle.

Only a person who has not already decided there is no God could be open to the possibility of the supernatural. This was the experience of psychiatrist Scott Peck, who had no particular reason to believe in the existence of demons, but who, after being invited to participate in several exorcisms, changed his mind as a result of a personal experience. His book *People of the Lie *is a good read in this regard.

 

[humble_catholic]

While personal experience may be convincing they tend to be…well…personal. The experiences are limited to the person of people that find themselves in the situation. No one else has access to those experiences.

after having an experience there will also be differences in variations of those experiences. First thing that comes to mind are groups that have used mind altering substances to come closer to the numinous and spiritual. If I took one of those substances I might have a similar experience. It might even convince me for as long as that substance is in my body. After it’s out though the conviction might or might not stay. NDE scenarios may be viewed as mind altering too. So from the outside looking in, or even from the inside certainty that the experience wasn’t a consequence of lower oxygen levels or from other substances may be difficult to achieve.

That may be the issue Matt has with a personal experience.

I had a personal experience at the dentist office while breathing in gas for a procedure. In it I had the revelation that my dentist were not human. They were actually aliens. Perhaps you can understand and respect why I didn’t stay with that revelation. Would you also be able to respect why I might not stay with other revelations experienced under such conditions?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a Mobile device

Sapien that is exactly why I brought up veridical Nde’s which are completely different from drug induced experiences . You simply don’t pick up information that is veridical through ingesting drugs . Veridical means verifiable and they are always verified as being true by witnesses outside of the veridical nde experiencer. The aware study was more then just an anecdotal experience . It verified what many nde researchers had suspected in the past and that is these experiences have happened while the brain is in a fully functional mode, while the brain has been in a. Severely compromised or injured mode and now in a non functional mode .

Drug induced conditions like the ones talked about by materialist/atheist Susan Blackmore do not give veridical information . While her type was popular back in the day , when she was interviewed on skeptiko , instead of making a complete fool out of herself like professor churchland she chose to ansnwet that she no longer studies this area anymore and has chosen not to talk about it anymore . The horrendous thing is that these people of absolutely faith based dogmatic beliefs are still in a position of power in our educational system , and this means that our youth are not allowed to hear the full story on things such as this.

It’s gotten to the point where atheists like physicist sir roger Penrose is trying to find a scientific explanation for the soul and that is why he has been collaborating for quote some time with anesthesiologist Stuart hammeroff on their microtubules theory which basically says that the microtubules in our neurons possess quantum non local information that is basically eternal.

When an atheist physicist has to try to resort to science to prove the eternal nature of the soul you know that they have conceded a lot already on this subject. Penrose has most likely done some good research on the nde literature and it has convinced him that consciousness survives physical death but this theory allows him to believe in the afterlife and hold onto his atheistic FAITH at the same time .

The evidences keep getting stronger every year for nde.

Agnostic nde researcher doctor sam parnia is one of the most conservative nde researchers out there and basically threw alex tsakiris for a loop when he came on the skeptiko show in 2010 and told alex that he believed that Nde’s were a hallucination created by the dying brain.he also said that if he didn’t get any good results from the aware study 3 years into it he would close down the study and go with his initial hunch that Nde’s were hallucinations.

The study lasted 5 years and now parnia has applied for funding for aware part 2.
Everyone knows that parnia has changed his mind now .

Atheists used to use his opinions a lot on their sites . They no longer use him much anymore . Hmm I wonder why