Why don't you believe in God?

[Nabz]

argh, i've proven my point long ago and i feel like bumping my head against a wall now as you guys seem to pick on my words really or maybe i'm not able to convey what i'm trying to say.

Let me dumb it down: (not trying to be offensive btw)

It is evident that human brain "dies" after a period of time, from the moment the heart stops working. Those people can "hear" the sounds even if their heart has stopped beating i.e they're dead then how the **** are they listening to the surrounding sounds for a while, or at least that's what we think that their brain completely dies after a period of time. This means that people who die, may be "alive" for a period of time after that. By alive i mean, their "sense" may be active.

People continue to have some brain activity for a short period of time after their heart has stopped beating. I suppose the real question is: so what? I've painted a picture. So what? Doesn't make me the next Picasso. You're drawing a conclusion which isn't even there. Dreams, the brain continuing to work as it gradually becomes starved of oxygen, they're biological things that happen. We can induce these things by giving people drugs. We can 'kill' people's brains and stick them into comas and then bring them back again. Does that mean we've discovered the secret of resurrection and anaesthetists are living gods? No. It's just a load of waffle, you can't possibly leap to any kind of conclusion from it.

So what if people have brain activity after their heart has stopped beating, you're literally making no valid point from bringing it up.

But Sandwich, i'm not arguing about "Superficial" phenomenons. Of course, there's some science involved in all that. I was arguing about different definitions of Death and Afterlife really. Even if the person dies and goes through a dream for a nanosecond, that should be considered "afterlife" or is there really a focused meaning of afterlife. Do you have one?

[Sandwich]

argh, i've proven my point long ago and i feel like bumping my head against a wall now as you guys seem to pick on my words really or maybe i'm not able to convey what i'm trying to say.

Let me dumb it down: (not trying to be offensive btw)

It is evident that human brain "dies" after a period of time, from the moment the heart stops working. Those people can "hear" the sounds even if their heart has stopped beating i.e they're dead then how the **** are they listening to the surrounding sounds for a while, or at least that's what we think that their brain completely dies after a period of time. This means that people who die, may be "alive" for a period of time after that. By alive i mean, their "sense" may be active.

People continue to have some brain activity for a short period of time after their heart has stopped beating. I suppose the real question is: so what? I've painted a picture. So what? Doesn't make me the next Picasso. You're drawing a conclusion which isn't even there. Dreams, the brain continuing to work as it gradually becomes starved of oxygen, they're biological things that happen. We can induce these things by giving people drugs. We can 'kill' people's brains and stick them into comas and then bring them back again. Does that mean we've discovered the secret of resurrection and anaesthetists are living gods? No. It's just a load of waffle, you can't possibly leap to any kind of conclusion from it.

So what if people have brain activity after their heart has stopped beating, you're literally making no valid point from bringing it up.

But Sandwich, i'm not arguing about "Superficial" phenomenons. Of course, there's some science involved in all that. I was arguing about different definitions of Death and Afterlife really. Even if the person dies and goes through a dream for a nanosecond, that should be considered "afterlife" or is there really a focused meaning of afterlife. Do you have one?

Not really. But surely somebody in that state isn't in the afterlife, they're still in LIFE. It just hasn't entirely left them yet. Starving the brain of oxygen gives all sorts of crazy experiences, images and so on because it's not properly functioning. Various hallucinogenic drugs also trigger the brain to do all sorts of bizarre things. Oxygen deprivation (as occurs after the heart has stopped beating and pumping freshly oxygenated blood around the body) alters brain activity and so do plenty of other things. I mean people can even be clinically 'dead' and massively hypothermic but because their temperature was dropped then unless there are underlying problems with their physiology, the damage done to tissues at lower temperatures is reduced and people can sometimes be 'brought back to life'. The saying is that somebody isn't dead until they're warm and dead.

These are all non-ideal states where the brain is damaged, stops receiving a constant supply of oxygen or indeed much oxygen at all, neurones die and fire off at random etc. - and so people can relate various experiences, much like they can after having taken drugs or been strangled and had their brain deprived of oxygen that way. Their brain isn't able to work as normal so your perceptions, experiences, thoughts, memories etc. become messed up and the product of random activity.

So I personally don't think that any of these experiences are signs of the afterlife. They're products of abnormal brain activity brought on by serious physiological stresses or substances which alter normal brain physiology. The person is 'alive' and their brain is still biologically functioning, albeit it abnormally, when these things happen.

[Nabz]

argh, i've proven my point long ago and i feel like bumping my head against a wall now as you guys seem to pick on my words really or maybe i'm not able to convey what i'm trying to say.

Let me dumb it down: (not trying to be offensive btw)

It is evident that human brain "dies" after a period of time, from the moment the heart stops working. Those people can "hear" the sounds even if their heart has stopped beating i.e they're dead then how the **** are they listening to the surrounding sounds for a while, or at least that's what we think that their brain completely dies after a period of time. This means that people who die, may be "alive" for a period of time after that. By alive i mean, their "sense" may be active.

People continue to have some brain activity for a short period of time after their heart has stopped beating. I suppose the real question is: so what? I've painted a picture. So what? Doesn't make me the next Picasso. You're drawing a conclusion which isn't even there. Dreams, the brain continuing to work as it gradually becomes starved of oxygen, they're biological things that happen. We can induce these things by giving people drugs. We can 'kill' people's brains and stick them into comas and then bring them back again. Does that mean we've discovered the secret of resurrection and anaesthetists are living gods? No. It's just a load of waffle, you can't possibly leap to any kind of conclusion from it.

So what if people have brain activity after their heart has stopped beating, you're literally making no valid point from bringing it up.

But Sandwich, i'm not arguing about "Superficial" phenomenons. Of course, there's some science involved in all that. I was arguing about different definitions of Death and Afterlife really. Even if the person dies and goes through a dream for a nanosecond, that should be considered "afterlife" or is there really a focused meaning of afterlife. Do you have one?

Not really. But surely somebody in that state isn't in the afterlife, they're still in LIFE. It just hasn't entirely left them yet. Starving the brain of oxygen gives all sorts of crazy experiences, images and so on because it's not properly functioning. Various hallucinogenic drugs also trigger the brain to do all sorts of bizarre things. Oxygen deprivation (as occurs after the heart has stopped beating and pumping freshly oxygenated blood around the body) alters brain activity and so do plenty of other things. I mean people can even be clinically 'dead' and massively hypothermic but because their temperature was dropped then unless there are underlying problems with their physiology, the damage done to tissues at lower temperatures is reduced and people can sometimes be 'brought back to life'. The saying is that somebody isn't dead until they're warm and dead.

These are all non-ideal states where the brain is damaged, stops receiving a constant supply of oxygen or indeed much oxygen at all, neurones die and fire off at random etc. - and so people can relate various experiences, much like they can after having taken drugs or been strangled and had their brain deprived of oxygen that way. Their brain isn't able to work as normal so your perceptions, experiences, thoughts, memories etc. become messed up and the product of random activity.

So I personally don't think that any of these experiences are signs of the afterlife. They're products of abnormal brain activity brought on by serious physiological stresses or substances which alter normal brain physiology. The person is 'alive' and their brain is still biologically functioning, albeit it abnormally, when these things happen.

i see. However i recently watched this documentary (probably by bbc i believe) where a patient was put in deep sleep so that her heart was beating at 5-10 bpm or something and then instruments were used to open her skull up. I don't remember what the operation was about but these were the conditions, the patient was put into, and when the patient came back to life, she stated the use of instruments which she has not seen in life and the movements of particular doctors when she was in deep sleep. She even said that she could see everything from the top and she could see herself lying on the bed, bla bla. Do you believe in these kind of experiences? I mean if there's any truth to what the patient mentioned and what the doctors admitted then this is surely something beyond normal.

[Ezak]

Sure, but these tend to be anecdotal and hearesay for a reason.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Ezak

[Luka Petrovic]

Well any personal positive or negative experiences with religion or someone who is pious/ believes in god, these might be more debatable than studies no one can give credentials to or has even seen.

[Aegle]

I don't believe in a God or multiple gods, but at the same time I don't believe that he/she/they doesn't/don't exist. I haven't been brought up in a religious family (or extended family, for that matter) and I consider myself agnostic.

I think that it is possible that the universe was created by an uncaused cause, which can be viewed as a god, but I don't understand why that god would still care about human life and actions in the way that popular religions such as Christianity seem to believe. Surely if a god was omniscient they would already know what was going to happen, anyway.

In addition, I don't believe in an afterlife (of course, I don't think you have to be religious to believe in an afterlife, but it does seem to be connected) and I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing.

It's quite ironic that you happen to list all the "i believe in/ i don't believe in" yet you fail to justify a single belief. I think "Dreaming" is the classical example for afterlife. Surely it doesn't suffice but i happened to have dreams which were quite different than my memories whatsoever. I often happen to have unique dreams which i have never experienced in real life, such as the feeling to jump off a building. Now who would have done that in their lifetime but i have dreamed about it and felt it. Isn't that enough as a justification for a life after death? It sure raises point for a debate.

I don't understand how my personal beliefs can be considered 'ironic' and I find your inability to respect my beliefs quite offensive. Shadowboss, I did my best to answer the question "why don't you believe in god?" and I have not tried to convert others to my beliefs--I merely stated my beliefs and attempted to provide a reason as to why I believe in what I do.

[Ezak]

If I remember correctly, the whole "the soul has weight" myth has been debunked.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Ezak

[Nabz]

I don't believe in a God or multiple gods, but at the same time I don't believe that he/she/they doesn't/don't exist. I haven't been brought up in a religious family (or extended family, for that matter) and I consider myself agnostic.

I think that it is possible that the universe was created by an uncaused cause, which can be viewed as a god, but I don't understand why that god would still care about human life and actions in the way that popular religions such as Christianity seem to believe. Surely if a god was omniscient they would already know what was going to happen, anyway.

In addition, I don't believe in an afterlife (of course, I don't think you have to be religious to believe in an afterlife, but it does seem to be connected) and I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing.

It's quite ironic that you happen to list all the "i believe in/ i don't believe in" yet you fail to justify a single belief. I think "Dreaming" is the classical example for afterlife. Surely it doesn't suffice but i happened to have dreams which were quite different than my memories whatsoever. I often happen to have unique dreams which i have never experienced in real life, such as the feeling to jump off a building. Now who would have done that in their lifetime but i have dreamed about it and felt it. Isn't that enough as a justification for a life after death? It sure raises point for a debate.

I don't understand how my personal beliefs can be considered 'ironic' and I find your inability to respect my beliefs quite offensive. Shadowboss, I did my best to answer the question "why don't you believe in god?" and I have not tried to convert others to my beliefs--I merely stated my beliefs and attempted to provide a reason as to why I believe in what I do.

I didn't mean to point irony in your belief but in the fact that you fail to support your beliefs and you don't have to support them but this thread is in the "debate and discussion" so you ought to discuss your belief mate else there's no point of "debating"

Edited March 27, 2013 by shad0wboss

[Sandwich]

I don't believe in a God or multiple gods, but at the same time I don't believe that he/she/they doesn't/don't exist. I haven't been brought up in a religious family (or extended family, for that matter) and I consider myself agnostic.

I think that it is possible that the universe was created by an uncaused cause, which can be viewed as a god, but I don't understand why that god would still care about human life and actions in the way that popular religions such as Christianity seem to believe. Surely if a god was omniscient they would already know what was going to happen, anyway.

In addition, I don't believe in an afterlife (of course, I don't think you have to be religious to believe in an afterlife, but it does seem to be connected) and I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing.

It's quite ironic that you happen to list all the "i believe in/ i don't believe in" yet you fail to justify a single belief. I think "Dreaming" is the classical example for afterlife. Surely it doesn't suffice but i happened to have dreams which were quite different than my memories whatsoever. I often happen to have unique dreams which i have never experienced in real life, such as the feeling to jump off a building. Now who would have done that in their lifetime but i have dreamed about it and felt it. Isn't that enough as a justification for a life after death? It sure raises point for a debate.

I don't understand how my personal beliefs can be considered 'ironic' and I find your inability to respect my beliefs quite offensive. Shadowboss, I did my best to answer the question "why don't you believe in god?" and I have not tried to convert others to my beliefs--I merely stated my beliefs and attempted to provide a reason as to why I believe in what I do.

I didn't mean to point irony in your belief but in the fact that you fail to support your beliefs and you don't have to support them but this thread is in the "debate and discussion" so you ought to discuss your belief mate else there's no point of "debating"

I think Aegle explained their thoughts pretty well to be honest. To begin with they stated that they didn't have a belief about god one way or the other. They don't believe he exists but they also don't have a firm belief that he does not exist - in other words, they're not persuaded one way nor the other and therefore have decided to remain uncertain rather than compromise themselves by deciding one side is true or false, given the impossibility of providing of evidence for one and the lack of any evidence for the other. Thereby making them the definition of an agnostic.

They briefly rambled about the possibility that a 'god' type thing caused the universe but that if there is indeed a god, it seems to them that he she or it can hardly be as described in the Christian texts given the insignificance of us as human beings and the fact that if they were omniscient they'd already know everything which was going to happen and so not really care about humans in any case.

They don't believe in life after death because they can see no evidence or reason for WHY there would be life after death.

In my opinion there's nothing they didn't explain, justify or support.

[Nabz]

I don't believe in a God or multiple gods, but at the same time I don't believe that he/she/they doesn't/don't exist. I haven't been brought up in a religious family (or extended family, for that matter) and I consider myself agnostic.

I think that it is possible that the universe was created by an uncaused cause, which can be viewed as a god, but I don't understand why that god would still care about human life and actions in the way that popular religions such as Christianity seem to believe. Surely if a god was omniscient they would already know what was going to happen, anyway.

In addition, I don't believe in an afterlife (of course, I don't think you have to be religious to believe in an afterlife, but it does seem to be connected) and I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing.

It's quite ironic that you happen to list all the "i believe in/ i don't believe in" yet you fail to justify a single belief. I think "Dreaming" is the classical example for afterlife. Surely it doesn't suffice but i happened to have dreams which were quite different than my memories whatsoever. I often happen to have unique dreams which i have never experienced in real life, such as the feeling to jump off a building. Now who would have done that in their lifetime but i have dreamed about it and felt it. Isn't that enough as a justification for a life after death? It sure raises point for a debate.

I don't understand how my personal beliefs can be considered 'ironic' and I find your inability to respect my beliefs quite offensive. Shadowboss, I did my best to answer the question "why don't you believe in god?" and I have not tried to convert others to my beliefs--I merely stated my beliefs and attempted to provide a reason as to why I believe in what I do.

I didn't mean to point irony in your belief but in the fact that you fail to support your beliefs and you don't have to support them but this thread is in the "debate and discussion" so you ought to discuss your belief mate else there's no point of "debating"

I think Aegle explained their thoughts pretty well to be honest. To begin with they stated that they didn't have a belief about god one way or the other. They don't believe he exists but they also don't have a firm belief that he does not exist - in other words, they're not persuaded one way nor the other and therefore have decided to remain uncertain rather than compromise themselves by deciding one side is true or false, given the impossibility of providing of evidence for one and the lack of any evidence for the other. Thereby making them the definition of an agnostic.

They briefly rambled about the possibility that a 'god' type thing caused the universe but that if there is indeed a god, it seems to them that he she or it can hardly be as described in the Christian texts given the insignificance of us as human beings and the fact that if they were omniscient they'd already know everything which was going to happen and so not really care about humans in any case.

They don't believe in life after death because they can see no evidence or reason for WHY there would be life after death.

In my opinion there's nothing they didn't explain, justify or support.

Aegle said "I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing." I fail to see that the user actually stated why he thought that there's no reason for us to continuing existing. Yet you say that "there's nothing they didn't explain" and also i didn't quite get why you used "they" when i'm referring to Aegle.

Edited March 27, 2013 by shad0wboss

[Aegle]

Aegle said "I believe that after death, it is most likely that we will cease to exist, because I can see no reason for us to continuing existing." I fail to see that the user actually stated why he thought that there's no reason for us to continuing existing. Yet you say that "there's nothing they didn't explain" and also i didn't quite get why you used "they" when i'm referring to Aegle.

I think Sandwich referred to me as "they" because I haven't given a specific gender on my profile!

[Ezak]

It's pretty simple really. As in science, we (naturalists) assume that the universe is all their is and that supernatural things do not exist, as they have no bearing in our lives, for if they did, they would have to interact with the material world, rendering them natural (per definition). As the brain is the cause of what we are, it is safe to assume that if the brain cease to function, so does the person that the brain was part of.

[Miccol]

All this religion is completely pointless to debate online...

Anyone else with me when I think people should discover on their own what they believe, instead of listening to a lot of half digested info.?

[Ezak]

It's as valid as any forum. If you have nothing to contribute, stay out of the thread.

[SKhunteta]

I grew up in a relatively liberal Hindu immigrant family. My parents were very religious, but because of the local xenophobia in my community they tended to be a bit quiet about their faith. So when I grew up, religion was never very important for my own life and I didn't pick up on their faith. Nowadays they're more willing to express their faith and are more openly religious, but the job was done and I couldn't understand religion and am not particularly willing or able to care very much about it.

[Nabz]

All this religion is completely pointless to debate online...

Anyone else with me when I think people should discover on their own what they believe, instead of listening to a lot of half digested info.?

I partially agree with you. Debating and proving each other wrong may be pointless to some extent but it can still help one another really or question about ones belief. However i myself agree with the fact that we, as an individual should discover more, learn more about each others' religions because it is too early to jump onto conclusions when we have been too busy studying and haven't given anytime to the actual religious texts out there, which makes us bias.

Edited April 7, 2013 by shad0wboss

[Black Bird Lockheed]

My school's motto is

" No religion is greater than truth."

Which is correct because the greatest thing we must keep in our mind that we can do anything as long as it does good to every one. I am basically an atheist. I think that superstition arises because we believe in god. Now as you all know many people were prison-ed or killed for questioning the god during olden days. Everyone says that god created life. But the same people sacrifice lives to 'appease' gods which is rather funny. It is just the same thing I have created a beautiful pot and my followers would break that pot to appease me. That is what people are doing. If animals are the creations off the god then why destroy it in the name of sacrifice. Also people who are staunch believers in god are stupid because instead of thinking 'why' and 'how' they just have one answer " it is the will of god". So I would say NO, I don't believe in god.

[Luka Petrovic]

Well I think you are generalizing religions when you say that. Buddhists and Christians I know by no means would offer animal sacrifices. I'm can't speak to the theological reasoning for the buddhists, but for christians that is something that is "old school" i.e old testament. it was how people atoned god before the coming of christ ( A huge shift in theology in the middle east).
If no religion is greater than truth. Show me some truth then. It's not easy to define truth, and few things with the exception of math and some science is "truth. Some groups would even beg to differ on those grounds... Essentially there is no answer.

[Black Bird Lockheed]

Truth is what being suppressed by these people. You must be aware of Galileo has been imprisoned by the church just because of proving that the church was wrong of planetary position system. Similarly Martin Luther has been banished by the church just because he proved that mere donations cannot buy a place in heaven.

Similarly before the British rule, Indians used to believe that giving education to the girls is considered unlucky and they firmly believed in god. So does Sati ( a custom wherein when a husband dies, his wife is burned alive along with her husband's body.) This all arises because they firmly believed in god and thus they did not cared to think what is right and what is wrong. And Luka you are saying that some science and math is truth. The above Indian example clearly does not involve science and math. That is what truth. You know that the first person ( Savitri Pule) who tried to give education to girls and first person to abolish Sati ( Raja Ram Mohan Roy) had to bear the taunt of the people. The priest and the people even cursed them that they will go to hell.

[Luka Petrovic]

Just because someone is suppressed doesn't mean what they are saying its true. Like the conspiracy that the illuminati and aliens run the pentagon. Its not mainstream for a reason. Martin Luther could by no means prove that donations were not effective in getting you a place in heaven. I'm not supporting catholic doctrine. However martin Luther could not prove theologically or quantitatively his claims. Martin Luther attacked a very politicized and powerful organization. Did he think they would take his 90 point critical thesis to heart and rid the church of its corruption and render it powerless?

Thats neat example, and exactly why I ask what is truth. To the western world to us equality between genders is truth. This group obviously saw it as an abomination, can you say they are wrong? Which one is right, no one can say...