boomstick wrote: Clark Kent wrote: I do believe he specifically stated that he does NOT believe in an afterlife... And you believe him?

Yep.

I still am still not religious, I wasn't brought up religious. I was brought up by my parents. They taught me to live my life the way I want too, not to live by a book.

As for Mr. Flew, I find it fascinating that he would change his view after such a long period of time.

.Ryan wrote: Interesting. I really don't believe in an afterlife. Religion is just a security blanket for stupid, frightened people and a way to control those people by tapping their most primal fear, death. It harnesses the power to releave this fear in exchange for obedience. The belief in an afterlife is much the same. pps     Does anyone else find it funny that millions believe that there is this big magical man that lives in the sky and created everything who has set down rules for you? They also believe if you fallow his rules you are fine and you will go to a wonderful place forever after you die of whatever he sees fit but if you don't fallow his rules you are sent to a firey place and tortured for all eternity. But all of this is ok because he loves you.

So I guess im Stupid and Frightened by Death? Im not scared of Death now that I have found God. I accually kinda look forward to it.

And yea I do beleive in the "Magical Man in the Sky"...soon ill be living with him...

That is all I have to say about this Thread...

The message of the Bible is clear from many angles – do not show favoritism (or partiality, or racism, etc). A few key ideas demonstrate this point.  God is not partial. Check out what’s probably the most famous verse in the Bible, "For God so loved the world…" (John 3:16). In that little snippet alone, take notice. Does John say, "For God so loved the Americans…" or "For God so loved the Caucasians…"? Insert any group, skin color, or nationality into this question. The fact is God so loved the WORLD that He gave us His Son.

Paul, another very dynamic writer and man of God, wrote a similar weighted verse in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This doesn’t say, "The [insert specific group here] have sinned…", but he includes every one of us in his statement (including himself…Romans 7 tells all about that). That means we’re all in the same boat, no one class or race being any more worthy of God’s love than another.

Jesus commands us to love each other as He loves us (John 13:34). If God is impartial, and loves us with impartiality, that means we need to love others with that same high standard.  Jesus teaches at the end of Matthew 25 that whatever we do to the least of his brothers, we do to him. If we treat a person with contempt or with a holier-than-thou attitude, then first off we are sinning of pride in a big way. Also, we are mistreating a person created in God’s image; we are hurting somebody that God loved so much He would go to the Cross for just that one person.

I know it's not real because it doesn't match my beliefs, the same way you think it is real. Logically, scientifically, it just doesn't make sense to have a hell, or a heaven, or a god.

Haha, once again, where's the appropriate analogy? Black people in Russia? That can be proven by just going there, or by asking someone who would personally know. I highly doubt there is anyone that would personally know there is a hell. It just seems like a scare tactic to make is "live right." Fortunately, I don't need scary bedtime stories to live a moral life.

That's just one more imaginary object to add to the list then. So we have rules from a Santa Clause-like figure, written into a book composed by humans, describing rules on the way to live that only some people in the world follow....Way too difficult to believe there.

Dune wrote: Logically, scientifically, it just doesn't make sense to have...a god.

Just out of curiousity...where did the matter that make up the universe come from?  What are the scientific odds for life to instantaniously occure from simple protiens?  There are many things in "Science" that cannot logically happen...our very existance being one of them.  Science has tried to recreate the "Lighting bolt striking the primortal ooze and poof life" scenario and have trouble doing it.  The odds of it happening haphazzardly in nature even harder.  So while it is possible to happen the level of probability is quite high.

Now, before you go tagging me as a religious freak (you know...because EVERYONE must have a lable) know that my belief system is not defined by any current religon that I know of.  Yes I do believe in a higher power...I just don't see the big bang, the start of life, and evolution happening out of nature.  Generally speaking the absence of guidance in nature leads to caos, not order.  I do believe in the afterlife...the passing of my father and a Mr. John Edward are my basis on that...you can't prove it...and if you don't believe it...fine by me.  Is there a heaven and a hell?  I don't know...I am not so full of hubris to believe a mind like mine has all the answers. I have gut feelings about it but if you ask if they are there of my own accord or out of my upbringing I couldn't tell you. (Yes, I went to a Southern Baptist Church but it was in So. Cal...not really your "hardcore" bible belt congregation).

IF you go by what the bible says...as far as human nature is concerned and without getting all wrapped up in the transformed concousness of Adam and Eve after the apple incedent...you'll note that it is made very clear that humans have a free will and that they will make mistakes.  I mean...have you ever thought about why animals in the wild do not have the issues a "Civilized Society" has?  I am convinced that 50% of the hang ups we have in society are because of our nature and the other 50% are from us trying to control our own nature.

Wars...attrocities...all the bad things you can think of are not the fault of whatever higher power you wish to believe or not believe in...but is of man.  Religion...is man...not god (because I'm tired of writing higher power...LOL  Note it is a lowercase god...thus general and not specific to God).  Churches are ran by men.  The bible is written by men who our ancestors believed had divine inspiration.  These are the same ancestors that believed in sea monsters, dragons, and witches.  As a child I was told that if any part of a statement is false the entire statement is false...Men make mistakes...therefore if men wrote this book there must be...somewhere...mistakes in the telling of the stories.  Therefore, it cannot be the whole truth.  So many get caught up in the details that few have ever just looked at the meaning of the book.  Does this mean I think the bible is junk...absolutely not.  I think it has a very good message that if more people followed the JUST of we wouldn't have some of the problems we face. 

1. You're not alone in this world.  I brought you into it...and I can take you out.
2. Since you have to share this planet with others like you who you will not agree with most of the time, you're better off treating them as you wish to be treated.
3. You can tell a person what to do but to really have them want to do it you're better off living what you say rather than just saying what you say.
4. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
5. There are no easy answers to life. 
6. How can you expect to be accepted by others if you are unwilling to accept them?

There's more...but you get the idea.  It's the big picture we should be worried about rather than the insignifigant details.

Robotech wrote:   I do believe in the afterlife...the passing of my father and a Mr. John Edward are my basis on that...

Stopped reading after this, and disregarded the entire post.

Dune wrote: Prove that a cavity is real? Are you purposely avoiding that it has already been proven, and with the right tools you can see one, and feel one? What's the deal?

The cavity is real to you because you believe it to be real. You believe the doctors and the scientist when they tell you it's real, and you believe certian signs from physical objects like the x-ray can tell you that it is real. I'm not seeing much of a gap between this and other people's belief in The Bible.

For you, Science is your god, the tools of discovery are your bible, and the scientists and doctors who interpret the signs given by the tools are your prophets. And you think that this is different from all the other religions because it is accepted to be true by a large number of people.

People say they can feel God, you say you can feel a cavity. If it is wrong for them to tell you that you are mistaken, who are you to criticize thier beliefs?

Slimz.357 wrote: Dune wrote: Prove that a cavity is real? Are you purposely avoiding that it has already been proven, and with the right tools you can see one, and feel one? What's the deal? The cavity is real to you because you believe it to be real. You believe the doctors and the scientist when they tell you it's real, and you believe certian signs from physical objects like the x-ray can tell you that it is real. I'm not seeing much of a gap between this and other people's belief in The Bible. For you, Science is your god, the tools of discovery are your bible, and the scientists and doctors who interpret the signs given by the tools are your prophets. And you think that this is different from all the other religions because it is accepted to be true by a large number of people. People say they can feel God, you say you can feel a cavity. If it is wrong for them to tell you that you are mistaken, who are you to criticize thier beliefs?

HUGE difference.

Both are applying the scientific method - except one study is done well, and one is done very poorly.

The existence of the cavity can be established by a variety of measurements, can be independently verified by multiple instruments, each of which have been independently verified.  Repeat studies all show that the cavity exists.  The cavity interacts with us and vice versa, all on a consistent and verfiable level.

The message from god is also a scientific datum, but the instrument used to measure is unreliable and inconsistent, the study cannot be reliably repeated, and there are any number of confounding variables.

It's all science - it's just a matter of the quality of the science.  Our  cavity-measuring is quite good - our god-measuring science is quite bad.

^^^Very well put, but it's still a matter of numbers. Can you say Allah is better than God because he can be measured better?

I firmly beleive God exists, and that he has has a place for me in Heaven. I was merely demonstrating that Dune's "I percieve it to be true, therefore it must be so" arguement doesn't hold water.

Clark Kent wrote: Robotech wrote:   I do believe in the afterlife...the passing of my father and a Mr. John Edward are my basis on that... Stopped reading after this, and disregarded the entire post.

Pretty brutal there Clark...but whatever. 

However if you would have kept reading you would have seen the rest of that sentence to say "...you can't prove it...and if you don't believe it...fine by me."  Point being whether or not someone believes in the afterlife is just that...a belief...not fact...an opinion...and if you DON'T believe in the afterlife than any reason someone give for believing in it will result in the person who doesn't believe in it disregarding the reasoning behind the belief.

You would have also read "...I am not so full of hubris to believe a mind like mine has all the answers."  Apparently you do not hold yourself to that belief as well.

Robotech wrote: ... if you would have kept reading you would have seen the rest of that sentence to say "...you can't prove it...and if you don't believe it...fine by me."  Point being whether or not someone believes in the afterlife is just that...a belief...not fact...an opinion...and if you DON'T believe in the afterlife than any reason someone give for believing in it will result in the person who doesn't believe in it spouting off a comment like yours.

If you thought I was brutal before...

I didn't say I don't believe in the afterlife.  I didn't ridicule you for believing in the afterlife.  You are welcome to your beliefs. 

What I DID ridicule you for is your apparent belief that John Edwards is anything but a fraud and the biggest douche in the universe.  Only the feeble-minded can fail to see that he is a cheap circus act with better production values.  I cringe with embarassment for the human race every time I see his show.  I am ashamed to share a genetic link to the imbeciles who eat up the crap he spews.

Slimz.357 wrote: ^^^Very well put, but it's still a matter of numbers. Can you say Allah is better than God because he can be measured better?

I don't know what you mean by "better."  I can say, however, that if I could measure Allah better than God (assuming they are different), then I would conclude that I was more certain of the existence of Allah than of the existence of God.

For that same reason, I am more certain of the existence of cavities than of the existence of God or Allah.  For the former, I have lots of very good evidence.  For the latter, I have a pile of unreliable and contradictory evidence.

I was merely demonstrating that Dune's "I percieve it to be true, therefore it must be so" arguement doesn't hold water.

I understood that.  I think, however, that you sold Dune's point short.  His point was that "all available evidence, of which there is A LOT, points to the existence of cavities.  I therefore conclude that cavities exist.  The evidence for god, however, is spotty and inconsistent."

I said you were brutal since you didn't edit out the fact that part of that belief occured after my father's passing this year...not for the John Edwards crack.  I could care less about that...

...but by the way, since you did mention it...his ability was tested by (if memory serves) researchers at Harvard and they could not explain how he did what he did.  It wasn't mearly me "eating up" what he does...but rather some of the things he's said about the afterlife and experiances that happened to me personally after my father died.  You ASSUMED that I am not the type that will tell a magician, and his audiance, exactly how he does each of his tricks.  Oh no, I am quite the sceptic and don't take anything at face value.   

Even so, I'd far rather look at something with sceptisim and not discount it totally than to close my mind off to the possibility entirly unless it can be proven false to the absolute Nth degree, as they say.  After all, that is the same mentality that lead to ideas such as the world being flat, the earth is the center of the universe, man will never fly, electricity is just a pipe dream, and man will never walk on the moon. 

Fair enough - my condolences for your father, and my apologies for my insensitivity on that matter.

Robotech wrote: ...but by the way, since you did mention it...his ability was tested by (if memory serves) researchers at Harvard and they could not explain how he did what he did.

This prompted me to do some research.  The study in question is:

Schwartz, Gary E.R., et al. 2001. Accuracy and replicability of anomalous after-death communication across highly skilled mediums. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, January: 1-25.

It is available online http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/science/schwartz/frame.htm - here .

While this study is an honest effort, I am not impressed.  There is not random sampling of sitters, the control subjects were not matched, and the study wasn't double-blind.  Heck, it wasn't even single-blind!  The sitters themselves rated the accuracy of the reading(!), and the researchers used an arbitrary baseline (50/50 for yes/no questions) for statistical analysis.  There is no discussion of confounding variables, nor even any apparent effort to control for them.

This study should not, IMO, be dismissed out of hand, but given the severe methodological flaws it should not be given any weight until it is replicated with better procedure.

When stacked against the long history of debunking of mediums who were allegedly "different" (Uri Geller, anyone?), and additional evidence such as what can be found http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/i-files.html - here , I will stand by my original conclusion that John Edward (no "s") is a fraud and the biggest douche in the universe.

Thanks Clark for pulling that stuff up.  I can't get to the last link but I'll try again at home.  That study is interesting but I see points for doing that way along with why they didn't do it that way.  If you have the sitter do anything else than Yes or no...then people will say the medium was baiting her for information.  It's a Catch 22 because, as you mentioned, with yes and no answers you get a 50/50 shot at being wrong or right.  It seems like there is some good evidence there...but how do you weigh it you know?  Like I said, I'm always sceptical...but I also keep an open mind.

Again though, thanks for posting that study.  I don't know if it was the same one I had heard of, but still good stuff.