An atheist's creed
I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.
I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.
I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.
I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.
I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.
-STA
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 133
First of all, the creed above isn't mine, PZ Meyers wrote it. Check out his blog.
"...you must claim an ability to know all things to say that no God is possible."
I've never said I know all things, and I've never said that no god is possible. I said nothing about knowledge. Atheism refers to belief, not knowledge. Check out my blog and my youtube vid.
If you acknowledge a God as possible, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Much more humble position!
Actually, I've known one genuine atheist in my life. Couldn't get him into an argument over it as to him, there was nothing to argue over. Honest to a fault in financial matters. He would screw the neighbor's wife at the drop of a hat, but money and possessions were another matter. Wouldn't have maintained a blog if they had been around in the sixties. Great guy to work with and for.
Call it what you will, but don't tell me what to label myself. I lack belief in a god. I have no theism (the belief in ANY god or gods). I am a(without)theist(god belief)!
Knowledge and belief are NOT the same thing. Please see my video for an example. I'm not saying there is no possible "god", but I am saying that I do not BELIEVE there is one (most certainly not your Christian God).
Please see my blog: ATHEISM: the Definition Question.
I would be interested in your comments.
you should have said, ".... I am AN a(without)theist(god belief)!"
Wouldn't want someone to think you were A theist.....
"We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas."
he forgot to mention pain and suffering.... which is natural, best I can figure.
Ever read The Notebooks of Lazarus Long? http://www.bobgod.com/lazaruslong.html
Robert A. Heinlein was an innovative 'hard' science-fiction writer in the 50'-70's. Love this intermission of proverbs. Hope you like it, too.
I, unlike your friend and employer, will gladly debate this issue. There is something to argue over. The debate would be about the POSSIBILITY of the existence of god or a god.
So James, may I introduce myself as another GENUINE atheist? It is a pleasure to have made your acquaintance.
In fact, how can anything exist?
Do you agree that either something is eternal, or something came from nothing?
I do not believe that something came from nothing. This violates the law of conservation of mass and energy. This also pretty much destroys the notion that there was a beginning....so eternal kind of fits.
But if you are going to the religious corner of the creator and the created...the notion is circular by nature and can't be argued logically.
eternal in the context of "always has been" in this case
Since you agree that something is eternal, the next question would be, "What are its necessary attributes?" Right?
But frankly, it looks like you've been thru these arguments as well as I have. So what the hell? I find TAG and Argument from Reason sufficient to prove a personal Supreme Being, and you don't. I think we've both been here before. No point in going around the same circles with a different dude.
I agree with most of your arguments (stated elsewhere) against religion. I have no use for religion either, but I'm still a theist. Is it your position that theism necessarily implies religion?
No I don't...but I wish most people understood the distinction because I think MOST people do think that theism implies a religious affiliation.
I do not agree that any argument is sufficient to prove the existence of a supreme being or a creator. The Argument from Reason assumes that the brain MUST have been created with the capacity for rational thought and that we could not have rational (trustworthy) thought otherwise....or at least we wouldn't know if our thought process is trustworthy. Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality...(I agree with this)
But rationality did not arise out of non-rationality. By definition, rationality is the opposite of non-rationality. For one to exist...the other must also exist. Non-rationality did not precede rationality...it is rationality's diametrical opposite.
The point also must be underscored that the base assumption made by the Argument from Reason is that without humans (some of us with rational minds)...the universe would not, could not exist....because the rational mind wouldn't be here to consider its its beginning..its origin.
Additionally...the first life on our planet had no brain....no ability to reason and life existed for billions of years...about 10 billion...on Earth before the first multi cellular life evolved. The "we" that is considering the question of rationality being necessary for life to exist (as a creation of a god) are only a very, very small portion of the life that exists on Earth...and we are very a recent addition to this planet. It seems to me to be rather presumptuous to assert that life is defined by human life....and the other life on this planet does not need us in order to survive. In fact...most of the other life on this planet would be better off without us.
The Argument from Reason ignores the evolution of the brain...which is a processing place for sensory input and a memory bank...a director of the body's functions. Only the higher forms of life require rationality....and we gained that ability by the trial and error of evolution.
So yes Cary...you are right....I do not agree that the Argument from Reason is logically sound and it certainly offers no proof that a creator exists. I don't believe that proof is a valid product of conjecture. Proof of this nature requires verifiable evidence and philosophical debate cannot provide this in the case of a supreme being...a creator.
Remember...most atheists do not claim the "truth" that no god exists...only that we do not believe that a god exists. Is the existence of a god possible?? Sure and so are many other claims that cannot be proved to be false (the fallacy of negative proof..."argumentum ad ignorantiam" )
I personally do not believe a god exists....but no claim is made that one does not...this would not be logically sound.
"But frankly, it looks like you've been thru these arguments as well as I have. So what the hell?"
I'm hoping you will chime in on some of my other posts. And WHERE'S TRISTAN?
I know...I couldn't help myself.
Christians are agnostics. Agnostic means literally 'without knowledge'. In all the major christian denominations that I know of, one of the basic tenets is that *faith* is a prime requirement of salvation. Some believe that works are also necessary, but still faith itself is a requirement.
Faith is belief in that which isn't/cannot be proven, a belief in the absence of evidence or even in the presence of opposing evidence. Some churches teach that this absence of evidence was engineered by God himself so that our faith -- belief in the unproven -- would not be endangered with actual knowledge.
In fact, the only thing forbidden in the Garden of Eden was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And wouldn't *that* idea make an interesting article. Anyway...
So, a basic tenet of most christian denominations is that we are all agnostics. It's having faith and believing in spite of the lack of knowledge that is one's salvation.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if there are gods and frankly I don't care other than it can make for a lively discussion. My personal experiences lead me to believe that if there *is* a god, it isn't the god that is presented to us by Judao-Christian scripture.
I am an atheist in lifestyle: I live my life as if there are no gods. I live atheistically. I pursue that which makes me happy. And I have found that being with those I love and who love me makes me happy. Helping someone who needs it makes me happy. Random acts of kindness makes me happy. Riding my motorcycle through the country makes me happy. And a beer.
Appreciate your comments! It does sound to me that your insistence on the existence of God being an impossibility is making a religion of of that disbelief. Who says that God is a little celestial tinkerer working in his shop? God is a power and an intellect in my humble opinion. Whether God created the universe or not is irrelevant. Did God create matter? Again, I don't know and don't care.
Your argument fails to prove there is not God or that his existence is impossible because it only applies to a God as defined by certain "revealed" religions. Though that is a predominant view, it is not the only view, by any means.
Thanks again, and glad to make your acquaintance!
At this point, our discussion can take one or several different directions. We can consider or define life and I suppose, whether we have a soul. I bet you have a pretty good idea where I stand on the issue of one having a soul....I can speculate about your thoughts on this topic.
I'm sure we will have an opportunity for further discussion.
I really don't want to have another "atheism is a religion" debate here. A religion is comprised mainly of dogma, a set of beliefs, and on the worship of something. There is no dogma to atheism, and nothing is worshiped--not even ideas! It's a single answer to a single question. As Penn Jillette said, ""Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color."
I'm in 99% total agreement with Fish. He and I only differ in that he chooses to believe in a God. I'm also almost in total agreement with Michael (Slim). I think that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is an impossibility, and many other deities are as well.
While I was coming to terms with my beliefs--or lack thereof---I passed through a phase of what you could call Deistic belief, as many apostates often do. I didn't believe in the God of the bible anymore, but I thought that something made the universe. The reason that I no longer hold a belief in this god is that there is no reason it. We can explain a great many things without the need for a "god", thus positing one is only trying to answer a mystery with another mystery. After all, can you *explain* god? If an explanation cannot be given, then there is no reason to hold an affirmative position on the matter.
That's why I'm an atheist.
Atheism is not a religion until it becomes evangelical. At least that is my interpretation of the standard. My friend whom I classified as a true atheist wouldn't argue the subject or even discuss it as he was convinced there was nothing to discuss.
And I would submit that the universe did not necessarily require a creator. Some Christians seem to feel that it does but that is not my belief. And whether or not it was "created" by ?????, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not a God is possible or impossible.
My own contention is that it requires all knowledge of the universe in order to positively rule out the possibility. I don't claim anywhere near that kind of knowledge or intellect!
All I know is that I am now alive and will someday die. Whether one has a soul or not is an unknown. I also know that everything you think, remember or use you brain for in any manner is a chemical/electrical process of the brain. When you die, that no longer functions. What I don't know is far greater than what I do!
Thanks for the response!
I'm of the opinion though, that if we have a soul, a consciousness separate from the activity of the brain, which is as we both agree, a completely chemical/electrical process, we are then describing the existence of body AND soul or "dualism". It is difficult to accept, for me at least, that the "soul" can exist after the chemical processes of the brain can no longer function. The speculation that a soul lives on after the death of the physical body ...as a separate consciousness, suggests a belief in eternal life...a proposition to which I do not subscribe.
About the atheism as a religion statement... I tried to leave this alone per Tristan's wishes, but I can't. I think you used the term "evangelical" in a non Christian or non religious sense, but In contemporary usage, the word evangelicalism refers to a collection of religious beliefs, practices, and traditions. Atheism is by definition the belief in a lack of theism, from the Greek word "theos", meaning god(s)....you know this James. Tristan and I may be enthusiastic as we voice our opinions but we are NOT "evangelical". If you are to be correct with your definition that a true atheist is one who "wouldn't argue the subject or even discuss it as he was convinced there was nothing to discuss"....then a person who will not discuss religion could be classified, under your definition, as an atheist even though that person might be deeply religious but simply unwilling to discuss his beliefs. Indeed, how can an atheist discuss his beliefs unless he discusses his beliefs? Your friend the "true atheist" wouldn't discuss something he did not believe or DIDN'T CARE exists would more accurately describe as a "apatheist"...
I would ramble on... but not here. I enjoy this type of stimulating exchange of ideas. Thanks guys.
James said, according to his standard, "Atheism is not a religion until it becomes evangelical."
I can't agree with that. Simply trying to change someone's mind on an opinion does not automatically make that opinion a religion. Does me trying to change your opinion on what makes a religion make my stance on religion a religion?!
Michael and I, and many others here on Gather are not evangelizing.
As for a soul, there's no evidence whatsoever that thoughts/feelings/memory exist without the brain. In fact, there's sufficient evidence that shows these things are products of the brain. If dualism were the case, we'd be able to detect it physically. It's the same problem with a god, or any supernatural effect: if the so-called supernatural effect interacts with reality--with our physical world--that, by definition, would make it detectable in some form or degree in our natural world.
Great comments, guys!
Why is it important to you whether someone believes in religion or not, if you have no belief?
My fried would "discuss" it in a rational manner if you asked him something in a non-challenging manner. You could discuss ideas or I would never have known. I once made the comment to another person that "you can go to hell just as fast for lying as you can for stealing." Then I ask Carl, my friend "isn't that correct?" He replied, after I asked a second time, "you're making the mistake of thinking that I believe in hell." I said no, I know you don't therefore the time involved would be the same. He had to agree then.
And to Michael, there are religions such as the seventy day adventists who do not separate the physical brain from the soul. They believe that both go into the ground upon death and that they will both be resurrected someday, to live happily ever after.
No one can prove that is a truth.
The "soul"... has made many translations throughout our history. The origins of the word soul is "breath". The same definition applies to spirit.
The brain functions as a hard drive. It only stores memories. Where does intelligence come from?
I will quote Eric Hoffer: 'A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat."
It is the loss of the ability for rational thought that is exchanged for the comfort of the promise of the protection of god. As those of faith surrender their individuality for the embrace of a flock like mentality, the whole of society is damaged. Scientific advancements are hindered, the logic used in daily decision making becomes flawed, history becomes distorted and often present day tasks are neglected as the day of judgment is prepared for.
Christianity often promotes lofty self serving intolerance, bigotry, AND exclusionism.... I can cite examples 'til the sheep come home....pun intended. Every allowance for the acceptance of the equality of man has been fought by the church. The rights of women, the rights of minorities, the rights of homosexuals... just to get started, have been strangled by most churches and are still being held by the neck by some religious groups.
Churches, as a whole, preach equality but practice bigotry. Churches substitute miracles for objective research. The argument that the good deeds of the church outweigh the bad is not valid...just as the argument that the good deeds of a man who then commits murder pay his way to go unpunished.
I'm stopping here but I am not finished. Man would be better off to search within his own being for the truth and for strength than to accept myth in place of reality.
Finally, the beliefs of the seven day adventists have nothing to do with my perception of life and death, nor do they yours.
All of the above are plausible.. since soul is BREATH. Spirit is BREATH.. and people don't want to die.
So if our ability to comprehend things isn't magic.. what is it? Please, if you know, tell me!
Where does intelligence come from?
DNA is the mapping of genes. Genes have a memory also. As far as how extensive the knowledge of DNA has progressed, is anybody's guess. I don't know.
Very good answer, Tristan!
I'm not talking about just "thoughts". I'm talking about intelligence. Not all thoughts are intelligent. haha. Intelligence is carried on electricity.. if there is any truth to after life (beyond the physical body) then it is the energy itself (electricity) that carries on.
I'm having fun.
I don't care what anyone wants to believe; they have every right to believe whatever they want, and I'd even fight for their right to do so. But our beliefs inform our actions, and actions can be harmful.
You can believe whatever you want to, until your beliefs infringe on others' rights or well-being. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
Debra: yes, the idea of a soul exists in many different cultures all throughout history. Why do you think that is? Could it be A) that it really does exist, and those ancient people where right, or B) that most people really don't want life to end? Which seems more plausible to you?
And, "where does intelligence come from"? Seriously? Our ability to comprehend things isn't magic!
Post Unavailable
You either do not have permission to view this post or it has been removed. If the post is private, you must be signed in for permission to access it.
I clicked you must be signed in, and was taken to my home page. I was already signed in.
I've no argument with what you have stated. I would acknowledge that there are many who would make detailed arguments against your statement. Religion has been the source of much bigotry and hatred, malice and mayhem! But that does not mean that every man of faith will practice these errors.
I think of my mother and mother in law. Both were good people, tolerant and accepting of others and quick to help when the need became apparent to them. My mother in law felt that she was obligated to this kind of life and actions because of her religion. She never preached it! She lived it! My mother, on the other hand, did these same things because it was the correct way to treat other human beings and necessary if you wanted to live with yourself. Two terrific woman with the same characteristics but different motivations.
Regardless of the religion and belief in God thing, the reason for man's intelligence is largely a factor of electricity, chemistry and vast programming. The human brain is still the most capable computer ever invented. This however, fails totally to address the source of such programming. How extensive is DNA knowledge? If you know then please tell me!
Yes, part of us does. Matter changes into energy, and back again. Thoughts, feelings, and memories, on the other hand, aren't physical things that can survive outside of the brain (at least, this hasn't been proven). They are functions of the brain, just like digestion is a function of the stomach. Would you think that you continue to digest after you die?
I look at this way: imagine a rock smashing through a glass window. Let's say that the shattering of the glass produced a "thought". Well, the shatter won't last forever, even if the rocks do.
And Slim, I agree that society is burdened when a large population of it can't discern reality from fiction. I mean, really, how's gonna work?!
My point is that it isn't just electricity that makes you think...there's more to it.
And this is where the nonbelievers like myself, Michael, and Fish all agree. Because this is the only life you know for sure that you get, it's crucial that you do right by people now. Say what you need to say, and do what you need to do. There's no reason to think you can just put it off.
So, if it's an "unknown" with or without reason of the human mind, it must not exist?
It matters not whether it's possible. If something is "unknown" then it is simply unknown. My point is that the time to believe something--ANYTHING, not just matters of religion--is when the evidence presents itself, and not a moment before.
Suppose you lived 3000 years ago, and suppose someone came up to you and described, in exact detail, the formation of the moon. This person tells you all about matters concerning the cosmos (mind you, he simply tells you, nothing more). Do you believe him?
The default position would be not to. You'd think he's crazy, and you'd be justified in saying so. Even though he's right, if there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe it.
In 3000 years, maybe we might discover that electricity carries intelligence forever. Until that time, and only then, would it be reasonable to believe it.
3000 years ago your story might be well received and you might be pronounced a god from you detailed knowledge of what no one else knew! You and I know what might be a reasonable answer but if you had been raised to believe praying to a totem pole would bring in great crops, you're prepared to believe most anything!
On the intelligence and electricity/chemicals matter, both of them are equally necessary. Electricity is derived from a difference in potential and when there is no difference in potential, no electricity flows. The brain, dried up like a gourd, could not have electricity operating in it. The brain, while living, has both hard wiring and temporary virtual connections but the are sure to die with you.
Incidents such as you mention are fascinating to study and read about, and provide proof that anesthesia doesn't necessarily put all the senses to sleep! Did your friend go ahead and die?
I do believe that we are indeed, limited to the brain for function. This is not to say that its ability to acquire the information for the brain to process may have reaches and processes of which we are unaware. But I remain convinced that the data still must return to the brain for processing.
Our brains, or even the brain of our pet parakeet, are wondrous computers with untold capabilities. I've read of one person with only a brain stem who lived and acted totally normal! It's a fascinating field of research!
It's my belief that people who've experienced a great amount of trauma have "experiences", but that these experiences are quite natural. Your brain is constantly receiving signals (whether you're conscious or not) and trying to interpret these signals into something useful. Sounds, lights, smells, strange feelings, fading glimpses, and chemicals are all bombarding a dying brain. Once the person recovers, they will pull from memory this collage of information and structure it in such a way that it's informative to them. The interpretation is susceptible to the person's particular culture, beliefs, lifetime experiences, etc. It's like when you awake from a deep sleep and begin to interpret or playback your dreams. Your mind fills in the blanks in many areas, to try to tell a cohesive story. (Also keep in mind that your dreams didn't really happen, just an experience made possible by your amazing brain.)
It's interesting to note here that people of different religious backgrounds will recall OBEs in the influence of their particular religion once in a cognitive state; Hindus will see their interpretations of Shiva or Ganesh, Catholics will see Mary, and Christians will see Jesus (or grandma).
Not only this, but because the idea of OBEs have infiltrated today's modern culture, one is highly influenced by this when having an experience of dying (something that is more than likely a first-time, brand new experience) and the imagination is reconstructing the event into a practical interpretation. If I told you to imagine what it would be like to be abducted by aliens, you'd probably give me a story very close to the common "tiny grey aliens with big black eyes performing medical experiments and probes" type of tale. Just because there's countless stories like this doesn't make it so.
I believe that you and your friend believe that he "left his body", but until there's sufficient reason to believe it, I do not. Like your claim about auras, it's just anecdotal.
There have been studies done on OBE, such as Tristan described.
"Detected neural activity that is characteristic of such altered states is not necessarily the cause: it is just as logically plausible that it is a concomitant effect. In other words, just because the OBE may be triggered by a physical stimulus, it does not make it illusory. To say otherwise would be a logical falacy that any exempt person - or anyone who has taken a basic philosophy, statistics or psychology course should recognize. Ad hominem attacks, scoffing dismissal, and such faulty or manipulative logic (sophism) are typical of so-called skeptics who hold on to their materialist beliefs. It sounds sophisticated to shoot down other people's work from an armchair. How many of these scoffer-skeptics are also lucid projectors? It would be like someone who's never even gone snorkling to ridicule some discovery from the depths of the ocean by Jacques Cousteau.
Let us recall that people can train to project intentionally without drugs, brain lesions, anoxia (lack of oxygen in the brain) or any sort of trauma. Also, just because the patient felt sensations akin to those in some OBE's, she was not necessarily having an OBE. For instance, when certain areas of the brain are stimulated, a person may perceive smells or tastes - which does not suggest that all smell and taste and the things that trigger them are illusory.
The Swiss neuroscientist Olaf Blanke triggered OBE-like experiences in an epileptic patient when electromagnetically stimulating her right angular gyrus. In a posterior article, Blanke interpreted neurophysiological differences in projectors as "abnormalities" but they just as well could have been evolutionary outliers. Even if those particular subjects had pathological deformities, it does not mean that all projectors do. After all, it was the same Dr. Blanke who conceded, in a October 2002 BBC World Service debate with IAC president Wagner Alegretti, that the experiment did not falsify the OBE as an objective phenomenon and the field merited more investigation. He also admitted the patient made unlikely, accurate visual observations while projected! -- this was not mentioned in the article published in the journal Nature, understandably."
http://www.iacworld.org/English/Publications/Eng/ProjectiologySpecialEdition.aspx
And I guess that since OBE is 100% real (I mean, people can train to do it!!!) then I guess that also means that the soul is real too! Gee, I wish we could figure out exactly how this soul moves around, or even what it is, but since every reputable scientist is working on it, we should know by next week...but we know that they'll discover it's the handiwork of God, so let's just go ahead and tout that claim!
Debra, come on...don't give me specially selected quotes from fringe "scientists". I can post some shit from Kent Hovind, and just because he has a "Dr." in front of his name wouldn't make his drivel fact.
Yes, many studies have been done on the brain to trigger "experiences" like this, but just having the experience does not automatically make it a genuine seeing-grandma-in-heaven event. There have been studies conducted to show that an "abduction experience" can be forced upon a subject, by activating certain parts of the brain. The subjects report the feeling of "beings" in the room with them--some actually claim to see them--and have a wide range of visual, auditory, and tactical sensations. Interestingly enough, those who are highly religious often have a "God experience".
Again, you've provided nothing but anecdotal evidence and quack "studies", drawing whatever conclusion you want.
Debra, please, please don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming that OBEs aren't real, or that it's really isn't a "soul" leaving the body. I'm saying, as I pointed out before, that until there is conclusive, scientific evidence that this is the case, then we should reserve our judgment.
Believe whatever you want; I care about whether my beliefs are true or mostly true. I'll await conclusive evidence before declaring life after death.
I don't mind what you believe, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just saying that there's no reason for anyone else to believe it.
I knew about the "God Spot" in the brain.. I've posted about that many times. (makes me smile that you knew about it too.. or found it)
The "soul"... that is old world and the origins of the word along with spirit means "Breath"... so as for a "soul" that goes to heaven... I doubt. Unless you want to consider air going towards the sky. I've never refered to a "soul".. my interest is in the energy field that is within and around our bodies.. is that the "real" us, that carries intelligence? Is there life after the death of our bodies? I can tell stories of experiences that would make even you wonder about it. But to pretend it does not exist because there is no scientific evidence is as ignorant to me as someone who believes Jesus created the Sun, Moon and Earth.
You seem to be trying to argue with me as though I'm an opponent. I'm not. I am questioning, not stating anything is "real" ... although to the one who experiences OBE's and NDE's do believe it's real.. why wouldn't they? They have no explanation for how it happens, they only know it does happen (to them). Science is working to figure that out. I am merely curious about strange phenomenon.. I don't have to wait around for evidence. I just ask the questions and seek answers.(that's how we learn, Tristan) That's where we might differ. You don't ask the questions or seek the answers, just wait for evidence to prove something. At least this is how I'm interpreting your comments.
I do find you to be very interesting and intelligent, especially for a young man, when so many are only interested in socializing and don't give much thought to anything beyond that.
Sandy tells a truth and you hit her with an insulting lie? Why do you stoop to this?
Indeed, those who experience something that they can't otherwise explain would make sense of it as best they personally could. Consider the Aztecs ripping the hearts out of each other to make the sun come up; if that's how they understood it, then yes, it was "real to them". But we know now that it isn't hearts that make the sun rise. How do we know this? Anyone care to guess?
We learned this, as you said Debra, by seeking answers. But we didn't just "claim it was a rotating earth" until one day that turned out to be true. And we didn't pray about it either.
We learned from the scientific method. I ask the questions, Debra -- I ask for evidence based on science. Waiting around for evidence on brain activity is something that I'll have to do...I'm not an expert on such matters, and I don't expect to be any time soon. Instead, I'll have to rely on the experts who follow the same course that led us to our understanding of the Solar System; the course of science.
Really?! You have real proof, you say? Oh, but it's a secret?
Wanna make a million dollars?
Again, I have nothing to prove to you. Apparently, you have a strong need for that proof, though. I might be able to guide you through mental exercises that will open your mind enough to experience some of these things on your own if you want.
If you don't want the money, there's starving children all over the world that could benefit from your prize money.
Not only that, but your amazing abilities could actually help people. Humanity could learn sooooo much with that. Don't you want to help people?
To be so wrapped up in non belief that you close yourself off to discovery.
You seem unable to comprehend that I have no reason to prove anything to you. My life works for me; yours apparently works for you. Why does this bother you?
Scientists seek to understand things through the scientific method. If anyone needs a refresher on what exactly science is, here's a quick one:
- Observation: You have an experience of a past life.
- Hypothesis: You think that you've just taken a trip into a previous life. After all, this is the best thing that makes the most sense to you at this time. (How many of you stop here?)
- Testing: You figure out a way to test whether or not your hypothesis is really what's going on. You run tests. Not only that, but other people run the exact same tests, and run different tests to see if the same result occurs and it's not just a "fluke". Independent observations and experiments are performed to confirm or disconfirm your hypothesis, or to choose from among the competing hypotheses. These first three steps are repeated until a satisfactory explanation is found. Keep in mind that the hypothesis must be falsified to demonstrate that it's reliable and is not producing an incidental result.
-Peer Review, because we all make mistakes and tests can turn up false positive. Your work is reviewed by other experts to make sure that your test methodologies are correct, that you properly falsified your hypothesis, and that your tests and results are replicable. This is the most important step, because it provides a crucial mechanism by which poor explanations are weeded out and good explanations are made more precise or reliable. (If new information comes along that changes things, your explanation changes. That's what makes science work.)
If all of these steps check out, then your hypothesis becomes a theory (just like the theory of gravity, or the theory of sexual reproduction).
Now, understanding all of this...why would you want me to just take Sandy's word on her astral travel or whatever it is? She's stuck at step two!
You're right: "there's just no scientific evidence as to HOW it happens or why it happens."
I believe that she thinks she has some sort of experience, but we've already talked about this above. But there's just so scientific evidence of it. And science is the best thing we have to understanding reality.
In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.[42]
Stevenson believed that his strict methods ruled out all possible "normal" explanations for the child's memories. However, it should be noted that a significant majority of Professor Stevenson's reported cases of reincarnation originate in Eastern societies, where dominant religions often permit the concept of reincarnation. Following this type of criticism, Stevenson published a book on European cases suggestive of reincarnation.[43]
There are many people who have investigated reincarnation and come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate phenomenon, such as Peter Ramster, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Walter Semkiw, and others, but their work is generally ignored by the scientific community. Professor Stevenson, in contrast, published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals.[44]
Some skeptics, such as Paul Edwards, have analyzed many of these accounts, and called them anecdotal.[45] Philosophers like Robert Almeder, having analyzed the criticisms of Edwards and others, suggest that the gist of these arguments can be summarized as "we all know it can't possibly be real, so therefore it isn't real" - an argument from personal incredulity.[46]
The most obvious objection to reincarnation is that there is no evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body, and researchers such as Professor Stevenson recognize this limitation.[47]
You have an exaggerated sense of your self, Tristan. Do you really think that since you haven't seen something it can't exist. I won't be back. I thought I was interested in what you have to say. Now that I have lost respect for your opinions, they aren't quite so interesting. A closed mind never interests me.
This is why we have peer review, Debra. Just because you're a "doctor" or even an expert in a particular area, doesn't mean that every study you do will be 100% correct. Otherwise we'd have anyone who's been to an academy say that "well, I'm a scientist, so I must be right!"
Maybe he did find something particularly unusual. It's not like I want such things to not be real! If he did find something worth looking in to, why aren't more of his colleagues involved? Why would Paul Edwards simply say "anecdotal" if there was some valid reason it wasn't? Why hasn't Channel 8 told me that I have past lives yet?!
I can almost feel the comments coming in (hey, I might be psychic! I should get that looked at...): the scientific community is closed-minded, blah blah blah, nobody wants to know the real truth, blah blah blah, science has already made up it's mind, blah blah blah, I'm so wrapped up in non-belief, blah blah...
Not to change the subject, but this particular type of whining has been most recently expressed in Ben Stein's upcoming film about how "big, bad science isn't letting anyone study or talk about Intelligent Design because it's so close-minded".
The reason scientists have dismissed all of these absurd claims is that any tests or attempt at using the scientific method have FAILED, every...single...time. You do realize that not ONCE in the history of mankind has any such claim shown ANY reason for further analysis. All the while we've mapped our own genome and observed physical actions billions of light years away. It's a good thing we don't waist time hunting the Tooth Fairy.
For the last time: I am not saying it can't or even doesn't happen. I am not saying that Sandy doesn't have a "past life". I'm saying that it has not shown to be the case, and therefore warrants no belief YET.
Just because you haven't seen the Tooth Fairy, does that mean that she doesn't exist?!!?!?! Do you have to actually see a leprechaun before you'll believe it?! Why not just believe anything by default, then go looking for evidence to back it up?
I think you know why. It's patently absurd. A thing's chance for existing "just because nobody's seen it" is NOT 50/50.
Your tooth fairy example won't fly. I've BEEN the tooth fairy.