TheDarkChakra wrote:

If you continued reading Stevenson responded to this by writing the book European Cases of the Reincarnation Type.

Doesn't negate the fact that people close to him pointed out how terrible his research practices were, and that no data he provides can be trusted because of it.
If you let the child and the family of the deceased hang out together before interviewing, you've contaminated your research. If you ask leading questions, you get invalid answers.

That's the face I made when I saw people actually responded to it. Surpassing the 100 comment mark. LOL.

Ha true, its just hard to resist when you still see someone this green on the religion/atheist arguments on teh interwebs. Though to be fair most of this thread scrolling through it seems to be about reincarnation.

It is mostly about reincarnation because the topic on atheism died on the first page. DarkChakra brought up reincarnation and we took it from there.

Well, this was laughable. Thanks Dariuc. Have you met Developous? You two should talk. You'd like each other.

I'm very far from green. People like to complicate things. In all honesty I'm much more intellectually capable than most people I've ever met. What takes most people nearly 5 minutes to consider from one or two angles, I've already thought about in 10 angles in about 60 seconds.
That's not braggart's nature-- that's just how my mind works.
Often times when people claim I have no point, it's because they fail to see my point,which isn't the same thing.

It's an observation based on atheists I've actually talked to.

When I logically present evidence to them, they just get pissy.

So let me present some for you.
Math is a science.
Statistically speaking it's impossible for there not to be a God in the universe, since, people scattered across the earth from the beginning of time have always believed in something they cannot see.

Your whole life is validated around what you see, experience and feel, in fact, some might argue that perception -is - reality.(you know, like Albert Einstein, one of the greatest SCIENTISTS who ever lived.)

What you believe to be true, what you perceive as truth is what you accept as truth- even when it's not an accurate truth.

These are the "shades of grey" that people speak of.
Fallacy, because they don't exist. There are two states in the universe, is and is not.
Motion and lack thereof, life, and a lack there of. Truth, and lie- only people add to these notions, to suit their own needs at the time and justify their own misguided thought processes.

All things in nature observe this balance. No exceptions. People are just ignorant enough to believe that they are special, and that they don't have to adhere to the rules upon which their lives are based.

But anyway back to science. When you go into statistic and probability you leave the realm of "perhaps" and travel closer to "what is". So the question is, how do millions upon billions of people through out time, who, before christianity or any other popular modern day religions experience the same epiphanies about life?

If you are an island, where does the interference come from?
Are you going to argue that millions of people are disillusioned and wrong? If so then your own arguements don't hold weight, simply because you show up with a bunch of people who agree with what you say-- that doesn't mean you hold the majority rule of opinion. Millions of people will disagree with you there.

People only understand what is at the edge of their own thought processes. For instance, I won't make the same choices you do, because I think differently, but did you also know that affects the way you perceive life?

In other words if you can't understand the choice someone else makes, you are forced to rationalize it in terms your brain can understand.


So, if as humans we limit ourselves by nature, that's further proof that your arguement that there is no God is even less weighty. Reason being- your thoughts are limited by what you can't see.

That's originally my point. If you choose not to look you'll never find. People choose not to look because they are scared what they might see. Afraid that they might find an answer they do not like. Afraid to untether themselves from the thoughts and ideals they hold, because they are afraid- as to afraid of what- no one knows what that might be.

But the question is-"why" are you afraid? What logical reason could you possibly have to "not" as yourself seriously if the question has an answer you can find?

And I think I pretty much covered that up above.

I could go on for a while, about things you've never even considered , but I'm not here to prove a point or win points either.

I just made an observation, which-- you can't prove wrong either. If you as an atheist aren't willing to sit down with someone who does believe and isn't trying to covert you, then it simply means you don't want to hear it.

As to why you don't want to hear it, you should ask YOURSELF that question.


Ultimately, I will say that atheists are confused. The first thing they ask is "show me proof", but then complain that people try to "force their views" on them. I simply said, if you want to know- ask.
I already know you'll get an answer. Talking to an invisible man in the sky isn't as crazy as it seems. No more crazy than say, 500 years ago telling someone in Japan they would be able to talk to someone in America instantly.

Boxcar wrote:

Wow, well the whole top of that post(besides the egomaniacal beginning) can be chalked up to an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. The amount of people buying into an idea says nothing about its validity.

I didn't make that point to disprove yours. I made it because many people showed up to this post with this disapproving "oh another God Exists post" ready with their attitude towards how wrong or flawed I am, which you basically said. I'm saying that 5 or 10 or even 20 people showing up to post on this topic who don't believe isn't a factor.

I'm saying that IF that was a person's mentality when they posted in opposition- their mentality is flawed and works against them.

(that was my point)

Every place on earth believes in a higher being of some sort.
No exceptions.

People will argue over a coke top in the middle of the street, what makes you think they won't argue over something as important as the name of God?

God simply is.
A center, an origin. Truth even.

When you think about it in those terms the name doesn't matter. You are who you are, regardless of what someone calls you. When you realize that you are secure in who you are, and it doesn't matter what other people say- because YOU understand the truth. You perceive it.

That's what it's about. You can say all day" it's not true and I can't prove it" But, if you saw a monster, and I didn't see it- that doesn't make it less real.
If you got hit by a car and I didn't experience it, that doesn't mean it didn't hurt.

And just because I asked and got an answer, it's real to me.
And many other people would say the same thing.
So back to my original point, if you were really sincere in finding out an answer, you'd do like I did- and ask.

A wild dipshit appears...
*uses pimp slap*
.
...
IT's SUPER EFFECTIVE

Dariuc wrote:

A wild dipshit appears...
*uses pimp slap*
.
...
IT's SUPER EFFECTIVE

I'm not a Pokemon, sir.

If God existed, he'd come to this thread in the form of the lost one - Dan Bradley.