Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
If it's alright, I will treat you as an agnostic. If you come the pure atheist with me, I'll just remind you that you accept there may be spiritual realms.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Near Death experiences and the scientific method.
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm also agnostic about the easter bunny since one can't rule it out with certainty.
You shouldn't think that you can score points with pointing it out.
The question is not "can you rule it out?"
The question is "can you rule it in?"
And the answer is "no".
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Agnostic atheism - WikipediaDidn't you forget the pure theist part from her youth, now average the three and she comes out an agnostic.
But who are you night912 to be declaring what she is or is not, she can speak for herself.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are ignoring @SkepticThinker say that he or she is an “agnostic atheist”.
Everyone are far more complex than just being “one” thing.
I, myself, am an agnostic...ever since 2000, when I first had doubts with things written in the Bible, especially concerning the Christian concept over the “Messianic signs”, hence Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17, which made question the Christian idea of son of god and the Virgin birth, and which led me further to re-examine the question of theism itself.
BUT at that time, I didn’t know I was an agnostic, because I have never heard of agnostic and agnosticism in my 37 years of life.
It was only when I joined my first ever Internet forum called Free2Code in 2003. Free2Code was a forum for computer programmers, which had a small section on Religion.
It was here that I first discovered I heard of creationism and it was here, I first learned about what Evolution mean.
But more importantly, it was also here, that I have heard about agnosticism for the first time, and that I am an agnostic.
But as I said earlier, we are more complex to fall under the most basic form of agnosticism.
SkepticalThinker is an agnostic atheist, and the closest definition of agnosticism that I would fall under, would be “weak agnosticism”.
Meaning, that while I think the question of theism - the existence of god - is ultimately unknowable, but things can change if there was ever evidence that prove the existence of god.
This is why some weak agnosticism is equated with empirical agnosticism. And though I still think of myself as a weak agnostic, in some situations, I have some leanings toward atheism.
Philosophically, I am also many others things, like -
- I’d fall under secular humanism, and yet I have become increasingly cynical because I see humans often repeating the same mistakes over and over again;
- I am skeptical in all things occult or supernatural, and yet I’ve enjoyed some good old supernatural-theme novels or movies or tv series;
- I am a realist on some matters, but I’m an idealist on other matters (eg like the cynicism and secular humanism that I have already mentioned);
- and so other things.
And as I have said, you cannot just put a single label to each one of us, because we are more complex than we think, and I am many little things, which mean I am total mess...
...but it is all these messes that makes me, “me”.Are you confused, yet?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do all pure atheists consider the easter bunny a possibility, or are you just speaking for yourself and your own beliefs?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Thank you, that is what I understood you meant.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No I am not confused, but I am always skeptical of labels and being a follower of any belief system under the sun, atheism, theism, agnosticism, gnosticism, etc..You are ignoring @SkepticThinker say that he or she is an “agnostic atheist”.
Everyone are far more complex than just being “one” thing.
I, myself, am an agnostic...ever since 2000, when I first had doubts with things written in the Bible, especially concerning the Christian concept over the “Messianic signs”, hence Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17, which made question the Christian idea of son of god and the Virgin birth, and which led me further to re-examine the question of theism itself.
BUT at that time, I didn’t know I was an agnostic, because I have never heard of agnostic and agnosticism in my 37 years of life.
It was only when I joined my first ever Internet forum called Free2Code in 2003. Free2Code was a forum for computer programmers, which had a small section on Religion.
It was here that I first discovered I heard of creationism and it was here, I first learned about what Evolution mean.
But more importantly, it was also here, that I have heard about agnosticism for the first time, and that I am an agnostic.
But as I said earlier, we are more complex to fall under the most basic form of agnosticism.
SkepticalThinker is an agnostic atheist, and the closest definition of agnosticism that I would fall under, would be “weak agnosticism”.
Meaning, that while I think the question of theism - the existence of god - is ultimately unknowable, but things can change if there was ever evidence that prove the existence of god.
This is why some weak agnosticism is equated with empirical agnosticism. And though I still think of myself as a weak agnostic, in some situations, I have some leanings toward atheism.
Philosophically, I am also many others things, like -
- I’d fall under secular humanism, and yet I have become increasingly cynical because I see humans often repeating the same mistakes over and over again;
- I am skeptical in all things occult or supernatural, and yet I’ve enjoyed some good old supernatural-theme novels or movies or tv series;
- I am a realist on some matters, but I’m an idealist on other matters (eg like the cynicism and secular humanism that I have already mentioned);
- and so other things.
And as I have said, you cannot just put a single label to each one of us, because we are more complex than we think, and I am many little things, which mean I am total mess...
Are you confused, yet?
Reality is forever on the other side of the talk about reality, so I try to stay clear of committing to beliefs about it. Life now for me is an adventure of discovery, everyday, deep thoughtless meditation, to the extent that staying in a thoughtless state can be sustained for long periods given that life in the world earning a living and socializing is all about thought and belief and though I am now retired, it has left a lot of momentum/inertia.
gnostic
The Lost One
The points were that no one cannot be “one thing”, not you, not me.
You kept bringing up “pure” this and “pure” that.
That would imply only one thing is relevant to SkepticalThinker, but that’s oversimplifying him or her.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
When you say "no one cannot be “one thing"", I presume you mean no one can be "one thing"?
Well we have no choice, the universe is one, the distinctions we make conceptually to describe the perceived different aspects of the one thing does not mean there is a real disconnection between the aspect and that of which it is an aspect. All seeming differentiated aspects of the one thing are simultaneously integrals of the one thing. The universe is one, complex yes, but there is an underlying unity of the apparent infinite parts, always was, always will be.
It was not I who raised and applied "pure" to atheist and agnostic, it was night912 in post #1296 My subsequent use of it was in the context of trying to understand what he meant.
Regarding what? It's not alright to call me an agnostic when it comes to whether or not I'm a brain in a vat. I'm a gnostic when it comes to that.
And.....?
I'm still a pure atheist.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Sure, I understand that, I am referring to the possibility of their being spiritual realms.
So what does the adjective 'pure' indicate beyond the normal 'you do not believe in spiritual realms without evidence'?
I don't believe that a god exist, hence I'm a pure atheist. Believing in a spiritual realm is irrelevant.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well do I detect a distinction between total disbelief in God and whatever is your position wrt a spiritual realm, or not?
Not sure what you're asking. Please clarify.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do you believe there is no spiritual realm, not a possibility of one existing?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In a you are just a human science is correct.
Two humans neither your human life. Baby all of us sexual by sperm ovary conceived growth born live die.
Biology known by any human observer
NDE a biological only experience.
Science says it is only biological.
Picture the theory.
No human.
O earth it's heavens nature animals.
No human. No theories as stories that are told by a biological presence experience.
Science says an ape is not a human life.
A human lives and dies.
Conscious of biological experiences.
Humans hence ask what type of experience occurred?
A science theist just a human says it was science. Not a thesis science caused by science.
And not a natural life mind body.cause it is extra to being natural.
Why they query it using science.
Science paid psychics to do lab brain studies
Involving mind contact. Psyche vision. Mind coercion.
Know.
Science Ai conditions changed earths natural radio waves.
Otherwise they wouldn't be using a machines data computer program to.emulate it.
Why science is the liar as science caused its introduction.
You only live one created conceived life.
Experience is a topic that describes humans having experienced whilst alive only.
It is not before life
It is not after life.
It is whilst still alive. Otherwise a living human could not describe it.
If you ask why. Human science is the answer. It caused it. Visionary change chemical biolgical body changes different biological experiences.
By interfering with natural human consciousness.
If science asks first does some other place exist that had always existed.
Never would that place be in existence as created creation.
If they ask is there somewhere else.
Two humans neither your human life. Baby all of us sexual by sperm ovary conceived growth born live die.
Biology known by any human observer
NDE a biological only experience.
Science says it is only biological.
Picture the theory.
No human.
O earth it's heavens nature animals.
No human. No theories as stories that are told by a biological presence experience.
Science says an ape is not a human life.
A human lives and dies.
Conscious of biological experiences.
Humans hence ask what type of experience occurred?
A science theist just a human says it was science. Not a thesis science caused by science.
And not a natural life mind body.cause it is extra to being natural.
Why they query it using science.
Science paid psychics to do lab brain studies
Involving mind contact. Psyche vision. Mind coercion.
Know.
Science Ai conditions changed earths natural radio waves.
Otherwise they wouldn't be using a machines data computer program to.emulate it.
Why science is the liar as science caused its introduction.
You only live one created conceived life.
Experience is a topic that describes humans having experienced whilst alive only.
It is not before life
It is not after life.
It is whilst still alive. Otherwise a living human could not describe it.
If you ask why. Human science is the answer. It caused it. Visionary change chemical biolgical body changes different biological experiences.
By interfering with natural human consciousness.
If science asks first does some other place exist that had always existed.
Never would that place be in existence as created creation.
If they ask is there somewhere else.
If within context that the spiritual realm is if the supernatural, then I don't believe that a spiritual realm exist.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
II don't know what that means.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's a difference between considering something a "possibility" on the one hand, and being able to rule something out as an impossibility.
As far as I know, nobody has ever shown that the easter bunny is possible, let alone plausible.
Likewise, nobody has ever shown that supernatural beings are possible, let alone plausible.
Neither has anybody ever shown either to be impossible.
That's how it goes with unfalsifiable, unsupportable, undefendable, undemonstrable claims.
It's also why I see no reason to believe them. Or even consider them.